- 17 -
to the right of the "on course" signal.
As previously indicated, there is some conflict in the testimony of the witnesses as to the exact conduct of the flight immediately prior to impact. It seems clear, however, that when the airplane arrived in the immediate vicinity of the village of Lawrence Station, Ontario, it deviated from its normal course of flight.
As formerly described, the weather at this point, while not completely clear, afforded ample visibility for safe flight under ordinary operating conditions, and would therefore not appear to have been a substantial factor contributing to the cause of this deviation. No indication of ice on the surfaces of the airplane was observed by persons who arrived at the scene of the crash a few minutes after it occurred. Although this fact alone might not be sufficient to eliminate the possibility of ice, because of the intense heat of the fire which occurred immediately after impact, the fact that no ice was encountered by two flights which had been made over the same route a short time preceding the crash supports the conclusion that no ice was accumulated on the surfaces of the airplane involved in the accident.
The evidence discloses that no other aircraft was in the vicinity of the accident near the time when it occurred. Canadian Government Authorities and representatives of the United States Civil Aeronautics Administration at Buffalo and Detroit reported to this effect, and there were no records of customs clearances along the Canada-United States border at any neighboring points near the time or the accident.
From all the accounts of the witnesses who saw and heard the airplane in flight immediately before the accident, it appears that the airplane was at least partly out of control during its descent. The testimony indicates that the flight path of the airplane from the time it was observed near St. Thomas until the time of the accident was confined to a roughly circular area approximately one and one-half miles in diameter. There is a conflict of testimony as to whether the airplane circled to the right or to the left upon reaching this area. Although it is possible that the airplane could have been making figure-eight turns, thus indicating to some witnesses that the turns were to the right and to others that they were to the left a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the airplane was turning steadily to the right. The evidence is also conflicting as to the number of turns which were made before the crash, varying from two to four, and as to the angle at which the airplane made contact with the ground, varying from 45 degrees to 90 degrees. It seems evident from the testimony that the airplane made at least two and perhaps three or four complete circuits on a progressively diminishing radius, apparently banked normally for the radius and speed, alternately losing altitude and regaining it in part, and that it struck the ground at an angle of approximately 70 degrees.
Impressions of witnesses with respect to the flight path of an airplane, based upon visual observation, may easily be erroneous as a result of parallax deception. In the present case, however, the gyrations of the airplane during its descent were quite similarly described by several witnesses whose observations were made from different positions with corresponding differences in directions of view. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the flight path actually executed by the airplane was substantially as previously described.
The manner in which the descent was begun cannot be definitely established. It seems apparent from a consideration of the flight path that, at least during the first part of the descent, the airplane was not in a spin. The evidence indicates that at the time the flight path last appeared to level out before the airplane struck the ground, the airplane probably
