Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:14:40 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: F.N's Navigation I imagine this has been covered somewhere (If I recall Ric is a pilot), but I see this business of the accuracy of F.N.'s navigation crop up all the time, and now the suggestion that Nav may not be an "exact" art. Visual navigation over LAND was NOT an exact art (it pretty much is now with Global Pos Sats). I have several times found myself blown off course on a short flight of maybe 250 miles (and I can see what's under me when flying over the ground). (I have completely missed an Island offshore due to fog.) The problem is, the further you fly on a given heading, the harder it is to stay on course and the bigger any error will be. RD (Who enjoyed looking for info on inventory items) *************************************************************************** From Ric The issue of Noonan's known navigational techinques and demonstrated accuracy has been the subject of rather intense research and will be covered in considerable detail in the 8th edition of the Earhart Project Book currently being put together. Most of the raw text has now been written and we're ready to begin the process of editing and layout. We're probalvy looking at March for final publication. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:43:45 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: Antennas Congratulations! Verification that the bottom antenna was ripped off is, obviously, a critical fact relating to the Earhart mystery. One which no one else has uncovered. And one which may have a direct impact on why the communications failed so miserably. There has been so much speculation about this and maybe it comes down to something as simple as a lost antenna. As I recall we were never able to resolve exactly what radio gear was hooked up to which antenna. I suggest someone contact Elgin Long re the antenna hook ups. He seemed to have fairly strong documented info on the radio set ups and modifications. I was going to ask him about the antenna connections when he gave his presentation in Oakland, but didn't get to. He is giving presentations in San Diego and Seattle air museums over the next few months if someone wants to try to catch him then. Good diligent, thorough, documented, and successful investigation in the TIGHAR way. Kudos. blue skies, -jerry PS - if you still need a photo of the top of an Electra I can take a picture of the Lockheed in Oakland. ************************************************************************** From Ric At your convenience, yes, we still need a good close shot of the seam that runs down the middle of the ship. Elgen Long's "knowledge" of the aircraft's radio set up suffers from the same problems that plague the rest of his research. He just doesn't understand the difference between anecdote and hard evidence. He "knows" all sorts of things that he has decided are true and are therefore (to him) true. For example, he is certain that there was a Bendix RA-1 receiver aboard the airplane although there is no real evidence for that. He presents a photo which he says shows the remote head for the RA-1 installed in the cockpit of NR16020 and states that this photo was taken on or about May 26, 1937 in Miami by Pan American mechanic F. Ralph Silas. His source for this information is his own interview with Silas in 1977, forty years after the event in question. There is nothing in the photo itself to date when it was taken or even confirm that it is Earhart's airplane. The remote head is mounted in what seems to be a rather dangerous position on the cockpit's left "eyebrow" panel and sticks down beside the pilot's left temple. Elgen says that this could be very hazardous in the event of a ditching (as indeed it would be) but he doesn't explain while this prominent feature is not visible in any of the many photos taken of the airplane during the world flight. If Elgen has real evidence about the aircraft's radio system he hasn't made it public. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:48:31 EST From: George Kastner Subject: Lesser, fewer "As of today there are 649 subscribers to the Earhartforum. Less than half are active supporters of the research everyone enjoys." Actually, Ric, "less" describes mass nouns. In this sentence you need "fewer supporters," which is for countable nouns. For instance, you have "less water," though not "fewer water," since the water itself cannot be counted. (Though you could have "fewer gallons of water," the gallons being countable.) Likewise you have "fewer supporters," since you can count each and every one (though they certainly could be "less active"). G. Kastner #862C PS: As a bookseller, I see all those titles with themes--Sue Grafton uses the alphabet in her mysteries: A Is For Alibi, B Is For Burglar; Greeley uses the Beatitudes, etc. I am going to write a mystery series wherein each title contains a grammatical error: No Job To Small, Laying in Wait, etc. My wife feels I have too much spare time on my hands. Probably true./gk ************************************************************************** From Ric Correction noted and appreciated. The non-members are indeed countable. We shall do so and report the results of this counting. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:49:55 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: thorough searches <> These are the same guys who so "thoroughly" surveyed the island that they wouldn't have missed anything? Hmmmm LTM A McKenna 1045 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:53:50 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Fire extinguisher About the only similarity I see in the "mystery object" in MAY20DEP.JPG and the Tighar/Niku fire extinguisher is that both are cylindrical in shape. I've got a letter off to The Thermos Company, with a printout of MAY20DEP.JPG enclosed, in the hope they may be able to identify the "mystery object" even though it may not by their own product. As we say, confirmation that a thing is NOT significant, not what we thought it might be, also advances the project. The Thermos Company has an interesting history of the "Thermos Bottle" on their web site. There are no pictures of old Thermos bottles but it gives me hope that someone there may be familiar with bottles made in the 1930's, or before. And perhaps those made by others as well. There is no e-mail address given, hence my snail-mail letter. ************************************************************************* From Ric That could be useful. To my untrained eye, the "neck" of the cylindrical object in the photo is so narrow as to make it impractical for the dispensing of liquids. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:16:26 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: USS Cabot (CVL-28) WARNING! This post contains no Amelia Earhart related material whatsoever. However, since part of the wider TIGHAR mandate is to promote preservation of historic aviation artifacts, I'm hoping that Ric will indulge me for just a moment... The USS Cabot (CVL-28), is the last surviving light carrier from WWII and the only aircraft carrier that retains its basic 1940s era configuration (complete with straight, wooden flight deck). She served with distinction through 18 months of the Pacific Campaign, earning 9 battle stars and the Presidential Unit Citation. During that time, the ship lost 110 members of her crew - 35 as the result of two simultaneous Kamikaze strikes. The Cabot is now at scrapyard in Brownsville, Texas awaiting her fate. To me, learning that this ship still exists was like hearing that Bob Ballard had gone looking for the Yorktown and discovered it...STILL AFLOAT. There is an organization with a chance to save the Cabot as a museum/memprial, but they need help to bring enough pressure on the scrap dealers to sell her at a fair price. I naturally thought of contacting the Earhart Forum, the quickest way to access a large group of highly motivated, history-minded, well-educated, cybersavvy (not to mention good-looking) go-getters and hopefully set them to the task at hand. If anyone is interested in learning more, you can visit the Cabot website at << www.usscabot.com >> or contact me directly. LTM, Russ ************************************************************************** From Ric Although admittedly off-topic, I have no objection to postings like this. The forum IS an unusual (and astonishingly good looking) group blessed with great intelligence and eclectic tastes. Notices of historical and/or historic preservation projects which may be of interest to the forum are welcome with the understanding that they are a one time announcement and not intended to launch a thread of discussion on this forum. Thanks Russ. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:19:48 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: off-topic details Bill wrote: << We conjecture that AE & FN weren't where they thought they were since they didn't show up where they were expected. On the other hand, perhaps their navigation told them they were X miles from Howland, and maybe they really WERE in exactly X miles from Howland, and just didn't find it. >> Thanks, Bill. That was my point to Herman. You obviously made it clearer than I did. I wasn't disagreeing with Herman other than not shutting a door on a possibility. Alan, who is not going to tell Pat who the family lawyer is ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 11:28:30 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: The Lost Antenna Ric wrote in reply to a private congratulatory email about the lost antenna, > Thanks, but will the public accept it? In the 12 years we've > been working on Earhart case I've been continually amazed at how difficult it > is to make a dent in the legend. It's been quite an education. The public is usually ignorant about history in any case. The obvious route is to get the source material and accounts of it into data bases and repositories that are likely to be protected and consulted through the centuries. Thus, truth will have a way of slipping through, regardless of the wider motives of the writers of history. The average person has difficulty retaining complex and seemingly conflicting ideas simultaneously. This is probably partly due to human nature, and certainly something that better educational methods could alleviate. But progress along these lines is very slow-- it has taken 5,000 years (since the invention of writing) to gradually pull people from living in a soup of superstition and ritual into a cauldron mixed with superstition, ritual, and a few basic points of reality (no need to digress here into the enormous survival benefits of blind ritual-- which is a kind of cultural instinct). Romantic subjects are notoriously prone to distortion, and people often accept fictional novels and short stories tied to historical events as fact. Be patient, protect and disseminate TIGAHR's discoveries and excellent documentation. Over time (and it could be a very long time), widely published historians will tend to pick up elements of the TIGHAR thread. Even if TIGAR finds something like a chunk of engine block on Niku with an Earhart related serial number on it, it could be years (even decades) before wide public acceptance happens. And if acceptance comes quickly (spectacular news coverage, etc), the accompanying distortions from bad Hollywood movies and intellectual adventurers trying to grab attention will utterly vex you anyway! regards, william 2243 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 19:43:33 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: off-topic details Bill wrote: << We conjecture that AE & FN weren't where they thought they were since > Judging from own experience I think it is safe to say that when a pilot knows exactly where he is, he'll find whatever it is he's looking for. It's basic navigation. But AE's radio message tells us : "We are on you". But they couldn't see it. Therefore I think we must assume they were not where they thought they were, probably X miles off, perhaps indeed as little as 10 miles as has been suggested here. But that is exactly the problem. And that is what TIGHAR (and others) have been trying to solve for the last 60+ years. They were clearly not where they thought they were. And I think they didn't have a clue as to where to look. If their navigation told them they were x miles from Howland, as Bill says, an d if they were sure of that, then it would have been a piece of cake heading for Howland. They didn't, and one reason why is that visibility was not what we believe it was, as I tried to explain in my previous posting. It is generally believed that the weather was clear. How clear exactly ? Was Howland CAVOK ? If so that would imply 10km visibility. If Itasca could see the horizon, visibility would have been something like 20 miles. If it was less, not seeing Howland is understandable. And finding Howland in that vast empty ocean without radio aid not only called an LOP but for "GPS quality" navigation by Noonan. It also called for better than CAVOK visibility for a VMC approach.Do we have information on visibility at or near Howland that day ? Put simply : did the Itasca crew ever mention they could see the horizon ? If they did and AE was flying at 1,000 ft.as has been said, then FN had a problem. If they didn't, they still had a problem but at least we know which one. LTM from Herman, who used to find pins in haystacks, weather permitting ************************************************************************** From Ric Throughout the morning of July 2nd the ITSACA's deck log recorded visibility "9" which means "Prominent objects visible above 20 miles." It is the highest category of visibility available to the keeper of the log. The sky condition was recorded as "bc" which is defined as "blue sky with detached clouds". Pehaps someone could enlighten me as to the point of this whole discussion. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 19:46:32 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Fire extinguisher Fire extinguisher vs vacuum (Thermos) bottle... >From Ric > >That could be useful. To my untrained eye, the "neck" of the cylindrical >object in the photo is so narrow as to make it impractical for the dispensing >of liquids. Yes, what appears to be a cap on the object in MAY20DEP.JPG is small. It would cover a stopper and bottle neck about the size you find in the typical Thermos bottle when you remove the larger "drinking cup" type cap. You'll recall that most Thermos bottles designed for liquids do not have a very large neck opening. The cap, however, is usually nearly the diameter of the outside of the whole housing, as seen on the other vacuum bottles in the picture. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 20:21:18 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: thorough searches Andrew says of Maude and Bevington: "These are the same guys who so "thoroughly" surveyed the island that they wouldn't have missed anything? Hmmmm" Yep. This is a good example of how careful you have to be about interpreting historical sources, and avoiding reading things into them. From Maude's standpoint, given what Maude was interested in, I imagine they DID survey the island "thoroughly." They looked it over for possible places where people could live, looked at its coconuts, generally checked out its agricultural land, got a sense of the productivity of the lagoon, etc. He wasn't being slipshod, or saying anything untrue, when he said they had "thoroughly" inspected the place; they just weren't inspecting it to find airplanes or aviators. In the same sense, the TIGHAR crew this year "thoroughly" inspected a portion of western Nutiran looking for airplanes and aviators, but it would be wrong for somebody interested in, say, spider populations to surmise that TIGHAR did a thorough arachnid survey. LTM (who wonders how many arachnid web sites there are) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:40:00 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: off-topic details >Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to the point of this whole discussion. > >LTM, >Ric *************************** Sorry Ric. Basically we were trying to understand why AE and FN failed to find Howland, I guess.... OK, so FN either unknowingly made a minor navigation error and they missed Howland, or his calculations were correct, as Bill thinks, and they knew where they were but they didn't find it. The mystery remains. LTM from Herman (who for a moment thought poor visibility was to blame). ************************************************************************* From Ric From what I've seen of the case it seems to me that Earhart and Noonan failed to find Howland because an essential element in their navigational plan failed. That essential element was navigational assistance via radio. That assistance could have come in the form of instructions (what we today would call "vectors") from the Itasca based upon bearing taken by the ship, or from bearing taken on the ship by the aircraft's own DF equipment. There is no evidence I know of to indicate that Noonan ever expected to find Howland by DR and celestial techniques alone. The radio was an essential part of the equation. At least part (and we're not sure just what part) of the radio failure was caused by the takeoff accident that deprived the airplane of its belly antenna. Whatever it's purpose, we can be quite sure that it had a purpose, and that it's loss had serious consequences. The knowledge that the aircraft suffered from such an accident adds an entirely new dimension to the Earhart disappearance which, in the past, has been laid entirely to human error. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:28:42 EST From: Jim Razzi Subject: Facts of the case I hope you might indulge me for a moment here. I'm new to the forum and I (and I suspect other newbies) would love to get some facts together in a line, so to speak. I have read the FAQ list but there is SO much information there that it overlaps itself. Anyway, to get to the point --- I would like to ascertain if the following items are why Tighar believes that AE and FN had landed (or crashed?) on Niku. Physical evidence: 1. A fragment of a woman's shoe that might have been worn by Amelia 2. A bottle of Benedictine that might have been Amelia's or Fred's. 3. A sextant box that might have belonged to F. N. 4. Some bones that could be Amelia's or Fred's 5. A photo of "something" on the reef that is currently being analyzed to see if it might be wreckage from the Electra. Anecdotal "evidence" 1. A woman named Emily's story that she saw some "airplane wreckage on the reef." when she was living on Niku. I understand that each or any of these things could be elaborated on but are they essential the point? Inquiring minds, etc.. ... Regards, Jim Razzi *************************************************************************** From Ric It's bit more involved than that. Here's a quick summary: 1. We are aware of no evidence that suggests that the flight went down at sea. No radio call was heard announcing such a ditching nor did Earhart ever say that fuel exhaustion was imminent. The 1937 search failed to find any trace of debris on the sea. (Itasca Radio Log. U.S. Navy Search Report) 2. When last heard from at 08:43 Earhart said she was flying on a "157/337" line but she was not understood to say what direction she was flying on that line. (Itasca Radio Log) 3. Such a line passing through Howland Island also passes within visual range of Gardner island. 4. Our fuel calculations indicate that the flight, when last heard from, had adequate fuel so that if Earhart followed the line in the 157 direction she should have reached Gardner. (Chater Report. Kelly Johnson tlegrams.) 5. The Navy's July 9th aerial search of Gardner noted signs of recent habitation which are not readily explainable unless they were left by the people who disappeared in that area one week before. (Lambrecht's report.) 6. The British October 1937 visit to Gardner noted signs of previous habitation which are not readily explainable unless they were left by the people who disappeared in that area three months before. (Bevington's diary) 7. Early settlers on Gardner Island (Nikumaroro) tell of an airplane wreck on the reef in 1940, long before any possibility of WWII activity. (Interviews with Emily Sikuli and Otiria O'Brian in Fiji in 1999.) 8. A wartime anecdotal account describes aircraft debris in use by residents of Nikumaroro in 1944 which the locals said came from "an airplane that was here when our people first came." (Interview with former USN PBY pilot Dr. John Mims in 1995.) 9. Photographic evidence confirms the presence of anomalous material on the reef in the location where aircraft wreckage is described to have been seen. (1937 Bevington photo, 1938 NZ survey photos) 10. Anecdotal accounts of former residents describe aircraft debris seen on the reef near the main lagoon passage, in the shoreline vegetaition, and along the lagoon shore just opposite the passage in the late 1950s. (Interviews with Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taeke on Funafuti in 1997) 11. Photographic evidence indicates the presence of light colored metal debris on the reef-flat near the main lagoon passage in 1953. (Forensic imaging of 1953 aerial mapping photo.) 12. Aircraft debris consistent with the Lockheed Model 10 and (to date) not identified as consistent with any other aircraft type ever know or suspected to have been in the region has been found in the abandoned village on the island. (Results of TIGHAR expeditions in 1989, 1991, and 1996.) 13. Anecdotal accounts by former residents and an American serviceman tell of the remains of a man and a woman discovered on the island and, in some cases, associated with the purported airplane wreck (Interviews with Dr. Teinamati Mereki and Reverend Aberaam Abera in the Solomon Islands in 1995; correspondence with Bauro Tikana in Tarawa in 1991; interviews with Tapania Taeke on Funafuti in 1997; interviews with Emily Sikuli and Otiria O'Brian in Fiji in 1999; San Diego Union interview with Coast Guard veteran Floyd Kilts in 1960.) 14. Extensive official British government records confirm the discovery in 1940 of the human remains of a castaway who perished while attempting to survive on Nikumaroro sometime prior to the island's settlement in 1939. With the bones were found a sextant box bearing a stencilled number that is similar to a number written on a sextant box known to have belonged to Fred Noonan, and the remains of a woman's shoe and a man's shoe. (Records of the Western Pacific High Commission) 15. Evaluation of the measurements taken of the bones found on Nikumaroro in 1940 by modern forensic anthropologists indicate that the individual was most likely a white female of northern European extraction who stood approximately 5 feet, 7 inches tall. (Paper prepared by Dr. Karen Ramey Burns, Dr. Richard Jantz, and Dr. Thomas F. King for the annual meeting of the American Anthropoligical Association in 1998.) 16. The remains of a shoe found on Nikumaroro by TIGHAR in 1991, in the same part of the island where tradition holds that the bones were found in 1940, has been judged to be of the same vintage, style and size as the shoes worn by Earhart on her final flight. (Analysis by the BiltRite Corporation in 1992.) I've probably missed some points of evidence. There are getting to be rather a lot of them. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:41:17 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: human error Please don't forget that Amelia attempted to run a check on her DF while at Lae. She was unable to do so attributing the failure to being too close to the Lae radio station. If DF was so important to Noonan's navigation plans, Earhart should never have taken off for Howland without positive confirmation that her system was working, and that she was proficient in its use. In that context there was definitely human error on the part of both parties. ************************************************************************** From Ric I suppose we can't say for sure whether the DF was working during the test flight or not. Perhaps Amelia was right, but it does seem negligent for her not to have gotten a positive check on it. It also seems negligent for neither her nor Nonan to have been proficient in Morse or to have insisted upon better coordination with the Coast Guard. If Lindbergh had failed to reach Paris I wonder how many instances of negligence we'd be able to come up with. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:08:54 EST From: Bill Subject: off-topic details > Sorry Ric. Basically we were trying to understand why AE and FN failed to > find Howland, I guess.... OK, so FN either unknowingly made a minor > navigation error and they missed Howland, or his calculations were correct, > as Bill thinks, and they knew where they were but they didn't find it. The > mystery remains. My original point was that where as we now DO know that 4th officer Boxall's calculations of Titanic's position was inaccurate, we do NOT equally know that Noonan miscalculated the Electra's position. However, Hermann is correct that we moved on from that point to the one he states above. - Bill ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:11:48 EST From: Anna Weber Subject: Re: Facts of the case Thank you, thank you thank you! I am not new to the forum, but I'm also not an aviator or a historian and sometimes the terms frequently used on the forum are over my head. (I often have to ask my father who is a pilot what you all are talking about!). Ric, every once in a while someone asks for some additional information that's not in the website like Mr. Razzi did, and you respond very clearly in a way that keeps me feeling like I'm in the loop. It's very appreciated. Anna Weber *************************************************************************** From Ric I expect that we often get so absorbed in examining the branches and leaves on individual trees that we forget to step back and take a look at the forest. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:18:21 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Bones paper Is it possible to purchase a copy of the Drs.Burns and King's 1998 paper to the AAA? I am guessing that it is included in the research CD, but $100 isn't an expenditure I can make just now. How is your doing eye doing? Be sure and take good care of yourself, we need our fearless leader! Thanks, Suzanne #2184 ************************************************************************** From Ric We can do better than that. Just go to the website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/bull12_19_98.html My eye seems to be healing just fine. In another couple weeks I should be as good as new. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:26:47 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Forum costs sponsor If you check out the forum sign-up page on the website at http://www.tighar.org/forum/AESForum.html you'll see a banner with the following announcement: "The Amelia Earhart Search Forum is made possible in part through a grant from Select GIS Services, an ESRI Authorized Introduction to ArcView GIS provider." Select GIS Services is covering TIGHAR's direct costs in subscribing to ListServ, the company that distributes the forum. The CEO at Select GIS Services is none other than our own Jim Thompson, TIGHAR 2185. Thanks Jim. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:53:13 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: Fuel Exhaustion Descent In context with the absence of any Mayday from Amelia at to point of fuel exhaustion, consider that she was probably still flying at 1,000 feet when the tanks ran dry. (To have climbed higher again would have depleted her fuel supply at an even greater rate.) She would not know precisely when the fuel would be exhausted, only that she was extremely low on fuel with each passing minute. Certainly she must have been simultaneously still searching for any safe haven to set down. One can imagine she would have been rather busy at the moment the last drop of fuel passed through the engines. She would have been trying to extend her glide and then set up for a crash landing while working the wobble pump in a vain attempt to coax a bit more fuel into the engines. Unless Noonan was up front too, it would have been difficult to find time to send a last message. At a rate of descent of 100 ft/min, she would be at sea level in only 10 minutes from the point at which the airplane started down. At a downward rate of 150 ft/min, the descent would have been about 6.7 minutes. At 200 ft/minute she had only 5 minutes to do anything. Not much time. There is also the likely possibility that at some point she stalled the airplane trying to stretch her glide path. This could easily reduce the time values mentioned above. I don't know what the power-off sink rate of the Model 10 was, but I doubt it was less than 100 ft/min. Superimpose fear and fatigue on this situation and I find it entirely plausible that no Mayday message went out over the airways. I also understand that this is speculation on my part, but I would argue at the same time that it is not an unreasonable scenario. ************************************************************************* From Ric And I woud argue that to speculate that Earhart permitted the tanks to run dry in flight is to: 1. Make the assumption that she and Noonan were unsuccessful in their attempt to find land. 2. Make the assumption that Earhart was either unaware or chose to ignore the fact that her chances for survival in a water landing would be greatly increased by deciding to execute a ditching under power rather than wait until the engines failed. Speculation about why Earhart did not make a distress call is no different from speculation about why the Navy's aerial search of Gardner did not see the airplane on the reef. Each is an aspect of the hypothetical scenario that doesn't seem to make sense so we try to think of possible explanations. In the case of the crashed-at-sea scenario, the cessation of radio transmissions is the only indicator that the flight may have ended that way. To make it work one must argue, as you have, for the crew's incompetence. In the Nikumaroro scenario there are abundant indicators that the flight did reach the island and there is no need to ascribe to the crew any unprofessional behavior. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:04:55 EST From: Natko Katicic Subject: Re: Facts of the case Ric writes: "It's bit more involved than that. Here's a quick summary:" Excellent summary. I missed such focusing contributions from you lately. Used to be more of them in the past. I suggest that Pat mounts this summary 'as is' on the web site, maybe as the leading FAQ or similar and provide it with a few links for further reading. Now a question: Is the location of the debris field under point 11) consistent with the debris we are investigating right now (Sikuli)? ************************************************************************* From Ric Yes. Absolutely. The apparent debris field of light-colored metal in 1953 is directly "downstream" from the location where Emily says she saw wreckage in 1940. In fact, the beauty of the whole thing is the way all of the disparate pieces of the puzzle from far-flung sources fit together to form a picture that, while still not complete, is becomng clearer and clearer. I do want to put this summary up on the website but I want to be sure I haven't missed anything. We can also provide links from various points in the summary to in-depth discussions in TIGHAR Tracks articles, Research Bulletins and to documents now on the website. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:19:18 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: human error >>If Lindbergh had failed to reach Paris I wonder how many instances of >>negligence we'd be able to come up with. Good point, although in reality I don't think many would have cared much-- he wasn't famous yet and probably would have simply disappeared into oblivion, another footnote of failure. Earhart was female and famous, which for good and bad is also a great recipe for public fascination. william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric A better example might be the disappearance of Nungesser and Coli just eleven days before Lindbergh's departure. Neither was female (to the best of our knowledge) but both were very famous. Their arrival in New York was assumed to be such a sure thing that Lindbergh canceled his transatlantic plans when he learned of their takeoff from Paris and, when they were overdue in New York a French corrspondent scooped the competitoon by wiring a complete account of their triumphal arrival back to France. In the wake of the shocking news that the aviators were missing, a rumor arose in France that the American weather bureau had intentionally withheld word of a storm over the Atlantic to lure the French heros to their death. Things got pretty ugly in the streets of Paris. Some American flags got burned and Ambassador Herrick urged American contenders for the Orteig Prize not to take off for a few days. The delay helped buy Lindbergh the time to fly his airplane from San Diego to N.Y. and utimately beat the other contestants. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:38:18 EST From: Earl Kindley Subject: Re: human error If you have the time and think it worthwhile, please comment on the use of today's aircraft safety standards to evaluate actions taken by 1930's aviators. For example, are the things we consider poorly done or negligent today, applicable to the standards in effect then? Some things, of course, are unchanged since Orville and Wilbur. However, I have the impression we now have a more highly developed sense of aviation professionalism Vs aviation "foolishism." This does not denigrate yesterday's aviators, it's just the nature of maturation. So, should historic figures be evaluated against the standards of their times, or, current standards, through the looking glass of comfortable perspective? (Thomas Jefferson --though not an aviator so far as I know-- is a good example of this "applicable standards" conundrum.) Thanks. E.G. Kindley, 2131 ************************************************************************** From Ric Excellent point. If historians, and especially historical investigators, had a mantra it would be "Context. Context. Context." Today we have much, much higher expectations of safety and security than were prevalent in the 1930s (heck, we put helmets on kids on tricycles!). Earhart wrecked at least 11 eleven airplanes in the course of her career. She and Noonan flew around the world in an uninsured airplane. They never filed a flight plan because there was no such thing as a flight plan (in any formailzed sense). To get some sense of the mix of pioneering bravado and budding professionalism that pervaded 1930s avaition I would urge anyone to visit a good library and leaf through the aviation periodicals of the day. It was a different world. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:53:44 EST From: Jim Razzi Subject: Re: Facts of the case Thanks for the extensive summary and I think many other newcomers will appreciate it also. Best Regards, Jim Razzi ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:09:43 EST From: Jim Razzi Subject: Re: Lost antenna The only problem I have with the lost antenna is, that if it were indeed ripped off during the taxi at Lae, why didn't somebody find it after the plane left? There surely were a number of people who witnessed the little mishap when the Electra was lumbering along the ground, so wouldn't they investigate the area to see if, in fact, something HAD been dislodged from the plane? Regards, Jim Razzi ************************************************************************** From Ric The most likley time for the ground strike to have occurred was during the turn around at the far "approach" end of the runway which was easily half a mile from where the spectators stood. This is when the aft antenna mast was at risk from sideloads for which it was not stressed. We do have one second-hand anecdotal account which indicates that the antenna was later found on the runway. Bob Fullenwider, TIGHAR 0126, says that while he was stationed in Lae during World War II an "old timer" who had worked at the airfield before the war told him that he wasn't a bit surprised when Earhart went missing because "we found her antenna wire laying on the runway after she left." Bob related this anecdote long before we had established that the antenna was missing in the photos. If such a discovery did take place, neither Collopy nor Chater was apparently aware of it when they wrote their respective reports a few weeks later. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:13:50 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: human error >> when they were overdue in New York a French corrspondent scooped the competiton by wiring a complete account of their triumphal arrival back to France. >> Never over-estimate the credulity of the press . william 2243 ************************************************************************** From Ric Don't get me started. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:43:23 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Ditching 101 Ric said: " . . . her chances for survival in a water landing would be greatly increased by deciding to execute a ditching under power rather than wait until the engines [to fail] . . . " This point has been mentioned several times but no one has explained why a power-on ditching is preferable to one without power. We all ASSUME that the slower the airplane is when it bellys in, the greater are the crew's chances of survival. But why is power important, other than for a go-around? LTM, who often bellied into 2nd base Dennis O. McGee #0149CE ************************************************************************** From Ric Now, mind you, I've never done this and I hope I never have to, but this is what I've read about ditching and it makes a lot of sense. So there you are, faced with the prospect of putting a land airplane down in the open ocean. Your "runway" is not going to be flat. If you're lucky it will be a series of rolling hills (swells) and valleys (troughs) which may or may not be aligned with the wind. At the speed you're going to hit them (in an Electra, roughly 60 mph) they're made of concrete, so it makes sense not to smack into them but to land along their long axis on the "back" of a swell, even if it means a crosswind approach. You also don't want to make a three-point full stall arrival. Much better to come in nose-high and drag your tail before you hit. You're almost certainly going to skip once before the nose digs in and you come to an abrupt stop, so the slower you can be going the better. You might even come in below your power-off stall speed "behind the power curve" with full flaps and carrying quite a bit of power. It's a hairy prospect and it might take several tries to get everything lined up just right, but if you sit up there trying avoid the inevitable until the engines quit you're going to be faced with taking whatever you can get - dead stick and out of options. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:57:42 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: human error Ric said: >>If Lindbergh had failed to reach Paris I wonder how many instances of >>negligence we'd be able to come up with. Good point. At the other hand, Frenchmen Nungesser and Colli failed to cross the Atlantic (flying west) only two weeks before Lindbergh succeeded (flying east). Nobody accused them of anything, certainly not of negligence. They simply ran out of luck. In 1927 people believed aviation was not yet ready for that kind of exploits. The crossings by US Navy Commander Read in hops via the A=E7ores and Lisbon in a Curtiss NC-4 proved the crossing was hazardoud. And the other succesful crossing that year by Brits Alcock and Whitten-Brown in a modified Vickers Vimy bomber in May 1919 won them the Orteig prize for the first crossing but had proved only that airplanes could fly from New Foundland to Ireland. Both flights had been such hazardous achievements that by 1927 it was generally believed aircraft were insufficiently reliable to link continents. Lindbergh proved them wrong, thanks to his dependable Wright Whirlwind engine and the big fuel tanks of his Ryan NYP. And being extremely lucky for not icing-up and waking up in time before crashing into the ocean. Having flown non-stop from New York to Paris he was the first to link the continents by air and became an instant hero. Nungesser and Colli, who almost succeeded, were soon forgotten. They were not blamed for enaything. They probably iced-up and crashed, either in Canada or in Canadian waters, having succesfully crossed the Atlantic. We'll never know for suere as long as their airplane hasn't been found. Being made of wood and canvas there is little chance anything of it can still be found. As with AE/FN indications are they almost reached their destination, their ultimate fate remaining unknown. The "indications" are basically Canadians declaring having heard an airplane around the time Nungesser and Colli could be expected to be in that area. >Earhart was female and famous, which for good and bad is also a great >recipe for public fascination. Correct. Isn't that why we are still trying to find out what happened at Howland and Gardner ? (while others are dragging the ocean floor elsewhere...) ************************************************************************* From Ric Alcock and Brown won the London Daily Mail Prize of 10,000 pounds (roughly $50,000 at that time). Lindbergh won the Orteig Prize of $25,000. We know a little bit about the Nungesser/Coli attempt. You might want to visit the TIGHAR website and click on Project Midnight Ghost. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:10:34 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Fuel Exhaustion Descent Birch Matthews wrote:- >At a rate of descent of 100 ft/min, she would be at sea level in only 10 >minutes from the point at which the airplane started down. At a downward rate >of 150 ft/min, the descent would have been about 6.7 minutes. At 200 >ft/minute she had only 5 minutes to do anything. Not much time. I think these figures are very optimistic for powerless descent rates, bearing in mind the L10E didn't have feathering props. I'd guess maybe around 1000ft/min would be more realisitc, giving only about a minute down to to the sea. I totally agree with Ric's assessment that in such a situation when you've gotta put the plane in the sea - do it under conditions of maximum control - i.e. still under power. LTM Simon #2120 ************************************************************************* From Ric I agree with Simon and with myself. With two props windmilling that pig would probably glide like a toolbox - and AE probably knew it. On top of that, the big engines of the 10E tended to make it noseheavy. The 10E that ditched off Massachusetts in 1967 lost power in the right engine and the pilot couldn't maintain altitude with the left engine operating (that's how bad it is if you don't have full-feathering props). He made a successful ditching but the water was calm near the shore and he still had the left engine. To say that AE waited until the engines quit to land the airplane (whether on land or water) is to call her an idiot. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:12:06 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: human error By today's standards neither Charles Lindberg or AE would be allowed to take off ! They lacked the qualifications needed today and their aircraft didn't comply with today's requirements ! LTM from Herman (who loved the old days when everything was possible) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:51:32 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Forum stats As of December 1, 1999 there were 651 subscribers to the Earhart Forum. Of those, 197 (30 percent) are TIGHAR members. 66 subscribers (10 percent) frequently or occasionally post messages to the forum. Of those, 52 (79 percent) are TIGHAR members, and 14 (21 percent) are not. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:04:56 EST From: Clye Miller Subject: Off-topic speculation Of course playing "WHAT IF..." is great. Given today's search and rescue options Amelia and Noonan would have radioed their GPS location prior to landing on the island. Their irridium Satellite phone would have hooked them up instantly with the outside world for MSNBC online reports. Even a crackup of the plane would have initiated both black box recorders pinging their little hearts out. Of course with a GPS, GPWS, and other current standard Avionics they would never be lost, wouldn't have to land or crash, Noonan wouldn't have to be along to navigate and what's the point of flying around the world anyway and the whole issue would be mote. Amelia would probably be President of her own startup internet company and Noonan would be working as a car salesman in Sunny California. (ummmmhh? Now THERE is an excellent off topic discussion.....What would become of Amelia and Fred if they were with us today. Although Maybe we need to say you'll accept 10 of the best postings of the off topic discussion and limit it to that.) Thanks Clyde Miller (who is always willing to wander off topic because of his short attention span) *************************************************************************** From Ric Obviously, the answer to the question "What would Amelia and Fred be doing if they were alive today?" is "Scratching at the inside of their coffins." But the question "If AE and Fred were as old today as they were in 1937 (39 and 44 respectively) what would they be doing?" although totally off-topic, is an interesting one. I'll take the first (not the best) 10 offerings. LTM, Ric (who feels like DJ on a Top 40 station) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:06:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Ditching 101 << if you sit up there trying avoid the inevitable until the engines quit you're going to be faced with taking whatever you can get - dead stick and out of options. >> Exactly right, Ric. It's simply a question of do you want control over your landing or no control. I'll opt for control. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:12:24 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: human error << Nungesser and Colli, who almost succeeded, were soon forgotten. They were not blamed for enaything. They probably iced-up and crashed, either in Canada or in Canadian waters, having succesfully crossed the Atlantic. We'll never know for sure as long as their airplane hasn't been found. Being made of wood and canvas there is little chance anything of it can still be found. >> Don't be too hasty. Check with Elgin first. Alan ************************************************************************** From Ric I am not going to get sucked into a discussion of l'Oiseau Blanc but I will say that there is every likelihood thatthe airplane's 1,000 lb., 12 cylinder, W-configuration, Lorraine Dietrich engine still survives somewhere. After eight years of research and 28 expeditions we think we have it cornered to about a 10 square mile area of Godforsaken muskeg in Newfoundland. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:16:01 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Fuel Exhaustion Descent I don't know what the power-off descent rate of a Lockheed 10E is either, but the descent rate of a DC-3 is in the range of 680 to 815 feet per minute at glide speeds of 92 and 110 knots IAS respectively. These numbers are for gear up and both props feathered. The L-10E props didn't feather. I know, apples and oranges. Just for a frame of reference. Skeet Gifford ************************************************************************* From Ric Yeowch! I hope you didn't establish that by experimentation. I'll betcha that Simon's 1,000 feet per minute for a windmilling 10E is pretty darn close. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:20:49 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: So???? Herman said: "By today's standards neither Charles Lindbergh or AE would be allowed to take off ! They lacked the qualifications needed today and their aircraft didn't comply with today's requirements ! 1. "By today's standards neither Charles Lindbergh or AE would be allowed to take off ! " What "standards" are we talking about? And exactly who would not allow them to do it.? There are no international rules preventing anyone from flying across the ocean. If someone elects to try and fly a Cessna 172 from New York to Paris next week all they'd have to do is fuel up and go. Would it be foolish? Yes; a certain amount of common sense and preflight planning is necessary. But there is no institution -- public or private -- to prevent someone from simply gassing up and going. 2. "They lacked the qualifications needed today and their aircraft didn't comply with today's requirements !" What "qualifications" are we talking about, here? A pilot's license? I believe both AE and Chuck had them. Instrument Flight Rules-qualified? Those didn't exist in their day. To say AE and Lindbergh did not have the training international pilot have today and that "their aircraft didn't comply with today requirements" for international flight is a keen sense of the obvious. So what's your point? LTM, period Dennis McGee #0149CE ************************************************************************** From Ric Uh, guys? This whole thread seems pretty pointless. Herman lives in Belgium where there are probalby quite a few more General Aviation restrictions than Americans are accustomed to. And Earhart did have an Instrument Rating. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:22:16 EST From: Joe Subject: Re: Off-topic speculation At ages 99 & 104 Id bet they would be on the Jerry Springer show! Joe W3HNK ************************************************************************* From Ric That's one. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:44:42 EST From: Birch Matthews Subject: Final Descent Ric, I believe you may have misinterpreted my comments regarding the final descent of Amelia's Electra. I did not imply, nor should you infer from my comments, that I presume to know where the airplane came down. I do not. When I noted: "At a rate of descent of 100 ft/min, she would be at sea level in only 10 minutes . . ." the use of the words sea level is an altitude reference, not a spatial location. I deliberately chose my words carefully to encompass the Gardner Island possibility. The intent was merely to illustrate that from 1,000 feet, it doesn't take much time to reach the earth, and that this fact alone may account for the lack of any Mayday. I don't claim that's what happened, only that it is a rational scenario. In response to your first comment, I did not "make the assumption that Earhart and Noonan were unsuccessful in their attempt to find land." To the contrary. My scenario includes this possibility. With respect to your second response, aircraft ditching at sea was, I believe, not widely studied until the advent of World War II. I have not seen any reference indicating Amelia was trained or studied the art of ditching an airplane with or without power. If she was in proximity to Gardner Island, you may be entirely correct in your speculation. And finally, please tell me specifically how you reached the conclusion that I have argued on the side of crew incompetence or unprofessional behavior? That is a pretty harsh retort in view of the fact I was merely attempting to give some perspective of how little time it takes to descend 1,000 feet. *************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sorry if I responded too harshly. You began your posting with: "In context with the absence of any Mayday from Amelia at to point of fuel exhaustion, consider that she was probably still flying at 1,000 feet when the tanks ran dry." That seems pretty clearly to make the assumption that the tanks ran dry. My point was that it would have been foolish ( incompetent, unprofessional ) for her to allow the tanks to run dry. Subsequent postings have made the case that the descent, in such asn event, could well have been considerably more rapid than you postulated. In other words, there is a consensus that you are correct in saying that an inflight dual engine failure at 1,000 feet would make things pretty exciting in the cockpit and might preclude a distress call, but (and for that very reason) there is also a consensus that such a scenario is less likely than a landing under power. While it is certainly true that ditching procedures became formalized and much more widely disseminated during WWII, the notion that it is better to make a precautionary landing with power than to wait until you run out of gas probably goes back to the Wright brothers. Amelia herself exercised that option on numerous occasions and thoughout her career as a long-distance flyer I'm aware of no instance in which she ran out of gas in flight. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:48:54 EST From: Joe Subject: l'Oiseau Blanc Ric wrote: <> Do you have any more expeditions planned for this one? Id sure like to go! Joe W3HNK ************************************************************************ From Ric Let's find Amelia first. To push the project in Newfoundland further will be very expensive. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:03:54 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Fire Extinguisher - Final Opinion I recently received this Final Opinion letter from Jeff Glickman regarding the fire extinguisher: FINAL LETTER OF OPINION Dear Mr. Gillespie, Thank you for sending the negatives of TIGHAR artifact 2-4-V-100 and of A. Earhart and F. Noonan loading NR16020 depicted in the photograph taken by Dustin Carter at Burbank Airport on May 20, 1937 (may20dep.jpg). This letter addresses the relationship between 2-4-V-100 and the rightmost canister-like object located in a group of four canister-like objects located on the ground to the right of A. Earhart's feet. While the JPEG image may20dep.jpg shows this canister-like object to be overexposed, the original negative is properly exposed. Several structures present in 2-4-V-100 are absent in the canister-like object in may20dep.jpg. These are: 1) 6 metal bands that wrap around 2-4-V-100, and 2) what appears to be a handle located at the top of 2-4-V-100. Further, 2-4-V-100 has a transition area from its neck to its body that is flatter (has a smaller angle relative to vertical) than that shown in the canister-like object of may20dep.jpg. This difference cannot be due to damage to 2-4-V-100 because the required deformation would not result in the smooth surface seen in this part of 2-4-V-100. While there are additional differences between 2-4-V-100 and the canister-like object of may20dep.jpg, these reasons are sufficient to establish that these are different objects. Therefore 2-4-V-100 does not match the canister-like object seen in may20dep.jpg. Best Regards, Jeff Glickman Board Certified Forensic Examiner Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners Jeff Glickman PHOTEK 209 Oak Avenue, Suite 202 Hood River, Oregon 97031 ************************************************* I had a couple of questions for Jeff, to whit: There are no metal bands that wrap around the artifact. Those are impressions stamped into the metal. The body of the cannister is a single sheet of metal. I can see one "ring" around the object in the May 20 photo but it does seem to be a slightly different distance from the top of the cannister than is a similar "ring" on the artifact. The handle on the artifact rotates freely and we had speculated that a similar handle on the cannister in the May 20 photo might be oriented edgewise to the camera. The differences in the transition area from the neck to the body do, however, seem to be a disqualifier. Ric **************************************************************************TTo which Jeff replied: Ric, Here are clarifications to your questions: By "metal bands" I also mean "impressions stamped into the metal". I did not mean to imply that sole source of the metal bands could be seperate pieces of metal applied to the body of the canister, but rather they are visual features present on the canister. may20dep.jpg has a circular top, possibly a cap, composed of a polished metal containing a complex reflection. It is the reflection of adjacent items in the circular cap which gives the mistaken impression of a handle. Best Regards, Jeff Glickman Board Certified Forensic Examiner Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners PHOTEK 209 Oak Avenue, Suite 202 Hood River, Oregon 97031 *************************************************************************** Okay. So 2-4-V-100 is not the thing in the May 20 photo. That doesn't mean that it's not Amelia's fire extinguisher but it does mean that the photo is not a reason to think that it might be. We'll put up an updated Research Bulletin soon. Love to mother, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:07:37 EST From: Mark Cameron Subject: Re: Fire extinguisher Just a thought - we had many cylindrical items in my home when my Mother-in-law was staying with us that resembled the object in the photo - could it possibly be an Oxygen tank? Would Amelia and Fred have taken a few along just in case they needed some? I have no idea what an O2 tank would have looked like in the 1930s but if smaller versions existed at that time could this be one? LTM Mark Cameron #2301 ************************************************************************** From Ric I gotta say that it doesn't look like any oxygen bottle I ever saw. No oxygen is on the Luke Field inventory. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:35:03 EST From: Ty Sundstrom Subject: Re: Fuel Exhaustion Descent There is one thing that puzzles me about this fuel exhaustion scenario: very seldom do both engines quit simultaneously when the fuel runs out even if both engines were feeding from the same tank due to: different fuel line length, different exact mixture settings for each engine, variances in internal casting flaws in each engine that would vary the fuel consumption slightly and so on, so if realistically they didn't quit at the same time there might have been time to call out. And five minutes is a very long time when you experience an emergency of any type. This is a comment from actual in-flight emergency experiences in various antique aircraft. Just sit and watch the clock for five minutes and you will see what I mean. The human mind works very fast and the model 10 was a good flying aircraft so the demands on a pilot, in my most humble opinion, would not have been such that it would have prevented a radio call. Although this opinion is offered, it just illustrates the fact that there is no black and white answers for now except that they didn't make it. Ty N. Sundstrom *************************************************************************** From Ric The fuel system schematic for NR16020 does seem to indicate that both engines always fed off the same tank - a bit weird but it does simplify fuel management. However, as you say, other factors make a truly simultaneous silence be pretty unusual. As for the way time goes into slow motion in an emergency: I couldn't agree more. I'm sure we all have our own stories ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:54:14 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Fuel Exhaustion Descent If Amelia Earhart was at 1000ft and IF the engines failed at that height, she would not have descended at 100 or 150 ft per minute. The aircraft is just too heavy to sustain that rate of descent without power. Ask anyone who has been practicing forced landings in a Cessna or Piper what their R.O.D. is in a glide... I gather Ric is/was a pilot (I think I read it somewhere). Anyway there must be lots of other pilots on this forum. Rate of descent is controlled by power, you add power you go down slower. Without power, you have to actually get the nose DOWN to keep flying. I haven't seen the Electra's flight manual, but I doubt it would glide better than say a modern Beech Baron (twin) and remember they were supposedly carrying a lot of freight (spares). I believe they would not have had more than 2 minutes to descent in glide configuration from 1000ft. What gets me is "KHAQQ CLNG ITASCA WE MUST ON ON YOU BUT CANNOT SEE U" - At 1000feet, if Earhart was say 30 or 40 miles off track or had somehow overflown Itasca at that time, she would be unlikely to see Gardner Island or Itasca. All it would take was for the sun to be low, or a little haze... We know from her reports at this time she still had at least an hour of fuel. "BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW BEEN UNABLE TO REACH YOU BY RADIO WE ARE FLYING AT A 1000 FEET 42" On her frequency - in fact on any frequency - her chances of being picked up by ITASCA were bad. Anyone who flies would tell you, the radio will work better, higher, say 3 or 4 thousand feet. There are only two reasons she would logically descent to 1000ft. 1 Due stress of weather. (She may have encountered low cloud some distance out that was not apparent to ITASCA) - I believe this is most likely (been there, done that). As close as she was to Howland, she would not want to waste fuel climbing again. 2 She may have had some relatively minor engine problems especially if she'd had to lean the mixture excessively. We know there were some plug problems with the type of engine and they had to be changed regularly - For her to remain at 1000ft meant she was pretty certain she was close. I fly around islands in the tropics. I would not attempt to look for a small island from below 3000 feet. From 1000ft a small island might be "just over the horizon" or "just under the aeroplane". It's unlikely the Electra would have a glide descent of better than 500ft per minute. 2 minutes is plenty of time to make a distress call. "Mayday, mayday mayday - KHAQQ, KHAQQ, KHAQQ, out of fuel, on line 157 337, ditching in water" If I say that slowly, and clearly it takes about 15 seconds (try it). There's not a lot more she could have said. Of course if she was a fair distance from ITASCA by the time she supposedly "ran out of fuel", and if they were transmitting at the time she made the call - they would not have heard it. On the other hand, If AE still had her reserve 20% when she arrived near Itasca (and at sig strength 5 she had to be fairly near) she could have given up in frustration and flown to the nearest alternate island. Sorry to "waffle on" but the following points have been bugging me for some time. Why was AE at 1000ft. when she had: Less chance of her radio being effective, Less chance of seeing the island and Less time to plan a descent if something went wrong. Ross (Who had no intention of doing anything but read this stuff) ************************************************************************** From Ric Well Ross, your first guess was correct. The reason was almost certainly weather. ITASCA's deck log described "blue sky with detached clouds" throughout the morning and an observation taken on Howland puts the scattered deck at 2,650 feet. It may well have been a bit lower earlier. Those are very typical conditions out there, and as you know, if you're above even a widely scattered cloud deck you can't see anything except what is right below you. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:58:00 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Fire extinguisher Ric wrote: <> I agree. Oxygen tanks are now all painted green internationally, but I don't know when this was started. They are under fairly high pressure, and therefore most have rounded ends for structural reasons. Dan Postellon #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:59:56 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Off-topic speculation Okay, I'll bite - AE would be 1st officer on a UAL 767 flying the Pacific route FN would be teaching navigation at a maritime academy ltm jon 2266 ************************************************************************** From Ric I'll buy that. That's two. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:03:34 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: So??? Ric wrote: <> Well, the point is... I don't want to begin another off-topic discussion here. But I think it is useful to remind a number of things have changed since the old days. Ric summed it up very well. You can't just fill'er up, kick the tires and fly to Paris. You have to file a flight plan if you intend to make any international flight and it has to be approved first. Most airspace on this side of the ocean is class B or C today. Airspace is controlled from 4,500 ft up, not uncontrolled up to 18,000ft as in the US. You're watched by radar all the time by the aviation authorities and the military of the countries whose airspace you use. That's why they insist you inform them you're coming. Your aircraft has to be equipped with a number of compulsory instruments, including two-way radio, transponder and ELT. All these things Lindbergh didn't have to bother with. He didn't want radio to save weight... For overwater flights life saving gear is compulsory (lifevests at least and you have to wear them if you're flying a single engine). For international flights you need your private pilot license endorsed for "working knowledge of IFR", after an examination. This is not an IFR qualification, merely a safety safeguard to keep you from flying into hills or ditch in the water in poor visibility while flying VFR abroad. The endorsement is issued by the national civil aviation authorities after an oral and a practical examination about instruments, familiarity with IFR and radio procedures. Radio license is compulsory of course. There's no flying without radio any more. You'll have to prove you're able to fly blind safely for 50 minutes, executing ATC procedures as told, getting your aircraft out of "unusual situations". Generally you have to prove you know the ropes, won't get lost in cloud or fog or crash into a mountain. Before passing the test you have to prove you've had at least 10 hours instrument practice. Just to fly VFR. They won't let you fly the Atlantic, though (it would be foolish to try) if you're not fully IFR qualified. When filing your flight plan you have to stipulate your route, flight level or altitude and provide the list of diversion fields. In France they have you sign a document in which you promise to pay for the cost of looking for you when you ditch and for fishing you out of the drink should you want to make an overwater flight... Suppose you fill up your Cessna 172 and go as Dennis suggests. You cross the Atlantic succesfully (you may need some extra fuel). Well, then you'd have a lot of explaning to do when you land at the other side and you'll lose your license for having entered airspace without permission and probably for having violated all the rules in the book of international flying... Ric, I have no intention of going into the details any further lest this becomes another off-topic discussion. My pint was that if Charles Lindberg and Amelia Earhart were still around and would like to do again what they did in their day and in the same way, they wouldn't be allowed to take off by the authorities because so many rules have been invented since that didn't exist then. And because aircraft have to be equipped in a way their's was not. Most of the equipment that is compulsory now wasn't even invented. And they defenitely wouldn't let Lindbergh leave his radio behind to save weight. LTM from Herman (who is familiar with flight plans) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:05:38 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: spiders Tom King wrote: <> Exactly my point, expertly stated. AMCK 1045 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:09:15 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: B-18 About three week ago, I offered to check out the B-18 here at Castle Air Museum. I wanted to compare the artifact found on Niku to the B-18 to see if the artifact did indeed come from that type of airplane. I think some one on the forum said they thought the piece of aluminum came from the B-18 Bomber. I would like to get a template to do a comparison. Can anyone help? Don J. *************************************************************************** From Ric And I said that we'd put up a full description and photos of the artifact on the website as soon as we can get to it, and we will. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:14:35 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Forum stats Ric, am I one of the 197? I was SOOOO excited today when I received my packet in the mail..............until I opened it. The ENTIRE reason for joining (sorta) was the fridge magnet and NO fridge magnet. A membership card, sticker and some promos but no fridge magnet. I was devastated. I had had a hard day at the car wash (they gave my Cad floormats to a black pick up and I got two grungy black ones. They'll pay for new ones but it was aggravating and THEN to not get my fridge magnet was just too much. I actually poured myself a social drink. Anyway I want one of those hats. I have a good sized collection of caps and that would fit right in. If you want to put a hat and a magnet in the mail or if you prefer to wait for a check I'll do that. Thanks for letting me become a member. I'm proud to belong. Alan ************************************************************************* From Ric Aaaargh! I am truly mortified. Hat and magnet will be winging their way to you post haste. A thousand pardons. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:55:02 EST From: Terry Ann Linley Subject: Re: Forum stats I was a taken aback (and not just a little) by your Forum Stats. This Forum takes time to digest and is thought-provoking for the participants, and is not something a person with only a passing interest in Amelia Earhart would join. Why, then, are so many subscribers NOT members of TIGHAR? Perhaps if all the Forum subscribers knew how much it really does cost to run this organization, more would join. For instance, what does it cost to run the Forum each month, or produce an issue of TIGHAR Tracks, or publish the 8th Edition of the Project Report? LTM (who believes in putting her money where her mouth is), Terry ************************************************************************** From Ric Your question of why more forum subscribers have not yet joined TIGHAR is worth contemplating. The forum is a lot like public radio. It's there for anyone to enjoy for free. Some choose to help support it, others don't. It's a personal choice. Most forum subscribers, both members and non-members, are "lurkers" who never post a message. That too is a personal choice. I expect that for some forum subscribers our natterings here are little more than entertainment. They're not likely to fork over $45/yr for what they can get for free. I'd like to think that the forum subscribers who join TIGHAR do so because they recognize that the intellectual stimulation that happens here is worthy of their financial support. They believe in what we're doing and how we're doing it - and they want to be a part of it. They were TIGHARs before they even heard of the organization. They're now just hunting with others of their kind. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:59:43 EST From: R. Johnson Subject: AE & FN I believe Fred would be working for the Jet Propulsion Lab and being held responsible for the loss of a Mars landing craft due to a failure to convert meters to feet. I believe Amelia would be running for U.S. Senator from New York. I heard she was a Yankee fan. R. Johnson LTM ( who always votes ) ************************************************************************** From Ric Right on. That's three. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:01:38 EST From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: slow motion Time in slow motion during emergencies....The 15 seconds the ground literally moved in waves under by feet during the Loma Prieta earthquake. At the time I was in charge of the student housing facilities at Stanford U. Later one of my staff said "I didn't know you were Catholic." When I asked how she now knew she said "while we were holding each other during the shaking, you kept saying "Mother of God will this ever end?", over and over again. Longest 15 seconds of my life...and the most expensive for the University with 167 million dollars of damage. I'm certain that as AE and Fred were attempting to land they too said some imaginative things!!! Delighted to hear that your eye is mending well. LTM, Suzanne #2184 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:14:51 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: AE & FN If they were alive today (and the same ages as they were then, and IF they had completed the 'round-the-world trip)... Amelia would have her own TV talk show, and Fred would be the aviation "expert" that all the networks call on when there is a big crash somewhere. LTM (who LOVES Jerry Springer) Tom #2179 ************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, I can see that. That's four. ***************************************************************************By JT At 102 (AE) & 106 (FN) years of age, both would have already been recognized by Willard Scott & Smuckers on the Today Show for turning 100 years old. LTM (if it's Smuckers, it's gotta be great jam!), JT ************************************************************************** From Ric Reminds me of the Saturday Night Live comment that, by Smucker's logic, even better names for jam companies would be "Nose Hair" or "Mangled Baby Ducks." (Just watch. Somebody will correct that quote and document who said it on what show and when.) That's five. ************************************************************************** From Alan This is just too hard to pass on. If AE and FN were still alive they would be laughing their you know whats off at the Longs and all the other fringe speculators and hopefully not at us. Alan ************************************************************************* From Ric "Oh would some power the gift to gi'e us, to see ourselves as others see us." (To a Louse by Robert Burns) Six. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 11:52:39 EST From: Bill Subject: Re: Forum stats > Hi, Ric and Pat. I was a taken aback (and not just a little) by your Forum > Stats. This Forum takes time to digest and is thought-provoking for the > participants, and is not something a person with only a passing > interest in Amelia Earhart would join. Why, then, are so many subscribers > NOT members of TIGHAR? For me it was a financial issue. I joined the forum, and even made comments, for a number of months before I joined TIGHAR. The first aspect of "financial" was that I wasn't even sure I wanted to join. The months spent reading and participating convinced me that this wasn't just another loony idea. Having decided it had merit, and that I indeed WANTED to support it, I then had to wait until I could afford it. I gave myself FORUM membership as a birthday present. Lame way to justify the expense, maybe, but it's been satisfying to know that my birthday now, to me, represents not just another year lost, but another year putting a few bucks towards an interesting research project and, just maybe, solving one of the mysteries of the century. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 12:20:12 EST From: John Subject: Silly questions I have what you might consider two 'silly' questions. I just became more then a little interested in AE. I'm reading a book intitled 'Flying Blind' a fun bit of fiction written by 'Max Allen Collins'. I was curious about AE's ability as a pilot, was she only 'average' as some have stated?. Was there any truth to the rumor's that AE engaged in some 'biplane' activity? Thanks! John ************************************************************************* From Ric Your question about AE's flying ability is not at all silly but it is difficult to answer and a hotly debated topic. I guess the first step would be to define what constitutes a "good pilot." For me, the standard has always been "Would I let this person take my kids for an airplane ride?" From what I know of Earhart's career and character I would have to say, "No" (but then, I'm rather attached to my kids). I have heard no rumors that she engaged in "biplane" activities (if I correctly interpret that you mean bisexual activity). The only real information we have about her sexual value system is the note she handed Putnam just before the marriage ceremony in which she advised him that she had no intention of remaining faithful to him or vice versa. In any case, such questions have no bearing on our investigation of her disappearance. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 12:38:08 EST From: Janet Powell, grandniece of the captain of the Norwich City Subject: The survivors's camp Ric wrote: <<"Before leaving camp all provisions etc., were placed in the shelter, but I sincerely hope that no-one will ever be so unfortunate as to need them." That's the entire reference. But I just thought of something. Maybe I'm reading too much into this but I get an implication that the provisions were not just casually left behind but were more or less neatly "placed" in the shelter.>> In order to avoid any 'confusion', I have in the past tried to limit my personal thoughts about Daniel Hamer's statement. However, on this occasion I have to say that whilst I completely understand your caution in analysing his words too closely, I am firmly of the belief that they are accurate, i.e. a true account of events, as he saw them. The way I see it is that whatever the purpose, if he had gone to the trouble of writing those words, then he meant what he said. Therefore, I can only conclude that this was a deliberate act. My father comes from a family in which for the last 2 generations all the men have shared a life at sea, and consequently I have an understanding of such a lifestyle. My opinion is that as Master, Dan would have taken his responsibilities seriously, and if that included an act of good intent, then he would have done it. Such an act would have been an entirely appropriate exercise of his duty. Maybe he did it with the thoughts of those who 'couldn't' be saved, in mind? This too makes complete sense to me. He certainly knew the Steward and his wife personally and the idea that a small, deliberate act could possibly assist anyone in the future, would be an entirely appropriate mark of respect, given that little else was possible. In conclusion, my belief is that if analysis of 'suspected survivors campsite photo' demonstrates that it was 'haphazardly abandoned', then something or someone disturbed it in the intervening years. (The question then being, who or what?) As for the apparent possibility of locating the remains of that campsite sometime in the future......? - fair boggles the mind! Additional Thoughts (Purely THOUGHTS!...) My father suspects that is was highly likely that alcohol could have been included in the 'provisions' sent from Capt. Swindell of the Trongate. (Could this be a source for your Benedictine bottle...??? - Sorry - I'll have to go back and read about that bit again!) Regarding the sextant....... He feels that it would have been extremely unlikely that such a valuable possession, often privately owned, would have been left behind, unless in error. Furthermore, he believes it unlikely that it would have been rescued without it's box. (Am still making enquiries for information relating to the possibility of a connection with Reardon Smiths.) The Rescue Site/The Lee Shore I'm still not sure if I'm clear about this, but are you concluding that this location was to the South (East?) of Bauareke Passage? (I ask only out of interest and not because I have any other view.) That's all, (and I'm sure enough!), for now. Janet ************************************************************************** From Ric Just my opinion, but I think that the Norwich City supply cache is an excellent candidate for the source of the Benedictine bottle as well as the "corks with brass chains" thought to have come from "a small cask." In fact, I think that these possible corelations and the disheveled appearance of the camp in 1938 can be seen as evidence suggesting that the castaway found by Gallagher in 1940 had found and used the Norwich City cache. Obviously, these are not items of hard evidence but they are jigsaw puzzle pieces that happen fit our hypothesis very neatly. My reading of the various descriptions puts the evacuation site somewhere in the neighborhood of Bauareke Passage but it's hard to be more specific than that. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:19:08 EST From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: The survivor's camp I really enjoyed reading Janet Powell's note. Ric wrote, > Just my opinion, but I think that the Norwich City supply cache is an > excellent candidate for the source of the Benedictine bottle as well as the > "corks with brass chains" thought to have come from "a small cask." It's a good possibility. Regarding the untidy condition of the cache when it was photographed in 1938, it may be useful to bear in mind that the castaway(s) found by Gallagher were not the only potential customers. Undocumented visitors could have passed through the area in the late 20s and early 30s and gradually, carelessly, picked through the supplies. Storm activity could have also left its mark. A visitor in July 1937 may have found the site already in a state of chaos. william 2243 *************************************************************************** From Ric True. ************************************************************************* From Ross D, And to serve its purpose it (the cache) would have to be somewhere obvious. Is there fresh water in many places on the island? If you were leaving a cache of supplies I imagine you would site it somewhere near water, close enough to the wreck site to carry the supplies and for the wreck to be a reference point. I imagine you would also leave writing implements "just in case". Who knows what you might find. If I pranged an aeroplane on a reef, and assuming my injuries were not too severe, I would drag food, medical kit, flares and rope etc from the aircraft. I would then search for water. If I found a cache of supplies I would make camp close to water and not far from the cache. On the other hand, if I or my partner only just managed to struggle ashore..... I am looking forward to you discovering the cache from NC. A castaway with a Benedictine bottle... Hmmm. I'd say there had to be more goodies where that came from. RossD. (who spilled burning Benedictine on his beard once...) ************************************************************************** From Ric There is no fresh water on the island that can be reached by a castaway, (Later settlers used dynamite to blast wells that produced water of marginal quality.) The only fresh water available to a castway would be what he brought with him, what he found cached on the island, and what fell from the sky in sporadic showers. Finding the NC survivors' campsite is going to be a b--ch. Our only real shot is if we can spot it in the old aerial photos, but the one photo we have of it up close (and we only have that in the form of a photocopy so far) shows it to be back under the trees (naturally). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:23:16 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: AE & FN If AE and FJN were alive today, AE would be disguised as Irene Bolam of New Jersey and FJN would be disguised as Joe Klass (very inside joke). ************************************************************************** From Ric Except Mrs. Bolam died in 1983. Joe Klaas, as far as I know, is still around. That's seven. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:29:06 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Forum stats And then some of us are truly struggling to even keep our access to the net at the moment. As an occasional pilot, I had always been interested in AE, but only in passing. It was only whilst supposedly confined to bed for months that I sneaked onto the net once every few days (when I could sit for a while) for a short session. I heard on the local radio that AE's plane had been found so I did a search and found TIGHAR. I emailed Ric and found that although it had not been found there was an active search going on. I promised that as a thank you for the courtesy of replying to my email (I think it was Pat that originally replied) I would in fact join TIGHAR as soon as I was financial. Then I started my little project to research the red items in the Luke Field Inventory. That gave me something to ward off the boredom for a few months, and was of great therapeutic value to me (mentally at least) and the thank you email made it worthwhile. After 6 months with no income and no insurance due to previous injuries I am not quite in the situation to do it. But as soon as I am, there will be one more change in the numbers. I guess there may be others a little hard up but we won't all be hard up forever. My first "luxury" is going to be a subscription to Tighar. When (and I WILL) I get back up and running I have promised myself I'll make a donation of some sort. In the mean time, 5am, when I wake up, and get my email from you nice people is the best time of my day. ************************************************************************** From Ric (gulp) What can I say to that? - except - Thank you Ross. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:33:23 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Couldn't happen today? Clyde Miller wrote: <> NOT NECESSARILY TRUE A case in point. The Colorado Civil Air Patrol recently spent more than 300 flight hours during the Thanksgiving holiday looking for a Bellanca Viking piloted by a 6000+ hour pilot CFI and his pilot wife, with a brand new hand held GPS, cell phone, etc., who disappeared during beautiful weather without a trace. He did not file a flight plan, and there was no signal from the ELT aboard the plane. The search was unsuccessful even though we had a rough idea of where they disappeared from a position report he made to ATC and NTAP radar return data. Veritable needle in a haystack looking for a green and white aircraft in the pine trees and snow. Just because you have lots of technology in your aircraft doesn't mean that you can't get lost, will get an SOS message off successfully, or assure that you are going to be found. When things go bad they usually go bad quickly, and there is little time to do more than just react to the situation. A cell phone can be useful for the post crash survivors, but establishing credibility these days is just a difficult as it was for the post loss AE messages. We had one crash last January that managed to reach via cell phone the Sheriff's department dispacher who refused to believe that they were the victims of a plane crash, and kept asking if they had witnessed a plane crash instead. After several subsequent calls of unsuccessful attempts to convince the dispachter that they were the victims, their cell phone battery died. If it weren't for the efforts of an intrepid XC skier who heard the plane go down and finally located the wreck after searching for two hours in a blinding blizzard (why they werer flying in the mountains during a blizzard is another question), they would surely have perished due to exposure. Three lucky crash victims. Technology will not necessarily save your bacon when the chips are down. Andrew McKenna 1045 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:42:12 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Ditching As a safety briefing, I offer the following. There is a boatload of good information regarding ditching aircraft to be found at: Equipped to Survive http://www.equipped.com/ and in particular a very good case study by a guy who flew from Ohio IFR only to have to ditch in the Chesapeake due to engine failure: Equipped to Survive Ditchings http://www.equipped.com/ditching.htm His research revealed that 63% of ditchings recorded in the NTSB files occured during "non-overwater" flights, much like his own fligt from Ohio. Well worth reading, especially for the pilots in the crowd who think they don't fly over water enough to worry about ditching. Next on the hit parade is a video of a Mooney ditching found at : Rif's Place to Visit http://www.rifkin.com/ scroll down to "Rif's digital photo album" and look for the Mooney ditching video in three different resolutions. Start with the 850K version unless you have a supercomputer with lots of memory and MHZ. In this video you will see quite clearly what Ric described earlier, ie " You're almost certainly going to skip once before the nose digs in and you come to an abrupt stop... " Doesn't look like fun, but in this case survivable. Enough on ditching. Seems to me that since TIGHAR's main theory does not include ditching, and any ditching theory is impossible to prove/disprove until those underwater guys spend the next 100 years searching the Pacific and come up with some hard evidence, we should spend less time talking about something we cannot make any realistic progress on. Lets go back to the Dado (my favorite piece of evidence), plexiglass, photos, bones, etc. Things that we do have a bead on. LTM (who doesn't believe AE ditched at all) Andrew McKenna 1045C ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:01:19 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The survivors's camp For some reason I thought we had a source indicating that the evacuation site was on the ocean side opposite Kanawa Point. Foua Tofinga and Emily Sikuli say that this is where they went off the island in 1941, for what that's worth. LTM TK ************************************************************************ From Ric Here's what we have. Capt. Hamer says in his statement: "The two (rescue) vessels now cruised along the reef in search of a suitable place, the surf near the wreck being far too dangerous. A place was found about 1 1/2 miles south of the wreck, the breakers being not quite so bad, but bad enough to make it anything but a joy ride to get over. We then crossed the lagoon in the boat to where the vessels were waiting on the outside and transported the boat to the edge of the reef." That last phrase is the key. Can you imagine anyone dragging a several hundred pound lifeboat through the scaevola or over the coral rubble rather than walking it through Bauareke Passage? I suspect that Emily and Tofiga left the island from the same place for the same reason. They left in December - Westerly season - so they had to go around to the south side. There had to be a place to get the island surf boat out to the reef. Bauareke Passage is the only game in town. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:04:33 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Fire extinguisher vs Thermos bottle I've had an e-mail response to my letter to The Thermos Company with a printout of MAY20DEP.JPG enclosed. I did not ask any leading questions. I simply said that there was some question as to what the object at the rear right might be. Since they have that interesting history page on their web site, I hoped they might know what the bottles were like in about 1930. This is the response received: ********************************** Thank you for sending the photo of Amelia Earhart. It is fascinating. I'll try to answer your questions. First, I cannot tell for certain if the pictured bottles are the genuine Thermos brand vacuum bottles. Based on my investigation into our archive product from that era, I believe most, if not all, are Thermos brand bottles, however, I can't be sure. As for the 4th bottle in question, it is also a vacuum bottle. Many bottles of this era had very small cups which, from a distance, look like a simple stopper for the bottle. In fact, the first vacuum bottles had a cork. Then came a more refined stopper and cup. So it was not unusual to see a bottle with a shot glass sized cup/stopper. Thank you again for your interest. John Lanman Vice President of Marketing The Thermos Company ********************************** So... I continue to believe that we are looking at four Thermos, or other make, vacuum bottles. There is no point in tryin to match what we see in that photo with a fire extinguisher. We don't have a picture of the fire extinguishers that were on the Electra. This leaves wide open the possibility that the extinguisher (PYRENE1,JPG) found on Niku is, in fact, from the Electra. It may also have come from the LORAN station, or it may be of some other presently unknown origin. *************************************************************************** From Ric I agree entirely. Thanks Vern. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 09:39:31 EST From: David Subject: L'Oiseau Blanc, and other ramblings... Ric wrote: > Let's find Amelia first. To push the project in Newfoundland further will > be very expensive. ...and this coming from a guy who has led expeditions to one of the most remote and inaccessible islands on earth exactly how many times now? I would have thought that with one Yankee buck buying almost $1.50 Canadian right now, it would be a bargain to travel in Canada, and certainly a lot closer than Niku! In the ten years that this project has been on your back burner, what new technology has has cropped up that might help you find the engine? I suppose ground penetrating radar is no good because of the water in the muskeg, but what about ultrasound, or even taking water samples in a grid pattern and then having them analyzed for trace amounts of metallic elements? What about the low-flying-heli- copter-mounted sensors that the USAF was using a few years ago to try and find (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) the missing bombs from that A-10 that the guy used to commit suicide? I thought I'd heard that it was a Canadian invention (the chopper had Canadian registration letters); and heck, that company may even have an office in Newfoundland already! Here's another thought: The Canadian government's Heritage department was able to provide some money ($30,000 Canadian as I recall) to help dig up a Halifax bomber in Belgium a couple of years back, and the results were several proper military burials (the German night fighter pilot responsible was even there all the way from south America!) and many recovered parts to assist in the restoration of another Halifax back in Canada. The entire process was widely publicized here in Canada, especially in aviation circles, and really raised the profile of aviation archeology. My point is that if you've got good evidence to pinpoint where you think the engine will be found, you could very well be able to get some money out of the French government. Perhaps if you lay all your cards on the table for the French Ambassador, you could play to the French sense of pride! Think what a huge find it would be! Mon dieu! Herman was right on the money (Francs or dollars?) about the hoops to jump through for flying the pond. One of my friends living in Ottawa was goofy enough to fly his 172 to London, England and back one summer with his brother. Their planning began many months ahead of time, and they needed all sorts of special equipment on board, especially survival gear (cold-water immersion suits, buoyant ELTs, etc.). Maybe the FAA lets you Yanks gas-n-go, but up here, Transport Canada is a less wild-west minded outfit, and demands that you have a full and current IFR rating, plus you have to get your aircraft inspected and certified by a government official at a certain airport in New Brunswick, before you can even depart. On and on it goes with international paperwork, but I won't bore you with the rest of it all. Basically, although my friend and his bro had the trip of a lifetime, their conclusion was that if you want to cross the Atlantic at far less cost, more easily, faster, and with a much higher margin of safety, take an airliner! By the way, if AE and FN were alive today, AE would be a motivational speaker making the corporate feel-good team-spirit-building weekend-retreat circuit, and FN would be developing GPS software for his own navigational consulting company. They'd probably have met up at some point while she was giving a stress-relief seminar to Fred's overworked outfit. Since both of these characters mesh into the corporate world so well, they'd probably be living at Tokyo addresses now, having been "captured by the Japanese" years earlier. Fred's love of Saki (rice wine) would undoubtably be the subject of great speculation around the office. One last thought, seriously. In concurrence with what others have already postulated, I would be wildly astounded if the gliding rate of descent in the 10E would be any less than 1,000 FPM. Last July, I had an oil-related engine failure in a Cessna 182. It bled out all 11 quarts in the first seven minutes of flight due to an incorrectly installed oil filter - and it was not installed by me! The first sign of trouble was an oil pressure reading of 0, so I shut the engine down and started trimming for best glide speed. Yes, I got the full Mayday out, and was even courtious enough to let the four skydivers on board bail out! Although I was at 4,000 feet AGL when things started to go bad, I was rolling to a stop in a farmer's field less that three minutes later! Fortunately, there wasn't a scratch on the aircraft, myself, or anything else. The plane had been retro-fitted with a three-bladed prop, and a larger 300 hp engine (versus the original 230 hp), so although it's rate of climb was spectacular when everything was working, it's gliding ability was certainly degraded compared to the handbook's distance graph. As far as the Electra goes, even with flaps and gear retracted, I'd say that with two windmilling props and those big draggy radials hanging in the slipstream, it would almost come down like an anvil chained to a piano! LTM, (Who tries to get the French government to pay for her Saki in Tokyo) David :-) ************************************************************************** From Ric Permit me to present a short course in research funding. The ability to fund any given project is directly proportional to the public knowledge of the question and desire for the answer to be found. Amelia is on of those names like Winston or Adolf where you don't even need to say the surname. To most people, Nungeeser and Coli sounds like a law firm in Montreal. I'm hoping that eventual success on the Earhart Project will create an appetite for an encore that will let us really go after a truly historic lost airplane - l'Oiseau Blanc. If the Canadian government could be induced to help out that would be wonderful but first they would have to be persuaded that Newfoundland is in Canada, and then we'd have convince the Newfies that they're part of Canada. As for funding from the French government, I can only conclude that you have never had the privilege of dealing with the French government. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 10:24:45 EST From: Jerry Hamilton Subject: ditching I almost hesitate to further this discussion because, at this point, it's all so much speculation and hot air. However, I don't recall anyone factoring Noonan into why there wasn't an SOS with position report final message. He spent 20 years at sea and was a Master who could captain any size ocean going vessel. I don't think he would have ended up in the water without providing a last position report if it was humanly possible. He would have been acutely aware of the fuel situation (can't plot a course anywhere without knowing what it is). And, as I understand it, he plotted navigation positions in advance of the actual location so he wouldn't have needed to wait until the last ten minutes to start furiously calculating. Even if he thought he was within 10 miles of Howland, given his background, I can't see him going into the drink without a final position report. Of course, if the equipment failed... blue skies, -jerry LTM (who just spent $0.02 she probably shouldn't have) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 11:08:55 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: ditching Ditching an aircraft in water might be likened to paddling a canoe though white water, you try to maintain the same rate of paddling to keep in front & on top of the wavewash created by the rushing water so you don't _drop_ (bow first) between the uneven crests & to maintain enough control to avoid being turned sideways. If you don't keep-up the same paddling rate you have little control of your craft & will quickly flounder & risk capsizing in the rough water. Since AE mentioned..."gas running low:.. on at least one occasion during her broadcasts, as recorded by Itaska, it doesn't seem likely she would be caught by surprise when the fuel tanks coughed-up the last drop of gasoline. Don Neumann *************************************************************************** From Ric In my experience, once you get down to the last dregs it's very hard to predict just when she's going to quit. Gas guages are not particularly accurate when the needle is bouncing on zero. As a kid, I had a co-pilot job flying a semipro ice hockey team around the northeastern U.S. and Canada in a DC-3. We used to routinely burn the auxillary tanks dry before swtiching to the mains, but if you let the engines cough once you immediately had 23 panicked hockey players in the cockpit with you. This tended to make the aircraft noseheavy and difficult to trim and so was to be avoided. The procedure was to watch the aux tank fuel guages until they started to bounce on zero then you switched your attention to the low fuel pressure warning light. At the first flicker you switched to the main tank and hit the boost pump. The engine in question never missed a beat. Once, many years later, I was ferrying a Piper Arrow (light single engine retractable) and was stupidly trying to minimize refueling stops. I was bucking a headwind and, consequentally, was flying at only about a thousand feet above the ground. I had burned one tank down as far as I dared and thought I was on the last quarter of the second tank when everthing suddenly got very quiet. I tapped on the fuel guage and the needle, which had hung up at the one quarter mark, abruptly clunked to zero like it had been shot. I immediately swtiched back to the "empty" other tank and hit the boost pump. The engine reawoke to my immense but only temporary relief. I knew that it would die again any minute and I decided that the next level thing I saw was going to get landed on (because you never, ever make a dead-stick, off-airport landing if you can avoid it). As it turned out, I spotted a windsock on a barn and put her down on a farmer's distressingly small private airstrip where he kept a J-3 Cub. He begrudgingly sold me enough gas to get to the next real airport. I can recall a few other occasions where my own rank stupidity left me chugging along staring at fuel guages that read "You're screwed" but each time the airplane made it to the next airport (although one time it did quit on the taxiway). The point of all this "there I was" nonsense is that you have to be even stupider than me to find yourself faced with a dead-stick landing. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 11:25:37 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The survivors's camp You're right, Baureke is the only plausible place to get a boat through from the lagoon to the seaside (other than Tatiman, of course). As for Tofiga and Emily, though, they were pretty specific about having come off around the Ritiati/Noriti border opposite Kanawa Point. I'll make it a point to check with Tofiga the next time we correspond. Of course, they weren't travelling under the extreme weather conditions that plagued the Norwich City survivors, and they may have been using a canoe. TK ************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. It may be that the over-the-reef ferrying was done in a boat provided by the VITI in which case a canoe might have dropped them off on the lagoon side near Kanawa Point and there may have been a trail cut over to the ocean side. However, I can tell you from experience that you DON'T want to try to land a canoe in that pretty little cove just east of Kanawa Point. It's too shallow to get right up to the shoreline and when you step out of the boat to walk it to shore - GLOOP - you go right out of sight in quicksand unless you manage to grab the gunwale of the boat on your way down. Ask me how I know. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 11:26:50 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Fire extinguisher vs Thermos bottle Thanks indeed, Vern. What the dismissal of the photo image does is throw us back on the specifications that Pyrene sent me as the most likely descriptors of the extinguishers aboard the Electra. These are not much like the one we found; they have sort of nipple-shaped business ends rather than flat ones, and would not have stood up by themselves. LTM (whose business end -- well, never mind) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 12:23:08 EST From: L. Malvone Subject: Re: ditching I have a question, has anybody thought that the plane may have come apart in the air and crashed either from a structure fault or maybe fuel explosion? ************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, let's consider those two hypotheses. 1. Inflight structural failure. Airplanes come apart in the air due to extreme forces that exceed their design limitations, or from a design or manufacturing flaw. Exreme forces can be caused by weather or by violent manuevers (sometimes spelled "manouevres"). There were no extreme weather conditions reported in the region and I know of no indication that the airplane engaged in violent ... thingys. The Lockheed Model 10 was, if anything, overbuilt and extremely strong. I've never heard of one coming apart in flight and NR16020 had already flown 2/3 of the way around the world safely. Seems like we can eliminate inflight structural failure as a likely explanation. 2. Fuel explosion If it happened it would sure bring things to an abrupt stop but, in the absence of any evidence to suggest that such a thing happened, it seems like a dead end as an investigative thread. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 12:37:35 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The survivors's camp So that's what happened, AE landed inside the lagoon on the nice wide stretch of sand near Kanawa (the only nice wide stretch of sand on the island?) and the plane sank in the mud... (well, it's a silly idea, but I'm smiling at the picture of Ric hanging off the gunwhale up to his neck in smelly mud)... Ross D ************************************************************************** From Ric There's just a narrow stretch of beach sand along there. Not at all an attractive landing place. The quicksand is in the shallow water leading up to the beach, but - yes - it is smelly, and - yes - it was pretty funny (but only after I was reasonably sure I wasn't going to die). John Clauss was having his own near-death experience on the opposite side of the launch while Russ Matthews and Dr. Kar Burns (who had sense enough to stay in the boat) were in danger of dying from laughter. We have way too many stories like this. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 17:52:06 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: L'Oiseau Blanc, and other ramblings... David wrote : >The Canadian government's Heritage department was able to provide some >money ($30,000 Canadian as I recall) to help dig up a Halifax bomber in >Belgium a couple of years back, and the results were several proper military >burials (the German night fighter pilot responsible was even there all the >way from south America!) and many recovered parts to assist in the >restoration of another Halifax back in Canada. Good point. By the way, I saw the Halifax or what was left of it, after its recovery. There was hardly anything that could be used to help restore another Halifax but the twisted metal did have exhibition value. I remember one of the huge wheels was still intact and inflated... I mentioned that Halifax some time ago in the forum because the way it was recovered showed similarities with what TIGHAR is trying to achieve with the Electra. In this case a group of dedicated aviation enthusiasts with an interest in "aviation archeology" knew more or less where the airplane crashed. Some older inhabitants of the village recalled that it crashed in a bog one night in 1943. The Germans had tried to recover it but had given up as it sank deeper in the bog, although they did succeed in extracting some of the aircrew for burial. Then the airplane disappeared in the bog. It was in a densely populated area, unlike Gardner Island. Nobody cared to look for it for the next 50 years. But learning it was there, the entusiasts convinced the Canadian government to help them recover the bomber and the Canadian government indeed paid for the rent of a crane to raise the wreck, in order to give the missing crewmembers a proper burial. They were indeed buried as David described. The enthusiasts were the same bunch of motivated people members of the TIGHAR expeditions are. They believed they would succeed and they did. With some help from the Canadian government, which was mainly interested ingiving the missing crew members a decent burial. In addition they got their Halifax back for exhibit in a war museum. Couldn't the US government be convinced that TIGHAR can find the Electra and found willing to provide some support for the recovery from Gardner Island ? Let me cite two examples of government aid that both happened here. Some years ago the Brussels Air Museum learned they could have a Canadian CF-100 for free for the museum, provided they took charge of transportation from Canada to Brussels. As the Belgian air force had operated the type in the Fifties, the Ministry of Defense simply ordered a navy ship to Canada to go and fetch the airplane. Officially the vessel was sent on a "goodwill tour" to Canada... The aircraft is now on permanent exhibit in Brussels. Some ten years ago the same museum learned it could have a Westland Lysander airplane, of the type used by the RAF for covert operation in WW2. As Belgian agents were flown into occupied Europe in such airplane, again the ministry of Defense was found willing to help. It ordered the air force to send a C-130 to Canada to collect it. In fact it was a wreck. It has been lovingly restored to FLYING CONDITION by a number of dedicated volunteers. I saw it flying over my home only last week. . Perhaps in Europe we are more attached to relics of the past. But I remember having seen beautifully restored historic airplanes in the US also. Couldn't the US government then be convinced AE is part of American heritage and that therefore it would be worthwhile using some of the formidable resources at its disposal to go to Niku and comb the place ? LTM from Herman (who loves old airplanes, even if they're bent a bit) ************************************************************************* From Ric We have, from time to time, received help from the U.S. government in the form of donated expertise and laboratory work by the FBI, the NTSB, and even the CIA (but don't tell anybody). On other occasions we have been unsuccessful in getting help from other government agencies. Aviation historic preservation in the U.S. is, as it is in Europe, the exception rather than the rule. Rare indeed are the museums who understand that you can't preserve something by throwing most of it away and building something new that looks like the old thing. In this country the National Museum of Naval Aviation is doing some good preservation work and in England the RAF Museum at Hendon and the Imperail War Museum have some good examples of preserved aircraft. On the continent, the Netherlands Military Aviation Museum at Soesterberg has been a leader in the field. In Australia the Australian War Memorial Museum has pioneered some important preservation techniques and in Canada the National Museum in Ottawa has a couple of interesting projects going. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:01:25 EST From: John Subject: Re: Silly questions Thanks..i knew my second question was a little 'shallow' but i didn't know who to ask. Could you explain more about what you know of AE's ability as a pilot and her character??.....Thanks again!, John ************************************************************************** From Ric Any assessment I made of AE's ability as a pilot would be subjective and merely my own opinion (which would be guaranteed to offend someone, no matter what I said). Earhart's accomplishments, and her failures, are a matter of record. What's true for her flying ability is even more true of her character. Some see her as a hero and role model. Others see her as less than that. What is beyond question is that she has become legendary. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:06:53 EST From: Greg Subject: More Odds and Ends I have been thinking a little about the radio related items here and at the risk of covering old ground and boring people to sleep I offer the following thoughts. 1) You said that the radio system was in two boxes at disparate points ie receiver up front and transmitter in back. So musing a bit, in many of the earlier avionic systems the receive antenna and the transmit antenna were separate and the receiver system was used both to navigate and to receive incoming messages during communication. In one version of the concept there is no antenna changeover switch from receive to transmit because it does not use a common antenna for communication. In fact King Radio made the last of these as the KX145 up to about ten years ago. Genave also made a unit called the A200. It is an efficient way to put navigation and communication in the airplane. I do not know that this was the case here but it seems plausable. In the 1930's the reasons would be; WEIGHT, POWER CONSUMPTION, and COST. I put these in capital letters because the penalties were huge then. Perhaps someone has the actual equipment manuals for these components including the suggested antenna arrangements. It could be that the design of the antennas aboard the 10E were taken directly from the radio manufacturers manuals. 2) We know AE could effectively transmit and ineffectively receive. The records show this. It implies that the airborne transmitter system (the antenna is a part of the system) was functioning significantly better than the receive system during communications. We also know that the navigation receiver was not functioning correctly. Could this system installation have been the common receive antenna for nav and com as noted above? 3) If all that was left of the receive antenna (electrically viewed from the radio) was a small part of the feed exposed past the sheet metal then, the receive sensitivity would be hugely diminshed. That is, the required field strength for audible reception would have been increased by easily 40 dB (each 10 dB corresponds to a factor of 10 so 40 dB is a factor of 10,000) and perhaps an much as 60 dB (a factor of 1 million). What this implies is that in order for her to have received anything she would have had to have been very close to the sender. Exactly how close cannot be known but there is a bit more information here in that there was enough signal to be heard intermittently but not to null or point. By the way, could it be that the receiver was mounted under the right front seat in order to shorten or effectively eliminate the lead to the antenna? A smart idea if one is trying to get the most out of a receiver. If so then the antenna was electrically coupled to the end nearest the cockpit. This might help explain why AE could hear anything with only the stub as the actual receiver input impedance may have been high enough to allow the stub to operate nearly unloaded (but also unmatched). Similar to todays LORAN antennas which are unloaded by the preamplifier either in the antenna base or in a preamplifier nearby. 4) I also think that it is reasonable to believe that if all that was left of the antenna was a stub, then the antenna sensitivity may have had a large null in the pattern caused by the fuselage obstructing the incoming wave from the pilots side, thus making turns necessary to find a strong enough signal to hear. The additional null(s) may have grossly interfered with any attempt to use the loop. 5) There have been comments here about line of sight and the difficulties of communicating at VHF. But AE was not transmitting at VHF and the propagation charactistics of 3 and 6 MHz are not the same as those which pilots experience at VHF. The guys who use HF up in Canada, Alaska, over the Atlantic or Pacific can perhaps share what they have experienced using it. In addition as noted here previously the expected propagation at 6 MHz is not the same as 3 MHz. I remember that Northwest used something around 7 MHz for transatlantic communications. \_ Greg _/ ************************************************************************** From Ric This is, I'm afraid, very old and well-trampled ground. An excellent description of what is known about the aircraft's radio system and capbilities will be included in the forthcoming 8th edition of the Earhart Project Book. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:12:41 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The survivors's camp Ric wrote: <> I imagine you know about it the same way you know about the lagoon at McKean, no??? LTM (who says, tread gently) TK ************************************************************************** From Ric Like I said, we've got way too many of these stories. The main difference between this one and the "incident" at McKean was that this time there were people there to pull my butt out (if I could get them to stop laughing). ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:14:54 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: AE's piloting skill From time to time there are postings that cast doubt upon the piloting skills of AE & the navigational skills (& sobriety) of FN. The best response to these contentions is the fact that AE/FN had flown over three quarters of the way around the world, under what at times could be described as less than optimal conditions, with no reported instances of any problems directly related to any breech or lack of piloting/navigational skills. I seem to recall that those observing the takeoff from Lae expressed their admiration at AE's ability to handle the heavily, fuel laden Electra & get it airborne within the constraints of the somewhat primative conditions of the runway at Lae. From the various reports from the flight, subsequent to takeoff, that are available, the flight appeared to be going well, giving the impression they were probably on course through the Gilberts. Whatever problem caused them to _miss_ Howland Island, would seem to have developed or become apparent, during that last 600-700 mile portion of the 2500 mile (longest) overwater leg of the flight. While AE's piloting skills may have been subject to question before the round-the-world flight attempt, there seems to be little doubt that she was an expert at handling the Electra & all it's idiosyncrasies by the time she lifted off the runway at Lae. Don Neumann ************************************************************************** From Ric I agree. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 18:20:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Navigation I received this in answer to a post to Ric and agree it would be good to see what forum members thought (It started out as just a photocopy of a map......) My comments are next to the ***. The full text of the original post is right at the bottom. The text with a map (300kb) is at: http://www.ross.devitt.com/amelia Ross, If the 5:18 p.m. position report of 4.33 South, 159.7 East is accurate, it places the aircraft on the direct Great Circle from Lae to Howland and almost exactly over the Nukumanu Islands at 4.30 South, 159.30 East. My trusty Encyclopedia Britannica puts the Ontong Java Islands at 5.20 South, 159.30 East. Just about exactly one degree of latitude to the south of the Nukumanu group they seem to be a possibility but it would mean that Fred isn't where he thinks he is. *** My point exactly. for the reasons below and in the text I think he was out a bit. 1 it was dark 2 there was reported bad weather 3 they had to detour (absolutely NO PROOF that this happened, but....) As for what route they really followed to get there, I've seen several different opinions. Some say they diverted south to avoid high terrain on New Britain. That's a possibility but it seems like an awfully big detour if the 3:19 position is accurate. Your idea of avoiding the "dangerous rain squalls" is another possibility but it assumes that they heard the weather report that there is no evidence that they heard. *** The documented evidence points to the fact that they didn't get the weather report that came in as they took off, but they didn't have to hear. You can see bad rain storms for quite a distance. Cu clouds go way up, and they would not fly through them (the dangerous rain squalls) as heavily laden with fuel as they were, in fact I suspect they would not fly through them at all, as the reports seem to indicate that the aircraft was overloaded and the structural stresses placed on the airframe by turbulence - well i guess you've flown through it , you know what I mean. *** They would try to use the "1 in 60 rule" or whatever was applicable and go around and back on to their planned track. Or they could keep flying out at about the lattitude of Lae until they thought the squall