The crash of the Constellation. The catastrophe of January 11, 1963

 

"It is indeed a blind’s man destiny, because the apparatus, which accomplished a training flight at low altitude, could have passed 100m higher. And these boys whose trade was to save human lives could have returned healthy and safely to their base at Toulouse. Around 20 hours, a first rescue party went down again and the headlights of the vehicles tracing in the fog immense pencils of light discovered the remains, abruptly on the top of an even wilder peak than the others, in sight of the phantasmagorical ruins of the castle of Périllos, abandoned for centuries like the small village to the east”, one could read in the columns of the newspaper L’INDEPENDENT n° 10 of January 11, 1963.

Horror

That day, on the southern sector of Périllos an appalling air crash occurred. A Constellation had just struck the mountain under conditions that have never been clearly defined… navigational error, variations in the weather condition, irreversible engine trouble? The fact is that the plane went to the ground on the territory of Périllos: a Constellation of the E.A.R.S. (Air Squadron of Research and Rescue) coming from the air base of Toulouse Francazal had crashed.
Obviously such an accident leaves us all in total consternation. But this should not prevent us from trying to delve deeper into the causes and circumstances of the incident. The crash was widely reported in the local newspapers, who tried to provide background to an incident in which many lives were lost and which continues to resonate across the ripples of time. As late as 2004, colleagues of the men who died in the crash attended the Pentecost mass in Perillos, more than forty years after the incident.

An exceptional flying squadron

The first observation to make is that this apparatus was attached to a squadron specialized for research and rescue at sea. A certain number of elements are thus necessary for those kinds of mission:
- An aircraft suitable and equipped for these particularly difficult missions. The Constellation is a most reliable apparatus for its time and corresponds in all points to the requirements. It is able to fly with a remarkable stability under delicate atmospheric conditions (wind and rain, including violent storms). Its four engines Wright Cyclone R-3350 of 2200 CH give it exceptional thrust. It is able to continue its flight with only two engines out of four in the event of a serious incident. It should be added that this apparatus was one of most reliable of its category and had few accidents in its flight record.
Some characteristics:
Its name: Lockheed L-049 Constellation.
Its coding: civil: DC6 and military: DC7 C-121a and Vc 121A (according to the number of windows, their position and its paintings).
Four radial engines Wright R-3350 Cyclone of 2200 CH.
Cruising speed at optimal altitude: 504 km/h.
Practical altitude: 7 700 m.
Weight: empty: 17 868 kg; maximum in load: 39 122 kg.
Passengers: maximum 81.
It was thus a transport aircraft for civil use. The American army used it for the transport of men for long distances. The French Army practically did not use it… except for missions of rescue and location.

Undeniable military qualities

- The plane was therefore used by the Air Force and had a perfect maintenance track record. The navigation of a military machine for this kind of mission, sometimes under unfavourable conditions weather, is always done under constant radar surveillance. The radio operator has several means of communication, including a long distance phone. To this, we need to add that at the time of the catastrophe the military aerial covers and distresses profited from the NATO bases, whose material was operational 24/7 and which was equipped with the last instruments to pinpoint locations and guide flights back to safety. Finally, the planes were equipped with a system that allowed them to fly in zero visibility, which was technology that was not commonly installed at that time.

- It is also necessary to take into account the flight crew of the air squadrons attached to the help and research at sea. These were men constantly involved with this type of mission; they knew the emergency procedures, those of distress and how to perform coastal aerial navigation. The crew was made up of at least five senior technicians.

The crash according to the media… and our remarks

Now let us revisit the conditions in which the accident occurred, as reported in the media, since we do not have the military reports.
- There does not seem to be question of irreversible engine trouble. One can thus admit a total reliability of the instruments, apparatus and an optimum output of the engine.
- the ‘crash' occurred on January 11 towards 11h when the apparatus was carrying out, apparently, a training flight. Under these conditions, the crew puts itself in a simulation. However, it does not push the machine to the maximum of its possibilities as in a real rescue, when it takes significant risks.
- flying conditions: misty weather involved a bad estimate of altitudes. It is this reason which would be retained to explain why the pilot did not appreciate his altitude of 300 meters nor not be able to ascend! A problem does arise: the journalist explains that the apparatus "had just flown over SAINT LAURENT of the salt marsh and described a circle towards the sea". If a geographical chart is consulted, one can plot the path of a plane that is heading towards the sea… the problem is that it came from the sea, and was heading in the direction of Perillos.
Another version affirms that the apparatus came from Toulouse and was heading towards the sea. Here we have another inconsistency: if it came from the west, the Constellation would have needed to be at a sufficient altitude as otherwise it would have struck many other hills before crashing into the site where it crashed… It would thus have suddenly descended, to be crushed on the top of a mountain, which excludes pilot error.
This is a major problem: the location of the site of impact suggests it came from the direction of the sea, and that it was unable to ascend the 100 metres it needed to clear the mountain. But almost immediately after this hill rises the Montaillou de Perilhou; even at 600 metres, the plane would not have cleared that mountain. In short, the circumstances of the crash, as explained by the media, are illogical.

The indisputable capacities of a military air crew

- Let us return to the Constellation, whose mission is the help and rescue at sea. If, as explains the journalist, this aircraft must fly at low altitude under unfavourable conditions weather… it is inevitably equipped with altimeters of a precision allowing the crew to know how high above the ground they are flying! They would thus have known their altitude when the plane crashed. In all cases, the Constellation, in 1963, was equipped with instruments of precise altitude measurement. This means that the pilot and his co-pilot were able to read this kind of instrument, lit even in darkness, and could not let their plane go at this altitude without knowing that they were going to hit the ground (the navigator has precise topographical charts and a flight plan that is impossible to circumvent)! It is difficult to admit that human error occurred at the same moment by two men knowing the delicacy of this operation! Could one suppose a breakdown of the altimeter? This is also impossible since the orders and instruments are independently doubled for the two pilots… whereas triplets exist for certain instruments sensitive to magnetic or different variations. At most, one can just consider the bad luck of an instantaneous maladjustment of all the instruments of flight… at this moment and this place! That would be rather curious.

A forgotten detail ?

- One detail seems to have escaped the media: a specific exercise, or a regular military mission, is always under radar coverage and constant radio contact. Even if the instruments had suddenly gone out of order, navigation control would have indicated a loss of significant altitude (300m) and flash up all the danger signs. Moreover, the altitude modification beacon would have started and the radio operator’s official statements would have been transmitted… and understood by all the crew, who undoubtedly would very quickly have changed the course or altitude? But in this incident, nothing of the kind seems to have occurred and one notices an astonishing lack of information on the last radio connections and radar coverage. Let us once again specify that there was a NATO base nearby and that inevitably, this Constellation was flying under the area covered by the base. Should it be admitted that ALL the instruments of the air and terrestrial sector, including NATO, were distorted or stopped functioning at the moment when this Constellation crashed? Is this really reasonable?

A flying laboratory weighing 19 tons

- If the pilot, and the radars, were not aware that the apparatus was going to crash against the mountain, nobody on board was aware of their fate. The machine struck the ground and nobody must have had the time to realise it… even if the Constellation rebounded, as the newspapers claim. But what of the fact that this machine was a “flying laboratory”? What was its purpose? Was it intended for research at sea? If so, why did it not register anything in the seconds and minutes leading up to the crash?
We note that the machine can carry up to 19 tons, which means it would indeed be able to carry with it a vast laboratory.

The removable list of the passengers

- There is still the problem of the number of bodies recovered after the accident. One initially announced ten victims, then there were eleven and finally one finds a twelfth corpse, the following day, in the fuselage of the plane. That the military are meticulous is known, so one is astonished by this increasing head count, without the military authority specifying that there were twelve people on board… including one civilian! One saw this hesitant and macabre accountancy in the crash of January 22, 1971, of the North 262 that carried the seven biggest brains of our civil and military nuclear research. Curiously, there was a problem with the number of the victims too… as well as a corpse that could not be identified.

The bad luck of the month of January

- Let us stay for a moment with this accident close to the Mézenc mountain. This North 262 carried eighteen passengers in total, including seven top scientists. There thus were eleven members of crew, whereas for this kind of plane, one needs only five. There would have been six people that were neither nuclear physicists, nor flight crew … like the six ‘observers' of the Constellation crashing in Périllos.
- As to the passengers of the Lockheed Constellation, one finds the same lists on the stele (recently installed on the place of the impact, which curiously is not at the top of the hill as the report claims), in the church of Périllos and in the newspaper articles: three pilots (indeed!), a navigator (who has the third altimeter), a mechanic, radio operator, another radio-mechanic, a civil mechanic with the CGTM and… six observers! Definitely… the beginning of January is hardly favourable for the overflight of certain zones!

Discrete observers

If the Constellation was on a training flight, these six men were inevitably part of the exercise. Normally, they could be rescuers at sea (rescue-plungers, parachutists, etc.)… but “observers” have an undefined mission in such circumstances. They could be military observers, in which case they do nothing more than “observe” – look – and report on what they had seen. So what were they observing on this training mission and did it need six people to observe it? Would it not cramp “the style” of the rescuers, going through their simulated rescue?
Lastly, we will add that there are still some local witnesses (vine growers) who involuntarily witnessed the catastrophe. What they tell… is not completely the reflection of what one could read at this time. Undoubtedly the result of a failing memory? Nevertheless, what they saw is different from what the reports state. These eyewitnesses report that the plane was circling over Perillos, and all of a sudden, dropped to the ground; a straight vertical dropped, as if a magnet attracted it to the ground. Bizarre, is it not?

The valley of Death of Périllos

What to think of this air tragedy? What to make of these strange inconsistencies in the media and the reports of the eyewitnesses? It is also a little too often forgotten that other planes crashed in this sector… But one forgets so many things on the grounds of Périllos… such as: it is claimed that a place, on these grounds, is called “the Valley of Death” since this abominable crash … could it have a bond with… the valley of the same name, nearby? And if so, who authorised such a curious analogy? It is definitely confusing to label two valleys, so close to each other, with the same name!
Will we, one day, know what these six observers were doing and what the “flying laboratory” really was for? What were the true reasons and circumstances of this accident, which is difficult to attribute to human or mechanical error? Alternatively, what force could have interfered, which would neutralise all flight and detection instruments? That may perhaps answer two problems at the same time: how the crash happened and what they were “observing”.

We end with the newspaper cuttings reporting on this catastrophe.

André Douzet

next>>