|
REPORT
OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD |
|
|
|
Of the
investigation of an accident involving civil aircraft of the United States No
17315 which occurred near |
|
|
|
TABLE
OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
I. Conduct
of Investigation 1 |
|
Inspection
and Preservation of Wreckage 1 |
|
Public
Hearing 2 |
|
|
|
II. Summary
and Analysis of Evidence 3 |
|
Air
Carrier 3 |
|
Flight
Personnel 4 |
|
Airplane
and Equipment 5 |
|
History
of the Flight 7 |
|
Conduct
of the Flight 18 |
|
|
|
III. Conclusion
22 |
|
Findings
22 |
|
Probable
Cause 25 |
|
Recommendations
25 |
|
|
|
CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION |
|
|
|
A
accident involving aircraft BC 17315, while operating in scheduled air
carrier service between Los angles, |
|
|
|
Inspection and Preservation of Wreckage |
|
|
|
Immediately
after preserving this notification the Board initiated an investigation of
the accident in accordance with the provisions of Section 702 (a) (2) of the
Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended. An accident investigator of the
Board arrived at the Lambert--St. Louis Aircraft early on the morning of
January 23, 1941, and immediately proceeding to the scene of the accident. In
accordance with the instructions of the Board, the damaged airplane had been
placed under guard and the airplane had not been disturbed except for the
damage necessarily incurred in removing some of the passengers from the
cabin. Conditional investigators of the Board arrived that afternoon and a
thorough examination of the wreckage was started. |
|
|
|
The
engines, propellers, radio equipment and certain other accessories of the
airplane were removed from the scene of the accident to the T/A maintenance
shop at |
|
|
|
The
inspection of all parts of the aircraft was completed by the Board on
February 1, 1941, and aircraft NC 17315 was accordingly replaced to TWA. |
|
|
|
Public Hearing |
|
|
|
In
connection with the investigation of the accident, a public hearing was held
at |
|
|
|
At
the hearing all the evidence then available to the Board was presented, 72
exhibits were introduced, and 39 witnesses testified including witnesses from
the vicinity of the accident and experts in various technical subjects
involved in the investigation. Depositions of five passengers on board the
airplane at the time of the accident and the two surviving members of the
crew were read into the record at the hearing. |
|
|
|
While
the Examiners and the representatives of the Safety Bureau were the only ones
designated to ask questions directly of any witness, the Presiding Examiner,
acting under instruction of the Board, announced at the opening of the
hearing that any person who had any evidence, questions, or suggestions to
present for consideration in the proceeding, might submit them to the
Examiners. Forty-seven questions were submitted and the close of the hearing
the Presiding Examiner announced that every question submitted had been asked
unless the subject matter of the question had previously been covered by the
testimony. |
|
|
|
Upon
the basis of all the evidence accumulated in the investigation and hearing,
the Board new makes its report in accordance with the provisions of the Civil
Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended certificate of public convenience and
necessity and an air carrier operation certificate both issued pursuant to
the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. These certificates authorized it to engage
in air transportation with respect to persons, property and mail between
various points, including Los Angles, |
|
|
|
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE Air Carrier Transcontinental and
Western Air, Inc., a Flight Personnel |
|
|
|
On
the flight in question the crew consisted of Captain P. T. W. Scott, First
Officer O, J. DioGuardi, and Air Hostess Mary T. Eshbach. |
|
|
|
Captain
Scott, aged 36, had accumulated a total of 9,711 hours flying time, of which
approximately 2,338 hours were in Douglas DC03 type airplanes. His last
physical examination required by the Civil Air Regulations was taken on
January 8, 1941, and showed him to be in satisfactory physical condition.
Captain Scott, in accordance with company policy, had been given refresher
flight checks from time to time which included the operation of DC-3
airplanes and instrument procedures over the Kansas City-St. Louis- |
|
|
|
First
Officer C. J. DioGuardi, had accumulated at the time of the accident
approximately 1,505 hours of flying time, of inch 129 hours had been as
co-pilot in Douglas DC-3 type airplanes. His last physical examination
required by the Civil Air Regulations was taken in September, 1940 and showed
him to began a satisfactory physical condition. He had been employed by TWA
since August 1, 1940. |
|
|
|
Both
pilots had just completed a 24-hour rest prior to going on duty on January
23, 1941. Thus at it appears from the evidence that both Captain Scott and
First Officer DioGuardi were physically qualified certificate of
competency and by reason of their training and experience, were qualified for
the flight and equipment involved. |
|
|
|
Miss
Mary T Esbach, R,N, of |
|
|
|
Airplane and Equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
airplane and its equipment had received the overhauls, periodic inspections,
and checks which are provided for in company practice and approved by the
Civil Aeronautics Administration. |
|
|
|
History of the flight |
|
|
|
Trip
6 originated at |
|
|
|
The
flight plan for trip 6 from Kansas City, to New York, which had been prepared
by First officer DioGuardi under the supervision of Captain Scott and
approved by the TWA flight superintendent on duty at Kansas City, provided
for intermediate stops at St. Louis, Missouri, Indianapolis, Indiana; and
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.. Prior to the filing of the flight plan, Captain
Scott conferred with the company meteorologist and flight superintendent and
after discussing weather conditions over the route to be flown, he
prepared a weather analysis for the flight. |
|
|
|
Trip
6 was rescheduled to leave, the Kansas City Municipal 1 airport at 2:20 a.m.
(CSI) and in accordance the regular company procedure was cleared by the
company flight superintendent at |
|
|
|
Available
weather reports showed that a general overcast condition prevailed over the
entire route between |
|
|
|
The
trip departed from the ramp at the Kansas City Municipal Airport at 2:40
a.m., having from delayed by Captain Scott an account of last minutes weather
checks and in order that the ground crew right clean off snow which had
accumulated on the wings, tail, and control surface of the airplane while it
was on the ground. After taxing out for the take-off, the airplane was
returned to the ramp to pick up a passenger who inadvertently had been left at
the terminal. Actual take-off was then made at 2:44 a.m. |
|
|
|
According
to the testimony of First Officer DioGuardi, the flight proceeded normally,
making a radio position report over (47 miles from |
|
|
|
The
flight continued to descend and at 4:04 a.m. passed over the |
|
|
|
After
passing over the range station on the initial approach, Captain Scott
executed a standard instrument let-down-through problems. The final approach
to the airport was made in a westerly direction with the intention of landing
on the east-west No. 1 runway. At 4:10 a.m. while Captain Scott was making
his final approach and was still on instruments, the Civil Aeronautics
Communication operator on duty at |
|
|
|
The
final stages of the flight are described in detail in the testimony of First
Officer DioGuardi and of witnesses on the ground. The First Officer said.
"We hit the range station at 3.04, 4.04 a.m. CST 5 and Captain Scott
ordered the gear down. He made the procedure turn and came over the cone
again and the approach was one of the best I have ever seen with any Captain.
We descended with reduced power to the airport from the range station and
suddenly, of course, the neon approach lights started to show out as we
descended from the overcart.6 He estimated, but could not state definitely
that the altitude of the plane was approximately 300 feet above the ground
when it broke out of the overcast. At this time he saw the neon lights. The
Flight broke out of the overcast at 4:12 a.m. |
|
|
|
According
to the testimony of DioGuardi, immediately after breaking out of the
overcast, Captain Scott gave the command, "Flips down", however
before DioGuardi could execute, this order, the Captain ordered. "Flips
up." When DioGuardi was questioned concerning this sudden change in the
Captain's decision, he stated, "I believe he was sure he was a little
bit to too high for the ship landing on No. 1 of the runway." this
was substantiated by the fact that the Captain immediately after ordering
flaps up, applied sufficient power to the engines to maintain level flight.
The airplane crossed the east end of runway No. 1 7 diagonally from the south
side to the north side of the runway and continued in a straight flight ***
across the airport. DioGuardi stated that he could see the |
|
|
|
The
two control tower operators on duty in the tower at the airport and four TWA
employees who were standing on the ramp in front of the administration
Building stated that the airplane became visible to them a short distance
east of the field and in the vicinity of the neon approach light. The airport
boundary lights and the obstruction lights were on and the visibility light
located two miles county of the airport was observed by the control tower
operators. As the airplane continued across the airport at an estimated speed
of 110 to 120 m.p.h. in level flight, it was observed that the landing gear
was down and the flops were in the "up" position. |
|
|
|
The
red (left wing), green (right wing) and white (tail) navigation lights were
clearly visible but the airplane's landing lights were off. They further
stated that the engines appeared be operating normally. The witnesses said
the plane did not fly through or above any lower scattered clouds after it
became visible to them. The estimates made by these six witnesses of the
altitude of the plane as it crossed the airport ranged from 300 to 350 feet.
However from the restrictions of five of these, witnesses who observed
simulated flights made four days after the accident it appears that the
altitude of Trip 6 as it crossed the airport was no more than 200 feet. 8
Although the TWA personnel on the ramp lest sight of the airplane as it
passed beyond the Robertson Hanger on the west side of the airport, the
navigation lights were still clearly visible to the operators in the control
tower. |
|
|
|
|
|
INSTRUMENT
APPROACH PROCEDURE SUMMARY |
|
|
|
1. Initial approach will be made at
16001. |
|
|
|
2. On arrival over LS cone proceed out
East Leg (069 degrees) for 4, minutes and /or 10 miles. Maintaining 1600'
make procedure turn on south side of east leg. |
|
|
|
3. On final approach East leg (249
degrees) establish compass heading descending to min, ind. alt. of 1100'
until cone is passed. |
|
|
|
4. After passing cone change course 7
degrees right and proceed out West leg (256 degrees) descending to 940 feet. |
|
|
|
5. Plane should be over field
approximately 1 minute 20 seconds after passing cone. |
|
|
|
6. If unable obtain ground contact at
940' within 1 min. 30 sec. after passing cone, climb to 1600' and head back
toward station on West leg of radio range (076 degrees).s |
|
|
|
Immediately
after passing the west boundary of the airport, Captain Scott, started a left
turn apparently for the purpose of making a landing from south to north on
No. 6 runway. This sequence of averts immediately following this left turn-is
best related by First Officer DioGuardi who was sitting on the right side of
the pilots' He said: "While in this bank was apparently brushed what I
know now were trees. Captain Scott immediately before or just about the time these
trees applied full power immediately. The airplane was out of control and
Captain Scott tried to put airplane back to course but it was a possible . .
. . a poster of fact I itself helped him on the airplane were all out of control
and the wheel was all the way to the right but was very hard keep
there." |
|
|
|
Russell
L. Biermann one of the control tower operators on duty at the airport at the
time of the accident, toward at the hearing that he watching the lights on
the airplane when it passed beyond the boundary of the airport. He said
"About a quarter of a mile after he passed over the west edge of the
field he began to circle to the left to make an approach in on runway No. 6:
of course, when I speak of the airplane I am speaking of seeing his lights. .
. shortly after the turn was begun I noticed the white light began to descend
visible. Then at almost the same instant the pilot applied what seemed to be
full power with his engine . . . . the noise was increased three or four
times to what it was when he vent over the field, and the white light and the
red light descended quite a bit and then the red light went out and the white
light moved abruptly to the left and slightly up and then slightly to the
right, and proceeded straight ahead as if the ship had been taken from the
left bank into a right bank, and then leveled out and the light disappeared
behind the trees." |
|
|
|
The
evidence shows that while in the left turn the airplane first made contact
with a tree which is located 2,200 feet southwest of the end of runway No. 4.
There were small branches broken from the top of this tree, which was 113
feet above the level of the airport. 9 The airplane then careened through
several other trees, tearing off a part of the left stabilizer and the
elevators from the tail. Approximately 18 feet of the left wing torn off and
remained in a tree, the top of which was 104 feet above the level of the
airport. The flight path as marked of the trees beyond the one in which the
wing was found, and on the ground, indicates that the plans was in vertical
or beyond-vertical bank to the left and was traveling in a straight line.
Just before the airplane came to rest it struck a high tension line and pole
and the fuselage was broken in two near the center of the cabin. It is
apparent from the manner in which the fuselage struck the high tension line
pole from the position in which the airplane came to rest on the ground that
the plane was cartwheeling during the last portion of its travel before
coming to rest. The distance from the point where the airplane struck the
first tree to where it came to rest was 463 feet. The flight path was
definitely indicated by markings on the ground and trees and shows that the
plane traveled in almost a straight line toward the south for this entire
distance. 10 Although small first were started when the broken high tension
line came in contract with one of the engines on the ground, they were
quickly extinguished by ground crews from the airport who arrived at the
scene a few minutes after the accident occurred. |
|
|
|
Mr.
Ralph W. Page, Manager of the |
|
|
|
It
was evident that no ice formed on the airplane during the flight from |
|
|
|
|
|
Sketch
showing location of plane 353 after crash, Jan. 23, 1941. |
|
|
|
An
examination was made of the wreckage of NC 17315, including the engines,
propellers, instruments, radio equipment, controls and other parts of the
aircraft by representatives of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Civil
Aeronautics Administration on, and TWA. The results of this examination
second that there was no structural or mechanical failure of the airplane
prior to the time it contracted the trees southwest of the airport. All of
the evidence indicates that considerable power was being involved from each
engine at the time it struck some of the trees, but does not indicate that
any appreciable amount of power was being used at the time the engine struck
the ground. The master ignition switches in the "on" position. It
was not possible to determined whether the master switch had been pulled
prior to the time the airplane finally came to rest, or whether its position
resulted from the impact. |
|
|
|
Only
one altimeter face (No. 176BH-031-890), the one which was installed in the
Captain's flight panel, was located after the accident. The hands had been
broken off and it was thus impossible to determine the rending at the time of
impact. Although the barometric scale on this altimeter was found after the
accident to be set at 30.18, which was .02 of an inch lower than the setting
received by the First Officer from the TWA radio operator at 4:04 A.M., it
was impossible to determine whether the discrepancy resulted from an improper
setting or from the impact. |
|
|
|
The
records show that the |
|
|
|
An
investigation of all weather services involved disclosed that the forecasts
and other weather advices made available to the pilot prior to departure were
substantially accurate. The official observational facilities maintained at |
|
|
|
Conduct of the Flight |
|
|
|
The
dispatching of the flight from |
|
|
|
In
view after fact that the pilot knew that the weather was showing a definite
downward that the last report received by him indicated that the ceiling had
reached the minimum of 400 feet prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration and was variable, Caption Scott should have exercised utmost
caution during the final approach not to descent below that minimum or order
to break out under the overcast. Caption Scott apparently did not exercise
that degree of caution. First Officer DioGuardi that at the time the airplane
brake cut of the overcast its altitude was approximately 300 feet above the
ground. Captain Scott upon discovering that the overcast extended below the
approved minimum altitude of 400 feet, had a clear duty to apply power and
proceed to his alternate airport instead of continuing with the landing
approach. |
|
|
|
It
is reasonable to believe that Captain Scott first intended to land on the No.
1 run by that, after breaking out of the overcast at a point too close to the
airport and too high to affect a normal landing on No. 1 runway, he proceeded
across the airport with the intention of circling to the left for a landing
on No. 6. Witnesses in the control tower and on the ground testified that the
airplane flow across the airport at an altitude which did not vary to any
noticeable extent and during that time the lights of the airplane were
clearly and constantly visible, unobscured by scattered clouds or scud. If
any of the scattered clouds reported to be at 200 feet were in the flight path
of Trip 6, the testimony of the eye witnesses indicates that the airplane
flew across the field at an altitude below 200 feet. As already mentioned
(page 13) the evidence derived from subsequent simulated flights, although
undertaken by daylight with consequent possibility of error by the witnesses,
indicated that Trip 6 was no higher than 200 feet above the airport and the
testimony given by the surviving passengers is not in conflict with this.
Since the area west and southwest of the airport is thinly populated and
devoid of visible landmarks at night, it is obvious that Captain Scott
planned to remain underneath the overcast during the turn rather than to pull
up into the overcast, thereby necessitating another instrument approach or
proceeding to his alternate. |
|
|
|
Caption
Scott had years of experience as an airline pilot on the type of equipment
involved and had been flying into |
|
|
|
The
first tree struck by the airplane as it was circling the field in order to
land on No. 6 runway extended three feet into a 20 to 1 slide path to one of
the other runways, No. 4. Since there does not appear to be any excusable
reason for Pilot Scott's circling the field toward runway No. 6 at such a low
altitude, the failure to place on obstruction light on this tree cannot be
held to be a cause of the accident. The accident, however, raised the
question whether a dangerous obstruction did, at the time, exist for any plan
which might have been using No. 4 runway. |
|
|
|
The
Civil Aeronautics Authority in its report 11 to Congress dated March 23,
1939, in recommending Federal participation in the development and
improvement of an adequate national system of airports, discussed at length
the problem of hazards around airports and, in particular, obstructions which
constitute definite hazards in the line of approach to runways. The
Administrator at the present time has no power to require the marking of obstructions,
except indirectly through his exercise of the power to restrict air carrier
operations into an airport. The City of |
|
|
|
While
the failure to have the tree obstruction lighted cannot be reasonably held in
any way responsible for this accident and while it has not caused any
accident to airplanes approaching No. 4 runway, it appears desirable to the
Board that the group of trees of which this one was a part should, in the
interest of the greatest degree of safety, be removed, trimmed or lighted in
the future. |
|
|
|
III. |
|
|
|
CONCLUSION |
|
|
|
Findings |
|
|
|
We
find, upon all of the evidence available to the Board at this time, that the
facts relating to the accident involving NC 17315, which occurred near |
|
|
|
1. The accident which occurred at approximately
4:13 A. M., January 23, 1941, to TWA's Trip 6 of that date resulted in major
damage to aircraft NC 17315, fatal injuries to one passenger and one member
of the crew, serious injures to four passengers and one member of the crew,
and minor injures to six passengers and one member of the crew. |
|
|
|
2. At the time of the accident, TWA held
a currently affective certificate of public convenience and necessity and an
air carrier operating certificate authorizing it to conduct the flight. |
|
|
|
3. Captain Scott and First Officer
DioGuardi were physically qualified and held proper certificates of
competency of operate as air carrier pilots over the route between |
|
|
|
4. Aircraft NC 17315 was currently certificated
as airworthy at the time of the accident. |
|
|
|
5. Trip 6 was cleared in accordance with
proper procedure from |
|
|
|
6. At the time of departure from |
|
|
|
7. At the time of departure from |
|
|
|
8. Trip 6 proceeded normally from |
|
|
|
9. Successive weather reports had
indicated a constantly and rapidly lowering ceiling and a constantly
diminishing visibility at the |
|
|
|
10. After arriving over the |
|
|
|
11. While executing this procedure and
about two minutes before he brake out of the overcast, Captain Scott received
the 4:09 A. M. weather report, which indicated variable ceiling of 400 feet
with lower scattered clouds at 200 feet and visibility of two miles with
light drizzle and light fog. |
|
|
|
12. Although the minimum ceiling
prescribed for TWA at |
|
|
|
13. Captain Scott brake out of the
overcast too close to runway No. 1 to effect a normal landing from that
altitude. |
|
|
|
14. After braking out of the overcast,
Captain Scott continued across the airport at an altitude of 200 feet or
less. |
|
|
|
15. At no time during the flight across
the airport or beyond the airport did Captain Scott make use of the landing
lights on the airline. |
|
|
|
16. Shortly after passing over the west
boundary of the airport, the pilot started a left turn, while in the turn the
airplane contracted trees 113 feet above the level of the airport and 2,200
feet southwest of the southwest and of runway No. 4. |
|
|
|
17. Full power was applied to the engines
in an attempt to pull up but other trees were struck and the pilot lost
control. The aircraft crushed to the ground at a point approximately
one-fourth of a mile southwest of the airport boundary. |
|
|
|
18. Captain Scott was flying the airplane
during the entire flight from |
|
|
|
19. Aircraft NC17315 and all of its
equipment functioned normally up until the time the accident occured |
|
|
|
Probable Cause |
|
|
|
Upon
the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record available to us at
this time, we find that the probable cause of the accident to NC 17315 (TWA
Trip 6) on January 23, 1941, was the action of the pilot in attempting a
landing under adverse weather conditions in disregard of the minimums
prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Administration and in maneuvering for
such landing at a dangerously low altitude. |
|
|
|
Recommendations |
|
|
|
1. The
Barrier recommends the Administrations of Civil Aeronautics encourage the
development and instruction of a continuously monitoring apparatus for
ceiling light projectors at all airports used by air carriers. The purpose of
this device is to give continuous observation of the height of clouds and
through proper setting of the instrument a change in the ceiling to some
predetermined lower value could automatically set off an alarm. When such
device is in operation, scud clouds moving across the field would be detected
in this manner. |
|
|
|
2. The
Board has recommended to the Administrator that when a solid cloud cover
prevails at an altitude of 800 feet or less and the horizontal visibility is
officially reported to be less than five miles, the height of the ceiling
shall be from the base of the lowest cloud form officially reported. The Road
suspected that this recommendation be made effective and enforced until such
time as additional studies indicated that other action of a more fundamental
and permanent character should be taken. It is understood that such action
was taken by the Administrator immediately to carry the recommendation into
effect. |
|
|
|
BY THE BOARD: |
|
|
|
/s/ Harllee
Branch |
|
Chairman |
|
|
|
/s/ Oswald
Ryan |
|
Oswald Ryan |
|
|
|
/s/ G.
Grant Mason, Jr. |
|
G. Grant Mason, Jr. |
|
|
|
/s/ George
P. Baker |
|
George P. Baker |
|
|
|
Edward P. Warner, Vice
Chairman, did not take part in the adoption of this report and
recommendation. |
|
|
|
FOOTNOTE |
|
|
|
11 "Control
of the surroundings is one of the major necessities of sound airport
development, yet it seems to have been end of the board regarded of matters.
Most airports are left with no protection whatever for their approaches. |
|
|
|
"About half of the States
here adopted laws giving cities or counties the right to purchase land and if
necessary to acquire it by condemnation for airport purposes, either for
original establishment or for later improvement and enlargement, and also to
use either negotiations or condemnation in requiring rights in the air space
surrounding the airport as an assurance against its invasion by obstructions.
The procedure of requiring air rights has, however, been little uses. . . |
|
|
|
"There is the alternative
of coning, which is the simple at solution, avoiding separate dealings with a
multitude of property holders, and therefore the most satisfactory way that
can be adopted, but little has been done with that. Only nine States, all or
them east of the |
|
|
|
"This is a chapter of
factual record, and no argument is interposed here on the broad question of
zoning policy and the desirability if the extension of zoning to new objects;
but it is part of the essential feet of the present status of the American
airport system that the possibility of safe and efficient use of an airport
is entirely dependent any measures to protect airports against the erection
of high neighboring structures that would seriously impair their valve."
(House Document No. 245, 76th Congress, 1st Session.) |
|
|
|
12 The
"standard gross weight" of an airplane is the maximum trouble gross
weight for landing while the "provisional gross weight" of an
airplane is the maximum allowable gross weight for take-off. Then an airplane
takes off at its maximum provisional gross weight, the weight of the airplane
is reduced by g soling construction at least to the standard gross weight for
landing prior to arrived at its next scheduled stop. If sufficient gasoline
has not been consumed between the time of take-off and any emergency landing,
gasoline can be dumped by the use of tested and approved dump valves in order
to reduce the total weight to the approved gross weight for landing. At the
time of the accident, the total weight of the airplane had been reduced,
since its departure from |
|
|
|
CORRECTION |
|
|
|
In Report of the Civil
Aeronautics Board Of the investigation of an accident involving civil
aircraft of the United States NC 17315 (Transcontinental & Western Air,
Inc.) which occurred near |
|
|
|
In last line, middle paragraph,
Page 8, there is a typographical error indicating that the ceiling at |
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|
|
|
1 See
footnote 12 in page 23. |
|
|
|
2 The
Airway Traffic Central staff, apart of the Civil Aeronautics Administration,
regulates the flew of traffic over the civil airways during instrument use
weather conditions in order to eliminate the possibility of collision between
aircraft. Before flying on a civil traffic weather conditions, approval must
be secured from Airway Traffic Control for the flight, including the altitude
at which it is to be flown. |
|
|
|
3 The
basic responsibility of Airway Traffic Control is to prevent collisions
between aircraft operating under instrument condition. They have no further
responsibility for the safety of the flight. Decision on whether a flight is
advisable or may be made with safety under existing weather conditions are
the responsibility or the pilot and the air carrier dispatcher. |
|
|
|
4 In
accordance with standards set fourth in the Civil Air Regulations, specific
weather minimus for each airport are prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration in weather letters of competency. In weather minimum for TWA
at |
|
|
|
5 The
cockpit clock was not changed from Mountain Time by the new crew that took
over at |
|
|
|
6 The
red neon approach lights extend in a straight line approximately 1,500 feet
east of the eastern boundary of the airport. These lights assist the pilot in
lining up for a landing on No. 1 runway. |
|
|
|
7 See
sketch of |
|
|
|
8 On
January 27, 1941, four flights were made in a Douglas DC-3 similar to the
airplane involved in the accident to simultaneous closely as possible the
flight path and flight altitude of Trip 6 as it crossed the airport. The
first flight was made at an altitude of 350 feet, the accord flight at 300
feet, and the third and fourth flight at 200 feet. These flights were
observed by the two control tower operators from the control tower and were
observed from the ramp by three of the four TWA employees who had seen Trip 6
pass across the airport on the morning of the accident. These five witnesses
were not informed at any time before the hearing at what altitudes there four
flights were flown. The control tower operators advised that the second
flight was approximately the altitude being flown by Trip 6. The three TWA
employ as on the ramp selected the third and fourth flights as approximately
the altitude of Trip 6; they observed that the fourth flight most
nearly simulated the flight path of Trip 6 and the airplane whiled on this
flight disappeared from view behind the hangar at the west end of the field
as had trip 6, whereas the other three simulated flights did not. In view of
this feet it seems certain that Trip 6 was at an altitude of not more then
200 feet. |
|
|
|
9 The
elevation of the Lambert-St. Louis airport is 340 feet above sea level. |
|
|
|
10 See
Figure B, sketch of wreckage. |