Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:41:40 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Sextant Navigation Someone told me I should pick up a copy of the American Practical Navigator by Bowditch to find out about sextant navigation. So thanks to the Internet I scored a 1938 edition. Oh boy. This sucker is about 800 pages of which two-thirds are data tables. I haven't seen this many stat tables since my college copy of Standard Mathematical Tables. Guess I'll stick with GPS. My question to all the Forum navigator experts is whether this book was considered the bible in its field, or whether there are other key references. Also, I know that Weems and his school was a leader in air nav work, but was he the only one or were there others of equal renown at the time? And is there a bible of air nav knowledge which navigators like Noonan would have used? Thanks. blue skies, -jerry ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:41:47 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Radio Log In response to Ric's questions of 1-29-99 re interpretation of Itasca's log entries: At 0614 local time: WANTS BEARING ON 3105 KCS // ON HOUR // WILL WHISTLE IN MIC ABOUT 200 MILES OUT // APPX // WHISTLING // NW She is obviously asking Howland or Itasca to take a bearing on HER signal, on 3105. She is whistling into the microphone in order to give the radio operator at the DF receiver on Howland a signal which is easily recognizable, should he have to tune around to find her. At 0645 she obviously asks for another bearing on her signal, from Howland or Itasca. This again appears to be on 3105 KHz. At 0758 local time: KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE ARE (LISTENING) BUT CANNOT HEAR U GA ON 7500 WID A LONG COUNT EITHER NW OR ON THE SKD TIME ON HALF HOUR Hmmmm.... this presents the crucial question. "Cannot hear you..." AE asks Itasca to transmit on 7500 KHz, with a long count. Can she not hear them on 3105? (Probably. At least this is one way to account for the request... maybe the skip distance has gotten long, so that she is now in a "dead zone" for 3105 between her and Itasca. (And yes, it is possible that in such a situation she could not hear them, but they could indeed hear her.) But, why ask for them to transmit on a frequency she cannot reply on? I don't know.) Why the "long count"? One answer: she needs them to transmit something she can easily recognize, so she can tune her communication receiver to that frequency and be sure she has their signal. This seems the simplest, most easily explainable answer based upon what we think we know for sure. Why 7500? I can't answer that. Seems to me that if she was going to ask for a different frequency, she might have asked for 6210 because she could talk and hear on the same one.... Was she asking them for a signal upon which she could take a bearing? Good question. If we take the context of the 0800 message: KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE RECD UR SIGS BUT UNABLE TO GET A MINIMUM PSE TAKE BEARING ON US AND ANS 3105 WIL VOICE / NRUI DE KHAQQ LNG DASHES and ASSUME (careful!) that this means AE received Itasca's signals ON 7500, and was "unable to get a minimum", it sure seems like that may have been it. HOWEVER: Was Itasca ALSO transmitting ANYTHING on a frequency between 200 and 1500 KHz, in this time period? Did they have any kind of beacon operating? Did they have an operator working a low frequency transmitter to provide some kind of homing signal? Does anything in Itasca's logs point to this? If so, then the answer must be that she couldn't hear the "beacon." If not, well... I do not know the answer. I know what many may say it sounds like, looks like, smells like, tastes like, and feels like... That she may have been trying to take a bearing, aboard the aircraft, on a 7500-KHz signal.... but, in truth, that may not be what it IS. At this point I am not prepared to say that this is what it is. Again, given the state of the art in 1937, I just do not think she had any such equipment... but we may find out something more which will add better light on this. 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:41:53 EST From: DustyMiss Subject: Interesting item on eBay web site item#60465365 This is for sale on ebay along with other sextants, you may wish to log on to ebay and check out the other ones, or I can send them to you if you think seeing photos of other sextants would help - Cheerio - Dusty Title of item: Nautical,Brass Sextant,Wood Box,Nice,No Resv. Seller: boat4sale@aol.com Starts: 01/25/99 18:23:09 PST Ends: 02/01/99 18:23:09 PST Price: Currently $137.50 To bid the item, go to: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw- cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=60465365 Item Description: Nautical,Brass Sextant,Wood Box,Nice,No Resv. Nice old (?) sextant. Not sure how old it is. Looks Very nice.With original wood box. Thanks NO RESERVE !!! Buyer to pay shipping/handling and insurance if desired. Please allow time for personal check to clear or send m.o. for quick shipping. Please check out the other auctions we currently have running on eBay. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:09:13 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Radio Log According to Itasca's radio logs, they were sending 7500 and 3105 at the same time between 0758 and 0800 local time. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:13:59 EST From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Radio Log One quick thought on AE's radio equipment, pertaining to the "why 7500?" question: Although I don't remember the models and specs of her equipment, if the radio was tunable rather than crystal controlled, the 7500 spot on the dial may simply have been a spot that was visually easy for a not-real-great radio operator to identify, and at the same time be certain of which frequency that they were operating on, for certainty of reception. Seeing a photo of that model of rig face forward may answer some questions from a radio operator's point of view. Are any such photos readily available? Just curious, Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:11:20 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Sextant Navigation American Practical Navigator is the bible for navigation. I also have a 1938 edition, and it is an excellent source for how to navigate from basic principles, along with time zone info, location of islands, etc. Outstanding source material! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:34:18 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Model prototype in The long-awaited prototype master for our Electra models arrived today. Over the next couple of days we'll be examining it closely and comparing it to the specs (as published on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/airplane.html). We'll also mount photos of the prototype on the website along with our critique for the edification of those who have ordered models, and the encouragement of those who are considering placing an order. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:39:51 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Research CDs in The CDs of the Amelia Earhart Research Library, Volume 1, have arrived and will be shipped out this week to all who have ordered them. For a description of this valuable rersearch tool see http://www.tighar.org/Projects/CDad.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 19:42:40 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Certificates sent Everyone who contributed to the Reynolds Challenge funding drive should have received their certificate by this time. If you're a Commodore, Mate, Bosun, Crew, or Deckhand and didn't get a certificate please let me know. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:26:37 EST From: Daryll Bollinger Subject: PAA FROs I received a couple of e-mail replies from FROs, Flight Radio Operators, from the old Pan Am Clipper days about this HF/DF question that we have discussed lately. I thought I would share them with the Forum. Mr Peacock I believe has me confused with Mr. Tim Coyle. Daryll ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Subject: Clipper DFing I seem to remember having some e-mail with you previously, but I cannot find it. Glad to hear from you. Seems to me you were writing a book on history of navigation. I sent a message to someone who had some inquiries on the same general line, and those comments are still posted on the PAA website, about halfway down the message list "RE: Early Pan Am Flight Navigators". Date of comments 11/23/98 Dick Peacock. That will answer most of any questions I am able to field. Basically, our DF activities involved use of AM Broadcast band Stations when near coastlines and cities, but I do not remember utilizing BC stations other than those in the US. We also took bearings on island communications stations like VRT, Bermuda, and CTH, Horta, Azores, on 1638 kc, and LF, possibly 333 or 375 kc. I am a bit rusty about the exact LF used by these stations, but I do remember that we transmitted from the Clipper on 333 and 1638, with a trailing-wire antenna, so they could take bearing on us. We had instrument let-down procedures using manual DF for all the operating bases, but I never did have any occasion to use them except in training flights near LaGuardia. I do not remember the frequencies used except for those mentioned above. About your second question regarding HF/DF from the aircraft. My memory is rusty here also, but I do remember we kept color-coded maps showing our DF bearings or fixes, if lucky, during the long night flights between Bermuda and Azores. My dim recollection is that we did this on 1638 and 3285, but I am really sorry I can't say for sure. I know we used 5165 and 6563 for comms, also, but I don't think the DFs would work that high. There are a couple of other ex PAA FROs who are on E-mail, and I suggest you try them for better info. They had more flying time than I did, and their memories should be of more help to you. Check with Bob Norloff, W4GEX, at bobnor@*** and also try Ralph Conly W6VT at etconly@***. Good Luck Dick Peacock, W2GFF ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Subject: Re: PAA DF Dear Mr. Norloff, I found your name and e-mail address on the PAA website. I have a couple of brief questions I would like to ask you if I may. I am interested in the frequency ranges PAA used in their DF work. #1. Frequencies the Adcock stations used. #2. Frequencies the Clippers used on airborne DF from the aircraft. #3. Did you ever hear about any HF/DF high frequency direction finding being done from aircraft? I would like to thank you in advance for any response that you might have. Sincerely Daryll Bolinger Dear Mr. Bolinger, Thanks your e-mail. From my knowledge relating to DF work Re HF, only occasionally were adcock bearings received and this was on the mid-atlantic from stations in Bermuda and Horta. The frequencies used were generally in the 6 and 8 mhz. range. MF bearings were taken from the aircraft on ships at sea and ground stations including broadcast stations on a frequency range of 300 to 1600 khz. Daytime bearings were generally reliable but at night unless close to the station the sky and ground wave gave erratic bearings. I cant recall of hf/df work being done from the aircraft. Bob Norloff, ex panam FRO, 1940-1947. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:57:39 EST From: Tom King Subject: Harry Maude I thought I should share with the Forum the letter I just got from Harry Maude, founder of the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, who was responsible for the colonisation of Nikumaroro. I've corresponded with him sporadically over the years, and most recently had written him after reading some of the correspondence Ric and Kenton brought back from England. One of the wireless messages identified him as the one who conceived of a commemorative plaque to Gallagher on the island; I wanted him to know that we intend to replicate the plaque (we have the text) and replace it on Gallagher's monument next trip. "Dear Dr.King, Thank you for your letter of 20.1.98 which has arrived at a propitious time since, for a wonder I am able to acknowledge it. My wife and I, both over 90, are now living in the MountainView Hostel for the Aged and I doubt either of us lasting much longer, as we are both getting very frail. It was a pleasure being able to help you with your queries, and I wish you the best of good fortune producing something of permanent value out of them. Wishing you all the best, Yours ever Harry Maude If I can be as gracious as that at the end of my life I'll count myself fortunate indeed, Earhart or no Earhart. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 15:30:43 EST From: Blake Herling Subject: Dr. Mims This is my first posting, so if I do something terribly wrong just tell me it's time for the penguin on my telly to blow up & I'll get the point. What I'd like to ask is basically off topic as far as solving the AE/FN mystery, but I just have to ask. I was reading Dr. Mims' story in a back issue of Tighar Tracks vol. 11 #3 & am just curious if he was asked whether or not on return trips to Gardner (during his PBY time) he or any of his crew ever tried to get additional information from the settlers as to the exact location of the airplane wreckage they (the settlers)talked about & were obviously using parts from? Or if he or his crew(s) ever did any scrounging around the island looking for the wreckage themselves? I know from the article that they realized how far away Howland was & seemed to have dismissed Gardner as AE/FNs final resting place, but still as aviators you think they would have had a real curiosity as to the origin of the obviously aircraft related parts they had seen in use by the fishermen. In addition to realizing that the fisherman were using aircraft parts, they also seemed (from the article anyway) to realize that the parts were not from a large military type aircraft. Its somewhat maddening sitting in front of a computer screen well over half a century away from that time & place talking about AE & FN, Kanton engines, mysterious sailors with seemingly 10E wreckage photos, hf/df, adf, coconut crabs, sextant boxes, bones, radio logs, etc...etc...etc... When a few people in history were lucky enough to have had access to the island, its settlers & possibly to the 10E wreckage(or parts of it), but for whatever reasons let it slip through their fingers. I realize that Dr. Mims was part of the military & wasn't free to use the tax payer's PBY to do whatever he wanted, but from the article it appears that he made quite a few flights to resupply Gardner. A part of me wishes he'd of just taken a little time to poke around the island some. But then we would be sitting around with nothing to research or dream about. But its still a little maddening!!!...as is the Kanton engine!!! Like I said not really relative to solving the mystery, but thanks for letting me ramble. Blake ***************************************************************** From Ric Good questions. Mims and his navigator were definitely intrigued by the story. They knew that no U.S. aircraft were missing in the area. After all, they were the search and rescue guys. Upon their return to Canton they asked the British District Officer if any British planes were missing. He said no. Mims did no searching for the airplane. The islander who told him about it had not indicated that the airplane was still present somewhere on the island. He had only said that when the first settlers arrived there had been an airplane there. When asked where it was now, he just shrugged. Mims' visits lasted only a couple of hours, so there was little time for exploring. What I like best about the story is that it was not Dr. Mims himself who approached us with his recollections, but his adult daughter who had heard the story from the time she was a child. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 16:01:28 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: The scent of blood In a few days I'm going to post a draft of the first section of the new 8th edition of the project book on the website. It's a biographical sketch of our lady which purports to address only those aspects of her life which have a direct bearing on our attempts to solve the riddle of her disappearance. These are: Ethnic background and physical characteristics - useful in identifying human remains. Education and socio/political orientation - useful in speculation about her motivation and behavior. Aviation accomplishments and expertise - useful in speculation about her performance during the final flight. Even limiting it to these subjects, it's a lot of material. I'll put it on the website in such a way that you can only access it if you have the specific URL, which I will post here on the forum. Then I'd like you hyenas to rip it apart so I can fix it before it's published. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:06:17 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: The scent of blood Ric wrote: >I'll put it on the website in such a way that you can only access it if you >have the specific URL, which I will post here on the forum. Then I'd like you >hyenas to rip it apart so I can fix it before it's published. Hyena??!! Excuse me?? I'm a Tiger, and damn proud of it! But I'll be glad to rip apart anything you say, Ric. It seems to be good sport, nowadays. Hyena, indeed... (mumble, grumble) ;>) Tom #2179 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:25:43 EST From: Bill Carter Subject: Re: The scent of blood My wife says I'm a bear. **************************************************************** From Ric Okay, everybody gets to pick an animal. We only have 550 forum subscribers and there are 32,674 species to choose from (I made that up). So far we have tigers and bears. All we need is a lion and we can do the Wizard of Oz. My reference to hyenas was based upon the forum's propensity for high-pitched laughter, drooling, and devouring its victims alive while they writhe in agony. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:31:54 EST From: LIBLANC Subject: Re: The scent of blood How about Foghorn/Leghorn???? *************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, I see the resemblance. And I often feel like Henry Chickenhawk (ya gonna come along quiet or do I hafta muss ya up?). *************************************************************** From Russ Matthews I'll take the (smilin') mule. *************************************************************** From Ric You'll have to tell the forum that story some time. *************************************************************** From Jim Tierney Referring to the second paragraph of your picture/message---- I am circling/salivating/fantasizing over the opportunities that will open up to rewrite your manuscript/passages/sections of the Eighth Edition.... Jim Tierney--0821 **************************************************************** From Ric And I'll bet your eyes glow red in the dark. **************************************************************** From Mike Everette I'll take the lion. I played that role in a stage production in high school...! Mike E. #2194 **************************************************************** From Ric Okay, I'll say it. Lions and Tighars and bears - oh my! **************************************************************** From Clyde Miller Actually I believe recent studies have indicated that hyenas have been getting a bad rap and Lions have been getting all the glory. Hyenas are very social and more of a predator than Leo. They have been misrepresented as scavengers when in fact they are higher on the food chain than previously thought. Of course what would MGM do with a Hyenas laugh instead of the Lion's roar? Clyde **************************************************************** From Ric And so we end yet another set of highly intellectual and insightful postings to the esteemed Earhart Forum. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:48:10 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Chronometers To Tom King Thus far no information regarding Fred's chronometer(s) has been forthcoming. The only thing I've come across is contained in Fred's letter to Weems. In case you have not noted that, he writes, relative to Pan Am flights... "Time pieces carried were a Longines Civil Time chronometer and a Longines second-setting watch. The latter was set to correct G.C.T. at all times by checking with the chronometer. This watch was of the arm type, but the strap was removed, and the watch clips of the octant were adjusted to accomodate the beckets on each side of the watch. I prefer such arrangement to carrying the watch on the arm." About all this tells us is that Fred seemed to favor Longines timepieces. He had indicated earlier in the letter that the choices were his own and largely based on the fact that he had used them extensively and found them satisfactory. I also recall reading somewhere, probably one of the many Earhart books, hence not necessarily correct, that Fred carried his chronometer in his pocket at all times. That suggests something like a pocket-watch in size, but of quality and accuracy to qualify as a chronometer. Having written all that, it seems we know nothing about what chronometer(s) may have been carried on the 'round-the-world attempt, either on the aircraft or on Fred's person. ****************************************************************** From Ric For what it's worth, we have a good anecdote on this subject. Way back in 1988 we interviewed Francis "Fuzz" Furman who was the Martin Aircraft factory rep in Bandoeng, Java when AE and Fred spent a few days there in late June (the Royal Netherlands East Indies Air Force had a bunch of Martin B-10s). Fuzz spent quite a bit of time with Noonan both on and off duty. One thing that stuck in his memory was that Fred always carried his chronometer in his pocket and was obsessive about checking its accuracy at any opportunity. (Fuzz also said that he and Fred went out at night and that Fred never touched a drink, even though Fuzz was drinking.) When the Electra's navigation station was set up by Paul Mantz and Harry Manning prior to the first world flight attempt, three chronometers were supposedly shock-mounted in the navigator's table in the cabin. All that stuff was torn out during the repairs which followed the Luke Field crash and it appears unlikely that Noonan had it reinstalled. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:51:07 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Love to mother For new forum subscribers who may be wondering what this Love to Mother (often abbreviated to LTM) business is all about, here's the story: A few years ago, a woman named Patricia Morton was doing Earhart research at the National Archives and stumbled upon a telegram dating from 1945 which contained a whole list of messages to friends and relatives from internees at a recently-liberated camp in China. One was addressed to Mr. G.P. Putnam, 10042 Valley Spring Lane, North Hollywood, California The text reads: Following message received for you from Weihsien via American embassy, Chungking: Camp liberated; all well. Volumes to tell. Love to mother (*). The (*) is explained at the bottom of the page as meaning signature omitted. The State Department forwarded the message to Putnam via SpeedLetter (a type of quick-notice letter) on August 28, 1945. The letter was sent by Eldred D. Kuppinger, Assistant Chief, Special War Problems Division. The document has no stamp to indicate that it was ever classified, nor does it have a stamp indicating that it was ever declassified. Anyone who has ever obtained formerly classified documents at the National Archives knows that they are real careful about that. There appears to be no indication that the document was ever classified. That's hardly surprising given the explanation of what a SpeedLetter is, which appears in the upper right corner of the document; "This form of communication is used in the interest of speed and economy. If a reply is necessary, address the Department of State, attention of the Division mentioned below." In Putnam's reply he merely updated his address and asked to be notified if anything else was heard. Weihsien was not a prisoner of war camp. It was a Civilian Assembly Camp - an internment camp. According to a 1995 letter by one of the American soldiers who liberated Weihsien on August 17, 1945 there were no Japanese military personnel in charge of the camp. It was run by a Mr. Izu of the Japanese Consular Service. All internees were well documented. Amelia Earhart was not there. On the 18th a general inspection was made of the camp and twelve internees were hospitalized and selected for early departure due to poor health. They were evacuated by C-47 on the 28th, the date of the telegram and the SpeedLetter. Why was such a message sent to Putnam? Sadly, it was most likely a hoax. In the years following Amelia's disappearance GP was beset by dozens of false leads and scams. Some were financially motivated. Others were apparently just cruel jokes. Whether the Weihsien message was a joke or a mistake, it's quite clear that it was not from Amelia Earhart. Nonetheless, the letter is frequently held up by conspiracy theorists as evidence that Earhart was "captured" by the Japanese, held prisoner, and returned to the U.S. after the war. This telegram and the nonsense which has surrounded it in recent years has prompted those of us most involved in TIGHAR's Earhart research to adopt the "Love to mother" closing as a reminder to keep our objectivity and skepticism intact when evaluating any new evidence. Love to mother, Ric You can order your very own Love to Mother shirt and refrigerator magnet on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:15:16 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Chronometers I should probably explain to all that I asked about the chronometer because we have the brass housing from an instrument, probably a chronometer, from the village site on Niku. It's got a plaque identifying it as made by Negretti & Zambra, a British company dating back to the 19th century at least, whose descendant is still in business according to research done by Larry Crutsinger, Norfolk VA dealer in antique ship's clocks & chronometers (and new TIGHAR member? He expressed interest and I pointed him to the web site). The thing is doubtless from the Norwich City, but I just wondered..... It's way too big for Fred to have lugged around in his pocket -- roughly 5" in diameter, and almost 4" deep. Just didn't want to leave a stone (or hunk of brass) unturned. Tom King ***************************************************************** From Dave Kelly The anecdote about Fred Noonan could be applicable to most naviguessers of the day. DME groundspeed readouts were non-existent, GPS, INS, IMU, TACAN, LORAN and radar were also years away. The best navigators were those folks who spit shined their sextants, and fretted over the accuracy of chronometers. A bygone era I'm afraid, but a rich and exciting era of human skills and basic mathematical precision to guide the airplane from "A" all the way to "B". **************************************************************** From Ric There's a great Jimmy Stewart line from the opening scene in "Flight Of The Phoenix" where the grizzled old pilot, bemoaning the state of modern aviation, says to the copilot, "You know, Lou, it used to be that you felt like you had really accomplished something if you could just - - get there." **************************************************************** From John Clauss We have pictures of the Manning setup in a series taken by Al Bresnik. It shows AE and Manning sitting on the nav station looking out the starboard side window. What appears to be the chronometers are mounted on the edge of the station against the fuselage. LTM John Clauss #142 **************************************************************** From Ric That's right. There are two such photos. In what seems to be the earlier one, AE and Harry are sitting on the not-yet finished nav table. Three instruments are mounted on the cabin wall beside the window: an altimeter, an outisde air temperature gauge, and an airspeed indicator. In the second photo the table is finished off with three instruments (supposedly the chronometers) shock-mounted in its surface, but now there is only an altimeter on the wall beside the window. From what little we can see through the cabin door in photos taken after the repairs were completed, there are no instruments on the wall and no sign of the table. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:19:52 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: The scent of blood Well, of course, MGM does laugh all the way to the bank! But this being ground hog season, I might point out that sausage is a form of ground hog. Hope this is a timely message for those of you pondering the chronometer info we just received. Does the ground hog carry a watch so he knows when to come out and check for a shadow? SLFN (so long for now) LTM (less than mentioned - motto of the conspiracy crowd) Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 19:14:35 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: Chronometers Remember a few months ago several of us were interested in the interior layout of A.E.'s Electra ? Does TIGHAR have possession of the photos of the interior surrounding the navigator's table? Would it be possible to scan the photo's and e-mail them on request? Or, maybe the photos could be published in a future addition of TIGHAR TRACKS? Interior photos, other than cockpit views, of historic aircraft are rare. Be nice if we could get a peek inside. Thanks, LTM Roger Kelley, 2112 ***************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately, no interior cabin views of NR16020 (after the repairs) are known to exist. There are a number of cabin photos taken earlier in the airplane's career and they are useful in understanding the fuel system and general interior lay out, but the "navigator's station" photos do not represent the airplane as it was when it disappeared. We'll run as many photos as we can in the 8th edition of the project book. ***************************************************************** From Dave Kelly A great movie, "Flight of the Phoenix" There are still men and women around that lament the automated, sterilized state of aviation. They may be anachronisms as they extoll the virtues of pilotage, dead reckoning and good ol' Kentucky windage applied in their daily battles with the elements, but we owe our heart and soul to their pluck and knowledge earned in the unforgiving classroom of aviation pioneering, where the graduates are those left alive to impart the truth. Those who did not survive would teach us the hard lessons they learned; paying the ultimate price for our knowledge. ***************************************************************** From Ric I only lament the automated, sterilized state of aviation when I'm safely on the ground. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:25:56 EST From: Bill Zorn Subject: Electra drawing I was looking at the Lockheed Electra drawing that was in the last issue of Tracks, and I've got some comments, suggestions and criticisms. Being in the drawing business myself (prestressed and precast concrete) I notice a couple of omissions that really need to be addressed. I realize we are not trying to build an Electra scale or otherwise from this drawing, but I spent part of my time planchecking my own and others work, so I couldn't resist "redlining" your print. 1.What is the scale of this drawing? I realize one could work backwards with a scale, but traditionally, you place at the least a scale reference somewhere on a drawing 2. who drew it up? we poor draftpeople get none of the credit, and all of the blame somebody (Rick?) signed off on this. Unless this is a preliminary drawing. (in which case it should be marked "PRELIMINARY". and as we are an international organization, it would have been nice to include metric dimensions as well. 3. the drawing needs to be dated as to its issue date. Nowhere on the drawing do I find the 1999 or 1998. In short the drawing needs some sort of title block. Something to place this document in time and space, and to give credit, where credit is due. And an issue date 4. the port side engine in the top view there is a dim. 82.5". I assume this is centerline of prop to centerline of fuselage. but its not clear, there are no dim. lines or centerlines. Is the centerline of thrust on an Electra 10E engine unit parallel to the centerline of fuselage? No way to tell from this drawing. 5. there is a dim. of 9'-0" from centerline of fuselage to a pair of parallel lines. what happens at this point? Change of dihedral? structural joint. Wing mating point? what. There are no dim. for the side views other than a few station marks. Generally station 0 is the nose of the plane, but it isn't shown on this drawing. One of the side views should have been a "down and dirty view. Gear extended, flaps down cowl flaps open. Or does a 10E have cowl flaps? (It might be nice to indicate the control; surface travel angles.) As one of Rick's scenarios is that the mast or wire at Sta. 254 may have been snagged on the last take off, it might be nice to see the geometry involved. Even a rough estimation of the engine would have been better than the black donuts shown. A bottom view would be nice, but I realize you have a limited amount of paper space. Still that one artifact piece of possible fuselage came from somewhere. Even if the note reads "possible location for artifact whatever" The shade of orange shown is actually quite close to one of my High school colors. It was called "Texas Orange" or was it "Texas brown" We had another name for it, but this is generally a polite forum, except around the holidays Have you considered using this drawing as a possible fund raiser? Issue it (with or without my suggestions) as a limited edition print. On an archival paper. Make it a limited edition, numbered and signed. I'm sure quite a few people would shell out 40 or 50 bucks for something like that. I would even buy two or three. You would have to move the margins out to provide for matting and framing. You could even hold back say 25% of the run, then when we find the plane, have the team sign each of the remaining prints then send them out. I'd even pay for the right ahead of time for somethin like that. In a very extreme use, sign the prints on the left side, tear them in half, send out the left half only, then when we find the plane, send out the right half. signed with a pail full of ping pong balls. I swear my membership renewal will be in the mail this week, and what the heck, think I'll even kick in for the 5 year this time. LTM william h zorn #1562C ***************************************************************** From Ric I knew this was gonna happen. I guess we should have included a little line at the bottom like they do on the TV ads for psychic 900 numbers "For Entertainment Only." Neither Pat nor I is an artist or draftsperson, much less an engineer (I haven't driven a train in years). We scanned in a number of drawings of Electras, closely examined our extensive collection of photos of NR16020 and resolved the various discrepancies as best we could to come up with a good representation of the airplane. Our goal was to put out something attractive and accurate that TIGHAR members could tack up on a bulletin board or magnet to the fridge. We could have put in much, much more detail but the result would have been something cluttered and almost impossible to decipher. We decided to put in just enough detail and dimension to provide a feel for what the machine was like. We didn't provide a scale or date it because we didn't want to create the impression that this was more than an illustration. And you are, of course, correct. As a set of drawings it is totally inadequate. As a set of informal annotated views of Earhart's Electra it's kind of nice. And, no, the Model 10 had no cowl flaps. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:59:36 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: My two-cents I've been a member of TIGHAR for two weeks now, and I thought it was about time I gave you my two cents worth. First, let me say how impressed I am with you individuals for the knowledge you have acquired, and the class in which you present it. I have studied the disappearance of Amelia for over thirty-years, not as an active historian, but more as a minor hobby. However, as the years past, my thirst for answers became a little more demanding. I first thought Fred was the primary culprit of the ill-fated adventure, he having made some grave navigational error. We now know leaving the low frequency radio behind in Florida, a faulty chronometer, and a malfunctioning radio frequency finder, added to their problems, and was a fault they would share equally. However, when the duo reached the coast of Africa, why did Amelia disregard Fred's advice? She flew in the opposite direction in which Fred instructed her to fly, and in doing so, landed in the wrong place. Did she do the same thing when they reached the sun line (line of position) at Howland Island? I believe Brennan was right, they were left of Howland Island when they flew left along the 157-337 line of position. I think it is evident that someone in the Electra made a mistake. Who? With fuel running low and approaching Nikumaroro Island, Amelia had to make a decision on where to land the aircraft. Being an experienced Aviatrix, she chose a water landing. However, Nikumaroro is an atoll, it's lagoon filled with coral heads and patch reefs. The atoll is surrounded by coral reefs 100 to 300 meters wide. She would have to have made a controlled crash outside of the coral line. Razor sharp coral would tear an aircraft to shreds. Scenario # 1. They died on impact, the Electra may or may have not broken in pieces, and now rest in approximately forty-feet of water. It's debris washing up on shore during heavy storms. Scenario #2. They tried to make it to shore over the razor sharp coral and white-tipped reef shark infested waters, dying in the attempt. Scenario #3. They made it to shore only to die of thirst and hunger. Nikumaroro has no fresh water and only five types of Rept/Amphibians. They had two weeks of food and water in the Electra, but what good does that do when the craft is underwater and their on land? Finally, Nikumaroro is considered a Sea level rise risk 9 island. That means the island tends to be underwater at times. The average height of islands in the Phoenix group is six feet. Not much protection during fierce storms. I strongly believe that any future searches of Nikumaroro should be concentrated below the water surrounding the island, not the island itself. Well, why do I feel like a rubbed myself with fresh hamburger meat and walked into a lions den? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. LTM **************************************************************** From Ric Welcome. Those of us stalking about here in the Coliseum always like to see fresh meat walk into the arena. (Don't worry about the blood. That's why the footing in here is sand.) Let me correct the first of your many misimpressions. You have not been a member of TIGHAR for two weeks. You have been a subscriber to the Earhart Forum for two weeks. There's a difference. If you'd like to become a TIGHAR member you'll find a printable membership form on the TIGHAR website (www.tighar.org). Moving right along: - no low frequency radio was left behind in Florida - there was no faulty chronometer - no malfunctioning "radio frequency finder" - the whole bit about Amelia disregarding Fred's advice upon reaching the coast of Africa comes from the heavily edited "Last Flight" and is not supported by more contemporaneous documentation. - your speculation that she "chose a water landing" is unsupported by any evidence. - your various scenarios are based upon mostly bad information. For example: nobody knows how much food and water were aboard the Electra, Nikumaroro is never underwater, and the sharks on the reef are black-tips (and if you think that's a minor point, YOU stand in the water with white-tips and I'LL stand in the water with black-tips). That said, you can hardly be blamed for having misconceptions. For thirty years you've been reading books that are full of misinformation. No one can draw valid conclusions from invalid data. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:06:28 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Off-topic but not off color For all those who lament the automated, sterilized state of aviation I say the next time you want to fly yourself to Nashville for the weekend, go rent a Wright Flyer and tell me what a great time you had. Getting there in leaps and bounces of 150 feet or so will make for a memorable journey. Personally, I love the gadgets and gizmos. If we all had to rely on pilotage and personal navigation, most of us would never get more than a couple of hundred miles from home. And if we did, it would probably take us twice as long to get back. LTM, who embraces all gizmos Dennis McGee #0149 ***************************************************************** From Ric Cockpit voice recorders show a significant change in the three most commonly heard phrases in an airline cockpit. Prior the computerization of the flight deck, the three most often heard comments were: - Wazat for us? - Wha'd he say? - Ahh sh--! These have been replaced by: - Whazit doin' now? - Whyzit doin' that? - Ahh sh--! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:22:54 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Electra Drawings.... Ref: Bill Zorn's comments about the Electra drawings:- Take it easy Bill, they weren't designed so we could actually build an Electra from them !! :-) I too would have like to see some of the features you mention, but Ric only has so much time. In view of your late membership renewal, seems like you're carving out a nice little job for yourself. I look forward to seeing the Electra drawings - mark 2 - courtesy of Bill Zorn. Thanks Bill :-) Oh, and Bill - could you please adjust the scale of the side views so they match the plan views. Thanks. LTM Simon #2120 (renewal paid) ***************************************************************** From Ric Members please note: We do appreciate timely renewals but all we can do is ask politely. And besides, it would be a real shame if you had to get a "visit from Simon." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:37:23 EST From: Kelly Maddox Subject: Enhanced Photography I wanted to start off by saying I've been very interested in TIGHAR's work on Gardner Island since the first reports in 1989. Until last week, when I discovered this website, I'd been limited to bits a pieces that I came across in the media. I've spent the last week carefully devouring every word on this website, and I'm more convinced than ever that you are really onto something. Very impressive work! I'm really on the edge of my seat regarding the Canton (Kanton?) engine search. I didn't come across any discussion of this on the site, but I'm sure it is omething you've considered... 1. Do you think that the use of infrared or heat sensitive aerial photography might be of value? Would vegetation obscured aluminum, or one of the engine blocks gain, lose, or transfer heat at a different rate than its natural surroundings, and therefore show up in heat sensitive photography? I know tropical temperatures are very stable, but might it show up at dawn or dusk when there would be a predictable fluctuation? 2. Have you looked into the acquisition of high tech filtered satellite imagery from either a commercial or military satellite? I know the military has some amazing methods of detecting camouflaged or obscured surface objects. The resolution and capability of enhanced satellite photography is simply amazing these days. I realize these things are either inaccessible or cost prohibitive right off the bat, but what are your thoughts, findings, possibilities? One other thing I was just curious about. There is the mention of a "European style" house being built on the island. Was this Gallaghar's (Irish's) house? If it is still there, what condition is it in? Was there anything interesting inside? Sincerely, J. Kelly Maddox **************************************************************** From Ric The real problem with getting infra-red aerial photography of the island is that the place is so darned remote that by the time you pay to put an airplane with the right technology overhead, you've spent enough money to put a team of people on the ground - which is always preferable. We've looked and looked into the satellite imagery question and the answer keeps coming back - no meaningful existing coverage and no potential for sufficient resolution to see the kind of stuff we're looking for. The "European style" house is alleged to have been in the island's Nutiran district and is associated with the stories of airplane wreckage reportedly seen in the late 1950s/early 1960s. Gallagher's house was at the Government Station across the main channel in Ritiati district and was made primarily from local materials. There were several wood frame buildings on the island, including the radio shack and the Co-op store. We have not yet seen the European style house (or whatever is left of it) referenced in the plane wreckage story because we haven't looked for it. We hope to remedy that during the reconnaissance scheduled for July. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:52:02 EST From: Dave Kelly Subject: Re: My two-cents I'll see your two cents, and raise it to four. TIGHAR is assembling the fourth (or fifth?) expedition to "Nikku" In the previous expeditions, some artifacts were recovered, but fairly inconclusive artifacts. I agree that Fred may have made an error in his calculations, resulting in the flight intercepting the 157/337 LOP northwest of Howland and, discovering the error too late, called for a course reversal to the southwest, with a prevailing headwind and higher fuel consumption at the low cruising altitude. They would have had enough fuel for the return if all the calculations were correct, but apparently they were not. I don't believe Amelia would have ignored Fred's instructions, unless he was drunk. This was possibility. ***************************************************************** From Ric Here we go again. Let's have something other than uninformed speculation. And if anyone was drunk it's just as likely that it was Amelia. We've seen no evidence that either of them had a drinking problem at that time. Fred didn't become an alcoholic until 1966 courtesy of Goerner's book. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:00:45 EST From: Dave Kelly Subject: Not so off-topic Let us not forget, Dennis, that the heroine coveted by TIGHAR was just such a pilot. Things are getting out of hand in the automation of aircraft and the ATC system. "Gizmos" notwithstanding, pilots are much too reliant on computers to replace their basic skills in aircraft handling and navigation. Sure, a pilot can fly an aircraft if he or she so chooses, but nine times out of nine, the old heads are reaching for the A/PLT Command A/B switch somewheres before or after takeoff. Those poor schnooks in the MD-11 found out too late just how little control they have over those "gizmos" Some smarmy narrator for the otherwise excellent series "Survival in the Sky" chirped up an ominous statement as the epilogue to the series.."The technology exists to eliminate pilots entirely from the cockpit" That technology has existed for years. **************************************************************** From Ric This thread may not be as off-topic as Dennis originally thought. Dave's mindset sounds familiar. I can just hear Amelia saying to Paul Mantz, "For chrisake Paul, get off my back about learning how to use that direction finder. A real pilot doesn't need that newfangled stuff. Relying on fancy technology to get you out of trouble is a good way to die young." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:02:49 EST From: Bill Moffet Subject: Chronometers Re your posting 2/6 from King, Kelly & Clauss. I think you have reasonably documented that Fred usually rode "up front" with Amelia. The cockpit instruments included airspeed, altimeter & outside-air temp gages, so all Fred needed were chronometers, octant, charts and tables, plotting board (laptop?), parallel rule & pencil. In short he could and did navigate while in the copilot's seat. With the exception of the timepieces all the gages in the old nav station were redundant. Yep, I do see Tom King's point about identifying the brass case found on Niku but unless we can find a true record of what was aboard lvg Miami or Lae - or exactly what had been removed beforehand.....Also are we discussing Fred's location or an interior plan of NR 16020? LTM Bill Moffet #2156 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:06:44 EST From: Haley Mariel Subject: Pick an animal This has thrown our conversation totally off the purpose of this site (our beloved Goddess)-but, I guess I'll join in on the fun and choose my species-all I've ever wanted to be, of course, is a bird...maybe a beautiful Queztal, and to be free to fly the horizon. I am usually just one to read and ponder over all the messages, but I just thought that I would respond, for a change. haley mariel *************************************************************** From Ric Very appropriate. The Queztal is a mythical bird, just like "our beloved Goddess." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:02:34 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Whistling? Given these two radio log entries: At 0614 local time: WANTS BEARING ON 3105 KCS // ON HOUR // WILL WHISTLE IN MIC ABOUT 200 MILES OUT // APPX // WHISTLING // NW and At 0758 local time: KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE ARE (LISTENING) BUT CANNOT HEAR U GA ON 7500 WID A LONG COUNT EITHER NW OR ON THE SKD TIME ON HALF HOUR Have you considered that "CIRCLING" -aka - "LISTENING" might actually be "Whistling". What this sounds like to me is that AE was trying to transmit the Whistle on 3105 so that the Coast Guard could take a bearing on her, and expecting a verbal response on 7500. Does that make any sense with the rest of the logs? Andrew McKenna 1045C **************************************************************** From Ric Itasca did not have voice capability on 7500. Earhart was told that in a message she received before she left Lae, although her request for a "long count" indicates that she did not grasp that fact. My opinion that the mystery word was "listening" is based primarily on the construction of the rest of the sentence. What she said was, "We are ???? but can not hear you." Our task here is to find what appears to be a missing present progressive participle in the active voice which might be mistaken for the initially logged word "drifting." It seems reasonable to presume that the mystery word has, or sounds like it has, two syllables, the first of which has a short "i" sound and the second of which has an "ing" sound. Candidates which come to mind are circling, whistling, list'ning, drinking, and a number of others which, although more entertaining, seem less likely. Our best clue is the use of the coordinate conjunction clause "but cannot" which indicates that the mystery word describes an action which is not producing the desired result "to hear." In other contexts this is like saying, "We are running but cannot catch you." "We are sniffing but cannot smell you." In other words, the mystery word should describe an action that, if successful, would let them hear. In Earhart's situation, the only word I can think of other than "list'ning" which fits this qualification might be "tuning", but that doesn't have the short "i" sound. To suggest that the mystery word is drifting, circling or whistling is a bit like saying, "We are sniffing but cannot catch you." Or "We are running but cannot smell you." You can say it, and it's a perfectly valid English sentence, but it just doesn't make much sense. I now await the onslaught of the forum's English majors. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:45:38 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: English 101 At 0758 local time: D-F ing KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE ARE (LISTENING) BUT CANNOT HEAR U GA ON 7500 WID A LONG COUNT EITHER NW OR ON THE SKD TIME ON HALF HOUR Daryll *************************************************************** From Ric I don't buy it for the reasons stated in my earlier posting. She can't be D-Fing if she can't hear them. **************************************************************** From Dennis McGee Ric said: "Our task here is to find what appears to be a missing present progressive participle in the active voice . . . " Yikes! Holy moley! Gadzooks, Godfrey! Have you no common decency, young man? "[P]resent progressive participle in the active voice," indeed! Hell, Ric I feel lucky to remember the difference between an adjective and an adverb. What you're really try to say is that you are looking for a gerund, right? LTM, a noun Dennis McGee #0149 ***************************************************************** From Ric No Den, a gerund is the noun form of a verb, as in "the winning of the West." (he said, peering over the tops of his spectacles). ***************************************************************** From Dean Andrea >"We are sniffing but cannot catch you." Sounds like you are hot on Amelia's trail. ***************************************************************** From Cam Warren OK - your conviction that the word was "listening" is a reasonable supposition on the face of it, and the analysis for McKenna, although a tad overblown, makes sense. However, after reading just about every word written about AE, including the comments and impressions of friends and foes, I'm inclined to think "circling" fits the Earhart behavioral profile. Don't forget, Noonan was the hired hand - Amelia the STAR pilot. She would be quick to ignore Fred's advice if she had convinced herself that circling was the best course under the circumstances. (And yes, I've read all the arguments re the approach to Senegal). Cam Warren ***************************************************************** From Ric There you have it ladies and gentleman - the difference between TIGHAR's approach and the kind of reasoning that has typified Earhart research for 62 years. ***************************************************************** From Chuck Jackson After reading missive #1999-40-6 I smell an English major already! maybe one who flunked out of flight school? If AE expected heavy smoke to be issuing from Itasca's stacks, and if she (Itasca) was a coal burner, and since she was a Gov't ship (meaning low bidder=low grade coal that stinks-up the sky), AE would expect to smell her even if she (AE) was in IMC. Hence, AE might say "We should be on you, but we can't smell you" or "We are circling, but can't smell you" HUH? ***************************************************************** From Ric I am trying but cannot believe you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:26:54 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: My two-cents Fred became an alcoholic in 1966? What book have you been reading? ************************************************************** From Ric We have been able to find no documentary evidence whatsoever that Noonan had a drinking problem. The notion appears to have begun with anecdotal recollections published in Fred Goerner's 1966 book "The Search For Amelia Earhart." After that, everybody jumped on Noonan as the scapegoat. Hence, my comment that Fred became an alcoholic in 1966. ***************************************************************** From Dave Kelly Speculation is about all we have, Ric. There was much left to the imagination when the flight disappeared. With so little to go on, the "monday morning Matadors" have a lot of "bull" to fight over. The alternative to TIGHAR's theory is unquestionably that they had ditched. This will most likely be the verdict if you do not return with conclusive evidence on your next trip. (And I very much hope you will!!) Say what you will about alternative theories, they are as valid as TIGHAR's until you've proven otherwise. I'll be retiring soon. and with much more spare time, I can delve more thoroughly into this matter. ***************************************************************** From Ric Speculation is a valuable tool if it's used to formulate a testable hypothesis that is based upon established fact. Spouted as pure opinion, it's just talk. I'm confident that, upon your retirement, you'll be gathering facts from which to formulate a hypothesis which you can then test. ***************************************************************** From Walt Holm >...the sharks on the reef are black-tips (and if you think that's a minor >point, YOU stand in the water with white-tips and I'LL stand in the water >with black-tips). Actually, about the only way to die from white-tipped --reef-- sharks is that you accidentally trip over one while wandering ashore, thus cutting yourself on that razor-sharp coral. Now, an ocean white-tip, that's a different story. WAY different..... Cheers- Walt Holm #0980C ***************************************************************** From Ric There are no white-tipped reef sharks at Niku, but we do see the occasional pelagic white-tip and you're right. Those guys are no fun at all. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:12:24 EST From: Dave Kelly Subject: Re: Not so off-topic I believe the scenario TIGHAR adheres to includes speculation that the antenna for the DF on board the aircraft was broken. This being the case, they were in some way relying on that "Gizmo" to provide guidance toward Itasca. And when they needed it most..... My mindset, as you put it, is not as crotchety as you suppose. Safety has not improved with automation. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Pilots have become complacent, robotic serfs to a computer. You more than anyone should see this, Ric. If you were in the accident investigation business, then you know pilots are lulled into a false sense of security by computer automation, just as Fred and Amelia were lulled into the belief that a viable DF signal would be awaiting them at the end of their journey. **************************************************************** From Ric What an incredible statement. "Safety has not improved with automation. In fact, the opposite has occurred." What statistics are you looking at? Airline safety has increased steadily with the development of new systems. Accidents still happen, yes, and will continue to happen as long as we insist upon launching ourselves into the sky, but throughout the entire history of air transportation there has been a direct correlation between advancements in technology and improvements in safety. Pan American originally developed the Adcock DF system because their pilots were getting lost over the Caribbean and running out of gas. Of course, simply following a heading dictated by some guy on the ground turned the pilot into a robotic serf but the passengers actually reached their intended destinations more often and the airline thought that was a reasonable tradeoff. Yes, reliance on automated systems can lead to complacency in the cockpit. Yes, pilots have become systems managers rather than aviators. Yes, there is nostalgia for the old days of The High And The Mighty. But the truth is that the record of getting people where they want to go and having them arrive in one piece is getting better and better. What do you want to debate next? Evolution vs Creationism? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:15:50 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Remote Viewing Bear with me... I'll get this semi on-topic shortly. At any rate, I think there's enough curiosity about The "Other" Earhart Search to justify this. For this posting... A question. Does the omniscient forum have knowledge of the US government, CIA or something, actually having been involved with remote viewing? Out of curiosity I did some searching a while back. About all I found was a book called "Psychic Warrior." It's said to be, and is classified by libraries as, "non-fiction." It's clearly pure fantasy. I could not find anything of a factual nature. I wonder if the government's involvement in remote viewing is an urban myth? But my search DID turn up something that is sorta on-topic and I think the forum will enjoy hearing about it. First you gotta try to answer the question! ***************************************************************** From Ric I can't help ya. As far as I'm concerned remote viewing is when you click the remote and view the tube. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:24:45 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Pick an animal > Very appropriate. The Queztal is a mythical bird, just like "our beloved > Goddess." Wrong again! The quetzal is very much a real bird, genus Pharomacrus, and is the national bird of Guatemala. Cam Warren, who is more often right than wrong. **************************************************************** From Ric And I spelled it wrong to boot! It's the Quetzalcoatl that is the Feathered Serpent of ancient Mexico. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:37:00 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: 157-337 I don't know where you're measuring from, but 157 degrees (true) from Howland Island runs right by Nikumaroro at about 350 nm. Bougainville is about 250 degrees. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:44:10 EST From: Dick Strippel Subject: Re: skip software All true - but too heavy for most "tighar" members. We should concentrate on what HF propagation was believed to be in the 1930s. I strongly suggest one of the ARRL manuals from this era. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:57:33 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: English 101 Since AE did not have suitable radio contact with the Itasca and did not see either Howland or the Ship when they reached what they believed to be the proper distance what would be the correct course action. I mean would the proper action be to fly in a circle or what? Regards Bob Lee *************************************************************** From Ric Here is the advice given in Air Navigation, the definitive navigational text by P.V.H. Weems first published in 1931 and, at the time of the Earhart/Noonan flight, the bible of aerial navigation: "Finding A Destination.--During the daylight hours it is often impossible to get more than one LP [line of position], viz., that given by the sun. If pilotage cannot be used (as when flying over water) or radio bearings are not available, this single position line may be utilized for finding a destination. "The air navigator, having found a position line as he approaches his destination, continues flying on his course until the position line carried forward by D[ead] R[eckoning] passes through the destination. He then turns right or left and follows the LP. If, after a reasonable time, the destination is not sighted, he infers that he has turned the wrong way, and so reverses his track." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:06:04 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Remote Viewing Coincidentally, yesterday on Paul Harvey's _Rest_of_the_Story_ radio broadcast, he reported on the kidnapping (some years back as you recall) of General Dozier. According to his report, the building in which the general was detained was described in detail by these guys. X-files or Twilight Zone? jon *************************************************************** From Ric But was the General found because the remote viewers told the rescuers where to look, or was the General found by conventional searching and, after the fact, the remote viewers' descriptions were judged to be accurate? I am aware of NO circumstance that was contemporaneously recorded by competent, unbiased authorities where a remote viewer actually found anything. As you may know, there is a standing offer of $10,000 by illusionist and psychic debunker James Randi for the scientifically sound demonstration of ANY paranormal ability. You can check it out at http://www.randi.org ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:08:38 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Technological advances Sactodave [Dave Kelly]said: >Safety has not improved with automation. In fact, the opposite >has occurred." O-o-o-o-h, Davey, you're in deep kimshee, here! Every great explorer has relied on state-of-the-art technology. Those that didn't, you haven't read about, right? And why is that? Because they're dead, Dave. D-E-A-D, dead. To ignore advances in technology is to relegate yourself to the ashcan of history. There is a word for person thinking as you do -- Luddite. Look it up. Apollo 11 went to the moon in 1969 with four computers on board (I'm told) each with the capacity of the old 2nd generation "286" computer chip. If I went to the moon today I sure as hell would want at least a 6th generation chip (Pentium II, AMD K6, etc.) in my computer. Why, Dave? Because I don't want to be D-E-A-D, dead, Dave. Dave, if you were running the Space Shuttle program would you use hot air to lift the vehicle or insist on putting vacuum tube-radios on board because at one time people did fly that way? Gimme those gadgets, gizmos. and doo-hickies. I love 'em. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:15:24 EST From: Bill Carter Subject: Re: Remote Viewing At the risk of tarnishing further what is probably an already shaky reputation in the forum, I have to admit that I have a relative who worked for "the government" and helped design test parameters for CIA sponsored remote viewing experiments. The researchers were trying to establish scientifically objective test procedures to determine three things: i) whether there was such a thing as remote viewing; ii) whether remote viewing was something that the communists could use to spy on us; and iii) is remote viewing something we could use to spy on the communists. Publicized reports concluded that while the results of some experiments were something more than random guesses, the information gleaned from remote viewing was not reliable enough as an intelligence gathering tool, especially since satellites and other methods of data collection were available and much more reliable. There might be more information at www.jse.com which is a web site for a group scientists some of whom were also involved in these projects. Personally, I think it's a "much ado about nothing" type of academic curiosity which will not help TIGHAR and should not be used in the search for AE. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:35:33 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: 157-337 It's my impression that the plane was at an altitude of about 1000' at least part of the time it was running along this line, and that you have an idea of the general idea of the position it was at (distance from Howland) at the time it went on the line. I also believe it is possible to calculate how far one can see objects at sea level given altitude. If all this is correct, it seems to me that it should be possible also to determine how far on either side of this line AE and FN should've been able to spot an island (for want of a better term I call this a "sight corridor"). Assuming my "assumptions" are valid, does Niku fall within this "sight corridor"? Thanks! ***************************************************************** From Ric Your assumptions are correct, but the actual "sight corridor" (based upon real life experiences in seeing Howland from the air) is probably a lot narrower than a straight calculation would indicate. In 1967 Ann Pellegreno and her crew didn't see Howland until they were within an estimated 10 to 12 miles. A dead accurate 157 degree line from Howland passes 7 nautical miles east of Niku. Whether AE and Fred could be that accurate is another question but it appears that they could be, conservatively, 3 miles east of a dead accurate line or 17 miles west of a dead accurate line and still see the island. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:37:46 EST From: Bill Hillier Subject: Re: Not so off-topic I would like to comment on Dave Kelly's statements on airline safety. Tucked back on Page 4 of a recent issue of the Los Angeles Times was an article that was startling about US airline safety. In 1998 US airlines carried 615 million passengers without a single fatality. If one crash involving fatalities had occurred it would have been headlined on Page 1. Dave is more likely to get hurt by falling out of his computer chair than by being a passenger on a US airline. Bill Hillier ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:01:19 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: remote viewing/remote sensing I always thought that remote viewing was only useful for finding ley lines or the site of Atlantis. For remote sensing, to see what you can get by satellite, try . Unfortunately, they don't have Nikumaroro on line (yet). Dan Postellon TIGHAR 2263 **************************************************************** From Ric Unfortunately, satellite remote sensing isn't much more help to us than remote viewing. Just not enough resolution. I'm afraid that on Niku we're unwilling Luddites, whacking away with our bush knives and relying primarily on the Mark One eyeball. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:06:46 EST From: Bill Carter Subject: Re: remote viewing/remote sensing 15 years ago if one wanted a satellite positioned over Niku, he would have to pose as a representative of the Niku government and inform the U.S. that leftist guerrillas were trying to overthrow their peaceful south seas democracy. The U.S. would then throw some weapons and training their way, provide a little monetary aid and top it off with satellite imagery to help the peaceful democracy locate and destroy the leftists base camps. Of course, after securing U.S. said aid, the Niku ambassador would then take a direct flight from Wash D.C. to Moscow and tell the Kremlin that greedy capitalists were plotting to overthrow their Marxist state and they needed aid from their Marxist brothers. Things are a bit more complicated today. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:04:19 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Pick an animal >And I spelled it wrong to boot! It's the Quetzalcoatl that is the >Feathered Serpent of ancient Mexico. Well, as long as we're all dumping on Ric -- it's not THE Quetzalcoatl, either, just Quetzalcoatl; he's a deity. Think Manganibuka, Ric, not THE Manganibuka. LTM Tom King ****************************************************************** From Ric Swell. Now I have TWO ancient deities pissed at me. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:09:54 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Remote Viewing The report was unclear, and my recollection either fails me or I never knew, but I think you are correct; I think it was probably "an amazing coincidence". LTM, jon ps - got my membership kit a couple days ago! ***************************************************************** From Ric That's incredible! Just the other day I got this strong premonition that you would be receiving that material. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:34:25 EST From: Dave Kelly Subject: Re: Technological advances We're not talking apples and oranges, here. The Space Shuttle is a space vehicle as well as a complex (and very expensive, innefficient) aircraft. There's a term for people like you, "Tech Nerd" Look it up. Though part of my duties involve computer upgrading and troubleshooting, I see the folly of planting big-gig, application packed boxes in front of secretaries and mechanics (pilots, too) Secretaries in our office cannot figure out the slightest problem with their machines, and barge into my office whining about their E-Mail, printer problems, freeze ups (and they wonder why they can't leave five applications open and be reading their E-mail at the same time) ad nauseum. Computers in our mechanics section were quite large (3.0 gig, 200mhz, 56 modem...and that was three years ago) towers that we hooked up for the on-line ordering of parts. During a routine audit, it was found to have been "on-line" with Playboy, Penthouse, and several other morally questionable web sites. Have you ridden Amtrack and lived? Another computer accident waiting to happen. The two Korean Air accidents, 007, and the LA bound flight, were directly related to human interface with computers. Ric is absolutely correct in his comical but accurate trancscipt of a flight crew trying to figure out the eccentric whims of some "gizmo" Though I'm sure he would not be laughing on an out of control, burning airliner. ***************************************************************** From Ric Naw, I'm not gonna let you weasel out of this one Sacto. What you said, exactly, was: "Safety has not improved with automation. In fact, the opposite has occurred." There are no apples and oranges involved. You simply made a statement that is demonstrably untrue. I also get this remote-viewing image of your co-workers rejoicing at your retirement. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:03:43 EST From: Dave Kelly Subject: Re: Technological advances One more thing, are you a pilot? **************************************************************** From Ric Oh, I get it. I'll show you mine if you show me yours huh? Not that it makes any difference but I hold: Commercial Certificate 1710943 airplane single & mulitengine land instrument rating 4,000 plus hours Pilot in Command no violations no accidents no incidents soloed March 12, 1965 I've owned three airplanes - a Cessna 172, a Beech Debonair, and a Cessna 182RG ( I loved that Deb). I have way too many hours flying night check runs in poorly maintained Twin Beechs, fond memories of flying a semi-pro ice hockey team around the Northeast and Canada in an even more poorly maintained DC-3, an abiding astonishment at having survived doing airshow work in a beat up Civil Air Patrol T-34, sweet nostalgia for summer evenings doing lazy aerobatics in a 220 Stearman and no nostalgia at all for flying single pilot hardball IFR in light single engined airplanes. These days I seem to spend more time riding on boats than flying airplanes. I'm not sure how that happened. I don't much like boats. A lot of people have a lot more time and experience in airplanes than I do. That's okay. I feel like I've done enough flying to get something of a feel for what it's like. Your turn. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 21:06:34 EST From: Don Widdoes Subject: Re: Technological advances Thought I might reply regarding technology. Several months ago one of our state of the art aircraft carriers lost the ability to steer because a Windows NT server went down. I think I heard they drifted for about half an hour while they rebooted and screwed around with NT. I'm all for technology, but it can bite you. In the sixties you could get a timing light and a dwell tach and tune your car. Try that today. In my experience I have found that it's not the amount of technology, but how well you can use it that matters. LTM Don Widdoes 1033ECB ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:13:03 EST From: Dave Kelly Subject: Re: Technological advances Safety has not improved. And why do airlines appear as the only flying entity? Corporate aircraft have their share of accidents, commuters too. The simple fact is that computers do not add safety, merely automation and it's infamous sidekick, complacency. Another example? The MD-88 at Detroit that took off with the flaps positioned incorrectly. The airplane stalled right at rotation, and the hapless crew was mystified as to the problem. There are automated systems that activate aural and visible warnings when configurations are not proper for takeoff, but these malfunctioned. Of course, the crew would blame the lack of automation for the airplane not being configured for takeoff. WHAT KIND OF IDIOT WOULD SAY THAT?? All a pilot has to do is look down at the flap position indicator! This is what I mean by automation; crews rely way too much on the "Gizmos" to keep them out trouble, and get into trouble by relying on them. ***************************************************************** From Ric One of the reasons I post stuff like this is because it's so reassuring to have you as a critic. Would somebody please round up the statistics on accident rates for airline and general aviation for the past few years? Dave won't do it. He seems much more interested in his own opinion than in hard facts. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:19:55 EST From: Dave Kelly Subject: Re: Technological advances I didn't ask you, Ric, I asked the "Tech Nerd" But if you are interested, I am commercial instrument multi-engine certificated. I have flown 2000 hours in many types of aircraft, including the T-34, T-28, Cessna 140,150,152, 172,182, P210, 310, Bellanca Super Viking, Mooney Super21 (with the "Johnson Bar Landing gear), Mooney Executive, Piper Cherokee 140, 180, 235, Arrow, Comanche, Colt, Tomahawk, Aztec, Grumman Tr-2, Traveler, Citabria, WC-135B, Aeronca Chief, Champ, and L- 16. No Accidents, 1 blown tire on the Mooney, and a major power fluctuation on the T34 (My one emergency declared) An alternator uncontained failure that produced some anxious moments in the Cherokee. I was in the Air Traffic Control (GS-2152-09) for twelve years as a civilian, and eight years in the military, including airfield management, Aircraft Delivery Overseas, Squadron Flight Ops, USAF Test Pilot School Flight Scheduling/ Data Reduction/ BoldFace procedures testing, and FLIP (Flight Information Publications) Specialist. I too, was a CAP search pilot, but nowhere near as experienced as my father. The first tme I became interested in AE was when I hopped on a "garbage hauling" C130 from Guam to Palau, and Yap Island, where a scientist from a major midwest university was discussing AE's fate with the Herky crew. He was convinced that she went down at sea, and if she and Fred survived, could have drifted in a raft to any one of the islands he was researching. ***************************************************************** From Ric Okay Tech Nerd ( I guess that's you Dennis). Whatcha got? (I can guarantee that all of the women on the forum are imagining a bunch of six year old boys out in back of the garage saying, "Oh yeah? Mine's bigger.") ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:54:10 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Technological advances Sactodave said: >> "Safety has not improved with automation. In fact, the opposite >> has occurred." > > Every great explorer has relied on state-of-the-art technology. This was my impression as well. Mountain climbers embraced the idea of using bottled oxygen pretty much as soon as it became possible. Underseas explorers jumped on SCUBA as quickly as it developed. There are numerous other examples. I think that looking back on things we see (documentaries, books, etc.) the things these people are using and forget that at that time they were new and wonderful (and sometimes not well understood). Bill ***************************************************************** From Ric I think that there is a valid observation to be made on this subject which has some bearing upon our understanding about what happened to Earhart and Noonan. It seems to me that the flight they were attempting, while challenging, was well within the capabilities of 1937 aviation and, specifically, within the capabilities of the aircraft and equipment they were using. There does seem to have been an equipment failure aboard the aircraft which prevented the reception of voice radio, but even so, had the operating hardware been employed correctly the flight probably would have reached its intended destination. That didn't happen, and it seems abundantly clear that the aircraft's failure to arrive at Howland Island was primarily due to the crew's inability to use the technology available to them. It may be that we have an example of the kind of complacency which so bothers Dave Kelly. Earhart and Noonan may have felt confident that they could find Howland Island because they had "gizmos" (i.e. the Itasca's direction finder and, as a backup, their own direction finder) which could find it for them. An analogy might be a pilot today who takes off for a destination which he knows is socked in with weather that is right down to minimums. He knows that he is not proficient enough to hand-fly the approach but he also knows that the autopilot will do it for him. He gets to the destination only to discover that he doesn't really understand how to program the autopilot. Now his life depends on whether he has enough fuel to get to someplace where the weather is better. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:59:39 EST From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: technological advances Could we have some facts please on the drifting aircraft carrier? This sounds like unsubstantiated urban rumor. I'm sure the problem involved ghosts and not an NT server. Were they anywhere near the bermuda triangle? And if true aren't we now part of a conspiracy that is putting in a public forum, TOP SECRET information concerning the primary steering mechanisms for our most powerful ships capable of surviving a war, but not an NT server breakdown? Clyde Miller ***************************************************************** From Ric WE ARE DRIFTING BUT CANNOT BOOT YOU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:07:48 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Flight English 101 Ric wrote: > The air navigator, having found a position line as he approaches > his destination, continues flying on his course until the position > line carried forward by D[ead] R[eckoning] passes through the > destination. I know Ric is quoting from someone else's source here, but the fact is, the proper term is NOT NOT "Dead Reckoning", but rather "Ded Reckoning" which is short for "deductive reckoning". I don't know about any of you, but I'd rather be deductive than dead any day. Of course, if I just plug-in my GPS (SactoDave's dreaded monster of a new technology that is bound to kill me someday), then I don't need to be either deductive or dead, I'll just get to my destination and land. Thomas Van Hare *************************************************************** From Ric Tom is, of course, correct but I'm afraid that "dead reckoning" is one of those errors that is so entrenched in the language as to be almost impossible to eradicate. Lindbergh his very own self is alleged to have said, "The only thing wrong with dead reckoning is the name." My pet bugaboo is the rampant misuse of the word "hopefully" but I'm hopeful that I'll eventually get over it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:18:46 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: English 101 (longish, but challenging) Bob Lee wrote: > Since AE did not have suitable radio contact with the Itasca and > did not see either Howland or the Ship when they reached what they > believed to be the proper distance what would be the correct course > action. I mean would the proper action be to fly in a circle or what? I think that what Bob is saying here is just perhaps a bit more amplified of my earlier point on the CIRCLING vs. DRIFTING vs. LISTENING argument. Ric and company surmise from available evidence that the radio operator first wrote DRIFTING, then erased this, and wrote CIRCLING thereafter because DRIFTING didn't make any sense. Now 60 years later, we should now conclude the operator must have meant LISTENING -- because it makes more sense than either DRIFTING or CIRCLING. Although a compelling story, I find this to be a leap of logic without any strong supporting evidence. What we know is simply this (thanks to Ric's and Pat's astute investigation): The operator logged the word DRIFTING, then erased it and overwrote the word CIRCLING. I cannot fathom how anyone can make the leap to decide today that 1) the operator guessed that it was CIRCLING rather than simply realizing that he wrote the wrong thing and corrected it; and 2) that despite the guess by the operator, we can now guess better and that what Earhart really said was the word LISTENING. For a group so focused on proving everything by solid evidence, I am surprised that this goes without question. To me, based on the limited, solid evidence at hand in the form of the radio logbook, it is equally plausible that the story goes like this: The radio operator logs the word DRIFTING, then realizes that in his haste to write he wrote the wrong thing and that the correct word is CIRCLING. He erases DRIFTING, writes CIRCLING and makes no further mention of it to anyone. Out over the ocean, the scene looks something like this: Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan have run up and down the line couple of times and yet still have not found Howland. Fred says to Amelia, let's try doing timed legs (something like a box search) and do wide circles, perhaps 10 miles diameter or something (impossible to tell), up and down the basic line to see if we can find it. We've got a few hours of fuel, so let's try it that way and it will give us a better chance of finding Howland. Finally, doing this for some time, all the while calling on 7500, etc., failing to take good DF bearings, etc., they are running low on fuel. A last ditch attempt by Noonan has them fly south (toward where the most islands would be) and circle there as well. Low and behold, they see land: Nikumaroro. And as for contextual arguments, if I was circling in a search pattern and trying to use the radio to get a DF or talk with anyone at all, I would think nothing of phrasing the radio transmission: "We are circling but cannot hear you." Furthermore, to me, it is impossible to think that an expert, world class navigator like Fred Noonan would have stopped his navigation planning at the point of "we'll run up and down the line, and if we don't find the island, we'll die". If we are going to take a leap of logic, I would guess that he would have had a search plan in place for what to do if the island was not found when they ran up and down the line. And... well, that probably would have involved circling or some sort of box-like search pattern across and around the line of position. Thomas Van Hare ***************************************************************** From Ric This is one of those wonderful arguments where, unless we end up finding AE's journal, no one will ever know for sure just what was really going on out over the Pacific or what was really said over the radio. The original Itasca radio log, as preserved by Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts (bless his heart), contains numerous strike-overs, xing outs, and platen misalignments. There were quite obviously, and quite understandably, many cases where the typist had to go back and correct errors in his transcription of what he heard or thought he heard. However, of the 114 lines of entries in the log between the first reception of "very weak signals on 3105" at 19:17 local time on the evening of July 1st and Earhart's cryptic last message at 08:43 the next morning, this is the ONLY instance where a word can seen to have been erased. If nothing else, it is a big fat anomaly. Your theory that it represents a case of the operator simply typing a word he never meant to type and immediately fixing it doesn't track with the rest of the log. Other corrections are done as strike-overs because, in the heat of the moment, the operator doesn't want to stop, take his hands off the keys, roll the platen forward, pick up an eraser, lean forward, make the erasure, reposition the platen, and type the correction. I don't think that it's a leap of logic to say that this correction, which comes smack in the middle of an important transmission from Earhart, was made some time later. How much later is hard to say. It is not until some 11 hours later that Itasca makes a report to headquarters and, for the first time, says that Earhart was circling at 0758. In this same report, Thompson (the Itasca's captain) states that Earhart had "barely sufficient fuel under the conditions to make Howland" and that "Earhart apparently handicapped throughout night by cloudy weather as portions of received messages indicated cloudy and overcast weather." Both of these statements are without foundation. Thompson had no reliable information about Earhart's fuel state, and references to cloudy or overcast conditions during the night do not appear in the original log but were added into Thompson's later transcript. By simply comparing the original radio log (which is the best indicator we have of what really happened) with the messages that Thompson sent to his superiors (which represent his version of what happened) it is very clear that a picture was being painted the primary purpose of which was to cover his own butt. Taken in context, the erasure of the word drifting and the substitution of the word circling is highly suspect. I realize that this makes me a conspiracy theorist, but I submit that the available contemporaneous documents suggest that there was indeed a conspiracy perpetrated by Warner Thompson to alter the record in such a way as to preserve himself from blame. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:48:37 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: technological advances I just gotta get in on this discussion! While the contribution of computer technology to modern airliners is largely economic, there is also a measurable improvement to safety. The accidents and incidents often attributed to technology are most often Human Factors issues. Our old nemesis, Pilot Error, remains a relative constant over the 45 years I have been involved in aviation. Airplanes are much more reliable today, which accounts for the profound increase in safety that has been enjoyed over the past two decades. That which is more recently becoming evident are Human Factors issues associated with design, manufacture and support. Perhaps the most famous example of this was the Apollo training accident that cost the lives of three of our Astronauts. A pure-oxygen environment was combined with a complex escape hatch. There is a long-standing policy of the NTSB to find a single cause of an accident. Because the pilot was the last person responsible, he or she usually gets the blame. The deep legal pockets of the manufacturers and airlines tend to reinforce such a finding. But due to the vastly increased complexity of the environment in which we fly, small errors made by engineers, programmers and the like may contribute to the incident or accident. An interesting example, the Cali accident, may be found at: and select You will need the ubiquitous Adobe Acrobat Reader. As it was in 1937, and has been since, the last line of defense is a well-trained pilot who understands and applies the fundamentals--and has a couple of back-up plans for EVERY situation. The New Stuff, whether it is the glass cockpits and computers of today or Automatic Direction Finding equipment in 1937, SHOULD BE in addition to basic airmanship skills, not a replacement for them. Unfortunately, it is not always so. Some pilots today (and in 1937?) seem to forget the fundamentals when they acquire new technology. Oh, almost forgot. Yes, Dave, I am a (retired) pilot. Sorry, Ric. Too long. Skeet Gifford, 1371CB **************************************************************** From Ric Skeet describing himself as a pilot is a bit like Heifetz describing himself as a fiddler. In addition to being a retired airline pilot, Skeet Gifford has long been a consultant to NASA. Of course, he may also be a bit biased. That "B" in his member number indicates that he is on TIGHAR's Board of Directors. ***************************************************************** From Dennis McGee First of all, Dave, take your nitro pill, sit down, take a few deep breaths, count to 125, and repeat after me "I will not have a coronary." When the vein in your forehead has stopped pulsating, read on. Tech Nerd? Me? I don't think so. My reaction was solely to your statement: "Safety has not improved with automation. In fact, the opposite has occurred." Now, Dave, in your heart of hearts you've got to admit that was a pretty rash statement, wasn't it? For every failure of technology there are thousands of daily success stories, you just don't read about them in the papers and they don't show up in the NTSB reports. I believe your point is, Dave, that pilots can rely too much on technology. This is true, we can. Case in point, the American Airlines 767 that crashed in Columbia about 2 years ago. The pilots were distracted and momentarily confused as to their position and then -- Boom -- contact with cumulus granite. We still need well-trained humans to run our technology and well-trained instructors (like you, Dave) to teach us. As pilots we still have the responsibility to maintain currency, use check lists, improve our situational awareness abilities, and a host of other things. All of these are made easier and -- in my book -- safer by technology. I can find my location over unfamiliar territory a lot easier by taking shots off of two VORs than I can by reading a sectional. (GPS? Sorry, I can't afford it.). The VORs get me in the neighborhood and the sectional gets me to the house. As for the staff at work complaining about their PCs freezing, programs not running, etc. Isn't that your job, Dave? And if it isn't, why are you doing it? I think you need to talk to your supervisor. Hell, Dave, I'm just a mid-level P.R. guy with a low-time private ticket -- no IFR, no multi, no commercial, no ATP, no CFI or CFII etc. So I guess yours is bigger than mine. But it goes to prove size doesn't prevent us from making stupid statements. Now, let's not waste any more time on the forum with this argument. LTM, who is mortified over this turn of events Dennis McGee #0149 ****************************************************************** From Bill Hillier Ric, I don't have a breakdown that would indicate the number of accidents. I did report a few days ago that US airlines including those operating outside the US had no fatalities in 1998, a remarkable feat when one considers that they carried 615 million passengers. Bill Hillier 2264 **************************************************************** From Craig Fuller Dave, Lets take a look at the USAF safety record and see how technology has "hurt" them. The following web site has their accident statistics from 1947 to 1997: http://www-afsc.saia.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/usaf1097.html You will notice that the average number of accidents has steadily dropped from 44 accidents per 100,000 hours of flying in '47 to in the mid '80s around 2 accidents per 100,000 hours of flying. Craig Fuller Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:05:49 EST From: Scott Zaden Subject: Re: Aviation Remote Viewing I some strange E-Mails on this subject and thought I would comment. >Coincidentally, yesterday on Paul Harvey's _Rest_of_the_Story_ radio >broadcast, he reported on the kidnapping (some years back as you recall) >of General Dozier. According to his report, the building in which the >general was detained was described in detail by these guys. I can confirm this. Around Christmas week 1981 General Dozier was kidnapped by the 'Red Brigades' operating under a leader known as "Carlos". After the Red Brigade assignation of Italian political leader Aldo Moro there was enough concern for the General's life to bring in Remote Viewers. Ultimately viewers brought the search to the Italian town of Padua. After a miss with a civilian, a military remote viewer brought the team to a similar looking house in the same town. General Dozier owes his life to this whose drawings of the room he was held in were ultimately found to be correct >I am aware of NO circumstance that was contemporaneously recorded by >competent, unbiased authorities where a remote viewer actually found >anything. This is because you are not well read on the subject. While a little sensationalized, you still should see Jim Schnabel's book "Remote Viewers" on Bantam Doubleday Dell; ISBN# 0-440-22306-7. There is actually loads of info on this however the military program is still 95% classified. But, the military protocols on this process -called Controlled Remote Viewing - are being civilianized. >As you may know, there is a standing offer of $10,000 by illusionist and >psychic debunker James Randi for the scientifically sound demonstration of >ANY paranormal ability. James Randi is a clown/magician who is on the run. He is currently being pressured for his refusal to transfer his money to an independent third party for dispersment upon proof. New "proof" negotiations are currently underway. The men have learned the hard way not to proceed without assurances. Seems he has now added the words 'scientific prove' to protect himself. Yes RV works, but it wasn't scientific - so no money. Bottom line -- there may never be scientific proof as we know it. The whole thing is rather a publicity scam the military men do not even want to deal with. I would be very careful publicly identifying yourself with this guy. In terms of an aviation score, I can shed some light on this as well. In May 1978, the Soviet TU-22 intelligence aircraft (Code named "Blinder" by NATO) crash site was found in the dense jungles of Zaire by the American remote viewers before the Russians could get there. The target was tasked by Major General Ed Thompson from the Pentagon when U.S. spy and infrared satellites failed to turn anything up. The Air Force's Foreign Technology Division physicist Dale Graff generated coordinate information from viewer Frances Bryan at Wright-Patterson Air Force base. The plane was also viewed by a Gary Langford at Stanfords' Research Institute in C.A. Subsequently the Pentagon sent the information the African Directorate of Operations who passed it along to the Kinshasa station chief. Bottom Line - the plane was in a river with only it's tail showing. Turned out the search team was some 70 miles off the crash site. When they got there the natives had already started to carry some parts away. When Jimmy Carter asked how the plane had been found so quickly he was told of the project - which at the time I believe was called Operation Grill Flame. After this the Defense Intelligence Agency's Scientific and Technical Intelligence Directorate (DT) got involved. I have no knowledge any intelligence information from the salvaged wreck has been made public. And yes, in case you are wondering, AE's flight has been viewed as if it was target within the interests of the people if the United States. Hope this helps. Best regards, Scott Zaden ***************************************************************** From Ric Nowhere do you offer what I called for - An instance contemporaneously recorded by competent, unbiased authority where a remote viewer actually found anything. Let's make this easy. I here and now challenge any remote viewer, psychic, map dowser, snake charmer, or Dionne Warwick herself to participate in a controlled experiment which can be overseen by a mutually agreed-upon third party. The target will be an object on Nikumaroro the location of which is known only to me and a few other team members who will keep their mouths shut. The results of the experiment- whatever they may be - will be announced on this forum and on the TIGHAR website. How about it? I say remote viewers are frauds. Prove me wrong. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:10:59 EST From: Suzanne T. Subject: Re: technological advacements I don't know who does the hiring for the clerical support in Sactodave's world, but the clerical assistants who were in my division and others were professionals. They not only knew how to expertly run the necessary software, they were trouble shooters for execs who were challenged by it. They also kept their eyes out for new software and training opportunities. I will admit they had an advantage by working in silicon valley. My guess is that in Sactodave's work environment the clerical support hiring is lacking as is their training. Best regards, Suzanne T. ***************************************************************** From Ric I just hope that those people he busted for visiting morally questionable websites don't find out that he's on this forum. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:07:32 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Flight English 101 I can't leave well-enough alone. Air Force Manual 51-43, Air Navigation for Pilots, dated January, 1952, was my "bible" in training. It refers to the procedure as "Dead Reckoning." Thanks, Tom, for the derivation. Skeet Gifford, 1371CB ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:13:31 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Speculation vs Scientific Method Sactodave (Dave Kelly) wrote, "Speculation is about all we have... The alternative to TIGHAR's theory is unquestionably that they had to ditch." TIGHAR's search team may or may not find identifiable airplane serial numbers of human remains that can be identified by DNA on Nikamaruru but that doesn't mean that their theory of what happened to Amelia and Fred is not true. It simply means it is not fully proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Regardless of what is found on the next Pacific trips TIGHAR's evidence to date is far more conclusive than the ditch in the ocean theory. I don't know a single aviator with over water experience from the pre-electronic navigational period that would not conclude that Fred Noonan had a plan to find landfall if Howland could not be located. The Phoenix Island group is the only logical alternate to Howland. Dave also writes that, "Alternate theories are as valid as TIGHARs". If he can show me that the alternate theories are based on sound scientific research then, and only then, would I agree. So far I have seen none that meet that requirement. Dick Pingrey 0908C ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:19:22 EST From: Dick Strippel Subject: Re: Wreck Photo hoax? After the neat web page on Howland as vacation spot, the credibility of everything from this source is now in doubt. --DICK **************************************************************** From Ric Are you somehow under the impression that the Wreck Photo came from that website, or do you think that TIGHAR had anything to do with the Howland Island web site? One of us is very confused. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:30:00 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Aviation Remote Viewing I did a little followup (there's a bunch of remote viewing stuff on the internet), a lot of it revolving around Ed Dames (haven't I seen his name on the forum?), and from what I could find out (about Gen. Dozier's situation), the rescue was the result of good work by local police; remote viewing did not apparently play any part. LTM, jon (2266) ****************************************************************** From Ric Gee, that's not what Scott Zaden says. Is it possible that there is some bald-faced lying going on somewhere? Yes indeed, it's time to settle this once and for all with a good, controlled experiment. Imagine the boon to society if we can put an end to this controversy at last. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:55:34 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Relationships I just read all this techno stuff from you guys and I think you all have been playing with your trim tabs too much. It's time to lower your gear and get back to what is important. I'm talking about relationships. Now Ric, I hear you grinding your teeth, I'll play by your rules. I'm talking about working relationships. A good detective always educates him or herself with the people their investigating. You gots (slang) to understand their idiosyncrasies and picadillos to solve a crime or mystery, I think we have all seen the news clip of Amelia's crash in the 50th state during her first attempt of a round the world journey. Did you see Amelia's face? She is all smiles, composed, and ready to take on another day. Look at Paul Mantz. This man is totally disgusted. Why? Mantz was hired or volunteered to help Amelia fly the Electra. Ric, depending on what book you read. Paul was at the controls when the Electra landed the night before. Some say it was an exceptionally hard landing. The next day Amelia was the pilot. During the take-off, the Electra skidded out of control and caused some $50,000.00 damage. Some blame Mantz's hard landing, saying it caused strut or tire damage. Mantz blames Amelia for her inexperience, and her habit of jockeying the throttles. I guess a big mistake, I wouldn't know, I only piloted a Skymaster, and that slug would only do 120 knots in a dive with an anchor tied to it's cowl flap. The point being, Amelia was under great stress. Not only from her husband George, but from herself. This was her last hooray, her Swan song, depending on what book you read. Then, without warning, Amelia takes off to eternity without informing Mantz of her intentions. Leaving behind some very valuable equipment, Parachutes, flares, low frequency radio, 250 foot trailing antenna, depending on what book you read. Did Amelia get along and play well with others? Enter Fred Noonan. Daddy Warbucks (Putnum) wanted the best for his new bride, Noonan was the best. I was sad to hear that he was declared a drunk in 1966, twenty-nine years after his disappearance. Hide the bottles Fred. What working relationship did Amelia and Fred have? The reason I ask this question is because of the telegram Amelia sent hubby from Lae. I'm paraphrasing, "having problems with equipment and personnel." What did she mean by that? Having problems with the ground crew, the Lae officials, Noonan? If Noonan, then this twenty hour flight to Howland had to be a gauntlet. I wish I was a fly on the attitude indicator. If there was some disrespect between the two, hostility, it could have caused a navigational error, and led to their doom. I know, speculation. I'm not only interested in the location of the Electra and the where-abouts of Amelia and Noonan, I'm also very interested in what happened to cause this American tragedy. Love to Father, Mother gets too much attention. ***************************************************************** From Ric >A good detective always educates him or herself with the people their >investigating. You gots (slang) to understand their idiosyncrasies and >picadillos to solve a crime or mystery. A good detective always educates himself or herself - period. I submit that, at this remove, we can not possibly hope to understand the idiosyncrasies and peccadilloes of either of these people. Nearly everything we have about Amelia's personality is filtered through her own and Putnam's sensitivity about her image. We know almost nothing about Noonan's personality. In my opinion, it is essential to any investigation to have an understanding of what kinds of things are knowable and what things are inherently unknowable. There are always many more of the latter than the former. I see no point in gossiping about Amelia's relationships. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:01:33 EST From: Dick Strippel Subject: Re: Wreck Photo a hoax? EVER SINCE THE HOWLAND ISLAND "HOAX,"WE CAN'T TRUST THE PERSON WHO POSTED THAT **************************************************************** From Ric S'Ok Dick. Really. The person that created the Howland Island website spoof is not on the forum. Never was. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:21:06 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Side Shows OK guys. Recess is over. I know I don't have to click on emails with the titles of Remote Viewing and Technology/Safety, but jeez. At least the Ded Reckoning stuff was somewhat related. I think you're falling into the trap noted below: "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." Surely, Ric, there are some useful investigations these idle minds can help with. And what's with "hopefully" anyway? My dictionary, Random House Unabridged, says, "Although some strongly object to its use as a sentence modifier, hopefully meaning,'it is hoped (that)' has been in use since the 1930's (see...I'm on topic by virtue of time period) and is fully standard in all varieties of speech and writing." Even AE and FN would have approved. Blue skies, -jerry **************************************************************** From Ric Wouldst thou make this reverend tongue a slave to fashion? That might very well impact our efforts to surveil the new paradigm. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:42:18 EST From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: Aviation Remote Viewing Scott Zaden wrote: >I some strange E-Mails on this subject and thought I would comment. No kidding. Remote sensing of assignations?!!! There's been quite enough of that in Washington already. Love to Monica, Amanda Dunham **************************************************************** From Jon Watson I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that a) anyone is lying, b) remote viewing is impossible, c) Amelia died in New Jersey. IF there is someone out there who CAN and WILL provide specifics on the wreck site (okay, excluding the "crashed in the middle of the marianas trench" type report), then I say, if it falls within reason during the expedition, we (hey, I can say that now!) should check it out. I agree that the preliminary test which you suggested would be an ideal way of ascertaining the viability (not necessarily the veracity) of the procedure. At the same time, I wouldn't condone the expediture of a nickle of the membership's funds toward such a test; or even toward location of the site. It seems to me that those who are in the business of remote viewing (which my forays into the 'net lead me to believe are mostly engaged in the business of selling training on how to do it, not in just doing it) anyway- those folks could get a huge industry boost if they were to come out and locate the crash site and have it proven that they located it. But I'm not holding my breath. By the way ... can I be the raccoon? Love to mother, jon 2266 **************************************************************** From Ric Ed Dames has already gone on record with a specific location where he says the Earhart plane rests (it's in the Gilberts). His promised expedition to recover said aircraft has not happened. Unfortunately, none of these bozos is likely to accept my challenge. They never ever operate in the sunlight. **************************************************************** From Gene Dangelo While there is a vast preponderance of literature on the popular paranormal market right now (I know, because I actually read a lot of it) concerning remote viewing via reports from former military officers, etc., the ultimate test of the veracity of any such reports will lie in the correlation (or lack thereof) between remotely viewed events and actual matching occurrences in the empirically generated database. If it can stand the test of scientific method with a frequency beyond that of mere coincidence, then it has scientific value; if not, then it hasn't such value. The truth, i.e., the database, is out there! Regards to all, Dr. Gene Dangelo #2211 **************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, and next we're going to try to scientifically verify spontaneous human combustion. **************************************************************** From Tom Van Hare Ric wrote: > Yes indeed, it's time to settle this once and for all with a > good, controlled experiment. OK, I'll kick off the first part of the remote viewing psychic experiment.... Just repeat after me.... VISUALIZE IMPEACHMENT (and having written this, I will now duck and run for cover.) Bottom line, all that psychic crap is well, just that. Given the clear interest most of those people have in money and fame, you'd think that they would visualize next week's lottery numbers from time to time. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:59:18 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: English 101 (longish, but challenging) Not being either a conspiracy theorist or a radio guy, I don't understand why "circling" would cover Warner Thompson's butt any better than "listening." TKing ***************************************************************** From Ric Why do I feel like Joe Gervais? The change was from "drifting" to "circling." Drifting just didn't make any sense at all and was rather obviously an error on the part of the operator. Can't have that. Going in circles, burning up precious fuel, was just the sort of activity which supported Thompson's characterization of Earhart as incompetent and rattled. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:27:35 EST From: Daryll Bolinger Subject: RV, LB, GP (Note from Ric: I'll answer Daryll's questions as we go.) Greetings to Ric and the Forum; 1. Remote Viewing, post loss transmissions, messages in a bottle, these could all be examples of getting the truth out without revealing the messenger. (You can get help for this problem. Paranoia is curable now.) 2. >The original Itasca radio log, as preserved by Chief Radioman Leo >Bellarts (bless his heart), I thought logs were Gov. property ? a. This leaves me with the impression that Mr. Bellarts kept the logs. (Yes. As Chief Radioman, Bellart's was supposed to have custody of all paperwork pertaining to communications. He later said that after Earhart disappeared bits of paper started to come up missing and he became concerned that some of the crew were collecting souvenirs. He got permission from the communications officer to gather up and secure all of the original logs. He ended up keeping them and eventually giving them to the National Archives.) b. I also seem to recall that Mr. Bellarts was interviewed at one time. (Yes. Elgen Long interviewed Bellarts in 1973. I have a transcript of that interview courtesy of the Bellarts family.) Did he indicate that he made the changes? (The changes weren't made to Bellart's original logs. Thompson added references to cloudy and overcast weather later when he wrote his report. In the interview, Bellarts affirms that the discrepancies could not have been a simple difference of opinion about what was said because, at the time of the transmissions in question, the sound was coming in only over his headphones. Only later did he switch to the speaker. There is no reference in the interview to erasing "drifting." Bellarts was not typing the log at that time. Another operator named Galten was.) c. Can you say if the same typewritter made the changes? (I'm not an expert, but it looks that way.) d. If you can type the pages of a log, does this mean that the log was a loose leaf type binder where you could add or subtract pages? (My understanding is that these were individual preprinted forms that were put in the typewriter. No indication that they were ever put in a binder.) 3. Can you tell the Forum more about George Putman after the loss of AE until his death? a. My impression is that he continued to push for her search until a judge declared AE dead 18 months after she disappeared. Didn't the 7 year rule apply for missing persons back then? b. What was his job during WWII ? c. Did he ever try to write anything about AE after she was lost ? ( I suggest that you read Mary Lovell's 1989 book The Sound of Wings.) Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:29:14 EST From: Clyde Miller Subject: Re: technological advacements But, what about that drifting aircraft carrier? Clyde ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:31:54 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Flight English 101 Skeet Gifford wrote: > Air Force Manual 51-43, Air Navigation for Pilots, dated > January, 1952, was my "bible" in training. It refers to the > procedure as "Dead Reckoning." Thanks, Tom, for the derivation. Wow. Even the USAF has it that way. Probably Ric is right that at this point "Dead Reckoning" has become so much part of the vocabulary that it is considered accurate, even by USAF senior navigators. You know, I think my father has that AF Manual on the shelf too, I wonder which way he remembers it. Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:35:13 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: technological advances Clyde Miller wrote: > Could we have some facts please on the drifting aircraft carrier? This > sounds like unsubstantiated urban rumor. Go to http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks and search for "Yorktown". Starting with Volume 19, issue 88 (near the end of the search results) you'll find 11 entries. > I'm sure the problem involved ghosts and not an NT server. Not an NT server, an NT workstation. And not (as someone else said) an aircraft carrier, but a missile cruiser. Quoting a bit from the first article: The Navy's Smart Ship technology is being considered a success, because it has resulted in reduced manpower, workloads, maintenance and costs for sailors aboard the Aegis missile cruiser USS Yorktown. However, in September 1997, the Yorktown suffered a systems failure during maneuvers off the coast of Cape Charles, VA., apparently as a result of the failure to prevent a divide by zero in a Windows NT application. The zero seems to have been an erroneous data item that was manually entered. Atlantic Fleet officials said the ship was dead in the water for about 2 hours and 45 minutes. A previous loss of propulsion occurred on 2 May 1997, also due to software. Other system collapses are also indicated. [Source: Gregory Slabodkin, Software glitches leave Navy Smart Ship dead in the water, Government Computer News, 13 Jul 1998, PGN Stark Abstracting from http://www.gcn.com/gcn/1998/July13/cov2.htm End quotation > Were they anywhere near the bermuda triangle? Nope. > And if true aren't we now part of a conspiracy that is putting in a public > forum, TOP SECRET information concerning the primary steering > mechanisms for our most powerful ships capable of surviving a war, > but not an NT server breakdown? Not one of the "most powerful" ships, and the server didn't break down. One of the later articles mentions that the actual problem was that the entry of a zero at one console crashed the shipboard LAN and took down not just steering, but the entire propulsion plant. Poor programming, in my opinion, to not handle an incorrect input in a competent manner. However, what I find even more worrysome is that this tells us that crashing the on-board net will stop the ship. Since they're using commercial hardware (the articles outline this) it would seem that the EM pulse from even a very small nuke anywhere near this ship would stop it dead. Yow! - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:38:02 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Technological advances Ric wrote: > (I can guarantee that all of the women on the forum are imagining a bunch of > six year old boys out in back of the garage saying, "Oh yeah? Mine's > bigger.") You don't have to be female to make that observation. Bill #2229 ***************************************************************** From Ric And so, it is to be hoped, endeth this off-topic line of discussion (he said hopefully). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:43:14 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Relationships Ric says: I see no point in gossiping about Amelia's relationships. Hear, hear (or there, there, or whatever). How is it conceivably going to bring us any closer to solving this thing, to speculate about how Amelia and Fred got along. Seems to me like a waste of time to speculate about all this. If we had Ken Starr's budget, maybe.... Spin the prop Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:45:51 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Technological advances (sorry off-topic) Dave Kelly wrote: > Safety has not improved. Wrong. It has, look at the numbers. And the reason why airlines are primary point of the discussion has to do with the number of flights they do -- US Airways does just about 950,000 flights a year (T/Os to Landings). Now add in United, American, Delta, KLM, Lufthansa.... Just how many GA flights a year are there anyway? > Another example? The MD-88 at Detroit that took off with the > flaps positioned incorrectly. The airplane stalled right at > rotation, and the hapless crew was mystified as to the problem. I think you are talking about Northwest 242. That was a 727, wasn't it? The crew started off the flight by missing their taxi instructions, heading the wrong way on the ground, having to turn around, and get a progressive from Ground. Then they were order to do a Position and Hold for awhile during which they discussed the future of the airline and then current labor-management problems. Somehow, they forgot to set the flaps. Once released and cleared, while on the roll, the auto-throttles didn't engage, which was a correct system response to having no flaps set, but the captain focused on this instead as the system problem and manually overrode the auto-throttles. They rotated, well past V1, couldn't get airborne, finally pulled it off the ground at the end of the runway and, on the verge of a stall -- they almost made it, actually -- then they wallowed over the low buildings off the departure end of the runway for some few hundred yards before the wing clipped a light post, the plane stalled, and rolled inverted before crashing into the ground down into a sunken roadway. Everyone died, except for a one year baby girl -- and that was called the "miracle" of the flight. As far as automation goes, this was an older airplane, without all that new-fangled computer stuff. It was plain and simple pilot/crew error. The pilots hand flew the entire emergency. Given the fact that both pilots had a strong reputation as among the most concientious and responsible, by-the-book types, this is one of those ones that really makes you stop for a second and think. Those guys were absolute professionals, on the top of the game, top marks throughout, best training, best records, well-known to be very very good and yet... they still bought the farm. That's why so many pilots like reading NTSB reports. At first you think, just how stupid do you have to be to do that, then you read the guy at 20,000 hours in type and you think, ok, what the hell? Then you realize, that could have been me after all.... Thomas Van Hare ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:50:22 EST From: Ken Feder Subject: Re: Aviation Remote Viewing In the last couple of days, someone (sorry, I trashed the e-mail) claimed that magician/nonsense-debunker James Randi is "on the run" concerning his "$10,000" offer to anyone who can prove a paranormal event or phenomenon like, f'rinstance, remote viewing. Randi on the run? That's a good one. The James Randi Educational Foundation is thriving, debunking silliness wherever it finds it. And the "$10,000" award? Try $1 million (it hasn't been $10,000 for a long time). And there have been lots of takers. All losers. Remote viewing experiments have been plagued by poor design, worse statistics, post-hoc rationalizations, and lots of opportunity for fudging. But hey, Ric; maybe you could dowse for Amelia.... Ken Feder *******************************