There is reason to believe that ‘H C L’Oste Rolfe’ was the ‘stage’ name for Ralph Banks who flew the Wright Model A at Diggers Rest near Melbourne in March 1910 following the resignation of Colin Defries as pilot. Banks had had no training as a pilot and his flight ended in a crash, badly damaging the Wright.

It is perhaps because of his short association with ‘Harry Houdini’ at Diggers Rest that Banks decided to adopt a ‘stage’ name rather than perform under his own name.

The Bleriot that was flown by ‘L’Oste Rolfe’ was apparently the one purchased at the same time as the Wright Model A by Defries but which failed to arrive in time for the Sydney “Flying Fortnight”. ‘L’Oste Rolfe’ claimed that he had had experience on both the Wright and the Bleriot and the only one in Australia in early 1910 who could make such a claim with some truth would have been Ralph Banks. We cannot easily rule out a new arrival to Australia who departed from the scene,and history, immediately after the Cheltenham debacle. Although this seems an unlikely scenario.

I may stand corrected on this but I recall that the ‘C’ in ‘H C L’Oste Rolfe’ stood for Coningsby, which, coincidentally, was Ralph Banks’ middle name.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

If only it was that simple. It certainly started off that way with George Augustine Taylor’s dislike of your great uncle and George’s desire to be acknowledged as the first to fly a powered aircraft in Australia. From that point on, as the previous comments show, it went very pear-shaped with a monopoly on published information, poor research, vested interests and parochial attitudes.

Perhaps we will have the history established and accepted by the bicentennial of Colin Defries’ flight!

I must say that I am very grateful for your comments as they provoke deep thoughts about the events of 1910 at Bolivar. You make a good point about “…using caution in trying to read motives into the various actions / confessions made decades after the event.” A historian should feel the weight of responsibility for postulating the most likely scenario about a past event for which there are no living witnesses. Even when witnesses are available to testify their perceptions and biases have to be discovered and taken into account if the outcome is to be as close to the truth as is humanly possible. But we can’t just shrug our shoulders and not try to recreate historical events accurately. I think we need to understand past events if we are to move ahead successfully. That is the value I place on being a historian.

However, first things first. It would have been helpful if the journalist, Lindsay, had done his homework and referred back to the archived newspapers to get his facts right about who owned the Bleriot that severed Ewart Lock’s hand. That he didn’t gave rise to the 1957 letter from Jones noting that the 1910 Bolivar circling flight was ‘mythical’. Thus his journalistic ‘laziness’ has provided an intriguing piece of evidence to weigh.

From my assessment of Fred Jones’ character, and that of Wittber, I don’t believe that Jones and Wittber would have belatedly colluded to deny an event of such significance to Jones and I don’t believe that Wittber would have been tempted to collude in a falsehood. The 1957 letter adds to evidence that Wittber knew Jones was originally dishonest about the flight and Jones knew that Wittber had a problem with him in this regard.

Jones carried the (self) deception of the flight to an interesting degree. In an article by Keith Meggs, President of the Aviation Historical Society of Australia Inc. in the latest journal “Aviation Heritage”, Keith notes that, having seen Fred Jones’ scrapbook during a visit to one of Jones’ descendents, the articles about the flight had the name ‘Custance’ removed with a blade and Fred Jones’ name inserted instead. It must also be remembered that Jones thrust himself forward when Stanley Brogden was writing the articles on flight in the ‘Argus’ in 1943 and claimed to have been the pilot of the Bleriot. When your grandmother, Edith, corrected Brogden with the evidence of the newspaper reports, Jones was forced to hedge but did not back down about his claim.

This again focusses on your grandfather and his motives for supporting Jones’ spurious claim. I note with thanks your information about your great grandfather, Fred’s father. While I am sure that Fred was not loose with the truth in the Jones’ mould I take into account that he was a nineteen year old, almost twenty, at the time of the events we are discussing and in the sway of an older man of such success that he could purchase and import an aeroplane. Fred may have seen some benefit in relaxing his integrity to collude with Jones or he was over-awed or bullied into agreeing to the prevarication. The reasons will hopefully become more obvious with further research.

Regarding your grandfather’s war record my understanding is that he enlisted in the AIF as a driver, perhaps becoming an ambulance driver. When the Australian Flying Corps was established the AFC would have had need to bring in other abilities than aircraft pilotage and would have drawn from the AIF volunteers for service in their required fields. My presumption is that he would have transferred to the AFC as a driver and transferred to Point Cook. He would then have embarked with the AFC to Egypt. While there he would have been engaged in that ‘community’ of servicemen and introduced to various areas of technology and skills. From what I can ascertain at the moment he is not listed as a pilot or an observer. Pilots in the AFC were Lieutenants or above, while observers were Second Lieutenants. Sergeants were strictly ground duties only. This should not exclude unofficial flights for some of the more daring. However, I would be pleased if someone with more knowledge of this military area could post on the blog to add information.

I look forward to further posts from you Janet. I am finding this blog very stimulating.

Regards

Ian

I can see reports in “The Register” during July 1910 clearly link the demonstration of Adamson’s Bleriot to the severing of the arm incident. Surely these reports could have been referred to in order to correct the account published in 1957.

I would like to think that caution is used in trying to read motives into the various actions / confessions made decades after the event. What if Jones and Wittber felt the truth of the 5min 25sec flight was inconveniently wasted on Custance who was long gone ? What if Wittber thought his “hop” should have been the ground breaker ? How can Jones’ motives for claiming to have made the two attempts himself be interpreted ? There is nothing to be gained in contemplating any of these scenarios if there is no information. My feeling is however that practically speaking, it would be far easier to meddle with the truth decades later, than to organize a public fabrication of events under the eye of three witnesses and an “accomplice”.

Fred Custance was the son of Professor John Daniel Custance (the founding professor of Roseworthy Agricultural College, South Australia in 1881). Professor Custance was a man of integrity known for speaking his mind openly and honestly. It doesn’t ring true that his son proudly collected newspaper cuttings of his various records for motor car and motor cycle driving alongside the accounts of his flights, including his personal account to the press. He obviously loved the challenge of breaking new ground – he wasn’t doing it for any notoriety he was doing it for the personal challenge and the pursuit of his passion – if there was a record to be achieved then he was keen to have a go himself. After returning from nearly three years service in the Middle East with 1st Squadron AFC he continued the scrapbook including articles of his efforts at introducing the caterpillar tractor to outback properties in South Australia – having seen its benefits in the Middle East.

Therefore I still think that more credit should be given to the accounts of the day – maybe it was a fluke – but often the less knowledge you have means that you are also unaware of the limitations – and therefore if you’re lucky enough and daring enough you can surprise others by what you can achieve !

In regards to his service with the AFC (I remember your question at the AHSA meeting) – he trained at Point Cook and sailed in March 1916. We have his photo album which contains many photos from the air – including one being instructed on the use of the aerial camera. It also contains a shot of a plane with index entry – “good old ‘4520’ in which I did 40 hours, Cairo – Suez, Suez – Romani etc.etc.”.

I hope this adds a little more background to the intrigue of these events !

Regards, Janet.

Wittber wasn’t present on the 17th. He was either back at work or, as one secondary source claims, he was sick. In an article published in the AHSA Journal, December, 1963, Wittber wrote that Jones had advised him of Custance’s circling flight “…later that day…”. The details that Wittber gives of the flight in the article, actually written in 1958, must take into account the passing of 48 years and the possible memory fade. However, it seems that Wittber and Jones stayed in contact after Jones moved to Melbourne in 1916 as the 1957 letter calling Custance’s flight “mythical” suggests that Wittber was aware of the truth at this time.

The Argus report of 1943 adds evidence of Jones’ propensity to fabricate. This puts him into the category of an unreliable witness. Without testimony from the only other witnesses on the day, the Winzors and their neighbours, the Sawyers, we only have the testimony of Jones and Custance. As they agree and Jones, in the 1957 letter, admits the fabrication we are left with the conclusion that your grandfather colluded with Jones to maintain the fiction of the circling flight.

The question is begged; why did Jones mention the “mythical” nature of the flight in the 1957 letter to Wittber. In conversation with John Scott yesterday, John mentioned that he thought that Jones’ and Wittber’s relationship was a bit ‘thorny’. This was more to do with Wittber’s personality, John opines. If this is so then it helps to explain why Jones mentions the flight. The main purpose of the letter was to gain Wittber’s support in getting the newspaper reporter to tell the truth; that Jones’ Bleriot propeller was not responsible for the severing of a teenager’s arm. Jones’ was establishing his defence as best he could in case Wittber retorted that truth with Jones had died in 1910 when he told the lie about the circling flight to the reporter of “The Register” or something to that effect.

The 1957 letter has been published in a small book by Damian Lataan and Reg Laught, titled “Those First Australian Flights: Bill Wittber’s Contribution to Australian Aviation History”, (D & S Publications, Hahndorf, SA, 1993). A photograph of the letter appears in the book and Reg Laught was Bill Wittber’s nephew, if memory serves correctly.

John Scott reproduced an excerpt from the letter in his “Loops and Landings” supplement to the Aviation Historical Society of Australia (NSW) newsletter “Southern Skies” for November, 2008 and this has been reproduced in the latest edition of “Aviation Heritage” (p.54). The important part of the letter here is: “Poor old Custance is gone, but you and I know all about that mythical flight, three times around the paddock etc. by him, but we can discuss this a little later on and perhaps personally as I’ll be making a trip over there shortly I hope.” As John goes on to note the meeting never took place as Fred Jones died early in 1958.

John Scott’s supplement also contains the answer to your last question. The undated clipping you have may be the one mentioned by John, that by H A Lindsay in “The Advertiser” of May 1957 which wrongly attributed the severed limb to Jones’ Bleriot rather than Lawrence Adamson’s one. The accident occurred to 16 year old Ewart Lock who lost his right hand after being hit by Adamson’s out-of-control Bleriot at Cheltenham Racecourse on July 23, 1910. Lindsay is identified as the ‘jounalistic culprit’ by name in Jones’ letter to Wittber.

I look forward to your thoughts on my post. The more I read the more intriguing this piece of history becomes.

Regards, Ian

My main point was that the account of the events of 17th March does not rely solely on a report by Jones, but that a first hand account of the two flights by Custance himself, also exists. With the presence of three local witnesses, this means that the honesty and integrity of all these people is called to account if the flight of 5 min 25 secs is to be written off as fiction. The original account of the two flights does not appear to have been refuted for more than three decades after the event.

Surely there is a place for accepting the then unchallenged, accounts of the time, as the various changes to the accounts that have been brought out decades later, can neither be fully refuted or substantiated.

I would be interested in your feedback on the following -
• The reports of the day do not have Wittber present at Bolivar on 17th March – they have him present for the trials on 13th March when the “hop” occurred. Do you have some other information ?

• In The Argus of 1943 Jones claims to have piloted the Bleriot on 17th March for both the 5min 25secs and the 50ft height attempts. Surely this puts doubt on his accounts decades later, when the reports of the day clearly quoted his praise for Custance as the pilot.

• I presume the provenance of the letter written by Jones to Wittber in 1957 was verified. Under what circumstances did it become public ? Was it published ? Do you have the text ?

• The incident of the arm being severed was not in reports of the day around events of the 13th or 17th March (there was no crowd to push someone into the path of the plane on 17th March, so it’s unlikely to have occurred then). Do you have information about when this was reported ?

I only have an undated clipping from years later, on an anniversary of the 17th March that refers to the arm severing as occurring on a third attempt (the Bleriot was reported to have been repaired and ready for further flight on 14th April 1910). The report then goes on to say that Jones was so upset after the incident that he dismantled the plane and put it in storage, and of course the fire that destroyed the plane is reported on 20th May 1910.

Look forward to your thoughts …….regards, Janet.

After several readings of this information the circling flight of the Bolivar paddock still must fall at the hurdle of Jones’ letter to Wittber in 1957. As Jones was corresponding with someone who was there he has no motive for ‘gilding the lily’. His motive for mentioning it at all seems to be his awareness that he is calling for the newspapers to tell the truth- that his Bleriot’s propeller was not responsible for severing the hand of a teenager – while he told a lie to the press about the circling flight.

However,the second flight of Custance, I feel, could do with further close scrutiny. The engine of the Bleriot survives and the damage to it, I have been told, correlates with the information about the crash. A crash landing does not disqualify a flight under the Gorell Committee criteria so there is a possibility that Custance’s second ‘flight’ could be construed as such. I’ll confer with members of the Royal Aeronautical Society using the information contained in your post to obtain their considered opinion and post the result here when it is available.

Thank you again Janet. Very much appreciated.

LEARNING TO FLY.

TRIALS AT BOLIVAR

A WEEK-END FLUTTER

“SHE’LL GEE ALL RIGHT”

{By our Special Reporter}
Quiet and comparatively little known Bolivar – 10 miles north of Adelaide does not appear to have been born to greatness; but there is some likelihood that greatness will be thrust upon it. This is in connection with the conquest of the air, too! Mr. F. H. Jones has selected it as the place for trying his Bleriot monoplane, and since none of the other States has recorded anything in aviation worthy of note, insignificant Bolivar may yet claim the scene of the first successful aerial flights in the Commonwealth. That would be achieving fame in one leap.

-Preliminary Problems. –
An aeroplane flight is not a thing that can be arranged in five minutes. Indeed not. He who has attempted the pioneering part of the business in the State has found himself confronted by totally new requirements, and it has been a case of starting right at the beginning, and providing everything. Think of it in this light. When the motorist made his advent, roads and suchlike essentials already existed, it was only a matter of adapting himself to prevailing conditions. After all, it was but another step in the evolution of locomotion. Similarly with yachtsman, for whom streams and harbours offering the necessary facilities and shelter were already available. But the aviateur, as he is termed in France, in his desire to demonstrate this latest triumph of inventive genius, has no predecessors to whom he can look for assistance. He must begin anew. True, his highway above the earth is prepared for him, but there are other considerations which are indispensible. A machine, heavier than air yet comparatively light and highly susceptible to the influence of the wind and weather, must be securely housed when not in use, and the problem of storing the big dragon-fly, shaped arrangement, measuring 28 x 24 ft., becomes acute when it is necessary to leave the city, and obtain
a clear, open space, 400 acres or more in extent for trial and practice purposes. That is just the difficulty which has beset Mr. Jones. He, however, has partially overcome it through the co-operation of Mr. A. Winzor, who has courteously granted him the use of one of his sections at Bolivar. Though rather small in area, the land has a good surface, and will serve for preliminary trials.
-Chance for the Aerial League.-

The housing of tire machine on the ground presented the greatest difficulty. The aeroplane, having been on view at the Magic Cave, and spent last week in Messrs. Eyes & Crowle’s garage was transported thither on Saturday in the huge case in which it was brought from Europe. That
meant packing it up, and putting it together again on arrival. The task of assembling the parts and tuning up the numerous stays is easily a couple of hours’ work for two or three mechanics, and to that might be added another hour or more for removing the planes again for storing overnight. These operations present other disadvantages more serious than merely the amount of time involved. With a costly machine an owner is chary to take chances by trying it in a high or tricky wind. He must choose the few hours of calm each day for practice, at any rate until he “gets the measure” of the apparatus, and familiarizes himself with its particular vagaries. To avail himself to the full of these opportunities the machine must constantly be in readiness. Further than that, the various appurtenances require to be adjusted to the greatest nicety, and once that exactness is obtained the aviator could not depend upon striking it again if it was necessary to dismantle the machine immediately afterwards for storage. Thus it has already been recognised that a hangar–French aviators have supplied the term which is equivalent to the popularly accepted “garage” for a motor house -is in dispensable on the ground where the trials are made. It is a pretty tall order to to provide a stall to accommodate such a machine intact. As one of the party expressed it, it is not the size so much as
the “awkwardity of the thing.’ If the Aerial League is going to tackle the practical side of its business, there is an excellent opening to encourage the sport by arranging to establish an aerodrome, that is to lease suitable grounds, and erect a hangar. While the game is still in its experimental stages, it is too much to expect one individual to find the whole equipment as well as the machine. Mr. Jones has resolved to approach the league to this end, and, pending its decision, he intends to make temporary arrangements by hiring a spacious marquee, which will accommodate the whole machine. No further trials will be made until its new canvas home is ready – a matter of a few days.

-Flying Requires Practice -
Sabbatarians whisper not! The machine was taken for its maiden run under Australian skies on Sunday. The greater part of the morning was occupied in erecting it, and preparing for the trial. What a golden opportunity was missed while this process
was in operation! The air was still – not even a zephyr wandered over the fields. But by the time all was ready the wind
had risen in fitful gusts, and precluded the possibility of carrying out anything in the shape of an exhaustive test. The machine was kept intact until late in the afternoon in the hope that, the breeze would die away, but, if anything, it freshened, and
numerous spectators, who had travelled from far and near by horse, cycle, and buggy, to watch the trials, had to be content with viewing the stationary aeroplane.
Mr. Jones stated that European inventors, with perhaps one dare-devil exception, invariably declined to attempt anything in the way of flights if the wind was at all troublesome. The risk was too great. Nobody would expect a novice to hazard an ascent without considerable practice. There is a lot to learn on the handling of these mechanical birds, apart from the mysteries of air currents and altitudes. It is to motorists chiefly, that the fascination of aerial navigation appeals, and they find a big difference between the ready response of the road machine and the sluggish answer or tricky pranks of the aeroplane. Considerable practice is required to enable the pilot to accustom himself to the new order. Among other things, the Bleriot Company advised the following :- A ground about three-quarters of a mile square, of smooth surface, and without fences or obstructions; practice with the engine with the machine anchored, and a few days in driving on the wheels or semi-flying around the ground at half-speed to practise steering, elevating rudders, and warping the wings. All this was preliminary to flying.

-”Sky” Pilot Aboard.-

“That’s the monoplane,” observed one of’ the spectators to the youngest of the company present. “No, father, that’s an aero plane. I know monoplanes have no planes.” The parent did not insist upon his own opinion, as he might rightly have done. By 11 a.m. all was ready for the initial run. The wind was the only disappointing feature. Mr. F. C. Custance, who is well known as the colleague of Mr. G. G. White in establishing the motor records between Adelaide and Melbourne and Melbourne and Sydney, and has thrown in his lot with Mr. Jones for the time being, climbed into the pilot seat, while the powerful Anzani engine was set in motion. It
required the strength of four pairs of hands to restrain her when the engine was opened out, and the breeze created by the two-bladed propeller was of hurricane force. When it was slowed down, the pilot’s hands went to his eyebrows. “Thought they had been blown away,” he remarked. Running at half-speed the machine was released and off it went on its carriage to the other end of the section. An easy pace was maintained just for experience, and to ‘”feel” the ground. Mr. Custance said he was quite happy on his new mount, but it felt a bit strange. That strangeness must wear off before any attempt is made to leave the ground. A similar run was taken by Mr. C. W. Wittber (foreman for Messrs. Eyes & Crowle), and on the return trip before the wind, the machine did an unexpected flutter. A strong puff caught one of the planes, and caused the machine to rise a few feet clear of the ground, but as she was heading for a rather nasty spot power had to be shut off, and she came to a standstill. ‘She’ll gee all right.” was the comment of the spectators. The engine was subjected to further satisfactory tests with the machine anchored, after which the trials were abandoned for the day on account of the freshening breeze. Messrs. Jones and Custance intend to continue the experiments during the next fortnight, by the end of which it is expected that the “sky pilot” will have attained efficiency in skimming and short flights.

———————————————————————————————————

The Register
ADELAIDE:FRIDAY, MARCH 18. 1910.

BLERIOT RIVALLED.
FINE FLIGHTS AT BOLIVAR.
SUCCESSFUL SOUTH AUSTRALIANS
AN UNFORTUNATE DESCENT
The first serious attempt at flight in a monoplane in South Australia was made on Thursday morning and resulted in a flight and height record for Australasia – and a damaged machine, At 3 o’clock inthe morning Mr. F. H. Jones drove to Bolivar, where the Bleriot monoplane has remained since last Sunday’s trials, and at about 5 o’ clock Mr. F. C. Custance took his place in the pilot seat. A few preliminary twists of the propeller, and the machine was under way at a good speed.

It rose quickly, and, with the fences of the paddock as a guide, the area was covered thrice in rapid succession a distance of about three miles. The height of flying was between 12 and 15 ft. The machine was in the air for about 5m. 25s., which constitutes a duration record for Australiasia. It was also the first flight of a monoplane accomplished in Australia.

After waiting for daylight, Mr. Custance again entered the machine with the intention of establishing a height record. The machine started off in wonderful fashion from a 40-yards run, and quickly mounted to a height of about 50 ft., which is the greatest elevation yet attained by a monoplane in Australasia. After travelling for about 200 yards, Mr. Custance made a slight error in manipulating the elevators, and caused the machine to descend suddenly head foremost. The under carriage of the machine was smashed and the propeller broken, but the damage was not nearly so great as appeared at first glance. None of the planes was broken, and the main frame from the seat backwards was found to be intact.

When the machine descended Mr. Custance was thrown through the framework and struck his head against the petrol tank. Fortunately he escaped with a few slight bruises. Immediately after the accident the machine was placed upon a trolly and taken to Adelaide, where repairs will be effected. These will occupy at least two weeks. The flight was witnessed by several local residents, who were astonished at the success. Both the aviator and the owner were delighted with the success which had attended the trial – in fact Mr. Jones was scarcely concerned at all about the damage to the machine.

-An Early Triumph-
Success at the second attempt! That’s a notable achievement, especially in view of the expressed instructions of the Bleriot manufacturers that novices should practice first with the machine anchored, second by running it along the ground, and third, in a series of short hops prior to attempting actual skimming or flight. These preliminary trials were expected to take a fortnight. But what happened? Young Custance had one trial run along the ground on Sunday last, and on the next occasion – Thursdav – he flew. The accident was unfortunate and with a little more experience e could have been averted, but then, experience is the best teacher and when one takes short cuts to a success in aviation it cannot be done without a risk
-What the Owner Saw.-
Mr. Jones in an interview, stated: “When. we took the machine out at 5 o’clock, there was a dead calm and the air was moist. This suited our purpose admirably. The machine was released, and after running 70 or 80 yards along the ground it rose with a nice gentle sweep to a height 12 or 15 ft. After doing the three miles in 5m. 25s., the pilot landed without any trouble. Custance, anxious to eclipse the altitude of 30ft. said to have been obtained by Defries in a Wright machine at Sydney, took his seat again and opened the engine full out. It took me all my time to get out of the way. She gave a run and two hops, entered the air at a very high angle, and shot up to 50 or 60 ft. At that height the airship travelled 200 yards. The machine was still rising and the pilot altered the elevating plane to straighten her. Unfortunately he overdid it, and she dived earthward at an angle of about 45 deg., landing almost head on. There was a great crash, which attracted the attention of people a considerable distance away.

“I saw all the flying at the Rheims meeting in France a few months ago, and not one of the aviators there rose as rapidly as Custance did. Experienced flyers prefer to rise more gradually. A Curtiss machine is credited with having risen in 6s., and I reckon Custance’s second attempt came very close to it. He had not gone 40 yards when the machine cleared the ground. The flight was witnessed by Mr. A. Winzor and Mr. and Mrs. Sawyer, who live near by.

“1 think Custance will make an excellent aerial pilot. He is keen, and has plenty of nerve and pluck. His first flight was like that of an experienced aviator. Repairs will be effected by Messrs. Duncan and Fraser. The chief trouble will be to replace the propeller. I may be able to get one in Melbourne, or the firm named might make one. I ordered a spare propeller from England some weeks ago. I intended to give a demonstration on March 26. That will have to be postponed. I desired to have some guarantee of its success in order that the public should not be disappointed. I will issue challenges immediately to, allcomers in Australia. A better ground and facilities for housing machines is badly needed, and I hope the Aerial League will do something in this direction The machine is worth about £1,000, and the damage about £50.”

-The Pilot’s Story-

“What does flying feel like’” he repeated, “It’s not much different to running on the ground, except that you experience no bumps, and you have a sense of floating. The machine is very sensitive in the air – different to running along the ground. The engine made a great noise due to the absence of a silencer. That was omitted to economise weight. The first try was grand, and I alighted without a shock. Finding that the engine was running well, I determined to beat the 30ft. altitude which was said to have been attained in Sydney I opened the engine up, and she went up beautifully. When I reckoned she was high enough I tried to straighten her, but through an error of judgment raised the elevating plane too far, and the machine shot downward striking the ground head on. I had time to switch off before the impact took place; but the propeller was still revolving, and it was smashed to pieces. A cross member of the frame immediately in front of my seat was carried away, and I struck my head against the petrol tank. The tank – made of thin brass – was dented, but I escaped with a few bruises and a headache. Seeing I had never been in the air before, it was not bad to put up the first monoplane flight in Australia, the first flight of any kind in South Australia, and duration and altitude records for Australia. That shows what can be done, and I intend to have another try when repairs are effected. The mistake I made would easily have been rectified by an experienced man. but I’ll , never make it again. It is rather a coincidence that 12 months to the day Mr. G. G. White and I finished the Melbourne to Adelaide motor record which, in spite of three attempts to reduce it, still stands.”

——————————————————————————————————-

THE NEWS ADELAIDE: FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1937.

First S.A. Flight Made 27 Years Ago
ADELAIDE MAN FLEW MAN FLEW MONOPLANE
AT BOLIVAR FOR 5 MINS.
Made Height Record-50 ft.-Same Day
NEWSPAPER cuttings of 27 years ago, in the possession of Mrs. E. V. Custance, of Marian place, Prospect. describe the first aeroplane flight made in South Australia. The hero was her husband, Mr. Frederick C. Custance, who died 14 years ago.
At Bolivar just 12 months after he had established a new motoring record from Adelaide to Melbourne, he made flight and height records.
While in his ‘teens. Mr. Custance had brought himself under the notice of motoring enthusiasts by several long trips. In March. 1909, with Mr. G.G.White, he motored from Melbourne to Adelaide in 20 hours 6 min., smashing the previous record held by Messrs B. Barr Smith and Murray Aunger (22 hours 24 min.).
Early in 1910 Mr. F. H. Jones, of Adelaide, imported a monoplane similar to the one in which M. Bleriot flew the Channel. Mr. Custance undertook the then very risky task of learning to fly the machine. He was in his twentieth year when he accomplished three flying records for the State.
At 3 a.m. on March 17, 1910, he and Mr. Jones motored to Bolivar, where the monoplane was ready for the momentous “hop.”

FLEW FOR FIVE MINUTES
About an hour later, flying solo in Mr. Jones’ machine, the pioneer aviator rose to a height of from 12 to 15 ft., remaining in the air for five minutes 25 seconds – a duration record not only for this State but for Australasia. The flight was witnessed according to a press report, “by several local residents who were astonished at the success.”
After Mr. Custance had been congratulated on this feat he made the record height flight. Starting off with a 40-yard run the monoplane mounted to an altitude of 50 ft. The undercarriage and propeller were slightly damaged when the machine descended head foremost, but the flier escaped with bruises. Because of the damage to the monoplane, a flight set down for Cheltenham shortly afterwards was postponed.
“I hardly knew I was off the ground.” Mr. Custance said in an interview. “It was most exhilarating.” He added that the mishap was due to an error in manipulating the elevators after he had travelled for 200 yards.
On his first trial, he said, he had merely run along the ground to familiarise himself with the workings of the engine. Then he “jumped” the machine, and it rose to 12 ft.
“Once there, I simply sat tight and steered, not caring to risk any variation of altitude. I covered about three miles in circles.”

Paying a tribute to the feat, the “Bulletin,” reported that “Adelaide has gone in seriously for air-flying.”

MOTOR CYCLING RECORD
It was on November 22, 1912, that Mr. Custance broke the Australian record for motor cycling, covering 532 miles in 24 hours on Yorke’s Peninsula. The previous record was 522 miles. He was delayed at one point through having to stop every few hundred yards to scrape the mud off the wheels of the machine.

Mr. Custance died in tragic circumstances when he was 33. He was motoring in the bush with Mr. Trevor Hawker -in June, 1923. The car broke down and also became bogged, and Mr. Custance began to walk towards Olary for assistance, while his companion remained by the car. When no aid was forthcoming, Mr. Hawker lit a fire and camped for the night. There was no sign of anyone next day, so he, too, continued on foot. He found Mr. Custance’s body lying near a roadway only one and a half miles from Olary. It is believed that he became ill during the journey.

It has been suggested that Mr. Custance’s achievement in Pioneering aviation in this State should be marked by the erection of a tablet.