Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:03:12 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Linda Finch's Howland view Bob Perry wrote: > This may have been covered, in which case delete. > There is an excellent video > tape of Finch's flight taken from Reid Dennis' chase plane which includes a > fine view of Howland close up as they flew over it. Does the video show what Howland looked like from about 20 down to 10 miles out? That would be interesting. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:24:04 EDT From: Jon Radford Subject: Re: Airspeed and minimum fuel consumption. You would want to fly at best 'glide' speed for the aircraft type. This would be on the aircraft spec sheet. it gives most economical distance to fuel use. It would not be slowest or fastest speed for the aircraft and you would not want flaps as this adds drag. ********************************************************************** From Ric What aircraft spec sheet? We're talking about a 1930s airplane. The Lockheed specs show various cruise speeds for various altitudes and horsepower settings but no single "best economical cruise" which of course, will change with the weight of the aircraft. Whether or not to use flaps depends on whether you're going for maximum time aloft (loiter time) or maximum range, and it also depends on the airplane. On some types, partial flaps at low speeds increase lift more than they add drag. I would guess that would not be the case with the Model 10. Why are we talking about this? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:27:09 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust >> Her Electra was modified to carry 1800 gallons of fuel compared to >> Earhart's Electra that carried only 800 gallons of fuel. > > As you should know by now, Earhart's Electra had a fuel capacity of 1,151 > gallons. I'm more than a bit skeptical about the 1,800 gallon figure. Regarding that fuel. Correct me if I'm wrong (I was once) but isn't 1800 gallons around 10,800lb (approximately). Finch says the take off weight for Honolulu - Oakland was 17,000 (approx). Crew weight would be around 550 - 700lb plus. Lets be conservative. 10,800+550=11350. That gives us a fully equipped Electra with extra nav gear, extra tanks, and crew luggage etc weighing in at 5650lb. Is that really likely? Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************* From Ric No, of course not. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:37:50 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subjject: Re: Niku IIII Tide > From Ric > > No, we did not record daily highs and lows. We were off doing other > things. We did, however, record and photograph particular tidal states and > events on particular dates and at particular times. Bob Brandenburg has > used those observations to correct tidal data for Hull Island and we think > we can now accurately hindcast tides for Niku. To test the system we're > looking back through photos and video of previous expeditions taken at > known times to see if the system can accurately predict (hind-dict?) what > the tide was doing. If we can accuratley hindcast to 1989 we can accurately > hindcast to 1937. I was working on something like that a couple of years ago, which was why I asked if you would keep the data when you did Niku IIII. The idea was that if you could get a series of accurate daily data over a couple of weeks that could be compared with a few places where we know the state of the tides on the days in question in 1937, you could pretty much work it out. Obviously, the ideal would be Howland, as you should have records for high tide at Howland on July 2, 1937. Calculating the lows for Howland shouldn't be hard if you know the swing. From there you just need to know how far apart the tides at Niku are, and what the approximate change is from day to day. Unfortunately it is never exactly the same (in minutes) but as an hourly or half hourly component, it is accurate enough for a week or so. It would give you a general look at what the tide was most likely doing. If we can aproximate the time of Lambert's photo for that date it could give you a bit of a check point. If you can find the times of high and low for Pearl Harbour on the day, that might also provide another comparison, if you know the variation between tide times on Niku when you were there and times at say Pearl Harbour and wherever the home base of Nai'a is. For that matter, the crew of Naiia probably keep the tide times daily. For times on Howland in 1937, if Itasca's log doesn't show the tides, then it should be able to be deduced from the times the launch left with equipment or, and returned with personnel from the Island. If there is a series of entries incrementing by around 1/2 hour on successive days, that is probably high tide. (Unlike Niku, there doesn't seem to be landing channel at Howland). Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************ From Ric I say again, we think we can now accurately hindcast tides for Niku. We still need to run some tests to make sure we have it right. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:45:59 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning > From Ric > ... If you're getting traffic with attachments > from the Earhartforum address it's a virus that > is reading the addresses that you frequently > receive mail from. Not quite accurate. It's the klez worm. It is not on Carol's machine. It is not on TIGHAR's machines. It is not delivered by the EarhartForum. The worm is on a machine that just happens to have Carol's address and the address of the EarhartForum on it. It sends an e-mail with attachments TO an address selected at random from all of the addresses on the infected computer. It fills in the FROM field with other addresses chosen at random from all of the addresses on the infected computer. So when you get e-mail containing the klez worm, telling the person it came FROM that they are infected is false. Telling the person that the message came TO is also false. The worm is not on either one of those two machines. In briefer form from http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.klez.h@mm.html : "This worm searches the Windows address book, the ICQ database, and local files for email addresses. The worm sends an email message to these addresses with itself as an attachment. The worm contains its own SMTP engine and attempts to guess at available SMTP servers. For example, if the worm encounters the address user@abc123.com it will attempt to send email via the server smtp.abc123.com. "The subject line, message bodies, and attachment file names are random. The From address is randomly-chosen from email addresses that the worm finds on the infected computer." Marty #2359 ************************************************************************ From Ric Thanks Marty. We Mac-users are in awe at the expertise that Windows-users display just keeping their machines running - some of the time. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:49:08 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust I wonder where she put 1800 gallons and still manage to remain airborne? Regards David ************************************************************** From Ric Yet another great aviation mystery for us to solve. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:50:27 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Niku IIII Tides > So you would retrodict something? Sounds like you could get into also as > much trouble with that as with hind-dict. > > (This could turn into a very marginal thread very quickly.) > From Alan I think both of you guys are quite ept with creating new words. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:51:37 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: LOP > What would be the most logical > search pattern? Maybe we're both missing each other's point Lawrence. Sorry. My point in this case is that the scenario you ask about (300 pounds of fuel) is not answerable. Not enough information is known. For example if I thought I was almost on top of Howland my response would be different than they would be if I wqasn't sure where I was or if I thought I was a significant distance North or South of Howland. I don't know WHAT Noonan thought. I recognize a number of hypotheticals could be constructed but the answer to each would be of little or no use. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:55:20 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Why? Because. Ric said: "Why are we talking about this?" Because the ether is restless, quarks are forming, and our future is uncertain. We seek solace in the familiar. The forum is a comfortable venue and Ric is like a big gruff dad; huffin' and puffin', acting cranky and scratchy but really enjoying it all. How close is that? LTM, who cherishes serenity Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ************************************************************************** From Ric Big gruff dad? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:04:39 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Forum notice Later this week I'll be traveling to California for our Aviation Archeology Course and Field School. I'll be pretty busy with that until about Oct. 14 and while I'm gone Pat will be standing in as Forum Moderator. Any gunslingers who want to call me out into the street will have to wait until I get back. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:34:34 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Niku IIII Tides > From Ric > I say again, we think we can now accurately hindcast tides for Niku. We > still need to run some tests to make sure we have it right. If I remember correctly, there were some objections by folks at EPAC about whether the high / low tide data was gathered using the appropriate techniques. Or, to put it less offensively, the tidal study may be improved by using the standard instruments of the trade on the next trip to Niku. :o) LTM. Marty #2359 ************************************************************************* From Ric Bob Brandenburg, you'll recall, was not able to be at the conference and so could not participate in the discussion. I would submit that it doesn't matter whether the data are collected by standard instruments or divined by reading tea leaves, as long as the table can hindcast, retrodict, or otherwise dict into the murky mists of the past and accurately describe the tidal state at known times. Bob did it the hard way because it was the only way he had. If we have the opportunity to deploy and later retrieve conventional tide measuring instruments we'll do it but, as was discussed at the conference, that's pretty hard to do at a place as remote as Niku. Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:06:36 EDT From: John Buontempo Subject: Re: Another myth bites the dust I may be missing something (or a lot) here, but what is the deal with Linda Finch's attitude toward sharing info about her airplane and the flight in 1997? It appears (to me anyway) that she doesn't or didn't want to share any useful data with anyone, just her reflections during the trip. Reflections are nice, if you are writing a romantic novel or doing a biography. I would think that something as significant as a re-creation of a very historical event such as AE's RTW trip should have been more open to technical detail and actual facts and data (such as fuel amounts, fuel flow figures, takeoff weights, landing weights, power settings, etc.) than just "the weather was nice and the island was beautiful" type of communication. Pardon me and/or chastise me if I am going in the wrong direction here. Any comments are welcome! John Buontempo **************************************************************************** From Ric I was greatly puzzled by the way the whole operation was conducted until I met with the head of Community Relations/Corporate Communications at Pratt & Whitney in Hartford, CT a year or so later. I was fund-raising, reasoning that if P&W had 5 milion to drop on Finch's recreation of the Earhart flight it might have a million or so to spend on actually solving the mystery. I didn't get any sponsorship but I did get the straight story on the Flight of the Finch. In 1996 Pratt had just undergone a corporate downsizing with thousands of layoffs. They had a huge public relations problem in Hartford. If you can't provide jobs, give 'em bread and circuses. The PR firm hired by Finch to find sponsorship for her proposed flight hit Pratt & Whitney at just the right time and they saw a chance to refurbish their image with a high-profile media event. The local paper, the Hartford Courant, assigned a woman reporter who would cover the preparations and go along on the trip. The educational/children-oriented aspect of the project made it look less like a publicity stunt. It was never about historical research or collecting data. Finch adamantly refused to even discuss the mystery aspect of the Earhart story, in part because she doesn't know anything about it but mostly because you don't court controversy when you're doing corporate PR. The mainstream media saw through the fluff very quickly and the flight never got much press coverage, but the courant's coverage was genrally lauditory and, at the end of the day, P&W felt that they had gotten their money's worth. The bad taste left in so many mouths was of no consequence. The whole thing is best forgotten. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:08:21 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning So true Ric... I guess that's why Apple has an astounding 10% of the market ;-) Dave ************************************************************************** From Ric I like to think of it as being in the 90th percentile. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:09:56 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: Linda Finch's Howland view Ross Devitt wrote: >Does the video show what Howland looked like from about 20 down to 10 miles >out? That would be interesting. The first shot of Howland appears as a long, thin sliver after Finch's plane comes in out of a cloud bank, and from a distance (not stated. It would be folly to guess it, but I will anyway...From the dimensions, ie, length, of the island at that distance I would guestimate no farther away than 15-20 miles). The next shot is a beautiful view of the entire, green island, then the flyover at low altitude, when Finch dropped the wreath. The island is larger than I thought, and Finch's flyover (at whatever speed) took 15-20 seconds. Given the fact that Howland is so flat, it is easy to see how AE might have missed it at low altitude 10-20 miles away with the sun's glare. However, "we're on you and can't see you (at 1000 ft)" tells me that they were nowhere near the island, and they were circling the open ocean. LTM, Bob #2021 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:11:25 EDT From: Dave Porter Subject: Grace McGuire's 10E If any of my fellow forumites in the Comedic Conspiracy Chorus have beaten me to the punch on this, no need to post it twice. Maybe Grace McGuire got her 10E from fellow New Jersey resident Irene Bolam. ;-) LTM, who probably, once or twice, has regretted teaching me to read. Dave Porter, 2288 ********************************************************************** From Ric Shhhhhhhhhh...nobody is supposed to know about that. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:15:43 EDT From: Pat Reed Subject: Nov. 2002 Air & Space From Pat Reed You probably already know, but the above referenced issue has a story - starting page 57 - on old aircraft crash scenes and people who make this a hobby. No purpose other than FYI, especially knowing your course starts soon. ************************************************************************ From Ric Yup. Nice spread on our own Craig Fuller, TIGHAR 1589EC. Craig will be one of the instructors next weekend. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:56:17 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning > From Ric > > I like to think of it as being in the 90th percentile. Touche' :-) ************************************************************************ From Kerry in Tucson I'm proud to be in the top 10%. It's kind of an elitist thing with us MAC people. I must admit though, I'm a little underwhelmed with OS X; probably because it pushes my poor old beige G3 to its limits. In retrospect, (hindspect?) I could better have spent the 130 bucks by donating the money to TIGHAR. I miss my old SCSI daisy chain. LTM (About the only person I know without a computer) Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Ric We've resisted the urge and are still happily running System 9 on Pat's G4 and my blue G3, but I saw the new "twin-engine" G4 with the big flat screen the other day and I'm in love. But enough of this....if Apple wants to advertise on the forum they'll have to pay for it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:26:55 EDT From: Michael S. Subject: Navigational Logic Alan wrote: >IF he ran NW then SE and we only surmise that, it must have soon become >obvious his east/west position was not as good as he thought. At that point >hanging around was pointless and they most likely headed SE for some form of >land. > >You can thus see that if the East/west position was good they would have most >likely seen Howland as they ran north and south.* There would have been no >reason then to fly back and forth from east to west. Since they obviously >DIDN'T see Howland they must have realized the East/west position was not as >accurate as they thought. Where are they to look now? The only reasonable >choice would have been to create some sort of search pattern in all four >directions within the immediate area of where they thought Howland was but >search only until fuel reserve dictated they had to abandon the search and go >look for easier to find land. If AE/FN believed that they were east or west of the LOP, and did not know in which direction or what distance, then it is no longer a matter of simply flying on a course of 157 degrees to hit Gardner. As the TIGHAR website says, "You can't fly to a known destination from an unknown point." (See http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaq.html) If they believed that they were off the line, then why does heading SE give them a BETTER chance of finding land than continuing to search for Howland? The best and only response I've seen so far is that, if you're off the line, then you might spot Gardner or McKean by going SE, and two possible targets are better than one. ************************************************************************ From Ric It's probably worth saying yet again that nobody knows, or (barring the discovery of a detailed journal) will ever know how they got to Gardner, but it really does look like they got there. I tend to favor the idea that Noonan was fairly confident of his East/West position and was disinclined to do any East/West searching for Howland. For one thing, his use of the 157/337 line suggests that everything after sunrise and the descent was done by DR and if you start wandering around you run the risk of losing track of where you are and then you're really screwed. That's why the standard, textbook procedure was to simply run on the advanced line. Concocting alternative plans is fun but it's also fairly pointless. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:35:53 EDT From: Michael S. Subject: Navigational Logic Alan wrote: >Oh, Oh! But why didn't they see Howland if it was all so easy? Reread what I >just wrote. I wrote about navigating not spying a tiny speck under adverse >conditions. It would have taken but a few scattered clouds, shadows, glare >and reflections to miss a piece of land the size and altitude as Howland. >Different problem. don't confuse the two. For Ric, Alan, or anyone else: Would spotting Gardner be any less difficult than spotting Howland? I seem to recall that Gardner is bigger than Howland (not sure by how much) and because Gardner is an atoll, this might also make a difference. Also, what information, if any, did AE/FN have about Gardner (location, size, etc.) and how accurate was it? ************************************************************************** From Ric Spotting Howland or McKean should probably be about the same. They're both small (a mile or so in diameter) "makateas" - coral islands with no significant lagoon or vegetation other than some low scrub. Gardner, by contrast, is a true atoll nearly four miles long by over a mile wide with tall trees and a big, turquoise-colored lagoon. Should be MUCH easier to spot. How much Earhart and Noonan knew about Gardner or any of the islands to the southeast is a big fat unknown. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 09:54:20 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Niku IIII Tides Ric wrote: > I say again, we think we can now accurately hindcast tides for Niku. We > still need to run some tests to make sure we have it right. Cross Checking data against something else can provide support. If you can calculate what the tides should have been at Niku, then using the same data, calculate what they should have been at say Howland and Pearl Harbour (or anywhere else) on the same set of days, you should be able to use known states of tide to prove your calculations. BTW, on the fun new words thing, if interdict means formal prohibition, does hind-dict mean the prohibition is informal? Is hindcasting facing away from the water when you throw your line in? I won't even try retrodict! Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric I think you may have some misconceptions about this tide thing. Tides at Howland or Pearl Harbor or Fiji or Samoa don't mean much. We're talking about making very fine determinations about water levels not only at a particular island but at a particular place on that island. At low tide the water level on the reef at the landing channel on Niku is different than it is up by the Norwich City, and the level changes depending upon whether it's a spring tide or a neap tide or somewhere in between. Accurately hindcasting the conditions at a particular time at a particular place is an immensely complicated computation. Fortunately for us, we have the shipwreck which we can use as a tidal gauge on the very part of the reef we are most interested in. We've photographed and videoed the wreck at many tidal states over the years and in many cases we know exactly when the photos were taken. We also have lots of photos of people standing beside the wreckage so we know, for example, how much water it takes to cover the base of the Norwich City's engine. By taking the tidal information for the nearest island for which we have data (Hull) and "correcting" it based on the photos that show us what was really going on at Niku we can come up with tide tables that can then be hindcast and checked for accuracy against other photos. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:02:51 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning Ric wrote: > I like to think of it as being in the 90th percentile. Wonder where that leaves us poor Unix/Linux users.. :-( Th' WOMBAT ********************************************************************** From Ric The Unix/Linux system is probably the best there is but in a home computer application it's a bit like using a Maserati to run back and forth to the corner store. The new Mac operating system (OSX) is a Unix system and, installed on a computer with enough horsepower to handle it, is reportedly almost crash-proof. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:08:13 EDT From: Monty Fowler Subject: The Sydney Island engines If memory serves (because I can't for some reason find the postings that discussed it) did Ric not get within the last year some more recent photos of the C-47 wreck on Sydney Island, which we initially thought might have a bearing on our favorite Lockheed Electra? If one or more of the Sydney island photos shows both engines at that site, and also the surrounding area, that eliminates (to me at least) the possibility of Bruce Yoho's Canton engine as having come from there. LTM, Monty F., No. 2189 ************************************************************************** From Ric That is correct. We have a photo taken by a friend of Bruce's that shows the two R1830 engines of the C-47 together under a coconut palm on Sydney. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:28:04 EDT From: Paige Miller Subject: Navigational Logic Christian D writes: >Pure DR'ing from Howland all the way to Niku seems extremely iffy; finding >Niku in the end requires mostly luck... Quite a gamble to leave the Itasca >behind and "head SouthEast"... Christian, your wording seems to suggest that AE and FN made a conscious decision to take a gamble and fly away from Itasca and head towards Gardner. That makes no sense, and can't possibly be what happened. AE and FN clearly did not know where Itasca and Howland were. That's one of the few facts everyone can agree on. So whatever their thought processes were, it seems safe to assume they knew they couldn't find Itasca where they had already looked, so the only sensible thing to do from their point of view was to look somewhere else and try to find Howland and Itasca. That somewhere else may have been SE along the LOP. Quite a different point of view, looking somewhere else to find Itasca as opposed to gambling by flying away from Itasca. ************************************************************************** From Ric If we had a nickle for every time I've tried to make this same point we wouldn't need to do any fund-raising for Niku V. The run down the LOP was not an abandonment of the attempt to find Howland, it was the ONLY reasonable way left to try to find Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:29:45 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Anecdotes, Bones by Norwich City Ric wrote: >There are two anecdotal accounts (by Bauro Tikana >and Emily Sikluli) which allege that bones were found near the Norwich City >wreck. I count 3 anecdotal accounts. The third being the information that Jones gave to the U.S.S. Roger B. Taney crew when that vessel visited Hull in the Oct/Nov 1937 time frame. This is a story that borders between being an anecdote and being a recording of a contemporaneous account. Unfortunately it is not clear if Jones saw the bones (recently) or if he is retelling a story. In any case, there are 3 stories involving bones being observed in the vicinity of the Norwich City. Reports of human bones being observed in the area of the Norwich City are, of course, not surprising given the 3 sailors that were buried there and the 8 others that were missing (who could have washed up later). In turn, evidence of a castaway is not entirely outside the realm of reason but that is a different can of worms. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:53:29 EDT From: Jim W. Subject: Finch's Find In response to Suzanne Astorino. Suzanne, I do not mean to pick on you but facts is facts and I have a small personal interest in Finch's Electra. The plane was "abandoned" at the little grass strip a short distance from my home, and the same grass strip I learned to fly out of. It was here for a while but was never hangared, rather outside next to the hangar that stored the plane I flew. I was in that Electra several times on exploratory sojourns after it lost an engine and sat here grounded after a skydiving haul. It was moved from here to Amery, Wisconsin, but did not sit there for years. This is only a minor detail but if historical accuracy is important... It's been a while since I sent them but pictures and newspaper accounts, and some history of the plane and of the Lockheed's transport from here to Amery should be in Ric's possession, for what they are worth. And I still have the articles, which are really nothing more than interesting. There is some history of the plane included but it does nothing to find AE and Fred. Jim W. *********************************************************************** From Ric In retrospect, I'm really glad we were able to get to c/n 1015 before Finch got her hands on it. The airplane is, or was, a very interesting example of the type and raised several questions that have remained unanswered. Sometime in the machine's service life the cabin section was apparently re-skinned using aluminum that was labeled exactly like Artifact 2-2-V-1 (the section of skin recovered from Niku). We know that labeling was used on aluminum that was approved only for repairs, not original construction. We see the same labeling on a replacement flap actuator cover on c/n 1052, now at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, CT. The only other place we've ever found that metal is on a small patch on the nose of a C-47 at the Dover AFB Museum in Delaware. In all four cases (TIGHAR artifact, c/n1015, c/n1052, and the C-47) the aluminum is .032 24ST Alclad. Why, where, and when the cabin of c/n1015 was reskinned is a mystery. The cabin windows in the reskinned airplane had right-angle corners, unlike the standard Electra windows which have rounded corners, but of course that was all changed when the aircraft was rebuilt as a replica of NR16020. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:16:28 EDT From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Navigational Logic You're right Ric, sometimes DR works out very accurately but sometimes it doesn't. The question is, would you bet your life on it? I doubt that you would have undertaken the same flight if the destination had been a small island 350 nautical miles out in the atlantic with no alternate available and no radio aids to navigation. You aimed for a spot along a shore line that is more than 100 N.M. long, one that would be pretty damned hard to miss. The shore line provided a line of position that you could have followed if you needed to to find an airport and there were lots of airports around and places to make a fairly low risk off airport landing if necessary. Not the same situation or decision for Noonan and AE. Also you knew where you were when you started which obviously they did not or else they would have found Howland. You can't DR to a point starting from an unknown point. The accuracy of your position degrades with distance traveled using DR and can only get worse and not better than the level of accuracy that you can identify your starting position. If you start out lost you can only get more lost after traveling an additional 350 NM. I'll bet you also had a pretty good weather briefing and knew the winds so you could calculate the necessary wind correction angle which Noonan couldn't be so certain of and so would be less likely to bet his life on hoping to stumble onto an other small island after flying 3 more hours and so having that much less fuel to search for the island. Air Force Manual 51-40 estimates the accuracy of dead reckoning as 10% of the distance flown so flying 350 NM would add an additional 35 nm to the uncertainty of their initial position. Navy Manual H.O. 216 would allow an even larger 60 NM of uncertainty. Check out the sources at http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/dr-accuracy.html So Ric, if you were really in their position do you really think that you would have turned your back on an island that you thought you were fairly close to, Howland, and roll the dice on a needle in a haystack 350 NM away? ************************************************************************** From Ric I don't know what I'd do if I was in their position. In the Dumb Pilot Contest I concede victory to Amelia. While scud-running deaf and dumb for 400 miles at treetop level in cruddy visibility is dumb, it's not as dumb as getting yourself lost out in the middle of the g..d... ocean without knowing how to work the radios you've got. My point was that it's not impossible, or even unlikely, that they might have been able to DR down the line and find Gardner. Your argument is that it would be unresonable for them to try to do that. That's a different issue. I'm saying that there is evidence that they did something (find Gardner) that it was possible for them to do. Are you saying we should discount the evidence we're finding on Gardner because you wouldn't have gone there? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:28:43 EDT From: Jonathan Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning Ric wrote: > The new Mac > operating system (OSX) is a Unix system and, installed on a > computer with enough horsepower to handle it, is reportedly > almost crash-proof. I managed to crash X a couple of times on my dear departed G4 Powerbook. But that was running Windows 2000 Server in Virtual PC, so maybe that doesn't count? -Jonathan. From Ric LOL. The prosecution rests. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:30:12 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Mike wrote: > If they believed that they were > off the line, then why does heading SE give them a BETTER chance of finding > land than continuing to search for Howland? The best and only response > I've > seen so far is that, if you're off the line, then you might spot Gardner or > McKean by going SE, and two possible targets are better than one. You appear to answer your own question. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:54:24 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: Howland view As has been discussed ad nauseum, AE's view of Howland must be considered in the context of a Coast Guard cutter standing next to it with black smoke blowing out of its stacks. Linda Finch's/Reid Dennis' shots of Howland, showing the thin sliver at a distance, are interesting, but the fact that AE didn't see smoke or land suggests that she missed it by > 15-20 miles. With all the discussion we've had on FN's navigation plan, Finch's tape presents an interesting theory by a long-time aerial navigator named Weisheit. He proposes that FN wanted to take the "safe" route, depart the great circle after passing 180 deg. and fly towards the area between Howland and Baker and see one if not the other islands. AE, he suggests, in keeping with her single-mindedness a la the fiasco going to Dakar, insisted on proceeding direct to Howland and missed it Northwest, then circled in open water out of view of the island (or smoke, obviously). LTM, Bob #2021 *************************************************************************** From Ric All of which demonstations the need to rely only upon original sources and not accept conventional wisdom as truth. - As has been discussed on the forum and is the subject of a FAQ on the TIGHAR website, there was almost certainly no smoke from Itasca at the time Earhart should have been near enough to see it. - As has also been discussed (and needs to be a FAQ) the fiasco going in to Dakar could not have happened the way Earhart later described it based upon Noonan's notations on the actual map he used. All the amateur psychoanalysis of AE's supposed disregard for Noonan's instructions is based upon what appears to be story she invented to avoid getting into trouble with French authorities for landing where she wasn't supposed to. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:01:29 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Alan wrote: >Alik, a few of us DO understand that but don't go there unless you REALLY >want to confuse folks. Even if it is understood it won't advance the ball. >I've alluded to it just as you have but I'm not going to amplify that >subject. Hmmmm, I'm not a fan of ignorant bliss and I must disagree with your contention. I do not see how anyone can understand the issues involved in FNs navigation without understanding/realizing that longitudinal information is known to the navigator who calculates an LOP. Simply calculating a heading-line is pointless in the context of navigation. It makes no sense whatsoever to DR from an arbitrary heading-line _unless_, of course, you have set of 'known' longitudes for that line. So, the relevance in this discussion is proximately that, given a typical expected error in values of LOP constrained longitudes, _then_ we can say something about the feasibility of DR'ing to Gardner, and _only_ then. Simply knowing a LOP, by itself, merely relates the geometric orientation of the sun to the earth...not very exciting. If I remember right, the typical longitudinal error in LOP constrained calculations is about 10 to 20 miles. This is crucial information for understanding: 1.) The feasibility of DR from that point forward. 2.) The desire or need, and this is significant, of a navigator to shoot the sun AGAIN later. Shooting the sun for an LOP constrained set of longitudes is NOT limited to the time of sunrise. Given that an LOP constrained set of longitudes is immensely more accurate than a 350 mile DR, any marginally competent navigator would certainly want to do another shot if flying that far. Since we can't know what Noonans reasoning was, I'll leave that open, but it demonstrates why understanding my point is crucial. It is propadeutical to further analysis. As for confusion...too bad. Many folks drop out of differential topology classes because it ain't easy. But to do General Relativity you MUST know it. To understand this issue about FN, you MUST understand his techniques. That's just reality. I'm sure you knew this already, but for others they will have to 'get it' if they expect to reach any intelligent conclusions about it, or have any intelligent conversations about it. Alik P.S. Ric, you previously asked if there was anything that could be added to your website in this regard. IMHO, an explanation of this is sorely lacking and is leading to a lot of confusion. **************************************************************************** From Ric IMHO the FAQ on the website which covers the LOP issue does this in fine style without once using the word propadadeutical. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:07:24 EDT From: Dave in Fremont Subject: Engine Noise I know this subject has come up before, but here it goes: Considering the amount of noise generated by the P&W engines, how far could the Lockheed have been from the Itasca and still be heard (at 1,000 ft)? As I recall, no Itasca crew members reported hearing an airplane. Dave *************************************************************************** From Ric My guess would be that the Electra would have to buzz the boat before anybody on deck could have heard it over the engines, generators and general background noise of the ship. People ashore on Howland may have stood a slightly better chance but, in my experience, the "white noise" effect of surf and wind (not to mention about a gazillion seabirds) wipes out any chance to hear any kind of aircraft unless it's virtually on top of you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:09:06 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: Presentation, Earhart's Shoes Book On October 12, 2002 I will be giving a Powerpoint presentation on TIGHAR's efforts to solve the Earhart mystery. Following the presentation, I will be signing copies of the book "Amelia Earhart's Shoes: Is the Mystery Solved" which I co-authored with Tom King, Randy Jacobson and Kar Burns. The presentation will occur during Zonta's District 7 Conference. When: Saturday October 12, 2002 at 10:00 AM Where: Holiday Inn St. Paul North, 1201 West Co. Road E, Arden Hill, MN, call 651-636-4123 for directions. Information on registering for the conference can be found at www.zontastpaul.org/Women_Changing_The_World.html or by calling 651-639-9566 Zonta International was a Women's organization that Amelia Earhart belonged to. Thanks again to Tom King for letting me use some of his Powerpoint materials. LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:48:56 EDT From: Gary Geivet Subject: Re: Engine Noise I agree totally. Remember the military on Wake Island never heard the approaching Japanese planes over the roar of the surf, until they were upon them. I think that has been documented both on Wake Island and on Midway, too. So don't think the people on the ship would have heard the approach of the Electra. Gary H. Geivet ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:34:26 EDT From: Gary Fajack Subject: Re: Engine Noise Off the coast of Viet Nam Navy pilots used to make strafing runs on our ship and we never heard them until the last minute when they shot past us. Of course a Jet is a bit different. ******************************************************************* From Ric Yeah, they're louder. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:40:42 EDT From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > From Alik > ... Shooting the sun for an LOP constrained set of > longitudes is NOT limited to the time of sunrise. OK. But as the sun rises higher in the sky, wouldn't a LOP derived from a later sighting differ from the dawn LOP? The only hard-and-fast information we have about what AE and FN were doing is running a 157/337 line. Oddly enough, that coincides with a LOP that they could have placed on their charts by observing the time of sunrise. This is not proof that FN advanced the dawn LOP by DR, but it is at least consistent with that theory. Marty #2359 ****************************************************************** From Ric The angle doesn't change very fast. Any time right around sunrise would give the 157/337 line. There's no way to know whether Noonan got subsequent LOPs but the 157/337 line is clearly the one they used and the fact that it falls near four alternative islands (Baker, McKean, Gardner, and Atafu) might suggest why. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:22:50 EDT From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Navigational Logic For Alik & Ric Was this an AE & FN disappearance theory discussion between Greek Gods of mythology or what? - You guys really dog eared my dictionary on this forum post! - keep up the good work. Respectfully: Tom Strang ************************************************************************ From Ric Erudition-R-Us. We're just showing off. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:31:15 EDT From: Suzanne Astorino Subject: Re: Finch's Find Jim W. wrote: >Suzanne, I do not mean to pick >on you but facts is facts That's OK Jim, you need not apologize to me. I made it clear that I was not the author of the so-called "facts." I stated the post was from internet pages of newspaper stories and the like. And as we all know, there is a lot of chaff amongst the grain out there! Somebody else had asked about the weight of the restored plane, and where the extra fuel tanks may have gone. Here is a graphic that might explain it, on the bottom of the net page. http://starbulletin.com/97/03/11/news/story1.html As for actual photos of Finch's plane, there are many of them. Image search engines such as Google's bring up many examples. Suzanne ************************************************************************* From Ric The graphic doesn't say whether the plane shown is supposed to be Earhart's or Finch's. It shows extra fuel tanks in the wings, which is rather odd. It also says that Earhart's plane carried enough fuel to go 1,600 miles which solves the mystery of why they couldn't complete the 2,500 mile trip to Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:35:06 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Navigational Logic It is spelled "propadaedeutical" not "propadadeutical"in my dictionary. Maybe that is why Noonan screwed up trying to find Howland as he looked up the spelling!! Ron Bright ********************************************************************** From Ric It's the Italian term for hand-propping a twin-engined plane. Seldom used anymore. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:46:33 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic >IMHO the FAQ on the website which covers the LOP issue does this in fine >style without once using the word propadadeutical. Settle down Tighar! :-) Hmmm, I don't see any mention on your site of anything other than an LOP as a 'heading-line' and the absence of a explanation for why a navigator would, as a practical matter, care about an LOP at all sticks out like an elephant in the living room. So, I would hardly call that "fine style". The page makes the same mistake as others have, namely, speaking only about the LOP proper and mentioning nothing of it's real utility to a navigator; i.e. that positional information is implicitly contained in celestial-shot calculations used to plot an LOP. THAT is what the navigator is after, not a generic heading parallel to the so-called day-night terminator. The LOP is only used as the constraining tool for finding out where you are. To clear this up, you could use English, French or jive, any will do; universal translators are available :-) Alik ************************************************************************** From Ric >Hmmm, I don't see any mention on your site of anything other than an LOP >as a 'heading-line' and the absence of a explanation for why a navigator >would, as a practical matter, care about an LOP at all sticks out like >an elephant in the living room. Apparently you haven't found the elephant cleverly hidden on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/forum/navigation.html It's in the FAQs section under Navigation as the answer to question number 2. >What is the significance of Earhart's statement "We are on the line >157/337"? Here's a brief excerpt that addresses the point you're on about. ***First of all, it's important to remember that Noonan knew that the rising sun would give them a 157/337 line. He had that information back in Lae, New Guinea as soon as he knew what day they were going to be making the flight. The only question was how far along they would be when the sun came up, and he wouldn't know that until he saw the sun and noted the time. Then he could draw his 157 337 line on his map and say, "Okay, we're somewhere on this line." All he had to do then was to draw another 157/337 line that passed through Howland Island and measure the distance between the two parallel lines. With a good idea of how fast they were going it was a simple matter to predict at what time they would reach the "advanced" LOP.*** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:48:11 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Howland view > All of which demonstations the need to rely only upon original sources and > not accept conventional wisdom as truth. Maybe there should be a test before posting. Read everything on the web site then take the test. Even a passing score of 60% would solve a lot of problems. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure I could pass it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:54:30 EDT From: Mike H. Subject: Re: Engine Noise How many lookouts did the Itasca have that day? Were they told to watch for the Electra? Or was it "as before" for the crew outside the radio room? Mike H. *********** ************************************************************** From Ric I don't think the number of lookouts officially posted is mentioned in any of the reports, but Earhart's arrival was a very big deal. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:56:03 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Alik, I certainly appreciate your views but I'm not clear what you think would be accomplished. 1. There are only several people here who have a clue what navigation of any sort is let alone celestial and DR procedures. Most have no flying experience. Hardly any have ever been out in the ocean in a similar situation. An attempt at a technical discussion aimed at ensuring these folk have a practical and working knowledge of the subject would be less successful than creating cold fusion. 2. No one has the slightest idea what Noonan was thinking about or what he did at any time. 3. If everyone understood everything about this flight and all you would like them to understand the best anyone could do is offer a guess as to what might have occurred and make up an estimate of what the odds were that any particular event was chosen or was successful. I can tell you what the odds were - 0 or 100%. I understand what you are aiming at but I see no productive result that would have any practical use. I must assume you will disagree with my last statement so I will ask what would we find out and how would we use it and to what end? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:57:52 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > You can't DR to a point starting from an unknown point. I have lost count how many times this has been said and it's useless and of no practical value. The whole flight consists of unknown points with the exception of Lae, each fix and any opportunity land they saw. You don't start at unknown points. You fly through them. You get a fix (of whatever kind) then fly through more unknown points until you get another fix or hit destination. You "unknown point" quoters make it sound like they were totally lost out in a great big ocean with no clue where they were. Noonan's unknown points were probably 10 mile CEAs. > The accuracy of your position degrades with distance traveled > using DR and > can only get worse and not better than the level of accuracy that you can > identify your starting position. If you start out lost you can only get > more lost after traveling an additional 350 NM. That's meaningless, Gary. If you DR for 350 miles you could be left, right, short or long or dead on. If you were 10 miles off at 350 miles at 700 miles you could be still 10 miles off or 20 or dead on. It certainly seems common sense that the farther one goes the more CHANCE he has of being in error but you can't quantify it or apply some arbitrary equation to it. Nice for books but worthless in real life. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:00:42 EDT From: David Kelly Subject: Re: the usual damn virus warning "Crash proof"???? Like an Electra or is it "unsinkable" like the Titanic? Regards David *************************************************************************** From Ric Obviously nothing is absolutely crash-proof, especially when trying to run Windows. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:08:41 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Marty wrote: >>From Alik >>... Shooting the sun for an LOP constrained set of >>longitudes is NOT limited to the time of sunrise. >> >> > >OK. > >But as the sun rises higher in the sky, wouldn't a >LOP derived from a later sighting differ from the >dawn LOP? The LOP itself would not differ significantly (it drifts by seasonal tilt), but what would differ are the values of longitude that correspond to that line. As they progressed eastward the values of longitude would change (if FN took another shot), and in that sense you (or whoever) are correct in saying that the LOP 'moved' (other posts notwithstanding), inasmuch as the values of longitude are different. The heading does not change, so _technically_ the LOP doesn't 'move'. But what matters to the navigator are the values of longitude constrained by the LOP (which do 'move' with each new shot), not the LOP bearing itself. In short, the LOP does not technically differ, but the values of longitude constrained by it do. >The only hard-and-fast information we have about >what AE and FN were doing is running a 157/337 >line. Oddly enough, that coincides with a LOP >that they could have placed on their charts by >observing the time of sunrise. This is not >proof that FN advanced the dawn LOP by DR, but >it is at least consistent with that theory. There's nothing odd about it at all. The LOP observed at sunrise is one and same as the day-night terminator. FN simply observed the bearing of the day-night terminator. As Ric noted, the fortuitous feature of this LOP is that it intersected several nearby islands. Try this: Visualize a football field. Now imagine that we run a plumb line across the width of the field. On one end we tie it down at the 30 yard line. The other end is tied to the 25 yard line. The plumb line is the LOP. Now, imagine that we move the plumb line down the field _without_ changing it's 'heading'. So we take the plumb line from the 30 yard line and move it to the 20 yard line. Then we must move the other end down to the 15 yard line (there is a 5 yard offset on each end). The direction the plumb line is pointing hasn't changed: the LOP is the same. But what matters to FN is not the direction the plumb line is pointing, but the YARD LINE it is on. The yard line is longitude. So, with each shot FN takes, the plumb line is indeed moving down the football field (their plane is flying down the field). So, yes, the dawn 'LOP' differs from later 'LOPs' inasmuch as they are sitting on different yard lines, even though they have the same 'heading' and are thus the same LOP. Since the plumb line sits at an angle, FN must shoot the sun with an octant/sextant and use the Nautical Almanac to solve the equation (noonmeridian - (90 - sextantangle)) in order to find all values of 'yard line' that fall along that plumb line (they will differ slightly because the plumb line is angled across the field). He then knows that he is somewhere on that plumb line and he knows what values of 'yard line' to assign for each foot (or latitude) of plumb line that crosses the field. If we move the plumb line again (the plane continues on it's path down the football field) FN will need to do another sun shot and re-calculate each of the 'yard lines' associated with each foot of plumb line. Typically a navigator isn't going to know where on that plumb line he is in terms of feet (latitude) but he DOES know the 'yard lines' (longitude) for each foot of plumb line. What people are failing to see here is that the LOP is just a constraint tool FN uses to FIND the yard line. The LOP is a means to and end, the end being to find out what yard line you are sitting on. Alik ************************************************************************* From Ric What you're talking about is shooting "speed lines". Maybe Noonan managed to do that from below the scattered cloud deck or maybe he had to get his groundspeed and so determine his progress by reading the wind and waves through his driftmeter, maybe not, but all he needed was that first shot. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:20:58 EDT From: Herman De Wulf #2406 Subject: Re: Engine Noise And faster too. When at low level jets will cruise at 400 or 500 mph. At that speed they are so fast that they seem to be coming without making a noise. Their noise can be heard only when they are real close or when they're passing overhead. As for the props, I remember from my boyhood days that North American T-6 trainers could be heard from almost a mile way against a city background because of the propeller tips turning near the speed of sound. Remembering an Electra had two such engines (the 10E's were even louder than the 10A's) I'm inclined to believe the crew on Itasca could have been able to hear them, although it is true this is difficult at sea with the noise ships make. However, as I understand it the Itasca was not moving, which would mean less noise. LTM (who loves the sound of airplanes and could identify them by their noise) ************************************************************************** From Ric You're correct that there are few things on earth more noisy than a T-6 pulling power in flat pitch but you're also correct that it's the cavitation of the prop tips that creates the distinctive "blat". At cruise power and coarse pitch, however, what you hear is the low frequency rumble of the engine itself. Itasca was "drifting" under power. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:55:23 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Ric wrote: >> First of all, it's important to remember that Noonan knew that the rising >> sun would give them a 157/337 line. He had that information back in Lae, New >> Guinea as soon as he knew what day they were going to be making the flight. >> The only question was how far along they would be when the sun came up, and >> he wouldn't know that until he saw the sun and noted the time. Then he could >> draw his 157 337 line on his map and say, "Okay, we're somewhere on this >> line." All he had to do then was to draw another 157/337 line that passed >> through Howland Island and measure the distance between the two parallel >> lines. With a good idea of how fast they were going it was a simple matter to >> predict at what time they would reach the "advanced" LOP. Fair enough, but let's assume this is indeed a one room schoolhouse. So,the reader has no idea what an LOP is, or what it's implications are for a navigator. The key sentence above is: "The only question was how far along they would be when the sun came up, and he wouldn't know that until he saw the sun and noted the time." Which you state correctly. But what does that mean? How is FN going to 'know' that? Well, he 'knows' it because he looked in the Nautical Almanac for the noon meridian at the time he saw the sun, then set his sextant angle effectively to zero. Applying some mathematical mojo gives him a series of valid longitudes for that LOP. I can't speak for others, but it would not have been clear to me what you meant by the above statement without an explanation of _how_ he knew those longitudes (his forward progress). Perhaps a sub-link on that sentence in the website would help some folks with inquiring minds. Alik ************************************************************************** From Ric I wrote that FAQ specifically because we were spending waaaay too much time on the forum explaining, simplifying, re-explaining and re-simplifying the whole LOP issue. Most of the time people just ended up confused. So far, the FAQ really seems to help and yours has been the first request for elaboration. You can chide me for making it easy to understand but I'm a firm believer that the way to convince people is to let them actually understand what you're saying rather than try to intimidate them with your superior intelligence and education. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:01:43 EDT From: Kenton Spading Subject: 24ST Alclad on C/N 1015 Ric wrote: > Why, where, and when the cabin of c/n1015 was reskinned is a mystery. > The cabin windows in the reskinned airplane had right-angle corners, unlike > the standard Electra windows which have rounded corners, but of course that > was all changed when the aircraft was rebuilt as a replica of NR16020. I have all the FAA records for the Lockheed 10 C/N 1015. From those records I was able to track down a guy in Florida who had worked on the airplane (this was a few years ago). His shop (that had worked on 1015) had since closed down but he had a bunch of records in his basement. He knew the airplane very well and he thought he remembered the re-skin job. He promised to dig the records out of his basement and call me back. A few months later, after no contact, I called him back. He said that in the mean time he had had a heart attack and was understandably laid up. I never followed up. If someone (preferably from Florida) would like to chase this rabbitt I will gladly share the contact information. The trail might teach us something about artifact 2-2-V-1 (aka The Skin). Contact me off-forum at kspading@attbi.com. Just one of many research threads that is down a ways on my priority list (but potentially important know the less). LTM Kenton Spading ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:07:32 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic > What you're talking about is shooting "speed lines". Maybe Noonan managed > to > do that from below the scattered cloud deck or maybe he had to get his > groundspeed and so determine his progress by reading the wind and waves > through his driftmeter, maybe not, but all he needed was that first shot. Careful, Ric. You'll let the cat out of the bag that Noonan had all kinds of navigational capabilities. The nav critiquers would have everyone believing Noonan was flopping around out in the middle of a giant ocean totally lost without anything but a precomputed LOP and a Timex. Alan #2329 ************************************************************************* From Ric Fred's problem was not lack of capability. Studies of his past performance on long overwater flights, as evidenced by the charts he used, show him to be less than rigorous in exercising that capability. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:27:50 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic >>From Alan > >Alik, I certainly appreciate your views but I'm not clear what you think >would be accomplished. > >1. There are only several people here who have a clue what navigation of any >sort is let alone celestial and DR procedures. Most have no flying >experience. Hardly any have ever been out in the ocean in a similar >situation. An attempt at a technical discussion aimed at ensuring these folks >have a practical and working knowledge of the subject would be less >successful than creating cold fusion. Whatever do you mean? I just published an article on cold fusion in Physical Reviews new Journal of Irrrepoducible results just last week :-) But seriously, perhaps I have too much confidence in the abilities of the 'common man' to understand complex things. Shape operators, Singularities and Quantum Field Theory are not that hard to understand, they just usually aren't explained very well. Too often the particulars of a discipline are obfuscated by a need to protect intellectual ego or because of a lack of genuine understanding on the part of the 'educator'. I think celestial navigation is no different. There is a lot of semantic jousting and such that goes on in the subject when the concepts are actually pretty simple. I just explained it to a seven year old child yesterday and he caught on immediately (though it did take some different language and a couple of hours to do). >2. No one has the slightest idea what Noonan was thinking about or what he >did at any time. Agreed. >3. If everyone understood everything about this flight and all you would like >them to understand the best anyone could do is offer a guess as to what might >have occurred and make up an estimate of what the odds were that any >particular event was chosen or was successful. I can tell you what the odds >were - 0 or 100%. You are probably right. >I understand what you are aiming at but I see no productive result that would >have any practical use. > >I must assume you will disagree with my last statement so I will ask what >would we find out and how would we use it and to what end? Well, I can see why you're concerned. It may not have direct relevance to your points, but the there is indirect relevance to the Earhart investigation as a whole. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a reader does not really understand this whole LOP business. He knows that an LOP proper just provides a heading line drawn on a map. What he does not realize is that longitudinal information can be associated with any LOP. Then, clearly, it is easier for him to see how FN could have been lost since FN is effectively DR all the way from his last known position (Lae?). The LOP, from the readers point of view, really tells the navigator nothing of practical import. But, let's imagine that FN did in fact know something about his 'forward progress' and that he could tie (constrain) that to an LOP drawn only 200 miles out from Howland. Now, it far less likely that FN would miss Howland. He has only to DR out 200 miles, then do some north-south guesswork. Much better than DR from some 2000 miles with a huge north-south component of uncertainty. For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. So, you see, ignorance of this detail makes the Gardner hypothesis more believable. I'm not suggesting that this is intentional or that the Gardner hypothesis is 'wrong', only that a truly scientific approach has to be balanced and complete. Certainly it is _possible_ FN was an idiot, drunk or dead in flight but that seems to me to be "proving a postive" and I need evidence for it, not 'proof' by a lack of evidence. This point, along with one I raised earlier with Ric regarding the presence of debris attributable purely to chance, are the two sticking points in the Gardner hypothesis that need to get resolved (and may very well have a reasonable explanation/answer). Alik *********************************************************************** From Ric You persist in lamenting a problem which I do not believe exists. I'd like to hear from any of the 800 or so forum subscribers to whom it is a great revelation that Noonan's sunrise LOP was a line he could actually draw on a map and be quite confident that he was somewhere on that line. That he then advanced that line by DR until it fell through Howland (and other islands) and was able to judge his progress so that Earhart could at 07:42 say "We must be on you.." has been a cornerstone of TIGHAR's hypothesis since 1988. > I need a > good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator > would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface > grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. To coin a phrase - you can't DR from an unknown point to a known point. The accepted - indeed, the textbook - technique was to run on the LOP, not construct a surface grid search, no matter how much you prefer to substitute your opinion for historical context. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:29:51 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic >What you're talking about is shooting "speed lines". Maybe Noonan managed to >do that from below the scattered cloud deck or maybe he had to get his >groundspeed and so determine his progress by reading the wind and waves >through his driftmeter, maybe not, but all he needed was that first shot. That may very well answer my previous question/concern. Perhaps he could not see the limb of the sun to mark his chronometer, thus making a longitude measure impossible. Perhaps he could. But my point in the football field example was to show that longitudinal information can be obtained for any one LOP, as long as you can get the celestial shot. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:24:09 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Richard E. Gillespie wrote: >I wrote that FAQ specifically because we were spending waaaay too much time >on the forum explaining, simplifying, re-explaining and re-simplifying the >whole LOP issue. Most of the time people just ended up confused. So far, >the FAQ really seems to help and yours has been the first request for >elaboration. > >You can chide me for making it easy to understand but I'm a firm believer >that the way to convince people is to let them actually understand what >you're saying rather than try to intimidate them with your superior >intelligence and education. What I'm trying to figure out here is, are there reasonable navigational techniques that we can assume FN used barring any evidence to the contrary (proof of a positive). If so, what do these techniques and their outcomes imply for a Gardner or Howland landing attempt? Is observing the sun at sunrise so predictable that we require direct evidence to the contrary to question whether or not he in fact did so? If so, then this means he would have arrived very close to Howland island (within a combined sun-shot and 200 mile DR error margin) with some three hours of fuel remaining. What does this suggest? What are the odds that the debris found on Gardner is present due solely to chance? Can this be assessed in a cost effective manner? Those are the questions I seek to answer for myself on this forum. There are no other intentions, motives, etc. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:25:53 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Ric, the "grid search" is probably my fault as I mentioned something to that effect as a possible choice I might make if I was sure I was close in but could not see my target. I have never suggested that's what I believe AE did upon reaching Howland. In the little time they had (about an hour) from "we must be on you" till the 8:44 call running NW a ways and back SE was about all they had time for. Plus I agree with you that Noonan must have had pretty good confidence in his East/west position and so any kind of search PATTERN seems illogical. His LOP may have run nearly on top of the wrong Howland coordinates to make matters worse. Considering his CEA might have been around 5 or 10 miles on the sun shots the odds get a bit worse. However no one knew his accuracy better than he did and I would guess he shot a number of sun lines to reduce the error as much as possible. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:26:45 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Navigational Logic I think you're right that most people already understood that a sunshot derived LOP at a particular time is not merely a heading but what is better described as a "locus"( a line composed of an infinite number of possible points of position) and in this case a particular one of an infinite number of essentially parallel locus lines at right angles to the sun's azimuth, each representing a possible line of location depending on the time of the associated sunshot that gives its azimuth. The language which describes it as "longitude constrained etc" is nice and concise but not perhaps so easy for some to fathom. That being said, I think that it is indeed important that as many as possible do understand, not only the general ideas associated with navigation but also the detail. There are undoubtedly people on the forum who would both appreciate a better understanding of detail and be able to understand it, even though they do not have any background in navigation. I, for one, don't believe this is purely academic as Alan clearly does. There are positive facts that one can deduce from an understanding of the navigational problem and how they got to Gardner is far from mere conjecture as Alan would have us believe. (This will become clear in time!) Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:28:46 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Navigational Logic >For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a >good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator >would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface >grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. That is indeed the most fascinating aspect of this problem. Aside from running a grid or running up/down the LOP, the only feasible answer to this question is that the plane was signficantly south of Howland and Baker. Whether a grid pattern or running north, they still would not have seen either island. Any evidence to support it? Not really, but my Monte Carlo simulations based upon pure dead reckoning and flight paths according to what Earhart thought the weather was versus what the real weather was indicates a good 100 mile offset to the south. Possible? Yes. Probable? Who knows? But it does fit all available data... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:30:06 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: engine noise The Electra had a very distinct sound one that very few other aircraft had. It was high pitched and sorta out of sinc. They were slow and you could hear them comming from far off. I too can also identify a recip without looking up. The crew of the Itasca were searching the sky for that sight and sound. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:33:03 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: The Sydney Island engines From Christian D: Ric wrote: > That is correct. We have a photo taken by a friend fo Bruce's that shows > the two R1830 engines of the C-47 together under a coconut palm on Sydney. Do we know that that photo was taken -after- Bruce's engine was on Kanton? CD ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 11:33:38 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: Niku IIII Tides From Christian D: Ric, I'm not an expert on tides, but for what I have seen on some universities web sites, the mean sea level changes from month to month, and year to year, all with no apparent relation with the moon and planets. That discrepancy can be up to a foot or so, and as the Niku tides are only 2 to 4 ft, I think you can't expect too much in the way of accuracy. Unless we can also get a grip on what the variations of msl are at Niku -or are they the same in a very wide area??? CD ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:54:03 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational logic Alan Caldwell wrote: >Ric, the "grid search" is probably my fault as I mentioned something to that >effect as a possible choice I might make if I was sure I was close in but >could not see my target. I have never suggested that's what I believe AE did >upon reaching Howland. In the little time they had (about an hour) from "we >must be on you" till the 8:44 call running NW a ways and back SE was about >all they had time for. Plus I agree with you that Noonan must have had pretty >good confidence in his East/west position and so any kind of search PATTERN >seems illogical. His LOP may have run nearly on top of the wrong Howland >coordinates to make matters worse. Considering his CEA might have been around >5 or 10 miles on the sun shots the odds get a bit worse. However no one knew >his accuracy better than he did and I would guess he shot a number of sun >lines to reduce the error as much as possible. Well Alan, that is the meat of the matter isn't it? I know that the oft-repeated phrase "you cannot DR from an unknown point to a known point" is a popular one, but that phrase does not apply here. We are talking about DR'ing from one constrained region to another (precisely what is done when you 'advance a line of position' by DR). The expected error margin for DR'ing from a constrained region (a longitudinally constrainted LOP) about 200 miles out to another constrained LOP results in an east-west error margin greater than 20 miles. So, no, he did not have a "pretty good confidence" of his east-west position if 'pretty good' means close enough to SEE Howland island. The very technique he used was verifiably inadequate to accomplish what you assume. If it was accepted convention to run the line north and south, even if such a margin is known to the navigator, then I accept that. But it is a question, not a statement. Would FN be reasonably expected to simply run the line, without adjusting the line east or west, based on convention even if he were aware of this east-west error margin? A 'grid search' need not be perfectly square. If one adjusts the line east and west, then one is effectively conducting a longitudinal grid search, which was my meaning. You can run the line on your expected intersection LOP, then run it again 10 or 20 miles east of that original LOP, then run it again 10 or 20 miles west of that original intersection LOP. With three hours fuel remaining, convincing evidence to the contrary must be provided. Rigid convention could indeed BE that evidence. The length you run the line logically should be a function of your anticipated drift error margin north and south. But again, if convention precludes it, then it would not be an expected behavior. So the question is, would so-called 'textbook' convention preclude adjusting the line for error and/or preclude an adjustment on the length of the line you run? Would FN, or any competent navigator, be expected to make a north-south drift error of some 350 miles with low head winds en route (low head winds because that's what we require for so much fuel remaining)? If FN did not assume that uncertainty, and simply ended up at 'lower' latitudes close to Gardner, then is it reasonable to expect a competent navigator to produce _that_ error with low head winds en-route? Would the navigational techniques of the day reasonably allow for such errors, or do we require remarkable evidence to show such an error? Now, one can chide _me_ for asking these questions, but they are highly pertinent and must be answered in any exhaustive, scientific analysis. I am not "laboring" a point, just being thorough. Without an answer to these questions, it seems clear to me, barring any remarkable evidence to the contrary, that FN _must_ have gotten within 50 miles of Howland and, morever, he _must_ have known it. No, we cannot "have any idea" (another popular phrase here) what FN knew or didn't know, but we can show that remarkable evidence is required that he didn't know something (proof of a negative). For example, I would be perfectly comfortable, for the purposes of figuring out the most likely outcome to the flight, that FN did in fact REMEMBER how to take celestial shots with a bubble octant and remarkable evidence would be required to convince me otherwise (like, proof that he was deceased in flight). In other words, some of the popular phrases thrown about on this forum are in fact red-herrings in that they are literally true but have little relevance to the question at hand. We need not know for _certain_ what FN thought or did, but we _can_ know with a confidence suficient for determining the most likely outcome of the flight what he knew or did in flight; depending on what that behavior was (what kind of predictability the behavior entailed). Formal logic dictates the aformentioned conclusion on the basis of known fact regarding navigation. If those facts are wrong, the questions above are designed to correct them. _That_ is why these questions are so important. In your last sentence you mention additional sun-shots. If taken at his expected Howland arrival, this would definitely tighten up the error margin, but only to about 10 or 15 miles either side of the calculated line. If (?) the charts he used were inacurrate, the margin would be worse (though he wouldn't know it). You mention the brief time they had, but remember that whatever time they did have and regardless of what route they took, it must have been sufficient to fly from Lae to Gardner as the Gardner hypothesis dictates. If we ever get past these points I'll take up the issue of "random debris" on Gardner. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:55:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational logic Alik wrote: > What I'm trying to figure out here is, are there reasonable navigational > techniques that we can assume FN used barring any evidence to the > contrary (proof of a positive). If so, what do these techniques and > their outcomes imply for a Gardner or Howland landing attempt? Is > observing the sun at sunrise so predictable that we require direct > evidence to the contrary to question whether or not he in fact did so? > If so, then this means he would have arrived very close to Howland > Island (within a combined sun-shot and 200 mile DR error margin) with > some three hours of fuel remaining. What does this suggest? > From Alan Alik, I think Ric is a bit tied up with a class out in California but in any case let me give you my take on this. Noonan was considered one of the top professionals of his time with a great amount of naval and air navigation experience. If here was a technique or capability available it is not in doubt Noonan was on to it. Noonan appears to have typically not been the most precise or detailed at his navigation but it is reasonable to assume he had little need to do so routinely. In other words he could rise to the occasion if he needed to but rarely had that need. Navigating boats at such slow speeds and navigating planes over established routes is not a very challenging chore. My experience since the 50s tells me aerial navigation is pretty simple. Very little acts to make wild errors. In particular the great speed of aircraft means that it would take a 90 degree effect of considerable significance to alter course drastically. I recognize I'm using comparative terms and where I see little significance others might consider the effect devastating if they so wish. The bottom line is that I have seen nothing to indicate Noonan missed Howland by very much. The detractors want to hang their hat on the fact they didn't see the island as proof they were far afield. That won't wash. Noonan could have in fact navigated precisely to the coordinates he thought represented Howland. If they were the erroneous ones he would have never seen the island. Noonan had only from Tabiteauea to Howland to negotiate if (IF) They knew they were over that island and if the report of a plane over flying that night is correct. That may not have occurred but it is my belief Noonan would have made an effort to locate himself in relation to one of the Gilbert Islands if he had to lose altitude to do so. He was not that short on fuel. In any case Noonan had stars, planets, the moon and the sun for celestial aid. He had drift meter capability and his own good navigational sense. We have made assumptions they would NOT have descended to spot the Gilbert's and that the waning moon would not provide sufficient illumination but those are only untested theories. We have also made an assumption Noonan could not shoot sun shots or otherwise navigate (other than DR) after descending to 1,000 feet. Also untested and untestable. I don't accept those assumptions 100%. Could Noonan navigate to Howland, to Gardner or any place else he chose? My answer is yes and I see no evidence to refute that position. Now if you talk about probabilities or odds you can make any guess but that's all it would be. We think Noonan got close then went to Gardner. For whatever doubt folks have about TIGHAR's "evidence" artifacts and suppositions there is NO evidence to the contrary. None. Nothing to prove they went into the sea. Nothing to prove they didn't get close to Howland. Nothing to prove they couldn't make it to Gardner. Nothing to prove they arrived at Howland far to the North. Nothing to prove they ran out of gas. Oh, I forgot the Marshals. Well, I tried to forget the Marshals. Folks who want them to fly north out of Lae to Truck then across to Mili cannot do simple math. Fuelwise not possible. Nor would it make sense to plan a suicide mission when their plan was to fly around the world as AE's last big splash. (No pun intended) Folks who want to get the plane into the Marshals provide not even a theory. They have to ignore known evidence and create new evidence of non existent Japanese ships in the Kiribati area and contrary to Long want to create fuel usage that defies reason. I have been challenging these people for years to give a rational theory to support their Marshall idea but none will come forward. That's pretty much the sum of it to date. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:56:57 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Randy Jacobson wrote: >> For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a >> good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator >> would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface >> grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. > >That is indeed the most fascinating aspect of this problem. Aside from >running a grid or running up/down the LOP, the only feasible answer to this >question is that the plane was signficantly south of Howland and Baker. >Whether a grid pattern or running north, they still would not have seen >either island. Any evidence to support it? Not really, but my Monte Carlo >simulations based upon pure dead reckoning and flight paths according to >what Earhart thought the weather was versus what the real weather was >indicates a good 100 mile offset to the south. Possible? Yes. Probable? >Who knows? But it does fit all available data... Interesting point. This may address the question of what we can reasonably expect for north-south drift error. It may indeed be a reasonable possibility that they drifted well south of their expected destination. If so, then a southerly run of the LOP of a fairly short distance could have resulted in a visual sighting of Gardner. That is the key question, how much drift error north or south can be reasonably expected? Can we even assess that? If the answer to the first question is that it is sufficiently large or if the answer to the last question is no, then the Gardner hypothesis remains tenable as a most likely outcome. The next question has to do with debris found on or about Gardner. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:58:45 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: navigational Logic Angus Murray wrote: > "There > are positive facts that one can deduce from an understanding of the > navigational problem and how they got to Gardner is far from mere > conjecture as Alan would have us believe" Angus, you are certainly correct that a better understanding of the details would help all of us. What I was trying to point out is there ARE no details. It is mere conjecture. First of all we haven't been able to prove they went to Gardner. How they might have done it is only a guess. Now what techniques were possible is a different story and much more difficult to explain. The best I can tell you is Noonan would have used all the various navigation tools and techniques at his disposal. I think we have discussed that area many times. In sum he had various celestial bodies available, a drift meter and good common sense. Further than that I wouldn't go. As you have observed in the years that have passed the exact mechanics and application of the techniques and instruments of a professional navigator have proven to be elusive to the understanding of many. Without some sort of formal education or classroom instruction they will remain so. Perhaps that might be added to TIGHAR's education efforts - a class in navigation. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:59:46 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Navigational Logic Alik wrote: > For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a > good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator > would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface > grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. That argument has been given countless times. You aren't comprehending and those who have never flown in such conditions most likely never will. Not a fault but just a fact. So you won't wonder forever about this just assume for a moment that Noonan navigated precisely to the erroneous coordinates. He is now 5.1 n.m. away at 1,000 feet. He knows his LOP is accurate but where he is North/south is less certain. He runs 157/337 in search but in vain. Why is that so difficult to understand? You want him to do a search grid. Where? If his East/west position is not accurate where would you suggest he go? Only if he believed his North/south position was very close would he have any idea where to go East/west. If that's not clear let me try this. If he is right on North/south then a quick East/west pattern would find Howland. If he was ANYWHERE North or South an East/west search would accomplish nothing. So what DID Noonan believe? No one knows. My guess is that he had so little to base his latitudinal position on that a grid search made no sense at all. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:00:32 EDT From: Janet Knight Subject: Weather At the risk of looking blatantly new to this forum (which I am), in attempting to analyze the data I have collected so far, I have a few questions regarding the conditions of flight - 1. What were the Wx conditions on or near Howland that day, and what is our source for that data? (It seems like that would be hard to determine unless they had an observation station right there - i.e. the Itasca) 2. Which altitudes to we have record of AE/FN at during the time of their last position report and prior to reaching the advanced 157/337 LOP? 3. Do we have any winds-aloft readings, and how accurate are they? I'm positive these questions are answered somewhere obvious that I haven't been able to find, my apologies to all of the 'forum veterans' for the annoyance. Janet Knight Director of Marketing & Promotions, Women in Aviation, International - Washington Chapter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:01:52 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Navigational logic Randy wrote: >... my Monte Carlo > simulations based upon pure dead reckoning and flight paths according to > what Earhart thought the weather was versus what the real weather was > indicates a good 100 mile offset to the south. Possible? Yes. Probable? > Who knows? But it does fit all available data... Do you mean by this that there was probably a 100 mile deviation to the south due to unrecognised winds? If there was any deviation from course due to a perceived need to avoid an anticipated weather sytstem the amount of this deviation would of course have been known and therefore allowed for in making an attempt to find Howland. What evidence is there for what Earhart thought the weather was and what as to what it really was? Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:03:13 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Navigational logic Alik wrote: > For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a > good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator > would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface > grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. One partial answer to this is that the DR may have been a lot more than 200 miles. If Noonan was unable to get a sun shot subsequent to his last celestial fix due to cloud, he may have had to DR as much as 350 miles. That being said, if he was below the cloud, he should have been able to get good enough drift information to make his DR reasonably accurate and lengthy DR should not have made finding Howland impossible I would have thought. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:10:22 EDT From: Lawrence Glazer Subject: Alclad Ric wrote: >In retrospect, I'm really glad we were able to get to c/n 1015 before Finch >got her hands on it. The airplane is, or was, a very interesting example of >the type and raised several questions that have remained unanswered. >Sometime in the machine's service life the cabin section was apparently >re-skinned using aluminum that was labeled exactly like Artifact 2-2-V-1 (the >section of skin recovered from Niku). We know that labeling was used on >aluminum that was approved only for repairs, not original construction. We >see the same labeling on a replacement flap actuator cover on c/n 1052, now >at the New England Air Museum in Windsor Locks, CT. Labeling? I don't recall any previous reference to labeling on the Alclad fragments found on Niku. Did I miss something in the FAQ or research bulletins? LTM, who bought only designer-label Alclad. Lawrence Glazer #2424 ************************************************* Wow, a question I can answer!!! Yes, there is the faint but clearly discernible remnant of product marking on artifact 2-2-V-1. See http://www.tighar.org/TTracks/12_2/obj6.html for text on the subject. Exactly similar marking is seen on other Electra parts as mentioned above. Pat, glowing with pride at actually knowing something. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:11:26 EDT From: Bruce Yoho Subject: Re: The Sydney Island engines No, Del Saylor's Photo was taken before, I located the engine I found. The 1830's are not sitting on the beach but further inland. Those two engines should still be there. There is a big difference between an 1830 and a 1340 in dimensional size, one would really have to be blind to not see the difference. Hope this clears it up some, maybe not. Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 10:13:51 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: 1939 Aerial Survey Thought forumites might find this of interest: SOUTH PACIFIC PHOENIX ISLAND AERIAL SURVEY - 1939 In 1939 a Naval aerial survey expedition was sent to the Phoenix Island area for the purpose of making an aerial photographic survey of the various islands for the Navy Department Hydrographic Office in Washington D.C. The expedition was headed by Lt. Howell J. Dyson, U.S.N., Naval aviator, along with Lt. Gerald Huff U.S.N. Naval aviator. Two seaplane tenders, U.S.S. Pelican and U.S.S. Swan were assigned as the base supply and surface support ships for the Naval aviation operations during the survey. The two ships U.S.S. Pelican and U.S.S. Swan with the aviation units on boards staged from Honolulu with a Grumman J2F amphibian on board each ship. The photo flight crew on the U.S.S. Pelican consisted of Lieutenant H. J. Dyson, pilot, Naval aviation pilot Spencer co-pilot, Naval photographers J. Howard Chamblin and Fred Hewitt as aerial camera operators. The photo flight crew on the U.S.S. Swan consisted of Lieutenant (j.g.) Gerald Huff, pilot, and a Naval aviation pilot as co-pilot, naval photographers Oscar Bowe and Joe Cerruti as the aerial camera operators. The vertical aerial mapping cameras carried aloft in the two Grumman J2F amphibian were the T3-A, 5 lens cameras which were operated by two aerial photographers, one keeping the camera level and oriented to the line of flight, and the other was operating the view finder-Intervalometer unit for line of flight and adjustment for interval between exposures to obtain 60 percent overlap of the aerial photographs. From the author's experience flying in the Grumman J2F amphibians in the thirties, the two photographers along with the T3-A camera, Intervalometer, 12 volt wet battery equipment in the bottom mid-section of the J2F must have been a bit crowded for a comfortable photo flight. A single lens Fairchild K3A camera was also used to some extent for vertical aerial mapping of some of the smaller islands in the Phoenix group. A Fairchild F56 hand held aerial camera was used for aerial oblique photographs of various islands covered by the survey. The aerial roll film was processed in a "make-shift temporary" darkroom on the U.S.S. Pelican and the U.S.S. Swan. The aerial roll film was processed in a hand cranked Smith roll film developing fixing-washing tanks. The film was washed in sea water and rinsed in fresh water. The drying of the roll film was accomplished by hanging the film in the ship's engine room ventilator shaft. Contact prints were made from the aerial roll film negatives which were used for checking the picture to picture overlap and flight strip overlap coverage before the ships moved to the next island of the group. The South Pacific Phoenix Island aerial survey expedition spent about six weeks operating in the South Pacific before returning to Honolulu where the 5 lens aerial mapping photographs were printed on a specially designed rectification printer which produced satisfactory prints for the final map compilation by the U.S. Navy Department Hydrographic Office in Washington D.C. In 1942, during World War II, the 1939 Phoenix Island survey photographs proved to be of great aid to the planning-operations officers of the various Pacific Forces under Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz U.S.N., Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet in the Pacific Theater of Operations, 1942 - 1945. Regards Angus ******************************************** Thanks, Angus, we have copies of those pics as they are part of the National Archive. P. ========================================================================== Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:54:22 EDT From: Bob Perry Subject: Howland View Ric wrote: >All of which demonstrates the need to rely only upon original sources and >not accept conventional wisdom as truth. Alan wrote: >Maybe there should be a test before posting. Read everything on the web >site then take the test. Even a passing score of 60% would solve a lot of >problems. Putting aside Alan Caldwell's haughty suggestion for the moment--we don't want him to waste too much of his time reading posts from presumably less well-informed persons; that "would solve a lot of problems"- Rely only on original sources and don't accept conventional wisdom---That's the point. The opposite has now been referenced as "fact" in the FAQ. Bob Brandenburg concluded that what the Itasca stated in its deck log regarding the visibility (length and dissipation) of the smoke emanating from the Itasca was not credible, and so that "fact" from an original source was dismissed and replaced with "conventional wisdom." He may or may not be right. I tend to favor the statements made by those Coast Guard personnel as valid. We'll never know. The other reasoning on the probable duration of a black smoke run from the Itasca seems valid. Certainly, a high bunker fuel/air ratio would not have been run continuously for several hours. However, what's to say that it was not run intermittently over a period of several hours? When the boilers were returned to normal operation, some visible smoke undoubtedly emanated from the stack, as the Itasca's engines were surely running as the ship was "drifting". Whether or not the ship, much less the island, would have been visible to anyone within 10-15 miles of Howland under then prevailing conditions is pure conjecture. What brought all this up is the Wombat's question about what Linda Finch saw on approaching Howland. I thought the video shot of Howland from that flight (probably taken from Reid Dennis' plane) was interesting, and had a ship been running nearby, one would have expected to see smoke of any color coming from it. How far away, who knows. It is pure speculation as to how far away AE/FN would have seen the Itasca were smoke coming out of its stack. I think we have some good leads in the Earhart project. In the absence of firm proof of what happened and where, speculation can lead to new insights and directions to search to get to the final resolution of the project. Even original source information should be questioned. However, we should not accept as fact suppositions which are contrary to original, documented information until there is firm proof that the original documents are in error. Give the test. I don't think there are too many answers to the questions yet. LTM Bob #2021 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:56:15 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational logic Alan wrote: >Alik, I think Ric is a bit tied up with a class out in California but in any >case let me give you my take on this. Noonan was considered one of the top >professionals of his time with a great amount of naval and air navigation >experience. If here was a technique or capability available it is not in >doubt Noonan was on to it. > >Noonan appears to have typically not been the most precise or detailed at his >navigation but it is reasonable to assume he had little need to do so >routinely. In other words he could rise to the occasion if he needed to but >rarely had that need. Navigating boats at such slow speeds and navigating >planes over established routes is not a very challenging chore. > >My experience since the 50s tells me aerial navigation is pretty simple. Very >little acts to make wild errors. In particular the great speed of aircraft >means that it would take a 90 degree effect of considerable significance to >alter course drastically. I recognize I'm using comparative terms and where I >see little significance others might consider the effect devastating if they >so wish. > >The bottom line is that I have seen nothing to indicate Noonan missed Howland >by very much. The detractors want to hang their hat on the fact they didn't >see the island as proof they were far afield. That won't wash. Noonan could >have in fact navigated precisely to the coordinates he thought represented >Howland. If they were the erroneous ones he would have never seen the island. This is pretty much what I'm driving at. What I don't know however, is what kind of error north and south could be reasonably expected of FN under the circumstances; at least to the degree that we would require remarkable evidence that the error was _greater_ than our expected margin. Can we make that assessment at all? I'm pretty confident about the longitudinal error margin that we can reasonably expect, I'm just not as well versed on the drift aspect. For drift, and to be consistent with the tighar hypothesis, let us assume that cross-winds aloft were relatively light (is that right?). There is a point in this, which I'll explain when someone can help me figure this drift question out. If my tendency to labor a point without revealing where I'm going is annoying, you must understand that I'm a scientist and I do this to avoid biasing respondants. I will explain my point in due time. >Noonan had only from Tabiteauea to Howland to negotiate if (IF) They knew >they were over that island and if the report of a plane over flying that >night is correct. That may not have occurred but it is my belief Noonan would >have made an effort to locate himself in relation to one of the Gilbert >Islands if he had to lose altitude to do so. He was not that short on fuel. > >In any case Noonan had stars, planets, the moon and the sun for celestial >aid. He had drift meter capability and his own good navigational sense. We >have made assumptions they would NOT have descended to spot the Gilbert's and >that the waning moon would not provide sufficient illumination but those are >only untested theories. We have also made an assumption Noonan could not >shoot sun shots or otherwise navigate (other than DR) after descending to >1,000 feet. Also untested and untestable. I don't accept those assumptions >100%. > >Could Noonan navigate to Howland, to Gardner or any place else he chose? My >answer is yes and I see no evidence to refute that position. Now if you talk >about probabilities or odds you can make any guess but that's all it would >be. Gotcha, but let me add a proviso. Probability is a tricky and oft-misunderstood thing. To wit, probability is defined by the information upon which it is derived. We are working with limited information here. The goal is to develop an hypothesis (or find agreement with an existing one) that will facilitate acquiring more information in order to construct a more useful and meaingful probability (like, finding the airplane on Gardner, which would make it highly likely that they in fact flew there in 1937). As basis information changes, probabilities change. If we acquire new information as a consequence of an earlier hypthesis, probabilities change. So, logically, the goal should be to try to discover _the most likely outcome_ of the flight based on the information currently at hand, at the same time acknowledging that we could be wrong. All we seek is what is most likely, nothing more. We leave certainty for God and physics. So the probability of events in the flight matter in that they tell us something about the odds of the overall outcome of the flight; that's my proviso. >We think Noonan got close then went to Gardner. For whatever doubt folks have >about TIGHAR's "evidence" artifacts and suppositions there is NO evidence to >the contrary. None. Nothing to prove they went into the sea. Nothing to prove >they didn't get close to Howland. Nothing to prove they couldn't make it to >Gardner. Nothing to prove they arrived at Howland far to the North. Nothing >to prove they ran out of gas. I humbly agree, but remember that there is also no evidence that little green men didn't kidnap them. The point being that that isn't enough. We can't prove, or even substantiate an hypothesis, by a lack of evidence. We need direct evidence of such a decision, which may in fact exist. I don't know...yet. >Oh, I forgot the Marshals. Well, I tried to forget the Marshals. Folks who >want them to fly north out of Lae to Truck then across to Mili cannot do >simple math. Fuelwise not possible. Nor would it make sense to plan a suicide >mission when their plan was to fly around the world as AE's last big splash. >(No pun intended) Folks who want to get the plane into the Marshals provide >not even a theory. They have to ignore known evidence and create new evidence >of non existent Japanese ships in the Kiribati area and contrary to Long want >to create fuel usage that defies reason. I have been challenging these people >for years to give a rational theory to support their Marshall idea but none >will come forward. > >That's pretty much the sum of it to date. Well, frankly, I regarded those hypotheses as so unlikely (though still _possible_) that I have ignored them outright. The two hypotheses I honed in on were the tighar and long hypotheses. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:57:59 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Weather Weather observations were made hourly from the bridge of the Itasca. At 6AM, noon, and 1800 local time, Howland Island sent up a weather balloon to record winds aloft. The conditions at Howland the early morning hours were very calm (6-9 knots), unlimited visibility. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:58:32 EDT From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: navigational logic In the Monte Carlo simulations, I assumed pure dead reckoning from the 0920 report (plus/minus lat/long and time that it actually was made), with the assumption that weather forecasts provided Earhart prior to take-off were provided to her and that she planned to account for the winds/directions of these forecasts. I then ran the same simulation given her ability to account for these factors, but then added in the post-take-off winds. The difference after 20 hours of flight was about 100+ nm of error. The biggest difference: winds aloft at the tail end were much lower and more to the east than forecast, "pushing" AE to the southwest. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:59:15 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: 1939 Aerial Survey Sometime back I posted an interview of Gerald Berger,an aviation Navy mechanic, who was on the Pelican during those aerial surveys in the Phoenix. He has some of his own photos of the Norwich City. He even thought he talked with Gallagher at Gardner, but alas, Gallagher was at Sydney I believe. He found nothing relating to Amelia, and we are not sure if he in fact made it to shore. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:59:52 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Re: The Sydney Island wreck Bruce Yoho wrote: > No, Del Saylor's Photo was taken before, I located the engine I found. The > 1830's are not sitting on the beach but further inland. Those two engines > should still be there. There is a big difference between an 1830 and a 1340 > in dimensional size, one would really have to be blind to not see the > difference. Hope this clears it up some, maybe not. I probably don't know all the pieces of this thread... What about the seaplane on the ocean beach on Kanton, the "Big John", if I remember correctly? What are the chances your engine could have come from there? Were the engines still on that wreck in the 70's? You can respond off-forum if you like. Regards. Christian D wo1v@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:00:34 EDT From: Christian D. Subject: Engine and bones contest I don't think a reward for the Kanton engine is the way to go: unlike Fiji where it is mostly a matter of "keeping one's eyes peeled" for a Kanawa Box, on Kanton it is a matter of doing lots of hard work. I don't think I-Kiribati have the luxury to undertake such gambles. I rather think one would have to hire some business guy to do the dig. Would be nice to get a turn-key price, but because so much is unknown, one might have to settle for a set price per cu yd or per man-day. Tom: you said: "look around the island"... Are we or are we not rather confident that ONE certain trench is where "Bruce's engine" has got to be??? For background: Kanton has about a dozen Govt employees representing most Ministries. They have their families with them. All the young children are there, attending the local Primary shool. There is no older children: they are away to Fanning etc for Hi-School. There is a couple of independent settlers, retirees mostly; in 96 there was one young man with his family, and he was hard working; I'm sure he would have loved the opportunity of a cash job. But he was the exception, and not enough for the engine dig. I feel a work crew would mostly have to come from Xmas Is. along with some extra tools from Honolulu. I expect to be on Xmas in December, and I'll certainly inquire around and refine my assessment of what is possible. Communications is about as Ric said: nothing in common with what we Forumites are used to. In 1996 most each Ministry Rep had his own SideBand Radio; they check in with Headquarters, and as there is nothing going on, they tend to their family matters!!! One of them is doing Post Office duties, which include a daily check for radiograms; interesting question: can we in the First World still send telegrams?!?!?!?!? Radio telephone calls can also be booked! Overall, not too practical at all! If a contracted dig was to take place, a Tighar Representative might be advisable -even if only at start-up. Cheers. Christian D. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:01:11 EDT From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Navigational logic Ric wrote > You can chide me for making it easy to understand but I'm a firm believer > that the way to convince people is to let them actually understand what > you're saying rather than try to intimidate them with your superior > intelligence and education. Just so. And about time. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:02:10 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: navigational logic-- question to Alan Caldwell Alik wrote: > Well Alan, that is the meat of the matter isn't it? I know that the > oft-repeated phrase "you cannot DR from an unknown point to a known > point" is a popular one, but that phrase does not apply here. We are > talking about DR'ing from one constrained region to another (precisely > what is done when you 'advance a line of position' by DR). The expected > error margin for DR'ing from a constrained region (a longitudinally > constrainted LOP) about 200 miles out to another constrained LOP results > in an east-west error margin greater than 20 miles. So, no, he did not > have a "pretty good confidence" of his east-west position if 'prett > good' means close enough to SEE Howland island. The very technique he > used was verifiably inadequate to accomplish what you assume. Alan, am I missing something really obvious when I read the above? I'm not much of a navigator, although I'm reasonable at coastal by boat and VFR by air. (Must be - I keep getting there and back!) How many bits have I got wrong below? As I understand it, Noonan knew pretty well where Howland was from his chart. He takes a sun sight just as the sun comes up to give him a very specific longitude? Because the earth is spinning, the time of sunrise is specific to certain places at certain times? This places his East/West position very accurately but he can't tell his north south position? He has a look at how many degrees the sun is from the direction the plane is travelling and draws a straight line on the chart at 90deg to that angle, this is the LOP we keep hearing about? He knows he is somewhere along that line, but not where he is on it. He draws another line on the chart parallel to the first and running through Howland. Now he has two lines, one that he IS ON and one that he WOULD LIKE to be ON? He measures how many miles between the two lines. He knows the speed he's cruising at. He does some very simple math to work out how long it will take to get from one line to the other. He tells the pilot how many minutes it will take to get from the first line to the one through Howland. So he actually can and does fly by DR from one line to the other, but he still doesn't know how far North or South he is? That's where "we must be on you" came from? That leaves the problem of working out how he deduced his speed if the wind was stronger or lighter that he expected. We've heard about speed lines on the forum, and there are a few other tricks he may have had. Th' WOMBAT (Just discovered that WOMBAT also stands for Waste Of Money Bandwidth And Time). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:02:49 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Speaking on TIGHAR's quest in Maryland For Washington DC-area Forumites: I'll be talking about The Quest and signing books at the College Park Aviation Museum in College Park, MD on November 17th in the Museum's Speaking of Flight Program. I believe that the talk is at 2 pm (I'd better find out, duh), and I think the Museum requires reservations. If interested let me know at tfking106@aol.com and I'll pass on further info. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:06:12 EDT From: Dave in Houston Subject: Re: Navigational logic Angus: Finding the island is the key. As an example. We loaded up in a Cherokee 6 a few weeks back to "find" some local private airports. We had gps, vor, adf, current charts and 4 pairs of eyes. One of us was a RCAF Col. I've been flying since 1966. We almost never found the first airport and NEVER found the second. I spotted the first when I realized that it appeared to be one of two lanes of a divided road. The second we never were able to identify. And we KNEW where they were supposed to be and had the latest in direction finding equipment and plenty of eyes. Great visibility, plenty of time, plenty of fuel and several well known airports within 10 minutes of our location. Now, take a VAST ocean, no landmarks, nothing but DR for ? distance. Throw in the mix 24 hours in the air, fuel becoming "important", distance to the nearest land questionable, as well as an "exact" direction. Couple with that a choppy sea, a small, hard to identify "island". No, they could have been VERY close and still not seen the island or the ship. We'll never know because they didn't know. If they had known, they might have stayed in the area and looked. But if they are 20 miles north or 20 miles south, a grid search does NO good. They'll burn up a lot of fuel and then they have ZERO options. They did the most prudent thing. They figured they were on their lop close enough to espy Howland if they ventured over it and failing that they had a line of islands that afforded them an excellent opportunity to make a land fall while they had the fuel to get there. Also, they were counting on the Itasca's radio and probably the eyes and ears of her crew in spotting them. But if they were too far south, they never got close enough to be seen and if they were off only 5 miles in either direction, its quite possible that they couldn't see the island and the ship's crew couldn't see them. Anything short of that was pure suicide. Any more questions? LTM, #2200 Dave Bush Angus Murray wrote: > Alik wrote: > >> For me, and I'm sure it is the case for others, I need a >> good argument as to why _any_ competent, non-incapacitated navigator >> would miss Howland if DR only 200 miles with ample fuel for a surface >> grid search upon hitting the Howland intersecting LOP. > > One partial answer to this is that the DR may have been a lot more > than 200 miles. If Noonan was unable to get a sun shot subsequent > to his last celestial fix due to cloud, he may have had to DR as > much as 350 miles. That being said, if he was below the cloud, > he should have been able to get good enough drift information to > make his DR reasonably accurate and lengthy DR should not > have made finding Howland impossible I would have thought. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:07:18 EDT From: Daryll Bollinger Subject: Re: navigational logic Alan wrote: >...Oh, I forgot the Marshalls. Well, I tried to forget the >Marshalls...Folks who want to get the plane into the Marshalls provide >not even a theory...I have been challenging these people for years to >give a rational theory to support their Marshall idea but none will come >forward. OK Alan here we go.... You claim to be a pilot. Find someone who has a computer with Microsoft's Flight Simulator on it. You should be able to fly a simulated airplane on a computer screen. The Beech Baron comes pretty close to Earhart's Electra for the simulation. Set the time and date to 19:12 Z July 2, 1937. Put the Baron over Howland (for a geographical reference point) N 00 degrees 48.00' W 176deg 38.00' at 1,000 ft. Set the wind at 081deg at 17 kts (0 ft to 10,500 ft of altitude) average wind Lae to Howland. If you use a no wind condition, point AE moves closer to Howland, to about 50 nm NW of Howland. Fly a magnetic heading of 33deg (at 130 knots TAS) from Howland until you reach N 02deg 30.10' W 177deg 14.20' (or close to it). That point ("point AE") is about 106 nm NW of Howland. Turn the airplane to 281=B0 and climb to 10,000 ft if you like so Noonan has no trouble shooting the sun for speed lines. Once you turn to 281deg the wind will boost your ground speed to 147 knots. Sit there with the auto-pilot maintaining a heading of 281deg. 4.6 hours later Mili Atoll (Knox Atoll first landfall) will appear in the windshield. The distance once you turned to 281deg to Mili is about 667 nm. You don't have to take my word for it because you can see it for yourself. Before you jump in about NOT having enough fuel to get there, one of our researchers has a letter from Kelly Johnson stating that AE should have had enough fuel for about 1500 miles more AFTER getting to Howland. I will be out of town for a couple of weeks (starting today) so that should give you enough time to do the above. Daryll ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:01:38 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Test-for-posting Bob Perry said: >Putting aside Alan Caldwell's haughty suggestion for >the moment--we don't want him to waste too much of his time reading posts >from presumably less well-informed persons; that "would solve a lot of >problems" regarding Alan's comment "Maybe there should be a test before >posting. Read everything on the web site then take the test. Even a passing >score of 60% would solve a lot of problems. Well, I half-way agree with Alan's haughty suggestion, which I assumed was made with his tongue firmly implanted in his cheek. The wonder of the internet is its instantaneous communication. The downside is that everyone wants to be an expert on everything yesterday. The internet feeds our mania for instant gratification and people who visit here and don't get that go off huffin' and puffin' about what a bunch of snobs we are because we actually expect them to do some work to acquire the knowledge they seek. What unique concepts -- deferred gratification and learning. Ric and a lot of other contributors to this forum spend -- in my humble opinion -- way too much time re-explaining the same basic stuff over and over simply because some newcomers are too lazy to read the FAQs and then go off half-cocked until someone explains the data to them. For their perseverance and self-control they are awarded an A-plus. Ric's innate sense of fair play, egalitarianism, and all-around belief in democratic principles would prevent the test-for-posting idea, but maybe, just maybe, if he got really, really pissed . . . . . LTM, who tested negative yesterday Dennis O. McGee #0149E ******************************************************* >Ric's innate sense of fair play, egalitarianism, and all-around >belief in democratic principles... Uh, are we talking about the same guy I'm married to? And, btw, the Forum FAQs can be found in all their all-too-infrequently-visited glory at http://www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaq.html Pat, also the Webmeister ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:16:59 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: Navigational logic Randy Jacobson wrote: >In the Monte Carlo simulations, I assumed pure dead reckoning from the 0920 >report (plus/minus lat/long and time that it actually was made), with the >assumption that weather forecasts provided Earhart prior to take-off were >provided to her and that she planned to account for the winds/directions of >these forecasts. I then ran the same simulation given her ability to >account for these factors, but then added in the post-take-off winds. The >difference after 20 hours of flight was about 100+ nm of error. The >biggest difference: winds aloft at the tail end were much lower and more to >the east than forecast, "pushing" AE to the southwest. This seems to be, so far, the only direct response I've gotten on this question. So, if your simulation data is believable to the extent that remarkable evidence would be required to doubt it, and to doubt that FN was aware of his error margin, then we can safely say that FN was most probably within 100 miles of Howland and that he knew it (actually, his unceratinty would have been 100 miles along the Howland intersecting LOP, then some 40 or so miles east of west of that line). Ergo, the Gardner hypothesis requires FN to fly apprximately 250 - 350 n.m. southwest when, in all practical likelihood, he knew he was within 100 miles of Howland. By virtue of the fuel required to fly that far, and the fact that the Gardner hypothesis requires that much fuel aboard, it means that AE would have at least _possessed_ enough fuel to do a longitudinal, offset run up and down the LOP (effectively, a longitudinal grid search). To complete that run on either side of the line, 100 n.m. north and south would have taken about that much fuel, but the run would have completely eliminated FNs uncerainty as to the exact location of Howland. We should point out that had AE decided to fly to Gardner, _additional_ uncertainty would be introduced from a 250 - 350 n.m. DR to Gardner, making Gardner much harder to find than the already elusive Howland. In addition, they run the risk of arriving at their expected Gardner location with little or no fuel, making a further southerly run of the LOP impractical. I accept the historical convention of simply running the LOP north and south if that is indeed the case, but it seems remarkable to me that, even in the face of textbook solutions FN/AE would make such a decision. Indeed, it requires AE/FN to fly _beyond_ what they knew was their margin for Howland (they would have to be specfically searching for some other island, like Gardner). Is there any evidence for this besides the debris found at Gardner? My only point here is that it seems to me that remarkable evidence would be required to accept this decision as _the most likely decision_ made. Certainly it is possible, but is it most likely? Remember, we are only concerned with what is most likely, not certain (see my previous post). Perhaps FNs prior behavior in such situations can provide such evidence. Maybe he did do rote, textbook things when, in the context of the situation, to do so made no sense at all? I think that would safely constitute remarkable evidence if such a pattern can be found. Any information or thoughts from the forum on this would be greatly appreciated. Alik ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:17:55 EDT From: Alik Subject: Re: navigational