I'm here to get my thesis tested; I want to know how robust it is. I very much appreciate your and Megan's response. I need to know how well my scenario stands up.
I can see you have spent a lot of time and effort in researching this topic. At first I couldn't work out what 'Axe you had to grind' (understandable by the way, I probably would in your position), then I realised that your principle issue was the lack of credit given to the crew in almost pulling off a successful forced landing (according to your theory).
No, it's become a detective story that fell in my lap, and I was fascinated as I peeled back the layers. It's an aside that the crew did better than we knew, but it's also a guess. It might be that as Megan said they really were just along for the ride, and this is simply the attitude the plane had reached when it hit the ground despite all their attempts at control. The impact looks like an approximate belly landing, but we have no way to know that the crew thought they could make such a landing.
As I said in the document, my own case is weakened by the fact that it's so easy to say I have an axe to grind. Nothing I can do about that, since I'm the one who found the pictures.
I wouldn't expect the official reports to be particularly laudatory, though the ALPA report did mention how well they performed under the circumstances. I'm not here fishing for compliments. I just want to correct what appear to be some erroneous reports in which I have particular interest. Frankly, the more I consider the errors the more indignant I get.
Firstly as already mentioned by Megan, the CAB report is clear that the power lines were severed about 70 degrees from the horizontal. The investigators on the ground at the time won't have just guessed this, it will have been measured and is a major piece of evidence as to the bank angle at impact.....when you then consider that the captains AI was at 90-100 degrees at impact (possibly unreliable but corroborates the power line evidence). This makes a very strong case for the bank angle.
I believed the angle right up until last year. I had no call to question the official reports, and accepted the 90-degree bank completely. But when the CAB says the plane was right side up and it is shown upside down, suddenly there's a legitimate call for a closer look. When the ALPA says the number four prop slashed the railroad tracks but the number four engine clearly hit the tracks, again a question is raised. If such basic issues are so clearly wrong, then how much should we trust that every single other T was crossed?
The bank angle is the biggest hurdle I have to confront, as the document says. The reports cite witnesses, some of whom probably had good views. I don't know if they were cherry-picking or not. I can't explain the artificial horizon.
In support of my thesis I have the final impacts, which indicate a high-speed forward movement, not a tumble. I have the intact wing and the prop 3 marks which cannot happen in a 90-degree bank. If you can explain this one to me, I'd appreciate it, because I can't see it.
If the aircraft did only attain a maximum bank angle of 30 degrees then the question has to be asked......why didn't they just keep on flying? Had they been able to limit bank angle to 30 degrees they could have climbed (slowly) to a safe altitude and trouble shooted the problem.
I'd think so too. This is why I wanted to hear from Electra pilots. My experience is limited to sailplanes, and I don't understand why they didn't climb. So maybe they really were just along for the ride.
I don't know the full aftermath of this accident (I'd be interested to hear it if you are able to divulge it), but the 2 mechanics, Foreman and possibly the Inspector that replaced the aileron boost unit 2 months prior to this accident with complete disregard to procedure or even basic aviation engineering principles, should have ended up in jail along with their managers.
I don't know the details, the punishments that might have been meted out. Many years later my sister told me that one of those held responsible committed suicide. I wasn't bitter about it and wouldn't have wished that on anyone.
As I mention in the document, one reason for putting this out is to see if I can shake some old documentation out of the tree. Some old airline employee or investigator may have something. The National Archives has nothing. Maybe some bystander with a Brownie camera has pictures. Some of this material probably still exists, but I see no path to it except this document and word of mouth.