13
Gor. Tel 127(5),
States Far Eastern Airation to have how informed unofficially that A.M. has assentet
to use of Kantak Aerodrome as
asks if
School &
13
33
8
Flying Framing
this is taire
Ifth for conson herewith? Furbear action as indicated on dift
Jagree
The Jame
14.7.33
Enl
14/2/37
14 the
14 To for Hong Kong Tel to 5'8
༼ཏུ་འཚང(པའ་བ
A.M
DESTROYED UNDER STATUTE
16
To.7.0
(moke.16.)
15.7.33
1stops
19/1/03
17 So for Kong Secret --A/1--20 JUL 1933
mfe. Nos. 6+11)
18 At that
Page
Page
9
18 am
Submits
stipulated
obams
in
undifications to the
im
(6)
217
the suggested
Conditions
NP
M
In para 2 of ther litter the fir Council
Say that they do nor desire to
Al
accept
The Air Council/in paragraph 2 our suggestions
regarding the avoidance of naming the Far Eastern Aviation Company as the concessionaire.
They also withdraw their
reservation of the right to cancel facilities
at one month's notice.
I do not see any objection
to their reserving the right "to review the situation at a later date if instructi onal flying reaches such dimensions as to prove a serious embarrassment to the joint use of the aerodrome
To avoid any
as a base for the Fleet Air Arm in Chinese
waters and as a civil air port. danger of their arrogating to themselves a civil
right to control over/aviation which is not by the Hong Kong Goverment I think we might
shared
say in our reply that the Hong Kong Govt wo uld
reserve a similar right.
no doubt desire to assert a claim to exercise,
as a matter of right, complete control over the aerodrome; then, that divided control is
administratively objectionable and that
unified control is essential.
They seem therefore
to be insinuating as a matter of administrative
claim
conve ni ence a
which they admit cannot be
I think we exercised, as a matter of right. must endeavour to reach a perfectly clear understanding of the Air Ministry about this matter. The arrangement suggested by us in paragraph 5 of (11) still appears to me to be perfectly reasonable
and
age 9
age 9
Pag
Pag
e 10
10
and I do not think that we should recede from the
position which we there took up. I entirely
fail to follow the line of reasoning by which
the Air Council have arrived at the conclusi on
that, viewed in the light of the statements made
in the earlier part of paragraph 2 of their
letter, any derogation from the importance
of the responsibilities of the Civil Aerodrome
Superintendent (i.e. by placing him under the
direction of the 0.G...A.F. base) would in the
main be theoretical. I do not even understand
quite what they mean by this. What we are
concerned to protect is the Hong Kong Government's
right to control civil flying which the Air
Council now appear to contest, primarily in this
particular case and inferentially in general.
In our reply to the Air Ministry I think
we should first express satisfaction at, and
acceptance of, the views expressed in paras 3 and 4
of (18) and add as at above.
I think we should then make it clear
that though unified control of the aerodrom might
in some respects be desirable from an administrative
point of view, that such arrangement would appear
to be quite incompatible with the existing under-
standing regarding joint control. Say that the
S. of S. adheres to his view at the placing of
the Civil Superintendent of the Aerodrome under
the direction of the 0.0. R.A.F. base for the
purpose of controlling a Civil Flying School, or for the purpose of any other matter connected with Civil Flying
would be contrary to that
understanding
e 10Page 11