Re: your video and your comment, "...the CAB scenario of the plane sliding backward and right side up to the final wreckage site."
OK, even I have to chime in here, frustrated with your continued insistence that the CAB report says something it doesn't.
Yes the CAB report says the aircraft "...landed right side up".
Yes, the report says it "...then slid tail first."
But the report does NOT say the aircraft slid tail first AND right side up throughout the entire path. Nowhere does it claim the aircraft
remained right side up for the whole slide. What it says, quoted exactly, is: "...landed right side up. It then slid tail first another 820 feet. The aircraft disintegrated throughout its path, and wreckage was strewn over an area 200 feet wide and 1,200 feet long."
The actual sequence may not be as clearly described and in as much detail as you would wish. And that portion of the report is poorly worded, so it would be easy to draw the inference you did initially. However, an inference is all it is, and "disintegrated through its path" and "wreckage was strewn" do actually cover the final disposition of all parts of the aircraft.
Remember also, as noted in the ALPA report, there was a wreckage distribution chart available to the investigators, so they actually knew the exact final location of each part of the aircraft.
With all the best will in the world, I'd also note multiple people on at least two forums have responded to your questions and theories about the CAB report and the accident sequence, and most don't see that the report contains any
gross or
egregious errors either - and please note my emphasis on those adjectives. No, it doesn't contain every single scrap of data used to reach the final determination, but neither do NTSB final reports today - and at the time, technology did not make it easy to distribute to the public what might have been as many as 20,000 pages of documents, hand- or type-written ones at that.
Last, you'll recall you started a similar thread over on airliners.net, which I read before I started my research. One comment in particular seems worth reviewing at this point, from user Flaps, who wrote:
I'm doing some digging. I had done some research on this accident many years ago in college. I do believe based on memory at this point, that it was entirely possible that the accident sequence as was described in the report is largely accurate. The initial impact points were known from the point of first contact with the power lines as the lines themselves were ripped out followed by further impact marks, ground scars and debris propagation. The fact that the empennage is upside down in the photo does not in any way indicate that the aircraft did not initially slide right side up and backward.
There was considerable energy acting on the fuselage as it disintegrated along its ground path and the post impact explosion. The empennage could easily have rolled over into its final position indicated in the photo late in the accident sequence. The damage to the left horizontal stabilizer indicates exactly that. Nearly half of it is missing in the photo. The right horizontal stabilizer however is nearly intact. This indicates a roll to the left as it came to rest. The minimal damage to the vertical stabilizer solidly supports this hypothesis. If the aircraft were upside down the vertical stabilizer would have been destroyed. Instead it is nearly intact.
If you want to see some good similar instances of pieces of wreckage ending up in surprising positions relative to the impact sequence and path, reference Southern 242 and Eastern 401. Both of these aircraft were under control and close to wings level at impact yet major sections spun off and rolled in multiple directions as a result of impact energies and striking trees/objects along the way.
I'm not totally discounting your theory but I have done extensive research on hundreds of accidents over the years. The methodology of the NTSB and CAA is thorough, sound and well proven. Everything is thoroughly analyzed, checked, rechecked and verified by multiple experts before any final report is issued. I'm not saying that they never make a mistake. I am saying that it is highly unlikely that one of such magnitude would end up in a final report. Furthermore the photos of the empennage do support the statements in the accident report. The photos do not support the fuselage being upside down until very late in the impact sequence.
To be fair, Flaps wrote more later, including:
Your analysis of the turn and the bank angles definitely make more sense in explaining the photos and debris patterns than the CAA or ALPA reports. I agree that once the cause was found the investigation into the impact sequence ended right there.
And I think we all agree with that. The CAB's primary obligation was to public safety, and their primary objective to find the actual cause of the accident. But the last couple of weeks' comments here seem to be veering toward questioning the CAB's overall probity, and some commenters appear to be questioning whether or not they even got the cause of the accident right.
So it seems time to pull back to the greater objectivity with which you began your own investigation. An awful lot of conjecture, and assumptions have been creeping in - you yourself have used the phrase, "This is pure conjecture...". Theories based on evidence are one thing, but narratives created seemingly out of surmise alone with nothing to back them up? That's the opposite of investigation.
Further to the crash records: I won't have time to get back to research until fairly late in January, but at that time I'm hopeful of being able to track down some more of the CAB and Lockheed documentation on this accident. Keep your fingers crossed :-)
All best,
cordwainer