![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
-5- Examination of the runway from the point of first touchdown and subsequent tire tracks was not made until after the Board's investigator arrived at Burlington. Although markings were not very discernible, a local airport engineer who observed the aircraft landing mad some calculations, and subsequently prepared a sketch for the Board. This sketch shows that the point of assumed touchdown was 1,875 feet from the approach end of the runway, leaving 1,725 feet for the landing, and that the aircraft was airborne only 175 feet from the end of the runway on the attempted go-around. The distance from the last assumed discernible track of the right wheel to where the aircraft came to rest was 740 feet. Other witnesses who saw the aircraft land corroborate substantially the observations made by the airport engineer. Both airport traffic controllers stationed in the tower stated the approach appeared to be high and the glide appeared to be fast, and that the touchdown was approximately half way down the runway. Analysis The investigation of this accident shows that Flight 3 elected to land on Runway 1, although the tower had suggested using the 5,000-foot Runway 33 due to the direction from which it was approaching the airport. Weather conditions were improving as the flight approached from the northwest, and at 1142 the ceiling and visibility were reported as 1,000 feet and 2 miles, which was above the approved minimums (600-1), and since the surface wind was westerly, variable, 5 mph, it would appear that a routine approach and landing could have been made on either runway. The captain stated that he had the airport in sight at all times and that the visibility did not prevent a normal circle pattern and final approach to the runway. There was testimony presented at the hearing that because of the terrain