- 9 -
depend upon the rapidity with which the controls were moved and the speed and exact characteristics of the airplane, but it would appear impossible under any conditions for the tail to rise more than 10 or 15 feet above the line of the original flight path as the result of nosing down. The probable amount of rise of the tail surface would be considerably less than that. For the Bomber to have been in such close proximity to the Airliner that a deviation of the tail of the Airliner of 10 or 15 feet from its path would have caused a collision, would in itself have been inexcusable.
The testimony of Private West cannot be considered reliable. He was observing airplane that were flying at an altitude of 6,000 feet above an area on the ground approximately three miles distant from the tennis court on which he was standing. It is doubtful whether one experienced in the observation of aircraft in flight would have been able, under the circumstances, to determine in such detail the relative position and course of the two planes in question; and Private West was not an experienced observer of aircraft in flight. He was a stranger to aviation except two flights which he had taken as a passenger. Moreover, his testimony is inconsistent with that of the other witnesses. Mrs. Margaret Caldwell, who witnessed the accident from approximately the same point, and Raymond W. Martin, who as previously stated, had served as an airplane spotter, saw the collision from a closer point of observation. Both testified that just before the impact the Bomber was maneuvering above and behind the Airliner and the latter, after the impact, fell off to the left, then turned or spun slowly several times until it disappeared beyond obstructions to their view. Private West's testimony is also inconsistent with that of the Bomber
