Page:CAB Accident Report, Pennsylvania Central Airlines Flight 19.pdf/56

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.

- 54 -

encountered any malfunctioning of the engines or engine failure, he probably would have followed the usual procedure and returned to Washington. Had one engine failed, the flight could have been maintained over an extended period of time operating on the remaining engine, particularly since the engines were equipped with full-feathering propellers. Had both engines failed, there are numerous farms between Washington and the scene of the accident on which an emergency landing could have been effected. Weather conditions in the Washington area were favorable through the afternoon of August 31 and there is no evidence of a weather condition which would have prevented an emergency landing along the route up to within three miles of the scene of the accident at most. Had any mechanical difficulties arisen prior to the time Trip 19 got into serious difficulties, Captain Scroggins would undoubtedly have informed Pennsylvania-Central Airlines in Washington to that effect by radio. If he had experience mechanical trouble on entering the storm, he would have turned back out of it.

The remains of the control system were examined to determine whether a mechanical jamming of the controls might have caused the accident. While all of the control surfaces were located, it was impossible to discover, due to the condition of the wreckage, whether or not a mechanical jamming had occurred. However, no reason appears for concluding it had occurred.

Structural Failure

Consideration was also given to a possible structural failure during flight. In this respect the investigation was made difficult by the condition of the wreckage. However, all major component parts of the airplane were found forward of the point of impact. An examination of all pieces of the wreckage recovered revealed no evidence of any failure, displacement,