Page:CAB Accident Report, TWA Flight 6.pdf/26

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

- 21 -

The first tree struck by the airplane as it was circling the field in order to land on No. 6 runway extended three feet into a 20 to 1 glide path to one of the other runways, No. 4. Since there does not appear to be any excusable reason for Pilot Scott's circling the field toward runway No. 6 at such a low altitude, the failure to place an obstruction light on this tree cannot be held to be a cause of the accident. The accident, however, raises the question whether a dangerous obstruction did, at the time, exist for any plan which might have been using No. 4 runway.

The Civil Aeronautics Authority in its report[1] to Congress dated March 23, 1939, in recommending Federal participation in the development


  1. "Control of the surroundings is one of the major necessities of sound airport development, yet it seems to have been one of the least regarded of matters. Most airports are left with no protection whatever for their approaches.

    "About half of the States here adopted laws giving cities or counties the right to purchase land and if necessary to acquire it by condemnation for airport purposes, either for original establishment or for later improvement and enlargement, and also to use either negotiations or condemnation in requiring rights in the air space surrounding the airport as an assurance against its invasion by obstructions. The procedure of requiring air rights has, however, been little used. . .

    "There is the alternative of zoning, which is the simplest solution, avoiding separate dealings with a multitude of property holders, and therefore the most satisfactory way that can be adopted, but little has been done with that. Only nine States, all of them east of the Mississippi have airport zoning status of any kind; through to be sure some others appear able to act under a general power extending to all public purposes. . .

    "This is a chapter of factual record, and no argument is interposed here on the broad question of zoning policy and the desirability of the extension of zoning to new objects; but it is part of the essential fact of the present status of the American airport system that the possibility of safe and efficient use of an airport is entirely dependent on its surroundings, and that for communities to have so far adopted any measures to protect airports against the erection of high neighboring structures that would seriously impair their value." (House Document No. 245, 76th Congress, 1st Session.)