Help researching 1961 Electra crash
BRDubois,
“I have not questioned the root cause, and see no call to. I question things in the CAB and ALPA reports only when they make no sense. All I'm working on is the impact and breakup sequence. I don't question that the CAB fulfilled their basic role of explaining the incident and helping to correct the system that led to it. I accept that an unsafetied fitting was the cause.”
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now.
“Was the cause....” you are very kind. The CAB calls it a “probable cause”. You take it beyond even their own work, into “was the cause...”
I venture to say no one here on thread can post or describe the actual construction of the slack absorber that required a safety wire, presumably two, one for each of opposite threaded stainless connectors.
I can’t get an answer as to a proposed opinion that a safety wire, by definition, is not primary structure, but a fail safe item that only locks thread travel after a complete failure of the primary locking system.
If an Electra depended only on a safety wire to lock the cable threaded connector, I wouldn't go near it, certainly not to fly in it.....
Further, there appears to be no science regarding the recovered boost unit and its seizure. I have proposed that the boost unit, and/or its power arm could easily have jammed, or froze, due to chaotic control inputs due manual manipulation of the cockpit yokes.
Also sloppy is this: The “damaged by fire” statement is represented as conclusion, but although likely correct, how do we know damage did not occur prior to impact? We don’t and the possibility is not eliminated. The inference is that such prior damage is not possible.
Do we know if in manual mode, the ailerons have an independent and isolated cable loop that is not involved with the hydraulics? If not, in manual the ailerons are driven via the (unpowered) hydraulic system that makes up the boost loop?
Boost quadrant translates flight station inputs through the boost control arm, its cylinder, and valves? Part direct cable, then manually “pumped” through the boost, into the rods, arms, and bearings that comprise the final drive?
Any A/P folks out there? Anyone with a more explicit schematic of the flight control rigging?
Craig. Here, “...Concours77 just shot down my scenario of a forward pitchover at the final site, by noticing the post in the ditch. ...”
No, I didn’t. The aircraft almost certainly “pitch poled” over the ditch. I wrote that earlier, and still hold it as very likely. I also believe the tail section and fuselage remained attached, though loosely, and they pitch poled simultaneously, though not in any familiar orientation one with the other. There is no chance the tail was inverted whilst sliding, that is ludicrous.
The structures that kept tail to wing were undoubtedly the keel beams, as strong or stronger than the main and aft wing spars.
The wooden fence post in no way compromises the theory you Espouse. It shoots down only that the wings were full span, and the leading edge gouged the ditch out on impact. The ditch and the wreckage are in proximity due only to coincidence.
“I have not questioned the root cause, and see no call to. I question things in the CAB and ALPA reports only when they make no sense. All I'm working on is the impact and breakup sequence. I don't question that the CAB fulfilled their basic role of explaining the incident and helping to correct the system that led to it. I accept that an unsafetied fitting was the cause.”
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now.
“Was the cause....” you are very kind. The CAB calls it a “probable cause”. You take it beyond even their own work, into “was the cause...”
I venture to say no one here on thread can post or describe the actual construction of the slack absorber that required a safety wire, presumably two, one for each of opposite threaded stainless connectors.
I can’t get an answer as to a proposed opinion that a safety wire, by definition, is not primary structure, but a fail safe item that only locks thread travel after a complete failure of the primary locking system.
If an Electra depended only on a safety wire to lock the cable threaded connector, I wouldn't go near it, certainly not to fly in it.....
Further, there appears to be no science regarding the recovered boost unit and its seizure. I have proposed that the boost unit, and/or its power arm could easily have jammed, or froze, due to chaotic control inputs due manual manipulation of the cockpit yokes.
Also sloppy is this: The “damaged by fire” statement is represented as conclusion, but although likely correct, how do we know damage did not occur prior to impact? We don’t and the possibility is not eliminated. The inference is that such prior damage is not possible.
Do we know if in manual mode, the ailerons have an independent and isolated cable loop that is not involved with the hydraulics? If not, in manual the ailerons are driven via the (unpowered) hydraulic system that makes up the boost loop?
Boost quadrant translates flight station inputs through the boost control arm, its cylinder, and valves? Part direct cable, then manually “pumped” through the boost, into the rods, arms, and bearings that comprise the final drive?
Any A/P folks out there? Anyone with a more explicit schematic of the flight control rigging?
Craig. Here, “...Concours77 just shot down my scenario of a forward pitchover at the final site, by noticing the post in the ditch. ...”
No, I didn’t. The aircraft almost certainly “pitch poled” over the ditch. I wrote that earlier, and still hold it as very likely. I also believe the tail section and fuselage remained attached, though loosely, and they pitch poled simultaneously, though not in any familiar orientation one with the other. There is no chance the tail was inverted whilst sliding, that is ludicrous.
The structures that kept tail to wing were undoubtedly the keel beams, as strong or stronger than the main and aft wing spars.
The wooden fence post in no way compromises the theory you Espouse. It shoots down only that the wings were full span, and the leading edge gouged the ditch out on impact. The ditch and the wreckage are in proximity due only to coincidence.
Last edited by Concours77; 31st Dec 2017 at 22:22.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 134 gives a scale drawing of the power lines and railroad track elevation, with 1" = 30'. The drawing shows the nearest power line was 213 feet from the track and the farthest was 302, allowing for inaccuracy in taking this off the drawing. So the CAB cannot have been referring to the power line hit as the "first impact" because they said the second impact was 380 feet from the first.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was that the root cause isn't part of my focus. I seem to have plenty to do just dealing with my chosen bailiwick.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'm all for keeping an open, questioning mind and following evidence. I wouldn't consider the measurement of the cut cables and the witness marks on the AI conjecture.
For me, the 30 degree maximum bank theory doesn't hold up unless you can dig up some evidence that the CAB made an error in the measurements of the power cables AND that somehow they interpreted the marks in the AI wrongly.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plane did not slide inverted, and it could not slide upright and tail first and leave us with inverted tail-first wreckage. Therefore it could not have slid tail first the final 820 feet.
As Flaps and everyone else has pointed out, the inversion of the tail section most likely happened near or at the end of the sequence. I would remind you, for example that one witness quoted in newspaper articles described approaching the tail section just before an explosion occurred in it.
Even you wrote just before the quote above,
The CAB explicitly said the plane slid tail first the last 820 feet, though it doesn't explicitly say the plane was upright the whole way.
This is how solutions are found. You start with a conjecture, a hypothesis, and look for evidence that either supports or refutes it. I challenge anyone to describe a mystery that was solved without any conjectures.
Starting with a conjecture then looking for evidence to support it is the basic definition of confirmation bias. And starting with a conjecture then looking for evidence to refute it is very close to the definition of prejudice, or leaves one with the impossible task of "proving" a negative". You start with the evidence, always.
Unfortunately, at this point, there is not yet enough evidence to construct the accident sequence reliably in full detail. On the bright side, you have a fair amount of data regarding the beginning of the sequence, and you have photos of the end...which is better than having nothing at all.
I did, by the way, read the title of the thread, I am, as you know, trying to provide "Help researching..." the crash. But conjecture is not research. The two terms are not synonyms.
Last, no, I don't believe you personally have ever questioned the CAB's conclusions as to the cause of the accident. You've made it very clear you have no disagreement with them there.
However, I just don't agree the CAB's report is necessarily "wrong". Failure to describe what they were not required to describe - the exact breakup sequence upon impact - is not the same thing as "wrong". Nonetheless, I'll admit that gets us into mainly semantics, so I'll just reiterate what I said before: the report was indeed poorly worded, and an incorrect inference was all to easy to draw, absent the photos necessary for clarification.
I do think the diagrams and other data that would make things clearer (e.g., the wreckage chart, Lockheed's flight path calculations, etc.) still exist somewhere, in Lockheed's warehouse, or buried in incompletely-indexed microfilm at another National Archive location or a university library collection. Your FOIA request (an excellent step) may also bear fruit.
I remain committed to helping with that research, if you have no objection, and hope you understand I have the greatest respect for what you are trying to do, and for your perseverance in the face of considerable difficulty.
My best regards still,
c
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compare that to the Chicago Trib image from the next day, which shows the vertical bank. They had decided on the vertical bank on the day of the crash, too soon for any power line measurements.
If we're guessing what they knew and what they measured, consider the CAB report on page 134. They measured the HEIGHT of the power line breaks. If they had measured the ANGLE - the relative distance along the strands at the different heights - that was the place to show it. But it's not there.
To say they measured the angle at the power lines is conjecture. Opposing that view is the fact that the descent was measured at 5 degrees, and if the plane was at 70 degrees or more it would have been in free-fall.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one is asserting the plane slid inverted the entire 820 feet, not even the CAB - hence their comments regarding disintegration along the way.
As Flaps and everyone else has pointed out, the inversion of the tail section most likely happened near or at the end of the sequence. I would remind you, for example that one witness quoted in newspaper articles described approaching the tail section just before an explosion occurred in it.
As Flaps and everyone else has pointed out, the inversion of the tail section most likely happened near or at the end of the sequence. I would remind you, for example that one witness quoted in newspaper articles described approaching the tail section just before an explosion occurred in it.
In an investigation of this type, you start with observation and collection of evidence. Only after that, and based on observation and evidence, do you begin propounding theories. Even the wildest conjectures in theoretical science derive from previous observations and some sort of evidence.
Unfortunately, at this point, there is not yet enough evidence to construct the accident sequence reliably in full detail. On the bright side, you have a fair amount of data regarding the beginning of the sequence, and you have photos of the end...which is better than having nothing at all.
I am, as you know, trying to provide "Help researching..." the crash.
Failure to describe what they were not required to describe - the exact breakup sequence upon impact - is not the same thing as "wrong".
I do think the diagrams and other data that would make things clearer (e.g., the wreckage chart, Lockheed's flight path calculations, etc.) still exist somewhere, in Lockheed's warehouse, or buried in incompletely-indexed microfilm at another National Archive location or a university library collection. Your FOIA request (an excellent step) may also bear fruit.
I remain committed to helping with that research, if you have no objection, and hope you understand I have the greatest respect for what you are trying to do, and for your perseverance in the face of considerable difficulty.
I remain committed to helping with that research, if you have no objection, and hope you understand I have the greatest respect for what you are trying to do, and for your perseverance in the face of considerable difficulty.
Originally Posted by booke23 View Post
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.u
Hi. “...the Captains AI was at 90-100 degrees at impact.
If the aircraft continued to fly (remained aloft) after the impact with the Railbed, presumably the AI was still serviceable, and had no bearing on bank angle at the gravel RR embankment. Right? How does a gyro instrument on the dash get squashed with a wing tip impact?
Which impact? Likely the second, the one that involved the cockpit?
For me, the 30 degree maximum bank theory doesn't hold up unless you can dig up some evidence that the CAB made an error in the measurements of the power cables AND that somehow they interpreted the marks in the AI wrongly.
Yes. If they are counting on the AI to provide bank angle at Railroad impact, they are barking up the wrong tree...
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.u
Hi. “...the Captains AI was at 90-100 degrees at impact.
If the aircraft continued to fly (remained aloft) after the impact with the Railbed, presumably the AI was still serviceable, and had no bearing on bank angle at the gravel RR embankment. Right? How does a gyro instrument on the dash get squashed with a wing tip impact?
Which impact? Likely the second, the one that involved the cockpit?
For me, the 30 degree maximum bank theory doesn't hold up unless you can dig up some evidence that the CAB made an error in the measurements of the power cables AND that somehow they interpreted the marks in the AI wrongly.
Yes. If they are counting on the AI to provide bank angle at Railroad impact, they are barking up the wrong tree...
I think it does. The AI survived the impact at Railroad tracks. it likely showed bank angle at second, cockpit impact, no?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept the AI evidence is not watertight....I always have.
I have no insight into air accident investigation in the early 1960's, would they really have just plucked the 70 degree figure out of thin air? (based on what they think happened). Surely they must have some factual basis for that (cut power lines).
Otherwise it shows extreme sloppy practice that has no place in accident investigation.
I have no insight into air accident investigation in the early 1960's, would they really have just plucked the 70 degree figure out of thin air? (based on what they think happened). Surely they must have some factual basis for that (cut power lines).
Otherwise it shows extreme sloppy practice that has no place in accident investigation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no insight into air accident investigation in the early 1960's, would they really have just plucked the 70 degree figure out of thin air? (based on what they think happened). Surely they must have some factual basis for that (cut power lines).
Otherwise it shows extreme sloppy practice that has no place in accident investigation.
Otherwise it shows extreme sloppy practice that has no place in accident investigation.
Discovering a letter from Don Nyrop (NWA pres) saying they were highly skeptical of the CAB report and pointed out 22 errors is another and unexpected piece of evidence.
Going public on the day of the crash with the scenario, which then was not revised for the remainder of the investigation, is another.
I have little trouble imagining they thought up the crash scenario and just interpolated the power line angle. Maybe they did more than that and we don't have the data. But pulling the number out of the air would match other clues.
I accept the AI evidence is not watertight....I always have.
I have no insight into air accident investigation in the early 1960's, would they really have just plucked the 70 degree figure out of thin air? (based on what they think happened). Surely they must have some factual basis for that (cut power lines).
Otherwise it shows extreme sloppy practice that has no place in accident investigation.
I have no insight into air accident investigation in the early 1960's, would they really have just plucked the 70 degree figure out of thin air? (based on what they think happened). Surely they must have some factual basis for that (cut power lines).
Otherwise it shows extreme sloppy practice that has no place in accident investigation.
No entity would propose findings that cannot be shown. This is the reason I recommended the FOIA. Every statement made must show a credible methodology, to accepted standards. If all is left is the final report, the CAB looks beyond foolish, bordering fraudulent.
Destruction of public records, no matter how innocent, can be charged as a felony.
AI? My guess is that CAB made some finding based on the gyro instrument “tumbling”, and that somehow, this tumbling produced artifacts of needle/bezel, that could be seen as genuine, and of value....and survived the violent crash of the cockpit four hundred feet after the tracks ate the wingtip...
Otherwise, it is a blatant error, made up out of whole cloth....
Last edited by Concours77; 1st Jan 2018 at 00:03.
I've said that it felt like the Lockheed engineers thought the CAB investigators were a bunch of fools. One basis for that is that Lockheed drew a line on the map showing what they considered the only possible flight path, and the CAB guys added a huge sweeping possibility space to that. The CAB space includes an area where the plane would have to get into a LEFT bank to get to the impact site.
Discovering a letter from Don Nyrop (NWA pres) saying they were highly skeptical of the CAB report and pointed out 22 errors is another and unexpected piece of evidence.
Going public on the day of the crash with the scenario, which then was not revised for the remainder of the investigation, is another.
I have little trouble imagining they thought up the crash scenario and just interpolated the power line angle. Maybe they did more than that and we don't have the data. But pulling the number out of the air would match other clues.
Discovering a letter from Don Nyrop (NWA pres) saying they were highly skeptical of the CAB report and pointed out 22 errors is another and unexpected piece of evidence.
Going public on the day of the crash with the scenario, which then was not revised for the remainder of the investigation, is another.
I have little trouble imagining they thought up the crash scenario and just interpolated the power line angle. Maybe they did more than that and we don't have the data. But pulling the number out of the air would match other clues.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks very much for your reply. Only one minor quibble:
You misquote me - I stated that no one asserted it slid inverted. Everyone seems in agreement it at least began its slide tail first and right side up, but something happened near the end of the slide or breakup sequence to leave the tail inverted.
So, I'm going to go ahead and ask the totally dumb non-pilot question (pilots and aviation experts, feel free to laugh):
Why do you keep saying the wings inverted too? Looking at the photos, it appears only a piece of the tail section is broken away and inverted. Why couldn't that piece alone have flipped?
After all, John Wurbia, one of the two Illinois state troopers who witnessed the crash from a nearby road intersection, and who headed for the wreckage immediately, is quoted as follows:
Anyway, my question is: could the post-crash explosion Wurbia saw have flipped the tail section? It was severe enough to send pieces of wreckage flying about the length of a football field according to his statement. And the piece that's inverted doesn't appear still to be 60 feet long (looking at the photo with the ladder for scale). Nor does the flipped bit seem to be any longer connected to wings or anything else.
Would an explosion of that magnitude have been enough to break away and/or flip the piece that is inverted?
Perfectly OK with being corrected or mocked if that's a ridiculous question.
But the CAB DID assert that it slid tail first.
So, I'm going to go ahead and ask the totally dumb non-pilot question (pilots and aviation experts, feel free to laugh):
Why do you keep saying the wings inverted too? Looking at the photos, it appears only a piece of the tail section is broken away and inverted. Why couldn't that piece alone have flipped?
After all, John Wurbia, one of the two Illinois state troopers who witnessed the crash from a nearby road intersection, and who headed for the wreckage immediately, is quoted as follows:
"I went out into the field and I saw about six bodies but there was no sign of life. Then I headed for a piece of tail section which was about 60 feet long. When I got within about 100 yards of it, it blew up and pieces of wreckage flew around me."
Wurbia said bodies near the point of first impact were not badly mutilated or burned. Bodies near the tail section were badly mutilated and charred
I apologize for including the grim stuff, but I wanted to be complete. Also, I'd note when Wurbia refers to "point of first impact" he probably means the point of second impact, where the aircraft began its slide.Wurbia said bodies near the point of first impact were not badly mutilated or burned. Bodies near the tail section were badly mutilated and charred
Anyway, my question is: could the post-crash explosion Wurbia saw have flipped the tail section? It was severe enough to send pieces of wreckage flying about the length of a football field according to his statement. And the piece that's inverted doesn't appear still to be 60 feet long (looking at the photo with the ladder for scale). Nor does the flipped bit seem to be any longer connected to wings or anything else.
Would an explosion of that magnitude have been enough to break away and/or flip the piece that is inverted?
Perfectly OK with being corrected or mocked if that's a ridiculous question.
Hi cordwainer.
It is very possible the explosion emanated from the tail section. I had thought that all the missing skin had burned away. An explosion is a better surmise.
I think the wing box and both nacelles are inverted, but you have me wondering. The flat, squarish section centered between motor mounts seems to be the ceiling of the hold, but I wonder if that is the floor of the cabin. Either way, it is part of the “wing box”, the strongest structure in the aircraft.
In any case, I think there is structure connecting tail to wing. If the wing spar held the wing together engine to engine, (#2-#3) it is more than reasonable to expect the keel beams kept the tail with the wing.
It is very possible the explosion emanated from the tail section. I had thought that all the missing skin had burned away. An explosion is a better surmise.
I think the wing box and both nacelles are inverted, but you have me wondering. The flat, squarish section centered between motor mounts seems to be the ceiling of the hold, but I wonder if that is the floor of the cabin. Either way, it is part of the “wing box”, the strongest structure in the aircraft.
In any case, I think there is structure connecting tail to wing. If the wing spar held the wing together engine to engine, (#2-#3) it is more than reasonable to expect the keel beams kept the tail with the wing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, I'm going to go ahead and ask the totally dumb non-pilot question (pilots and aviation experts, feel free to laugh):
Why do you keep saying the wings inverted too? Looking at the photos, it appears only a piece of the tail section is broken away and inverted. Why couldn't that piece alone have flipped?
Why do you keep saying the wings inverted too? Looking at the photos, it appears only a piece of the tail section is broken away and inverted. Why couldn't that piece alone have flipped?
The main gear has a housing between and behind the wheel pair, covering hydraulic lines. When the gear is retracted, the gear hinges up toward the front of the wing. This leaves the hydraulic housing facing the ground.
If you look at the wing remnants in the overhead view at https://ibb.co/kvz8N6 you can see the hydraulic housing looking up at the sky. This means the wings are inverted. And because the main gear swings up toward the leading edge, you can tell from the wreckage that the leading edge is to the east.
If the wings arrived on a backward-sliding plane that was upright, the wings must have flipped over to put the hydraulic housing pointing up. This could happen if the wings broke free of the aft fuselage and flipped over, but if that happened the leading edge would be pointing west. If the wings arrived on a backward-sliding plane that was inverted, the wings would look like they do now. But the vertical stabilizer would be toast, and instead it's nearly intact. QED the plane was not sliding backward.
I made a cardboard cutout to help me envision this, because I was sure this couldn't be right. Take a ruler or something, put tape on one edge to call it the leading edge, mark one side to show where the gear is, and try it out. It'll make a believer of you.
Anyway, my question is: could the post-crash explosion Wurbia saw have flipped the tail section? It was severe enough to send pieces of wreckage flying about the length of a football field according to his statement. And the piece that's inverted doesn't appear still to be 60 feet long (looking at the photo with the ladder for scale). Nor does the flipped bit seem to be any longer connected to wings or anything else.
As for the grim stuff, I've lived with that for 55 years.
Perfectly OK with being corrected or mocked if that's a ridiculous question.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried these explanations too, to avoid saying the CAB made a mistake. The key evidence is in the main gear struts and how they retract. See the prior post. The wings are inverted.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've said that it felt like the Lockheed engineers thought the CAB investigators were a bunch of fools. One basis for that is that Lockheed drew a line on the map showing what they considered the only possible flight path, and the CAB guys added a huge sweeping possibility space to that. The CAB space includes an area where the plane would have to get into a LEFT bank to get to the impact site.
In other words, the chart shows the entire ground envelope provided by Lockheed, based on different data sets, even though they considered the "inner boundary" to be the only possible one. How on earth could the CAB have shown what was meant by the "inner boundary" without also showing the entire envelope from Lockheed's study? They didn't just willy-nilly add some "possibility space".
Discovering a letter from Don Nyrop (NWA pres) saying they were highly skeptical of the CAB report and pointed out 22 errors is another and unexpected piece of evidence.
I have little trouble imagining they thought up the crash scenario and just interpolated the power line angle. Maybe they did more than that and we don't have the data. But pulling the number out of the air would match other clues.
"...it felt like" and "imagining" are well beyond conjecture based on evidence, and right into pulling theories out of the air.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the wings arrived on a backward-sliding plane that was upright, the wings must have flipped over to put the hydraulic housing pointing up. This could happen if the wings broke free of the aft fuselage and flipped over, but if that happened the leading edge would be pointing west. If the wings arrived on a backward-sliding plane that was inverted, the wings would look like they do now. But the vertical stabilizer would be toast, and instead it's nearly intact. QED the plane was not sliding backward.
So am I understanding correctly that the plane would have had to spin around and head forward briefly in order to flip into its final orientation? If so, isn't this quite possible given the marshy ground (possible hydroplaning allowing it to spin around more easily), plus the multiple explosions noted by witnesses prior to the later tail explosion?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other words, the chart shows the entire ground envelope provided by Lockheed, based on different data sets, even though they considered the "inner boundary" to be the only possible one. How on earth could the CAB have shown what was meant by the "inner boundary" without also showing the entire envelope from Lockheed's study? They didn't just willy-nilly add some "possibility space".
Well, Northwest was being sued by passengers, or facing paying out judgments, so it would be in their best interests to try to shake the CAB's findings of negligence.
"...it felt like" and "imagining" are well beyond conjecture based on evidence, and right into pulling theories out of the air.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously? You actually can write with a straight face,
when the report says explicitly, "Lockheed Aircraft Corporation...provided a study of the flightpath based both on L-188 performance data and information disclosed during the investigation. Their study encompassed a ground envelope of reported flightpaths..."
That's flightpaths plural.
In other words the report states flat out that Lockheed provided an analysis that considered more than one flight path, so they obviously didn't provide the inner boundary only. And again, there can be no inner boundary without something to be the inner boundary OF.
If you've gotten to the point that absolutely clear statements don't count as "evidence" in your mind simply because they're in the CAB report, then objectivity and analysis both have now gone completely out the window.
We have no evidence that Lockheed provided anything but the inner boundary.
That's flightpaths plural.
In other words the report states flat out that Lockheed provided an analysis that considered more than one flight path, so they obviously didn't provide the inner boundary only. And again, there can be no inner boundary without something to be the inner boundary OF.
If you've gotten to the point that absolutely clear statements don't count as "evidence" in your mind simply because they're in the CAB report, then objectivity and analysis both have now gone completely out the window.