Portal:Civil Aeronautics Board

Summary

Portal:Civil Aeronautics Board Aviation Accident Report: Capital Airlines Flight 75 (1959)

The Board has therefore advocated every practical assistance to pilots transporting the public. The Board believes that aircraft radar has proved to be such an assistance, particularly in modern high-performance aircraft. While it is impossible to predict precisely the action which would have been taken by the captain had the airborne radar been operable, there is evidence to indicate the likelihood that the area of turbulence could have been avoided through the use of airborne radar.
Source: Wikisource

Portal:Civil Aeronautics Board Aviation Accident Report: Capital Airlines Flight 75 (1959)

With respect to providing an en route flight weather information, one dispatcher said, "If the trip is operating in a scattered thunderstorm condition, the likelihood of any extended period in solid cloud is almost negligible. If he is operating where you would expect solid IFR conditions, it is a condition that requires all of the information he can get." It was stated that because many Capital aircraft are not radar equipped there was no distinction in the information furnished the en route flight based on this equipment.
Source: Wikisource

Portal:Civil Aeronautics Board Aviation Accident Report: Capital Airlines Flight 75 (1959)

The high indicated airspeed which the Board believes existed at breakup is suggested by several singular factors which, in their cumulative value and with the overall patterns of evidence, make the existence of excessive speed nearly irrefutable.
An important consideration is that unless an airspeed in excess of cruising was present the strength of the Viscount is such that forces causing the horizontal stabilizer failures which occurred cannot be developed. Below cruising speed the horizontal tailplanes will stall at loadings less than those necessary to cause failure.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature