========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:12:21 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Painting on ebay Ric , I agree completely.Every photo I have seen that shows her plane,(including the ones in Ross Game's file at the Nimitiz museum in Texas, Taken in Java I believe) it has S3 H1 1340's in it . Thanks for letting me know that the Brink photo is in front of her Vega.A personal chapter closed for me. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:14:57 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Gervais ID of B-24 Joe knew it wasn't an Electra. He told me that when we had the conversation in 99. My comments were for the person looking for crashes around Howland , Baker and Niku. I don't believe for a second in the " Bolam" fairy tale.There are 2 Irene Bolams in the SS death index. Their birth and death dates match the obits in newspapers in their hometowns.Looked it all up on a bet some time ago. I won. Amelia didn't survive past Sept 1937.AES Society even has a memoriam to the first Bolam by the namesake Bolam in one of their newsletters that refutes that silly notion. *************************************************************************** From Ric Indeed, Electra wreckage on Baker would be quite remarkable given the presence of Dept. of Interior colonists on the island in July 1937. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:17:44 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Bones search I was my experience in Hawaii that you must consider wind , water and protection for your crop when planting. Most planting takes place on the leeward side.Is this the case on Niku? I havent looked at a map recently. The "bush reserve" may have been left for nesting shorebirds.They are very important to the crops for insect control. **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, virtually all of the coconut plantings on Niku were on the leeward side of the atoll, although only the ones on the west end near the village really thrived. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:20:07 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Colonists removed from Howland? Those are the dates that the articles appeared in NG - National Geographic.I have all of their issues on CD-Rom from 1888 to 1999.A $600 investment and well worth it. I know the Itasca is a ship.To corract the misinterpetation, the Itasca is listed as the ship that delivered the first colonists to those islands.Brink's book , although full of BS speculation, has a photocopy of the original letter from Secretary of State Cordell Hull to FDR dated Feb 19 1936. Its entire content is about the history of the Line Island's and their recent colonization up to that date. I seldom quote the written word in any of these book's except to point out the inconsistencies from book to book.Many of them do have within their convoluted pages, copies of original documents and photos that are a valuable resource. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:21:13 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Colonists removed from Howland? the japanese complaint statement came from John Toland's - The Rising Sun. I think Randy's statement is closer to the truth. Note that I didn't mention Carrington's allegations that they were Army guys on leave in 1935. That directly contradicts Hull's letter to FDR in Brink's book. If they are all to be believed, let's assume that they are Kam School Students in the Army on leave to sit on a rock in the middle of nowhere for FUN.( A little humor never hurts!) I prefer to take Hull's letter as fact. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:24:09 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Colonists removed from Howland? I stand corrected, somewhat. The Hull letter states that Hawaiians were dropped off on Howland, Baker and Jarvis by the Itasca between March 25th and April 1st of 1935 and had been occupied continuously since then. The letter is dated Feb 19,1936. My confusioncomes from the dates that the colonists were dropped off by the Taney in 1938 on Canton and Enderbury. March 6th for Enderbury and March 7th for Canton. There were two expeditions to those atolls,apparently. Either that or NG photographers were on the 1938 trip for reasons unknown or there were 2 eclipse expeditions. They may have just obtained photos from the military from the 1938 trip. At any rate I will send you copies of the hull letter and the NG articles along with the Meyers book. I agree with you on that point about conspiracy books. Tear out the photocopies of documents and the pictures, you now have all of the useful sections of the book. Throw the rest away! Woody ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:32:23 EST From: Denise Subject: Fiji Air Planes? Can't say for certain what planes Fiji Air had during the early days, but from stories I've been told, for passenger services - which they took seriously - they used Sunderlands. But for mail runs they used whatever they laid their hands on for cheap. I believe the mail-run was the job of choice for all those barely sane cowboy-types - old WWI British/Allies air force veterans and from stories I've heard I think the planes were too. If this were the case, you'd probably know better than I do what kind of planes they were? Fokkers? I hope I don't need to tell you that it was these old cowboy-pilots who swore by their reef-landings. LTM (who loves a good mail run herself) Denise P.S. I seem to have picked up a virus which is tailing my e-mails. Please don't open any EXE file from me. **************************************************************************** From Ric Nothing was attached to the above forum submission. The Shorts Sunderland was, of course, a flying boat and any reef landing would be its last. It's also a WWII type so any use of Sunderlands (the commercial variant was called the "Solent") would be post-war. Fokker F-7 trimotors and various Junker types were common in New Guinea in the '30s and may have been used by Fiji Air during and even after the war. They were very rugged and very slow. Reef landings should have been a piece of cake. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:35:59 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bones search Ric says: >Let's remember that it's our culture that has a television show called >"Touched By An Angel." Yes, but as you well know, Ric, I Kiribati tradition is full of "anti" (ghosts), which can do bad things to people. There are traditions about powerful bones, that people try to grind up and throw in the sea, that come back to cause trouble. It's sort of interesting, too, that Robert Louis Stevenson has a short story, based on his time in what's now Kiribati, about the windward shore of an island as a frightening, spirit-filled place. I don't think it's at all implausible that Gallagher's death would have been interpreted as a result of what had been done with the bones, or that this would have influenced what people said and did thereafter (e.g., with subsequent bones discoveries). LTM (who has a healthy respect for spirits) Tom King **************************************************************************** From Ric No argument. I was just pointing out that "native" cultures have no lock on superstition. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:46:41 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Colonists removed from Howland? The army guys were on some sort of "leave", but amazingly enough, when taken back to Honolulu, they became full military personnel. Let's say the gov't at that time was involved in some shenanigans, but easily uncovered. Maybe that is the root cause of all the problems with Commerce and Interior. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:47:41 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Black as GP's rep. Do we have that info documented? I've never seen anything connecting Putman and Black. I don't doubt it but I'm just used to documentation on things. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:08:08 EST From: Christian D Subject: Re: Canton losses listing Interesting list. I didn't realize there had been so much "action" there... I didn't noticed any airplane wreck left on the island, it has all been bulldozed under, except for the seaplane on the outside beach on the west end of the island; it looks like it landed short of the lagoon seap lane landing area. I didn't know enough to identify the type it is... As it is on a protected beach with little surf, it is VERY little corroded, green paint (primer?) still visible. As well as the nickname painted on the side: don't have my notes at hand, but it is something like "Big John". Is it one that is on your list? Someone in Funafuti had told me that it crashed during or soon after the war, with loss of life. About aluminum degrading in the tropics, it seems to me it is VERY hard to foretell: if constantly wet and dry, it won't last long, but if well above the high water mark, on a quiet shore, it survives incredibly well!!! While the DeSoto station-wagons hidden in the scrub are turning into rust piles... **************************************************************************** From Ric You're speaking of Canton. The wreck you saw may have been the PBY-5 that was beached on Aug. 13, 1943 after being shot up by a Japanese flying boat. We didn't see it while we were there in '98 (we were busy looking for the engine in the dump) but that would be an interesting wreck to survey. I agree with your assessment of the durability of aluminum in that environment. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:20:47 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Gervais ID of B-24 The B-24 was lost ,I'm sure during WW2 when Baker was in use as a refueling stop for bombers. Sometime during the war it was abandoned in favor of Canton Island. I'm looking for those dates now.As for colonists on those islands at that time ,I grew up on Oahu and have contacted Bishop Museum and the Kam Schools to see if I can shed some light on the exact dates that there were people there.The logs of the Navy seaplane tender Avocet and the Coast Guard cutter Taney may be of help if anyone knows where to find them. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Woody, you're reinventing the wheel and you have some flat spots. Baker was never a refueling stop. It was used briefly as a forward airstrip during Operation Galvanic (the landings at Tarawa) late in 1943. There were some PV-1 Venturas there but no B-24s as far as I know. Randy Jacobson has researched the "colonization" of the American Equatorial Islands and it is thoroughly covered in the 8th edition of the Earhart Project Book. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:21:57 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Fiji Air Planes? There is a site on the net that has a list of all planes that were registered to fly into New Guinea.Naw Guinea Airways had a few 10A's . When I'm on the net I'll find the site and post the URL. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:25:04 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Flying Tigers...etc. Weren't the "Flying Tigers" who flew P-40s in China before WW II also "volunteers" from the U.S. Army? Also those who ferried U.S. manufactured planes to Great Britain between 1939-1942? Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric I must be missing the relevance to the Earhart disappearance in all this. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:32:46 EST From: Ron Dawson Subject: Francis Furman In the book 'Raise Heaven and Earth' by William Harwood, a history of the Glenn Martin Aircraft company, he relates the story of Furman as the Martin representative in Java and assisting AE and Fred which I' believe I've seen in other Earhart books, but don't remember which. Quoting the book: Furman said Noonan worried the entire time he was at Bandoeng about time. Furman: "He kept four watches and he would walk around constantly checking those watches with chronometers to ensure accuracy". Four watches? Has anyone else made a similar claim? Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 **************************************************************************** From Ric We interviewed Furman very early in the project. Nice guy. He also told us about Fred being obsessed with the accuracy of his watches which he kept in his pocket, but as I recall it was two watches, not four. I should review the videotape. It was twelve years ago. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:34:32 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Colonists removed from Howland? This sounds very much like the scenario followed by the Air Force to set up clandestine TACAN sites in "neutral" Laos, for guiding aircraft to targets in North Vietnam, during the war in Southeast Asia... the guys who manned these sites were USAF noncoms, with their enlistments "put on hold" without loss of seniority or benefits while they became "employees" of Lockheed Aircraft. For a fascinating study of this (and EXCELLENT historical scholarship) read "One Day Too Long" by Timothy N. Castle. This is primarily a study of the loss of "Site 85" in Northern Laos in March 1968. The key word, is "deniability" (aka the way to lie without actually, technically lying... aka "spreading bull.") LTM (who would never sign a shady deal) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:35:48 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Black as GP's rep. Documentation regarding GPP and Richard Black can be found in the TIGHAR CD of radio messages, mostly by message traffic from Black to Dept. of Interior HQ regarding his role, and whether it was appropriate. There's no doubt in my mind about it. It was no big deal, really: just insurance by GPP to make sure that AE was getting weather information, fuel at Howland, etc. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:28:39 EST From: Harry Poole Subject: The Wreck Photo, revisited In looking through previous issues of TIGHAR tracks, It seems to me that the issue of the Wreck photo was left hanging. Perhaps I missed something, but the question seemed to be: Was this photo from an Electa model E, was it Amelia's plane, and was it taken on Gardner/Nikumaroro. If I understand this, the analysis by Photek seemed to support that it was an Electra-E (based on the propeller measurements) but I haven't noticed a final conclusion to this photo. If I missed it, I'm sorry, but can you summarize how this photo now stands? LTM, Harry #2300 **************************************************************************** From Ric We still don't know for sure what kind of airplane it is or where or when the photo was taken, but we do know that a more or less intact airplane in the bushes is not consistent with the information (mostly anecdotal at this point) we have about a plane wreck at Gardner. My opinion is that if the wreck photo shows Earhart's airplane, we're looking on the wrong island. I don't think we're looking on the wrong island. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:28:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Aerial photography Ric, I'm flying to Sydney on March 14th. If we pass anywhere near Niku I'll take a few pictures. I assume from 43,000' would still be ok if I hold my throw-away camera steady. My daughter is getting married on the 31st. If there is any significant research I might do while in Sydney I would be glad to do it. Janet always has great lists of stuff for us to do, maybe she has a suggestion. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:44:07 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Fiji Air Planes? Woody wrote: > There is a site on the net that has a list of all planes that were registered > to fly into New Guinea.Naw Guinea Airways had a few 10A's . When I'm on the net > I'll find the site and post the URL. I don't know how complete it is, but I got my copy of the list at http://www.michie.net/cgi-bin/plnsrch.pl This was my source for the identification of the 10-A in the Purdue collection (photo XI.A.4.C - where AE and the technician are looking at the underside of the airplane - with part of the registration number visible). ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:47:49 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: The Wreck Photo, revisited Don't forget the photos I copied to you a couple months ago - AE's Lockheed (in construction or repair) with the engine off very clearly shows an opening in the firewall where the exhaust stack goes through, and the wreck photo just as clearly shows that the firewall of that airplane is solid, with no opening. I can re-send those pic's to you if you like. ltm jon **************************************************************************** From Ric No, I have those. Thanks. I could never tell for sure whether the firewall of the plane in the wreck photo had sustained damage that could account for that discrepancy. In any event, I don't think the photo is worth revisiting. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:51:06 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: The Wreck Photo, revisited I may be mistaken, but I thought TIGHAR proved this photo to be the wreckage of a Japanese aircraft. I also believe the photo was given to Bevington sp? by an unknown sailor and Bevington is not talking to anyone. **************************************************************************** From Ric Ah, the "folk process" at work. Wrong on all counts. The whole Wreck Photo business is covered in way too much detail in several research bulletins on the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:37:28 EST From: Ric Gillespie Subject: The Voyage of the Viti Tom King and I have been trying to sort out the November/December 1941 voyage of His Majesty's Fijian Ship VITI and have turned up a real mystery for the forum to chew on. First, a little background. The High Commissioner of the Western Pacific High Commission during the entire bones-found-on-Gardner episode was Sir Harry Luke. Our primary source of information about his attitude and actions relating to that subject come from his correspondence and notes in the official WPHC file which Kenton Spading and I reviewed in England a few years ago. Another source of information about this time period, although it doesn't mention the bones, is Sir Harry's later book "From a South Seas Diary 1938-1942". In trying to track what may have become of the bones following Gallagher's death in September 1941, we've been particularly interested in Sir Harry's visit to the Phoenix Islands in November/December of that year. Gallagher had been the driving force behind the Phoenix Island Settlement Scheme since Maude's departure in 1939. With his death the entire project was suddenly without a leader and the High Commissioner's visit was in the nature of an inspection and evaluation to see what might be done next. Accompanying him aboard His Majesty's Fijian Ship VITI were his aide de camp Ian "Mungo" Thompson; Dr. Macpherson, who had been present at Gallagher's death; and an Ellice Islander clerk from the WPHC offices in Fiji by the name of Foua Tofiga who would serve as interpreter. Today Mr. Tofiga lives in Fiji and has been an invaluable source of help and information to TIGHAR in documenting the events of 1940/41. Tom King has also corresponded with Mungo Thompson, now living in Scotland. From the "messing records" of HMFS VITI, which we copied in England, and from notes kept by Mr. Tofiga at the time, we have been able to reconstruct the voyage of the VITI as follows: Midnight, November 19, 1941 - ship departs Suva, Fiji Afternoon, November 25 - brief call at Gardner Island. Aram Tamia (Gallagher's former houseboy and assistant), Bauro Tikana (Gallagher's former clerk and interpreter), and Esera (?) came aboard briefly and met with Sir Harry. 11:00 a.m., November 26 - ship arrives at Canton Island. In his book, Sir Harry says that "the north-bound Clipper arrived from Suva just after we got in." He's referring to the Pan American Airways flying boat that serviced Canton but - and this is where the mystery begins - the information we have indicates that PAA did not service Suva at that time. A north-bound Clipper may have arrived on the 26th but it should have come from Auckland, New Zealand via Noumea - not Fiji. November 27 - Normally, the passengers may have stayed overnight at the PAA hotel on the island and the Clipper would continue it's journey to Hawaii the next day, but Sir Harry says that on the 27th he "Spent the forenoon replying to telegrams received here and preparing letters for the Clipper mail leaving tomorrow." It seems odd that the plane would remain at Canton that long. November 28 - VITI remained at Canton. November 29 - VITI sails for Gardner at 4:30 p.m. The messing records indicate that "Johnny, the handyman at Canton" came aboard for transport to Gardner. 11:00 a.m., November 30 - VITI arrives Gardner and the official party goes ashore. Mr. Tofiga's notes indicate that he saw Temou (the island carpenter) and his wife (Emily's parents); "Kuata" (is this Island Magistrate Teng Koata?); Esera (?); and Aram Tamia. Two nurses, "Maria" and "Sengalo" (Emily) joined the ship for transport to Suva for training. Also boarding at Gardner, according to the messing records, were the wireless operator Fasamata and his wife (Otiria O'Brian whom we interviewed in Fiji in 1999) for transport to Hull Island. Debarking at Gardner to take charge of the island hospital was Native Medical Practitioner Vaaiga who had come from Fiji. At 9:00 p.m. the ship left Gardner for Hull. 1:00 p.m. December 1 - VITI arrives Hull Island where Fasamata and Otiria debark. The Acting Administrative Officer and Wireless Operator at Hull, a man named Cookson, comes aboard bound for Suva and "badly needed" leave. Apparently Fasamata will take over as wireless operator and, according to Sir Harry's book, so "that the Settlement may not be without a European officer, McGowan, the acting Second Officer aboard the VITI ... has sportingly volunteered to stay." (Stout fellow McGowan - what?) At 4:00 p.m. the ship is underway again enroute to Sydney Island. 9:00 p.m. December 2 - VITI arrives at Sydney Island. Midnight, December 3 - the ship departs Sydney. According to the messing record, Johnny-the-handyman's wife and child come aboard for transport to join Johnny on Gardner. Sir Harry describes this incident in his book but erroneously has the woman and infant joining the husband on Canton. December 4 - In the morning the ship pays a brief call at uninhabited Phoenix Island. In the afternoon it stops at Enderbury where Sir Harry entertains the four U.S. Department of Interior colonists aboard VITI with much appr eciated tea and cake. Their names are D. N. Hartnell, James Riley, Joe Kepoo, and James Bruhn. The ship sails for Canton that evening. December 5 - VITI arrives back at Canton in the morning where the Clipper, according to Sir Harry's book, "had come in." He and Mungo, he says, "are returning by the Clipper early tomorrow morning" and so are sleeping at the PAA hotel that night. "The Clipper is exceptionally full and several passengers have to sleep in the passages of the hotel." December 6 - Sir Harry's book says, "We took off at 6 a.m. and landed at Suva at 3 pm, after a comfortable journey, during most of which we flew at 11,000 feet. ...The only land we saw before approaching the Fiji Group was Futuna; and as we neared Suva I asked the Captain to circle over our leper island, Makongai, which I thought would interest the passengers and knew would delight the patients. ... The next day (Western Time) came the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor...". However, Sir Harry's account seems to be at odds with the history of PAA's service - as we'll see shortly. According to Tofiga's notes, VITI departed Canton at the same hour Sir Harry says the Clipper took off for Suva and arrived at Hull around 4:30 p.m., remaining only an hour before continuing on to Gardner. December 7 - VITI calls at Gardner enroute back to Fiji just long enough to drop off Johnny's family and 18 tins of condensed milk (at the direction of Dr. Macpherson). Tofiga's notes indicate they arrived at 8:00 a.m. and departed at 9:00 a.m. It is his recollection that he learned of the Pearl Harbor attack while at Gardner. If so, the word must have gotten out very quickly because, allowing for the one hour time difference, the last wave of Japanese planes had just left Pearl when the VITI left Gardner. Our best guess is that the ship's radio picked up a news flash from KGMB or one of the other commercial stations in Honolulu. Afternoon, December 11 - VITI arrives back in Suva, Fiji. Now - here's the mystery. The following are excerpts from an article "Pan American Airways and New Zealand 1937-1959" by Brian Lockstone appearing in the June 2000 issue of the Journal of the Aviation Historical Society of New Zealand: (By January 1938) Pan American had already concluded that, until longer-range aircraft were available, the New Zealand service would be minimal, but the loss of Musik and his aircraft (the "Samoan Clipper" crash of January 10, 1938) forced postponement until 1940 when the enormous Boeing 314 entered service. ... The U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board had awarded traffic rights to Pan American on 12 June 1940, and the route was amended to San Francisco-Honolulu-Canton Island-Noumea-Auckland. (Previously it had been San Francisco-Honolulu-Kingman Reef-Pago Pago-Auckland.) ... The route also bypassed the British Colony of Fiji where entry had been denied as the UK Government had not wanted to grant traffic rights to Pan American while its own carrier, Imperial/British Overseas Airways Corporation, lacked the resources to fly the route. ... The early hours of 7 December 1941 caught Boeing 314 NC18611 "Anzac Clipper" inbound to Honolulu, and it was diverted to Hilo. Further south, Captain Robert Ford was in command of NC18602 (named "Pacific Clipper" by the US press although contemporary photographs indicate that no name other than "Clipper" was painted on the aircraft) was inbound to Auckland from Noumea. On reaching Auckland he sought advice from the US Consul, and his company, and was directed to return to the US as best he could. He departed Auckland on December 15 ..." If the British had not relented in allowing PAA to service Fiji, and if the route in late 1941 was still San Francisco-Honolulu-Canton Island-Noumea-Auckland, how could Sir Harry take the Clipper to Suva? The north-bound flight arriving on November 26th could be Captain Ford's airplane enroute to Hawaii. He takes off from Canton on the 27th and flys to Honolulu. A few days later he comes back through, reaching Canton on December 5th, the same day Viti arrives back there, and Sir Harry could be on the plane when it heads south on the 6th, but was it going to Suva or Noumea - or both? Suva is pretty much on the way from Canton to Noumea, so it would be easy to make a stop if a landing was allowed, but here's the problem. Sir Harry says they landed at Suva at 3:00 p.m. The distance from Suva to Noumea is about 700 nautical miles. Anyway you figure it, the landing at Noumea has to be in the dark. The article has the plane enroute from Noumea to Auckland on the morning of the 7th so they can't very well have overnighted in Fiji. So we have three questions: Had the British government extended landing rights in Fiji to PAA by December 1941? Had the Honolulu to Auckland route been amended to include Suva? Did PAA make night landings with the 314s? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:39:10 EST From: Warren Lambing Subject: Can't find Niku on this Earth Shot Okay this is off topic, but I am willing to bet you can't find Niku. on the NASA Photo, but it is really worth a look. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg Regards. Warren Lambing **************************************************************************** From Ric Great photo. Next time we won't turn off the lights before we leave. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:30:42 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: The Voyage of the Viti There's a fourth possibility, but slim. Suppose the British had their own clippers. We do know that Canton was under a condominium between the US and British, and each could use the facilities for seaplanes and later, airplanes. I have not run across a reference or source, though, for British/NZ/Australian seaplanes in that area of the world per se. You also can't always trust contemporaneous documents for veracity, especially journals. Sometimes people's memories are faulty after a few short hours or days. When I maintained a journal, sometimes I didn't write daily and had to catch up a bit. **************************************************************************** From Ric "Clipper" was an exclusive Pan Am term and the Brits didn't have an airplane= that would do the job. That's why they coudn't compete with PAA. ****************************************************************************= From Janet Whitney I remember reading an article about the Pan Am Clippers that were in the Eastern Pacific just after Pearl Harbor and were ordered to fly back to the U.S. as quickly and expeditiously as possible. How many Pan Am Clippers were in service on December 7, 1941? Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure how many flying boats Pan Am owned at that time, but there was only one - NC18602, Captain Ford's airplane - that was in the South Pacific on December 7th. Ford was ordered to get the airplane home safely as soon as possible by any means necessary. The Pacific seemed too dangerous so he went the other way and ended up flying around the world to get back to the U.S. **************************************************************************** From John Pratt The rest of the story? Dec 7, 1941 The Pacific Clipper flew an "unplanned" trip around the world. It flew 31,500 miles in 209 hours and made 18 stops through 12 different nations. This was the longest continuous flight by a commercial plane and was the first circumnavagation following a route near the equator, crossing it four times. http://www.panamair.org/earlydays.htm (Yes, I expect that logbook is preserved somewhere.) Also, of possible value: The Pan American Airways (and after 1950, Pan American World Airways) corporate records (from founding in 1927 through its closing in 1991)are maintained at: Otto G. Richter Library, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida URL: http://www.library.miami.edu/archives/panam/pan.html Among other things, the webpage advertises: "The records also include extensive quantities of logbooks for important flights, including those of the "American Clipper," the "China Clipper" and the "Hawaiian Clipper." Logbooks typically list technical flight information, performance measures for the aircraft, passenger and crew data, and personal comments of the pilot and staff. Manuals and technical for the maintenance and care of aircraft, hangers, equipment and terminals provide a detailed record of internal policies and procedures. Additional technical reports document a wide range of topics, including test results on engines and aircraft, in addition to examination for employees." e-mail address is "archive@library.miami.edu" but looking for a specific logbook might be best done in person. If there is a TIGHAR researcher in the area the Richter Library might be worth a visit. LTM John Pratt 2373 ****************************************************************************= From Ric Randy Jacobson has done some work at the Richter Library and we have a general catalog of what is there. **************************************************************************** From Peter Vincent Ric: A quick extract from Sir Ian THOMSON's book "Fiji in the Forties and Fifties" [Thomson Pacific, New Zealand 1994, ISBN 0 473 02740 2] p.112: "On most of Fiji's islands the horizon is usually the sea, and it was only over this watery line that entry by boat to the islands of Fiji was obtained until the advent of a seaplane Clipper Service in 1941. The route of the Clipper Service from the United States to Australia was pioneered by Pan American Airways, with Harold Gatty appointed the airline's representative in the South Pacific ... The four-engined seaplanes used on the trans-Pacific service touched down for refuelling in Hawaii, Canton Island and Laucala Bay in Suva, en route between America and Australia. The service had just begun when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, in December 1941. I had the good fortune to be a passenger aboard the last southbound Clipper Service flight, one day before the attack on Pearl Harbour. I had been accompanying the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, Sir Harry Luke, on a sea tour of the Line Islands. We boarded the seaplane at Canton Island in mid-Pacific, as Sir Harry had decided to return to Suva quickly because of reports of Japanese naval movements in the Pacific". Slightly off-topic, and one for the Make-as-you-Will basket; Ric, as you will be aware, Sir Harry Luke was a fluent French speaker and instrumental in persuading the French Resident Commissioner in the New Hebrides [now Vanuatu] to denounce the Vichy Government and support de Gaulle's Free French Movement. In fact, the New Hebrides was the first of France's overseas territories to support de Gaulle with New Caledonia soon following suit. Sir Harry is recognised - often not fully - as having had a vital role in New Caldonia's decision. Something which, possibly, could not be affected by telegram. An historical perspective is in the book "The Cross of Lorraine in the South Pacific" - fascinating stuff! If the French territories in the SW-Pacific had remained loyal to the Vichy Government, the US would not have been able to use New Caledonia to build-up before and after the Battle of the Coral Sea, and the landings of Guadacanal in the Solomons. Would Sir Ian aka Mungo T be willing to flesh more detail on the flight? This being to identify, if not fully covered by Tom King contacts with Ian Thomson, what if any prior consignments ex Suva Sir Harry may have prepared for delivery to Gardner. Ian Thomson, as Sir Harry's aide-de-camp, was 21 at this time and such arrangements would typically be tasked to him. Also - re "Kuata" [possibly Teng Koata]. 30 November, I have him banished back to northern Kiribati at this time. Minor point, but were his movements mentioned in your 1999 interview with Otiria O'Brian? LTM Peter Vincent **************************************************************************** From Ric Fascinating. I wasn't aware that Mungo had written a book. Tom King has corresponded with him and he has been helpful in suggesting people whom we might talk to who might know something about the bones, but so far they've all turned out to be dead now. Koata's possible presence on Gardner in November of '41 is very interesting and possibly significant. The last we knew of him was that he had gone to Tarawa, possibly for medical treatment, (do you have information indicating banishment?) in September of 1940. We have no record of him returning to the island and he is listed in later records as having resigned his position as Island Magistrate in 1941. If Koata did, in fact, return to Gardner in, say, the spring of 1941, that would put him there during Gallagher's absence in the summer of '41 and open the possibility that it was during that time period when some of the events described by Emily - i.e. discovery of airplane wreckage on the reef and bones on the shore, and the quarantine of the Nutiran shoreline by "the Onotoa man" (Koata was from Onotoa). This could explain why Gallagher never reported any of these incidents. He died with three days of his return in late September. **************************************************************************** From Christian D. Hi Ric! My reference is the book by Jon Krupnick: "Pan American Pacific Pioneers". Page 211 is the last flight to New Zealand -which ended up going round the world. It did go to Suva on Dec 5/6, and on to Noumea on the 7th. Captains Ford and Mack. On Nov 26, northbound, it had been the same plane, on only the second flight which stopped in Suva, Cpt Lodesson. Page 209. The very first flight to stop at Suva, page 206, had started on Nov 5th 1941. Many other pages have details and pictures of letter postmarks. Now for a question I've had for a while: the Viti seems quite comfortable visiting Canton... When was the big ship channel dug to give access to the Canton lagoon? Seems to me to have been too big an endeavor to have been done before the War?!? Cheers. Christian D **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks. The picture is coming together. I don't know when the channel was dug at Canton but December of '41 does seem a bit early. **************************************************************************** From Denise Ric asks "Had the British government extended landing rights in Fiji to PAA by December 1941?" I don't know the answer to this, but there's a niggle at the back of my mind that this could be the wrong question you're asking. You see, flying boats/Clippers landed at Laucala Bay, on the opposite side of the pennisula from Suva Harbour. They did so definitely during the 50s (I have very early memories of seeing them come in, which would have been in the late 50s.) (Also, this is how my father arrived in Suva in the early 50s) and I have seen photos of them landing at that site during the 40s. But here's what makes this fact important. During the build-up to WWII this area of Laucala Bay was given over to the New Zealand Air Force to be the base for their Pacific Operations. The area remained in Kiwi hands until it was given back to Fiji in the late 60s to form the basis of The University of The South Pacific. (The area now known as The Lower Campus is the old sea plane hanger - which you'd know since you've been to USP - if the old hanger is still standing, that is! But you'd definitely have seen the old sea wall that made for the calm area of sea where the planes landed) Look, I don't know anything about how an army base/air force base/navy base in a foreign country is constituted in relation to the government of that self-same foreign country ... but since this site was in Kiwi hands and since this is where the sea planes landed from at least the 40s, there's a chance that who landed there was a Kiwi decision. If that were indeed the case, I'm guessing that the British Government wouldn't have been allowed to have any say in who was allowed to land there ... which makes your question redundant. Hope this helps. LTM (who loves a good flying boat) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric It would be interesting to know how the permission to land at Suva came about. Sir Harry had a reputation for being somewhat biased against the Yanks. *************************************************************************** From Jim Tierney Ric--Answering your three questions on the PanAm Clipper schedule...... ONE-Yes-in Oct/Nov 1941--Suva added as overnight stop between Canton/Noumea-- One reason was to break up the long distance between Canton/Noumea and allow the Clipper to carry more payload to Auckland.... TWO--Yes--1st flight to Suva/fiji in Nov 41. Outbound-Canton/Suva/Noumea on Nov8/9/10....Inbound-Noumea/Suva/Canton--Nov 13/14/15. Dateline crossing was involved -just east of Suva. 2nd Flight--Under command of Capt Marius Lodeesen--outbound Canton/Suva/Noumea--Nov20/21/22 Inbound-Noumea/Suva/Canton--Nov 26/27/28... Last flight-before Dec 7th-was Captain Ford in Pacific Clipper--Outbound from SFO on Dec1--Canton/Suva/Noumea---Dec5/6/7--Into Auckland Dec 8th...-Then waited for orders and continued west around the world arriving LaGuardia NYMT on Jan 6th. First two legs were Auclland/Noumea-Dec 15 to evacuate personnel and then Noumea/Gladstone,Australia-Dec 16 then west....... Three--Night landings were not the normal operations but they could be made under the proper conditions and with some surface lighting....They were the exception and not the norm--until the war....... References are --"The Long Way Home"-Ed Dover--about Fords Trip and Pan Am Pacific Pioneers- The rest of the story--by Jon Krupnick-- Revised 2000 edition... Hope this helps--There undoubtedly be others with their inputs....... Any questions--contact me...... LTM-who is lurking out here with me in my reference library Jim Tierney **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks to everyone. As ever, the Earhart Forum knows all, tells all. **************************************************************************** Ric----Further on the Clippers/Luke/Suva questions...... 1-Captain John Tilton made the SFO/Auckland/SFO trip from Nov 5-17.. 2--Captain Marius Lodeesen made the SFO/Auckland/SFO trip from Nov 17-30. 3-Captain Robert Ford made the last flight before the war --SFO/Auckland then around the world tn NYMAT arriving Jan 6th.....Ford carried Sir Harry Luke out of Honolulu on Dec 4th to Canton and on Dec 5th to Suva.......Luke had been in Honolulu for conferences on many things including preparations/plans for war, etc... Luke and Ford had conversations on both legs... On the way in to Suva-Luke requested and Ford gave him a brief aerial tour of his Fijian domain.... Luke got off at Suva.. Luke stayed with his British officials on Canton according to Dovers book..... Luke had to get to Honolulu by some means and he obviously traveled on the Lodeesen flight from Canton/Honolulu......Krupnicks book lists that flight taking place on the 27th Nov. Maybe the IDL time /date changes confused everybody........ One thing is certain---There were Clipper flights from Noumea/Suva/Canton/Honolulu and return........ Hope this helps.... Jim Tierney **************************************************************************** From Ric Aaaargh! We were doing great right up until Sir Harry leaves Hawaii on December 4th. That is totally at odds with Sir Harry's book/diary, Mungo Thomson's book, and Tofiga's recollections and notes. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:41:46 EST From: Denise Subject: Old Pilot's Tale Thinking about Wombat's remark of not wanting to land a plane on a reef, and realising his reef experience no doubt consists of Australia's wonderful and unsurpassed Great Barrier Reef, (Great reef, Wombat! But not one I'd want to land a plane on either!) I realised that we were talking at cross purposes and about different sorts of reefs. It made me wonder if maybe a piece of Pacific folklore - no doubt An Old Pilot's Tale - was not as widely known as I imagined. It goes like this: "1) An atoll with a lagoon usually was once an island with a volcano. 2) Any island that once had a volcano has at least one ancient lava flow. 3) Lava backs up and hardens in water forming something like a bench or a ledge along the former shoreline. 4) Coral grows around the ancient lava ledge forming a reef. 5) If the reef is exposed at low-tide coral doesn't grow over the ledge top. (Coral hating exposure to sunlight!) Ergo ... where Nature provides a lagoon, she usually also provides an emergency runway!" Nikumaroro has a lagoon. Thus, according to this piece of folk wisdom, it should also have a lava ledge-based reef? TIGHAR knows that reef well. Is it one of the types I'm talking about? Exposed at low tide? Black and shiny and flat and dead on the top, but flourishing coral around the sides? If so, then BINGO! Folk wisdom prevails! Mind you, since these ledges are millenium-old, and are usually cracked and fissured and holed and eroded, you'd have to be a pretty intrepid sort of pilot - or be in the midst of a pretty dire emergency - to use one. One wheel in a fissure and you've flipped your plane. You definitely wouldn't do it by choice Something else has just suggested itself to me. I don't know where I heard or read that A.E. consulted Pacific-based companies when planning her trip ... but if you take it as a given and extrapolate out from the piece of folklore above, you come up with a very plausible scenerio ... and one that has her ending up where she did: A.E. in discussion with a Pacific-based air company asks the most logical question ... the one definitely foremost in her mind ... AMELIA: What do I do if I miss Howland? ... is given the best piece of advice based on what is believed in the Pacific. OLD PILOT: Find the nearest atoll with a lagoon and land on the reef! It makes sense. In fact, it makes more than sense. The lady was no fool. She'd have known there was a chance she'd miss Howland, so she definitely would have asked around for alternatives. And if she had, what I've speculated above is probably very, very likely. Hey, this would also could explain why she overflew McKean. I have no idea what McKean looks like, but if a scenerio as above took place, if it doesn't have a lagoon, she would have kept going. Nikumaroro, on the other hand, DOES have a lagoon. Ergo ... this is the island and the reef chosen! LTM (who loves it when her wilder ideas fit with the known facts) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric McKean is technically a "makatea" rather than an atoll. Its lagoon is merely a depression in the middle of the island full of bird droppings. Charming place. Its surrounding reef is very rugged. Atolls are, indeed, former volcanoes but there are no exposed lava flows. All of the rock is waaaay down below and everything on the surface is coral. It is, however, the case that portions of the surrounding reef flat can be quite smooth and dry at low tide. There are large areas on Niku's reef flat where you literally could roller skate. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:45:33 EST From: Woody Subject: Alan's visit to Australia Ric, Ask Allen if he can go to the National Library of Austrailia and access the papers of John Russell Black. This man was on the Hagen- Sepik Tour of PNG and spent most of his military career there. His papers were donated to the NLA after his death in 1988.The papers span the years 1933 to 1988. He was in Lae for Amelias takeoff. The proscribed dates on his papers (This segment cannot be released until after a certain date that maybe Allen can ascertain for me) are from Jan 1937 to Sept1937. How curious. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll leave it up to Alan whether he wants to follow up on this. How do you know that Black was at Lae when Earhart was there? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:46:25 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: The Wreck Photo, revisited John Watson wrote:- >construction or repair) with the engine off very clearly shows an opening in >firewall where the exhaust stack goes through, and the wreck photo just as >clearly shows that the firewall of that airplane is solid, with no opening. > >I can re-send those pic's to you if you like. You can make out a sort of exhaust hole shape in the visible bulkhead. But then again, this sort of arrangement (exhaust collector ring exiting outboard - under the wing) was fairly common - by no means unique to the L10. There are other details on the wreck bulkhead which differ from the images taken of AE's L10E bulkhead during the repairs. Ric Seapin wrote:- > I may be mistaken, but I thought TIGHAR proved this photo to be the >wreckage of a Japanese aircraft. No. Ric examined blueprints which seemed to indicate it wasn't the speculated Tachikawa Ki-54. However I'm not sure I agreed that the blueprints were detailed structural drawings, but possibly just schematics - showing basic layouts but with no detail. If anyone wants to discuss this intriguing photo off forum, email me. LTM Simon #2120 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:49:59 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: GPS Mapping About a year(maybe 2) ago Uncle Sugar turned off SA-selective availability off in the GPS system that was biasing the signal to civil users. Another try might be in order for Niku IIII. If my understanding is correct, even an el cheapo unit will take you with 10 ft./3 meters accuracy. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric That is also my understanding. That kind of accuracy if useful for georeferencing the island and general navigation through the bush. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:52:26 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Aerial photography Throw away cameras are great but in this case I would suggest an ordinary camera with a zoom lens. Just in case... **************************************************************************** From Ric Got that Alan? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:55:52 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Died on Baker? Interesting - i've never seen this one before... Howland Island was never on Pan Am's expansion plans because it did not have a protected harbor. However, a runway was built there for Amelia Earhart's attempted flight around the world. Fred Noonan, a Pan Am navigator accompanied her on this trip. Noonan was experienced with navigation in the Pacific and finding this island should not have been a problem for him. The fact that they didn't make it to Howland makes for many fascinating stories, the most likely of which was that they found Baker Island, the sister island to Howland, ditched there and died while waiting to be rescued. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Odd that the Dept. of Interior colonists on Baker didn't notice them. Where did you dig up that gem? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:03:52 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Photos of Niku From Alan Caldwell: " . . . . if we pass anywhere near Niku I'll take a few pictures. I assume from 43,000' would still be ok if I hold my throw-away camera steady." Things will be okay, Alan. The photographic industry has made great strides in the past decade on the optical qualities of its throw-away camera. Just this year they have gotten to the point where they can discern features on a human face at ranges of up to 6-8 feet. So, from 43,000 feet Niku will present a splendid view. Plus, shooting through the two layers of 3/8-inch thick "windows" will add to your enjoyment. You will be amazed at the quality of the photos. Please share them with us when you return. :-) LTM, a former shutterbug Dennis O. McGee *************************************************************************** From Ric Never fear Dennis. Herman has already straightened him out on that. I think we may need to add a new warning to the Forum welcome message: Caution - Some Forum contributors are known to exhibit a dry, wry and subtle sense of humor which can take the careless unawares and cause acute embarrassment if taken seriously. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:18:36 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The Voyage of the Viti This really is a wonderful example of the Forum in action. Re. Sir Ian's book -- it's actually that which led us to him. I saw it at the Fiji Museum; the people there thought he'd died recently, but had an address for his son, and co-author, and publisher, in New Zealand. I wrote to him expressing regret at his father's passing and wondering if he'd left any papers. Shortly got an aerogramme from Sir Ian in Scotland, that began something like "Whilst some in Fiji may equate Scotland with the Hereafter, I have in fact not passed on...." He's been wonderfully helpful, putting us in touch with, for instance, Sir Harry's son, who has directed us to Sir Harry's papers at Oxford, which hopefully somebody can look through soon. He also launched us on the search for Peri-Johnson, in which several Forum members were fruitfully involved, though in the end we came up with no data. I can try to pursue some of this with him the next time I write, but that won't be until I get this &^%$#@%$ book off my back. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:24:55 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Niku Photography When you go to down under on your trip, before you take your seat ask to go the cockpit and visit with the flight crew. Ask them if the flight plan will take you within photo range of Niku. If so get a time(GMT) and ask for a heads-up. We(american carriers) do not allow passengers in the front office during flight but several of the foreign carriers do and if you're very fortunate, the Skipper may even allow you to come up front for your shot. I can possibly help with some charts & Lat/Longs so they can figure out just how close you will get. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:39:37 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: PA Clippers In answer to Janet's question about how many Clippers did Pan Am have in service on December 7, 1941, I believe there were only 3: China Clipper, Hawaii Clipper, and Phillipine Clipper. All were Martin M-130's, the only 3 ever built. Boeing delivered the bigger & better B-314 not long after. None survive today. Too bad. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric According to the article I quoted from the Journal of the Aviation Historical Society of New Zealand, B-314 NC18606 "American Clipper" made a survey flight to New Zealand as early as August 1939 commanded by Captain John Tilton. A second survey flight by B-314 NC18601 "Honolulu Clipper" arrived in Auckland on November 23, 1939 commanded by Captain Wm. A. Cluthe (whose name may be familar to TIGHARs as the donor of the Noonan sextant to the National Musuem of Naval Aviation in Pensacola). There were several more of the big Boeings in service by December 1941 including NC18611 "Anzac Clipper" and NC18602 unofficially "Pacific Clipper" whihc made the post-Pearl 'round the world flight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:49:09 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Vaguely worrying report On New Zealand radio today, quoting a Kiribati government newsletter. Christmas (Kiritimati) and Fanning islands are becoming an increasingly popular destination for US cruise liners, apparently in part because they are not too far from Honolulu. Two recent arrivals have generated major revenue. Christmas and Fanning reportedly have good diving, while obviously there's nothing on Niku to spend money on. However, a further 10 liners are to visit Kiribati this year under a deal signed recently between the government and a US-Norwegian shipping line. Not hard to imagine "the island where Amelia Earhart wound up" as a popular calling point eventually. LTM (who was sick as a dog on the Barrier Reef, let alone the mid-Pacific) Phil Tanner 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Phil. We'll want to discuss this with the government when we're in Tarawa next month. Did they mention the name of the US-Norwegian shipping line? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:50:36 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: PA Clippers The following website seems to have a pretty definitive history of PAAs flying boats. I don't know what their sources are (hence, how accurate the info), but it seems consistent with the data that has emerged from the FORUM. http://www.flyingclippers.com/main.html LTM Kerry Tiller #2350 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:52:33 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Clippers in 1941-42 But wasn't one of the Clippers shot up by Japanese fighters while moored at Wake Island shortly after Pearl Harbor? Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric Now that you mention it, I remember that story. It think it was one of the Martin 130s. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:57:03 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Alan's visit to Australia Ric and Woody, I would be happy to do that except the library is not in Sydney. It is in Canberra. It is also on the internet and I would imagine Woody might be able to email them and possibly get someone to check Black's papers for the relevant dates. I'm sure there would be a fee as the papers are in 20 boxes and it seems to me there should be some significant reason to do this. I'm not sure what that might be other than curiosity. I can't think what info Black might have that would move the ball forward. Perhaps I'm just missing the point. At any rate here is the library URL. http://www.nla.gov.au Here is what the NLA catologue of manuscripts has to say about the papers. Notes: Manuscript reference no. : NLA MS 8346. Available for reference (except for two large diaries from Series 3 which are restricted). Diaries also available on microfilm. Associated materials: maps of the Hagen-Sepik Patrol, 1938-1939 are held by National Library, Map section MAP RM 2955 and MAP G 8141.E27. Background: Cadet Patrol Officer in New Guinea (1933-39); served with ANGAU (1940-45); British Borneo Civil Affairs Unit (1945-46); Assistant Director of Planning & Research in New Guinea (1946-48). In 1948 Black resigned to pursue private business. Summary: The collection is organised in the following series: 1. Curriculum vitae & autobiographical notes. 2. General administration, 1933-37: includes 10 diaries & other papers relating to Black's career as Cadet Patrol Officer in New Guinea. 3. Hagen-Sepik Patrol, 1937-39: includes correspondence, maps, survey books, photographs & diaries. Diaries contain detailed & illustrated accounts of Black's role in the Hagen-Sepik Patrol. 4. War service - New Guinea, 1940-44: papers relating to Black's service with ANGAU during the war. 5. War service -Boneo, 1945: mostly roneoed notes issued to personnel. 6. Post-war Administration, 1946-47: papers relating to Black's position as Assistant Director Planning & Research in Port Moresby. 7. Post war business, 1948-51: Diaries, letter books, staff work books & other papers, relating to Black's various business interests in Port Moresby. 8. Post New Guinea, 1951-88: Black returned to South Australia in 1951, but he maintained an interest in New Guinea. Includes correspondence, cuttings & other papers. Indexes: Descriptive list available. References: Guide to collections of manuscripts relating to Australia ; E725. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Nothing about a proscribed portion of the record and nothing about Lae or Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:58:25 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Clippers in Pacific--Dec 7th, 1941 Here is a list on PanAm Clippers in the Pacific Area/Division on Dec6/7/8 1941.. One S-42B--Hong Kong Clipper- bombed/burned/sank at moorings-Hong Kong Harbor-Dec 8th AM Two Martin M-130s--China Clipper-in SFO waiting maintenance-returned from Singapore on Dec 6th Philippine Clipper--enroute from Wake/Guam-Sunday AM-Returned to Wake-shot up by Japanese a/c-returned safely to Honolulu with passengers and evacuated PAA personnel Four Boeing B-314s--- Honolulu Clipper- in SFO-maintenance American Clipper --in SFO getting ready for next trip--cancelled Anzac Clipper--enroute to Honolulu-left SFO Dec6th-diverted to Hilo, Hawaii on Sun Dec7th landed approx 10AM--returned to SFO next day. Capt. Turner commanding. Pacific Clipper--Enroute Noumea/Auckland--arrived Auckland Dec 8th--then went around the world westward...Captain Ford in command That is all there were in the Pacific Division at that time. All flight operations were suspended for a period of some days / weeks until everything was transferred to the US Navy and the actual danger situation was evaluated. LTM Jim Tierney ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:01:10 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: PA Clippers Actually there were quite a few more Clippers, the tradition of naming PanAm flying boats "Clipper..." beginning with the introduction of the Sikorsky S-42 in 1934. Ten were delivered: NC-822M (c/n 4200X) was delivered on 5 June 1934 and baptized Brazilian Clipper. It was later rebaptized Columbian Clipper. c/n 4201 became NC-823M West Indies Clipper. It was later rebaptized Pan American Clipper and later still Hong Kong Clipper. C/n 4202 became NC-824M was never baptized and was w/o on 20/12/35, became NC-15374 Antilles Clipper. c/n 4205 (S-42A) became NC-15375 Brazilian Clipper. c/n 4206 S-42A) became NC-15376 Dominican Clipper. C/n 4207 was the first S-42B and became NC-16734 Pan American Clipper II. This a/c was later rebaptized Samoan Clipper. c/n 4208 (S-42B) became NC-16735 Bermuda Clipper, later rebaptized Alaska Clipper and later still Hong Kong Clipper II. c/n (S-42B) became NC-16736 Pan American Clipper III. It later became Bermuda Clipper. The names given to the S-42s reflected the areas in which individual aircraft operated. Pan American Clippers were used on survey work. From 9 October 1935 on three Martin M-130 were added. c/n 556 became NC-14714 Hawaii Clipper. c/n 557 became NC-14715 Philippine Clipper. c/n 558 became NC-14716 China Clipper. Twelve Boeing 314 were added to the fleet in 1939, with the first delivery on January 27 of c/n 1988, registered NC-18601. Only three would ever be named Clipper, the first aircraft not having a name at all. These Clippers were: c/n 1990 which was registered NC-18603 and was originally named Yankee. It was later named Atlantic Clipper (this a/c crashed at Lisbon on February 22 1943). C/n 1992 was NC-18605 Dixie Clipper. c/n 2086 NC-18612 Pacific Clipper. This latter a/c is the one caught in New Zealand after Pearl Harbor which returned to the US via Africa and Brazil. It was renamed Capetown Clipper. Source : P. St. John Turner, author of "Pictorial History of Pan American World Airways" Hope this helps. Herman ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:02:00 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Pan Am Clippers I see I am a few years behind in PA's plane ancestory. I stand corrected. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:05:56 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Noonan as a Celebrity - 1935-1937? Given the overwhelming success of the "China Clipper" inaugural flight in late 1935 (Noonan was the navigator) and the similar success of the Warner Brothers film of the same name (starring Pat O'Brien and Humphrey Bogart) a year later, wasn't Fred Noonan a celebrity by the time AE took delivery of the Electra? **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, there's celebrity and there's celebrity. I'd surprised if the proverbial man-in-the-street would have recognized his name. By contrast, I think most people would have recognized Amelia's name. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:15:12 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Vaguely worrying report <> No: They just said "an agreement between the Kiribati government and the US-Norwegian cruise company". Could be "the US-Norwegian Cruise Company" with capitals, but I couldn't trace that. LTM, Phil 2276 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:22:01 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? I used to think Fred was an ace navigator but in the last few months I have begun to wonder. In a conversation with Mark Farmer(former PA China Clipper nav) he mentioned similar flaws which he also attributed to lack of effort & complacency. The clippers from what I understand mostly DR'd with updates from radio bearings from Alameda & Honolulu. PA 's DF equipment was reported to have a range of 1800 miles either side, 3600 miles total-more than sufficient for mainland-Hawaii. The accuracy of the bearings was reported better than 1.5 degrees even at 1000 miles away. These are quotes from PVH Weems. Celestial was the last redundancy to be implemented. One Fix an hour is sufficient at piston engine aircraft speeds but 1 or 2 more was better-as long as you don't take too many fixes that you are navigating fix-to-fix instead of trying to hold the best and shortest course to your destination. Sounds like Fred wasn't even doing that much. One must take more fixes just to have enough raw data to be able to figure winds aloft & corresponding course corrections if lets say you did not get the DF bearing. I believe the best navs did just that-bearings & cel fixes and compared the two to make sure their DR was correct. It's the same thing today, only we are using GPS & laser-ring gyro inertial platforms. The 767 & 757 I fly have 3 laser-ring gyro IRS's (inertial reference sytems) and are being retrofitted with dual GPS as a further nav accuracy enhancement. The IRS's all monitor each other and if one gets out of wack with the others or the GPS it gives you a red flag on the offender and you simply take it out of the loop andfly on the rest. A good navigator would do the same thing comparing his DR calculations using DF bearing data & celestial fixes enabling him to spot errors or neccesary course corrections. By the way, we still use plotting charts over the Atlantic & Pacific and plot fixes on the charts using the IRS nav data. Keeps one in the loop-good technique. The errors Fred is reported to have routinely tolerated really burst my bubble. 50-120 miles off course? What in the world was he doing all that time? I almost think the average pilot could do better on a straight DR with no updates if he has done the weather & planning carefully and just used good situational awareness. Remember that one? Lack of SA has killed more aviators & aviator wannabees than one can imagine. Bob Brandenburg alleges that Fred was dependant upon DF steers to get to his destinations-I'm inclined to agree. The case is compelling. Add to that the lack of familiarization & practical radio experience on the part of our duo fits in with the scenario of what may have taken place. Fred had his radio operators do that for him too. This seems to reek of some desperation on the part of both AE & FN: AE needed a navigator after quite literally(excuse my french) scaring the shit out of Harry Manning with the ground loop crash in Honolulu and Fred needing not only a job after leaving PA, but also a good dose of publicity in order to help kick-off a navigation school he was rumoured to do next when the world flight was over. So..............Fred gets sloppy, doesn't keep the DR accurately enough to find Howland, no DF steer available. Fred wakes up to the predicament and goes into survival mode and runs the fixes and calculations to go to the nearest island group for a landfall. Comments Ric? Doug Brutlag **************************************************************************** From Ric You make an interesting case. I'm also surprised to learn that \Weems said that the PAA DF was accurate to 1.5 degrees up to 1,000 miles out and usable out to 1,800 miles. That throws a new light on the DF bearings they took on post-loss signals suspected of being from Earhart. Where did Weems say that? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:22:50 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Wake You can find a description of the event at Wake Island in The Siege of Wake Island: Facing Fearful Odds by Gregory J.W. Urwin on page 253. (1997: University of Nebraska Press ISBN #0-8032-4555-6). It is an excellent history of the siege of Wake. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:27:20 EST From: Richard Subject: Re: PA Clippers Are we writing a history of the "clippers" or are we trying to obtain information related to the "search for AE"? Richard *************************************************************************** From Ric You're right. This thread has wandered far off topic. We now return to our regularly scheduled forum. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:35:44 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: GPS Mapping > From Ric > > That is also my understanding. That kind of accuracy if useful for > georeferencing the island and general navigation through the bush. Perhaps also useful for narrowing down sites around 2 miles from whatever small stands of coconuts were on the island when Gallagher arrived. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric We hardly need GPS to do that, unless of course Gallagher had GPS. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:37:19 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Died on Baker? > From Ric > > Odd that the Dept. of Interior colonists on Baker didn't notice them. Where > did you dig up that gem? Just snooping around the web looking for info on Flying Boats in the Pacific.. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric See what happens when we get too far off topic? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:38:54 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Alan's visit to Australia > From Ric > > Nothing about a proscribed portion of the record and nothing about Lae or > Earhart. Mount Hagen is on the Highland Highway, an important truck route leading 380 miles (610 km) east to Lae (on the coast). The town, established as a patrol post in 1936,......... As Lae was the nearest town, it is just possible that he was in Lae at the time of Earhart's flight. Being a cadet officer I wonder if some of the photos mentioned may be of the aircraft taking off (with or without belly antenna). The popular camera at the time was a Kodak "Box Brownie 620". I still have one I've owned since the 60's (my first camera). It takes quite a large negative and the detail is surprising. If Canberra wasn't half way down the country I'd sneak down and have a look. Perhaps if I can scrape up some money I could take that holiday I've been promising myself (for years).. I'll think about it. But petrol here is around $4.00 / gallon, so it makes for a fairly expensinve trip. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:49:40 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re-Harry Lukes Flights Ric--I can find only one book in my reference Library that mentions Harry Luke aboard the Clippers...That is -Ed Dovers Book-The Long Way Home. Published by Paladwr Press 1999. It is based on Dovers interviews with Captain Ford--in January 1992 and August 1993. Personal and taped interviews along with other crew members from that flight. Dover has reconstructed conversations from his notes----This would be to the best rememberances of Ford and others. He does put Luke aboard from Honolulu to.Canton to Suva with the aerial tour of Suva before landing at Lukes request. I find no references to Luke being on the inbound flight-Suva/Canton/Honolulu which was flown by Marius Lodeesen. His book says he was on it. I would have to go with Lukes book/rememberances as taking precedence over anything else. We do know there were flights----- Will we take his word as unimpeachable gospel or are there chances for errors. This closes me out on Luke/Suva/etc. unless you want me to do more. LTM---always standing here lurking-ready with a reference book to correct the musings/ramblings of others. Jim Tierney **************************************************************************** From Ric Lukes' book was based upon a diary and is supported by other contemporaneous documents. Ford's was relating 50 plus year old memories. No contest. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:56:27 EST From: Thomas Subject: Vaguely worrying report For what it is worth, the name of the cruise company is Norwegian Cruise Line, they can be found on http://www.ncl.com/ If you have a look at the itinerary for Hawaii you'll see Fanning isle, Kiribati. LTM Thomas #2380 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:57:57 EST From: Ron Dawson Subject: Re: Noonan as a Celebrity - 1935-1937? Fred may have been concerned about possible future notoriety since in an October, 1935 letter to an old friend in Louisiana, he admonished the friend "not to discuss their friendship for publication". This might sound like a George Putnam caveat, but this was prior to their 1937 connection. Smooth Sailing, Ron Dawson 2126 **************************************************************************** From Ric Interesting. More likely a Juan Trippe caveat. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:37:34 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? > The errors Fred is reported to have routinely tolerated really burst my > bubble. 50-120 miles off course? What in the world was he doing all that > time? Well, for one thing he wasn't flying the airplane. I seem to recall Earhart missing somewhere large (England??) and landing in a field in another country (Ireland?). Can't remember exactly. Fred could only plot the anticipated course to where that should be and take fixes to work out where they were. But 50 to 120 miles off course? Over what distance? I heard a tale about one student locally (no names mentioned) who was around 60 miles off course on a 130 mile track, but the airfield he landed at had an "M" in the name - just like the one he was supposed to land at. Now that IS bad navigation. I always thought Fred's arrivals at either side of his destination were supposed to be deliberate to allow him to fly down the line if there were no nav aids on arrival.. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric No. The whole point of the Pan Am sytem is that there WERE navaids (Adcock DF stations) at the destinations. The Pan Am flights navigated direct. No offset. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:06:18 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? > From Doug Brutlag > > I used to think Fred was an ace navigator but in the last > few months I have begun to wonder. ... On the fatal flight, FN got himself and AE close enough to produce signal strength 5 on the Itasca. That was good enough for their purposes--if only the DF and communication radios had worked correctly or if other lucky breaks had gone their way (visual sighting of Howland from a long way out). In the way I tell the story to myself, neither FN or AE knew that they had a blindspot until it was too late. They didn't anticipate that they would get zero (0) help from the Itasca. It seems that FN trusted AE to handle that part of the flight plan, and it also seems that she may not have understood the theory and practice of DF. She wanted Itasca to locate them--even though she could not hear the Itasca--and when she whistled, it was not long enough for Itasca to get a plot; then she tried to DF on 7500, which was the least useful frequency for DF, and that was the one and only time she is recorded as having received a message from land or sea on the final flight. Bottom line: I'm not sure we should blast Fred when it was Amelia's hand on the dials. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric It seems to me like there was an awful lot of complacency going on, beginning long before the crisis over the Pacific. - Neither one of them was adept at morse code. - AE purposely ducked out of taking the Radio Navigation test while preparing for the first attempt. - AE wrecked the airplane in Hawaii because she wasn't competent to fly it alone at that weight. - They both went along with Joe Gurr's screwball plan of eliminating the trailing wire and lengthening the dorsal antenna. - Fred missed his landfall on the coast of Africa and they had to go to an alternate destination. - AE couldn't get the DF to work on the test flight at Lae and assumed that she was merely too close to the station. - No two-way communication was established with Lae after takeoff and we have good evidence that at least one of the pitot systems was damaged; and yet AE was twice heard to transmit "Everything okay." Although AE seems to have been responsible for handling the radio, Noonan had more than a passing interest in the flight arriving at its destination. I can't see them as being simply the victims of bad luck nor can I see Fred as being devoid of responsibility for going along with AE's "courage is the price" attitude. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:07:49 EST From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: Vaguely worrying report There is another reason for NCL to include a stop at Fanning Island in their Hawaiian cruise itinerary. By law, no foreign-flag vessel may operate exclusively in American waters. If you study the NCL itinerary closely, you'll see that they always include a port-call outside US territory -- Vancouver, Canada...Ensenada, Mexico...or Fanning Island. The big advantage of adding Kiribati is that Tabuaeran (Fanning) is much closer to Hawaii thus allowing for shorter, more convenient, and less expensive 7 day cruise schedules. It seems to me that this Kiribati development indicates a handy expedient for opening the UNITED STATES cruise market and not the other way around. Mainstream cruising is best seen as staying in a hotel where the scenery changes every day. Guests (mostly Americans) want activities, sports, restaurants, and shopping -- so days spent at sea or in undeveloped ports are therefore kept to a bare minimum. Due to the distances involved and the lack of infrastructure, I believe it is highly unlikely that Niku will become a major tourist stop. It will remain an "adventure" destination for the foreseeable future. LTM, Russ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:13:02 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Niku from Shuttle March 7, 1996 Shuttle photo of Niku (Gardner Island). It looks like the other shuttle photos. Available at: (use simple search for Gardner) Also Kanton (use Canton) http://earthrise.space.com/ Daniel Postellon TIGHAR#2263 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:25:57 EST From: John Pratt Subject: Clipper Logbook Just to tuck away the end of the thread, here's the reply to my query to Otto G. Richter Library, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dear Mr. Pratt, I am sorry to report that we do not have the logbook for the famous Ford flight around the work after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. You are correct the specific plane was the Pacific Clipper We do not have any knowledge of the logbook or where it might be located today if still in existence. Craig Likness Head, Archives and Special Collections XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I am not sure that the Pan American records are that relevant, although it would have been amusing to find "one consignment of unidentified bones, property of Sir Harry" listed in the flight manifest. Clearly Sir Ian Thompson's memories and Sir Harry Luke's papers may be a better place to look for bones. Is there a UK researcher who can check the papers? LTM John Pratt 2373 **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. That possibility is currently under discussion. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:28:11 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Pan Am DF Equipment, PVH Weems In PVH Weems book, AIR NAVIGATION 2nd edition, pub. 1938, radio navigation chapter, pages 209-210, it talks about Pan Am using Adcock and "verticle-radiator" aerial systems in their DF equipment. It was a type of system that had been devised to overcome night effect when taking bearings. It also shows a small chart of actual plots of 32 bearings taken on the west coast-Hawaii flights. Other systems were subject to errors of 10-20 degrees or more from night effect. I'll forward a copy to you if you wish. Doug Brutlag **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Doug. Please do. It may be that the post-loss Pan Am bearings are more credible than we had supposed. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:32:02 EST From: Denise Subject: Payload to Auckland Ric says: "It would be interesting to know how the permission to land at Suva came about." I don't know, but the answer could be the one given by Jim Tierney. "One reason was to ... allow the Clipper to carry more payload to Auckland." Look at this for a moment. Here we have a situation where war is expected. The New Zealand Air Force is already stationed in Suva, but nothing else appears to be happening. According to Tom King, under Sir Harry Lukes and "Mungo" Thompson, Fiji wasn't doing anything about organising itself for the war. However, the same can't be said of the Kiwis in Fiji. Although "always drunk and disorderly", according to reports of the time, they seem the only ones to have had their act together. All the activity in Suva - including the building of dad's hospital (then designated as The New Zealand Army Hospital), and the construction of the underground hospital at Tamavua - was being carried out by them. And since they were the only people actually DOING SOMETHING, I imagine they had an awful lot of clout. The guilt factor? So, obviously, if the Kiwis needed something - say, more flights between Suva and Auckland to transport, say, goods and information - I think they would have got it. Especially if it didn't cost Fiji anything. Surely, Pam Am would have been seen as just another flight between Suva and Auckland - and one which cost NZ and Fiji very little. (Maybe the payload Pam Am carried was the payment for landing there. Who knows!) Even the highly Yanko-phobic Sir Harry Lukes wouldn't have stood in their way. And since it landed and departed from within the New Zealand Air Force base, the whole operation was in Kiwi hands anyway. Sir Harry Lukes could have just done a Pilate, and washed HIS hands of the whole affair. That certainly seems like the path of least resistance, and taking that path seemed the type of thing Lukes did best. So maybe that's how the whole situation came about. Although this is just me thinking aloud, I hope this helps. LTM (who is perfectly aware that a Kiwi has no hands. Doesn't even have wings.) Denise P.S. Talking about New Zealand wildlife, and remembering Ric's assertion about dinosaurs ... DNA tests done on the Tuatara - New Zealand's only non-bird fauna - discovered that it ISN'T a lizard after all. It is, in fact, a dinosaur. So Ric's assertion is wrong. Dinosaurs are NOT extinct ... but they soon will be. The New Zealand Conservation Council is desperately underfunded. Any donation will help! So how about it? Want to "Save the Dinosaur", anyone? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:33:21 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? > From Ric > > ... I can't see them as being simply the victims of bad luck > nor can I see Fred as being devoid of responsibility for going along with > AE's "courage is the price" attitude. Agreed. I was not arguing for a finding of innocence on FN's part, just for a better distribution of responsibility between him and AE. And I do so from a position of inferiority to both of them. If TIGHAR's hypothesis is correct, they very nearly won their bet that they could find Howland after an all-night flight from Lae. And if TIGHAR's hypothesis is correct, one or both of them lived long enough to have been rescued. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:39:17 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Earhart & Noonan: Easily and Often Bored? Has anyone else noticed that it appears that Earhart and Noonan became bored after six months to a year with whatever project they became involved in? Also, it appears the accidents, lapses in judgement, personnel problems, etc. typically occurred after Earhart and Noonan had been doing the same thing for more than a year. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:37:57 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Vaguely worrying report The "foreign flag" law explains the stop at Fanning/Tabuaeran nicely. It would take a lot of money to develop Niku for tourism. At a minimum, I expect you would have to build a modern dock, and set up a local population and a local fresh water supply. However, all the uninhabited Phoenix islands have been designated as nature reserves, EXCEPT Nikumaroro. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (who prefers an outside cabin) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:09:44 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? She landed in Ireland. It happens to be the first land one sees flying from New York to England. I don't know why she decided to land in Ireland. Lindbergh also hit upon Ireland in 1927. But he decided he had enough fuel to press continue to Paris. Maybe she was out of gas ? As for erratic navigation, what pilot dares to say he never lost his way at one time in his career ? Consider the Northwest DC-10 that landed at Brussels (Belgium) a couple of years ago, 300 miles short of its destination which was Frankfurt (Germany). For some reason Irish ATC thought it was heading for Brussels and passed the flight on to London who told the pilots to descend, passing them over to Brussels, who without further questioning cleared them for landing... not realizing they didn't have a flight plan from that DC-10. The two pilots panicked when their preset radio's failed to pick up the Frankfurt VORs needed for the landing procedure and announced a "major electronics breakdown". They never realized they were on the Brussels frequency. Brussels Approach told them not to worry and brought them down by radar to a safe landing. At no time had they realized that they in itiating landing ahead of their timing and therefore could not have arrived at their destin ation yet. They called Frankfurt Approach on the Brussels VHF frequency but Brussels didn't notice and gave instructions for approach and ensuing landing. The pilots unthinkingly executed the Brussels ATC orders and landed safely... in the wrong place. Which proves that even the best can make mistakes sometimes. Interestingly the passengers were aware they were landing at Brussels because they had screens in the cabin which showed the aircraft's position. This facility was not available to the cockpit crew. The cabin crew was also aware but had not dared say anything to the cockpit crew. If this sort of error could happen around 1996 or 1997, Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan could just as easily have missed Howland by mistake, flying VFR as they did in 1937. **************************************************************************** From Ric Ireland seems to be the common thread - and Fred was Irish. Hmmmm. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:11:02 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Noonan's Latitude Poor FN is getting bashed and noone does it better than Briand's book. Briand writes that Jackie Cochran convinced Amelia to take Fred out over the Pacific from Los Angeles, fly around in circles till FN was "disoriented", than see if he could get back to LA. Amelia did so and Fred got back, but it was halfway between LA and San Francisco. Roughly a 210 mile error! Don't know how far out they were. She was not "undisturbed" over the navigation error. (p. 156-157, Daughter of the Sky). No cites given. So from Lae to Howland, with Noonan at the chart table, they may have ended up after 20 plus hours just over Niku at 0843!! Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:12:13 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Payload to Auckland Denise says: "According to Tom King, under Sir Harry Lukes and "Mungo" Thompson, Fiji wasn't doing anything about organising itself for the war." That's not "according to me;" it's according to Wainwright Abbott, U.S. Consul in Fiji 1940-42, whose reports I've been scanning at the National Archives. I don't know how much accuracy there is in Mr. Abbott's perceptions, how much is bias, how much reflects the biases of others. Since everything I've heard about Sir Harry, and my experience with Sir Ian ("Mungo") has been very positive, I was surprised at Abbott's postively vituperative situation reports, and I don't put much stock in them at present as anything but expressions of Abbott's opinions. LTM (who has a world of respect for Sir Ian, and for Sir Harry's memory) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:36:22 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Earhart & Noonan: Easily and Often Bored? > From Janet Whitney > > Has anyone else noticed that it appears that Earhart and Noonan became bored > after six months to a year with whatever project they became involved in? > Also, it appears the accidents, lapses in judgement, personnel problems, etc. > typically occurred after Earhart and Noonan had been doing the same thing for > more than a year. You might have something there, Janet. Could you cite some examples? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:37:35 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Save the dinosaur > Dinosaurs are NOT extinct ... but they soon will > be. The New Zealand Conservation Council is desperately underfunded. Any > donation will help! So how about it? Want to "Save the Dinosaur", anyone? What do they eat? I'll send food. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Kiwis. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:52:29 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: MacGuffin redux This article appeared in today's Hartford Courant. Given the Forum's interest in finding a "MacGuffin" I thought that everyone would find this amusing. David Evans Katz ****************************** There's A Hitch Behind The Meaning Of 'MacGuffin' By ROB KYFF The Hartford Courant February 07, 2001 Nan Glass of Hartford wonders about the term "MacGuffin." She encountered it twice on the same day, but with two conflicting meanings and two different spellings. Her first MacGuffinization came when the New York Times Magazine described the late Alec Guinness as "perennially on the scent of: the McGuffin, the bit of magic that lifts a piece out of the common ruck." She was MacGuffinned again when The Courant quoted filmmaker Ken Burns: "The MacGuffin in my Mark Twain film is his Hartford house. It's the symbol of escaping his boyhood. It's the symbol of tragedies that beset his family. And it's ground zero for his creative energies." So is a "MacGuffin" a dash of magic or an essential symbol? Strict MacGuffinists would say neither. The term "MacGuffin," first used by Alfred Hitchcock in a lecture at Columbia University in 1939, is an element in a film, novel or play that provides a pretext for the plot. It may be anything - secret papers, jewelry, money - that propels the story. The MacGuffin itself has little, if any, intrinsic meaning. MacGuffins in Hitchcock's own films include the stolen $40,000 in "Psycho," the scientific formula in "The 39 Steps" and the smuggled microfilm in "North by Northwest." Other cinematic examples include the falcon statue in "The Maltese Falcon" and the mysterious briefcase in "Pulp Fiction." (Some contend Rosebud in "Citizen Kane" is a MacGuffin, but I disagree. Its meaning, revealed at the end of the film, illuminates Kane's life.) But why "MacGuffin"? Hitchcock said the term originated in a strange story told by his longtime Hollywood friend, writer Angus MacPhail: Two Scottish men are riding on a train when one man asks the other about the contents of a package on the overhead luggage rack. "It's a MacGuffin," says the first man, "a device for hunting tigers in Scotland." "But there are no tigers in Scotland," replies the second man. "Well then, it's not a MacGuffin," says the first. As for spelling, most authorities prefer "MacGuffin," in deference to the "Mac" of "MacPhail," but "McGuffin" is an acceptable and common alternative. So the Times' use of "MacGuffin" to mean an uplifting turn of magic and Burns' connotation of a central metaphor both seem to have, well, a Hitch. **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. The forum came to the same conclusion. Just goes to show how the folk process distorts all sorts of language. As I heard Hitchcock tell it in a TV interview, the men on the train are not Scottish but the MacGuffin is said to be used for trapping lions in Scottish Highlands. "But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands." "Then that's no MacGuffin." The story, of course, makes absolutely no sense. If there's a MacGuffin in the search for Amelia Earhart it is, ironically, the fate of the lost flyers. Historically, it really doesn't matter what happened to Earhart and Noonan. What makes the search interesting is the investigative process. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:05:47 EST From: Michael Bahr Subject: Harry Manning What about Harry Manning ? He was heavily involved in Ms. Earhart's radio equipment and took some test flights with her until the groundloop in Hawaii. Then she kicked him of the program. Maybe some documents exist about his assesment and opinion about the Electra 10E and Earhart and the Radio eqipment, etc. Or did'nt he leave anything...? He'd be a great witness to get some info about Earharts handling of the Radio and the Electra. What about his Family? Reading almost all the relevant Books about AE I think that Manning never really liked to be involved with the Worldflight, judging from the photographs he almost always has a sour face and crossed arms. Yet he was a very capable navigator. Everyone who was involved with Earhart's flight so intimately left his or her two cents worth, albeit heavily opinionated, i.e. Paul Mantz, Putnam, Cochran etc. Perhaps it has been already discussed since I am fairly new to the Forum... Michael Bahr **************************************************************************** From Ric Manning's papers are at the Merchant Marine Museum at King's Point, NY but contain no great revelations about Earhart (TIGHAR Stalwart Russ Matthews reviewed them in 1990). Manning is an interesting character in the Earhart saga. He and AE were old friends - perhaps very good friends - but the addition of Noonan to the team just prior to the Oakland/Honolulu flight not exactly an endoresment of his airborne navigational acumen. His departure from the World Flight project following the debacle in Hawaii seems to have been his idea, not hers. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:10:42 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Pan Am DF Equipment, PVH Weems This little "gem " appeared in the August 1937 Sport Aviation in an article titled"That Man Weems".On page 95 at the end of the article. Commander Weems says that Noonan and Amelia Earhart did not overshoot Howland island, a theory that is generally accepted by the public, but actually must have run out of gasoline before reaching the tiny pin-point of land. "Noonan had been flying for Pan American for many years" he asserted, "and it was all in a days work to hit smaller islands than Howland square on the nose" . My father , Col RW Peard USMC, was a USNA graduate Class of 1949.He got his "Wings of Gold" in 1952. At the age of 75 he is still flying and has never jumped out of a " perfectly good airplane". To him thats a plane that hasn't hit the ground yet.He knew Cmdr Weems and took a class from him during his stint at the Naval Academy. He wanted me to post this message. " Cmdr Weems was one of the most innovative and knowledgeable navigation instructors in the world ,barring none.He was constantly looking for ways to simplify navigation methods and to improve the tools of the trade.Anyone that took instruction from him would know exactly where he was, anytime. A fascinating person. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric That's an interesting quote from Weems, especially given that all of Pan Am's destination islands were actually quite a bit larger than Howland. Despite various allegations in various books, we've been able to find no documentation that Noonan ever took instruction from Weems. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:15:14 EST From: Tom Robison Subject: R.I.P. Just heard on the news that Anne Morrow Lindbergh died today. For those of you who may not recognize the name, she was the wife of Charles Lindbergh, "Lucky Lindy". TomR **************************************************************************** From Ric Off topic, but worthy of note. Mrs. Lindbergh was kind enough to endorse our search for Nungesser and Coli back in 1985. Like her husband, she was a very interesting, courageous - and sometimes controversial - person. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:20:23 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Noonan's Capabilities Well, let's be careful in evaluating Noonan's capabilities. Briand claims that AE flew out from LA and then disoriented Noonan, expecting him to deliver them back to LA with accuracy. Let's consider the tools available to Noonan. 1) DR position: This can only be done from a careful log and plot of heading, air/ground speed, and time. If Noonan was deprived of headings and air/ground speed (as reported by the pilot) this tool, although crude, breaks down completely. 2) Celestial: We don't know the significant criteria on this - what time of day, available celestial bodies, or what quality of fix, if any, they would provide. It is possible that no significant latitude info was discernable during the flight time. 3) RDF: This may have been available, but it is unclear whether this was under the control of AE or FN. In summary - FN's navigational toolbag may have been completely in line with the standards of the time. It is entirely possible to pose problems which were poorly addressed by the available tools, and this (as well as the landfall component of Lae-Howland) could be one of them. Nevertheless, it may not reflect any discredit on FN. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric I certainly wouldn't trash Fred based on anything Paul Briand said. (He was the one who suggested that the Electra flew to Saipan because AE and FN forgot to set their directional gyro and flew 90 degrees off course for 20 plus hours.) More damning is the record of Nooan's less-than-rigorous techniques while employed by Pan Am. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:37:39 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Tourism at Niku Dan Postellon wrote: >At a minimum, I expect you would have to build a modern dock, and set up a local >population and a local fresh water supply. Not necessarily. If they really want to go ashore they can drop anchor and send the passengers on a discovery tour in the ship's motor launches. If they can't beach the boats, an inexpensive small dock would suffice. But it would still cost money and the question is : would that be worth the expense ? **************************************************************************** From Ric Let me clear up some misconceptions. You can't "drop anchor" at Niku. The reef drops off too steeply. If you're in close enough to set an anchor, you don't have room to swing without hitting the reef. Any ship visiting Niku has to stand offshore, under power, while people go ashore. The only safe way through the reef is via a narrow (35 feet or so wide) channel blasted through to the beach at the southwest end sometime around 1963. The channel will accommodate a small launch but, in any kind of swell, offloading and onloading passengers is still dangerous. Forget about any kind of dock. It would last only until the next "westerly." The only way to make the island a destination for anything but small "adventure tourism" visits would be to blast a new channel through the main lagoon passage large for a cruise ship to enter the lagoon. Aside from the astronomical cost, the effect of such an action would probably screw up the atoll's entire environment big time. Ain't gonna happen. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:38:59 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: FN's abilities Ron Bright said: " . . . Fred got back, but it was halfway between LA and San Francisco. Roughly a 210 mile error! Don't know how far out they were. She was not "undisturbed" over the navigation error. (p. 156-157, Daughter of the Sky). No cites given." Sounds like another urban legend. Of course, we don't know the time of day of the myth, the weather conditions, how far out from LA she alleged flew, etc. etc. Even a nugget (new guy) would know enough to take a heading of 090 degrees (that's due East for the navigationally challenged :-) ) and you'd eventually hit land. LTM, who still confuses port and starboard Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:41:04 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: McGuffin I read in a film history when I was a kid (about 8 years ago) that the term "McGuffin" was invented about 1915 by Pearl White, star of the silent film series "Perils of Pauline." Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric I think I met her on a safari in Scotland once. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:47:46 EST From: Bill Warren Subject: Re: MacGuffin redux Does anyone in this forum want to go and try to find her plane? I have all the electronics and some data. Bill Warren San Diego, Calif. Pres., Golden Quest Ltd. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:50:12 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: MacGuffin redux Dealing with names and definitions is part of science. Accepting a loose fit between our concepts and reality is also part of science. All measurements are accompanied, at least in principle, by an "error bar." And the whole concept of precise definition and perfect measurement breaks down at the quantum level, where things are happening for which we have no clear and distinct ideas and where we know that we cannot measure anything without modifying it. The man who coined the term "isotope" for elements that differ in atomic weights but have identical chemical properties objected to the application of the term to deuterium (an atom that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus) and hydrogen (an atom that contains one proton in its nucleus) because the two gases do NOT have identical chemical characteristics. The inventor of the term was overruled by the scientific community because the bonding capacity of deuterium is the same as that of hydrogen (only one electron in the outer shell). For my purposes, the definition of the term given by David Katz is "close enough" to Hitchcock's. If we were filming "TIGHAR: The Movie", the quest to discover an artifact that will prove the hypothesis to any idiot is what makes the plot tick. The "any-idiot-artifact" (AIA) is not important in its own right; what is sought is confirmation of a method of doing historical research and aircraft preservation in contrast to alternative theories. But I'm not going to kill or die for this opinion. When people objected to the use of "MacGuffin", I stopped using it in public. ;o) Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:52:02 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Ric wrote: > More damning is the record of Nooan's less-than-rigorous techniques while > employed by Pan Am. Life is full of tradeoffs. It's a kind of economics problem. Why spend more energy than necessary on a task? Some people like to, some don't. Up until forming his alliance with AE, FN did OK getting airplanes from one place to another with a reasonable safety margin. The stories of how he behaved on commercial flights with a professional crew don't tell us with any certitude how he behaved on the fatal flight. He might have worked like a dog all night long and gotten within ten miles of Howland for all we know. He never intended to hit the island by unassisted navigation. If there had been two-way communication with the Itasca, I think they would have made it. The big clue that we know everyone missed was the failure to get any DF on the test flight at Lae. AE attributed it to being "too close." In retrospect, we can see what a huge mistake this was not to test the equipment and the operator(s) until the system worked. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:02:16 EST From: John Dipi Subject: Re: Tourism at Niku Ric, you are right about the reef on Niku. Probably the same condition caused the USS Pres. Taylor to get stuck on the the reef at Canton on Feb. 13th 1942. *************************************************************************** From Ric Slightly different problem. Canton is a much larger atoll with a far larger lagoon and, in 1942, had a passable channel which could accommodate a vessel the size of the President Taylor. The trouble was, the captain missed the channel. Oooops. There was a story that went around about the ship running from a Japanese submarine but a forum subscriber who was there (sorry, I've lost track of who) said it was just an accident. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:03:37 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Cut to the chase Let's cut to the chase in this MacGuffin business. The only thing which will prove that Niku is not "Fantasy Island" is to find... "Da plane.... da plane....!" We may not find "da plane" but we've got to find something which definitively proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "da plane" was there. Positive I-D. The standards of proof in this case are high. So should our standards of research and scholarship be. LTM (who doesn't accept alibis) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:00:42 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Pan Am DF Equipment, PVH Weems My mistake,this article was from the August of 1938 Sport Aviation.The previous paragraph on page 95 may shed some light on Fred's association with CmdrWeems. Of all his pupils-including Harold Gatty- whom he says is "one of the best aerial navigators in the world"; Harold Bromley, Jack Lambie,and Dick Merrill, and Captain Alex Papana , of the Rumanian Air Force- only Fred Noonan, who was a part-time student, was lost at sea. The article also says that the majority of Weem's students were study by mail. Goes on to explain why Fred wrote that letter to Weems.Guess Fred should have gone full-time,huh?! I'll mail you a copy of the article if you dont have one. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, I'd like to see the article. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:02 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Pan Am DF Equipment, PVH Weems As to your comment about destination points.The small islands he was commenting on were called "reference points".They are used as navigation aids to keep you on course between destinations. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:03:50 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities (referencing AE's alleged test of Noonan's ability) It would be my guess that this occured in the daytime. If it had happened on a clear night when Fred had heavenly bodies to do his calculations with, my bet is that he could have put her "dead on" back to their takeoff point. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:21:41 EST From: Dean Alexander Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Ric wrote: > More damning is the record of Nooan's less-than-rigorous techniques while > employed by Pan Am. Did I miss this thread somewhere along the line? What are the items in question that show Noonan employed "less than rigorous techniques"? **************************************************************************** From Ric The following posting appeared on February 6, 2001: From Doug Brutlag I used to think Fred was an ace navigator but in the last few months I have begun to wonder. In a conversation with Mark Farmer(former PA China Clipper nav) he mentioned similar flaws which he also attributed to lack of effort & complacency. The clippers from what I understand mostly DR'd with updates from radio bearings from Alameda & Honolulu. PA 's DF equipment was reported to have a range of 1800 miles either side, 3600 miles total-more than sufficient for mainland-Hawaii. The accuracy of the bearings was reported better than 1.5 degrees even at 1000 miles away. These are quotes from PVH Weems. Celestial was the last redundancy to be implemented. One Fix an hour is sufficient at piston engine aircraft speeds but 1 or 2 more was better-as long as you don't take too many fixes that you are navigating fix-to-fix instead of trying to hold the best and shortest course to your destination. Sounds like Fred wasn't even doing that much. One must take more fixes just to have enough raw data to be able to figure winds aloft & corresponding course corrections if lets say you did not get the DF bearing. I believe the best navs did just that-bearings & cel fixes and compared the two to make sure their DR was correct. It's the same thing today, only we are using GPS & laser-ring gyro inertial platforms. The 767 & 757 I fly have 3 laser-ring gyro IRS's (inertial reference sytems) and are being retrofitted with dual GPS as a further nav accuracy enhancement. The IRS's all monitor each other and if one gets out of wack with the others or the GPS it gives you a red flag on the offender and you simply take it out of the loop andfly on the rest. A good navigator would do the same thing comparing his DR calculations using DF bearing data & celestial fixes enabling him to spot errors or neccesary course corrections. By the way, we still use plotting charts over the Atlantic & Pacific and plot fixes on the charts using the IRS nav data. Keeps one in the loop-good technique. The errors Fred is reported to have routinely tolerated really burst my bubble. 50-120 miles off course? What in the world was he doing all that time? I almost think the average pilot could do better on a straight DR with no updates if he has done the weather & planning carefully and just used good situational awareness. Remember that one? Lack of SA has killed more aviators & aviator wannabees than one can imagine. Bob Brandenburg alleges that Fred was dependant upon DF steers to get to his destinations-I'm inclined to agree. The case is compelling. Add to that the lack of familiarization & practical radio experience on the part of our duo fits in with the scenario of what may have taken place. Fred had his radio operators do that for him too. This seems to reek of some desperation on the part of both AE & FN: AE needed a navigator after quite literally(excuse my french) scaring the shit out of Harry Manning with the ground loop crash in Honolulu and Fred needing not only a job after leaving PA, but also a good dose of publicity in order to help kick-off a navigation school he was rumoured to do next when the world flight was over. So..............Fred gets sloppy, doesn't keep the DR accurately enough to find Howland, no DF steer available. Fred wakes up to the predicament and goes into survival mode and runs the fixes and calculations to go to the nearest island group for a landfall. Comments Ric? Doug Brutlag ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:30:17 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: FN's abilities This whole tale about Earhart trying to confuse Noonan's sense of direction sounds crazy. I don't think there's a single pilot out there who hasn't had his instructor blindfold him, fly a few circles and other changes of heading and altitude, then remove the hood and ask where the airport is. Just a part of our very basic initial training. Of course we learn to think which way we were headed, look where the sun is (as long as its not dead overhead) and turn and look back the way we came. I can't see a navigator being fooled for one moment as to the general direction home - AND he'd have had to be blind (folded, fogged, hooded, locked in the thunderbox etc...) the whole time to be lost. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric There's really no evidence that it ever happened. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:33:36 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Shipwrecked I was interested to hear (on watching the start of the show) that the new series of the British show "Shipwrecked" (Like survivor. but a lot less loot!) was set on a Pacific island called Niku. Then I heard it again... Nuku.. In Tonga. Oh well, it got my attention for a while. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Sheesh. I guess artificial stress is really in fashion. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:35:01 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Is there any documented contemporaneous evidence to suggest that such a flight off the left coast of the US to test Noonan's skills was ever undertaken? *************************************************************************** From Ric Hey, it was in a book. Gotta be true - right? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:45:36 EST From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: R.I.P. Certainly, it is indeed relevant to the TIGHAR cause to note Mrs. Lindbergh's passing, even though technically off-topic. Anne Morrow Lindbergh, in addition to being the wife of noted transatlantic aviator Charles Lindbergh (who died in 1972), was both an aviator and an author in her own rite. We were fortunate to have her with us for the greater part of a century, and to behold the literary perspectives of a life lived through one of the most exciting eras of human history. May she rest in peace. Dr. Eugene Michael Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211 Glad to be back with the forum after a year away. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:49:14 EST From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Pan Am DF Equipment, PVH Weem Though I've been out of touch with the forum for a little while, I've seen recently in the postings that there is still a great deal of interest in the belly antenna's presence vs. absence on Amelia's Electra. The researcher in me asks these questions: 1.) Has anyone located any functional transmitter and receiver equipment identical to that which Amelia was using and, 2.) if so has anyone attempted to reconstruct signal transmissions at the critical frequencies (or others) using various (or very short) antenna lengths while transmitting to any remote listening outposts-at-large? Such experimentation may yield some usable data as to what may have been receivable. Of course, as many variables as could be accounted for would need to be duplicated or at least approximated to best educated guess. I, for one, would be an eager listener for any such experimental signals, if I knew when they would be transmitted. TIGHAR could even issue a QSL card to participants who received such transmissions! Oh well, it's just a thought... Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211 **************************************************************************** From Ric We've never been able to locate any existing examples, let alone usable examples, of Earhart's radios. If we did, nothing could be proved by recreations. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:54:53 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: Island size I would think that Wake Island is smaller than Howland. I was at Wake one time in my early years with Pan Am but never on or in sight of Howland. This is not to say that island size is the real point in determining Fred's navigational skills but just an interesting fact that Fred did navigate to at least one very small islands with Pan Am. Dick Pingrey 908C **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure that the forum can give us chapter and verse on this question. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:55:58 EST From: Denise Subject: Deepest Apologies Tom says: "That's not "according to me;" it's according to Wainwright Abbott, U.S. Consul in Fiji 1940-42, whose reports I've been scanning at the National Archives." Yes, you are right. Sorry I misattributed Abbott's remarks to you, but it was only intended as a form of shorthand ... to save space - and also time and effort - so much easier than going to find the source for myself. Definitely sloppy work on my part and I offer you my deepest apologies. LTM (who raised her daughter better than this) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:57:19 EST From: John Dipi Subject: Re: Tourism at Niku RIC IN MY TIME ON CANTON FROM THE TIME THAT THE TAYLOR GOT STUCK ON THE REEF ON FEB 13,1942 UNTIL JUNE 1942 THE NAVY WAS DREDGING THE LAGOON. DURING THIS TIME SHIPS NEVER DID ENTER THE THE LAGOON PBYs did land in the lagoon at dusk and would leave at dawn. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:01:44 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Deepest Apologies No worries, Denise; I just didn't want anybody to misunderstand. Abbott's attitude is of considerable interest for a couple of reasons, and I hope to spend some serious time digging up further documents at the National Archives in the next couple of months. Stay tuned. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:41:36 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Noonan's capabilities From Ric: 'I certainly wouldn't trash Fred based on anything Paul Briand said. (He was the one who suggested that the Electra flew to Saipan because AE and FN forgot to set their directional gyro and flew 90 degrees off course for 20 plus hours.)'... Ric is right about Briand's inaccuracies, in Goldstein & Dillon's book...'Amelia"..., they credit the story about...'flying in circles over the ocean off California'... to Jackie Cochran's book...'Stars at Noon'..., in which she records challenging AE to...'Take him out to sea for a distance from LA & fly in circles for a while, disorienting him & then ask him to pick the course back to LA'... Amelia took her up on the challenge & the results justified Jackie's pessimism, as he ...'hit the shore half-way between LA & SF... a good 200 miles off course'... of course the 'him' Cochran referred to was... Harry Manning, _not_ FN (as Briand claimed in his book...'Daughter of the Sky'...). Though Cochran considered Manning an...'Exceedingly fine man'... she had serious questions about his being able to handle...'high-speed navigation in a plane'... (Don't believe her book ever commented upon her thoughts about FN.) Ric also said...'More damning is the record of Noonan's less-than-rigorous techniques while employed by Pan Am'... Seems to me most such stories were anecdotal, as I can't recall any truly, documented evidence of FN's navigational misdeeds while making his 13 transpacific flights as a PanAm navigator & most of what I've read about him, reflects he was somewhat cautious in his approach to his craft & even expressed on one occasion his lack of complete faith in relying upon the newer DF procedures alone, in seeking to reach remote Pacific island destinations. While we certainly must consider all factors involved in assessing FN's navigational skills & 'rigor', we must also consider that he had navigated the flight over three-quarters of the way around the earth (including some very 'hairy' monsoon episodes on the sub-continent of Asia) & _if_ anecdotal accounts of the residents on Tabiteuea, in the midst of the Gilbert Chain, are correct, (they claim to have heard sounds of an aircraft passing over their island during the night) then FN had the flight right _on_ target for Howland, with only 600-700 miles remaining, on the longest overwater leg (Lae to Howland) of the journey. Certainly many things happened in that last 600-700 miles that could have seriously effected the flight's abilitiy to visually locate Howland, including AE's inability to secure any reliable radio communication with Itaska, or to utilize the DF frequency to bring her in & any other problems _not_ specifically mentioned in any of the radio messages that Itaska _did_ receive. However, my only possible (totally non-professional) criticism of FN would be that he _might_ have failed (there is no clear evidence one-way or the other) to chart an offset on his LOP as they began their long approch to a 'sandspit' of an island, only a few feet above sea-level. Given AE's message that they were...running north/south on the LOP, at least seems to _suggest_ that FN did _not_ plot an off-set (they'd only turn & fly _one_ direction on the LOP), rather he _probably_simply set a heading for hitting Howland straight-on, (which could have been a few miles off, given the distance traveled on that leg of the flight & mostly at night) relying solely on the DF frequency to guide them home. As has already been suggested, we'll probably never know for certain exactly what happened on that 600-700 mile leg of the flight from the Gilberts to Howland, even if the remains of the Electra &/or it's crew are eventually found. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric I think you'll find that Doug Brutlag's representations of Noonan's navigation practices on the PAA Pacific flights are well documented. Doug? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:42:44 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Noonan's Navigation Test ? I'm sure that Briand got the name wrong when he related the story of Noonan missing LA in a navigation test by Amelia. The story is identical to one recounted by Rich, in "Amelia",p 241. Both Amelia and Cochran had doubts about Manning as an aerial navigator and Cochran suggested to take him out to sea and see if he could "find his way back". According to Cochran, Amelia made the test and Manning "...couldn't". A short time later Manning was dropped and Noonan replaced him. This was in Mar 37, and Amelia, reluctant to just drop Manning, took Manning and Noonan with her to Hawaii. Lovell also mentions something about Amelia's concern and test with Manning. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:44:08 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Finding Wake Island In Bill Grooch's Book SKYWAY TO ASIA, he mentions on page 176, "you'll need a direction-finder for Wake Island. It's about as big as your hand". It also references DF equipment at Honolulu & Midway. On page 178 he says" In the Clipper Noonan shot the sun every hour; his fixes agreed with the direction-finder. Sully (Captain Sullivan) & Tilton hit Wake Island on the nose". I would take that to mean Wake also had DF equipment. Curiously, in page 177 it talks about Fred supervising work for navigators in training as their instructor. Quote: "In flight, Noonan directed them(students) as to the proper use of navigation instruments. Later he corrected their paper work and pointed out mistakes. Training was tedious work but it was absolutely neccessary. All of us realized that while the direction-finder was a great aid, it was not infallible, and our navigators must be able to find their way without it if neccessary". Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:15:22 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Finding Wake Island I am still trying to locate a map of Wake Island, but I landed there with my parents in a C-5 on our way to Asia in the 1970s. From what I remember, it's actually a fairly large atoll, and a good bit larger than Howland. It actually was quite an experience being there, as there was only the runway, an FAA facility, bits of wreckage on the beaches and the American Flag---it felt like being on the outer fringes of a great empire! I actually liked it a great deal, and wish we could have stayed there a bit longer to do some more exploring. I can't help feeling that you're all wrong, and it would be MUCH harder to find Howland than Wake. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Actually, the C-5 was quite a bit bigger than Howland. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:16:03 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Electra rides. There has been technical interest in AE's Lockheed 10 Electra on this forum repeatedly and on many occasions. I'd like to signal to those interested that they can fly in one of the rare surviving aircraft of this type (an L10A, not AE's more powerful L10E). The aircraft, owned by Air Canada, will fly 45 minute trips this summer. It will fly from Toronto Centre City Airport (Canada) on June 22, 23 and 24, making four flights on each of these days with paying passengers. It will take a maximum nine passengers on each flight. Flights are limited to patrons of the "Dreams Take Flight" charity of Air Canada employees to raise funds for the charity to enable sick or disabled children visiting Disney Land or Disney World. Flights have to be booked in advance. To become a patron one has to pay Canadian $100 (approximately USD 72 ) or Canadian $ 1,000 (appr. 714 USD) for the whole aircraft. Those interested can contact Linda Hutson at : lhutson@on.aibn.com. Don't call her on 28 April for that is her wedding day ! Further information on this particular Lockheed 10 can be found at : www.acfamily.net/tcc By the way, I flew in the aircraft last summer. If you're accustomed to flying modern jet age airliners this is the way to discover what flying was back in 1937 ! Herman ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:33:09 EST From: Ron Reuther Subject: Re: Noonan's capabilities In Lovell's book, page 395, note 65, she quotes at length from a letter that Noonan sent to Commander P.V.H. Weems "because it reveals Noonan's working methods." I also would have caution about condeming Noonan's navigational abilities and techniques. He not only was the navigator on most of the original PAA Pacific flights, but he was an instructor for other PAA navigators, and had aerial navigation experience in Latin America and nautical navigation experience aboard ships. Also PAA had a policy of requiring all flight crew personnel to be cross trained in the various crew positions, i.e., pilot, copilot, navigator, radio operator and Noonan received training in those positions. Ron Reuther **************************************************************************** From Ric There's no question that Noonan was a highly competent navigator. The only question is how rigorously he applied his skills. Noonan did serve as navigator for the Pacific survey flights and he did serve as navigation instructor for the Pacific Division but Pan American did not start cross training crew positions until after Noonan's departure from the company. Fred did get a pilot's license in 1930 but he never flew for the airline. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:43:45 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: navigation tests OK, put yourself in Harry Manning or Fred Noonan's place. Amelia announces she is going to fly around the world and needs a world-class navigator. She settles on Manning. But first she has to give him a test? This is a guy who's been flying and navigating around the world in airplanes for how many years? And she is going to test him by flying over the ocean off of LA and see if he can get back. Nice move Amelia. What if he fails the test and can't find the west coast of the United States? Duh! Are they going to rely on Amelia's navigational skills? I'm sure she would know to turn to 090 degrees and Harry Manning wouldn't. Cut me some slack! This whole idea of "testing" Manning or Noonan seems preposterous to me, especially in view of all the other planning AE did not do. Would you ask The Shaq if he could dunk, ask Tiger if he can putt, ask Richard Petty if he can race? My understanding is that Manning and Noonan -- rightfully or not -- occupied the same elevated status in the navigation community at that time. Both of these guys had great reputations and had been doing their things for years, and to "test" them would have been an enormous insult, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no documented reason why Manning's left the whole affair, is there? Maybe after he saw the way Amelia flew at Luke Field he had second thoughts and simply left to save his skin. Or how about some more conjecture: Manning got cold feet after AE pranged the 10E at Luke Field and left because he didn't trust her flying abilities, and said so to anyone who asked. AE's friends heard Manning's complaints and, to protect AE's reputation, started circulating the rumor of Manning failing a navigation test over the ocean off Los Angles. Works for me. Bottom line: I don't believe Manning or Noonan was "tested" by AE or anyone connected to the flight. For her to suggest such a test would risk insulting these guys, and she sure needed them more than they needed her. LTM, who never goes to L.A. Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric It is a fact that Noonan was added to the mix at the last minute for some reason, and the only logical reason was that somebody decided that Manning couldn't be trusted to find Howland. Manning was an experienced sea captain and nautical navigator. He was also an amateur pilot and ham radio buff. Plus, he was an old friend of Amelia's. But somewhere along the line somebody must have started to have doubts about his ability to do celestial navigation from a fast moving airplane at altitude - something he had never dome before. I can see a "test" where Manning may have been flown out over the water and asked to establish his position using celelstial navigation - and not doing so hot. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:47:03 EST From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: Re: Finding Wake Island >references DF equipment at Honolulu & Midway. On page >178 he says" In the Clipper Noonan shot the sun every hour; his fixes >agreed with the direction-finder. Sully (Captain Sullivan) & Tilton hit >Wake Island on the nose". I would take that to mean Wake also had DF >equipment. Wake Island did indeed have DF gear in 1937. They had it as early as January 1936. I have a contemporary-published letter from a ham operator on Wake who went there in 1935 to help set up and test it. This letter appears in "Radio" magazine, January 1936. The letter describes "life" on Wake.... If you want a copy, let me know.... LTM (who checks her fixes AND her sources) and 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Ric The construction of the Adcock DF stations at Oahu, Midway, and Wake by PAA personnel from the construction ship S.S. North Haven was a prerequisite to the China Clipper survey flights of 1935. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:48:51 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Finding Wake Island "Wake island is not an island at all, but an atoll. The three small islands in the Wake group form a crooked V, which straddles a pleasant lagoon. From the air, the atoll resembles a broken, mold-covered wishbone, its two legs pointing northwest and its apex aiming southeast. The overland distance between the two toes is close to nine miles, but the landmass is so narrow that the total is roughly two and a half square miles." from Facing Fearful Odds by Gregory J.W. Urwin (University of Nebraska Press, 1997), pages 14-15. The reason that I am familiar with Wake is that I am presently engaged in raising funding to produce a documentary film on the Marines' defense of Wake Island in the opening days of World War II. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:54:01 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Finding Wake Island Ho-hum. "Wake Island . . . . is a U.S. possession with an area of only 3 square miles, consisting of three islands about 21 ft. high, which form all but the NW side of an atoll enclosing a shallow lagoon . . . . the entire island group is surrounded by a shallow reef interspersed with coral pinnacles." Howland Island . . . is a low, flat island devoid of any vege- tation other than a few stunted trees. It is ringed by a relative-ly flat coral reef almost completely exposed at low tide extend- ing out about 200 yards . . . . on the E side there is practically no beach and the island rises abruptly from the reef to an average height of 12 ft. with the highest point 18 ft., in the N part." - - Sailing Directions for the Pacific Islands, 4th edition, 1992 "Micronesia Handbook" gives the area of Howland as 1.6 sq. km. So Wake is obviously a more visible target. (Kanton better still.) Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:55:31 EST From: Andy Subject: Re: Finding Wake Island << I am still trying to locate a map of Wake Island >> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/Map_collection.html UT-Austin provides a very extensive online map collection which includes excellent high resolution scans of NOAA charts for both Howland and Wake. Based upon a quick measurement, Wake is ~4 miles from the Northwest edge of its reef to the SE tip of the island proper, as opposed to Howland's ~2 miles from Northern to Southern ends. Under this line of thinking, Wake should be easier to get a visual fix on than Howland. Incidentally (though quite off topic), this web site also has a high res. scan (1.1MB!) of "Amerikanischen Polynesien" from Petermann's Mittheilungen (1859) which some forum members may enjoy viewing (also makes for quite interesting wallpaper!). LTM, who agrees that "Gardner aka Kemin Island" has "lovely trees and many bird rats." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:50:36 EST From: Harry Poole Subject: Amelia's Flight Path I have been taking a closer look at Amelia's Flight, to try to better estimate where she actually was when she thought they were directly overhead (19:12 GMT - "We must be on you but cannot see you"). To accomplish this, I have tried to include all of the known information, and cross check her position step by step. My first step was to determine her actual flight plan. My approach is based on Clarence Williams original chart, prepared for the first World Flight (the flight that ended in March 1937 after the accident in Honolulu at Luke Field). In his chart, Williams had her going from Howland to Lea, with the original data listed as : Time Incr mileage Lattitude Longitude Magnetic course (Howland) 0 0° 49' N 176° 43'0W 68° :22 56 0° 38' N 177° 30' W 68° . . . . . . . . . . (table continues) 15:37 175 6° 14' S 177° 30' E 73° 17:01 210 6° 47' S 147° (arrived) (Lae) This chart's for still air conditions. It first had to be modified to change it from Howland-Lea to Lae-Howland, again in still air. By reversing all of this original data, we get these: Time Incr mileage Lattitude Longitude Mag course True bearing (Lae) 0 0 6°47' S 147° E 73° 78°30' 1:24 210 6°14' S 150° E 73° 78°12' . . . . . . . . . . . . (table continues) 16:39 177 0°38' N 177°30' W 68° 77°29' 17:01 56 0°49' N 176°43' W (Howl) (arrived) Although not listed in Williams' chart, I converted all of the magnetic course bearings to show true bearing, by correcting the magnetic bearing with the magnetic declination for July 2, 1937. The above flight plan, for still air conditions, is the flight plan that we will assume Fred and Amelia were following when they left Lae at 00:00 GMT. The next step that had to be made by Fred was to consider the effect of wind on Amelia's magnetic course bearings and changes in the check point times. They were expecting, at the time they took off, to be facing a ESE wind of 12 to 15 mph. Fred would have modified the original magnetic bearing from 73 degrees to take this into account. However, he would have wanted to determine what the actual wind was during the flight. Accordingly, he made a number of visual observations and determined that the actual wind was 23 knots, and accordingly, Amelia transmitted this information at her next broadcast (7:18 GMT). Thus, whether they had heard the weather update via radio or not, they knew what the wind was they were facing. At this point, we must modify Williams chart to take into account the wind has on arrival time at each check point. This new chart, which we will call the modified flight chart is shown below: New Time Incr mileage Lattitude Longitude (Lae)0 0 6°47' S 147° 1:34 210 6°14' S 150° . . . . . . . . . . . . (table continues) 18:46 177 0°38' 177°30' 19:11 56 0°49' 176°43' (Howland) Fred followed the planes progress on his planning chart, and determined by his navigation readings that at 6:54 GMT their current position was then 4 degrees, 33' South and 159 degrees 7' East. Amelia sent this report at her next flight broadcast (7:18 GMT). The Williams flight plan had them at 4 degrees 14 minutes South, 160 degrees East. Fred and Amelia were now very close to Williams' modified plan, being about 1 mile off course, with an error of only 0.1% of the flight distance travelled to this time (911 miles). That was an excellent performance, but it must be remembered that the flight to this point had been in daylight, with many visual sightings of known island locations. The situation would change after dark. The next piece of information we have is the message "ship in sight ahead". This was sent at 10:30 GMT. There has been some debate about whether the ship that was sighted was the Ontario or the Myrtlebank. I think we can settle this question. At the time that this message was sent, the modified Williams flight plan would have had them at 2 degrees 49' S lattitude and 167 degrees E longitude, with some error due to wind and course error. Athough Amelia is moving into an area of flying that had been forecasted as 18 mph ENE, after leaving the ESE winds before reaching the Ontario, that change in wind direction would not have effected her much by this time. If you extrapolate their known position at 6:54 GMT to now, we can estimate her position at this point to be within 25 miles of this planned position, placing the Ontario about 125 miles behind her, and the Myrtlebank about 30 miles in front of her. Unless she was looking over her shoulder, when she says "ship in sight ahead," we can be pretty certain it was the Myrtlebank. The next check point is her message of 17:45 GMT, "about 200 miles out". If they were actually on the modified Williams flight plan, they would have thought they were 200 miles out at 17:39 GMT. By the time Fred privides Amelia with this information, and she transmits it, it is six minutes later, and they are now about 185 miles out, according to the modified Williams flight chart. But notice that Williams had the actual Island location in error (It wasn't his fault). The actual positon of Howland was approximately six miles to the West of where Fred and Amelia thought it was, and so they had an additional 6 miles to go. The next check point is the about 100 miles out message. At 18:15, Amelia said: "... about 100 miles out". This message also tracks the modified Williams chart, which had them at 110 miles out at this point in time. Thus, I believe that all of the known messages matches the modified Williams chart. The next point is to carry this one step forward and estimate her position at 19:12, when she said: "we must be on you but can't see you". I plan on following this post with a second posting, in which you will see why I believe that Amelia was actually closer to Gardner (Niki) than most other researchers believe at the time of this "must be on you" message. If that is the case, she will not need as much remaining fuel to get there as others believe. I will now put my flack suit on. LTM, Harry #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:14:43 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Catholic Koata I know there was a lot of discussion on the influence of the Jesuits in the pacific, but I just came across something that may be of historical relevance to our immediate area's inhabitants.. Even Harry Maude rates a mention !! This is from the Pacific Manuscripts Bureau. They are apparently trying to microfilm every historical manuscript they can find on the Pacific Islands.. Th' WOMBAT PMB 1073 - Eastman Papers The eleven reels in this collection constitute a very exciting body of source material on Kiribati and the work of the London Missionary Society in the Pacific. English born George Herbert Eastman (1881-1974) and his wife Winifred ran the LMS Mission in Rarotonga from 1913 to 1918. During this time he learnt the Rarotongan language and compiled a Rarotongan-English Dictionary which was filmed by the PMB some years ago (PMB 478). Between 1918 and 1947 he ran the LMS Gilbert Islands Mission which was based at Rongorongo on the island of Beru. His mission district included the Ellice Islands, Nauru, Ocean Island (Banaba) and the Phoenix Islands. The Mission, which initially relied on Samoan missionaries, later trained its own I-Kiribati pastors and teachers at a Training Centre established at Rongorongo. In 1920 the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions handed over its mission in the northern Gilberts (Abaiang, etc) to the LMS. Under Eastman's guidance the LMS Mission flourished in the south, but struggled in the northern Gilberts in the face of competition from the French-influenced Catholic missionaries. One curious episode which is documented in the papers concerns one of the Pacific Manuscripts Bureau's founder associates, Harry Maude, who was the English District Officer on Beru during the 1930s. In 1930 the LMS pastor on the southern atoll of Onotoa fell into a dispute with the local Magistrate and Tax Collector, who happened to be a Catholic. The pastor proclaimed himself a prophet and set a date for the millennium. Protestants fell into trances, saw visions and communed in the cemetery at night. Two armies were formed, a women's army called The Sheep and a men's army called The Swords of Gabriel. When the millennium failed to eventuate, the Protestants blamed the Catholics and the armies went on the attack, killing two Catholics. Eastman and Maude defused the situation, with Maude sentencing the murderers to two years' hard labour. Maude rejected the explanation of the guilty that they had acted as agents of God, ruling that, as God was not subject to the Court's jurisdiction, anyone claiming to be his agent had to be treated as personally responsible for their actions. **************************************************************************** From Ric I swear Wombat, every once in a while you earn your keep. You have found more than you thought you did. The Magistrate on Onotoa in 1930 was none other than our old friend Teng Koata, who later of course became the first Island Magistrate of Nikumaroro and was a key player in the discovery of the bones. Maude, in his initial PISS reports, had made passing reference to Koata having distinguished himself during some kind of trouble on Onotoa in 1930 but we never knew the details. The really fascinating piece of news here is that Koata was a Catholic. Most of the early settlers on Nikumaroro were from the Southern Gilberts and almost certainly LMS (London Missionary Society) Protestant. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:20:13 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Finding Wake Island > I am still trying to locate a map of Wake Island, but I landed there with my I flew a C-130 into Wake in 1966 and walked along part of the beach during a brief fuel top off. It is not very big. The atoll is in the shape of a wishbone and if you walk along the water's edge all the way back to the starting point you would walk 12 miles. As to the C-5 I asked a friend who flew them how it handled in a crosswind. He told me the wind merely bounced off the side and didn't affect the plane at all. For purists that was a joke. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:30:48 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Island size > I would think that Wake Island is smaller than Howland. Howland Island is 1.6 sq. km. Wake is 6.5 sq. km. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:35:30 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Noonan's Capabilities What I've got is info on the Adcock & "verticle radiator" aerial systems employed by Pan Am for taking fairly accurate DF bearings. Copy is on the way to you along with excerpt from 1940 Army Air Corp nav text on same subject. Representations of Noonan's nav practices were the subject of a section of the 8th edition by Randy Jacobson detailing an anylysis of the nav charts used by Fred. Bob is sending me copies of mercator charts he(Bob) constructed based on his(Randy's) analysis which was the object of a discussion between us a week or so ago. He mentions Fred taking only one 3 line and two 2 line celestial fixes during the entire 16 hour flight, as well as being as much as 50 to 135 miles off the planned track. His first fix (the only 3 line) occurred 3 hours after takeoff. From there until 11 hours later, picking up the radio beacon on Makapu Point, only two line cel fixes were shot and a few speed lines from star shots to check progress. Bob, if you haven't already done it, I'll fire off a copy of the conversation to Ric if you wish. Doug Brutlag **************************************************************************** From Ric Bob sent me a copy of the map. Fascinating. The clear implication is that, without the DF bearings, the clipper would have missed Oahu. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:36:33 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Wake Island For Chris Kennedy; You're quite right. Howland would be harder to locate than Wake. Wake is a 6 1/2 square kilometer horseshoe-shaped atoll of 3 islands, Wilkes, Wake, and Peale. Your C-5 landed on the south end of the horseshoe, Wake island. Wilkes is on the upper left & Peale on the upper right. The Air Force mans & maintains the 10,000 ft runway there at present. Howland in comparison is only 1.6 square Km. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:42:03 EST From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Pan Am DF Equipment, PVH Weem In response to your comment about recreating the conditions of the Earhart radio/antenna situation proving nothing, I must take issue, as follows: 1. In one respect, you are right, in that NO research ever PROVES anything. From a purely empirical point of view as a researcher, the research only supports or fails to support a hypothesis. 2. However, the point that I was trying to make was that support or lack of support could be leant to any of the post-loss radio reception reports by determining the demonstrated range of the transmitter with a complete, partial, or non-existent transmitting antenna, the antenna length being whatever was left from the supposed belly antenna loss. A major component in validation research is the replication of the conditions of the situation being investigated. 3. Another consideration (and yes, thus, another variable as well) could be the fact that operating the radio without an antenna or dummy load in place could burn out the transmitter finals, and thus end any transmissions at all from AE. 4. Of course, this is all rendered academic by the fact that equipment like that used by AE has not been located in any condition, but that could change quickly if such equipment turns up! At any rate, while I realize that any kind of spurious radio propagation conditions at the time of transmission could effect how and where any signal is received, it may, nonetheless prove fruitful to see how far she could "get out" on the airwaves with a modified antenna due to damage. Investigating signal strength with the presumption of a drastically shortened or even missing antenna can tell you a great deal about AE's distance from those who were receiving her at the times she was picked up by radio. Thanks for considering it, anyway! Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, # 2211 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:53:22 EST From: Ric Subject: Re: Finding Wake Island Andy wrote: <> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/Map_collection.html Click on "Historical maps" Truly a cool map. One of the most interesting aspects is the abundance of islands that don't actually exist. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:10:07 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: Catholic Koata Has the forum ever found Koata or any of his relatives for history or interview. Is there any possiblity that this new information could lead us to family for interviews. *************************************************************************** From Ric Koata himself, of course, is long dead but Tom King has been on the trail of his son. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 14:20:39 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Wake Island For Chris Kennedy, A quick search of the net produced maps and photos of Wake Island. http://www.goldtel.net/ddxa/pwake.html LTM, Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:42:43 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Catholic Koata For Mike Muenich: Ironically enough, my wife's dissertation adviser when she got her PhD at the U. of Penn in the '80s was Ward Goodenough, who did a brief ethnographic study in Kiribati in the 1950s, his principal informant being none other than Koata. Dr. G. says Koata had very little to say about his time on Niku, but that he had a son who was last heard of on Ocean Island, where he'd been interviewed by a Norwegian anthropologist whose name Goodenough gave me. Lonnie Schorer, then in Norway, tried to contact the anthropologist, who, however, ended up to be somewhere in Africa and didn't respond to repeated inquiries. I've written to authorities on Onotoa, but to no avail. Put an inquiry on a Kiribati web site and got a response from a young man from Nikumaroro Village in the Solomons (in school "on the island of Ohio"), who said he knew someone in the village named Koata (so the name has apparently passed along). I haven't pursued the matter lately, but will, again, once I get a few other things off my back. The particularly interesting thing about Koata's son is that to judge from what Goodenough was able to tell me about his age, he should have been about ten years old at the time of the bones discovery. We don't know if he was on Niku at the time, however. LTM Tom King **************************************************************************** From Peter Vincnet The catalyst to the dispute later recorded as religious factionalism which led ultimately to riot, wounding and murder arose initially from a tax collection issue; for which Teng Koata, in addition to being Native Magistrate, was the Government-designated tax collector. Prior to a visit, in April, of the LMS vessel "John Williams", two villages decided to prepare a generous gift of copra. The "JW" being licensed to trade through the Gilberts. However, Koata foresaw a major complication - the island's copra tax was due to be delivered in June, and the proposed gift for the Mission was so big, he knew it would strip the villager's trees of every ripe nut during April and May He proposed that if the villagers reduced their Mission offering by two-fifths, the balance of the copra saved would be enough to cover the tax liability. However, this was interpreted by the village headmen not merely the voice of a Roman Catholic sinner [and now quoting from the papers of then Resident Commissioner Arthur Grimble] "but one who had treacherously in his adult years gone over to the Scarlet Woman". During the rioting, Koata suffered an almost fatal head wound, but his character and statesmanship were later widely recognised when the riot leader Ten Naewa, had his sentence reduced from 14 years on testimony that he had protected Koata from the rioters. Incidentally, Naewa's counsel [or Prisoner's Friend] - Teng Koata! Notwithstanding K's possible standing with the Niku's new colonists, can't you see this remarkable man working so well with Irish Gallagher. There is a line by an old Gilbertese poet Taata: "If I did not with heart and body live the life of my people, how could I sing songs to touch their hearts". Either man could have said that! LTM Peter Vincent **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Peter. Is this all in Grimble's papers and, if so, where are they? *************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt > From Ric > > I swear Wombat, every once in a while you earn your keep. See, I'm not a pretty face... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Agreed. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:45:47 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: navigation tests My memory has it that Noonan came into the picture on the recommendation of William Miller, the original (and apparently quite competent) organizer of AE's first attempt. Methinks if he'd planned the second try success would have followed. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric That would make sense for Miller to be the conduit between Earhart/Putnam and Noonan but I've never seen any real documentation about how that came about. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:06:24 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Amelia's Flight Path > From Harry Poole > I have been taking a closer look at Amelia's Flight, to try to better > estimate where she actually was when she thought they were directly overhead > > Although not listed in Williams' chart, I converted all of the magnetic > course bearings to show true bearing, by correcting the magnetic bearing > with the magnetic declination for July 2, 1937. The above flight plan, for Harry, I went through the same exercise several times.. Accompanying the Clarence Williams chart is another with all the bearings shown in both mag & true. Using that you can work with the exact figures thay should have been using.. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:08:55 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Pan Am DF Equipment, PVH Weem I've just finished reading a book by Shiela Scott who had antenna problems on a couple of her flights including one over the pole... makes for interesting comparison to hear it from the pilot's point of view. Someone apparently removed part of her trailing VHF wire among other problems, including a belly or dorsal antenna (can't remember) rendered inefficient by ice.. This was all about 30 years after Earhart. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:09:42 EST From: Dick Pingrey Subject: navigation skills I think this thing about testing naviagations skills by flying out over the Pacific from L.A. and then seeing if the navigator candidate could get back to L.A. is almost to the point of being laughable. As pointed out in an earlier submission, all anyone needs to do is head east to get back to the coast. There are so many features that are well know once you approach the coast nearly anyone could zero in on L.A. unless the viability is very poor which is almost never in that area. Dick Pingrey 908C ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:23:05 EST From: Tom King Subject: Need aid in Abilene Is there anyone on the Forum in Abilene, TX, who could check a book in the public library for me? Years ago Dr. Tommy Love found a book there by Peggy Sledge, called The Littlest Smuggler and Other True Stories:U.S. Customs on the Rio Grande (1988(, that included a note about Earhart's shoe size. He sent photocopies of the cover and relevant pages to Ric, and we've cited it (strictly as an anecdotal account) in the book that Randy Jacobson, Kar Burns, Kenton Spading and I are rushing to get out by mid-summer. However, we can't find the identity of the publisher anywhere, and hence have an incomplete citation in our bibliography. It's not in the Library of Congress, or in any Texas library with an on-line catalogue I've been able to peruse. Tommy has confirmed that the Abilene public library (phone 915/676-6025) has the book, catalogued under # OCLC 19097075, but nobody has time to go pull it off the shelf and give us the identity of the publisher. Can anybody help us get this bit of information? Thanks, and LTM (who needs all the help she can get) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:38:28 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities > From Ric > > Bob sent me a copy of the map. Fascinating. The clear implication is that, > without the DF bearings, the clipper would have missed Oahu. Can someone explain to me how he calculated the distance from the planned track and the basis for those calculations? Thanks. **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm sure Bob can explain how he constructed the map. Let me correct a misstatement I made. Bob's map recreates the March 1937 flight of NR16020 from Oakland to Honolulu. I should have said "...without the DF bearings, the Electra would have missed Oahu." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:39:19 EST From: Tom King Subject: Map of Canton (Kanton) Island Another request to the Forum: Can anybody point me toward a decent on-line image (map or air/satellite photo) of Canton (Kanton) Island? I've searched in all the (to me) obvious places, to no avail. LTM (who's thankful to anyone who can help) Tom King tfking106@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:44:57 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? > She wanted Itasca to locate them--even though she could > not hear the Itasca--and when she whistled, it was not > long enough for Itasca to get a plot > > Marty #2359 One minor correction- and this may have been AE's misunderstanding, not Marty's - DF fix doesn't depend on audio at all. All it needs is a steady carrier signal for long enuff period. That just means mic pushbutton held. > - They both went along with Joe Gurr's screwball plan of eliminating the > trailing wire and lengthening the dorsal antenna. What was really dumb about this plan, was his thinking that a few more feet would somehow make a worthwhile improvement in the functioning of a grossly too short, at 500 kHz, antenna wire. The few more feet he gained were insignificant, the wire length was still a very small fraction of a wavelength, too small. > - AE couldn't get the DF to work on the test flight at Lae and assumed that > she was merely too close to the station. I am inclined to think this was due to the DF equipment not being designed for HF at all, as the Longs contend in their book, rather than operator error, too strong signal, or equipment failure. An acquaintance is testing this idea on his own similar loop unit ( Navy, Bendix DU-1 ), that with the loop asked to work above its spec'd frequency range, the only signal received is via the sense antenna. The results of that test, MAY help us conclude whether AE's DF equipment was HF - capable or only the usual LF-MF. > - No two-way communication was established with Lae after takeoff and we > have good evidence that at least one of the pitot systems was damaged; and > yet AE was twice heard to transmit "Everything okay." One thing that perplexes me about the lost-receive-antenna hypothesis, is that you might expect the radio user to note the lack of usual background noise. It's true, the engine (electrical) noise, and the electrical noise from the receiver dynamotor, make a "noise floor" (constant background noise) that you don't have, with the usual home or ground station antenna, but it's my experience, and feeling, that a thirty foot wire antenna does override this background noise, or at least add noticeably to it, that you would be able to tell in short order whether the system was functioning normally. The receiver did not have any "squelch" control, that means the listener had to continually put up with the constant background noise, both from the aircraft's electrical equipment, and from atmospheric noise. That, plus the discomfort of wearing the old, heavy headphones, makes me suspect AE did not put on the headphones except when it would be necessary. Perhaps that, plus AE's radio-inexperience, caused her to overlook this possible problem with the receiver? Did FN also have headphones hooked into the same receiver circuit? Hue Miller **************************************************************************** From Ric I would be very surprised if AE had the headphones on at any time other than the scheduled reception times. I don't know whether there was more than one headphone jack or more than one set of headphones aboard. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:56:46 EST From: Harry Poole Subject: Amelia's 19:12 GMT position This analysis of where Amelia was at 19:12 GMT (when she made her statement "We must be on you but cannot see you") starts with the intersection of two lines. The first is a course line of her approaching Howland on a bearing of 77 degrees, 29' (magnetic bearing of 68 degrees) and the other with her ending on a LOP of 337/157 degrees. This first line is from the modified Williams approach. My approach ignores the effect of wind, since we are not certain of either its effect or Amelia's attempt to compensate for it and in any case, it does not affect this analysis. This lone intersection must meet inside a circle of closest approach that is 80 nautical miles from Howland. This circle is selected because her point of closest approach registered a radio reception signal strength of S-5, defined by many researchers, including Bob Brandenburg in the Eighth Edition, as 80 nautical miles. Within this 20,000 square nautical mile circular area, there are large portions where she could not have been. After removing 98% of this circle, the most likely candidate which remains shrinks to approximately 400 square nautical miles. Areas where she could not have been includes those areas within a 20 mile radius of either Baker or Howland (since she would have seen those islands), and two large areas beyond either island (since she should have seen them when she passed near them as she approached along the 77 degree bearing coming in, or as she left on 337/157 as she left). This removes about half ot the total circular area. To remove other large areas, we must consider that the result of her flight must be, in my opinion, that she landed on land (an island or a reef), since there is convincing evidence that many legitamate post loss messages were received from her. And if even one of these is legitamate, she did not land in the water. When these areas which will not allow her to reach land are removed, we now find only three possible areas (shown in the map as areas E, F and G). Finally, two of these remaining parcels are removed if she landed on Gardner (the other two lead to McKean or Winslow Reef). Thus the primary location defining where she was when she made her statement "We must be on you but cannot see you" is a small segment of an arc (map area G) which is only 25 miles by 20 miles, centering on 0 degrees, 15 minutes South Latitude and 176 degrees, 35' West longitude. That area is approximately 285 nautical miles from Gardner (Niku). It is hard to describe the picture that results, but I will e-mail a JPEG attachment of the complete map of the analysis to anyone who would like it. The map and its analysis shows more details, and includes more reasoning. Send your request to hhpoole@sprynet.com. Note that the map will also allow you to determine what the effects of modifying some of my assumptiuons would have. LTM, Harry #2300 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:58:05 EST From: Dean Andrea Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities I had read this post when it was originally posted and am still not sure what are the specific examples of less than rigorous techniques employed by Noonan. All I see in the posting by Doug are speculations--- other than the fact that Noonan did not have expertise in radio operations. But I thought Pan Am Nav's had a separate person for this when Noonan was with them. Also, Noonan did NOT have any Radio beacons to home in on near Howland. Also, we don't know how far he missed Howland and if Tighar's hypothesis is correct he did find Gardner, although, granted, this may have been sheer luck. I feel a little dumb here for my lack of knowledge in Nav techniques and aviation in general but all I see here is speculation and antedotal info.?? **************************************************************************** From Ric Of course, any discussion of precisely how Noonan navigated the Lae/Howland flight is speculative, but the current examination of Noonan's practices on other flights is neither speculative nor anecdotal. The charts and notations from the Oakland/Honolulu flight by Earhart, Mantz, Manning, and Noonan in March 1937 still exist, as does the chart Noonan used for the South Atlantic crossing during the second World Flight attempt. These are primary source, contemporaneous documents which describe what Noonan did and did not do during those flights and, thus, may be taken as some indication of how he might approach similar transoceanic navigation problems. There was, in fact, a "radio beacon" at Howland in the form of signals provided by the Itasca specifically for that purpose. In addition, Earhart and Noonan anticipated that the Itasca would be able to use its own DF gear to obtain bearings on the approaching plane and tell her which way to fly. The situation Noonan therefore expected was directly analogous to that he experienced during the PAA Clipper flights (with AE in the role of radio operator), and the Oakland/Honolulu aboard NR16020 during whihc harry Manning acted as rdio operator. The South Atlantic crossing provides an example of Noonan's techniques and accuracy in the absence of DF help on the destination end. We don't (yet) have detailed data on Noonan's performance on the PAA survey flights but the data for both of his ocean crossings with Earhart indicate that, uncorrected by radio navigation, he missed (in the South Atlantic case) or would have missed (in the Oakland/Honlulu case) his target by roughly a hundred miles. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:05:51 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: navigation skills Finding the west coast would indeed be easy, but finding and hitting LAX, on the nose, might be a little more challenging. I recently wrote a story for my web page called "The Wauhab Ridge B-29". It's a true story of a B-29 crew who were trying to ferry the aircraft home from Hawaii after the war. They left with 15 hours of fuel, and got lost enroute. They were trying to hit the coast at San Francisco, but ended up 280 miles to the south of course when still 800 miles at sea! Ground stations finally got a DF bearing on the craft and guided it back up the coast to the Bay area where it crashed into a mountain in the fog with only 45 minutes of fuel remaining. The navigator onboard was an Army Air Force officer with World War II training and experience. Don J. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:06:42 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: Catholic Koata Glad to see that the search for Koata's decendants may refresh itself. It would appear to me that Koata's decendants may have information (anecdotal or otherwise) and possibly artifacts from that era. While Koata might not know of the British investigation, he certainly would have known about the skeleton(s), the local "search" and possibly whether the remains might have been returned to Niku. Next to Gallagher, I would think he would have been the most knowledgable about all of the circumstances on the island, the "airplane wreckage",aluminum sources, and many of the artifacts. If his son was 10 at the time he would be in his mid 70's now, and might be as good a source as Betty or Emily ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:18:38 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? > From Hue Miller > One minor correction- and this may have been AE's > misunderstanding, not Marty's - DF fix doesn't depend > on audio at all. All it needs is a steady carrier signal for > long enuff period. That just means mic pushbutton held. I have no sources, just a memory of discussions here or other material on TIGHAR's site. I've looked around and can't find a research bulletin that summarizes the information about the last radio transmissions. I'm pretty sure that someone said AE whistled in order to provide a signal--but Itasca could not get a reading because she did not transmit long enough. Even if the Itasca had gotten a fix, it's not clear how AE would have received it. The only thing we know she heard was the CW transmission on 7500. I've looked through some of the Forum archives, but can't identify where I got the whistling story... Marty #2359 **************************************************************************** From Ric At 06:15 local time the Itasca radio log says the Earhart: "Wants bearing on 3105 KCS on the hour; will whistle into mic About two hundred miles out, approximately. Whistling now" At 06:45 she says: "Please take bearing on us and report in half hour I will make noise in mike ---- About 100 miles out" At 07:18 Itasca transmits: "Phone to Earhart: we cannot take a bearing on 3105 very well; please send on 500, or do you wish to take a bearing on us? Go ahead please" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:19:32 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Whistling Found the thread about whistling: http://www.tighar.org/forum/Highlights21_40/highlights22.html Marty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:32:51 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? Ric, thanks for digging out the "whistling" messages. Was AE's radio theoretically set up to transmit on 500? If not, this shows further confusion on board the Itasca about what they expected her to be able to do: > At 07:18 Itasca transmits: > "Phone to Earhart: we cannot take a bearing on 3105 very well; please > send on 500, or do you wish to take a bearing on us? Go ahead please" Marty **************************************************************************** From Ric Earhart's radio was set up to transmit on 3150, 6210 and 500 but, in reality, the antenna changes made before the second attempt meant that the aircraft had virtually no ability to put out a signal on 500. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:39:41 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Oscar Boswell asked: > Can someone explain to me how he calculated the distance from the planned track > and the basis for those calculations? Thanks. The chart I made was a Mercator projection superimposed on two standard celestial navigation plotting sheets taped together. This was the most convenient way to get a Mercator chart covering the area between San Francisco and Honolulu at a useful scale. As for obtaining the distances from the planned track, no calculation per se was involved. The planned track between San Francisco and Honolulu, when plotted on a Mercator projection is a straight line. The distance from any given point to the planned track is obtained by measuring the orthogonal distance between the point and the planned track. Bob, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:08:20 EST From: Shirley Subject: AE at 103 Check this out. Weekly World News for 2/20 Cover story - by Ashley Nicole and Nick Kel The "latest news" regarding the last flight outcome. You'll at least get a chuckle! LTM Shirley 2299 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:30:58 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Bob Brandenburg wrote: >The distance from any given point to the planned track is obtained by >measuring the orthogonal distance between the point and the planned track. Well, how did you find out their actual track? Was it from the information on the chart, and if so, who put that information on the chart? Thanks. Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:43:29 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Amelia's 19:12 GMT position > The first is a course line of her approaching Howland on a bearing > of 77 degrees, 29' (magnetic bearing of 68 degrees) and the other with her > ending on a LOP of 337/157 degrees. Harry, no one knows on what course or track AE approached Howland. It can not be determined from the LOP. We also do not know at what point on the LOP AE intersected it. "This circle is selected because her point of closest approach registered a radio reception signal strength of S-5, defined by many researchers, including Bob Brandenburg in the Eighth Edition, as 80 nautical miles." Second, with all due respect to the reserchers, I don't think one can hang their hat on 80 miles or any other specific figure. The strength 5 remark is too imprecise to be anything but a relative opinion and propagation factors could further alter that guess. "Areas where she could not have been includes those areas within a 20 mile radius of either Baker or Howland (since she would have seen those islands), and two large areas beyond either island (since she should have seen them when she passed near them as she approached along the 77 degree bearing coming in, or as she left on 337/157 as she left)." Third, I know of no reason to assume AE and FN should have seen Baker or Howland since we do not know where they were and also because of the scattered CU below them. Flying west to east they were looking into the sun just to make it more difficult. If there is good reason to back off my opinions I will gladly do so but I have many hours in the air trying to find little islands and noting the great difficulty in spotting them visually. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:45:37 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Need aid in Abilene Tom King asked: > Is there anyone on the Forum in Abilene, TX, who could check a book in the > public library for me? Years ago Dr. Tommy Love found a book there by Peggy > Sledge, called The Littlest Smuggler and Other True Stories:U.S. Customs on > the Rio Grande (1988(, that included a note about Earhart's shoe size. Tom, I lived in Abilene (now Austin) in the late 60s until 1980. Peggy W. Sledge and her husband Bob Sledge lived next door. Bob was writing his doctoral dissertation at the time. That would have been in 1969 most likely. At any rate Peggy had her book published locally in Abilene, not by a publisher, but by a print shop. It was printed by AAA Printing in Abilene. The shop was owned by Elaine Brumbeau who aided in layout and design. The women were friends. This latter information does not come from my fabulous memory but from Dennis at the Abilene Public Library who kindly got the book off the shelf and skimmed through it until he discovered that information. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:46:41 EST From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? > From Hue Miller > One minor correction- and this may have been AE's >misunderstanding, not Marty's - DF fix doesn't depend >on audio at all. ''' Without audio one would have to rely on the signal strength meter if there was one. Df can be obtained with just the carrier wave, no modulation, BUT it requires a beat freq. osc. which provides a tone to use for a null ..'audio' again ... RC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:49:55 EST From: Peter Thomas Subject: clarence williams charts for Ross Devitt, Would you please consider assisting me in establishing how to obtain copies of these charts as discussed by you and Harry Poole recently. Thank you Peter Thomas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:55:53 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Well, it has been quite a while since I looked at this and plotted the data from the research CD files out, but I have a few recollections that I'll toss out in the hope of getting some correction or clarification. Right now, I don't have much time for the forum, so I'll have to leave most of this debate to others. First, I don't defend the relatively infrequent fixes - and remember, there were actually two competent navigators on board even though as I recollect FN was "navigator" and HM served as "radio operator/navigator". Both were very familiar with the concepts, rules of thumb, and so forth of celestial nav. I don't know if this would have been help or a hindrance. Either the two them would put their heads together on this (even if just one did the procedures) or they could have been walking on eggshells to stay out of each other's way (and therefore could have gotten very much in the way of good navigation). Still, it was not just FN on that flight. Maybe the two of them did not mesh well, or alternatively, two navigators may have led to some degree of overconfidence. As to the flight, I appeared to me from the initial course that the intended track was a rhumb line rather than a great circle route. I do not have any knowledge of their intent, so this is a pure guess from the data. In this instance, the great circle route ran north of the rhumb line route. During the flight, their actual track departed from the rhumb line course, veered across the great circle course, then ran roughly parallel until they began to turn southward on an adjusted heading to bring them back on target for their destination. They did get well off their initial intended track, but they appear to have known where they were (from infrequent fixes) and to have made efforts to update their headings for Honolulu. From a limited look at the data, it appeared that while they would have been 100+ miles off enroute, they were on course (from a more northerly track than initially intended) toward their destination in the final phases of the flight. I remember being surprised at the crosstrack error in midflight, but later concluded that it mattered fairly little in terms of additional flight time/distance, as long as they simply adjusted their future headings from each fix and did not try to return to the initial intended track. I don't know what the "standard of the time" was. With more frequent fixes, they could have done better, but they didn't. Although not in the raw data, a DF steer could have helped them home in to landfall. If so, would they have been unable to locate themselves and find their own way in absent that DF signal? I can't tell from the data. I have not seen the 8th edition, so I don't know what is presented there. I do find it hard to believe that absent DF they would have missed landfall by as large a margin as I understand (or misunderstand?) is alleged from recent posts (with both FN and HM on board). Could a few more tidbits be shared with the forum so we could get a better picture? TOM MM *************************************************************************** From Ric Bob? Doug? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:10:04 EST From: Ric Subject: Shoe Fetish Part One of an in-depth review of the whole complex shoe situation is now up on the TIGHAR website at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/29_ShoeFetish1/29_ShoeFetish1.html Part One describes what was found and where. In Part Two we'll address the question of how the artifacts relate to what we know about Earhart's shoes. I'm working on that now. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:32:00 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: AE's 19:12 Position If AE and Noonan were at 0 degrees 15 minutes South and 176 degrees 35 minutes West, they would be about 75-80 miles south of the Itasca. The radio horizon for 3105 kilocycles an hour and 45 minutes after sunrise at an altitude of 1000 feet is typically about 50 miles. A more likely 19:12 position could be somewhere on a line 25 miles to the west and parallel to a line drawn between Howland and Baker. That is, along line drawn through the points 1 degree North 177 degrees West and 0 degrees north 176 degrees 45 minutes West (assuming that Fred Noonan was navigating according to line-of-position). Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric Look you guys, we can put dots and circles on maps all day long and it's just rank speculation. You're taking generalities and treating them like specifics. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:40:47 EST From: Mike Everette Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? >Without audio one would have to rely on the signal strength meter >if there was one. Df can be obtained with just the carrier wave, no >modulation, BUT it requires a beat freq. osc. which provides a tone >to use for a null ..'audio' again ... RC One doesn't need a beat freq oscillator to obtain a null on a carrier. All you need is a loop and some means of determining when you have found the null. This is either visually (the signal strength meter, if there was one) or audio in the headset. When you get a null, the signal becomes "noisy" like it has become weaker. When the loop is rotated THROUGH the null, the signal strength will increase. In order to determine WHICH station you are actually receiving, you need to listen. Low frequency "range" stations or non directional beacons use tone-modulated Morse, amplitude-modulated telegraphy, to transmit their ID. No need for a BFO. However, if you are trying to D/F a CW (continuous wave, unmodulated) keyed signal, you must have a BFO to produce the "tone" in the headset. D/Fing a keyed CW signal is not quite as easy as taking a bearing on a continuous carrier, either... unless the station holds down his key long enough for the receiving operator to work the loop and find the null. LTM (who always her true bearings) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:41:42 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Eugene Pallet It has been awhile since the letter to Eugene Pallet from Fred Noonan was discussed. My recollection is that there was no clear outcome to the research into how or why Noonan and Pallet were connected. Has anyone given any thought to the possibility that Noonan's wife, Mary Bea, may have had the connection to Pallet? Is there any way to find out? David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:43:27 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Oscar Boswell asked: > Well, how did you find out their actual track? Was it from the information on the > chart, and if so, who put that information on the chart? The actual track was plotted from Noonan's navigation data, which Randy Jacobson obtained from the actual chart used by Noonan. A detailed listing of Noonan's data is available in the 8th Edition. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:44:10 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Need aid in Abilene Great! Thank you, Alan, and Dennis; that takes care of that. Once again, the Forum delivers. LTM Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:46:24 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Amelia's 19:12 GMT position A point of clarification. My analysis in the 8th Edition does not put the CPA (Closest Point of Approach) at 80 miles. Nor have I defined "S-5" as corresponding to a distance of 80 miles. My results are based on signal propagation analysis and show that the CPA probably did not exceed 80 miles. We have no data from which we can estimate the lower bound on CPA. Bob, #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:31:26 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? > From Mike E. #2194 > > One doesn't need a beat freq oscillator to obtain a null on a carrier. > All you need is a loop and some means of determining when you have found > the null. This is either visually (the signal strength meter, if there > was one) or audio in the headset. ... The question lingers: how well did AE understand the equipment and techniques that would be used on the Itasca? She whistled, but someone said (I think from the Itasca) that it wasn't long enough to get a fix. This all gets into coulda/shoulda/woulda speculation. If she had just held the mike key for a long time, could the Itasca have gotten a bearing for her? And if they did, could they somehow have gotten a message to her telling her which way to turn? Solving the DF problem on the Itasca would still not bring them home without solving the comm problem that AE and FN had in the air. This speculation is all unscientific, but it's part of grasping the human dimensions of the tragedy. Did they or did they not have all the tools they needed to solve their problem? If I was placed in an analogous situation, would I even be able to define the problem, let alone solve it before I ran out of gas? Might make a good sim game. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:28:56 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Amelia's 19:12 GMT position There is a flip-side to all this CPA work that is very troubling to the Niku hypothesis developed thus far, and I wonder if anyone has considered it. That is, if Earhart was as close as people are computing to the island AND knew it, her ability to run in BOTH directions (north and south) along the LOP to find Howland improved greatly IF our assumption is correct that she had at least 4 hours of fuel remaining. Let me explain: The transmissions from the plane confirm two things: First, that Earhart knew she was very close to her destination ("we must be on you but cannot see you"), and that she turned onto the LOP ("running north/south on the LOP"). If she was between 80-100 miles from Howland when she turned onto the line and knew it, that's substantially under an hour's flight time for the Electra. Therefore, if she had four hours of fuel left, and gambled she was north of Howland when she moved onto the LOP, she would've known after an hour or so of flight that she was wrong (that is, that she was actually south of Howland and had flown one hour further south along the LOP). She would still have three hours of fuel left, which is plenty of time to turn back north to Howland, with probably an hour or so of fuel left when she got there (I compute this by assuming she was an hour of fuel south of Howland when she turned south, flew an extra hour, and so will have to use two hours of fuel to get back to Howland). Indeed, reagrdless of whether she was north or south of Howland, Earhart would've known that after about an hour's flight time on the LOP she had either been wrong as to whether she was north or south, or had simply flown right over the island. But, the important thing is that she would still have had ample fuel left to turn in the opposite direction and make another try. So, putting all this CPA and fuel level work together, it appears to me that Earhart would've been able to make several attempts to locate Howland using the LOP as a guide, and crazy to have struck out for Niku once she realized that she had turned onto the LOP south of Howland. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric Good point Chris, but we can't say, "... Earhart knew she was very close to her destination ("we must be on you but cannot see you")...". But she did not KNOW she was very close to her destination. She THOUGHT she was ---- but she also knew that something was wrong because the island had not appeared in the windshield. Was it just over the horizon or were they nowhere near where they thought they were? The only hint she had was that, at 19:30, she received the "A"s on 7500. The Itasca had to be fairly close for her to hear that, but how close is fairly close - 50 miles, 100 miles, 200 miles? We of course don't know how much fuel they hace remaining but it looks like they could have had as much as four hours to play with. They must stay on the LOP because it's the only navigational lifeline they have. The lifeboat at the end of that lifeline is the certain knowledge that, no matter where they are on the line (within range of hearing the "A"s from Itasca), if they fly southeastward for - at most - 300 nautical miles, they will come to an island. If they're now too far north, they'll reach Howland. If they're now just a little too far south they'll reach Baker. If they're now more than about 50 miles too far south they'll reach Gardner. They might not know what island they're going to hit until they get their. So, how much gas do they need to fly 300 miles? A good guess might be a little over 100 gallons (2.3 hours at 130 kts burning maybe 45 gph because they're down low). In other words, whatever exploring they do to the north, they must return to their starting place with at least 100 gallons left. We figure that at 19:30 they have, at most, 175 gallons remaining. That means they have no more than half of 75 gallons (37.5 gallons) - or about 45 minutes - to spend exploring to the north before they must turn around and head south. IF that's what they did, and IF they were more or less accurately on the LOP, then they must have originally been far enough south on the LOP to be able to go 100 miles north and still not see Baker - call it 150 miles. That seems a bit far based upon Bob Brandenburg's radio propagation figures. Of course, the less fuel they have, the sooner they must head south and the less they can afford to explore northward and the less off course they can be to the south. We may be able to determine for sure where the flight ended but we'll never be able to say for certain how it got there. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:36:04 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Electra's Minimum Fuel Consumption If the fuel consumption at cruising speed at cruising altitude for an Electra with 550 HP P&W engines was 38 gallons per hour when loaded with (say) 300 gallons of fuel, how long could the Electra have flown on 1100 gallons of fuel had she taken off and been refueled in mid-air? It would be somewhat less than 29 hours (1100 divided by 38) but about how much less? Supposing AE and FN flew on to Gardner from Howland, they would have been in the air about 24 hours. Twenty four hours times 38 gallons per hour is 912 gallons, leaving AE about 188 gallons for take-off, climb to cruising altitude, and flying overweight for about 8 hours. Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric What's your point?. Go back and review all that stuff about Kelly Johnson's recommendations. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:36:55 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: The shoes. To Tom King, Was information contained in Peggy Sledge's book, The Littlest Smuggler and Other True Stories: U.S. Customs on the Rio Grande, of any assistance? If any leads need to be explored which involve U.S. Customs, U.S. Border Patrol or other state or federal agencies with activities along the Texas/Mexico border I might be of assistance. I have several close friends involved in law enforcement activities on the border who might lend a hand. LTM, Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:48:39 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Re: Shoe Fetish I click on the URL you provided for the shoe fetish, but the page is not there, what gives? **************************************************************************** From Ric The forum distribution software does not support "click on" links. You'll have to copy and paste the URL into your browser. Again, the URL is: http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/29_ShoeFetish1/29_ShoeFetish1.html You can also access this and all previous Research Bulletins through the Earhart Project page on the website. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:15:12 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Bob Brandenburg wrote: > The actual track was plotted from Noonan's navigation data, which Randy Jacobson > obtained from the actual chart used by Noonan. A detailed listing of Noonan's > data is available in the 8th Edition. Well, that's what I suspected. The only reason you know where the plane was is because Noonan told you. I fail to understand how one can extrapolate from the fact that the plane was (TO NOONAN'S FULL KNOWLEDGE) North of what you think the "proper" track should have been and conclude that the flight was in danger of missing anything. If the navigator knows where he is, he can get to where he wants to go (assuming sufficient fuel). It is not necessary (or always efficient) to return to the original course, because (as they say) all roads lead to Rome (and in the air, those roads are infinite). There are also often good reasons for deviating from the direct course - wind or weather being among them. Or am I missing some point here? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:17:06 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: clarence williams charts Peter Thomas wrote: > Would you please consider assisting me in establishing how to obtain copies > of these charts as discussed by you and Harry Poole recently. This information is available online on the PURDUE University Web Site. I did publish the locations of these particular charts on the forum some time ago along with the details of the web site and a list of documents and photographs currently accessible online. Unfortunately I recently cleaned my hard drive and those postings are archived. You can search at this address. Unfortunately they have changed the system and I haven't found the place I got the smaller images from. http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/earhartdisplay/ The following is the direct link to one of the datasheets. There are companion sheets with more details.. http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/earhartdisplay/list.cfm?type=subject&Criteria=Charts Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:18:54 EST From: Tom King Subject: Opportunity In case there's anyone lurking on the Forum who's really anxious to check out the various Marshall Islands hypotheses for AE's disappearance, here's an opportunity. LTM (who'd love to apply for it herself, but can't afford it) Tom King Subj: Archaeologist Position in the Marshall Islands Date: 2/13/2001 5:27:49 PM Eastern Standard Time From: rmihpo@ntamar.com (RMI Historic Preservation Office) Sender: acra-l@lists.nonprofit.net Reply-to: rmihpo@ntamar.com To: acra-l@lists.nonprofit.net (Multiple recipients of list) The following position is available at the Republic of the Marshall Islands' Historic Preservation Office. POSITION TITLE: Staff Archaeologist CLOSING DATE: 12 March 2001. LENGTH OF APPOINTMENT: Two years, renewable upon completion. SALARY RANGE: $30,000 to $36,000 (US) per annum on the basis of knowledge, skills, and experience. HOUSING ALLOWANCE: Fully furnished, modern housing provided in addition to salary. TRAVEL EXPENSES: Employee and dependents travel to (and from) the Marshall Islands provided. Household moving costs also provided. DUTIES: The Staff Archaeologist will serve as the republic's technical expert on archaeology and historic preservation. The Archaeologist will guide or assist the Historic Preservation Offices in the following activities: 1) Head the archaeological compliance program of the Historic Preservation Office in enforcing the Republic of the Marshall Islands Historic Preservation Act 1991; 2) training Historic Preservation Office staff in archaeology and cultural resource management to enable them to be as knowledgeable, self-sufficient and self- directed as possible in carrying out their mission; 3) developing, coordinating and carrying out plans for archaeological surveys and test excavations including the preparation and delivery of final reports; 4) establishing and maintaining standardized cultural resource inventories and registration systems; 5) monitoring ground disturbing projects; 6) assessing the condition and evaluating the significance of a variety of cultural resources; 7) cultural resource management planning; 8) designing and managing cultural resource databases; 9) ensuring compliance with Section 106 of the U.S. National Historic Preservation Act with regard to U.S. federal undertakings in the RMI; 10) other related duties as assigned by the HPO or the Deputy HPO. All work conducted or supervised by the Archaeologist shall meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. All reports, publications, audiovisual materials, and training and public information materials produced by the Archaeologist in the course of her or his duty shall include the required acknowledgment of NPS financial support, the required NPS/Interior disclaimer statement, and the required U.S. Government nondiscrimination statement. Personal publications by the Archaeologist of a research or technical nature that have been derived from work conducted in the course of her or his duty as the Archaeologist must acknowledge RMI HPO and NPS financial support. One copy of any such publication must be provided to the RMI HPO and the National Park Service. The National Park Service and the Department of the Interior shall have a royalty free right to republish any such material. QUALIFICATIONS: The applicant must currently have a graduate degree in Anthropology, Archaeology or a closely related field with a specialization in archaeology. In addition, the applicant must have a minimum of three years of full-time professional experience in applying theories, methods, and practices of archaeology that enable sound professional judgments to be made about the identification, evaluation, documentation, registration and treatment of cultural properties. The applicant must demonstrate the successful application of acquired proficiencies in archaeology to the practice of historic preservation, and the ability to carry research to completion. Preference will be given to applicants with a specialization and field experience in Pacific Prehistory. Preferred applicants will have previous experience in or working with a Historic Preservation Office and will have worked with National Register evaluation and State level review boards. GS experience preferred. Experience in underwater archaeology a plus. The applicant must be fluent in English and be able to communicate at a professional level in English both orally and in writing. The applicant must also be in good health and be fully capable of undertaking extended archaeological fieldwork in rugged terrain, under adverse conditions including high heat and humidity. TO APPLY: For further information regarding the position and a Republic of Marshall Islands Application for Employment form email the Deputy HPO, Mr. Clary Makroro (rmihpo@ntamar.com). To apply for the position mail, fax, or email (1) the completed application form, (2) supporting letter (indicating how your qualifications and experience will enable you to complete the duties of the position), (3) resume or curriculum vitae, and (4) three professional references, no later than March 12, 2001. Email or fax applications preferred. Emailed text attachments can be in MS word for PC or Adobe Acrobat Reader format, the completed RMI employment application can be emailed as a JPEG, MAX, or PDF file. For surface mail, the use of USPS "Priority Mail" is recommended to expedite delivery and to provide you with a receipt for delivery. Mr. Clary Makroro Deputy Historic Preservation Officer PO Box 1454 Majuro, MH 96960 Republic of the Marshall Islands Ph/Fax: 011-692-625-4476 Email: rmihpo@ntamar.com This program receives U.S. Federal funds from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in Departmental Federally Assisted Programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or handicap. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127, USA. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:30:49 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? Since we are on the subject, why a fishing rod for passing notes? Couldnt they just as easily had a headphone intercom system in the plane? All she would have to do is signal Fred to put his on and they could have spoken to each other. I will note that Ann Pellegreno and Linda Finch both agree that the sound of the engines is enormous and that they both suffered from ringing ears during the stopovers on their flights. That may have something to do with it . Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Headphone intercom systems didn't arrive until WWII. Noonan seems to have habitually used notes to pass instructions to the flight crew. The bamboo pole may not have even been brought along on the second attempt. Noonan seems to have spent most of his time riding up front anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:00:57 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Amelia's 19:12 GMT position > From Bob Brandenburg > > My results are based on signal > propagation analysis and show that the CPA > probably did not exceed 80 miles -I'll buy the "probably", but isn't this figure complicated by the possibility of one-hop, high angle reflection? I'm thinking this picture would start with the basic out-to-80 figure, a circle based on the signal source, then a ring of silence (the so-called "skip zone"), then another ring where the signal reappears ( and this ring is much more challenging to quantify). Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:05:00 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Shoe Fetish > From Rick Seapin > I click on the URL you provided for the shoe fetish, but the page is > not there, what gives? Something somewhere breaks the URL into two parts when I get it. I don't know if it's the listserv or my e-mail program. I had to cut and paste "ull.html" onto the end of the URL to get it to work. It's worth the effort. Great photos and analysis! Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:06:50 EST From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Chasing wreckage Niku IIII may be looking for more than just parts of a 10E From the Avweb wire THE MIR IS FALLING, THE MIR IS FALLING: Have you ever dreamed of being an astronaut, but those coke-bottle glasses always seemed to set you back? Now, for a price, space will come to you. A select few will have the opportunity to view the Mir space station (or at least pieces of it) as it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere in mid-March. A wide- body jet is being charted for 120 enthusiasts to chase the station's remaining 21 metric tons of debris expected to survive the re-entry next month. The controlled re-entry of MIR is planned for a remote section of the South Pacific Ocean. Anybody have a clearer idea of just where this thing is going to come down? Can we get the wide-body to do a Niku flyby and take some high res photos on their way home? LTM (who hates having satellite debris mess up her hairdo) Andrew McKenna ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:07:34 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: The shoes. Thanks, Roger. All I really needed was the identity of the publisher, so I could cite the book correctly in the bibliography of the book we're coming out with this summer. I don't know if there'll be any need for further substantive information from similar sources, but you never know. For right now, though, I'm glad to just get the housekeeping done; putting the final touches on a book is a real pain. Thanks for your help. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:08:56 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Mid-air refueling Janet Whitney said: " . . . how long could the Electra have flown on 1100 gallons of fuel had she taken off and been refueled in mid-air?" Would that be the Klingon or Nomoid air-to-air refueling tanker were talking about here? LTM, whose most recent mid-air refueling was a diet Coke and a Slim Jim Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:11:58 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Amelia's 19:12 GMT position What has always fascinated me is the notations in the log. Without referencing them I believe they went similar to: "abt 100 miles out" "abt 200 miles out" If these notations were made by the radio operators, and if they were experienced with air to ground signals it suggests someone had some sort of idea where the Electra was based on signal strength. So a circle of probability in the order of 100 miles radius of Howland should not be considered outside the bounds of possibility... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric From the original notations in both Itasca radio logs, it is my opinion that the "200 miles out" estimate is something that Earhart said and the "100 miles out" notation is the radio operator's opinion. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:19:30 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: 8th Edition Not to be boorish, but when can I expect my copy of the 8th Edition in the mail? Yes, I know it is available on line, but I hate reading stuff off of these damned TV monitors. I like books. I want to hold them, smell them, caress them, fondle their soft . . . oops, wrong forum. I look forward to a leisurely reading of the 8th Edition in hard copy format in places and times of my choosing. I REALLY prefer the transportable, physically printed word over the electronic version. LTM, who is considering conversion to Ludditism Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric You? Boorish? Never! Fear not. Progress is being made. I have umpteen hardcopy pages sitting on my desk as we speak awaiting my proofing and perusal for needed updates. We anticipate mailing the 3-ring binders with the first installment of copy to all 8th Edition owners within a couple weeks. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:35:17 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities > The actual track was plotted from Noonan's navigation data, which Randy > Jacobson obtained from the actual chart used by Noonan. I think I've been asleep. I had in mind that whatever chart and data used by Noonan for his actual flight from Lae to Howland in July of 1937 is most likely still in the plane, wherever that is. And even if by some miracle one has that chart it would only tell what was planned but little of what happened. I'll second Oscar in that weather conditions could have put AE's plane far off track and it is typical to plot a new course to destination rather than waste time and fuel rejoining the preplanned course. An exception would be if there was a particular check point one wanted to over fly. There is some indication the plane was somewhere within sight of the lights at Nauru or near a ship near that mid point but beyond that we know nothing of their flight path or altitude or of the winds and weather until the "we must be on you" call placed them at some unknown point within strength 5 radio range. We don't know where Noonan plotted Howland so we don't know exactly whether the LOP passed over or several miles from Howland. Also don't forget the sun did not provide a course line inbound but DID once they arrived at the LOP and turned on it. Also don't forget Noonan was not necessarily limited to the sun as a navigational aid. The moon and one or two planets were available if weather permitted ANY sightings. If anyone wants to fuss with me about this further I'm at acaldwell@aol.com so we don't waste the rest of the forum's time. Perhaps we can come to an acceptable position and post our collective conclusion. Methinks we're tilting at windmills once again. I have. It's easy to recognize. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Some confusion seems to have crept in to this discussion ("Confusion Creep" being a common forum problem). The navigational analysis was of the Oakland/Honlulu flight, for which good records do exist. The point of the whole exercise was to learn something about Noonan's usual methods - which seem to have been been looser than has often been assumed. There is no credible indication that Earhart ever saw the lights at Nauru. She did say she saw a "ship in sight ahead" which may have been either USS Ontario or SS Myrtlebank. It really doesn't make much difference which one it was. The only conclusion drawn is that Noonan's usual nav techniques perhaps make it more credible that, absent help from DF, the July 2nd flight struck the LOP well south of Howland. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:00:27 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Amelia's 19:12 GMT position > We may be able to determine for sure where the flight ended > but we'll never be able to say for certain how it got there. That's the most accurate summation I've read in awhile. If Noonan could shoot the sun he could shoot the moon and at least one planet all of which would give him a fairly accurate position. If this was the case they would not have strayed far before heading on to Gardner which, as Ric pointed out, was a fairly sure bet. Although the reported local weather data doesn't support it Noonan may not have been able to shoot celestial in which case he was DRing best he could and may not have been close enough to see the islands. Even over the islands they could have easily been missed due to sun glare on the water and scattered CU below. Once they headed SE the reported weather indicated a reasonable probability he could see the sun at least and that alone could get him to Gardner. I don't see fuel as a factor other than limiting loiter time. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric The big bugaboo is that scattered CU. We know they descended to 1,000 feet during the approach to Howland. The only logical reason was to get down where they could see something. As you know, from altitude, a scattered deck below may as well be solid cloud except for whatever is directly under you. Once they were down low and running on the LOP the scattered deck above may have greatly limited Noonan's ability to take celestial observations. The clouds are in the way and it's bumpy down there. What do you do? Burn precious fuel climbing back up on top, during which you can't look for land? Or do you stay low and DR down the line, keeping a sharp eye out for salvation? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:03:34 EST From: Bill Clow Subject: Re: Wauhab Ridge B-29 This is not exactly Earhart material but would Don Jordan care to give us his web page for the Wauhab Ridge B-29 story. Thanks: Bill Clow *************************************************************************** From Ric Don's website is at http://www.cyberlynk.com/djordan/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:05:01 EST From: Jim Tierney Subject: Re: 8th Edition Oh Thankyou- Thankyou--Thankyou-----The 8th Edition in print will be on its way to us soon.......Truly good news for us older guys who want to hold the paper/book/manuscript in our hands...... We dont have to get a crick in our necks as we raise our heads to read thru the lower levels of our bifocals and study the words on the stupid monitor....... I agree with Mr Dennis McGee completely.......Thank you...... Jim Tierney **************************************************************************** From Ric I hear ya. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:52 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Electra's Minimum Fuel Consumption The assumption that all tanks were full is erroneous. They had one tank with high octane fuel for takeoff( Appx 100 gallons). There are several anecdotal accounts that the tank was only given 80 gallons, enough for takeoff and climbout, at Amelia's request. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric You're way behind the power curve. The fueling situation is documented in both Collopy's letter and the Chater report. The airplane had 1,100 US gallons aboard (give or take a few gallons) including about 40 gallons of 100 octane. Both sources are on the TIGHAR website. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:58:50 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: 8th Edition > ... We dont have to get a crick in our necks as we raise our heads to read > thru the lower levels of our bifocals and study the words on the stupid > monitor... I've got just one word for you: reading glasses. ;o) Makes computer reading more pleasant. Still not a substitute for a good three-ring binder. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:07:36 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Mid-air refueling Ric , Just to let the masses know , mid air refueling has been around since the 1920's. The US Navy also refused her that option early on in her planning. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Wrong again. AE and GP pulled political strings and got the president to ask the Navy to consider the idea of letting her refuel from a PBY over Midway on her originally-planned route nonstop from Hawaii to Japan. The Navy didn't refuse but they were clearly not thrilled with such a screwball idea. Meanwhile, the possibility arose that existing plans to build a runway on Howland could be expedited in time to accomodate her flight and everybody agreed that it was a much better plan. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:11:38 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities > From Oscar Boswell > > Bob Brandenburg wrote: >> The actual track was plotted from Noonan's navigation data, which Randy Jacobson >> obtained from the actual chart used by Noonan. A detailed listing of Noonan's >> data is available in the 8th Edition. > > Well, that's what I suspected. The only reason you know where the plane was is > because Noonan told you. I thought I made it clear that I was using Noonan's data. > I fail to understand how one can extrapolate from the > fact that the plane was (TO NOONAN'S FULL KNOWLEDGE) North of what you think the > "proper" track should have been and conclude that the flight was in danger of > missing anything. I don't recall making such an extrapolation. The point of the exercise was to get some insight into Noonan's navigation habits. > If the navigator knows where he is, he can get to where he wants > to go (assuming sufficient fuel). So, why didn't Noonan find Howland Island? Could it be that he didn't know where he was? And could that be a consequence of his navigation habits? It is apparent from Noonan's data on the Oakland - Honolulu flight that he couldn't be sure of his position most of the time - - he was relying on two-body fixes most of the way. > It is not necessary (or always efficient) to > return to the original course, because (as they say) all roads lead to Rome (and > in the air, those roads are infinite). There are also often good reasons for > deviating from the direct course - wind or weather being among them Noonan's 0738Z 2-body fix put him 50 miles northwest of the rhumb line from San Francisco to Honolulu. His next 2-body fix, at 1007Z, put him 135 miles northwest of track. He did not change course to head for Honolulu, but instead continued until 1339Z when he got the first radio bearing from Mokapu, at which time he changed course to head for Honolulu. It seems clear that he was relying on the radio bearing. Had have missed Oahu by about 98 miles. But there's no reason to assume he would have done that. If he didn't get the radio bearing when he expected it, he could have headed for where he thought Honolulu was and he would have been OK because it's pretty hard to miss the Hawaiian Islands. > Or am I missing some point here? The point is that Noonan probably used the same navigation procedures on the Lae-Howland leg that he used on the Oakland-Honolulu flight. However, the two situations were crucially different. Noonan's navigation was good enough to find a large target like the Hawaiian Islands even without a radio bearing to guide him. But Howland Island is much more difficult to find and Noonan 's habitual navigation procedures weren't good enough to compensate for the lack of the expected end-game radio bearing. He wouldn't have a clue as to where he was, except that he was on some LOP, as events seem to have demonstrated. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:14:40 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Amelia's 19:12 GMT position Hue Miller wrote: >...isn't this figure complicated > by the possibility of one-hop, high angle reflection? I'm > thinking this picture would start with the basic out-to-80 > figure, a circle based on the signal source, then a ring > of silence (the so-called "skip zone"), then another ring > where the signal reappears ( and this ring is much more challenging to quantify). The propagation was indeed via a one-hop high angle skywave path, but there was no skip zone. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:21:31 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Not Enough Fuel to Reach Gardner Is. The Electra was loaded with 1100 gallons of fuel at Lae. At a rate of 38 gallons per hour cruising at altitude, the Electra's fuel would have lasted about 29 hours, ignoring an overloaded take-off, overloaded climb to cruising altitude, flying overloaded for about 8 hours, headwinds, flying off-course, etc. It would have taken Earhart and Noonan about 24 hours to fly to Gardner via Howland. This would have consumed 912 gallons of fuel at 38 gallons per hour and ignoring the above. This would have left 188 gallons of fuel for "operating contigencies" (the overloaded conditon of the Electra, headwinds, etc.) But it appears that the Electra burned an extra 188 gallons (and more) during the first 8 hours of flight. So Earhart was, in fact, "low on fuel" as she approached Howland. I don't see how she had enough fuel to fly from the vicinity of Howland (within 50 miles) to Gardner. Straight-line distance between Howland and Gardner is about 425 miles. Janet Whitney *************************************************************************** From Ric Janet, you're ignoring the original source data and making up your own oversimplified version of the situation. This horse has been beaten to death and buried and I'm not eager to dig it up again. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:24:20 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities > The navigational analysis was of the Oakland/Honlulu flight, for which good > records do exist. The point of the whole exercise was to learn something > about Noonan's usual methods - which seem to have been been looser than has > often been assumed. > > There is no credible indication that Earhart ever saw the lights at Nauru. > She did say she saw a "ship in sight ahead" which may have been either USS > Ontario or SS Myrtlebank. It really doesn't make much difference which one > it was. Exactly. My whole point in this and another couple postings is that a number of assumptions have been made and from them "facts" mysteriously arose and from that an analysis came forth the basis of which is invalid. Ric, your comments about our heroes descending to 1,000' is an important reminder to all that their ability then to spot a tiny island was not an odds on favorite. Anyone who has flown in such conditions knows that where the scattered CU say at 10,000' looks very scattered, at 1,000' it looks like a solid deck. In addition the shadows look like a bunch of islands. Add to that the obvious problem that no more sun shots can be taken through the cloud cover unless it is VERY scattered. Even then the bumpy air at that altitude should just about make it impossible. At the point AE and FN descended to 1,000' they were pretty well committed to quickly spotting Howland or Baker using only their eye sight and then after a brief search heading down the LOP. Not much else makes any sense given no radio communications. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:26:18 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Wauhab Ridge B-29 Thanks Ric, for putting my web site on the forum. I should mention however, that the full story of the Wauhab Ridge B-29 will be in my upcoming book due out in August 2001. Most of what's on the web page is just a teaser, but I will be happy to talk about it privately with anyone interested. And by the way, I thought you or Pat were going to send a logo or banner to me to put on the site. I'd be happy to help advertise TIGHAR. Don J. *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for the reminder. Just haven't gotten to it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:27:31 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Fred's Bad Navigation Habits? > From Ric > > Headphone intercom systems didn't arrive until WWII. Noonan seems to have > habitually used notes to pass instructions to the flight crew. The bamboo > pole may not have even been brought along on the second attempt. Noonan > seems to have spent most of his time riding up front anyway. In such a noisy environment, spoken words can be misinterpreted very easily.. Notes are much less likely to be misinterpreted. I'd go with the bamboo pole every time... Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:39:04 EST From: Richard Subject: Re: Wauhab Ridge B-29 The letter from Eugene Pallett addressed to The Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, June 9, 1937) as displayed on Don Jordan's website should makes us wonder, how many letters were sent to friends of FN and AE. Why couldn't this letter have surfaced many years ago? It certainly can't help us very much in the search for AE at this late date. Richard *************************************************************************** From Ric You might check the archived Forum Highlights for discussions about Fred's letters home and our adventures in trying to get them released by his wife's family. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:57:47 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Amelia's 19:12 GMT position > Or do you stay low and DR down the line, keeping a sharp eye out for > salvation? To have a good chance of finding any islands she would have to be at 5000ft. Lower in the Electra would not have been safe, and would have drastically reduced her chances of seeing islands. Higher, and the smaller islands would have just melted into the seascape. When Earhart reported she was at 1000ft, they must have been forced there somehow. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric You only have to be out there for a few days to understand exactly why they were at 1,000 feet. Near the equator in the Central Pacific every day is pretty much alike. Soon after sunup, cumulus clouds start popping and soon there's a scattered deck with the bases at 2,000 feet or so. If you're "on top" you can't see beans except for what is directly beneath you. To stand any chance of spotting an island in the distance you have to be down below those bases. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:09:53 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Not Enough Fuel to Reach Gardner Is. > From Ric >... This horse has been beaten to > death and buried and I'm not eager to dig it up again. You can exhume the carcass by starting in at http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/forum/Highlights61_80/highlights68.html and following the messages in the associated threads. The longer the airplane flies, the lighter it gets, the more the engines can be adjusted to fly at more or less the same airspeed while consuming less fuel. I can't do the calculations, but I respect them. Guesses about headwinds/tailwinds at various altitudes come into play, too. Lastly, IF (a big if) our dynamic duo were off to the south of Howland, their search north and south on the LOP may not have required lots of extra fuel. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:36:06 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Reality of Howland Approach The reality of Earhart & Noonan's approach to Howland is that they did not have much fuel left when they approached Howland Island. Certainly not enough to reach Gardner Island. Ann Pellegreno and her crew (which included 2 experienced pilots and one of the best navigators in the world, as well as state-of-the-art navigation equipment, factory-installed Collins SSB radio, etc.) found it very difficult to visually acquire Howland Island on July 1, 1967, in weather conditions close to those Earhart and Noonan encountered on July 2, 1937. Earhart's radio transmissions indicate that she was close to Howland Island and the Itasca at 1912 GMT, then flew out of line-of-sight radio range of the Itasca, then flew within line-of sight radio range of the Itasca by 2014 GMT, flying North and South along a 157-337 line. A short time later the Electra ran out of fuel. My estimate is that the 157-337 line they were flying north and south on was about 25 miles west of Howland. This area wasn't searched for over a week after her disappearance. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric Well, I guess that's it then. One niggling question before we all go home --- who was the woman who died on Gardner? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:37:12 EST From: Hugh Graham Subject: L10A flights from Toronto. Just got a call from Linda Hutson re Lockheed L10A flights this year from Toronto Island Airport. CF-TCC takes flight on June 22,23 and 24, 2001. Flights are 30 minutes and cost $125 Canadian(~$80 US). BTW, the air terminal at Toronto Island(Toronto Downtown) was built in 1937. LTM, HAG 2201. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:42:10 EST From: Bill Moffet Subject: Re: 8th Edition I, too, second the motion, about a hard copy of the 8th Ed, and thank you for the good news. As a possible aid to Dennis, Jim - and a host of other old-timers like me who've experienced the crick in the neck syndrome reading the monitor thru the bottom of our bifocals, try this: Go to your local K-Mart or drug store, find the rack of "reading glasses" and try a few, reading the blurb on the rack from about the distance you normally sit from the monitor. When you find a pair that really brings the fine print up, buy 'em! By chance one day I found that they can be worn OVER the bifocals where they re-convert the top of those lenses to near vision so I don't have to keep swapping glasses. Maybe a better idea is to try them on in the store over the bifocals. Works for me! LTM Bill Moffet #2156 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:53:47 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: Reality of Howland Approach Ric wrote: <> I wasn't aware that we were certain that it was a woman who died on Gardner, only that it was probably a woman -- only if the bones were definitely of European ancestry. According to Burns/Jantz (quoted from the TIGHAR web-site): "The skull is more likely European than Polynesian, ALTHOUGH IT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM ANY POPULATION." [emphasis mine] They go on to state: "ASSUMING THE SKULL REPRESENTS A PERSON OF EUROPEAN ANCESTRY [again, emphasis mine], the FORDISC analysis indicates that the individual represented was most likely female. UNFORTUNATELY THE LEVEL OF CERTAINTY IS VERY LOW..." [again, emphasis mine]. Burns/Jantz stated that the person was "most likely female" ONLY if their previous assumption (i.e., that the skull is European rather than Polynesian) is correct. They go on to say that THE LEVEL OF CERTAINTY IS VERY LOW. From this information, I conclude only that it is POSSIBLE that the remains of a European woman ended up on Gardner, not that it is certain, or even probable. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Fair criticism. I'll amend my question. Who was the person with the woman's shoe who died on Gardner? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:57:20 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Reality of Howland Approach > "The reality of Earhart & Noonan's approach to Howland is that they did not > have much fuel left when they approached Howland Island. Certainly not enough > to reach Gardner Island." Janet, once again you amaze me. I thought they had enough fuel to get to Gardner. What information do you have that no one else has that says they didn't? > "Ann Pellegreno and her crew (which included 2 experienced pilots and one of > the best navigators in the world, as well as state-of-the-art navigation > equipment, factory-installed Collins SSB radio, etc.) found it very difficult > to visually acquire Howland Island on July 1, 1967, in weather conditions > close to those Earhart and Noonan encountered on July 2, 1937." I didn't know we knew enough about the weather in 1937 to make that comparison. What is your source for the weather on July 2, 1937 at the location of the Electra wherever that was? > "Earhart's radio transmissions indicate that she was close to Howland Island > and the Itasca at 1912 GMT, then flew out of line-of-sight radio range of the > Itasca, then flew within line-of sight radio range of the Itasca by 2014 GMT, > flying North and South along a 157-337 line. A short time later the Electra > ran out of fuel." How did you find out the Electra ran out of fuel a short time later? > "My estimate is that the 157-337 line they were flying north and south on was > about 25 miles west of Howland. This area wasn't searched for over a week > after her disappearance." What facts (FACTS) did you use to place the LOP 25 miles west of Howland? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:02:03 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Reality of Howland Approach >From Ric > > Well, I guess that's it then. One niggling question before we all go home > --- who was the woman who died on Gardner? She was a pirate, Ric. I think Maureen O'Hara played her in the movie. Kerry Tiller ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:11:23 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities First, let me apologize for my rather inartful use of Socratic method, and the excessively terse nature of my questions and comments - there are a number of non sequiturs floating around in this discussion, and it's hard to deal with them succinctly. I didn't say that you (Bob) had extrapolated a possible miss - I used the word "one" - my recollection is that Ric made the extrapolation (if I am incorrect about that, I apologize; I am interested in fixing the problem, not the blame). I picked up this thread rather late, and was watching it out of the corner of my eye, when it seemed suddenly to veer off course. Suddenly people were discussing "Noonan's Capabilities" and implying that his "performance" or "practices" on the Hawaii flight might give clues about the Howland flight. Well, they might, but only if you analyze them properly, and realize what they tell you (and what they don't). If Noonan had said "we're at point X", and you were able to establish that he was 50 miles South of X at that moment, you would have an important indication of his "performance" - the accuracy of his work. But that's not what you have. Noonan said he was at X and then he said he was at Y, and this disturbs you because you think he should have been 50 South of X and 135 South of Y. And not only that, it bothers you because Noonan continued to stay North of the rhumb line course, and doesn't seem to have taken steps to alter course to get the plane back to the "correct track", even though he knew he was well North of that track. What does this set of facts tell us? It tells us that Noonan deliberately did not alter course to the South. It tells us that he was content to be 50 to 135 miles North of the rhumb line course. It doesn't tell us why he was content, though we can speculate that it might have been one (or more)of the following reasons: 1- he was avoiding unfavorable weather 2- he was seeking favorable winds 3- he was evaluating the ability of the pilot to hold course 4- he was evaluating the ability of the other navigator 5- he was making a deliberate navigational offset to the right Your comment about Noonan's navigation not being good enough to find Howland without DF radio is obviously correct [I mean, that's what happened!], but it is not supported by what took place on the Hawaii flight, nor does it support your assertion that near the end of the Howland flight, "he wouldn't have a clue as to where he was" - on the way to Hawaii, you say he knew where he was, you just think he should have been somewhere else. And what specific defective "procedure" do you say Noonan was using on the flight to Hawaii that contributed to the problem at Howland? Thanks. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes. The statement that Noonan, without DF, would have missed Oahu was mine, not Bob's. I wonder how similar the chart Bob reconstructed (which will soon be added to the 8th Edition chapter on the Oakland/Honolulu flight) resembles the chart in the Purdue collection? The key point here, it seems to me, is whether or not Noonan KNEW his actual position relative to the "desired" position during the flight. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:28:53 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Unknown Persons on Gardner Is. In all the postings to the Earhart Forum, where are the evil and malicious people who wanted to cover up the events surrounding Earhart's disappearance, hide her remains, hide the Electra's remains, etc.? I haven't seen any. In fact, I've seen just the opposite. Remember that Earhart was a friend of the Roosevelts, was widely respected outside the United States, and was treated well during her various flights - from 1928 onward. Earhart's flight occurred in an era when courtesy, good manners, and exemplary behavior were the norm among educated people. No one had a motive NOT to rescue Earhart or to hide her remains, Noonan's remains and the remains of the Electra. If TIGHAR really wants to find the Electra, start looking at 1 degree North latitude, 177 degrees West longitude. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric I am truly baffled. First you say (quite correctly) that there has been no suggestion on the forum that anybody tried to thwart the search or hide the plane or its crew. Then you say the reason for that is because people were nice back then. Then you suggest that TIGHAR begin its search in an area of open ocean through which, according to the official record, Itasca passed within a few hours of the disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:33:18 EST From: T.L. Simpson Subject: ALIVE You gotta check this one out.Amelia Earhart is alive.This is in an article in Weekly World News dated Feb 20th 2001.It says she's living on a south sea atoll growing pineapple's and vegetable's and is 103 years old.Said that Fred went down with the plane after it ran out of fuel.Gee Ric guess your out of a job ,I don't know I think I like the one about the aliens better.I don't read Tabloids but this one caught my eye and thought the Forum would get a kick out of it.If BS was music. (LTM) T.L. Simpson #2396 **************************************************************************** From Ric The Weekly World News finds Amelia Earhart every few years. We only plan to do it once. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:43:51 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Has anybody even considered the possibility that he was testing the viability of navigating by radio aids alone. I suspect that they were in their relative infancy at the time, and if I was going to use them at some later stage to find a football field in the ocean I'd like to know they worked first. Testing them where there was a good chance of still getting to my destination if they failed seems pretty sensible to me. Fred was supposed to be a trained navigator. Are there many more instances (other than Dakar) where he missed his destination or can be proved to have been way off track AND STAYED THERE? My navigation skills are intheir infancy, and I only fly cross country a couple of hundred miles at a time. However on thing I'm taught to do is work out a new heading any time I'm off track. If it's only a short distince off I have to do a quick dogleg to get back on track. If it's a larger distance it is more proficient to track direct to the destination. If Noonan was 50 miles off to the NW and continued until he was 135 miles off to NW there had to be a really good reason! We should at least consider testing of the radio nav aids before shooting him down in flames. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric You don't need to wander 135 miles off course to test nav aids. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:49:15 EST From: Malcom Andrews Subject: Re: Reading monitor Why not do as I do? I have trifocals. Bottom for reading (books, newspapers etc), middle for computer monitor (adjusted by my optometrist for the different focal length), rest for long distance. They work a treat. But I still like the feel and smell of books. Malcolm Andrews, Sydney ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:50:12 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Chasing wreckage I get the impression that the general target area is East of Sydney, and West of South America. It's not rocket science (well, actually it IS rocket science) Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 LTM (who has to come down eventually) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:54:44 EST From: Denise Subject: Ocean Islanders Tom King says he is looking for Koata's son "who was last heard of on Ocean Island". Are you aware that most ot the population of Ocean Island now lives on Rabi Island, just above Taveuni, in Fiji? They had to leave Ocean Island since it was destroyed by phosphate mining and so they purchased an old plantation island from Colgates and relocated. Since they are trying to reestablish their old culture in a new setting, they are rather touchy about visitors, but next time you're in Suva, drop in at the Grand Pacific Hotel. I believe that's where they hang-out when they're in town. Someone is sure to know the whereabouts of Koata's son. Islanders are great at keeping tabs on people. LTM (who loved the Grand Pacific Hotel herself) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:19:43 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Reflections? If you'd known ahead of time that the search for AE and FN was going to be so lengthy, so difficult, so frustrating, etc, would you still have set out on the journey? I know it is a trite question, but inquiring reader would like to know. LTM, who has a short attention span Dennis McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Ahhh.. a philosophical question. How refreshing. The first time I went to Maine looking for The White Bird (April 1984) I expected to find it that weekend. By the time we launched the Earhart Project in 1988 we had learned that this kind of research is a process rather than an event. Nonetheless, when we mounted the first Earhart expedition in 1989 we never dreamed that there would be more than one. The airplane would either be there or not - right? Right. The really amazing thing about this investigation has been the constant stream of new information that keeps turning up. Just when we think we've looked under all the rocks we turn a corner and find a whole field of boulders nobody knew was there. The Earhart story has turned out to be infinitely richer and more intriguing than anything previous researchers had imagined (and some of them have very good imaginations). It's a wild ride and I wouldn't miss it for the world. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:24:14 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Well, all I have is the info on the research CD - no info on when or how a DF may have been used. However, the CD indicates a fix (non radio - radm being the keyword for radio fix) at 1339, followed by a course correction at 1410. The 30 minutes or so between the fix (taking of the fix) and the course correction corresponds roughly to the work up time for a 2-3 sight fix. Another fix (non-radio) was taken at 1520, about an hour before arrival. By the time FN had that worked up, they would have probably acquired a visual fix to support any DF. Without original info, I can't argue very strenuously, but if DF was absolutely essential to their approach, then I can only wonder at the hubris of attempting to head on to Howland. If either FN or Manning had any doubts about their stand alone capability, it was time to look for alternatives to the next leg, and yet there they were when AE ground looped on takeoff. Surely radios and DF was not of a standard at that time that one could rely for one's life on them. Here is another angle. To me, lack of top notch capability and workmanship on FN's part reduces the probability of making a rational decision to run the LOP to Niku. Why? Running, about 350 NM (give or take) to Niku would have required a high degree of confidence in the precision and execution of the 157 LOP in the first place - a little to the east or west is not going to help. Then FN would have been instrumental in trying to keep them on course - estimating wind drift, factoring in pilot errors involved in following nothing but a compass heading for such long distances, possibly checking for compass errors with sun shots and a pelorus, and shooting additional sun lines every 30-45 minutes or so. This would have been critical for the final approach, since even if by some miracle they had managed to stay on the 157 LOP, that passes somewhat to the east of Niku and a bit outside (w/o my reading glasses) of the visible range (considered to be maybe 10-12 mi?) of the island. Flying to Niku would have taken guts enough. Trying to find another very small island near the limits of fuel range after failing to find Howland, this time certainly with no DF - it sounds formidable enough with a first class navigator on the ball. Either that or pure, dumb luck. Just flying down the LOP without navigational checks doesn't seem like a good bet. I would not be surprised if TIGHAR has looked at estimating the relative size of the zone of uncertainty by the time the flight would have reached Niku, with and without a skilled navigator. Approximately how large would those uncertainty zones be? If we are talking about an incompetent FN just shooting for the best probabilities, my vote for a land based ending would have them striking out in the general direction of the center of the arc formed by the Phoenix chain from wherever they perceived themselves to be after giving up on Howland. The probabilities are reasonably good of stumbling into at least one of the islands. Draw a 10-12 mi radius circle around each one of the Phoenix Islands from Canton to Niku. Lay one edge of the plotter on the upper edge of the circle around Canton, and lay the other end over a point as far north of Howland that FN might reasonably have believed them to be. The location of that point is not really important to the general discussion. Next, draw a parallel line to the first, anchored from the southerly side of the circle around Niku or McKean. Anything located within that substantial diagonal band that flies on a course equal to the azimuth of the top (and bottom) lines defining the band has a very good chance of just bumbling onto land of some kind or at least passing within visible distance. The only glaring gap of note is between McKean and Niku on the western side. Not a great solution, but it might be a reasonable decision from a probability standpoint - even as a backstop for a competent navigator. Even Sydney would be within approximately 4 hours flight time - less if the aircraft was south of Howland. If FN was not up to finding small islands w/o DF, then the blunt instrument (wide target) approach to finding land might have been worth considering - especially if he could bring at least some navigational capability to bear. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:30:24 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities >From Oscar Boswell >It doesn't tell us why he was content, though >we can speculate that it might have been one (or more)of the following >reasons: > > 1- he was avoiding unfavorable weather > 2- he was seeking favorable winds > 3- he was evaluating the ability of the pilot to hold course > 4- he was evaluating the ability of the other navigator > 5- he was making a deliberate navigational offset to the right One other obvious (to me as a pilot) reason, is he might have been staying north of traffic headed for the mainland and wanted to avoid a mid-air. Also, he may have wanted to see a specific part of the islands just for the fun of it. LTM, Dave Bush **************************************************************************** From Ric Uh... Dave....Just what traffic would he be avoiding in 1937? Bird migrations? I'm reminded of the story a Park Ranger at Gettysburg told me about the lady who was sure that the battle must have taken place somewhere else otherwise all those monuments would show bullet damage. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:03:01 EST From: Don Jordan Subject: Missing Dakar? Th' Wombat wrote; "Fred was supposed to be a trained navigator. Are there many more instances (other than Dakar) where he missed his destination or can be proved to have been way off track AND STAYED THERE?" I'm sorry guy/gals, when I read a comment like this, I just have to come to "Old Fred's" defense. I've become rather fond of the old boy, especially since helping on the "Noonan Project". Take a look at a map of the route between Natal and Dakar. Now draw a line to represent the desired course to be flown. Continue that line out to the northeast and you'll see that St. Louis is very close to the desired track. Most of the mileage between Dakar and St. Louis (70 or 80 miles) is along that course. Now throw in the fact that, because of bad weather, the visibility was down to about one mile or less after the 19 hour flight (most of which was on instruments!!). And. . . remember. Fred wasn't flying the airplane. He was basically giving his best advise on where to go. It was proven, that sometimes the "PIC" didn't take his advice. Put it all together, and I think this "Missing Dakar" thing is blown way out of proportion. Don J. **************************************************************************** From Ric How many times do we have to debunk this myth? Earhart's description of the events upon reaching the coast of Africa do not agree at all with Noonan's lines, calculations and notations on the actual chart used (now in the Purdue collection). Which do you want to believe? The tale AE cooked up for the papers or the story told by the chart? When they were still about 600 miles out, Noonan had determined that they were well north of course and ordered a heading correction. The next time he obtained a position about three hours later he discovered that he had overdone it and they were now a bit south of course. He ordered another heading change to start angling back northward. An hour later, at 1800 GMT, as he approached the coast he fixed his position as being a little over 100 miles south and actually east of Dakar (which sits out on a peninsula). About a half hour later, at 18:36 GMT, he passed AE a note that read: "3:36 change to 36 degrees Estimate 79 miles to Dakar from 3:36 PM" (Apparently AE was using local time). AE jotted on the bottom of the note: "What put us north", apparently referring to the earlier southward correction. They made landfall at the base of the peninsula several miles southeast of Dakar. Off to the left the city, harbor and airport were obscured by haze in the gathering dusk. It apparently seemed safer to continue up the coast to St. Louis. None of this can be reconciled with Earhart's description of what happened in her story for the Herald Trib, repeated later in Last Flight: "When we first sighted the African coast, thick haze prevailed and for some time no position sight had been possible. My navigator indicated we should turn south. Had we done so, a half hour would have brought us to Dakar. But a 'left turn' seemed to me in order and after fifty miles of flying along the coast we found ourselves at St. Louis, Senegal. Once arrived over the airport it was wiser to sit down rather than retrace our track over a strange country with the sudden darkness of the tropics imminent." Her description of the event is even contradicted by Noonan's note which was reproduced in Last Flight. Clearly he directed her to turn left to 36 degrees, not right as she contends. In his letter to Gene Pallette, written from Dakar two days later, Noonan said of the arrival: "To add to our woes the African coast was enveloped in thick haze, rendering objects invisible at distances over a half mile, when we made the landfall. And our radio was out of order - it would be in such a jam. However, with our usual good luck, if not good guidance, we barged through okay." Any pilot knows that half mile visibility is no fun when you're trying to find an airport strictly by eyeball and flying into the sun in dense haze, as they would have been doing had they turned west for Dakar, means being virtually blind. It's hardly surprising that they opted to continue up the coast to St. Louis. But why would Earhart make up the story she did? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:21:31 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Itasca's Initial Search There is no indication that the Itasca was close enough to 1 N 177 W on July 2nd that the crew could see wreckage on the water. The area along a 157-337 line 25 miles to the west of Howland wasn't searched until over a week after Earhart's and Noonan's disappearance. Janet Whitney ************************************************************************* From Ric Just looking at the search charts in the Navy report it looks like Itasca went right through there but I haven't plotted out her course step by step from the deck logs. Have you? Given the many unknown and unknowable variables in this puzzle it seesm the height of hubris to presume that you or Elgen Long or Alan Greenspan can pinpoint where the airplane went down. We began with a hypothesis about where the airplane may have come down and began testing that hypothesis by looking for evidence that an event of that nature occurred in the place where we suspect it occurred. So far the results are very encouraging. Your hypothesis may be true but testing it violates Ockham's Razor (Check the easy stuff first). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:12:58 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Woman's shoe? In re Ric's comment: <> Based upon a review of the Biltrite report and the TIGHAR Project Bulletin dated February 13, 2001, I would conclude that there is probability but not certainty that some of the shoe parts were from a woman's shoe. On page 1 of the report, referring to the rubber 8-nail-hole heel, Foshage and Ognitz (of Biltrite) state: "This could be from a large size Women's shoe or used on Men's shoes." On page 2, referring to the eyelet, they state: "Small; appears to be Women's Hole not big enough for Men's lace which would have been woven cotton in 1937." However, I do not believe that the eyelet has been positively dated to 1937 (or even the decade of the 30's) The Biltrite observation with respect to the eyelet belonging to the shoe of a person of specific sex may not be relevant if the eyelet came from a shoe of later vintage. Moreover, since the shoe parts appear to come from more than one pair of shoes, it is possible that some parts are of different vintage than others. That said, since Biltrite has indicated that at least one of the heels (the Cat's Paw heel) comes from a mold that was used in the 1930's, and because the eyelet was found in such close proximity to the other shoe parts (including the Cat's Paw heel) I think that a reasonable person would conclude that the eyelet is probably of a similar vintage. Thus, I would be inclined to believe that it is probably from a woman's shoe. On Page 3 of the report, referring to the sole, Foshage and Ognitz state: "Shows stitch marks at sole; very close together". The TIGHAR project bulletin elaborates by indicating that Foshage and Ognitz verbally "expressed their opinion that the 'fine and close' stitching marks at the recovered sole were indications of a woman's shoe." This gives further credence to the probability that some of the artifacts come from a woman's shoe. With respect to Mr. Gillespie's question, "Who was the person with the woman's shoe who died on Gardner?" I would respond that we can only surmise that parts of what was once probably a woman's shoe was found on Gardner. That the owner of that shoe died on Gardner does not necessarily follow from the premise that a shoe was found there. If someone disposes of a shoe that later ends up in a fire pit, can one reasonably conclude that the person who disposed of the shoe died there? I am not trying to be a nit-picker about this. I am merely trying to be very careful about the conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from the available evidence. It is the totality of all of the clues together that leads one to believe that a female castaway may have died on Gardner. As to who that person was, no one can yet answer with certainty. David Evans Katz **************************************************************************** From Ric Wrong shoe, David. The shoe I'm talking about is the shoe Gallagher found with the bones, not the shoe we found. Your comments about the shoe we found are correct. It seems to be a woman's shoe but we can't be sure. In any event, it certainly isn't the same shoe Gallagher found. Gallagher was quite sure that the shoe he found was a woman's and Dr. Steenson, who also looked at the shoe remains sent to Suva, agreed that parts of a woman's shoe were present, as well as parts of a man's shoe. Yes, Galllagher and Steenson could have both been wrong about the gender of the shoe and that's hard to judge because nobody mentioned what it was about what was found that made it female. If we're going to question there conclusions we need some reason to do so. We question the conclusions that Hoodless drew about the bones because we have the specific measurements and reasoning that he used to reach his conclusions and we have contradicting opinions from experts who have reviewed that data. Anyone attempting to explain the castaway on Gardner has to either explain or dismiss the woman's shoe. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:14:59 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Reflections? > ... It's a wild ride and I wouldn't miss it for the world. Thanks for taking us all along with you. ;o) LTM. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric It takes a big crew to make this thing fly. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:18:46 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities >From Ric > >Uh... Dave....Just what traffic would he be avoiding in 1937? Bird >migrations? > >I'm reminded of the story a Park Ranger at Gettysburg told me about the lady >who was sure that the battle must have taken place somewhere else otherwise >all those monuments would show bullet damage. My point is that anything is just speculation. At that time the only flights would be the Clippers, and maybe a few military flights and I'm sure he knew their time schedules. Of course, it could have been a secret government operation - spying on Jap buildup on the northern islands. LTM, Dave Bush **************************************************************************** From Ric You're pulling my leg - right? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:13:46 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Itasca's Initial Search Ric, as usual you exaggerate. 1 N 177 W would be a good starting point to search on a 157-337 line. As best as I can determine from what's been published (including by TIGHAR), the Itasca didn't get within 10 miles of 1 N 177W...it passed through a point about 1 N 176 40 W on a 157-337 line through Howland and traveled about 55 miles on this course before turning east to search. No one searched the area west of Howland for a week after Earhart and Noonan disappeared. *************************************************************************** From Ric So you haven't taken the hour by hour course changes recorded in the Itasca deck log and plotted them out to see where the ship actually went. What data are you relying on? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:30:26 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: A Woman on Gardner or Not Ric wrote: >Well, I guess that's it then. One niggling question before we all go home >--- who was the woman who died on Gardner? Hold the phone. What conclusive proof do you have that a woman castaway died on Gardner Island? I have been off and on the Forum for a few weeks so perhaps some conclusive proof has surfaced that I have not seen? LTM Kenton Spading **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, okay. Burns and Jantz agreed that the skull measurements recorded by Hoodless seemed to indicate that the individual was female, but their statements were heavily sprinkled with qualifiers. Both Gallagher and Steenson agreed that parts of a woman's shoe were found with the bones, but that doesn't make them right and, even if they were, that doesn't make the person a woman. You yourself have pointed out that there were "Arab firemen" lost in the Norwich City disaster and that Middle Eastern men are typically smaller than European men and sometimes prefer shoe styles that Europeans might consider feminine and perhaps one of these Arabs in feminine shoes washed ashore and somehow was not rescued with the other survivors. It could happen. And we haven't even talked about the possibility that the castaway of Gardner Island was a transvestite. I guess Janet just got me going. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:30:52 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Electra remains Looking at recent photos of the Norwich City, I was very surprised to see how little remains of such a large ship.What could possibly remain of the Electra after almost 64 years? I imagine the skin would have corroded and disappeared years ago. May be even the large radial engines, spars, and struts are also gone. Glass and plastic, I would think, is all that is left. Has anyone on the Forum done any testing in regards to how fast certain metals, fabric, and rubber deteriorates? **************************************************************************** From Ric Aluminum on the island survives very well. We haven't found any aluminum under water but we know that WWII airplanes have survived remarkably well in shallow salt water on other islands. I came to the same conclusion as you did about Norwich City. A lot of it is missing. In fact, too much of it is missing to be attributed to just rusting away. We can see from photos taken at various times through the years that the ship broke up in stages corresponding to major storm events (which is hardly surprising). So where did the pieces go? A few are along the shore and a few are up in the bushes, but not very many. My guess is that a lot of that stuff was driven through the main passage into the lagoon. If I'm right, what's sauce for Norwich is sauce for the Electra. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:34:20 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities >I'm reminded of the story a Park Ranger at Gettysburg told me about the lady >who was sure that the battle must have taken place somewhere else otherwise >all those monuments would show bullet damage. Ric: Are you saying that my mother was incorrect? LTM, Dave Bush *************************************************************************** From Ric Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure that anyone has consclusive evidence that those monuments weren't there before the battle and were not later patched. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:37:07 EST From: Herman de Wulf Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities Now wait a minute ! Talking of FN's lack of "top notch capability and workmanship", I don't think we should suggest incompetence on the part of Fred Noonan. Let's see what highly trained professionals had to say about navigation matters in those days. According to the late Air Marshal "Bomber" Harris, when WW II broke out in September 1939 only one out in five bombers of Royal Air Force Bomber Command, using state of the art navigation techniques (DR with VFR corrections, at night) was able to get to within five miles of their target after having flown something like four to five hours. And even then only 5 % of bombs dropped by those who got there, actually hit the target. That was state of the art navigation in 1939, two years after Fred Noonan tried to find Howland by the same technique of dead reckoning. Contrary to the Brits FN counted on DF radio to find his target but he didn't get it any more than Bomber Command pilots did, though for different reasons. Taking Air Marshall Harris on his word, if 80 % of professional military navigators who had been training for "pinpoint bombing" since 1937, could not find a target as big as a German city, how can anyone blame Fred Noonan for "lacking top notch capability" and fail to find the Howland needle in the Pacific haystack ? FN navigated by 1937 state of the art navigation techniques and was counting on the the novel direction finding (DF) equipment that became available by 1937 to refine his approach to Howland. The reason why he missed Howland was not poor navigation but the fact he did not get the DF signal he and AE had counted on. Herman ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:40:11 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Woman's shoe? This series of exchanges reminds me of two thoughts I have had concerning the shoes: First, I wonder if there was something REALLY different and unrecorded about the shoes found with the bones that caused Gallagher and Steenson to conclude that they were from different sexes? Unless the differences are obvious (e.g., high heeled shoes), many times it can be difficult to distinguish between a man's and a woman's shoe. One might expect this to be especially the case if both sexes are choosing shoes for some sort of rugged expedition, the shoes found were (I suspect) a bit crudded-up and one was not a shoe identification expert (actually, the fact that Gallagher and Steenson are not shoe experts and give no reasons for their conclusion is the biggest weakness in relying on their judgment). Second, we have all argued about Earhart's shoes, but I have never read nor seen anything about Fred's shoes. From what I've seen of pictures of Fred on the world flight, he always looks like he's getting ready to go into the office (shirt and tie). Maybe his shoes were large office-type shoes, and somehow this caused the finders to distinguish between a man's shoe and the "stoutish" woman's walking shoe. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:42:53 EST From: Jerry Ellis Subject: Re: Reflections? Marty said what I wanted to say!! Jerry Ellis #2113 *************************************************************************** From Ric Now, now...it's okay. It can be your turn to say it first tomorrow. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:18:51 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Reality of Howland Approach > From Ric > > Fair criticism. I'll amend my question. > Who was the person with the woman's shoe who died on Gardner? In Australia back in the 70's we had an all male revue called "Les Girls". They looked female, felt female (I didn't feel all of them...), acted& sang female and wore women's shoes. Don't recall any of them going missing in the Pacific though....... Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, and I can't find any reference to the Phoenix Islands in the six volume "Lost Drag Queens of the South Pacific." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:22:24 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Missing Dakar? > Th' Wombat wrote; > > "Fred was supposed to be a trained navigator. Are there many more instances > (other than Dakar) where he missed his destination or can be proved to have > been way off track AND STAYED THERE?" > From Don Jordan > I'm sorry guy/gals, when I read a comment like this, I just have to > come to "Old Fred's" defense. I've become rather fond of the old boy, > especially since helping on the "Noonan Project". For heaven's sake. I was trying to defend Fred!!! by pointing out that if he was off course for so long he HAD to have a reason. My words were "missed his destination OR can have been...." I didn't say he did BOTH at Dakar, nor speculate on the reason he didn't land at Dakar. Th' WOMBAT (In case you haven't noticed I ALWAYS stick up for Fred...) **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm a lot more interested in facts than allegiances. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:34:27 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Sauce Being an ocean person, I know just how strong tidal and wave action can be. Pieces of the Norwich City could weigh over several tons and would have to be pushed towards the lagoon over a distance of how many meters? If your theory is correct, and the lagoon holds a pot of gold (smoking gun) what are your plans for a detailed search? I remember you saying that the water in the lagoon is murky. How murky, 5' 10'? If you are going to use any type of motorized device to propel drivers, I suggest at least 20' visibility. There is a good risk a diver may collide with a coral head. **************************************************************************** From Ric It's an interesting problem. If the "lagoon deposit" theory is correct there should be lots of junk on the lagoon bottom just inside the main passage. The problem will then become finding Electra wreckage in the underwater junkyard. If the lagoon bottom inside the main passage is not cluttered with debris there's little reason to think that there's airplane wreckage there. Step One would seem to be - go down and look around. Lots of junk or no? If lots of junk is present I don't know of any way sort airplane wreckage (mostly aluminum) from ship wreckage (iron) than by eyeballing it. The visibility down there can be 5 feet or less. In those conditions it would not seem practical to use any sort of towing or powered device. The hardest part would be keeping track of where you were and where you had already looked. Best way to do that might be a physical grid using rope. Just thinking out loud. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:37:16 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Woman's shoe? > caused the finders to distinguish between a man's shoe and the "stoutish" > woman's walking shoe. Aha.. I've seen photographs of Amelia and I don't believe she could be called a "stoutish woman"... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric The SHOE, Wombat, not the woman. (Or have I just fallen into another one of your joke traps?) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:39:37 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Electra remains I think that after 63 years the chance of finding a wreck are real. Where I live (Belgium) Allied aircraft are occasionally still found and dug out half a century after WW II. This happened recently (around 1995 or 1996) not far from where I live. Although the aircraft were destroyed by the impact of the crash they are are usually still recognizable as having been an aircraft although idientifying the type is specialist's work. The one I referred to was a Canadian four engine Lancaster bomber that had been shot down by a German Me-110 night fighter in 1943. It had crashed in a marsh. The Germans had tried to recover it (for the metal) and to recover the remaining bodies but had given up and let the wreck sink. It was eventually recovered half a century later by what one might call a local branch of Tighar, a band of young aviation archaeology enthusiasts. The site of the crash and the presence of the aircraft had been known, however, unlike Amelia Earhart's. The wreckage was recovered with the help of a crane (paid for by the Canadian embassy) and the bodies of three or four crew members still MIA were recovered from among the wreckage. Only bits of uniform and gear remained, like buckles, watches and a train ticket. The others crew members (there had been seven) had been buried by the Germans in 1943. There were no survivors. By the way, when the remaining bodies were buried, the German fighter pilot, now an 80 plus old man, was present. He had come all the way from Germany to pay his respect. Among the wreckage was a huge main landing wheel that was still inflated, parts of landing gear, of the fuselage, the tail gun turret, complete with machine guns, fuel tanks, etc. The wreck has been returned to Canada and I understand it is or will be on display in a RCAF museum. What I want to say is that if a Lancaster wreck could survive 50 years in the mud and under water, so can a Lockheed Electra. Herman ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:53:25 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Itasca's Initial Search I looked at all the TIGHAR postings I could find on-line. Also other published material. One minute of longitude equals a mile at the Equator, right? Distance one can see debris floating on the water from a mast height of 50 feet is about 7 miles, right? If TIGHAR has some material from the Itasca's log books that is not on-line, please put the material on-line so that we can all see it. It seems to me that TIGHAR is quick to mix fact with speculation. Examples: TIGHAR's forensic analysis of recovered shoe components vs Gallagher's speculation about recovered shoe components; typical radio propagation in 1937 on 3105 kilocycles vs. "harmonics;" typical fuel consumption of extremely overloaded Model 10E Electras vs. TIGHAR's analysis of Earhart's fuel consumption; TIGHAR's near certainty about the loss of one of Earhart's antennas on take-off vs. the lack of eyewitness and physical evidence that it happened. And so on.... Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric It wasn't TIGHAR who said: "The reality of Earhart & Noonan's approach to Howland is that they did not have much fuel left when they approached Howland Island. Certainly not enough to reach Gardner Island." The deck log of Itasca is in the National Archive. I feel no obligation to research your pet theory for you. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:55:57 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities > From Herman De Wulf > ... Let's see what highly trained professionals had to say about > navigation matters in those days. ... I'm basically with Herman and others who think that FN did OK with his celestial navigation and that it was good enough to have worked if he and AE had known how to use their (possibly broken) radios to best advantage. But one counterpoint from material closer to hand than the bomber raids of the late 1930s: the Navy launched several search flights within a week or so of the fatal flight. Those airplanes all went out and found Niku and other islands and little shoals without benefit of DF, then came home to Hawaii or to their mother ship without too much difficulty. AE could have taken a second generation RDF system with her. She took that model out of her plane and replaced it with a less capable system for reasons that are not clear to us (money? weight savings? familiarity? bad advice?). So in the same month that AE and FN went down, others outperformed them at similar navigation tasks using roughly comparable techniques and equipment in the same part of the world. On the argument about Fred's Pacific flight, I buy the reasoning someone else proposed: We know where Fred was because Fred knew where he was. We can compare his known position to his ideal position because Fred made the same comparison. Having just finished _Fate is the Hunter_, I can imagine some weather may have been part of the picture on that flight. Stuff happens. And when it does, it is often provoked by pride. I want to give Fred full credit for doing a pretty good job without denying that he also deserves his share of the blame for missing Howland. In the final analysis, there were lots of players in the game who belong on the scorecard: radio technicians, gummint officials who let AE and FN slide by without proper training in CW, Putnam, personnel on the Itasca, and the radio guy on Howland. Oh, yeah, and the guys who forgot to mow the lawn down at the far end of the runway where the ship lost her belly antenna. ;o) Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:57:18 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Unknown Persons on Gardner Is. > In all the postings to the Earhart Forum, where are the evil and malicious > people who wanted to cover up the events surrounding Earhart's > disappearance, > hide her remains, hide the Electra's remains, etc.? I haven't seen any. In > fact, I've seen just the opposite. Janet, if they were old enough in 1937 to do those things they're dead by now. > Earhart's flight occurred in an era when courtesy, good manners, and > exemplary behavior were the norm among educated people. We may run in different circles but in mine that's still the norm. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:58:13 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Itasca's Initial Search > Ric, as usual you exaggerate. 1 N 177 W would be a good starting point to > search on a 157-337 line. As best as I can determine from what's been > published (including by TIGHAR), the Itasca didn't get within 10 miles of 1 N Janet, speak to me. What facts put the 157-337 LOP 25 miles west of Howland and what facts give the slightest significance to 1N 177W? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:59:59 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities > The reason why he missed Howland was not poor navigation but the fact he >did not get the DF signal he and AE had counted on. Herman, we don't know that Fred missed Howland (navigation wise). We only know he and AE didn't see it. They may have been many miles from Howland or almost on it but didn't see it because of cloud cover. To the best of my knowledge no one reported HEARING the plane but that could have been because of wind direction, ship noise, generator noise to name a few reasons and not necessarily because they weren't close. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:05:06 EST From: Ted Mitchell Subject: Re: A Woman on Gardner or Not A question...I'm new to the forum, and this may have been discussed before, but even if the skull in question is that of a male, does that rule out the presumption that Earhart's plan went down on Niku? There were two occupants of the plane, non? Why couldn't the skull be Noonan's? *************************************************************************** From Ric It could. Attention focuses on the indications that the person was female because if castaways on Pacific islands are rare (and they are), female castaways are more so, and it just so happens that a female was missing in that part of the Pacific. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:07:09 EST From: Jon Watson Subject: Re: Reflections? Ric said: > It takes a big crew to make this thing fly. Why, just keeping the wings flapping in unison is a monumental test of leadership... By the way, I sent a letter off to Mrs. Brines some time back, and have heard nothing from her yet. I'll send a followup note to her soon. ltm jon 2266 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:27:15 EST From: Shirley Subject: Re: Missing Dakar? It seems, the way so many things have been distorted in books and reports, that perhaps AE didn't really state the matter this way. Perhaps Putnam thought it would seem or sound better to the public. Sorry, but I have to defend AE from some of the many desparaging (?) remarks that are made about her at times. Anyone, male or female, attempting these flights (for records,etc.) back in those early days certainly had a lot to contend with and it took some guts. Sometimes, more guts than brains, so they say. But, somebody was going to do it sooner or later just because it was there. LTM Shirley W 2299 **************************************************************************** From Ric The apparent fabrication does seem to have been written by AE in her dispatch to the Herald Tribune the next day. But why? I have a theory ( I always have a theory). Even today, only certain airports are designated as "airports of entry" for any given country. AE had permission to land at Dakar, not St. Louis. Both were part of Senegal, French West Africa. It may be that she feared that if the French authorities learned that the flight had intentionally bypassed its approved destination to land at an unapproved airfield, the French authorities would make a huge stink about it. Maybe impound the airplane; levy a fine; who knows? Better to cook up a story about how they ended up at St. Louis by mistake and attribute the error to her overriding the advice of her navigator. A brilliant ruse when you think about it. She assumes the role of a "silly woman" who ignored the advice of a man. She makes herself appear vulnerable without impugning the competence of her navigator. The French are going to fall all over themselves to be gallant - and they did - but now she's stuck with the story and it becomes history. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:42:17 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: Itasca's Initial Search So...when I visit the National Archives on spring break and examine the Itasca's deck log and find that the Itasca wasn't within 10 miles of 1N 177 W, TIGHAR will say? Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric TIGHAR will say, "So?" Itasca wasn't within ten miles of a lot places. When the airplane failed to show up at Howland, the captain of the Itasca decided that it must have run out of fuel and gone down at sea long before it was expected to be out of fuel. (It was thought at the time that the plane should be able to remain aloft until noon.) He based that decision largely upon an alleged radio transmission ("only 1/2 hour gas left") that, in retrospect, was almost certainly misheard. The Itasca went tearing off to search the area where the captain thought the airplane was most likely to have gone down. They found nothing. Like the captain of the Itasca, you have misunderstood the available information and have decided that the airplane ran out of fuel and think you know where it must have gone down, but unlike him, you don't have a boat so you can't go prove yourself wrong. I'm not about to do it for you. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:43:40 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Banaba Banaba (and Rabi) have a nice webpage at: http://www.ion.com.au/~banaban/ It also has a message board, where Tom King can leave a meassage saying that he is trying to contact Koata's son. It can give you a good idea of Banaba's problems. Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:01:17 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: Professionals A recent post referred to highly trained professionals. I have seen little over the past several months that Noonan, while he may have been highly trained, was using his skills in a professional manner. Navigating +/- 50 to 100 miles off destination and relying on DF steers to arrive doesn't seem very professional to me. A true professional hones his skills to eliminate error and practices his trade to improve his capabilities. There doesn't seem to be much that was done professionally in the Earhart flight; from the amatuer radio setup at the beginning, to poor flight planning, lack of communication skills, poor co-ordination, lack of contingency plans, the list is endless. The Naval Aviators were able to find Niku, other islands, shoals and return to their carriers because they were generally professionals and detailed navigation over water was one of their specialties. The Navy knew from the beginning that they would have to strike from a carrier, over water, and return to a task force that might have moved 50 to 100 miles from the point of departure, possibly never seeing land. Those that didn't learn the specialized skills necessary to read wind and wave, find the target and return to the carrier deck didn't survive very long. By comparison, the U.S. Army was hesitant about over water navigation, especially at the beginning of WWII, since it was not one of their specialties--not that they couldn't learn, they eventually did to sustain long range, over water submarine patrols--they didn't perceive it as necessary to the concept of strategic bombing at the beginning of the war. It wasn't the equipment, it was the people who flew it and how they used it. **************************************************************************** From Ric I will point out that hitting an island from 2,500 miles away is a bit different from hitting an island from a couple hundred miles away. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:05:23 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: 1 N 177 W Nothing magic about 1N 177W except it's a place to start a search along a 157-337 line consistent wiuth information (not speculation) about Earhart's disappearance. Some of the engineering students here estimate we would need a fishing trawler that could handle 17,000 feet of Kevlar line and a pressure vessel to house a video cam, video recorder, strobe light, bottom-ranging sonar, and sonar transponder. Would that be a big deal? We don't think so. After towing the video cam system in a systematic search pattern for (say) 3 months we would know what is and is not on the sea floor in the vicinity of Howland Is. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm gonna start charging money for forum subscribers to read your postings. Nothing that funny should be free. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:19:59 EST From: Mike Muenich Subject: Professionals Agreed, there is a difference between 2,500 miles and several hundred, but at least the islands are stationary, the carrier isn't. In any event, I would think the difference would mandate additional and very precise attention to detail by the participants ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:23:50 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Itasca's Initial Search For Janet Whitney: On the Research CD are all the positions of all the ships, constrained by their navigational fixes on an hour by hour basis, sometimes more frequently. You'll be able to tell exactly where the Itasca was and when. Try it; I spent 5 long years databasing and doing the navigation, weather, and radio messages that is now available for all to see for a nominal fee to TIGHAR. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:31:42 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Professionals I've not piped in to date, but let's get something very clear here: FN did not navigate anywhere near 50 to 100 miles off his target. The Oakland to Honolulu maps indicate the plane was that far off the perfect rhumb line between the two points if and only if there was no winds aloft. Without real-time, constant navigational control, no navigator, repeat, NO navigator or pilot could or even would try and maintain that level of navigational precision to stay on a rhumb line over water. It simply wasn't possible then. And there is no reason for anyone to do so...just monitor where the plane is going, and make corrections when necessary to ensure you do come to your target position. LTM, who is getting very pissed about folks misinterpreting the facts in this case. **************************************************************************** From Ric <> I'm confused. If a celestial fix places the plane at a particular place, it is there regardless of what the wind is doing. **************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag Mike M., I could not agree more with you about professionalism. I don't believe anyone is saying anything in the context that Fred Noonan was a bad navigator, incompetent, dufus, boob, whatever. Fred knew how to navigate square-riggers & aircraft, I don't dispute that. For that matter there are a great deal of aviators I have met over the past 24 years who poccessed flying skills beyond measure. Some could darn near make an airplane talk if they wanted to. But that is only half of what makes an aviator(or navigator for that matter) professional. If the person in question routinly makes errors, blunders, flies into situations where angels fear to tread, stay ahead of the airplane/situation, or even exercise the least amount of common sense, then what we have here is a great "stick" , but not a professional, not in the least. Having performed somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 ocean crossings as well as island-hopping, I can say without a doubt if you cannot stay in the loop long enough to navigate within 50-100 miles of your destination, you will miss an island-period. Alan knows that and I'm sure Skeet knows that as well. There's a saying in this business: "Flying is not inherently dangerous, but it is terribly unforgiving of any careless or neglect". Fred was off-course 50-135 miles for a good portion of the west coast-Honolulu trip. As a matterof routine, the norm when giving a position report is to also mention the reason for an off-course deviation, such as weather for example. There is no mention of any weather problems whatsoever. In that time period, ships would give weather data along with their position reports that was used by a special weather bureau(at Alameda mentioned in Grooch's book). Pan Am activly sought out & used these(ship's) reports to forecast storms enroute and also plot courses for their aircraft to avoid hazardous weather and take advantage of favorable reported winds enroute. Again, no mention of weather deviations, favorable winds, nothing. There are also indications from Fred's pattern of use the DF that he may have been dependent on it. I own and have used a(similar) model of the A-5 Pioneer sextant that Fred used on the ill-fated trip. I also own several other models of hand held aviation sextants. I will not claim to be an expert but I can say from experience using them and having face to face discussions with retired navigators who depended on them in their careers, the typical average accuracy for decent navigator was 10-15 miles and on occasion 20 was considered the limit of acceptable(barely). Fred mentions in a letter to PVH Weems an accuracy of 10 miles(approximately). Call it the average -some did better, some did worse. All things considered, 50-135 miles off-course for a long duration or as possible matter of routine is not acceptable. Not even for 1937! Could Fred have done a better job? I believe and will give him credit that he likely could have. So what happened? Was he lazy, lackadaisical, bad attitude, get up on the wrong side of the bed that day? Inconclusive. Could he have done things differently or better. Yeah, assuming he knew his craft. Standby, while I don my Nomex vest. Doug Brutlag #2335 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:42:12 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: 1 N 177 W We would be taking medium-resolution black-and-white digital photos of the ocean floor, from maybe 50 feet above the ocean floor...or whatever the visibility allowed. Using GPS on the fishing trawler and a sonar transponder on the camera housing and bottom-ranging sonar. Tow the camera for 25 miles, retrieve it, put new R/W CDs in the recorder, change the batteries, and redeploy the camera. Tow for another 25 miles parallel to the last track along a 157-337 (or whatever) line. Look at several thousand digital photos per 25 mile search track. Extremely tedious but not technically difficult. The biggest expense would be for diesel fuel for the trawler. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Doug Brutlag Janet; With no disrespect intended, if you think it so simple to search the pacific as you mentioned in previous posting, then get on a search engine and find the site to contact Dr. Robert Ballard(finder of Titanic) at the Wood's Hole research group/foundation I think is the name. If anyone can tell you anything about finding a wreck in the middle of an ocean he can. Since Titanic, I think he has since explored Lisitania, Bismark, and the Hood. When you get his answer, please post it on the forum for us all. Ric: You're out of luck thinking you can charge to read forum postings. For all the aviators out there, rumor has it we are so tight we squeak. Case in point: How was copper wire invented? Give up? It was the day 2 airline pilots were fighting over a penny. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Kerry Tiller Ric wrote: > I'm gonna start charging money for forum subscribers to read your postings. > Nothing that funny should be free. > Ric, how about a new section on the web site called "Forum Out Takes". You could include the intended jokes and conspiracy stuff as well as enthusiastic college kid's postings. Then again, I don't suppose you want to encourage that sort of thing. LTM (who likes a good laugh) Kerry Tiller **************************************************************************** From Alan Caldwell > From Janet Whitney > > Nothing magic about 1N 177W except it's a place to start a search along a > 157-337 line consistent with information (not speculation) about Earhart's > disappearance. Consistant with WHAT information, Janet? You missed telling me why the LOP is 25 miles west of Howland. I and several others are trying to replot the route and we need that information. > Some of the engineering students here estimate we would need a fishing > trawler that could handle 17,000 feet of Kevlar line and a pressure vessel to > house a video cam, video recorder, strobe light, bottom-ranging sonar, and > sonar transponder. Would that be a big deal? We don't think so. > > After towing the video cam system in a systematic search pattern for (say) 3 > months we would know what is and is not on the sea floor in the vicinity of > Howland Is. Janet, this is your best idea yet. Why don't you and those engineering students do that on your Spring break and I'll go to the National Archives for you? Have you and your engineering student friends plotted all the current directions and strengths from surface down 17,000' , the weights of all the necessary equipment and the size and strength of the kevlar line? Also have you computed how many feet of stuff has covered over the 1937 bottom? How many feet into the bottom will the bottom ranging sonar penetrate? Did they make a cost estimate of all this? If all this is feasible maybe your university might foot the bill. If it isn't perhaps your engineering friends might think about foregoing Spring break and hitting the books some more. Alan, wondering why you never respond to anyone's questions #2329 **************************************************************************** From Bob Lee Now we know why students in American schools don't seem to learn the basics. Regards Bob Lee ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:47:52 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilities > We know where Fred was because Fred knew where he was. > We can compare his known position to his ideal > position because Fred made the same > comparison. Shouldn't you make it clear those statements don't refer to the Lae to Howland leg since we don't know where his "known position" was? Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric For anyone entering the theater late, the discussion - okay, the fight - about Fred's navigational expertise versus his navigational discipline focuses on the Oakland/Honolulu flight for which good information is available. Obviously, nobody knows for sure what he did on the Lae/Holwand flight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:40 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Itasca's Initial Search > From Alan Caldwell > >> Ric, as usual you exaggerate. 1 N 177 W would be a good starting point to >> search on a 157-337 line. As best as I can determine from what's been >> published (including by TIGHAR), the Itasca didn't get within 10 miles of 1N > > Janet, speak to me. What facts put the 157-337 LOP 25 miles west of Howland > and what facts give the slightest significance to 1N 177W? Just to make it clear the first paragraph suggesting Ric exaggerates was written by Janet not me. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:03:27 EST From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Itasca's Initial Search I may be off base but seems to me that you spending time explaining these things to Janet is analogous to utilizing the time of a brain surgeon to explain tic-tac-toe. Bob Lee *************************************************************************** From Ric Well, I'm certainly no brain surgeon, and I've been known to lose at tic-tac-toe, but I was also once a college student with all the answers; astonished that my professors could not see how simple it all was. I figure that Janet, in her brashness, often expresses doubts and convictions that other may harbor but are less willing to express. I answer what I can find time to answer without derailing more productive discussions. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:03:20 EST From: Ric Subject: Re: 1 N 177 W I am not Bob Ballard, nor am I any kind of expert in deep water searching. I have, however, contracted for - helped plan for - participated in - and paid for, deep water search operations by real experts (Oceaneering International, Inc.). I know enough about the process to disabuse Janet and her engineering student friends of some misconceptions. Janet says: <<... we would need a fishing trawler that could handle 17,000 feet of Kevlar line and a pressure vessel to house a video cam, video recorder, strobe light, bottom-ranging sonar, and sonar transponder. Would that be a big deal? We don't think so.>> The water out there is about 17,000 feet deep, so you figure you'll need about 17,000 feet of line, right? Wrong. The line doesn't hang straight down. Towed array underwater gear has to be deployed from an A-frame on the stern of the ship and the ratio of line needed to depth achieved is at least three to one. In other words. if you want to search at 17,000 feet you'll need about 51,000 feet of line. How much boat do you need to carry 51,000 feet of line? Let me give you an idea. In 1991 we wanted to search way down to 2,000 feet. (That's not a typo. I mean two thousand feet.) The winch weighed 7,000 pounds and was almost too much for the 120 foot ship we chartered. So much for your "fishing trawler." Just to carry the weight of line you'll need you're looking at a big ship - and not just any big ship. The bottom of the ocean, like the surface of the land, has hills and valleys. To "fly" a towed array of sensing gear, and not slam it into a hillside, you two things: - a very powerful, rapid-response winch that allows you to reel in or reel out line quickly and precisely. We're not talking about a winch for hauling in fishing nets. - precise information about what terrain is ahead - and you can't get it from a forward looking video camera. There is virtually no light at 17,000 feet and the best lights in the best visibility won't give you anything like enough lead time. You need bottom-mapping sonar built into the bow of your ship so that the winch operator has real-time bathymetry information many hundreds of feet ahead of his "fish." Even so, accidents are not uncommon. So now you have a big ship with highly specialized equipment and people who know how to operate it. Wanna guess what those puppies go for per day? I don't have to guess. I've got just boat for you. The University of Hawaii's R/V KA'IMIKAI-O-KANALOA (known in the trade as "The K-O-K") is 223 feet long, has a "Seabeam 210" multibeam sonar batymetric mapping system installed in the bow, and a Markey DUSH-6 Hydrographinc winch with 7,000 meter capacity. She'll do 10 kts and can stay out for 50 days, so you'll need to break off and steam a thousand miles or so out and back to resupply at least once during your three month operation, so add another ten days. Five years ago a bargain basement price for her services was $10,700 per day. If you could duplicate that price today you'd be looking at $1,070,000 for your proposed operation. Of course, we haven't even talked about the cost of whatever it is you plan to tow and the cost of getting your team of engineering students to Hawaii, etc. <> Ahh, to be young again. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:07:24 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Sauce How to check out the lagoon's content? You could try a glass bottom boat, use GPS, and save the divers a lot of coral cuts in their wet suits. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric Don't I wish. Unfortunately, visibility in the lagoon is very restricted. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:08:21 EST From: Shirley Subject: Re: Missing Dakar? I guess that's called "thinking on your feet" or perhaps "seat" : ), It certainly makes sense. Thanks ,Ric. That's another good reason you're so good at this task. And, for the most part, so able to keep all us TIGHARs in line. LTM Shirley 2299 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:09:32 EST From: John Pratt Subject: Contemporary Account Here's a contemporary PAA account ("This article originally appeared as a 10 page company publication circa 1938") of the first Oakland/Auckland clipper flight. This flight made the Oakland/Honolulu segment the same night as the initial Earhart world flight attempt. It may provide insight into the practices of the time... http://www.panam.org/default1.asp Do I see the following? "North Wind" as a model for the "Itasca" role A major reliance on the radio Direction Finder A relatively low frequency of celestial navigation fixes John Pratt ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:11:25 EST From: Denise Subject: The Man's Shoe After months of reading spectulations about the man's shoe on Gardner, and seeing that no one has come up with a suggestion I buy as to why it was there, may I be so bold as to tell you what I think? As someone who's waded over reefs many times, I know well that there is nothing more unpleasant than subsequently slopping around an island in salty-wet shoes. They slide around on your feet, are hot and unpleasant and the salt-water makes your feet sweat and makes sand stick and this rubs your skin raw. Nasty business! You only have to experience this ONCE before you begin to always take a second pair of shoes - if any are available - to wear once ashore. I always do. I use the sturdier pair for wading, then I leave the wet pair on the beach to pick up for the return journey, and put on the dry pair to wander. I think this is what happened here. Fred's boots were used for wading. The Oxford's were used for wandering. This makes perfect sense to me. Here Fred and Amelia are, sheltering aboard Norwich City. Fred is injured and out of commission, so Amelia is doing whatever is to be done. Sure, they have lots of food - isn't the hull meant to be full of trapped fish? - but no drinking water, so, in addition to wading out to the plane for various reasons, she also needs to wade ashore to find water. Fred might be useless, but his boots aren't. After maybe one trip ashore in which she discovers "the horror, the horror" of wet-shoe wandering, she commandeers Fred's pair of sturdy boots for her own use, for wading purposes. Thus we end up with two pairs of shoes on the beach with the skeleton of what may very likely be a European woman. LTM (who kept a pair of man's workboots for this very purpose) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric I've had the same experience. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:35:05 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Half hour gas >He based that decision largely > upon an alleged radio transmission ("only 1/2 hour gas left") that, in > retrospect, was almost certainly misheard. It could even have been 'only half "our" gas left'.. The english language can be rather slippery when spoken on radio by foreigners... May even have referred to half their reserve gas.. We'll never know.. Th' WOMBAT ************************************************************************** From Ric At 1912 GMT Radioman 3rd Class William L. Galten records Earhart as saying: "KHAQQ calling Itasca. We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low. We have been unable to reach you by radio . We are flying at 1000 feet." At 1910 GMT Radioman 3rd Class Thomas O'Hare records in a separate radio log: "Earhart on now; says she is running out of gas, only 1/2 hour left, can't hear us at all." Galten's sole job is to listen for and communicate with Earhart. O'Hare's job is to handle all of the ship's other radio traffic. Galten quotes Earhart. O'Hare paraphrases her. Although the time is slightly different, they are talking about the same transmission. Oddly, the two positions are about two minutes apart in time (this is consistent in several messages). Earhart has used the words "half hour" in several transmissions, always referring to when she expects to hear from the Itasca whose regular scheduled transmission times were on the hour and half hour. Earhart was still in the air an hour after this transmission. It seems most likely that O'Hare simply misunderstood her. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:39:13 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii This weekend, I have had time to think about Noonan's navigation to Hawaii, and to review some of the recent postings about it. I realize now that my earlier list of reasons Noonan might have been North of the rhumb line missed the most obvious one - that's where the great circle course is! I overlooked the major erroneous assumption underlying this entire line of discussion - that erroneous assumption is that Noonan SHOULD have made good a rhumb line course. What makes you think so, and why should he have done that? Let's pause and define our terms. Since the earth is a sphere, the shortest distance between two points is the segment of the "great circle" that intersects those points in encircling the globe. On the artificial latitude/longitude grid that we use to navigate, when one flys from A to B along a great circle, one's true course (MEASURED WITH REFERENCE TO THAT GRID) changes from moment to moment. (It doesn't jump around, it progresses constantly from one course to the next - from, say, 240 degrees to 240.0001 degrees, and then to 240.0002 degrees. Since no one can steer that small [as they say], to fly a great circle as a practical matter one flys a series of "rhumb line" [q.v. below] courses that APPROXIMATE the great circle. Lindbergh, for example, planned course changes every hour [and 100 miles] or so on his 3600 mile flight to Paris to approximate the great circle route.) A "rhumb line course" crosses all lines of longitude at the same angle - in going from point A to point B the course (measured with reference to the grid) remains constant. A rhumb line course is (by definition) a straight line WHEN DRAWN ON A MERCATOR PROJECTION. The problem is that a Mercator projection is not an accurate representation of the surface of the earth - because (among other reasons) the lines of latitude are shown as parallel, when in fact they converge at the poles. (Instead of being a mere point on the surface of a sphere, the pole on a Mercator map is a line 25,000 miles long.) Mercator projections distort reality. In the Northern Hemisphere, the actual "direct course" (a "great circle") lies North of the "straight line on the Mercator chart" (rhumb line course). "Great Circle" and "rhumb line" courses between A and B are exactly the same only (1) when points A and B are direcly North and South of each other, and (2) when both A and B are on the equator. As an example of the difference between rhumb line and great circle courses, consider New York to Paris. New York lies about 40.5 degrees North; Paris lies about 48.5 degrees North. At the midpoint, a rhumb line course will be about 44.5 degrees North. Where will the midpoint of a great circle course be? Well, I'm no navigator, so let's do it the easy way - no great precision is required to make the point. Take a piece of string and stretch it taut accross the face of your globe. The midpoint is at (say) 51 degrees North (it doesn't matter if we're off a degree or two). That means the great circle midpoint is perhaps 5 1/2 degrees North of the rhumb line midpoint. Since one degree of latitude is equal to about 69 statute miles, the great circle course is 370 or 375 miles North of the rhumb line. A person who drew a straight (rhumb) line course from NY to Paris on a Mercator chart, and then charted the midpoint of a great circle flight might think that the flight was 400 miles or so off course - he'd be wrong, because the flight was right where it should be following a great circle route. (Those interested in greater accuracy in discussing the actual great circle route NY-Paris will find the "verticles" of the great circle at 10 degree intervals of longitude in Peter Garrison's LONG DISTANCE FLYING, page 106.) What's the situation on the route from California to Hawaii? Luckily for the navigationally-challenged among us (which includes me), we have available an interesting document. P.V.H. Weems, AIR NAVIGATION (3rd Ed. 1943) has a pocket in the rear cover containg a foldout chart showing the actual navigation of the Archbold PBY "GUBA" on its three-stage crossing of the Pacific from San Diego to New Guinea in June 1938. If one lays the chart on the kitchen table and places a yardstick through Honolulu and San Diego, it is immediately apparent that the GUBA's entire flight took place well North of the rhumb line. At 138 degrees West, GUBA's position was about 2 FULL DEGREES of latitude North of the rhumb line (2 degrees = 138 statute miles). One can also see that about 200 miles out, upon receiving Makapuu beacon, GUBA altered course about 10 degrees left, to reach its destination. Weems (page 359) refers the student to the GUBA chart and calls it "the most complete available example of skilled navigation". (He wasn't upset because they were North of the rhumb line!) Weems' refence to the GUBA flight follows almost immediately his reprinting of the long (nearly 3 pages of reduced type) letter from Noonan to Weems detailing Noonan's navigation practices, which Weems reproduced as both "a valuable technical description" and "a tribute to the Navigator of the Earhart plane" (page 356). Without reviewing Bob's work and Noonan's charts, I can't comment in any greater detail on the issues, other than to say that it seems to me that somewhat more caution in making pronouncements about FN's navigational shortcomings is appropriate. (And I won't go into Dakar, other than to make the comment - prompted by one of Ric's recent postings - that if one is truly East of a position, a course of 036 will not get you there, unless, perhaps, you are flying to the Antipodes.) Oscar Boswell **************************************************************************** From Ric Your description of rhumb line versus great circle is correct but it's clear that the Oakland/Honolulu flight began on the rhumb line, followed it pretty well for a few hundred miles until DF bearings from California were no longer possible. The flight then veered off course to the north. When the error was discovered the course was altered to run parallel to the rhumb line until they came within DF range of Honolulu where the course was changed to head straight for Oahu. We'll have Bob Brandenburg's map added to the 8th Edition chapter on the Oakland/Honlulu flight soon. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:42:08 EST From: John Pratt Subject: DF Performance Recall Ric's comment: "I'm also surprised to learn that Weems said that the PAA DF was accurate to 1.5 degrees up to 1,000 miles out and usable out to 1,800 miles. That throws a new light on the DF bearings they took on post-loss signals suspected of being from Earhart." Here's another word on PAA DF performance, from http://www.panam.org/default1.asp in the Personal Memoirs section, The Pacific Bases John G. Borger VP - Engineering (ret) Pan American World Airway .... The Adcock direction finder was phenomenal for its time. A radio operator in an airplane could hold down his transmitter key, and a ground operator could get a bearing within 1 degree at a range up to 1,500 miles. With bearings from two stations, the Clipper could fix its position with great accuracy. One perfect night a station in Alameda got a bearing from a Clipper between Guam and Manila, but that was exceptional. .... LTM John Pratt 2373 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:58:56 EST From: John Pratt Subject: Naval Institute Article There is an article published in the July/August 2000 issue of Naval History Magazine, authored by John P. Riley, Jr., and available on the web at: http://www.usni.org/NavalHistory/Articles00/nhriley.htm It has four interesting features. 1. Plotting of the Itasca search and analyzing that it was poorly conceived. Note that the author expected the airplane to be floating nose-down for a limited period and time for successful resecue to be extremenly limited. 2. Analysis of the Morgenthau one-sided telephone conversation is almost identical to TIGHAR Forum anaylsis about 6/00. 3. On the other hand, analysis of the Itasca radio logs focused on 500kcy and show a significant difference from the forum discussion: "Earhart and Noonan simply could not transmit on 500 kHz. They depended on their radio direction finder and could have taken bearings on the cutter's 500 kHz transmitter if it had been in operation" Then in agreement with TIGHAR Tracks 12-2: "All involved evidently misunderstood who was to take the bearings, ship or plane..." 4. In addition to mirroring the Forum 1998 discussion of the DF performance of the Howland station, the author presents anecdotal evidence from interviews with Yau Fai Lum and correspondance with Ah Kin Leong that the Howland radio log 7/2-18/37 was a fabrication and the DF station was not operating as ordered by USCG: "On 4 July, the Commander Hawaiian Sector had sent the following message to the Itasca: "HAVE HOWLAND DIRECTION FINDER BE ON STANDBY FOR BEARINGS." Thompson would have been hard put to explain that he could not comply because he had Cipriani on board." If the Howland DF site had bearings on post-loss radio messages, we might have some interesting information. Interesting article, running from the potentially useful Itasca plots to an issue of fabrication that might not be relevant. LTM (Definitely!) John Pratt 2373 **************************************************************************** From Ric I think you'll find a forum discussion of the Riley article in the Forum Highlights. We didn't think much of his allegation that the Howland log is a fabrication. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:16:30 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Re: Noonan's capabilites Ric said: ..'She assumes the role of a "silly woman" who ignored the advice of a man.'... Seems somewhat out of character for AE to take the 'heat' for a miscalculation made by her 'male' navigator. In fact, throughout ...'Last Flight'..., she appears to have nothing but complimentary comments about FN's navigational prowess & her confidence in his skills seems to grow stronger the longer the flight progresses, especially after FN successfully (no doubt by the seat-of-his- pants) navigated them through the monsoon episodes on the Asian sub-continent. Assuming the fact that GPP's prime motivation (other than trying to raise a little cash) in editing & publishing ...'Last Flight'... was probably to preserve the everlasting, untarnished image of his protegee/Wife as the heroic flyer, tragically lost on her last record setting attempt, why wouldn't he have, at least subtly, sought to point at least a finger of suspicion in the direction of her navigator, as the probable cause of the flight's fateful ending? In all the material I've been able to review, none of those closest (don't believe Harry Manning ever wrote or voiced any of his own doubts) to the original planning & preparation for the flight, ever raised any specific complaints about FN's preparations for the flight or his performance during the flight, including Paul Mantz, who had more than justifiable reason to be 'ticked-off' at the Putnams & to broadcast any possible flaws he might have uncovered about any irregularities in FN's navigational habits or AE's piloting; given the fact that he was unceremoniously 'dumped' from the 'team', just before the second attempt. (In fact it is suggested that after he read the government files & learned about the statements the Captain of the 'Yankee' supposedly heard from the residents ot Tabiteuea in the Gilberts, (about hearing the sound of a plane's engine over their island during the night) Mantz was supposed to have voiced satisfaction that the flight was right on target for Howland, at least through the Gilberts.) With all that we _don't_ know about what happened in that final 600-700 miles of the flight, it seems premature to judge that any alleged, previously poor navigational habits of FN proved to be the final _determinative_ factor in the flight's unfortunate termination. Rather, there seems to have been a combination of many factors (some seemingly quite insignificant in & of themselves) that ultimately brought the Electra down short of objective, beginning with the choice of reversing the direction of the flight; which unfortunately put the longest, most difficult overwater leg of the flight, (mostly at night) through a previously uncharted air route, at the tag end of a very long, physically , emotionally & mentally demanding journey, resulting in a very tired & air weary plane & crew facing some life & death decisions about their very survival, at thier probable point of near exhaustion. Not the best of circumstances for demanding pin-point navigation & alert piloting skills & fuel supply micro-management. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric Everybody thinks that Bob Brandenburg, Doug Brutlag and I are saying something that we're not saying. Nobody is saying that Noonan was not a good navigator, but it is abundantly clear that the success of the Lae/Howland flight from the get-go depended absolutely upon DF bearings to fine tune the last couple hundred miles of the approach to Howland. Fred's navigational performance as demonstrated in his earlier flights seems to help explain why they apparently hit the LOP some distance from Howland. Had AE tried to recruit Fred for the trip anticipating no help from radio navigation he probably have turned her down. Whether Noonan COULD HAVE navigated to Howland without help from DF within the fuel the flight's fuel constraints is a different question. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:23:25 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Professionals > From Ric > < points if and only if there was no winds aloft.>> > > I'm confused. If a celestial fix places the plane at a particular place, > it is there regardless of what the wind is doing. I'm a disciple of Randy Jacobson on this one (because I don't know diddly about how to do my own celestial navigation). Randy says: The rhumb line is an ideal course drawn on a map. The line of flight is what happens in reality. The rhumb line is not the destination. Departures from the ideal during the flight do not necessarily mean bad navigation techniques. Randy did not say--but others have, I believe--that the way that we know where Fred was during the flight is from the fixes that Fred took during the flight. In other words, he knew where he was and he knew where he was going. That doesn't sound "lost" to me. I'm not gonna kill or die for this opinion. I'm hoping to learn more from people who know more. LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:31:32 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Does Janet Whitney Exist? > From Ric > ... I figure that Janet, in > her brashness, often expresses doubts and convictions that other may > harbor but are less willing to express. ... I am very grateful for Janet's posts. The latest series has made me wonder whether she really exists. I marvel at the combination of extraordinary technical information and bewildering innocence. Even if Janet is a real human being, she must have friends or family members with whom she discusses the history of radios, navigation techniques, history, piracy, and engineering. She works hard at developing most of her questions and challenges. She's a lot like the kid who doesn't see the emperor's new clothes. And, as Ric said, she asks questions that other people probably have, such as: "Why don't they just drag a cheap sensor over the most likely region of impact?" Uh, oh. I'm suffering an inspiration even as I type. I suspect that "Janet Whitney" is Pat's alter-ego. She wakes up in the middle of the night in a trance state, disturbed by all of the loose ends in the TIGHAR hunt, and drops "Janet Whitney" notes into Ric's e-mail when he's not looking. It could be that Ric is in on the conspiracy because the "Janet Whitney" posts give him a chance to hit the long ball. Those who are keeping score at home may want to note that even though I do not subscribe to the Fallacy of the Unprovable Negative Hypothesis [FUNH], this is one of those negatives that is incapable of proof: "'Janet Whitney posts' are not the product of a conspiracy." Any e-mail placed in the Forum to disprove this hypothesis might itself be a product of the Janet Whitney Conspiracy. :o( Marty **************************************************************************** From Ric I have often been accused of inventing characters like Rollin Reineck, Cam Warren, and, yes, even Janet Whitney, in order to make myself look good. I only wish I was that creative. Besides, they often cause me to blow my cool, which does not make me look good. Janet is real. I have seen a photo of her. (Actually it was more of an impression left on a sheet she once slept on.) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:43:21 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: 1 N 177 W Who said the sonar/digital camera array would be towed at 10 knots? Not me. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric I didn't say it would be towed at 10 knots either. I only said that K-O-K could go that fast. In practical application most underwater gear is towed at considerably less than 10 knots. The point is, all that line and the array at the end has drag. Lower the thing over the side when you're hove to and, assuming no current (never the case), 17,000 feet of line will get you to the 17,000 foot bottom. A soon as you move the boat forward the line will no longer be vertical. Try it in the bathtub. You can't go slow enough to not need lots more line than the depth you're trying to reach. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:21:25 EST From: Christian Subject: Re: Aluminium Moin Ric! You wrote: > Step One would seem to be - go down and look around. Lots of junk or no? > If lots of junk is present I don't know of any way sort airplane wreckage > (mostly aluminum) from ship wreckage (iron) than by eyeballing it. Isnt the easiest way to seperate iron from aluminium to hold a magnet over it? If I recall it correct, alu isnt attracted (is that the right word?) by a magnet. And a magnet is a cheap and easy to operate device to take along on a expedition. Works even under water. But only at hands-on-distance. So, LTM and think of storing the magnets far from the compass on the voyage. Christian **************************************************************************** From Ric A magnetometer would tell us if there is ferrous metal there. It would not tell us if there is also aluminum there. Finding the iron or steel won't help. We need to find the aluminum and there is no remote sensing device (that I know of) that will pick up aluminum but not steel. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:45:53 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: 1 N 177 W > From Ric > ... you'd be looking at > $1,070,000 for your proposed operation. Of course, we haven't even > talked about the cost of whatever it is you plan to tow and the cost of > getting your team of engineering students to Hawaii, etc. Great post, Ric! That's the beauty of the Janet Whitney Conspiracy (JWC) that you and Pat have cooked up. She tosses these softballs and you get to teach us about Pacific reality. Keep 'em coming! ;o) LTM. Marty #2359 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:51:00 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Itasca's Initial Search > I figure that Janet, in her brashness, often expresses doubts and Ric, I haven't seen much in the way of shyness on the part of forum members. If Janet actually exists I am sure she is sincere in her efforts however misguided. I can easily overlook the consequences of her youth in being unable to comprehend the scientific method of research. That she'll learn. I find no excuse, however, for her obstinate unwillingness to review all the TIGHAR web site information before she climbs out on a limb and prepares to saw it off. I am also at a loss as to why she only half participates. By that I mean she will toss out a theory yet she NEVER responds to whatever cricism that is forthcoming. There is never an exchange with Janet. Her postings consist of "Why don't you guys do this or that" or an offering of a completely unsupported hypothisis and then she goes on to something equally unsupportable without a comment or batting an eye. I don't know whether she has anything of substance to offer or not. She will never enter into a discussion. Why do you suppose that is? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric You're asking me? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:56:03 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: 1 N 177 W > The University of Hawaii's > R/V KA'IMIKAI-O-KANALOA (known in the trade as "The K-O-K") is 223 feet long, > has a "Seabeam 210" multibeam sonar batymetric mapping system installed in > the bow, and a Markey DUSH-6 Hydrographinc winch with 7,000 meter capacity. And don't forget the side looking sonar to protect against rapidly rising submarines. On a serious side, the skipper of the submarine that collided with the Japanese trawler is the son of a close friend here at my Sunday school class and my military pilot fraternity, the Daedalians. My friend is going through great anguish as each daily report seemingly bids his son a worse fate. I can tell you I have no more idea how this could have happened than has been reported. On another note I saw another special last night on one of the unsuccessful attempts at finding Flight 19. Is that next after AE? Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Yeah, there are some fathers in Japan that are also feeling some anguish. The never was any mystery about Flight 19. The Bermuda Triangle was invented on a slow news day in 1954. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:58:35 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Contemporary Account > This flight made the Oakland/Honolulu segment the same > night as the initial Earhart world flight attempt. It may provide insight > into the practices of the time... Ric, I'm sure someone has already researched this but Pratt's note made me wonder if there were any other planes in the air between Lae and Howland on that fateful day? Alan #2329 *************************************************************************** From Ric Just the Zeroes from the Akagi who were shadowing Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:00:17 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Atta girl for Janet. Ric wrote: "I was also once a college student with all the answers; astonished that my professors could not see how simple it all was. I figure that Janet, in her brashness, often expresses doubts and convictions that other may harbor but are less willing to express. I answer what I can find time to answer without derailing more productive discussions." Well said Ric, well said, least we never forget the lessons of our youth. "Those were the days my friend, we thought thought they'd never end, we'd sing and dance forever and a day. We'd live the life we choose, we'd fight and never loose. Those were the days, oh yes, those were the days." LTM, (Who now thinks Janet might very well be a real person, which means that I must be more patient with her in the future.) Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:02:32 EST From: Tom MM Subject: More Purdue charts? A few days ago Ross published a link to (among other things) the Howland - Lae planning chart in the Purdue Collection. Has anyone found an online version of the Honolulu - Howland leg planning chart or supporting documents? I was interested in two things - 1. Any detailed info that might have been provided by Williams to support the landfall approach? 2. Both the Oakland - Honolulu and the later Lae - Howland legs were flown so as to make landfall just after sunrise, allowing full fix opportunities up to close to the end of the flight, and a dawn/daylight approach. Had they gotten off successfully from Honolulu, would their projected flight time have put them at Howland just after dawn? TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:03:50 EST From: Bob Bradenburg Subject: Re: DF Performance Lest anyone get too excited about the long range accuracy of the PAA DF system, it's worth noting that a 1.5 degree error at 1000 miles subtends a cross-track error of plus or minus 26 nautical miles. If you believe Borger's estimate, the cross track error at 1500 miles was plus or minus 26 miles. Using two such bearings at long range hardly constitutes fixing a position with "great accuracy". It's also worth noting that DF bearing accuracy is not an absolute value, but rather is a statistical variable. The stated accuracy typically is the standard deviation of the error, which means that the actual error is equal to or less than the stated value about 68 percent of the time, and exceeds the stated value about 32 percent of the time. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:05:45 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: 1 N 177 W The tone on this discussion about undersea exploration has been that we should take time to indulge the inexperience of youth, naivete etc. etc. Frankly, I'm not sure how much of this has been misplaced enthusiasm that's worth addressing or is better described as someone who should know better deliberately throwing something inflammatory out to get attention, but I think it's clear that with this "who said.....not me" missive that we've done more than enough and that this thread should be brought to an end. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:10:39 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: 1 N 177 W A point FOR Janet. Capt. Safford, who has some good data analysis in FLIGHT INTO YESTERDAY, Chapter 10, makes the statement: "The best compromise between these conflicting bits of evidence [previously described] places the scene of the splash landing at 325 miles west of Howland, or in round numbers latitude 1° north, longitude 178° east. In the author's opinion, there is a 95% probability that AE came down within 100 miles of this spot." A point AGAINST. I've got to second the motion about Janet's obvious naivete concerning the cost and difficulty of her "simple search". The last time I checked with Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the ballpark guess for a bottom scan was $25,000/day (and that was in 1992). And Ric is right re Ballard - he's the guy to talk to. Or you can buy a copy of EXPLORATIONS, A LIFE OF UNDERWATER ADVENTURE by Dr. Ballard (Hyperion, New York). It's now in paperback, and I found a copy on the Barnes & Noble bargain counter for under 10 bucks. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric Janet has lots of company as to where the airplane is; Safford, Elgen Long, Nauticos, Tom Crouch, Timmer and Company (who actually went and dropped a million bucks plus on a deep sea search), to name a few. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:11:50 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Itasca's Initial Search Oh, I think you guys are giving Janet far too much slack, and are putting off to "youth" a pattern of behavior which simply shows that she just wants attention. Stop indulging her, and treat her postings just like you would anyone else, and this sort of stuff from her will stop. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:32:17 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii > We'll have Bob Brandenburg's map added to the 8th Edition chapter on the > Oakland/Honlulu flight soon. Do you think you could make an extra copy of Bob Brandenburg's map and get him to superimpose the great circle course on the other data and post that too - just to see what it looks like? Thanks. **************************************************************************** From Ric Bob? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:36:59 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Aluminum This may be a dumb idea, but why not get a fairly powerful magnet and drag it behind the boat that the divers in the lagoon are using. This could give you an idea if metal debris can wash into the lagoon from the reef. In the Great lakes, people drag up all sorts of things this way, such as fishing lures and even outboard motors. Daniel Postern TIGER #2263 **************************************************************************** From Ric We're gonna go down and look anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:38:59 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Professionals Marty; No one is saying Fred was lost. It does seem quite apparent from Pan Am & available flight records as well as a simple plot that he was off course for a good portion of the San Fran-Hawaii trip. Having to deviate for weather is one thing. Getting off course and staying that way for an extended period on an extended overwater flight is quite another. If one is declared overdue and it assumed that they went down in the drink somewhere, search and rescue are going to look for them along their filed route first-not 50-135 miles north or south of it. By the time S & R can get around to examining variables one is quite likely shark bait. It is simply not good technique or good practice. If you get off course for one reason or another, it also good technique & practice to let ATC or in the case of 1937, the flight tracking system know about it and why. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric And what flight tracking system would that be? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:42:33 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Professionals OK, let me try again. The rhumb line between Oakland and Honolulu was the route one would fly if there were no cross-winds. Once airborne, the pilot would use the rhumb line course the steer, but crosswinds would push the plane left or right. Now lets consider a very good navigator that determines a certain cross-wind over an hour's duration. He has two choices: tell the pilot to adjust for the cross wind by over-steering to the direction that the wind is coming from (he has to also compensate for the set over the previous hour). Depending upon the severity of the cross-wind, only a small correction might be necessary, perhaps less than a degree. Can the pilot steer a course change of less than a degree? Hardly. So, the other alternative is to let the plane continue off course until such time that the set (offset from rhumb line due to cross-winds) is sufficient to make a reasonable course change for the pilot. That also allows more time for the cross-winds to blow, and permit a larger vaue and time to calculate the crosswinds (that's good). What is a reasonable course change? 1 degree? 5 degrees? 10 degrees? That's up to the pilot, navigator, and equipment aboard. BTW, AE and FN knew that there would be strong winds aloft from weather reports. Analysis of the fight path deviations from rhumb line matches well the hindcasts of winds aloft from all available sources at the time and compiled years later. The deviations were due entirely to crosswinds, and IMHO, FN monitored the flight trajectory is sufficient detail to know what was happening at the time. Did he navigate well enough to send a position report due to a possible distress call in the plane at any time? No. But he did have the position good enough for 30-50 nm at any one time, mostly errors along track, not cross-track. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:47:00 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Contemporary Account > From Ric > Just the Zeroes from the Akagi who were shadowing Earhart. Is it possible the Zeros shot down Earhart and Noonan? If they were indeed shadowing the Electra it may be that Earhart saw something she shouldn't have.. I don't believe this has been fully investigated on the forum.. ************************************************************************** From Ric Maybe so but it would negate the Niku hypothesis and interfere with our fund raising so we won't even consider the possibility. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:52:06 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Aluminium Aircraft are made of aluminum all right. But a lot of steel is used in them as well. Think of the engines, think of the landing gear. One reason aircraft compasses have to be calibrated is precisely because there is steel in aircraft. So the magnet might not be a weird idea after all. *************************************************************************** From Ric Trying to find an engine crankshaft or landing gear leg among the Norwich City debris (assuming the dynamics of the passage work the way we think they do), would be like trying to find use a magnet to find a needle in a barrel of horseshoes. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:54:04 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Whose Shoes on Gardner? Regarding "whose shoes" on Gardner, it appears we can draw the following conclusions, given the actions of those stranded on Gardner Is. from the SS Minnow shipwreck: Gilligan wore sneakers; Ginger and Lovey Howell wore heels; Thurston Howell wore custom English shoes, but he only wore them on Gardner for formal events. Otherwise he wore the Skipper's shoes. The Skipper sat around being The Skipper; The most active of those shipwrecked on Gardner were the Professor and Mary Ann. It's obvious that they wore their shoes out and the bits and pieces are those that TIGHAR and others discovered on Gardner. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks for sorting that out. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:06:58 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Half hour gas The question is STILL not resolved. Your argument in favor of Galten is certainly a valid one, but it counters the several witnesses (including the two wire service reporters - not exactly casual listeners) who support O'Hare. Cam Warren (The love child of R. Gillespie and Janet Reno) *************************************************************************** From Ric I should have told you long ago but, you're adopted. We stole you from a Cuban family. *************************************************************************** From Dustymiss Having done a considerable amount of transcriptions - the latest being four tapes of Teresa James (former WW II WAFS pilot) for the International Women's Air and Space Museum , I can attest to what you think you hear and what you hear not always being the same. What she could of said ( I know this is speculation) is "have four hours" of gas. If you say it right "have four hours" and "half an hour" could seem mighty similar over an air plane radio. And isn't four hours of gas the magic number that Vidal is quoted to have said Amelia would turn back to the Gilberts when she hit? Four hours could take you to Gardner just as well. - I know, just specuation. LTM - Who knew better than to speculate about anything. **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay chillun', let's get into this "half hour gas" thing. To recap briefly: At 1912 GMT Radioman 3rd Class William L. Galten records Earhart as saying: "KHAQQ calling Itasca. We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low. We have been unable to reach you by radio . We are flying at 1000 feet." At 1910 GMT Radioman 3rd Class Thomas O'Hare records in a separate radio log: "Earhart on now; says she is running out of gas, only 1/2 hour left, can't hear us at all." Galten's sole job is to listen for and communicate with Earhart. O'Hare's job is to handle all of the ship's other radio traffic. Galten quotes Earhart. O'Hare paraphrases her. Although the time is slightly different, they are talking about the same transmission. Oddly, the two positions are about two minutes apart in time (this is consistent in several messages). Radioman 2nd Class Frank Cipriani, on Howland Island, does not hear the transmission. There is, however, another real-time, or near real-time, account of what Earhart said. The ship's deck log, being kept by Lt. W. J. Swanston, reads: "0742 Plane position reported as near the island and gas running low." Note that he uses Galten's time and Galten's phrasing. Regardless of whose version (if either) was correct, it seems apparent that O'Hare's version was accepted by Commander Thompson because at 19:56 GMT (about 44 minutes later) Cipriani on Howland records in his log: "Received information that Itasca believe Earhart down. Landing party recalled to vessel." It was 20:42 GMT (another 46 minutes) before the deck log recorded the landing party back aboard Itasca but by then, at 20:13 GMT, another message had been heard from Earhart. Clearly she was still aloft. Plans to go looking for her were put on hold hoping that she might yet show up. At 21:45 Thompson sent the following message to Coast Guard HQ in San Francisco: "EARHART CONTACT 0742 REPORTED ONE HALF HOUR FUEL AND NO LAND FALL POSITION DOUBTFUL CONTACT 0646 REPORTED APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED MILES FROM ITASCA BUT NO RELATIVE BEARING PERIOD 0843 REPORTED LINE OF POSITION 157 DASH 337 BUT NO REFERENCE POINT PRESUME HOWLAND PERIOD ESTIMATE 1200 FOR MAXIMUM TIME ALOFT AND IF NONARRIVAL BY THAT TIME WILL COMMENCE SEARCH NORTH WEST QUADRANT FROM HOWLAND AS MOST PROBABLE AREA PERIOD SEA SMOOTH VISIBILITY NINE CEILING UNLIMITED PERIOD UNDERSTAND SHE WILL FLOAT FOR LIMITED TIME" Fifteen minutes later at 22:00 GMT, despite his declared intention to stay at Howland until noon (23:30 GMT), Thompson gave the order to get underway and ten minutes later the ship was steaming on a course of 337 degrees to begin searching along the line of position. O'Hare's "half hour gas left" message was clearly crucial to Thompson's perception of the situation and instrumental in his decision to order the ship to leave Howland Island an hour and a half before Earhart was otherwise expected to run out of fuel. According to Army Air Corps Lt. Daniel Cooper's report of July 27, 1937, "Gasoline supply was estimated to last 24 hours with a possibility of lasting 30 hours." Cooper's report quotes Galten's "but gas is running low" version of the message but attributes the time to 19:11 GMT, halfway between Galten's 19:12 and O'Hare's 19:10. About four hours after the ship began it's search (02:15 GMT), United Press correspondent H.N. Hanzlick aboard Itasca sent his story which included the following description: MEN AT STATIONS TENSELY ALERT LONG WAIT CAPPED BY ANXIETY SEARCH FELT DEEPLY MEN WORKING WITH GRIM EFFICIENCY GREAT CONCERN OVER WHY AMELIA SHORT OF FUEL IN AIR ONLY APPROXIMATELY TWENTY AND HALF HOURS SHOULD HAVE HAD SEVERAL HOURS MORE FUEL WHY AMELIA NEVER GAVE POSITION HER RADIO EVIDENTLY NOT WORKING PROPERLY ITASCA REQUESTED EACH BROADCAST GIVE POSITION NEVER GIVEN STOP AT EIGHT FORTYTWO AMELIA RADIOED QUOTE HALF HOUR FUEL LEFT NO LANDFALL POSITION DOUBTFUL UNQUOTE LAST MESSAGE NINE FORTYTHREE QUOTE LINE OF POSITION ONE FIVE SEVEN DASH THREE THREE SEVEN AM CIRCLING PLEASE GIVE RADIO BEARING UNQUOTE HER VOICE SOUNDED VERY TIRED ANXOUS ALMOST BREAKING Hanzlick's representation of what Earhart said is obviously based upon Thompson's 21:45 message to San Francisco and his own somewhat scrambled recollection of what was said and when. The other reporter aboard Itasca, James Carey of the Associated Press, was no more accurate when he filed his story 45 minutes later at 03:00 GMT: RADIO REPORTED SEVEN FORTY TWO AM EARHART RUNNING OUT GAS STOP LATER MESSAGE PICKED UP QUOTE CIRCLING IN AIR UNQUOTE The next day Hanzlick filed another story which included: NOW LIKE SEARCHING FOR CLOSE FRIEND THOUGH MOST HAVE NEVER SEEN HER SOME HEARD HER VOICE THOSE WHO DID HAVE GREAT ADMIRATION FOR COURAGE WHEN SHE CALLED IN SLOW MEASURED WORDS HALF HOUR FUEL LEFT NO LANDFALL STOP NOT UNTIL LAST MESSAGE DID VOICE SHOW EMOTION STOP If either reporter actually heard what was received from Earhart they did a very poor job of reporting it. So which version of the 19:12 (or 19:10) transmission is more accurate? It's interesting to read what Chief Radioman Leo Bellarts had to say on the subject when he was interviewed by Elgen Long on April 11, 1973. Long: (T)here seems to be some confusion about whether she said she had thirty minutes of fuel left or running low --was there any solution to that? Bellarts: Well, the only solution is what's in the log. Long: Well, one log says one thing and O'Hare's log said the other. Bellarts: Well, don't go on O'Hare's log, because I say --I wasn't even aware that O'Hare was putting that stuff down. ... No, I mean that. I mean that. O'Hare shouldn't have been putting that down because it was not his responsibility. It was actually mine and Galten, you know. Later in the interview - Long: What--this thirty minutes routine--then that just came up out of left field somewhere? I have thirty minutes fuel remaining, one half hour... Bellarts: Ah, well, I'll tell you how that happened, I believe. When -- after the flight, I actually think it took place -- I can't recall if it was going into Honlulu on the way north ... or if it was from Honolulu back to 'Frisco. I don't recall. But I recall the old man was down there, Thompson, Baker, and myself ...and they was concocting up a long letter to, you know, sort of a search report, and I think that was put in that report. They should never have put that in. They quoted---they misquoted it. Long: Well, it got into O'Hare's log somehow too. He says 30 minutes of fuel. Bellarts: Well, if O'Hare did, then maybe that's where the stuff came from. Long: Let me read what....(he then reads O'Hare's log entry). Bellarts: (Laughs) That stinkin' O'Hare. ... Possibly O'Hare might have had something in his little punkin' head that he might have, you know, thought he was going to make a bundle of jack on that or something. It is worth mentioning that , while we have what is purported to be copies of the original radio log kept by Galten and Bellarts, the only available copes of the log kept by O'Hare are of the "smoothed" version that was re-typed sometime after the fact. Of course, anything Leo Bellarts said in 1973 is anecdotal, but taken in context with the contemporaneous material, and in the absence of any supporting real-time corroboration, O'Hare's report that Earhart said anything about a half hour of fuel left seems to be lacking any credibilty. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:09:06 EST From: John Pratt Subject: Magnet Concerning the Dan Postellon idea: "This could give you an idea if metal debris can wash into the lagoon from the reef." Perhaps the magnet (or magnetometer) idea has two useful results: 1. Supporting the hydrodynamic hypothesis that reef-artifacts are washed into the lagoon. If the lagoon is full of Norwitch City iron, that makes it a good place to look for the Electra parts, too. 2. Providing a starting point on where to "go down and look". LTM John Pratt 2373 **************************************************************************** From Ric Certainly worth considering. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:13:26 EST From: Doug Brutlag Subject: Flight Tracking System In Grooch's book, SKYWAY TO ASIA, he gives some time & description to Pan Am's Operations Office. It sounds very much like our modern day dispatching dept. Quote: "The function of the operations office is to dispatch all planes and direct their movements. To do this successfully it must keep in constant radio contact with all planes and stations, and provide them with accurate weather and other information. Schildhauer's(operations mgr.)office was equipped with several interesting gadgets. An enlarged chart of the North Pacific covered most of one wall. The chart had a glass cover upon which notations were made with red chalk. Each day this glass cover was marked to show the positions of steamers along the course, and the weather they reported by radio. Above the chart stood a a row of electric clocks, one for each station in the division. Each clock was labeled and kept with thelocal time of the station it represented. Above these was a large clock keeping Greenwich time." It goes on but this is very much similar and in keeping with a facility to track aircraft. If they track ships at sea and take weather info to assist the planes, they are also keeping track of positions of the aircraft as well. This office was located in Alemeda. I will also speculate that Pan Am as well as the military assisted in the world flight, as PA was equipped and experienced in this type of long haul flying & could render the assistance needed. Doug Brutlag #2335 **************************************************************************** From Ric I know of no indication that PAA was in any way involved with the world flight until after the disappearance. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:23:56 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Whose Shoes on Gardner? > From Janet Whitney > Regarding "whose shoes" on Gardner, The first post I can't find fault with. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Kerry Tiller Intended humor from Ms. Whitney? Perhaps she intended to pull our leg instead of our chain all along. Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt And THAT is why we love Janet... Well, I Love You Janet.... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Poor Janet. She tries for ridicule, achieves humor, and gets affection. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:30:53 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Contemporary Account > From Ric > > Maybe so but it would negate the Niku hypothesis and interfere with our fund > raising so we won't even consider the possibility. I don't believe you posted that..... Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Gotcha. Paybacks are a b-----. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:51:38 EST From: Andy Crewe Subject: Re: Aluminium Ric wrote: <> Although Janet's ideas for searching the Pacific floor have been dismissed as not possible by the forum, there is a greater picture here. There are many hundreds of Universities and many thousands of Engineering students all brimming with new ideas and wanting to find a practical application for what they are learning. (I remember my own years as an Engineering Undergraduate). This is a vast untapped resource that could be of great assistance to TIGHAR. Lots of Universities have funding for real projects that will provide an opportunity for students to apply what they are being taught. Although this may not extend to trawling the bottom of the Pacific, creating a device for detecting aluminium (not aluminum, what is aluminum :) ) amongst other ferrous material is just the sort of project I would have loved as a student. I'm sure there are many others as well. Even Janet's underwater mapping device might be useful for photographing the bottom of the lagoon, which is presumably a lot shallower than 17,000'. LTM (who used to be a student herself). Andy Crewe. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:54:07 EST From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: Banzai! If Zeroes from the Akagi were shadowing AE, we have more problems to consider regarding Fred's navigation: He had gotten them into a Pacific Vortex (the equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle), as well as even more severely off course. The Mitsubishi Zero was merely a gleam in Jiro Horikoshi's eye in 1937. The Zero (aka Zeke, much later) made its first flight April 1, 1939. Perhaps TIGHAR should look for AE considerably further north... the first operational use of Zeros was over China in 1940.... hmm. LTM (who is a Trivial Pursuit freak) and 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, and the Akagi was in drydock for refit during the summer of 1937. Details, details... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:55:29 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: robotic devices Janet Whitney said: "Some of the engineering students here estimate we would need a fishing trawler that could handle 17,000 feet of Kevlar line and a pressure vessel to house a video cam, video recorder, strobe light, bottom-ranging sonar, and sonar transponder. Would that be a big deal? We don't think so." *Sighhhh* Janet . . . Janet . . . sweet Janet. You may want to check if the Glomar Explorer is available for lease. LTM, who presently feels so . . . so . . . ditsy Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:56:46 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: 2 N 177W If Earhart and Noonan had been in the vicintty of 2 N 177 W at 2043 GMT they would have been about 85 miles from the Itasca. This would have been outside the line-of-sight radio horizon for 3105 Kilocycles, assuming that they were flying at 1000 feet. Janet Whitney ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:59:11 EST From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: 1N 177W Janet - you're great. But you might have lost your receiving antenna on your last takeoff. Your pitot tube is bent a bit - check it out...PMB #0856C ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:02:36 EST From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: Noonan's Capabilites For Randy J. - Right on. Albeit much later than AE/FN, I have flown (navigated) from the west coast USA to Guam - nonstop intended, although had to stop once at Wake. Over an expanse as large as the Pacific, you traverse highs and lows, and can carefully monitor where you are (celestially, for example), and only correct course when and if you really need to. John Bellamy began to note this phenomenon (post WWII I think) and was able to scientifically analyze it to be able to measure off-track movement by measuring rate-of-change of altitude, which indicates slope into or out of the high or low, and is related to cross-track wind component. So if you aren't concerned with keeping exactly on track (because of other traffic reasons, for example), you just let the cross-wind component take you off track. My experience is that after a while the pressure systems that you are flying through will change direction, and move you back again. Interestingly enough, you will fly the least time path. Years ago, our Bomb Wing took off from El Paso for Guam, at maybe 10 minute intervals. Our crew was third off. We had consulted with metro, and had decided on a single heading for the distance. We monitored our position as we moved as much as 40 miles off track, but didn't correct, and landed in Guam 15-20 minutes ahead of the leader. I don't expect that FN really understood John Bellamy's principles, but if he watched where he was, and minimized his course corrections, he was navigating wisely over such long distances. PMB #0856C. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:36:20 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Professionals > From Ric > > And what flight tracking system would that be? And with whom did they "file" their route? Or - to ask the question a different way (and one more time) - what documentation is there that the "intended route" was (or should have been) a rhumb line course? Oscar Boswell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:37:58 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Singing pigs Bob Lee said: Ric, I may be off base but seems to me that you spending time explaining these things to Janet is analogous to utilizing the time of a brain surgeon to explain tic-tac-toe. Actually, Bob, it is more analogous to teaching a pig to sing: All you do is waste your time and annoy the pig. LTM, who loves good barbecue Dennis O. McGee #1049EC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:42:21 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Contemporary Account And if they had been shot down by Zeroes, would AE have said to Itasca: "We are on you but we can't see you" around the time the Electra was expected to arrive at Howland ? **************************************************************************** From Ric We were just kidding about the Zeroes. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:43:39 EST From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: Professionals Doug Brutlag wrote : Getting off course and staying that way for an extended period on an extended over water flight is quite another. Well, aircraft have been off course for a number of reasons in the past and probably will be for many years to come for a variety of reasons. Deviating for bad weather is one reason, returning to the original track is another. Correcting for the deviation might may not be meaningful if the the aircraft is going to hit the calculated LOP anyway with both the pilot and the navigator knowing that the airfield will be a bit to the left or to the right... That is the "calculated error approach". But did they deviate ? Did they know they were straying off their intended track ? Let me remind you of an old story (another one) which happened back in 1955. A Sabena DC-6 en route from Brussels to then Leopoldville (now Kinshasa) in Congo, was lost in Italy after having told ATC they were flying over Milan and were continuing their flight to a scheduled stop at Italy's capital, Rome. Having passed what they took for Lake Bracciano in the dark they began their descend to Rome. That position report was their last message. Minutes later they flew into Mount Terminillo near Rieti, some 50 miles east of their track. All 21 passengers and 8 crew members were killed. It was later established that for a reason unknown the experienced crew had made a navigation error of a few degrees sending them from Milan to the left (east) of their planned course. There were nor VOR beacons nor radar available in Italy at the time and therefore ATC didn't notice the error. The flight remained lost for days. One week later Carabinieri (police), responding to reports from mountain people who said they had heard an explosion on Mount Terminillo, climbed the mountain and found the wreck all right. There were no survivors. If such fatal navigation error could still happen in 1955 to aircraft that were among the most sophisticated of their day, flown on long haul flights across continents and oceans on schedule, manned by some of the most experienced crews, then why would it be unthinkable for AE an FN to have wandered off their plotted course, either through an error of Noonan's or because AE failed to steer the course he had calculated. Or both ? Maybe they wandered off course because Noonan underestimated the wind ? Maybe he didn't worry too much about the wind as correcting for the deviation by choosing a parallel course would place him a bit to the left (or a bit to the right) of Howland on the LOP where he expected to receive a DF signal to get them to Howland ? That is why he may not have cared too much about being a bit off course. After all there are no mountains in the Pacific and it was a clear day after all. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:50:59 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii There seems to be an implicit assumption that Noonan was flying a great circle track to Honolulu, thus explaining the difference between his actual track made good and the ideal rhumb track. Plotting a great circle track on a Mercator projection is a tedious and time-consuming task that would provide no useful information in this case. But I recommend it as an exercise for those interested in learning something about navigation. I can save time and angst for all concerned by assuring you that Noonan was not following a great circle, nor could he have done so. To navigate via a great circle requires making an infinite number of course changes at infinitely small time intervals, and therefor is not practical. Hence, Noonan could not have been flying a true great circle track. A navigator wishing to take advantage of the fact that a great circle is the shortest distance between two points on the surface of the earth will, using a great circle plotting chart, subdivide the desired track into sequential segments. He then transfers the end points of those segments to a Mercator projection chart and connects them with straight lines which, of course, are rhumb lines. Each rhumb line track segment is a chord subtending an arc of the great circle. The end point of each rhumb is a way point at which the navigator changes course to follow the next segment. The number of way points used is a function of how closely the navigator wants to approximate the great circle. The tradeoff is between the number of way points, and hence the required navigation effort, and the distance saved relative to the rhumb track from the point of origin to the destination. Now, here is a brief comparison of the great circle and rhumb tracks between Oakland and Honolulu: The great circle distance is 2090 nautical miles. The navigator must initially fly course 252 degrees true, and gradually and continuosly change course to the left over time, with his final course being 244 degrees true as he reaches his destination. This requires an infinite number of position fixes and course changes - - clearly impossible. The rhumb distance is 2107 nautical miles, and requires the navigator to fly a single course of 242 degrees true from start to finish. The distance saved by flying a true great circle would be 17 miles. To put it another way, the great circle and rhumb tracks between Oakland and Honolulu are nearly coincident. Inspection of Noonan's actual track clearly shows that he wasn't attempting to fly either a great circle or a rhumb track. It appears that his goal was merely to get close enough to pick up the signal from the radio beacon at the lighthouse on Makapuu Point, which he did at 1115Z at a distance of about 670 nautical miles, and to follow the radio bearing to his destination, which he did. During the preceding 10 hours and 43 minutes since departing Oakland, he had a total of 4 navigational fixes. The first fix was based on a radio bearing on a beacon near San Francisco plus two celestial bodies. The last three fixes were based on two celestial bodies each. It is important to note that a two-body celestial fix is prone to a much larger position error than a fix obtained with three or more bodies. None of this is intended to suggest that Noonan would have missed Hawaii if he didn't get the beacon signal from Makapuu Point. The Hawaiian chain of islands is a big target, and it would be hard to miss even without the radio bearing. The point of examining Noonan's navigation habits enroute to Honolulu is to search for insights that could help explain subsequent events. The Oakland-to-Honolulu flight was the first leg of the planned East-to-West circumnavigation, with Howland Island being the next objective after Honolulu. Had Noonan been using the Oakland to Honolulu leg as a contingency rehearsal for finding Howland without a radio bearing from the Itasca, we should expect to see much tighter celestial navigation than he demonstrated. Instead, we see very loose navigation with heavy reliance on a terminal radio bearing. Absent evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to assume that Noonan used the same navigation methods on the Lae to Howland leg. The question is whether Noonan's navigation was good enough to find the Itasca and Howland Island without a radio bearing from the Itasca. Fact: Noonan did not get a radio bearing from the Itasca. Fact: Noonan did not find the Itasca or Howland Island. Conclusion: Noonan's navigation wasn't good enough to find Howland island without a radio bearing. Bob ************************************************************************** From Ric Which is not to say that Noonan wasn't a good enough navigator to find Howland without a radio bearing, but if you're navigating "loose" and counting on a radio bearing - and then you don't get it, you're in trouble. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:56:27 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Re: 1 N 177 W The first thing we would do when the trawler reached 1 N 177 W is stop the engines and check the drift using the GPS. Then we would start an engine and keep the trawler stationary while we deployed the digital camera / sonar package. We would check the current every few hundred feet using the GPS and sonar transponder. We would slowly pay out the line until the camera/sonar package was (say) 100 feet off the ocean floor, taking measurements of the currents, effect on the camera/sonar package. We would try to take some stationary photos of the ocean floor. We would do this for several days. When we got a feeling of how the camera/sonar package performed at 17,000 feet we would start towing in a search pattern. We would tow at 2 knots maximum speed. It would take a minimum of three months to search a reasonably large area. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric I say go for it. You may even be able to get the diesel fuel donated. I'm sure that all of us here on the forum wish you and your compatriots calm seas and the very best of luck. We'll eagerly await the results of your search. Let us know when you get back. Bon voyage! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:57:48 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Flight Tracking System > From Doug Brutlag > > I will also speculate that Pan Am as well as the military assisted in > the world flight, as PA was equipped and experienced in this type of > long haul flying & could render the assistance needed. Did PAA offer anything to Amelia? *************************************************************************** From Ric Not that I know of. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:59:10 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Whose Shoes on Gardner? > From Ric > > Poor Janet. She tries for ridicule, achieves humor, and gets affection. Could be worse, of course .... I try for affection, am seen as funny, and get ridicule. Oh, well. **************************************************************************** From Ric I wish I had said that. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:01:04 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Banzai! > Yes, and the Akagi was in drydock for refit during the summer of 1937. > Details, details... Then it was another carrier repainted and modified to simulate the Akagi. Had the Japanese Government ever indicated any interest in the flight? The book "War Plan Orange" reveals that the only reason they wanted to keep everyone else out was to hide the detail that they had done nothing to make the economic status of the natives any different. Military buildup started after the flight, and apparently was not related. Mike Holt **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm aware of no Japanese interest in the flight. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:12:47 EST From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Flight 19 >>The never was any mystery about Flight 19. The Bermuda Triangle was invented >>on a slow news day in 1954. Off topic I know, but interesting none the less. Was Flight 19 actually found ? I seem to remember some planes (Avengers ?) being found but did they prove to be Flight 19? (limited postings only, please, due to Ric's stretched tolerence of "off topic" postings ;-) **************************************************************************** From Ric No, the Avengers found were not from Flight 19. Unfortunately, lots of TBFs and TBMs were lost in training accidents in the Caribbean and none of the losses was particulary mysterious - including Flight 19. In the case of the five airplanes found near each other on the bottom and suspected at first of being Flight 19, it turned out that there had once been a cement "target" ship moored in that location and, over time, a number of training mishaps put airplanes on the bottom in that area. The real Flight 19 was just a case of an instructional flight getting lost, running out of fuel, and ditching in rough seas. Tragic. but hardly mysterious. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:09:45 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: A woman on Gardner or Not >Attention focuses on the indications that the person was female >because if castaways on Pacific islands are rare (and they are), female >castaways are more so, and it just so happens that a female was missing in >that part of the Pacific. Please cite your sources for the information regarding.. 1) castaways in the Pacific in general are rare 2) female castaway in particular are rare I have done some very limited research into the history of castaways in the Pacific. Based on that, I am not able to make the claims that you have due mostly to (at least to date) a lack of data. But that is not to say that the data does not exist. What source can you reference that supports your contention that castaways of any either gender are rare? What are you basing that statement on? LTM Kenton Spading P.S. As a side note...... It is interesting that the two castaways scenarios that we know the Brits in Fiji were involved with both included evidence that women were involved. In the first case, of course, we have Gardner Is.. In the second case (Henderson Is.) the evidence is strong that one of the castaways was a female. The Brits were 2 for 2. Two sets of remains found and evidence of two women. Too little data for me to comment on statiscally but interesting none the less. *************************************************************************** From Ric Okay. Let's take my first statement "...castaways in the Pacific in general are rare." First we need to define "castaway" , then we need to define "rare." Webster says a castaway is "a shipwrecked person" and that rare means "not frequently found; scarce, uncommon, unusual." How many shipwrecked persons were there in the Pacific in the 1930s? I don't know, but I do know that the few reports I know of describing shipwrecks treat them as "rare" events so I must conclude that either shipwrecks, and therefore shipwrecked persons, were rare, or that shipwrecks were common and nobody noticed. The latter possibility seems rather remote so I feel safe in saying that "...castaways in the Pacific in general are rare." (Or more correctly, "...were rare.") Next comes the question of whether "female castaways in particular are rare." To answer that we must look at what few shipwrecks we know about in the Pacific during this time period and determine, if we can, the gender of any persons who survived the wreck. I'm aware of, but don't know much about, one incident in Fiji (the Henderson Island wreck of an American yacht) which, as you say, seems to have included a woman. There is, of course, the wreck of S.S. Norwich City which involved 24 male survivors and no women; and there is the castaway whose partial skeleton was found on Gardner and whose gender is the subject of the current discussion. That's it, as far as I know. We're quite sure there were no other shipwrecks in the Phoenix Group ( the President Taylor didn't go aground at Canton until 1942 and that was a wartime loss). We've read of no shipwrecks in the Gilberts or the Ellice Group or the Tokelaus. I'd be surprised if there were not a few other incidents that we haven't run across. I recall something about an American yacht getting damaged in the Marshall's in the 1920s. Because the woman assumed to have been involved in the Henderson Island wreck is the only female person among the - what - 26 known shipwrecked persons in the central Pacific, I feel comfortable in saying that "female castaways in particular are rare." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:11:21 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Sauce Guess what? Doug Crice at Georadar has just popped my bubble on Ground Penetrating Radar.The descriptive word is GROUND. It wont work in SALT WATER! It also doesnt work in salt water saturated soil. As a matter of fact , it has quite a few limitations on it as far as soil type and condition. Look at their web site, it's quite informative. Woody *************************************************************************** From Ric We're aware of those limitations. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:12:53 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Ocean Navigator For Doug Brutlag: Got my copy of Ocean Navigator today.....OK, Doug, are you going to 'fess up to your friends on the forum? Best of luck, TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:14:41 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Banzai! > From Ric > > Yes, and the Akagi was in drydock for refit during the summer of 1937. > Details, details... If you're going to insist on using facts, you're NEVER going to solve this thing LTM (who want's THE answer, not AN answer). - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:33:32 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Half hour gas One point we really NEED to know on the "half hour gas" problem is whether a "reserve" of fuel was calculated. I've mentioned it before in reference to both the flight and the "half hour" question. In all the documents I have seen pertaining to planning the flight (purdue) I have not seen any referenct to a reserve quantity of fuel. But we don't have the pilot's/navigator's scratchings to peruse. There is too great a discrepancy between the fuel we know was on board, and the best calculations we can make based on the Kelly Johnson telegrams and the Flight Planning charts for the Honolulu - Lae flight. I did my calculations allowing for an hour at full power for take off. Later when I got the charts I saw that 22 minutes appeared to be allowed at full power, followed (apparently) by the other settings that Kelly Johnson advised. No matter which way you twist the figures they point the same way. One document infers rather than states there was a reserve fuel allowance (if I remember it was in the Kelly Johnson stuff - 40% reserve for Oakland - Honolulu). I believe anyone approaching their "reserve fuel" thinks of it as running low. A bit like early Volkswagens, you switch to reserve and you start looking for a gas station. A Really Simple Poor Man's Analysis: Flying at 150mph against a 20mph headwind (the whole way) might have taken just over 19.5 hours. 2556 miles / 130 mph) We know the airplane was expected to burn 38gph for a good part of the trip. If we "guess" 50gph for 19.6 hrs that's 980gallons. 1100-980=120gallons. If earhart throttled back to conserve fuel when they thought they were at Howland she had AT LEAST 3 hours fuel left at 40gph AFTER battling a headwind and arriving late. But she wasn't that late. There has been speculation that she was well short of Howland. or overflew it and was well past Howland when she reported. That radio signal strength suggests she was relatively close to Howland AND on time. That suggests that even if she burned almost 25% MORE fuel than planned she would have had at least 4 hours fuel left when she reported "on you but cannot see you". An airplane is not like a car. you don't just add gas pedal and go faster. Therefore on a long trip you maintain a steady "best" speed and put up with being a little late. The base figures are: Start = 1100 gallons 22 minutes - 1 hour @ unknown = ?? 3 hours @ 60gph = 180 gallons Balance = 920gal 3 hours @ 51gph = 153 gallons Balance = 767gal 3 hours @ 43gph = 129 gallons Balance = 638gal 9 hours @ 38gph = 342 gallons Balance = 296gal So after 18 hours we have 296 gallons less whatever was used in the initial climb, which may have been the 22 minutes at the beginning of the chart. Guess that the climb burned 96gph for 1 HOUR and earhart still has to have 175 gallons at the "we must be on you" transmission. This will give her between 3.5 and 4.6 hours depending how well she could manage fuel in the search. The muppet factors are still the initial climb and the search for Howland. How much fuel for how long. They spent precisely 1 hour searching before the "running on line" call. Did they decide that if they didn't find Howland in an hour they risked getting lost? If so, they could have headed off to Plan B, whatever that was, with somewhere in excess of 120 gallons, enough for 3 hours flying at 40gph and up to 450 miles range, depending what they had burned beetling around at low altitude. Which by the way is what I suspect happened. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric This question has been addressed by a number of highly educated, very talented and very experienced people and while the exact numbers vary, everyone agrees that the airplane should have had a significant reserve of fuel at the time of the last transmission received by Itasca. Even Elgen Long acknowledges this fact and all of his convoluted assumptions about headwinds and altered power settings are nothing more than an attempt to get the airplane to run out of gas where he wants it to. I really don't see how flogging this horse harder will get us to our destination sooner. In my view, the real significance of Earhart's "but gas is running low" message, distorted by O'Hare into "1/2 hour gas left", is that it introduced to the Itasca crew and to Commander Thompson in particular, the notion that the plane had much less fuel than everyone had been assuming it had. This sea-change in their perception of the crisis colored their actions from then on. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:38:56 EST From: Denise Subject: Koata, Son of Koata You are looking for a Gilbertese gentleman called Koata, son of Native Magistrate Teng Koata, who was last heard of on Ocean Island in the 1950s: I've found this piece of Banaban History which could be pertinent: "When the War was over, the surviving Banaban people, now greatly weakened by the years of deprivation (at the hands of the Japanese), were picked up by the B.P.C. vessel "S.S. TRIONA" and taken to their new island home. (Leaving behind only a handful of Banabans to legally hold their ownership of Ocean Island) a total of 703 Banabans, together with 300 Gilbertese, arrived on the shores of their new home on Rabi Island, (off the coast of Vanua Levu in Fiji) where they settled into temporary accommodation consisting of Army tents, under Major D.F. Kennedy, D.S.O. who had been made the Officer-In-Charge." Did Koata go with them as one of the 300 Gilbertese? It isn't unlikely. Since the original Gilbertese on Ocean Island (the 160 phosphate miners) were massacred by the Japanese - bar a man called Kabunare, who pretended to be dead and who later featured large in the Japanese War Crimes Tribunal - these 300 Gilbertese were all newcomers; husbands and wives of those Banabans the Japanese had sent as slaves to other islands all over the region. After the war, when regular transport and shipping were reestablished, nearly all the people with a Banaban connection arrived back on Ocean Island to regroup and to plan what to do next. Since their land had been destroyed by phosphate mining and the Japanese had shelled all the villages, reducing them to rubble, what they did next was to move to Rabi. As for Koata being married to a Banaban, this is the only reason I see for him being in Ocean Island in the 50s. The Banabans did not LIKE the Gilbertese for two very good reasons. 1) They resented them because they had been miners for the British Phosphate Company, doing the actual work and thereby being the immediate visible cause for the destruction of the land. 2) They were deeply concerned that if they left their island without a human presence, there would be a Gilbertese take-over. To this end, they'd deliberately left behind people in order to legally hold their land and to keep the Gilbertese away This was the state of play during the 50s. Would Koata, a Gilbertese Islander, be accepted among their number for any other reason than he was married to one of their own? Thus it's likely that Koata went to Rabi with the others. What happened to him then doesn't look good, however. The account goes on to say: "Reports of a whole generation ... dying shortly after their arrival may be greatly exaggerated, but it is true that (they) died in high numbers from pneumonia and the effects of adjusting to Fiji's cold winter and cyclones. " Nonetheless, it's probably worth dropping into Rabi Island On-line and asking if Koata is among their number. And if he isn't, finding out what happened to him. (Here's a thought. Doesn't Major D.F. Kennedy, DSO, feature elsewhere in the A.E. saga? It may be worthwhile to ask about him too!) LTM (who wonders why Rabi reminds her so much of Israel.) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric The name Kennedy does ring a faint bell. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:30:45 EST From: Ken Feder Subject: Re: Flight 19 For anyone interested, there is a terrific book "deconstructing" the Bermuda Triangle myth with an entire chapter devoted to Flight 19 titled The Bermuda Triangle Mystery Solved by Larry Kusche (Prometheus Books). It turns out that the student pilots figured out they were going in the wrong direction pretty early on but their flight instructor was completely confused. He thought they were over the Keys and needed to fly north and east to get back to their base at Ft Lauderdale (he decided all of their compasses were out when this didn't get them back on track). They were actually over some small islands east of the Florida coast in the Atlantic; flying north and east of there just brought them out over the ocean where they ran out of gas. Ken Feder ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:40:28 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii > From Bob Brandenburg > Fact: Noonan did not get a radio bearing from the Itasca. New and improved statement of fact: AE & FN failed to get a radio bearing from the Itasca. (Evidence suggests that she ran the radios.) > Fact: Noonan did not find the Itasca or Howland Island. New and improved statement of fact: AE & FN did not find the Itasca or Howland Island. (She was the Pilot in Command.) > Conclusion: Noonan's navigation wasn't good enough to find Howland island > without a radio bearing. New and improved conclusion: The navigation done by AE & FN wasn't good enough to find Howland Island without a radio bearing. (Fred didn't make this fine mess alone.) Is this an assumption on which the reasoning is based? If Fred had wanted to use fixes from three or more celestial bodies after sunrise, he could have. He was just being lazy and careless. If the TIGHAR hypothesis is true, AE & FN did land safely enough for her to survive for a while. If true, they should get some credit for making a landfall. Marty #2359 *************************************************************************** From Ric This is not about blame or credit. We're just trying to get an understanding of how things may have happened. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:43:02 EST From: Richard Subject: Re: Contemporary Account I always understood that Japan (mid to late 30's) did not have any military airfield bases to fly "fighter aircraft sorties" in the Marshalls or the area of where she may have crashed. It seems that being shot-down should be entirely out of question, unless Jap aircraft carriers were alerted to follow her intended flight path locations during the flight. Richard *************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, being shot down is entirely out of the question. We were joking. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:50:53 EST From: Janet Whitney Subject: Not Enough Fuel.... With Earhart and Noonan unable to find Howland, Baker, and the Itasca, it is unreasonable for me to believe that Earhart and Noonan somehow found Gardner, which is approximately 425 miles from Howland, with 120 gallons (you claim) of fuel remaining. The Electra burned a lot of fuel during the first 8 hours of Earhart's flight. When she reported she was "low on fuel" she meant low on fuel. When she reported "flying north and south" she was flying north and south. TIGHAR chides me for thinking about a reasonable and uncomplicated plan for searching the sea floor for the Electra, while TIGHAR is spending years pursuing a theory that was unreasonable to begin with. Janet Whitney **************************************************************************** From Ric You obviously have it all figured out to your satisfaction and have your own search plan. How about you just go your way and we'll go ours and then we won't waste each other's time? I'll be happy to remove you from the forum. So long Janet. It's been real. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:02:24 EST From: Bill Subject: Re: Flight 19 Did they ever do any searching for the planes and were the planes ever found! Bill **************************************************************************** From Ric As I recall, a PBM was sent out to look for survivors but suffered its own catastrophic fate when it blew up in mid-air. (PBMs did that. They had a nasty fuel leak problem.) Then the weather set in and it was days before any other searching could be done. No surviors were found. In those years the Navy lacked the technology to locate sunken aircraft and never tried. It really was not my intention to start a Flight 19 thread. Besides, Spielberg already explained what happened in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:11:48 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Flight 19 > No, the Avengers found were not from Flight 19. Unfortunately, lots of TBFs > and TBMs were lost in training accidents in the Caribbean and none of the > losses was particulary mysterious - including Flight 19. The program I saw the other day said 150 Avengers were lost off the coast. Seems like the Navy would have started to be concerned after awhile. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric We tend to forget the terrific rate of training accidents during WWII. The price of putting relatively inexperienced young men in big powerful airplanes is that lots of them are going to die - and they did. Training accidents far exceeded combat losses. It was a cost of doing business in the wartime environment. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:11:07 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii One thing that I believe has been discussed before is that AE and FN may have been in visual range of Howland, but unable to spot it because of shadows thrown over the water by the clouds. Also, depending on a number of factors (clouds, surf noise etc.) people on Itasca and Howland may not have been able to spot or hear the plane even though it was in visual/hearing range. If any of this is true (I keep remembering "we must be on you but can't see you"), it seems to me that this qualifies the conclusion that either AE or FN talents weren't good enough for the task. --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric I think we're all agreed that when AE said she "..must be on you but cannot see you" she was where she thought Howland should be, but it wasn't there. The island can't move, so she must have been somewhere other than where she thought she was. That fact had to be as obvious to her as it is to us. We're also agreed that when she said, an hour later, that she was "on the line 157 337" and that she was "running north and south" she was searching for Howland by exploring along the 157 337 line which she believed ran through Howland. We're also all in agreement that she never saw Howland and the question becomes - why? Because, although she was technically within visual range, she couldn't pick out the island from the cloud shadows while squinting into the sun? Or was she so far away that she never had any chance of seeing the island? If we're going to suggest the former explanation we also have to say that they somehow failed to see Baker either, which was forty miles to the southeast on pretty much the same LOP - and remember, if they're running up and down the LOP they're not looking into the sun. In other words, we'd be saying that Noonan's navigation was just about perfect even without help from DF but the islands were effectively just impossible to see. Or is the latter scenario perhaps more likely? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:29:39 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Banishment??? Riiiiiic! Please don't banish Janet Whitney from the forum just because she is intractable, bullheaded, non-communicative, loopy, pesky, irritable, unyielding, mulish, mostly clueless, naive, ornery, and occasionally cantankerous. Golly, we all have some shortcomings. I would recommend another session with the Tighar chaplain, this time on tolerance. LTM, who tries to be pleasant at all times Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric Sentence has been passed ......... and I don't do pardons. On very rare occasions it has become necessary to bar individuals from the forum - not because they are any of the adjectives listed above (those descriptions apply to all of us at one time or another), or because they are abusive ( I can always edit out the profanity before posting). I remove a person from the forum when, over a protracted period of time, they demonstrate that they demand an inordinate amount of time and attention while having nothing substantive to contribute to the discussion. If anyone would like to correspond with her privately I'll be happy to forward your invitation to her. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:32:11 EST From: Ed of PSL Subject: Re: Whose Shoes on Gardner? Just a thought regarding the remnants of the shoes. Have you ever noticed that some folks have a very telltale wear pattern on the heels? That's not to say it's like a fingerprint but perhaps the type of wear on the heels could be compared with those on shoes known to have been worn by AE or FN. It may lend further evidence especially if there's a very strong match. Just a thought. LTM Ed of PSL **************************************************************************** From Ric I'll address those issues in Part Two of the "Shoe Fetish" research bulletin. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:38:47 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: A woman on Gardner or Not There were also a number of skeletons found on Henderson (see the Henderson Island webpage). As far as I know, their age, sex and ethnicity were undetermined. I suppose skeletons could persist from the whaling era, and I expect that these would be overwhelmingly male. Many of the uninhabited islands and reefs in the Pacific are named after whaling vessels that wrecked there. Pre-Cook Polynesian remains might be equally male or female. I suspect that Ric is right. Castaways, in particular female ones, are rare. Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 *************************************************************************** From Ric If we're assessing the number and gender of castaways I think we need to put the discussion in a defined context. Obviously, the Pacific of the whaling era was populated by very different ships and crews than was the Pacific of the 1920s and '30s. Likewise, the Pacific of the 1940s saw a tremendous change in nautical casualties. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:44:18 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii It should be noted that the Electra was flying at 1,000 feet - - below the clouds. So, the island wasn't obscured by clouds. Also, it wasn't necessary to see the island. It was sufficient to see the Itasca, which was about a mile from the island. A ship of the Itasca's size is visible at about 15 nautical miles from a fixed wing aircraft flying at 1,000 feet with visibility of 25 miles - - which the Itasca logged that morning. See Table G-3 of the United States National Search and Rescue Supplement to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual. Bob #2286 ************************************************************************** From Ric It's the cloud shadows on the surface that could be a problem. They tend to look like islands. Does the SAR Manual assume that the ship is underway? A ship leaving a wake is much easier to spot than a stationary vessel. Itasca was hove to. And before anybody starts talking about smoke, please read the FAQ at http:// www.tighar.org/forum/Forumfaq.html Bottom line: There probably wasn't any. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:22:50 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii From > From Marty Moleski > > Is this an assumption on which the reasoning is based? > > If Fred had wanted to use fixes from three or > more celestial bodies after sunrise, he could > have. He was just being lazy and careless. No. Bob, #2286 *************************************************************************** From Ric Allow me to elaborate (and I'm sure Bob will correct me if I'm wrong). Noonan's opportunities for "tight" navigation expired with the night. Once dawn cast its russet mantle adown the eastern sky he had only the rising sun and (maybe) the moon to use. The sun gave him a good LOP which he could then advance through Howland once he had his groundspeed sorted out. That should have given him a pretty good (10 miles?) idea of where Howland was in an east/west sense, but the north/south part of the equation depended entirely upon how carefully he had stayed on track during the night and how well he corrected for wind now that the sun was up. Of course, with a DF bearing to the destination it was no big deal if he was off a bit to the north or south. What we're finding out about ol' Fred is that, as a rule, he does not seem to have worried too much about staying smack on track and, when the DF bearing didn't happen, he could have found himself in a pickle. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:11:51 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Who's Afraid of the Great Circle? I was disappointed that Bob feels that charting the Great Circle course is a tedious and time-consuming task - and, moreover, that (not having done it) he knows that it would produce "no useful information in this case." I am one of those people who think that one should decide whether or not information is "useful" after one acquires it - and that all information is "useful" so long as it is accurate and tells us something about the subject. In fact, it's really not so difficult (these days) to get a rough idea of the great circle track (though perhaps without the precision that Bob's calculations would have provided). Take the latitude/longitude coordinates (I got them from the USGS map list and used 37-45 N and 122-15 W for Oakland and 21-15 N and 157-46 W for Honolulu - obviously, different parts of the cities have different coordinates, but these are accurate enough for us.) Go to www.info.gov.hk/marden for a Great Circle calculator, enter the points of origin and destination, and printout the latitude readings for the Great Circle at 5 degree increments of longitude (or for each degree, if you wish more precision than we're going to use). (Elapsed time = 15 minutes.) Now buy a sheet of ordinary 5x5 graph paper. Mark each 5 degrees of longitude at one inch intervals along the top, and each 5 degrees of latitude on the side. Each square on the paper is now equal to one degree (and is a perfect Mercator projection! ) Place dots representing Oakland and Honolulu. Connect those two dots with a straight line. You now have a graphic representation of the rhumb line course. Elapsed time = 10 minutes. Go back to the waypoint latitude information you copied from the Great Circle calculator. Enter the latitude of the Great Circle on the chart as a dot at each 5 degrees of longitude (or more often, if you wish) - you now have a visual graphic representation of the variation in latitude between the great circle and rhumb line courses.(5 minutes.) Since each 1/5 inch square on the chart equals one degree of latitude, and since one degree of latitude equal 60 nautical miles, one can visually estimate the distance of the Great Circle north of the rhumb line as: at 125 W = 30nm at 130 W = 60nm at 135 W = 90nm at 140 W = 120nm at 145 W = 70 nm at 150 W = 30 nm The numbers are imprecise, of course - the pencil line covers maybe 6 miles - but they're interesting, aren't they? Unless I have made some major error in calculation or method, they show that Bob's assertion that "the great circle and rhumb tracks between Oakland and Honolulu are nearly coincident" is just plain wrong. (The tracks ARE nearly the same length - 17 miles difference is right - BUT THEY ARE WIDELY DIVERGENT, as much as 120 nautical miles.) Bob's statement that Noonan was not attempting to follow a great circle, because "to navigate via a great circle requires making an infinite number of course changes at infinitely small time interval, and therefore is not practical ... clearly impossible," is a sort of navigational restatement of Zeno's paradox. The arrow strikes the target despite Zeno - and a great circle course can be approximated, as indeed Lindbergh intended to do. I don't know what to make of Bob's assertion that "Noonan's actual track shows THAT HE WASN'T ATTEMPTING to fly either a great circle or a rhumb track." What course was he attempting to fly? (And if you don't know, how can you criticize him for not being on it?) I don't know whether FN was trying to fly a great circle or trying to fly a rhumb line or just wandering around hoping to bump into something. What I can't understand is the unwillingness to explore all the possibilities. I had hoped that I could persuade Bob to undertake the task of expanding his work so that we might all see whether the position of the great circle course (and - mutatis mutandis - the apparent similarity of the GUBA's navigation and flight track) might teach us something. I once fired a surveyor because he persistently failed (on purpose, I thought) to show both the Northern and Southern boundaries of a piece of property on the same plat. Only if all the information is placed in graphic relationship will the non-experts among us be able to interpret as easily as you and Bob seem to be able to do. You may be intuitively (or reflexively) correct - but I'd like to see it for myself. I am sending you a copy of my very rough sketch showing the divergence between great circle and rhumb line courses to use as you wish. I shall enclose an extra copy for Bob. Thanks. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric And I'll send you a printed copy of Bob's chart. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:14:36 EST From: Rollin Reineck Subject: Warships in the Marshalls Concerning Japanese military in 1937, I have a document that might be of interest Department of State Division of Far Eastern Affairs 5 July 1937 Subject: Search for plane of Amelia Earhart Mr, Hayama informed Mr Ballentine over the telephone that the Japanese Embassy had received an urgent telegram from Tokyo asking that inquiry be made of this Government whether the Japanese Government could be of assistance in connection with the search for Amelia Earhart, in view of the fact that Japan had radio stations and warships in the Marshall Islands... Mr.Ballantine expressed his appreciation etc. The significance is that the Japanese did have warships in the Marshall islands on 5 July 1937 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:19:08 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Professionals Based on the original flight planning, their flight plan from Lae to Howland SHOULD have looked something like: 107deg 2hrs 34min 108deg 1hr 10min 109deg 3hr 30min 110deg 3hr 30min 111deg 2hr 20min 112deg 3hr 45min Which is the exact reverse of the original flight plan. 107deg 3hr 45min 108deg 2hr 20min 109deg 3hr 30min 110deg 3hr 30min 111deg 1hr 10min 112deg 2hrs 34min Swapping reversing the times in case there was a reason (like aircraft weight) for the first stretch being 3hrs 45minutes gives the second figures. Degrees are magnetic. What does that look like on a chart? Rhumb line? Great gircle? Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Doesn't matter. You're basing that on a chart prepared by Clarence Williams before Noonan was even in the picture. I would expect that Fred would not feel constrained by anything Williams had put together. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:21:12 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Professionals (correction) I fell into the reciprocal trap on my post (not awake yet here). If Noonan did the same no wonder they missed Howland it would have put them in the middle of the Phoenix Group. Please post THIS not my first one..... Based on the Clarence Williams flight planning, their flight plan from Lae to Howland SHOULD have looked something like: 73deg 2hrs 34min 72deg 1hr 10min 71deg 3hr 30min 70deg 3hr 30min 69deg 2hr 20min 68deg 3hr 45min Which is the exact reverse of the original flight plan. If we reverse the times in case there was a reason (like aircraft weight) for the first stretch being 3hrs 45minutes we get the following: 73deg 3hr 45min 72deg 2hr 20min 71deg 3hr 30min 70deg 3hr 30min 69deg 1hr 10min 68deg 2hrs 34min Degrees are magnetic. What does that look like on a chart? Rhumb line? Great gircle? Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Same answer as before. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:22:57 EST From: OscarBboswell Subject: Who's Afraid of the Great Circle (Correction) I dropped a line in typing the chart on distance North of the Great Circle. It should read: at 125 W = 30 nm at 130 W = 60 nm at 135 W = 90 nm at 140 W = 120nm at 145 W = 120nm at 150 W = 70 nm at 155 W = 30 nm Sorry about that. I also apologize for the typo earlier saying "verticles" rather than "vertices" in discussing great circles. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:17:52 EST From: Tom Van Hare Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii >From Marty Moleski > If Fred had wanted to use fixes from three or > more celestial bodies after sunrise, he could > have. He was just being lazy and careless. It's been awhile since I last put in my two cents, but I feel that I have to ask some grounding questions here before everyone comes to the (rather pointless actually) conclusion that Fred Noonan "messed up" and therefore the flight didn't make it. Just reading this through and thinking about the flight, I just don't buy "lazy and careless". I don't see how anyone, facing the most difficult navigational challenge of the trip, would just shrug and say, well, I'm too lazy to work on this, afterall, my own DEATH is the only risk here. Also, wasn't it written somewhere that Fred Noonan spent hours checking and rechecking his watch (and didn't he have multiple watches)? Or wasn't it in one of the reports that he spent hours pacing, thinking through this leg of the trip, but then later seemed to be very pleased, as if he had come up with a good solution. Again, this is just not the profile of someone who is "lazy and careless". Ric wrote: > What we're finding out about ol' Fred is that, as a rule, he does not seem to > have worried too much about staying smack on track and, when the DF bearing > didn't happen, he could have found himself in a pickle. As for staying "smack on track", you take a star shot from time to time, then order course corrections and give it a bit of time to sort out winds, etc. Taking shot after shot every ten to fifteen minutes would be pretty pointless. The key would be the last set of shots just prior to dawn. And in that regard, given the range of the equipment wouldn't he have already worked out that the DF wasn't working at that point? In any case, he surely would have had the sense to get a good position from three or more star shots (conjecture) prior to dawn. To me, the terms, "We must be on you..." seem to imply that they felt that they thought they knew pretty much within a fairly limited number of miles where they were. Given that the DF was inoperative, that could have only come from some pretty good star shots, yes? Thomas Van Hare ************************************************************************** From Ric I'm not sure that the Fred-must-have-known-the-DF-wasn't-working argument holds water. The flight had two possible systems for getting DF guidance. 1. They could transmit a signal upon which Itasca would take a bearing and them tell them what direction to fly. 2. They could take a bearing on signal transmitted by Itasca using their own loop antenna. Earhart first asked Itasca to take a bearing on her signal at 17:45 GMT by which time it was already too late for Fred to get star sightings. She asked again a half hour later. She didn't try to take a bearing with her own loop antenna until 19:30, about fifteen minutes AFTER she said " We must be on you but cannot see you." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:23:48 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Maps 101 A couple of lifetimes ago, I flew aircraft utilizing equipment which, in some ways, was quite similar to that available to Fred in 1937. We had two additional items not available to Fred: a drift meter and Loran. Both had limitations. Obviously, the optical drift meter could only be utilized when the ground (or water) was visible. I recall that Loran was sometimes helpful, but its credibility with navigators was no better than a mediocre three-star shot taken in turbulence. The bottom line, our primary navigation over remote areas--including the North Atlantic--consisted of Dead Reckoning, map reading, celestial (including sun LOP and "noon-day" fix, and radio bearings. Our navigators plotted and flew a course that approximated a Great Circle. Just as you don't fly a DME arc in a constant shallow turn, we flew a single-heading course from point to point with a course change every 2-3 hours (360-520 nm). Lambert Conformal was the only type chart I remember using. Interestingly enough, it wasn't until the introduction of the Laser Ring Gyro that airplanes could RELIABLY find an island the size of Howland without radio aids. The Inertial Navigation System used through the 60s and 70s on airplanes such as the DC-10 and 747 would sometimes exhibit startling errors. Allowable drift on these units was 3 plus 3 nm per hour of flight. Therefore, if our duo had an INS on board, they still could have missed Howland by 3 + (3 x 20) = 63 nm. Excluding charts used in Polar navigation, the three types of maps commonly used for navigation, together with their primary characteristics, are listed here: Lambert Conformal: Most aeronautical charts are of this type. Lines of Longitude are nearly parallel. Lines of Latitude (meridians) are not parallel and converge at the poles. Great Circle is APPROXIMATED by a straight line. Rhumb line (a line that crosses all meridians at a constant angle) is plotted as a curved line. Mercator: Many wall maps of the world are this type. Alaska and Africa are about the same size. I understand that it is used by mariners for navigation (not my area of expertise). Lines of Longitude are parallel. Lines of Latitude (meridians) are parallel. Great Circle is a curved line, except along Equator or True N & S on meridians. Rhumb line is a straight line. Gnomonic: Weird. I saw one that was used to plot space craft trajectories. It's like looking at a globe through the end of a Coke bottle. Nothing is parallel. Great Circle is a straight line, which is its only reason for being. Rhumb line is a curved line. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:28:06 EST From: Bill Leary Subject: Re: Not Enough Fuel.... > TIGHAR chides me for thinking about a reasonable and > uncomplicated plan for searching the sea floor for the Electra, > while TIGHAR is spending years pursuing a theory that was > unreasonable to begin with. Some problems just aren't simple, and some answers aren't either. The theory is indeed "unreasonable to begin with." But once you get beyond "begin with" and get into the basis for the theory, the facts that support it, it becomes very reasonable. It may not be correct, but it's reasonable. To get stuck at the "begin with" stage is to try to erroneously draw a simple answer from a complex situation. I have to wonder if you've really read, and understood, the volumes of information available on the TIGHAR site and that have been exchanged in this group. I originally came here after I heard about post-loss messages. That seemed so obviously simple. There either were, or were not, post loss messages. Well, it turns out that it's not that simple. Try watching a few of those forensics shows that are so popular on cable right now. The ones where they track down the guilty party based on microscopic evidence, or get their clues from things like how far from the body the shoes were found and which way they were facing. I'm reminded of the Earhart search every time I see them assembling the facts for one of those cases. This is a lot like that. In fact, sometimes you'll see the very same techniques being used. They've solved some amazingly complex questions to which obvious, simple, wrong answers had been attached. - Bill #2229 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:37:27 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Spotting Itasca Ric wrote: > It's the cloud shadows on the surface that could be a problem. They tend to > look like islands. > > Does the SAR Manual assume that the ship is underway? A ship leaving a wake > is much easier to spot than a stationary vessel. Itasca was hove to. But cloud shadows don't look like white ships. It's true that a ship leaving a wake is much easier to spot, because the intrinsic contrast of a wake is quite high. But wake detection dominates when the search aircraft is at high altitude, say more than 5,000 feet. As search altitude decreases, the apparent area of the wake decreases and the vertical aspect of the ship becomes more prominent in terms of the eye's ability to resolve targets in the vertical plane. Although the SAR manual doesn't state assumptions about target speed, it looks like it assumes the target is dead in the water (DIW), which makes sense for a SAR situation. Setting up a search plan for a DIW target gives the highest probability of detection for a given sweep width. Each sweep width table (sweep width being 2 X the detection range) includes not only ships of three different sizes, but also persons in the water, life rafts of various sizes, and recreational boats of various sizes. There is a table for each of several types of search platforms - - aircraft, helicopters, 90-foot cutters, and 41-foot cutters. The detection range (1/2 sweep width) for an Itasca-size ship with an aircraft searching at 1,000 feet is 15 miles, given visibility of 25 miles. The detection range for the same target when the search platform is a 90-foot cutter is 13 miles. Since a cutter won't see a wake at 13 miles, it's safe to assume that the tables are based on a DIW target. Note also that the aircraft and the cutter are seeing the target at about the same range, which indicates that both are seeing it at grazing incidence, i.e., seeing its vertical dimension. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:40:02 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii > Allow me to elaborate (and I'm sure Bob will correct me if I'm wrong). Ric is correct, as usual. But I would suggest that Fred didn't seem to worry too much about knowing where he was, rather than staying on track. It's OK to drift off track if the navigator knows where he is. But relying on widely spaced 2-body fixes doesn't qualify as knowing where he is. Depending on a number of factors, Fred's fixes easily could have been off by 50 miles or more. And that wasn't good enough to find Howland if the anticipated radio bearing wasn't available. Maybe Fred didn't always have access to 3 bodies due to clouds being in the way. The obvious strategy in that situation is to take frequent 2-body fixes - - every 20 minutes or so - - to average out the errors inherent in the individual fixes. Fred didn't do that. Instead, he appears to have done the bare minimum to get within range of the Makapuu Point beacon. Absent evidence to the contrary, it's a fair assumption that he used the same procedure enroute from Lae to Howland. Was he lazy and careless? It looks that way - - but not solely because he didn't use 3-body fixes. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:43:21 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Who's Afraid of the Great Circle? Some investigations would seem to show that one could be 70 miles off the direct (Rhumb line) track and still be exactly on course on a 2000 mile great circle. http://www.best.com/~williams/avform.htm#Intro For those who are interested in looking at this OFF forum. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:45:05 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Professionals (correction) There are still only 2 practical ways to get to Howland from Lae using minimum fuel. Rhumb Line or Great Circle. Great circle is 60 miles shorter and is a bit more work. The figures I sent suggest at first glance that Clarence Williams seems to have drawn a straight line on the chart between Howland & Lae, then corrected for magnetic variation (9.E at Howland and MV=6.E at Lae). That's the way we do it on a normal every day flight, and would account for the changes of magnetic course of 248, 249, 250, 251, 252 & 253. However, looking at the rest of his figures, one finds also the TRUE course changes: 257, 257.6, 258.2 & 259.1 - The True course changing constantly means this is NOT a straight (Rhumb) line. Problem is, it doesn't appear to be anywhere near the variation I'd expect on a Great circle either. Why I asked what my reciprocals looked like on a chart was to find out if Williams used the Great Circle to try to save that 1/2 hour? If he did, then Noonan may have also. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:50:54 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: spotting Itasca > Does the SAR Manual assume that the ship is underway? A ship leaving a wake > is much easier to spot than a stationary vessel. Itasca was hove to. AND, one has to assume they the Itaska prudently had the whole length of it's side to AE rather than the skinny bow. Makes a gigantic difference. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric Good point. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way to tell which direction the ship was facing at any given moment during the time Earhart was looking for the island. Itasca was not anchored; she was drifting, and the deck log gives her "course" during those ours only as "Var." (various). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:29:16 EST From: Woody Subject: Banishment Just a comment on the private "emails with Janet" idea. Been there, done that. It doesnt get any different in private. PLEASE leave her on the Forum. We all need to remember that your forum is a venue for arguements and ideas. She fills that size shoe well. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric In the interest of full disclosure I will also post the following, which was sent to me off -forum: <> I will not reinstate Janet Whitney to the forum for the reasons I have already articulated. This forum will continue to welcome input from anyone who wishes to engage in intelligent, civil discussion of the Nikumaroro hypothesis. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:31:53 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Maps 101 > From Skeet > Lines of Longitude are nearly parallel. > Lines of Latitude (meridians) are not parallel and converge at the poles. I don't mean to pick on Skeet, but this is the second posting in the last couple days that has confused Longitude and Latitude. I'm sure there are some non-navigators on the Forum who might not recognize the over sight and get confused: Latitude lines are the real parallels (measuring north and south position) and longitude lines are the meridians that actually converge at the poles (measuring east and west position). LTM Kerry Tiller *************************************************************************** From Ric Skeet knows that. My apologies to him and all for not catching the obvious typo before posting it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:54:04 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii Ric wrote: > Noonan's opportunities for "tight" navigation expired with the night. Once > dawn cast its russet mantle adown the eastern sky he had only the rising sun > and (maybe) the moon to use. The sun gave him a good LOP which he could then > advance through Howland once he had his groundspeed sorted out. That should > have given him a pretty good (10 miles?) idea of where Howland was in an > east/west sense, but the north/south part of the equation depended entirely > upon how carefully he had stayed on track during the night and how well he > corrected for wind now that the sun was up. Of course, with a DF bearing to > the destination it was no big deal if he was off a bit to the north or > south. Barring cloud interferrence, of course, that's pretty much what Noonan had to work with. He would have had the sun for east/west positioning and perhaps help from moon shots and two planets. The moon at 1950Z, just for example, could have provided about a 110 degree cut with the sun shot. The moon was up pretty high at around 68 degrees but it was a waning crescent moon with about 34% visibility. Venus might have been available at near the same altitude with nearly a 30 degree cut with the sun line. Finally Saturn was in the western sky but may not have been visible and would not have given a very good cut anyway. This information is curtesy of the U.S. Naval Observatory, Astronomical Applications Department. Of course the bottom line of all this is that whatever information FN had did not lead him to Howland but may well have helped get him to Niku. Also keep in mind we do not know for certain FN had the correct coordinates for Howland and if not what coordinates he had. He could have been working with about a five mile error on the assumption Howland was further east than it actually was. If that was the case he could have been right on and still missed both Howland and Baker. Finally, looking at the Phoenix group and noticing they were mostly bunched to the east of Niku I wonder what reasoning selected Niku as the alternate as it would appear not to be simply by chance. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric One thing we don't know - and it's crucial for judging what opportunities Fred had for celestial sightings during the final run in after sunrise - is when they began their descent from cruising altitude (presumed to be 10,000 feet) to the 1,000 foot altitude Earhart reported at 19:12 GMT. It seems reasonable that they would want to get down below the cloud base early enough to be sure that they didn't overfly Howland if they were a bit ahead of where they thought they were. It also seems reasonable that AE would plan her descent so as to get maximum advantage in speed and fuel economy. Altitude is an investment that is obtained at great expense. When you cash it in you want as much return as you can get. As for selecting Niku as the alternate - it's really misleading to think of it that way. Niku (Gardner), McKean, and Baker are the islands that just happen to fall along or near the advanced sunrise LOP Noonan knew he was going to be using. The other islands of the Phoenix Group were also out there further to the east but he didn't have a good way of finding them (any more than he had a way of finding the Gilberts if he backtracked). It may be that there was no time when AE and FN decided to "proceed to the alternate." Without help from DF and unsure of their position, they were doing the only thing they could do that stood the best chance of getting them to land of some kind - running southeastward on the LOP. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:34:56 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Drifting Itasca Ric said: "Itasca was not anchored; she was drifting, and the deck log gives her "course" during those ours only as "Var." (various)." How far off Howland was she drifting? Were her boilers ready to make power as she drifted? If not, to a landlubber that seems to be a dangerous situation; wouldn't the currents/tides threaten to pull her toward shore? LTM, who is nautically challenged Dennis O. McGee #0149EC **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, she was powered up and ready to get underway on fairly short notice. If the photo of Itasca standing off Howland on an earlier visit is any indication, she was a few hundred yards offshore. Nai'a maintains a similar station off Niku when we're ashore. No big deal as long as somebody is on the bridge and paying attention. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:37:13 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii > But I would suggest that Fred didn't seem to worry too much about knowing where > he was, rather than staying on track. > > was he lazy and careless? It looks that way - - but not solely because he didn't > use 3-body fixes. So now FN was lazy and careless on the flight to Howland! Let's just go back to thinking he was drunk. Makes everything simple. > I am reminded of a comment by the late great B.H. Haggin ( music critic of The > Nation and The New Republic) that although he had no interest in hearing the > Grieg Piano Concerto again, he made it a point to listen to the New York > Philharmonic broadcast because he did not believe the negative review in the New > York Times of the concert since it was "impossible to accept that either Cliburn > or Previn would not consider the occasion one demanding their very best" (or > words to that effect). I refer all concerned one final time to the chart of the GUBA flight, regarded by Weems literally as a textbook example. If it were not 3 feet square I would immediately send Ric a copy. (As it is I will have to investigate the possibilities of reproducing it.) If you look at it, I think you'll find that they didn't do anything much different than FN (if I understand what you've said). Let's remember what FN said he could do - he told Weems that under ideal conditions, he expected to know his position within ten miles, pointing out that that was not always possible. What would he expect on a trip to Howland, given some difficulties? Twenty miles? Was that close enough to be certain of Howland without radio? Probably not. Oscar ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:38:30 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Great Circle >I was disappointed that Bob feels that charting the Great Circle course >is a tedious and time-consuming task ...> >In fact, it's really not so difficult (these days) to get a rough idea >of the great circle track ... Take the latitude/longitude >coordinates (I got them from the USGS map list and used 37-45 N and >122-15 W for Oakland and 21-15 N and 157-46 W for Honolulu ... Go to >www.info.gov.hk/marden for a Great Circle calculator... Actually, you only need a Hewlitt-Packard scientific or engineering calculator. I used to use the great circle feature to track hurricanes using the coordinates only to find out how far away they "actually" were. Of course, we are still only talking a few miles difference depending on the total difference. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:45:33 EST From: Dennis McGee Subject: Anonymous postings Someone said: "(Name omitted so I don't get trashed like Janet)>> Well, it may not have been signed but I'm pretty sure the server captured the IP address, so the sender will remain anonymous only in his or her mind. Ain't technology great!? LTM, a sweet soul, indeed Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *************************************************************************** From Ric The really nasty stuff always comes in anonymously. Cowards are like that. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:54:41 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii > From Bob Brandenburg > > ... Absent evidence to the contrary, it's a fair assumption > that he used the same procedure enroute from Lae to > Howland. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder here. I would make (and defend) an opposite assumption that Fred was much more on the alert during the fatal flight because he did not have the professional crew around him that he did on the flight for which you have the charts. We can't think without making assumptions. In this case, I'd like to exercise my right to make assumptions that differ from yours. I'm not a navigator, but from what I understand, the last time Fred might have gotten a three-site fix (or four or five) was too early in the flight to have guaranteed steering an accurate course to Howland. Even if that assumption is false, we know nothing about the cloud conditions in that part of the Pacific when the final star sights might have been taken. I suggest, with all due respect, that the hypothesis that "They missed Howland because Fred navigated the way he had in the past", though tenable, is not substantiated against other hypotheses. Marty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:56:35 EST From: Skeet Gifford Subject: Re: Maps 101 Kerry Tiller wrote: >I don't mean to pick on Skeet, but this is the second posting in the last >couple days that has confused Longitude and Latitude. I could say it was at test--but that wouldn't be true. Pick all you want, Kerry, I screwed up. Best argument I can think of for retiring airline pilots at age 60! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:59:57 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Warships in the Marshalls At the very least, it shows that someone at the Department of State thought that the Japanese had warships in the Marshalls. This is the same intelligence that missed the Japanese planning to bomb Pearl Harbor. Their beliefs could have been incorrect. Daniel Postellon TIGHAR # 2263 **************************************************************************** From Ric The communication alleges that Mr. Hayama (presumably of the Japanese Embassy) called Mr. Ballantine (presumably at the U.S. State Dept.) to tell him that the embassy had just received an offer from the Japanese government to help with the Earhart search because "Japan had radio stations and warships in the Marshall Islands...". This would seem to be a rather staightforward acnowedgement by Japan that it had warships in the Marshall Islands. What ships were they? For his book, "Amelia Earhart - The Final Story", Vince Loomis went to considerable efforts to dig out the records of what Japanese ships were in the Marshall's in July 1937. He was trying to figure our what ship his star witness, Bilimon Amaron, had seen carrying the Earhart Electra on its aft deck. His book claims that he was able to determine that the Japanese really did not carry out the search for Earhart they later claimed to have made, because the ships of the "12th Squadron" supposedly used in the search were, in fact, in port in Japan the whole time. A survey ship also said to have participated in the search, the "KAMUI" -meaning "God's power" (and incorrectly listed as "KAMOI" in most Earhart books) was also in home waters. The only ship Loomis could come up with anywhere near the Marshalls was the seaplane tender "KOSHU". She was in Ponape, about 400 miles west of the Marshall, on July 2, 1937 and arrived in Jaluit in the Marshalls on July 13. Loomis says KOSHU then left Jaluit but returned sometime before July 19 when she sailed for Truk and eventually Saipan. It is between its departure from and return from Jaluit that he says the ship picked up Earhart, Noonan and the plane at Mili Atoll in the southern Marshalls. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:04:46 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Japanese Interest in Flight Ric wrote: >I'm aware of no Japanese interest in the flight. I am aware for no pre-flight or in-flight interest. However, they did offer to search for the lost fliers (obviously post-flight!). LTM Kenton S. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:04:00 EST From: Mark Prange Subject: Timed sunrise sight Although a sunrise sight is free of the errors which come from using a handheld instrument; inaccuracy--no matter how exactly timed--can result because of the uncertainties of refraction. The US Naval Observatory has a page at http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/first_sunrise.html#refraction which at FAQ no. 7 says that at the equator "Changes in refraction.....will change the time of sunrise. There is a 32% chance that the time of sunrise will be off by more than 38 seconds." In effect, that says that at the equator there is a 32% chance that a sunrise LOP will be off to the east or west by more than 9.5 miles, (which is 38 seconds divided by the 4 seconds it takes for the terminator to move each mile at the equator). When the sun is in the direction of 67 degrees, this corresponds to a 32% chance that an LOP based on the timed instant of sunrise would be off by 8.7 miles (9.5 miles multiplied by the sine of 67 degrees equals about 8.7 miles). Roughly 9 miles. And that is just at the time that the observation is taken; even more uncertaintay from dead reckoning would result from use of that LOP later on. Mark Prange ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:46:12 EST From: T.L. Simpson Subject: Things to say I've only been a member of TIGHAR a couple of months and Iam still trying to get up to speed,but there are things I like to say.I do not always beleave in what TIGHAR is doing or what it says,but I beleave in TIGHAR and its goals and I am very proud to be part of it.About this Janet thing,Ric did the right thing,this person has tunnel vision,or maybe its narrow mindedness,first,a plane did go down on Niku, what plane, second bones were found,whose bones,a womens, maybe,what womens,shoes found,whose shoes.It goes on.Any prudent person would want to know the anssers to these ?and if there were no search's or research's no one will ever find out.And this cult remark,Ric baby had no choice in his desicion.I respect his guts.NOW......about Freds,navagation, I think its time to put it to rest. None of us knows what happened that night,sitting in that cement mixer for a least 20 some hours.remours say A.E. was ill,we don't know what insturments were working or not working,The only mistake Fred made was fine tunning with a DF bearing,that he never got,for what ever reason.Iam sure he did the best he could with what he had to work with.I would like to hear more about the Bones on Niku as I think this is very important,if I've affended anyone Iam sorry,just things I wanted to say. T.L.Simpson #2396 (LTM) PS please over look my spelling. **************************************************************************** From Ric I overlook the spelling as long as this "Ric baby" thing doesn't catch on. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:58:22 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Warships in the Marshalls > From Ric > > For his book, "Amelia Earhart - The Final Story", Vince Loomis went to > considerable efforts to dig out the records of what Japanese ships were in > the Marshall's in July 1937. [snip] A survey ship also said to have > participated in the search, the "KAMUI" -meaning "God's power" (and > incorrectly listed as "KAMOI" in most Earhart books) was also in home waters. I'm looking at A. J. Watts' "Japanese Warships of WW2," and there is no KAMUI, but there are two different KAMOIs. One was the oiler NOTORO, built in New York, converted to a seaplane tender in '32. The other was KAMOI MARU, an Army transport. No lisiting for KAMUI; is there another spelling? > The only ship Loomis could come up with anywhere near the Marshalls was the > seaplane tender "KOSHU". What is the KOSHU? I see no listing for that spelling. The 4th Mandate Fleet, headquartered in 1941 at Truk, included the GOSHU MARU (launched in 1939) and KAMOI. GOSHU MARU was coverted, immediately prior to the war, to an aircraft transport. > She was in Ponape, about 400 miles west of the > Marshall, on July 2, 1937 and arrived in Jaluit in the Marshalls on July 13. > Loomis says KOSHU then left Jaluit but returned sometime before July 19 when > she sailed for Truk and eventually Saipan. Has this been confirmed independantly? LTM (who can spell, but not in Japanese) Mike Holt **************************************************************************** From Ric Mike-san, the KAMUI versus KAMOI thing comes directly from my old buddy Hiroshi Nakajima, Executive Director of the Pacific Society in Tokyo (a highly respected historical foundation). Nakajima dug out the original "Kohaku Nisshi" (Voyaging and Anchoring Diary) and faxed me the original kanji with his translation. My keyboard won't quite handle the kanji but the transliteration of the ship's name goes like this: "Dai-Nippon Taikoku Gunkan (Tei) Kamui" meaning "The Imperial Japanese Navy Warship (boat) Kamui" He couldn't find anything on KOSHU and Loomis's information has not been independently verified. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:15:49 EST From: Troy Subject: Re: Half hour gas seems trite but, in the same vein as NewYork City and Norwich City, the transcribing of "1/2 hour gas" in the log could have been a derivative of many misunderstood things like "We ***have our gas*** to make it...." or "There is ***half our gas*** left in [one of our tanks]". Of course this speculation does nothing aye or nay on the Niku Theory as it has been documented that there should've been plenty of gas left to keep AE/FN out of the drink long enough to fly an LOP to Niku. back to lurking..... Troy #something **************************************************************************** From Ric I could see that if the two versions of the same message agreed on the sounds that were heard - but they don't. "Gas is running low" sounds nothing like "Half hour gas left." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:29:42 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Warships in the Marshalls Here's a pertinent extract from the book TFKing, and others are writing: The U.S. also asked the Japanese to search the areas around the Marshall Islands, and official correspondence at the time indicated that they asked the oceanographic survey ship Koshu to do so. The Koshu arrived in the Marshall Island area on or about July 9th, and continued searching for about ten days. A 1949 U.S. Army Intelligence report states that despite the fact that no documentation exists in the Japanese Navy, interviews of Japanese officials on Jaliut and elsewhere indicated that both the Koshu and Kamoi searched the Marshall Islands, with the assistance of a large-type flying boat. Bridge logs of the Kamoi clearly state it was no where near the Marshalls during this time, and we have no documentary evidence that a flying boat was ever used to search for wreckage. The report also states that no traces of the Electra were found. [footnote number inserted here]. The Japanese also offered to search the Gilberts, an offer that seems to have been (understandably) ignored. [footnote here] [1st footnote: US Army Intelligence, 1949a; Kamoi bridge logs in Jacobson archives; Maritime Safety Agency, Tokyo, 1951, Hydrographic Bulletin, 981(8). [2nd footnote: Western Pacific High Commission, 1937a; U.S. Department of State, 1937; U.S. Navy, 1937e; Spading, 1997.] The Koshu was doing oceanographic surveys, and based upon their reports, one can surmise their speed and departure date to the Marshalls (Jaliut) to have arrived no earlier than July 9th. Official correspondence between the US Navy and State Dept. and Japanese officials at that time acknowledge only the Koshu in assisting in the survey for AE wreckage. I have the Kamoi bridge logs and transcribed them myself, and it was nowhere near the central Pacific. Now, if only I could find those Akagi deck logs and when the planes were launched...(just kidding). What's interesting about this Army Intelligence report is that it is the first document that names the Kamoi. Every AE book states the Kamoi and Koshu were involved in the search. Hmmm. Now about that seaplane...no confirming documents on its existance...but I wonder if the anecdotes about a plane being sighted in and around Jaliut during the search phase on the back of a ship was this seaplane and not AE's...I wonder... **************************************************************************** From Ric We clearly have the Kamui (Kamoi - whatever) nailed, but I'm a bit fuzzy about the Koshu. The Loomis book includes copies of various diplomatic exchanges between the U.S. and Japan but there's no reference to the Koshu. Mike Holt couldn't find a Koshu in A. J. Watts' "Japanese Warships of WW2". I wonder what evidence we have that there even was such a boat? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:37:36 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: How common are Castaways? Ric wrote: How many shipwrecked persons were there in the Pacific in the 1930s? I don't know, but I do know that the few reports I know of describing shipwrecks treat them as "rare" events so I must conclude that either shipwrecks, and therefore shipwrecked persons, were rare,.............I feel safe in saying that "...castaways in the Pacific in general are rare." (Or more correctly, "...were rare.") Rare in relation to what benchmark? I am missing the underlying science behind the continued references to "rare" (Webster's not withstanding). We need to define this a little better. Lets see if we can boil this down into one simple question. Lets leave gender out of it for now as we have no statistically significant proof regarding the gender of the Gardner skeleton. There is also no reason to restrict the question to a particular time period as a castaway found in say 1965 could have been marooned in 1930. I will take the first stab at it (this may require some further regional definition). "How many castaways have been found (dead or alive) on islands in the Pacific?" A larger question, (which also may require some further regional definition) provides the statiscal population for the first...... "How many missing persons (presumably missing at sea) have there been in the Pacific during the period X to X? The current assumption that castaways are uncommon seems to be based on some sort of a vague feeling that folks have about the issue. The prevailing theory seems to be that no one has run across an abundance of information on the subject during the course of other unrelated research.......so castaways must be uncommon. As usual that is a little too loose for my taste. Both the Gardner and Henderson castaway stories were not immediately apparent to TIGHAR researchers. So, how many other castaways have the British (and others) encountered? I have been researching the castaway issue on and off for the past year. In the spirit of the "Aircraft lost in the Pacific" exercise I will start the list and encourage other Forumites to add to it. 1. One Human skeleton found on Gardner Island, 1940 2. Six Human Skeleton's found on Henderson Is., 1958, There is evidence that other skeletons have been found on the island dating back to the earlier 1800's LTM Kenton S. **************************************************************************** From Ric You say: <> True, but if we're attempting to determine the statistical "rarity" of castaways in the Pacific in 1940 we must remember that from 1941 to 1945 there was a dramatic and unprecedented increase in the number of ships, the number of ships lost or sunk, and the number of human beings shipwrecked in the Pacific. Castaways, living or dead, found after 1941 only "count" if it can be detemined that they were shipwrecked before the war or that their marooning was in no way related to the war. With that caveat, I see no reason not try to answer your question: <<"How many castaways have been found (dead or alive) on islands in the Pacific?">> To understand the significance of those numbers we'd need to do an analysis of ship traffic in the central Pacific over the past, say, 200 years. Were there, for example, more ships at sea in during the years of the South Seas Whale Fishery and phosphate mining bonanza (roughly 1820 to 1870) than during the years of British and German colonial expansion in the region (very roughly 1890 to 1914), and how much transpacific freighter traffic deveoped as Australia and New Zealand became viable international markets in the early 20th century, etc. ? We might find, for example, that strandings were more frequent during the whaling era but became "rarer" as ship technology improved. Those considerations would effect your next question: <<"How many missing persons (presumably missing at sea) have there been in the Pacific during the period X to X?>> To replace your Xs with dates requires that we define the boundaries of when the castaway of Gardner Island may have been marooned. The not-later-than date is easy (1940). The not-earlier-than date is a lot tougher and relies upon an assessment, based on literature describing the find, of how old the remains may have been. Once we have a span of time - a context in which to place the loss - we can then search specifically for instances of castaways being found who date from that period. Of course, that would not tell us how many castaways were marooned and never found. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:57:19 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Warships in the Marshalls JANE'S FIGHTING SHIPS OF WORLD WAR TWO lists KAMOI on page 202, classifying it as a "seaplane carrier" built by New York Ship- Building, and launched June 8, 1922 as a tanker, converted in 1932-33. Normal complement; 10 aircraft. US Naval Intelligence reported it in Tokyo Bay July 2, 1937, sending out HF homing signals to its planes, as I've previously reported. (And you have already told everybody how completely unreliable my info is.) KOSHU (popular spelling) is not listed as Jane's, but is usually described as a "survey ship", and maybe didn't survive into WW2. Cam Warren *************************************************************************** From Ric I think we're all agreed that KAMOI (KAMUI) was not a player in whatever the Japanese really did about searching for Earhart. We still need to find the KOSHU. *************************************************************************** From Ron Bright Ric, The Honolulu Star Bulletin has an AP release dated 6 Jul 37 from New York; in sum, Japanese officials report that the " 2100 ton survey ship Kooshu (sic)" is searching in the Marshall Islands. In the main article the spelling is "Koshu", so probably an extra "o" typo. Also the Japanese were searching in "other areas near Howland". This is probably independent corroboration of the Koshu's status. Fukiko Aoki, Japanese author, writes in "Searching for Amelia Earhart" in 1984 ( not translated as of yet) that there were two Japanese ships in the area. The "battleship Koshu" and the carrier Kamoi. According to her, she reviewed the logs of the Koshu which reflect the dates and places reported by Ric. The Koshu left Jaluit on 19 Jul 37 headed to Saipan. The Kamoi was docked in Saipan on 3 July, she says, but didn't get involved in the search but left 3 July steaming back to Tokyo. Note: I should have the book translated within a week (informally) and shall report back. LTM, Ron Bright **************************************************************************** From Ric The Star Bulletin article is only documentation of what Japanese officials said. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I corresponded and spoke with Ms. Aioki while she was writing her book and was less than impressed with her research acumen. It's hard to understand how she could have seen the log of the Koshu and describe it as a "battleship." I don't think we can be sure about anything about the Koshu until we get to some primary source. **************************************************************************** From Michael Lowery A quick check of "Conway's All the World'd Fighting Ships 1922-1946" shows no Japanese warships by the name of "Koshu." The seaplane carrier section includes both "Notari" and "Kamoi" (both converted tankers, the latter built in Camden, NJ). I would presume that Loomis is mistaken. Michael Lowrey *************************************************************************** From Ric Curiouser and curiouser. Even if Koshu was a non-belligerent survey ship (as was the USS Bushnell), if she should still be on the IJN inventory. I'm beginning to wonder if we've uncovered yet another Earhart myth. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:03:44 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Koshu and Kamoi At the risk of sounding pedantic; "Koshu" means "citizens" or "the public". Re: KAMUI vs KAMOI I suspect what we are experiencing here is a simple transliteration conflict. Technically, neither "Kamui" nor "Kamoi" is the correct written name for the ship in question, because its name would be written in Kanji (Chinese characters). How one wants to write that in "Romanji" (Roman writing) so that "gaijins" (foreigners) can read it, depends on what transliteration system you want to use. The most common system in use by foreigners is the Hepburn system. But it is not universal, especially if the transliteration is being done by Japanese. What it boils down to in this case is when a Japanese pronounces the name of the ship, do you hear a penultimate "u" sound or an "o" sound? This is further exacerbated by regional accents. The biggest stumbling blocks are phonemes that are not common to the respective native speakers. For English transliterations, the biggies are Rs & Ls and Fs & Hs, but there are also vowelular differences as well as syllabic accent differences that are much more subtle. My point being, I wouldn't worry too much about Kamui vs Kamoi. It's the same name. If you had two different sets of Kanji with the same pronunciation [don't get me started on kanji "reads" - we'll be here all night], then you would have two different names. LTM (whose academic language was French), Kerry Tiller **************************************************************************** From Ric Arigato. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:05:12 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii Ric said: > It may be > that there was no time when AE and FN decided to "proceed to the alternate." > Without help from DF and unsure of their position, they were doing the only > thing they could do that stood the best chance of getting them to land of > some kind - running southeastward on the LOP. My thoughts exactly. Whatever amount of fuel reserve they had it was not enough to give them the luxury of doing any kind of search pattern. They either could see Howland or Baker or head out for the precious land they knew was SE of their position. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:15:09 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Failure to communicate > I suggest, > with all due respect, that the hypothesis that "They > missed Howland because Fred navigated the way he had > in the past", though tenable, is not substantiated > against other hypotheses. > > Marty I don't know why FN and AE didn't get to Howland but I do see a number of factors that may have affected their lack of success that may not have been properly attended to. 1. Although AE made a test hop to check out the DF it did not check out and apparently she decided it was because she was too close to Lae yet must not have checked it out again after the actual take off. It is possible it DID check out and then failed again. OR they elected to go without it. 2. It appears as though they elected to continue the flight without two way radio communication. They had to know that shortly after leaving Lae. 3. Given the small target Howland presented there should have been a number of ships spread out in the area to help. Even the two up at Nauru would have been a better aid joining the Itasca at Howland. 4. Upon departing the Howland area it might have helped if AE had broadcast their intentions on all her frequencies. In the running north south message she could have added what they would do if they didn't find Howland but then she gave virtually no info in any message. 5. If, if, if. Alan #2329 **************************************************************************** From Ric If there is a single glaring failure on Earhart's part that is difficult to explain away it is her failure to provide useful information in her several radio transmissions to Itasca. For someone who was more of a professional communicator (speaking and writing) than she was a professional aviator, Earhart was appallingly bad at giving the Itasca facts they could use to save her life. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:16:49 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Timed sunrise sight Mark Prange wrote: > inaccuracy--no matter how exactly timed--can result > because of the uncertainties of refraction. Thank you Mark. I have long been posting that low altitude or very high altitude shots were inaccurate. The rule we used was ok between 10 and 70 degrees. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:30:31 EST From: Denise Subject: Howland in the wrong place? Bob says: "Conclusion: Noonan's navigation wasn't good enough to find Howland island without a radio bearing." Look, am I wrong about this, but wasn't the map of this area Noonan had with him WRONG? Didn't the US Navy maps have Howland in the wrong place? Conclusion: No one's navigation is good enough to find something that isn't there in the first place! LTM (who likes going in the right direction) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Like everything else in this case, it's not that simple. First of all, we don't know what map Noonan was using. We do know that the information provided to Earhart by Clarence Williams prior to the first world flight attempt had Howland's position wrong by about 5 nautical miles. However, we also know that Bill Miller, AE's main contact at the Bureau of Air Commerce and a very active person in the planning of the flight, knew the corrected position for Howland. It therefore seems very unlikely that Earhart and Noonan did not have the corrected position, but no documentation has yet turned up to confirm that. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:31:38 EST From: Denise Subject: Pan Am Doug Brutlag asks: "Did PAA offer anything to Amelia?" Ric replies: "Not that I know of." I don't know where I read or heard about A.E. and Fred's planning the trip, but I recall they spoke at length with Pan Am about their route, so I guess what they offered was advice. I can see I'm going to have to track down this source. This is the second time I've had need to refer to it. LTM (who was great at giving advice) Denise ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:32:46 EST From: Denise Subject: Yet Another Castaway Ric says: "I'd be surprised if there were not a few other incidents that we haven't run across." As a child, I heard "a Fiji story" (as distinct from a common-or-garden story - in that "a Fiji story" is closer to a "yarn" than factual reportage) about a male castaway - suspected to be German - found dead on one of the islands in Fiji (may have been the Yasawas) during WWII. I've told Tom King this, even though I have no proof it actually happened, because it is meant to be mixed up in "a Fiji story" of what happened to A.E.'s bones ... and thus could be important. LTM (who taught us never to repeat "Fiji stories") Denise ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:37:59 EST From: Rick Seapin Subject: Who's who Hello Rick Baby/Forum: Who is Oliver Knaggs and who is Ron Noonan? This is in regards to Knaggs' book, "Her Last Flight". **************************************************************************** From Ric All I know about Knaggs is that he wrote a conspiracy book that was published in South Africa in 1983. I haven't seen it. I've never heard of Ron Noonan. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:49:01 EST From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: parenthetical arguments Can anybody on the forum write one paragraph without parenthesis? What are these parenthetical arguments anyway, some kind of wink and nod elitism? Straightforward prose would be appreciated. S. Wesley Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric I believe the plural form of parenthesis is parentheses, but I'm much more concerned with the content of the forum's postings than the quality of their prose. (I'm not THAT elitist.) LTM, R. Ellsworth Gillespie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:05:49 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Timed sunrise sight A few days back I asked for TIGHAR's estimate of the potential error in attempting to fly the LOP to Niku, but did not receive an answer. What I'm after is TIGHAR's best cut at the effects of the following. 1. Uncertainty in the development of (taking, plotting, advancing, executing) the LOP. 2. Uncertainty introduced by flying back and forth along the LOP during the search for Howland. 3. Compass error (resolution and stability of the instrument and errors in estimates of variation or deviation on a given heading). 4. Pilot errors (how well could a heading be maintained - this can be a big one). 5. Accuracy in the ability to estimate and account for the crosstrack component of winds (also can be big). 6. Others issues (LOP being slightly east of Niku, etc)? The cumulative effects can be at qualitatively estimated at best and worst case and the resulting figure (maybe an ellipse) and its diemensions estimated for that range of values. This gives some insight into how rational a decision it would be to "run down the LOP". This issue rises directly from Bob's Essential Conditions, and what I'm after is generally described by conditions 3 thru 5. Note that I'm not asking for a absolutely rigorous statistical analysis if that has not yet been done. Good, solid subjective estimates for the best and worst case would suffice. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric The problem I have with that exercise is that, in the end, it seems like it would be fairly meaningless. The objective, as you state it, would be to determine how rational a decision it would be to run down the LOP. We already know that running down an advanced LOP was a "textbook" method for finding an island. (Weems' "Air Navigation") I don't see any of the possible and quite legitimate variables you list that would not aply to any such attempt. It may be worth restating what Weems said about the technique: "Finding A Destination.--During the daylight hours it is often impossible to get more than one LP [line of position], viz., that given by the sun. If pilotage cannot be used (as when flying over water) or radio bearings are not available, this single position line may be utilized for finding a destination. The air navigator, having found a position line as he approaches his destination, continues flying on his course until the position line carried forward by D[ead] R[eckoning] passes through the destination. He then turns right or left and follows the LP. If, after a reasonable time, the destination is not sighted, he infers that he has turned the wrong way, and so reverses his track." LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:10:33 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: How common are Castaways? It's surprising how often news media in the Pacific even now report rescues of fishermen who turn up even in different countries weeks or months after hope had been lost. But the clincher for me as to the identity of the Gardner remains is that we don't just have evidence of a person or persons having been cast away, but a contemporaneous report of a sextant box with a stencilled number still visible on its lid having been found. So explaining away the bones isn't enough even if such strandings were commonplace. I'm inclined to dismiss the Norwich City as the source, as the box would have to have survived in the open air for 11 years, and it's very hard to imagine the New Zealand survey party just leaving a piece of gear behind if they weren't under any particular pressure at departure time. I've never handled a sextant - how heavy? Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that someone leaving a wrecked plane in a hurry could grab the box, get ashore and only then discover it was empty? LTM, Phil 2276 **************************************************************************** From Ric We didn't weigh the "Pensacola Ludolph" sextant and box when we had it on loan but my guess would be that the sextant itself weighed about 3 pounds and the empty box weighed maybe 5 pounds. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:11:53 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Koshu and Kamoi You think Japanese is bad, you should see how the names of places/things in Arabic and the Middle East change in spelling over the years! Rather than sloppy research, I suspect that many of these anomalies in the name of the purported vessels may be traceable to this fact. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:16:46 EST From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Nautica Any idea what results, if any, were obtained by Nautica's plans for a sea floor search? I haven't seen anything published but the intent of the search is on their web site. S. Wesley Smith *************************************************************************** From Ric I assume you mean Nauticos. For a long time there was nothing about their intended search on their website and then, just recently, they put up a press release from November 1999. If any progress at all has been made toward raising the millions needed to carry out their plan they're keeping it a pretty good secret. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:28:10 EST From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: parenthetical arguments I appreciate your concern for content. Its easier on the eye without all the parentheses to handle; falls under the big umbrella of "netiquette", I guess. Since when are good manners elitist? YIS, S. Wesley Smith **************************************************************************** From Ric Sure. I wish everyone would be more careful and courteous. I'm as guilty as anyone of not catching typos and over-using parentheses. I do try to capitalize and punctuate appropriately and put spaces between sentences and generally make what I write grammatically correct, but there simply isn't time to do all those things for thems as don't. It's a glorious language and I love it. I regret whatever violence is done to it here. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:30:31 EST From: Edgard Engelman Subject: Re: Warships in the Marshalls Found on www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/misc/45-41.html From: U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Pearl Harbor Attack Hearings; Pt. 35, the Clausen Investigation, pp. 52-62. Fourth Fleet : Survey and Patrol Division ........ KOSHU Seems to be some sort of cargo ship *************************************************************************** From Ric Bingo. Nice work. At least a ship by that name existed. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:37:56 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: Failure to communicate >From Ric > >If there is a single glaring failure on Earhart's part that is difficult to >explain away it is her failure to provide useful information in her several >radio transmissions to Itasca. For someone who was more of a professional >communicator (speaking and writing) than she was a professional aviator, >Earhart was appallingly bad at giving the Itasca facts they could use to save >her life. But, Ric, as you pointed out, the Itasca had a bad habit of not communicating with Earhart in the manner that she outlined and apparently in some cases was broadcasting when she was expected to broadcast. Therefore, much of the radio snafu seems to be on the part of the Itasca and who knows what AE was sending that didn't get through. She may have sent info and thought it was received but the Itasca was busy sending or on a different frequency and thus the message didn't get through. What Itasca heard may have only been followed up repeats by AE that were abbreviated from the first transmission. So, to say that AE was remiss in her transmissions may be erroneous as we can't account for Itasca's failing to follow the transmission timetable provided by AE, added to the difference in timezones used by both parties. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 **************************************************************************** From Ric Itasca's errors, and there were plenty, were different in nature from Earhart's. The radio logs indicate only one occasion, at 19:45 GMT, when the ship may have "stepped on" a scheduled transmission by Earhart. It doesn't seem terribly likley that Earhart was doing a lot of transmitting "off schedule" but only getting through on her scheduled times. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:39:35 EST From: S. Wesley Smith Subject: Re: parenthetical arguments Thank you Ric. You are correct about our wonderful language. S. Wesley Smith ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:10:59 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Kamui vs Kamoi > I suspect what we are experiencing here is a simple transliteration > conflict. Technically, neither "Kamui" nor "Kamoi" is the correct written > name for the ship in question, because its name would be written in Kanji > (Chinese characters). This is what I've been trying to keep in mind. I've been wandering through Watts' book, saying the names out loud, hoping that one will sound like what I'm after. For what it's worth, I note that the Ukranian government has decided that the correct non-Cyrillic spelling of the capital city is to be spelled "Kyiv." I daresay AE and FN were never near there. Mike Holt ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:15:12 EST From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Koshu The Koshu is definitely a ship, as I have a oceanographic report documenting her results on a daily basis. What is written is the English version, Koshu, with Japanese characters also. The ship definitely existed...the question is whether she was considered a war ship or not. For example, the oceanographic ships at Scripps Institution of Oceanography are owned by the Navy and may or may not be considered warships and listed as such in Jane's. I believe I have a picture of the Koshu (or is it Kamoi??) in the 37 edition of Janes as well. **************************************************************************** From Ric Does it have a silver twin-tailed airplane on its afterdeck by any chance? *************************************************************************** From Mike Holt Might this be the ship Watts' book calls GOSHO MARU? Watts has the enitre fleet deployment as of 7 December 1941. GOSHU MARU is listed as part of Auxiliary Fleet 24 of the Fourth Fleet, with the KAMOI. Incidentally, Watts lists two GOSHUs, both of them MARUs. One launched in 1939, and the other in 1937. If I could speak Japanese, my comments might be more useful here. I should probably find a newer reference ... Come to think of it, my university is said to have on the faculty an expert in WW2 Japanese submarines. If I can find him, I'll see what he knows that might be useful. LTN (who can't speak Japanese) Mike Holt **************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt A search on GOOGLE says there was a Koshu Maru. It appears to have been a cargo ship that was damaged in the attack on Coron Bay. Another ship, an oiler named the Kamoi was damaged around the same time. I wonder if the Koshu and the Koshu Maru were the same ship? I have the Koshu Maru listed sunk during the war near the Phillipines by the USS Ray (SS 271). I suppose it is also possible that a small cargo ship may have been used for oceanographic research?? **""TF planes also damage supply ship Irako and oiler Kamoi, Coron Bay. Aircraft also sink Japanese army cargo ship Chuka Maru, 11°11'N, 123°11'E; army cargo ship Olympia Maru, 11°58'N, 120°03'E; and merchant cargo ship Shinyo Maru, Manila; cargo ship No.2 Koshu Maru is damaged by aircraft, 11°56'N, 123°08'E; Submarine Barbero (SS-317) bombards Japanese radar installation on Batag Island off north coast of Samar. ""** Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Ric Not sunk, damaged. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:19:27 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Who's Afraid of the Great Circle? > From Oscar Boswell > > Ric: > > I was disappointed that Bob feels that charting the Great Circle course > is a tedious and time-consuming task - and, moreover, that (not having > done it) he knows that it would produce "no useful information in this > case." I am one of those people who think that one should decide whether > or not information is "useful" after one acquires it - and that all > information is "useful" so long as it is accurate and tells us something > about the subject. The issue was whether I would "superimpose the great circle course" on a Mercator chart. Having already seen Noonan's actual track, based on his navigation data, and having checked a few way points on the great circle track from Oakland to Honolulu, I had all the information needed to decide that plotting the "great circle course" would provide no useful information in this case. Since there is no such thing as "the" great circle course I assumed that you meant that I should plot all the points on the great circle track. If you believe that isn't a tedious and time-consuming task, then I think you would find it instructive to do so. Note that there's a big difference between plotting all, or even most, of the points on a great circle, and checking a few way points along the track. > In fact, it's really not so difficult (these days) to get a rough idea > of the great circle track (though perhaps without the precision that > Bob's calculations would have provided). Getting a rough idea is vastly different from plotting all the points. > Now buy a sheet of ordinary 5x5 graph paper. Mark each 5 degrees of > longitude at one inch intervals along the top, and each 5 degrees of > latitude on the side. Each square on the paper is now equal to one > degree (and is a perfect Mercator projection! ) If I correctly understand your procedure, you plotted a cartesian grid, NOT a Mercator projection. A cartesian grid would work for a flat earth, but the Mercator projection is based on a specific mathematical relationship between a quasi-spherical earth and its projection onto a flat surface. Using a cartesian grid to plot either rhumb lines or great circle points causes to significant distortion. > Go back to the waypoint latitude information you copied from the Great > Circle calculator. Enter the latitude of the Great Circle on the chart > as a dot at each 5 degrees of longitude (or more often, if you wish) - > you now have a visual graphic representation of the variation in > latitude between the great circle and rhumb line courses.(5 minutes.) > > Since each 1/5 inch square on the chart equals one degree of latitude, > and since one degree of latitude equal 60 nautical miles, one can > visually estimate the distance of the Great Circle north of the rhumb > line as: > > at 125 W = 30nm > at 130 W = 60nm > at 135 W = 90nm > at 140 W = 120nm > at 145 W = 70 nm > at 150 W = 30 nm > > The numbers are imprecise, of course - the pencil line covers maybe 6 > miles - but they're interesting, aren't they? Unless I have made some > major error in calculation or method, they show that Bob's assertion > that "the great circle and rhumb tracks between Oakland and Honolulu are > nearly coincident" is just plain wrong. (The tracks ARE nearly the same > length - 17 miles difference is right - BUT THEY ARE WIDELY DIVERGENT, > as much as 120 nautical miles.) Actually, the maximum divergences is 80 nautical miles. When I said that the two tracks were nearly coincident, that was navigator-speak for "the difference between the great circle distance and the rhumb distance is so small that it's not worth the extra work to use the great circle". I apologize for any confusion. > Bob's statement that Noonan was not attempting to follow a great circle, > because "to navigate via a great circle requires making an infinite > number of course changes at infinitely small time interval, and > therefore is not practical ... clearly impossible," is a sort of > navigational restatement of Zeno's paradox. The arrow strikes the target > despite Zeno - and a great circle course can be approximated, as indeed > Lindbergh intended to do. Zeno's paradox of the archer and the arrow has long since been proven invalid. But the question of navigating via a great circle is quite different. Recall that a circle is a continuous curve and that great circle navigation, by definition, requires the navigator to travel on the circumference of the circle, not along chords subtending arcs of the circle. How often must the navigator change course to remain on the great circle? How many course changes must he make? Lindbergh, like all practical navigators wanting to travel the shortest distance between two points on Earth, attempted to approximate a great circle - - which is an entirely different kettle of fish. I discussed approximating a great circle in a previous posting. It remains true that Noonan could not have been attempting to follow a great circle. Whether he was attempting to follow an approximation to a great circle is a different question. > I don't know what to make of Bob's assertion that "Noonan's actual track > shows THAT HE WASN'T ATTEMPTING to fly either a great circle or a rhumb > track." What course was he attempting to fly? (And if you don't know, > how can you criticize him for not being on it?) Before making my assertion, I actually did spot check a few great circle way points relative to Noonan's actual track made good (as defined by his data) and the rhumb track to Honolulu. Here are some facts to consider: 1). The rhumb course from Oakland to Honolulu is 242 degrees true. 2). Noonan's course made good from departure Oakland at 0032Z to 0446Z was 241 degrees true. At 0446Z, he was 10 miles left of the rhumb track to Honolulu. 3). Noonan's course made good from 0446Z to 1007Z was 256 degrees true. At 1007Z, he was 60 miles to the right of the great circle way point at 145 degrees west longitude. 4). Noonan's course made good from 1007Z to 1339Z was 239 degrees true, roughly paralleling the rhumb track. But at 1339Z, he was 120 miles right of the rhumb track and 85 miles right of the great circle track way point at 153 degrees west longitude. 5). From 1339Z until arrival at Honolulu, he followed the bearing of the Makapuu Point radio beacon. Summarizing these facts, we can see that for about the first 4 hours of the flight, Noonan was nearly paralleling the rhumb track. Then, at 0446Z, his track shows a westward veer, presumably due to wind set. He crossed both the rhumb and great circle tracks, reaching a point 60 miles right of the great circle track at 1007Z For about the next 3 and a half hours, during which he picked up the radio bearing from Makapuu Point (as I mentioned in a previous posting), he nearly paralleled the rhumb track, remaining well to the right of the great circle track. After that, he homed on the Makapuu Point radio beacon. So, what course was Noonan attempting to fly? If we believe Noonan's data, then we must conclude that he wasn't attempting to fly an approximation to the great circle. And, since he did not rejoin the rhumb track after 1007Z, it seems clear that following the rhumb track was not his priority. The most likely explanation is that Noonan's plan was to fly generally southwestward toward Hawaii until he got within range of the radio beacon, which he did at about 1115Z, at a range of about 670 nautical miles from Makapuu Point. This is analogous to flying toward the mouth of a very wide funnel with its vertex at Makapuu Point. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:20:49 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Failure to communicate It's also worth noting that Earhart had - - and failed to use - - an opportunity for a mid-flight check on her DF equipment. Recall that the Ontario was stationed near the midpoint of the leg from Lae to Howland. Earhart had requested that Ontario standby to send homing signals on request. But Ontario had only CW capability, so there was no way for AE/FN to request the homing signal. If, prior to departing Lae, AE had bothered to check on the feasibility of communicating with the Ontario, she would have realized that there was no way. The solution was to have Ontario broadcast the homing signal starting, say, 3 hours before AE's ETA at the midpoint until, say, 3 hours after. That way, she would have an opportunity to notice that her DF gear wasn't working, and to abort the flight, returning to Lae for repairs. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:23:09 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Warships in the Marshalls Ric, I have looked for a few years into the Koshu mystery. I have come to several conclusions. 1. It was not a military vessel. 2. It was not pressed into service during the war. 3. It may have been lost (shipwrecked) before the war.4. Are we spelling the name correctly? I have a sheet on all of the Navys ship markings from WW1 to the end of WW2. The Kamui is on it but the Koshu is not.I found one small reference to it as being crewed by Naval Reserve with the equipment being manned by civilian scientists.It is described as a "survey ship". I cannot find a reference to it in ANY databases. The only solution that comes to mind is that someone with big bucks may be able to sponsor a crew reunion in Japan. Might be able to collect information that way-if any of them are alive. Woody *************************************************************************** From Ric Wouldn't it be a hoot if AE and FN showed up? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:24:08 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: How common are Castaways? Ric here is a little note on ship losses. What is the average yearly number of civilian ship losses in the worlds oceans since 1900? 1500 a year.( from an Ocean Navigator magazine quiz). Woody ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:40:34 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Timed sunrise sight Weem's description is for a close approach. I doubt it would be recommended for finding an island 1,000 NM away. The question relates to the validity at 350 +/- NM. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric I didn't catch where Weems mentioned how close the approach had to be before the technique becomes invalid. Logically, the more you run on the LOP without fix, the more slop there's going to be - but is that a function of distance or of time? I'm not trying to avoid answering your question. I'm saying that I can't answer it. Too many unknown variables. I could only come up with a guess based upon lots and lots of assumptions. I'll leave that to Elgen Long. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:41:32 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: parenthetical arguments Ogden Nash (?) on cowboys: "What sort of men are these who wear their legs in parentheses?" C. Anthony Warren ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:49:36 EST From: Mark Cameron Subject: Re: Half hour gas Has anyone looked into the amounts of fuel AE consumed on the previous legs of the last flight? A comparison may help to establish how the Electra was performing ( or how AE was flying her ) and possibly give us a base for establishing with some degree of accuracy how far the Lae fuel load should have lasted. This may be an obvious thought but I can't remember seeing this come up on the forum in the last 3 years, and it may prove to the nay-sayers once and for all that she could have made it to Niku. LTM (who sometimes has too much gas) Mark Cameron #2301 **************************************************************************** From Ric As I recall we did a study of the Oakland/Honolulu flight and found that she arrived in Hawaii with a huge reserve (something like 40 percent). Unfortunately, information about fuel loads for the various world flight legs does not seem to be available. In some cases we know how much fuel was put aboard (for example, we have a receipt from Darwin for 365 gallons) but not how much was already in the tanks. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:56:39 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Lagoon Deposit If I remember correctly, TIGHAR has a pump stashed somewhere in the South Pacific, probably on Fiji. It's the kind of pump that can handle coral sand and small lumps. As I recall, it was never used. Might that be worth a try to see what it might suck up and what might be uncovered in the process? One would want to run the discharge water through one or more sieves to see what small artifacts might have been picked up. After some time for the water to clear as much as it will, divers could see what might have been uncovered. How big is that pump? What size inlet and outlet connections? Could it be operated from a boat with a length of pipe and strainer connected to the suction hose? Or would one take the whole pump on the boat? Would some such arrangement be managable? Might it move enough material to be useful for this sort of thing? **************************************************************************** From Ric It's actually called a dredge - sort of like a an industrial strength Shop Vac. Yes, it's deployable from a small boat. We bought it prior to the 1997 trip thinking that we'd need to suck up and seive deposits of silt on the lagoon bottom, but when we go to the lagoon bottom we found that there's not enough silt to be worth sifting. Just enough to get stirred up and ruin the visibility. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:58:35 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: How common are Castaways? > Spading responds: Rare in relation to what benchmark? > I am missing the underlying science behind the continued references to > "rare" (Webster's not withstanding). We need to define this a little better. Kenton, I'm an attorney and about as black and white oriented as you'll find. I don't like gray. Yet in my business we have similar statements such as what a reasonable man might do or think. No one knows what that means. In the case of "rare" I DO know what that means. It is a comparative word and thus not easily or acceptably defined in scientific terms. "None" is easy and so is "Ten." Then we have a "few" and "some" which again cannot be quantified. Yet most everyone knows what they mean. "Rare" means not very many, or not as many as now, or not as many as other events. If we knew exactly how many we would say 15 or whatever and we wouldn't use the word "rare" unquantified. Finally, I would ask what difference does it make how many shipwrecked people there were? Say there were a hundred thousand. But if we know of none in the Phoenix group we could still say it was a rare occurance on Niku. You could bog down yourself and Ric and any of us trying to "define" "rare" to some arbitrary scientific quantify and it would solve nothing. We all know what "rare" means. You know what "rare" means. Why not deal with something that moves the ball forward. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:04:17 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Castaways The whole Pacific is too easy. There are reasons to try to go to inhabited islands, or high islands that might have water. The six Henderson Island castaways are known as skeletons, and may have been inhabitants of the island, not castaways. The Henderson web site also mentions Robert Tomarchin and Moko the chimp, but that is from August-September 1957. See: http://winthrop.webjump.com/hender.html for details. If you know Robert, let the webmaster know where he is or what became of him. This site also had the journal from a shipwreck on Henderson, and mentions a shipwreck on Ducie. If you want a good control group for Niku, I'd suggest the other Phoenix and Line islands prior to 1940. You might want to include Jarvis, Baker, Palmyra, and Kingman Reef. These were uninhabited, dry islands that might have guano, coconuts, or potential airport sites, but not much else. It is hard to imagine how remote the Eastern Pacific islands are. I would really like to find the skeletons to confirm their identity, but it is hard to imagine whose they could be, other than AE and FN. If anyone else gets Imaging Notes from Space Imaging, there is a nice photo and article about Ducie in the Jan./Feb. 2001 issue. It was charted 1.5 miles (approx.2.5 kilometers) from its actual location. Speaking of which, did you ever get a good GPS fix while you were on Nikumaroro? Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 LTM (Who could use a good GPS fix herself!) **************************************************************************** From Ric It's a long story having to do with scrambled GPS signals and base stations and data collection thwarted by storms and big waves - but the answer is, no. In 1991 Oceaneering International, in doing their sonar survey, determined that the published location of the island is a few hundred meters off but not more than that. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:05:33 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Timed sunrise sight > The air navigator, having found a position line as he approaches > his destination, continues flying on his course until the position > line carried forward by D[ead] R[eckoning] passes through the Ric, I might add that the "position line carried forward by D[ead] Reckoning]..." means that it is advanced along track based on estimated ground speed. Clearly if the ground speed estimate is inaccurate the LOP will not be advanced correctly. To resolve this more than one LOP is shot giving an accurate ground speed between the two LOPs. THEN when the LOP is advanced to run through destination it should be quite accurate. As accurate as were the two shots, timing, and plotting. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:09:50 EST From: Roger Kelley Subject: Re: parenthetical arguments R. Ellsworth Gillespie...?? And to think that I understood the "E" to be "T", as in teeeee, and the "T" stood for "Throckmorton." Oh, to hope someday that we might escape the elitism of the east coast. LTM (who is a humble and faithful servant to the ruling class), Roger Kelley **************************************************************************** From Ric My mother's maiden name. Yeah, I guess I blew it. Shoulda been an attorney, or maybe a diplomat - oooh, bad idea. Maybe we should just go back to "Ric baby". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:29:34 EST From: John M Subject: Re: Timed sunrise sight I must say this is the most stimulating discussion group I have ever read. Thank you for the work you put in which makes it fast and easy to read. As an Australian pilot, my background involved ferry flying in the Pacific and the Tasman Sea with experience in various vintage aircraft. (BE-18 being the closest in type to the Electra) From my observations of the facts, may I offer some opinions to the group. 1. FN was a first class navigator. His "loose" position fixes would be better than most people's three sight fixes. 2. The aircraft took off with enough fuel to fly to the Howland area and then fly the LOP to Niku - (This is a fact) 3. After descending to 1000ft in the Howland area I believe they would have turned South along the LOP but were possibly already South of Howland AND Baker Island. I have calculated the possibility of 60 miles of cross track error to the south at their arrival at the LOP (this would be a maximum I believe) and then reasoned that they turned South. What I can't work out is why they flew so far south along the LOP. The rules are as you quoted "If, after a reasonable time, the destination is not sighted, he infers that he has turned the wrong way, and so reverses his track." I have never flown more than 30 mins along an LOP in remote area navigation before turning back. They would have to have flown more than an hour along the LOP to Niku. I am sorry if you have been over this ground before but I have only just subscribed a week ago and may have missed some important points. Actually there is one and only one thing that would keep a pilot flying down an LOP as far as that. If a DF loop was used to get a bearing - even a rough one. Of course the tragedy would be that one could be flying away from the station instead of towards it which is easy to do. I know because I have done it! John M *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks John. I think that if you'll look at the the rather unique situation they were faced with it will be apparent why they continued so long to the south. Noonan advanced the sunrise LOP through Howland, but it also fell through, or close to, three other islands - Baker, McKean, and Gardner. The one he was shooting for - Howland - was on the extreme "left" end of the string with nothing beyond it to the northwest but blue water for farther than he had fuel to go. Having reached the advanced LOP and not seeing an island, he had no way of knowing if his desired destination was off to the left or down to the right. (That's what the DF was supposed to tell him, but didn't.) He could afford to turn left and search northwest along the line for a little way but he had to turn around and head southeast while he still had enough fuel to guarantee that he would reach one of the islands no matter where he was. Once he does that, he's committed to continuing southeastward on the line untill he sees land, unless he can get a solid fix on his position while he still has enough fuel to backtrack if he needs to. Under the circumstances, it's hard to see how he could have done that. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:34:09 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: KOSHU (gesundheit) The thing I hate most about being on the forum but living in Australia is sitting on all this information and not being able to get it too you until the day after someone else finds something.. Check out the number of times the Koshu Maru shows up below.... I don't know if it's worth a WOMBAT post, but it at least shows this isn't a "ghost ship".. Ross. World War 2 history of the attack on Coron Bay, Busuanga ... 12°21'N, 123°00'E, and cargo ships No.17 Fukuei Maru and No.2 Koshu Maru, and transport Siberia Maru, 11°54'N, 123°10'E. In Visayan Sea, they sink army... mozcom.com/~l-mlodge/history.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages War Record of USS Ray SS-271 ... 4 Aug 1944, Koshu Maru, Cargo, 2,612, 3-59S, 1167-54E. 14 Aug 1944, Zuisho Maru, Passenger-cargo, 5,289, 3-52N, 112-56E. ... donshelton.net/ray1-recrd.htm - 6k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] www.npmoc.navy.mil/1974atcr/pdf/wnp/30.pdf ... were counted missing in coastal waters. At sea, the 39-ton Japanese Vessel KOSHU MARU sank east of Luzon with FIGURE 4-26. MaAA.iutTyphoon Ela.inc300 nm its ... Text version - Similar pages Untitled ... sea on 28 July. At the south entrance to Makassar Strait, SS-271 intercepted a convoy of three ships and sank the cargo ship Koshu Maru. Nine days later, she ... www.hazegray.org/danfs/submar/ss271.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages Untitled ... TENRYO. 49TU, JCCX, CHOFU MARU. 49UC, 8KTZ, KUDAKA. 49UT, JGBB, UMITAKA-MARU. 49UY, JIJT, KOSHU MARU. 49VE, JCBX, ... www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ALPHAPRO/PROFILES/shipcode/clno3354.htm - 36k - Cached - Similar pages Untitled ... TENRYO. JIIQ, 49SP, SURUGA MARU. JIJT, 49UY, KOSHU MARU. JIOW, 49BG, ALASKA MARU. JIRH, 492G, KABASHIMA. JITV, ... www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ALPHAPRO/PROFILES/shipcode/clcallgm.htm - 42k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca ] ????????? The summary for this Japanese page contains characters that cannot be correctly displayed in this language/character set. member.nifty.ne.jp/jpnships/chosen1.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages CallSign List g-m ... WAY BRIDGE. JHVP, 49TR, TENRYO. JIIQ, 49SP, SURUGA MARU. JIJT, 49UY, KOSHU MARU. JIOW, 49BG, ALASKA MARU. JIRH, ... www.nodc.noaa.gov/GTSPP/uot_cdv2/data/shipcode/clcallgm.htm - 55k - Cached - Similar pages Platform Names G - M ... 8LCP. KOSHU MARU, 49UY, JIJT. KRASIN, 90KR, UPGK. KRASNOPEREKOPSK, 90CL, UWNZ. KRASNY, 90CM, EXER. KRUZENSHTERN, ... www.nodc.noaa.gov/GTSPP/uot_cdv2/data/shipcode/clplatgm.htm - 56k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.nodc.noaa.gov ] Task Force 58 ... KANA-304: sinking Tomozuru, corvette #68, AM Chitose Maru, Shonan Maru #16, AK Koshu Maru, Soka Maru, Kaijo Maru Tsukushi Maru #3 about 200 miles northwest of ... pacific.hyperlink.cz/forces/tf58.htm - 84k - Cached - Similar pages Scuba, wreck, nitrox and technical diving on 11 WW Two ... ... 12°21'N, 123°00'E, and cargo ships No.17 Fukuei Maru and No.2 Koshu Maru, and transport Siberia Maru, 11°54'N, 123°10'E. In Visayan Sea, they sink army ... mozcom.com/~diving/text.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages Task Force 38 ... Masbate: sinking PC Cha-39, AM Wa-7 (12-18N, 122-46E), AK Shinyo Maru (12-21N, 123-00E), AKs Fukuei Maru #17, Koshu Maru #2, AP Siberia Maru (11-54N, 123-10E). ... pacific.hyperlink.cz/forces/tf38.htm - 89k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] www.iacs.org.uk/suspension/Susp1_00.pdf IACS Permanent Secretariat's Report 23/3/2000 on Class suspension, reinstatement and withdrawal out of IACS As at the End of January 2000 Ship identification ... Text version - Similar pages [PDF] www.iacs.org.uk/suspension/Susp2_00.pdf IACS Permanent Secretariat's Report 2/5/2000 on Class suspension, reinstatement and withdrawal out of IACS As at the End of February 2000 Ship identification ... Text version - Similar pages [ More results from www.iacs.org.uk ] Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Sheeesh. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:39:35 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Noonan's Navigation to Hawaii > My thoughts exactly. Whatever amount of fuel reserve they had it was not > enough to give them the luxury of doing any kind of search pattern. They > either could see Howland or Baker or head out for the precious land they knew > was SE of their position. > > Alan I still believe it was no coincidence that almost exactly 1 hour elapsed between "we must be on you" and "we're bugging out". They look for Howland for an hour, gas is getting to the point where if they fly much longer they don't have the reserve to reach another island i.e. "low", so they fly the LOP while they can. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric And I suspect that AE didn't really have a handle on why Noonan was having her do what he was telling her to do. Hence, "..we are running north and south" instead of "have searched north, now proceeding south". ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:41:57 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: parenthetical arguments A lot of us use the things when we know it is incorrect, because Email in NOT Mail.. All the puctuation marks are fair game (or at least have been for the 12 years I've been on the net) because it allows us to emphasize "things" a lot easier . Th' WOMBAT ?? ' " ( ) :-) **************************************************************************** From Ric I agree that email is a new medium of communication and, as such, merits its own "rules" but only to the degree that communication is enhanced. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:58:36 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Flying boat search for Earhart Randy's post: ...interviews of Japanese officials on Jaliut and elsewhere indicated that both the Koshu and Kamoi searched the Marshall Islands, with the assistance of a large-type flying boat. Bridge logs of the Kamoi clearly state it was no where near the Marshalls during this time, and we have no documentary evidence that a flying boat was ever used to search for wreckage.... ****************************************** Although there is no documentary evidence that a flying boat was used in the search, we do know that the Japanese had established irregular seaplane service from from Yokohama to Saipan & Palau as early as 1935, with flights becoming more frequent in 1937, including a regular air route to those locations from Yokohama in 1938 & adding Pohnpei & Jaluit in 1939. According to Dirk H.R. Spennemann, M.A., Ph.D., a Senior Lecturer at Chas. Sturt University, New South Wales, the flights utilized the Kawanishi H6K, type 97 Flying Boat (Later 'Mavis') in 1936, operated by reserve naval pilots through the Dia Nippon Koku K.K. (Greater Japan Airlines). He also suggests that all that was needed to support such flights was a seaplane tender stationed at any of the atolls in the mandates, as no permanent structures needed to be erected for such preliminary, advanced sites. Additionally, he also claims that by 1937 the IJN was calling the shots in Micronesia & had initiated construction of major 'improvements' in air, land & sea facilities in Micronesia, with Sea-Plane facilities already having been built for the Nan'yo-Cho (South Seas Government) in the late 1930s on several of the mandated islands & between 1935-1937 the Japanese Government spent almost 1,000,000 Yen on further construction of air facilities. (http://life.csu.edu./~dspennem//VIRTPAST/Publications/SeaPlane/SeaPlaneOps.html) Rear Adm. Edwin T. Layton (USN Ret), in his book...'And I Was There'..., recalls...'We had worked closely with Yamamoto's office during the July 1937 (Layton was an Asst. Naval Attach'e in Tokyo) search for Amelia Earhart, a matter in which they cooperated politely, but only halfheartedly'... . Unfortunately, Adm. Layton did not elaborate upon any of the details surrounding the Japanese 'cooperation'. (One might wonder if he retained any of his notes or records regarding the 'search' effort, which might not have been included in the posthumous publication of his book, which dealt primarily with US pre & post-Pearl Harbor, cryptographic history?) Also, I recall reading somewhere (One of the many books about PAA, or material on one of the websites) that prior to the Earhart flight, the head of PAA, Juan Trippe, had issued a directive to all PAA locations that they were to render any & all possible assistance to the flight, which I would assume, could also mean that such 'locations' were to monitor radio transmissions from the flight as it progressed (?). Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric It would seem from the above that commercial flying boat service to the Marshalls (Jaluit) was not established until 1939. According to "How Japan Fortified the Mandated Islands" (Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 81, No. 4 April 1955) construction of the first runways and seaplane ramps in the Marshalls was not begun until 1940. To send a flying boat to the Marshalls to search for Earhart would require a seaplane tender on site to service it. We've already seen that the KAMOI, later claimed to have participated in a search for Earhart, was not there. There seems to be little reason to think that any Japanese flying boat searched for Earhart. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:02:46 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Warships in the Marshalls > From Woody > > Ric, I have looked for a few years into the Koshu mystery. I have come to > several conclusions. 1. It was not a military vessel. 2. It was not pressed > into service during the war. 3. It may have been lost (shipwrecked) before the > war.4. Are we spelling the name correctly? I have a sheet on all of the Navys > ship markings from WW1 to the end of WW2. The Kamui is on it but the Koshu is > not. Does the Japanese government -- or anyone -- have a list of Japanese ships sunk prior to WW2? Watts, page 269, has the KOSHO MARU listed as a merchant conversion from a 1865-ton transport launched in 1940. This ship was sunk on May 22, 1944. On page 350 is the KYUSHU MARU, 8666 tons, launched 1937 and listed as "Lost," without a date. Page 316 and page 349 list (twice) the same GOSHU MARU. The first listing has it as a purchased private freighter converted to an aircraft transport. In 1943 it was re-rated as a general transport and duly lost on March 30, 1944. > I found one small reference to it as being crewed by Naval Reserve with the > equipment being manned by civilian scientists.It is described as a "survey > ship". I cannot find a reference to it in ANY databases. How common was a Reserve crew and civilian scientists, at this time? Any idea what flag she flew? Might she have flown the Manchukou flag, for some odd reason? If there are any other spellings that might drift closer to the ones I see in Watts' small book, please tell me. Until them, I'll assume Woody has found it to the extent we can find it. But I'll also find my local "expert" and see what he might know. Given that some aircraft ships were used for midget subs, he might have a file on the subject. Should I mention AE and FN? LTM (who can identify all her ships) Mike Holt **************************************************************************** From Ric Your call. I don't see that it makes any difference. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:06:16 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Navigation to Hawaii Well, I've followed this for a while now, and I'm still not convinced of TIGHAR's position on this. No matter how I look at the data on the CD, I don't see the conclusion that a radio bearing was their only reasonable hope of making their target. Clearly the CD only presents part of the picture - does TIGHAR have flight logs, charts or nav calculations for the flight that reflects something like "thank God for that radio bearing"? My conclusion would be that they did what they considered an adequate job to bring the aircraft in safely, and they could have easily stepped up the frequency and quality (3x vs 2x) of the fixes anytime. Again, I point out that 2 qualified navigators were on board. Even if FN took all the sights, he and Manning could have split the dirty work of the sight reductions between them - certainly keeping that from ever being a bottleneck. On the subject of 2 vs 3 or more body fixes, there is no question that more (confirming) crossing LOP's are good navigational practice, but this does not necessarily yield more accurate fixes. If indeed radio bearings were confirming their celestial fixes that may have been sufficient. Some differences that I can think of between between Lae-Howland and Oakland-Honolulu. 1. FN was alone as navigator. 2. Reliable 2 way radio contact was never achieved even from the outset. 3. DF was not working in the Lae test. One of the navigator's tasks is to worry - why would FN bet his life on it at Howland? 4. Target was much, much smaller. 5. They were really, really alone - no commercial shipping for communication or possible SAR. I sure would hate for someone to assume that I would drive the kids to school the same way that I might zip along a curvy road on a day when I'm feeling frisky. TOM MM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:07:56 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: Annual Ship Losses >From Woody > >Ric here is a little note on ship losses. What is the average yearly number >of civilian ship losses in the worlds oceans since 1900? 1500 a year.( from >an Ocean Navigator magazine quiz). Woody Woody: What type of ships? Does this include small private yachts, rowboats, etc. or only large ocean vessels? Many small private yachts ply the various oceans today? How many did that in the 1930's? You can't just throw out a number without clarification. Also, of those that are lost, how many survivors are found? How many disappear and are never found? Are most of the losses in the larger sealanes where the most number of ships sail? The number lost is meaningless without clarification. It's like the insurance investigator who asked how an insured could have drowned in a lake with an average depth of 6 inches. Statistics mean nothing without an understanding of the circumstances that go with it. My favorite is this: "100 per cent of those who drink a glass of water today will die." It is a very true saying, but it leaves out the fact that everyone who doesn't drink a glass of water will die also. We will all die, its just a matter of when. Thus, statistics and other statements with numbers are meaningless without putting them in the right context. LTM, Dave Bush #2200 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:05:20 EST From: Kerry Tiller Subject: Re: Koshu For the Koshu hunters: I suspect Koshu and Goshu may be another transliteration difference. "Goshujin" is a term used to refer to someone else's husband, but my dictionary doesn't list a word for "Goshu" by itself. Kyushu is an altogether different colored horse. Kyushu has no meaning that I know of other than the name of one of the Main Islands. Different Kanji, different phoneme. As for the use of "Maru" with ship's names, the IJN and its current incarnation, the JMSDF, did not/do not use Maru in the names of warships. It is possible that there may have been a navy ship called the Koshu and one or mere civilian ships called the Koshu Maru. LTM Kerry Tiller **************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt The list I sent you was for the KOSHU MARU - a freighter.. There may have been other KOSHU ships around that time.. Th' WOMBAT *************************************************************************** From Thorsten Randolf Kamoi was a seaplane tender converted from an oiler in 1922, and reconverted to an oiler in 1943. She was definitely no research or survey vessel. MfG Thorsten Randolf **************************************************************************** From Ric Kamoi was also not involved in any Japanese search for Earhart. It would be interesting to pin down the KOSHU if only to see if she had any capability to lift an airplane onto her after deck, but for that we'd need a photo of her circa 1937 and at this point we're not even sure what KOSHU we're talking about. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:17:37 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Probability of success Your response was: >I'm not trying to avoid answering your question. I'm saying that I can't >answer it. Too many unknown variables. I could only come up with a guess >based upon lots and lots of assumptions. I'll leave that to Elgen Long. This is not a closed form solution question. On the other hand, you make assertions about running down the LOP without any analysis of the probability of success, and it is presented as if with a simple wave of the hand, they depart the Howland area and splat down at Niku. This can be done and it is done all the time by navigators. Much of what we discuss on the forum involves some level of assumptions. When Bob was DR'ng that DD out there, he no doubt did his level best to estimate every component that could affect his estimate of position, and he had at least a good feeling about the size of the area of uncertainty of his position estimates, and based on that, an idea of what he could do (or maybe not do) navigationally under the circumstances. FN would have done the same, and it would be part of the decision process. What if the best case estimate indicates (say) a 20% chance of passing withing visible range of Niku? Note that this would in no way rule out Niku, but it could diminish the LOP as a piece of supporting data. The reason I'm pressing TIGHAR to look at this is twofold. First, the result will indeed be subjective (but an honest subjective can be very useful), and that is fair enough, since it is TIGHAR's forum. Second, I like Bob's Essential Conditions, and I think that the uncertainty portion of the 157-337 LOP should be dissected to TIGHAR standards. Obviously, it is not up to me to decide what TIGHAR should pursue. Nuff said. TOM MM *************************************************************************** From Ric I guess I'm not clear about what such an estimate is supposed to accomplish. Suppose we decided, as you suggest, that running down the LOP had only a 20% chance of success and we make the assumption that Fred went through the same exercise and came up with the same number. Therefore....? What better option did he have? It seems like any factors that operated against an accurate run down the LOP would have an equally adverse effect upon an accurate run in any other direction (for example, back to the Gilberts or off toward the other Phoenix islands) without the advantages of the LOP. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:24:42 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Failure to communicate I should have pointed out that on June 26th, Earhart sent the following to Richard Black: SUGGEST ONTARIO STANDBY ON FOUR HUNDRED KCS TO TRANSMIT LETTER N FIVE MINUTES ON REQUEST WITH STATION CALL SIGN LETTER REPEATED TWELVE END EVERY MINUTE. Note that here she is asking Ontario to transmit on request. But Since Ontario could only communicate on frequencies below 600 kHz, and only on CW, there was no way Earhart could have made such a request. I neglected to mention that, on July 1st, Earhart sent the following to Black, modifying the previous plan: ASK ONTARIO BROADCAST LETTER N FOR FIVE MINUTES TEN MINUTES AFTER HOUR GMT FOUR HUNDRED KCS WITH OWN CALL LETTERS REPEATED TWICE END EVERY MINUTE. This message could indicate that Earhart realized that she had no way to request Ontario to transmit the desired signal, so she changed the procedure from "on request" to "broadcast". This would have fixed the problem had the message been relayed to the Ontario. But there's no record of Black having relayed the message to the Ontario. The message was relayed from Earhart in Lae to Black on the Itasca via the Navy radio station at Tutuila, so it is possible that Tutuila took the initiative and relayed the message directly to the Ontario - - although there is no record of that having happened. In any case, it would be reasonable for Earhart to assume that the second message was relayed to the Ontario, and that the Ontario would be broadcasting the requested signal on the requested schedule. If Ontario did get the message, the broadcast would have occurred and if, as we suspect, Earhart's DF gear was rendered inoperable on takeoff at Lae, she would not have been able to get a bearing on the Ontario - - and she could have turned back to Lae. If Ontario did not get the message, the signal expected by Earhart in her second message would not have been sent by Ontario, and Earhart would have heard nothing. In this case, as well, Earhart would have had a warning that her DF gear wasn't working, and could have turned back to Lae. Bob **************************************************************************** From Ric No radio log from the Ontario has ever surfaced but her deck log makes no mention of anything except "steaming on plane guard station." Itasca's deck log, by contrast, includes many comments about radio activity. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:27:33 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Kiribati - Phoenix Settlement According to this page done by an I-Kiribati, some of the Phoenix island settlers were re-settled in the Solomon islands: Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/kiribati_phoenix/index.htm **************************************************************************** From Ric That's right. The group from Gardner even named their village "Nikumaroro." Those are the folks Dirk Ballendorf visited in 1995 on TIGHAR's behalf. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:28:57 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart Something else about the bases in the Marshalls. One of my contacts claims to have a photo of a runway and some buildings on Taroa in May 1937! I will be traveling to their residence in the second week of March to look at the picture and ask how the date was determined. Will let you know what I find out. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:37:21 EST From: Denise Subject: Call me Simple, but ... Ric says about the map situation: "Like everything else in this case, it's not that simple. First of all, we don't know what map Noonan was using." Look, for me, this is the simplest part of this entire mystery. I have looked at "We must be on to you, but can't see you" every which way and the only thing I can see them meaning, which makes sense to me, is "We're here! The island isn't!" And for that to be the case can only mean one thing: WRONG MAP! So, unless someone can give me another reading of those words that I buy, on this point I will remain intransigent: WRONG MAP! WRONG MAP! WRONG MAP! WRONG MAP! WRONG MAP! WRONG MAP LTM (who loves parentheses and doesn't care what Sean Wilson thinks of them!) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Okay, here's another reading of those words. "We must be on you....." carries the implied prefix "According to our calculations...". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:39:03 EST From: Herman Subject: Re: KOSHU Was the Koshu a "battleship" or not ? I believe international law says that a warship is any vessel flying a nation's war colors (navy flag), sailing under military command and manned by a military crew. This means the vessel can be an aircraft carrier but also a shrimp boat (trawlers ar great for detecting submarines with their sonar instead of shoals of fish). Some languages do not have precise translations for words that exist in other languages, like the English "warship". That may be the reason one Japanese author wrote the Koshu was a "battleship". This could simply have meant the vessel sailed under the Japanese imperial navy flag. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:08:19 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Going in Great Circles First, thanks to Bob Brandenburg for his response to my posting about Great Circles. It's good to have Bob confirm that the Great Circle track is well North of the rhumb line track from Oakland to Honolulu, and not "coincident" at all. I accept Bob's figure of 80nm (92 statute miles) rather than the 120 nm I estimated - doubtless my failure to compensate for the expansion of the latitude scale in a Mercator projection as distance from the equator increases accounts for part of the difference. (I do note however that the Great Circle calculator at www.info.gov.hk gives the latitude of the great circle track as 31 - 24.921' N at 140 W, while the rhumb line calculator at www.aeroplanner.com gives the latitude of the rhumb line at 140 W as 29.842 degrees N. Converting to the same format gives 29 - 50.52' N, a difference of 1 - 34.40, or 94.4 nautical miles, which equals about 109 statute miles.) That being said, it was precisely to avoid quibbles about such matters that I requested that BOB provide us with information on the great circle in a way that would relate it to the other information on his map. If we don't get "everybody on the same page" we're going to continue going in circles in this discusssion. Grateful though I am for Bob's response, I am also disturbed by parts of it. I itemize them not as a personal matter, but simply because I believe they give clues as to the nature of Bob's responses to questions about his conclusions and their bases. Some of those disturbing items are: a- Bob's characterization of the word "coincident" (which means "in the same place as") as "navigator-speak" for an entirely different concept (great circle and rhumbline being of nearly equal length). I did not read Bob's use of the word as being anything other than a dismissal of my comment that the great circle track was North of the rhumb line track. HE HAD ALREADY SAID THE LENGTH WAS NEARLY IDENTICAL. Is there a glossary of "navigator-speak" that supports this usage of "coincident"? b- Bob's (new) comment that he had "checked a few way points on the great circle track ... [and thus?] had all the information needed to decide that plotting the 'great circle course' would provide no useful information" raises a rather obvious question: why didn't he simply say so, and tell us what he had found? Bob answers - c- "I assumed you meant that I should plot all the points on the great circle track. If you believe that isn't a tedious and time-consuming task, then I think you would find it instructive to do so." This is one of Bob's protean passages, so let's spend a minute on it. Bob has already pointed out (quite correctly) that flying a great circle requires an "infinite" number of course changes. That means, of course, that there are an "infinite" number of points in the great circle. Poor Bob would thus be doomed to spend eternity calculating all the points - and he'd never make it, because even eternity never reaches infinity. I don't blame him for declining the task, as he tacitly defines it - but he's creating unnecessary problems for himself - and for us. And that's why I dragged poor Zeno in - Zeno created an analogous (and equally unnecessary) problem for himself, by essentially the same procedure Bob is following - dividing an occurance (or - in Bob's case - a task) into an infinite number of increments of inifinitely short duration. Zeno overlooked the difference between interrupted and continuous motion, and Bob overlooks the distinction between analyzing a task as a series of infinitely small steps and simply doing it. Now Bob understands this distinction quite well - most of the time. He obviously has found it possible (despite the theoretical infinity of the task) to calculate that the divergence is only 80 nm, not 120. And he finds it possible to say that FN was X miles north of waypoint Y on the great circle track. After he gives it a little more consideration, I hope that he will conclude that it is no great crime against cosmic justice to put 8 or 11 great circle waypoints on the map and freehand a curve approximating a great circle. d- Bob says "It remains true that Noonan could not have been attempting to follow a great circle. Whether he was attempting to follow an approximation to a great circle is a different question." It's the ONLY question - what's the answer?We all understand that a practical "great circle" can only be an approximation. It's frustrating to have this nitpicking. I am very interested in what Bob has to tell us. I am trying very hard to undertand (a) what that is and (b) what it is based on. I shall sincerely appreciate any help I receive. I hope you have received the copy of the GUBA navigation log I sent you last week. Some items to note about the chart are: 1- On the entire Pacific flight, ALL celestial fixes are "two-body" fixes. 2- Celestial fixes are noted at intervals of 3 to 4 hours on the first half of each leg, increasing in frequency later in the flight. On the Honolulu leg, the five celestial fixes are at 0438 GCT (5+53 into flight - departure was 2245 GCT), 0741 (8+56), 1030 (11+45), 1200 (13+15) and 1354 (15+09). The first celestial fix is nearly 6 hours into the flight (and almost exactly 3 hours after the last DF fix). The next two celestial fixes occur at approximately 3 hour intervals. The fourth celestial fix follows 1 1/2 hours later, followed by the fifth after an additional two hours. At 1524 (16+39 into flight) a bearing from the Makapuu beacon is crossed with a line from Jupiter for the final fix. Celestial navigation is discontinued, and a compass course is set for the destination, which is crossed by lines from the Makapuu beacon. 3- The entire flight is conducted well North of the rhumb line track. It approximates the great circle track. If the calculator and my plotting are correct, the track is directly on the great circle at 120 W, perhaps 10 (statute) miles South at 125 W and 130 W, directly on at 135 W , perhaps 5 miles South at 140 W, directly on at 145. It then veers Westward and is say 30 miles North of the great circle at 150 W and more than 20 miles North at 155 W. 4- Upon interception of the DF and the fix with Jupiter, a 10 degree course change is made to the left. I have now drawn the rhumb line in red (the chart is a Mercator projection) and placed 1/4 inch green dots centered on the latitude of the great circle waypoints as given by www.info.hk computer. Since the approximate scale of the chart is 80 statute miles per inch, the approximate size of each dot is 20 statute miles.(Note well, multiple reproductions may have altered the scale somewhat.) I shall see about having a color copy made for you. I that is not practical, I shall send you a black and white one; comparision with the original should enable you to discern the markings I added. To go back to Noonan's navigation for a moment (or I should say, to navigation in general - let's decide if it applies to Noonan later) - what should a navigator do who finds himself well off his intended track on a long flight over open ocean, laying aside questions of wind or weather? Assume he is flying from A to B, and at some meridian of longitude (LON) the great circle from A to B lies at latitude X and the rhumb line course lies at Y. At LON the navigator finds himself at Z, which is some substantial distance from both X and Y. (Assume the midpoint of a 2000 mile flight, Z 100 miles North of X and 200 miles North of Y.) Should he attempt to return to the track AXB (great circle) or to the track AYB (rhumb line)? Isn't the shortest distance from Z to B the great circle that intersects Z and B? And isn't the least complicated way the rhumb line from Z to B? What should he do? Is there an accepted technique, and what is it? Bob, what do you think? I await with great interest the arrival of the copy of Bob's map that you kindly said you were sending me. I shall attempt to avoid further comments about it until I see it. Thanks. Oscar *************************************************************************** From Ric My apologies for not getting Bob's map to you sooner. You should have it Tues. (FedEX tracking number 8258 2601 2365). Today I received the Guba chart and find it very interesting. The course flown from San Diego to Honolulu is a beautiful piece of work and seems to very closely approximate a great circle. (Bob, I'm sending it on to you for delivery Tues. FedEx tracking number 8258 2601 2376.) I think you'll find the contrast to the Earhart (Noonan/Manning/Mantz) flight from Oakland to Honolulu quite apparent. We also have another example of Noonan's navigation over the same route. Weems' 1938 "Air Navigation" includes a map showing the track of the 1935 PAA Clipper flight from Alameda to Honolulu with both rhumb and great circle lines shown. (I'll send a JPEG of it to both you and Bob). As in the 1937 flight, Noonan stayed on or close to the rhumb line for the first few hundred miles but then he wandered north to the great circle and then back down to the rhumb line and then back to the great circle and then back to the rhumb line and so forth until he was in fairly close to Oahu. Seems like he took the Great Snake route. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:35:04 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Plan B Aren't we now, at least implying, that FN _did_ calculate an offset to the south of Howland? Otherwise how could he have determined just how far north they could/should safely fly on the LOP, if he had not at least _some_ estimate of just how far south of Howland they were on the LOP? There still remains the main difficulty (to my mind at least) in understanding just how they intended to be rescued, if they did decide on a plan 'B' turn south on the same LOP to the Phoenix Islands? AE provided no clue as to such intentions in any of the messages received by Itaska, even though she had established no meaningful _two-way_ radio communication with Itaska, which at _that_ point in time was the _only_ source known to _them_ (AE/FN) capable of accomplishing any potential rescue mission, if they succeeded in reaching & safely landing in the Phoenix Islands. Did AE (total speculation) expect that by giving Itaska the established LOP & informing that they were...'running north & south'... on the LOP, would be sufficient for the hearers of such a message to extrapolate that they (AE/FN) _were_ going north & then would head south, to the only possible landfall (for anyone checking that line on a chart) on the same LOP, within the range of the estimated remaining fuel supply? Seems to me that maybe... the fatal flaw in such a plan was the fact that by the time AE followed-up on her next scheduled radio broadcasting time frame, (while heading SE toward the Phoenix Islands) Itaska may have been steaming to the W/NW, away from Howland & out of the Electra's radio range. Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric I do not think that Noonan used any kind of offset, nor do I think that there was ever any Plan B that was discussed in any more detail than Noonan possibly mentioning to Amelia something like "If worst came to worst the LOP I'll be able get at sunrise has some other islands on it down to the south." When worst did come to worst, the decision about how far to explore northward along the LOP was dictated purely by the estimate of remaining fuel and the known distance between Howland and the farthest island on the LOP (Gardner). When they start southward Noonan is still hoping that the island that will eventually appear will be Howland. I think Amelia's "running north and south" message is ambiguous because she really didn't understand what Noonan was doing. Yes, when the plane was probably headed southeast the ship was headed in the opposite direction but that didn't happen until two hours after the 08:43 message. The big problem ( I think) was that AE had switched frequencies. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:39:51 EST From: Anthony Lealand Subject: Sunrise times. Following Mark Prange's comments. I have had considerable experience with sunrise times while photographing the green flash. I worked from a fixed location with accurate clocks and bearings. At 45 south I have personally observed the sun the sun up to 2 minutes early and 1 minute late rising over the sea. This makes a great difference in its bearing as it is rising at a big angle to the vertical. However at low latitudes there is still some considerable effect on the bearing unless by some remote chance one is on the equator at the solstice. Here the sun will rise straight up out of the sea and pass over ones zenith. Regards Anthony Lealand ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:44:48 EST From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: How common are Castaways? Canton (Kanton) was named after the ship that was shipwrecked there. Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 **************************************************************************** From Ric Several of the islands in the Phoenix Group were named after British or American whaling ships although, as I recall, Canton is the only occasion where the ship was wrecked. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:55:06 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: KOSHU Prior to WWII, the Japanese were not very particular about observing the niceties of international law with respect to what was deemed a "warship" and what was not; moreover, passenger and cargo ships were often manned by officers and crew of the Imperial Japanese Navy. References to such occurrences abound in various historical works, including Gordon Prang's masterful At Dawn We Slept. The purpose behind the IJN utilizing otherwise civilian craft was, most certainly, for intelligence gathering purposes. David Evans Katz *************************************************************************** From Ric Assuming that KOSHU was a civilian survey ship manned by IJN personnel (a big assumption at this point) I wonder what intelligence they were covertly gathering in their own mandated islands? Isn't it more likely that they were just gathering straightforward oceanographic and geographical data for commercial and/or military use? The U.S. did the same thing with the USS Bushnell surveys of 1939. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:57:33 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Probability of success Oscar wrote: > When Bob was DR'ng that DD out there, he no doubt did his level best to > estimate every component that could affect his estimate of position, and he > had at least a good feeling about the size of the area of uncertainty of > his position estimates, and based on that, an idea of what he could do (or > maybe not do) navigationally under the circumstances. FN would have done > the same, and it would be part of the decision process. What if the best > case estimate indicates (say) a 20% chance of passing withing visible range > of Niku? Note that this would in no way rule out Niku, but it could > diminish the LOP as a piece of supporting data. Tom, I'm not following but I'm sure it my inattention and not your clarity of posting. I don't know how others analyze what they do but I can tell you that when I did celestial as a B-47 copilot I did no analyzing at all. I made my shots and plotted my position. I didn't estimate any factors but simply did a very mechanical thing. I would also like to beg to differ with you about the success rate on following the LOP being 20%. No, I'm not arguing that the percentage should be a little bit higher or lower than 20%. I would argue that the success rate MUST be 0% or 100%. It either works or it doesn't. If I'm flying from A to B I'm either 100% on track or not on track at all. If I get to B I'm 100% correct. If I don't I'm 100% wrong. Just as you say, "On the other hand, you make assertions about running down the LOP without any analysis of the probability of success....." I assure you the probability of success is 100% or 0%. They either arrive at Niku or they don't. Arbitrarily establishing some philosophical success rate accomplishes nothing. Let's say they actually DID do such an inane exercise and decided somehow they had a 37% chance of hitting Niku. Now they can decide to give Niku a try or crash into the sea. I wasn't there but my guess is that "give Niku a try" won hands down. Same result no matter what the percentage. 80% they go to Niku. 1% they go to Niku. What am I missing? Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:15:20 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart For Woody, Take a look at the Electra on Taroa airfield in 1944, courtesy of Brink in his Lost Star book where the Electra was stored for years!! He thinks it is still there. If it is take a picture.!!!! Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:17:39 EST From: David Evans Katz Subject: Re: KOSHU Please don't misunderstand me. I did not suggest that the KOSHU, or any other vessel, was gathering intelligence at the time of Earhart's disappearance -- I have no way of knowing that. Nor did I assume, as you suggest, that the KOSHU was manned by IJN personnel. I was merely responding to Herman's comment: <> What I did say, in response to Herman, was: <> Such vessels did not limit their ports of call to Japanese mandated islands. There is ample record (in various historical works concerning the War in the Pacific) of such ships calling at Hawaii, Guam, Australia, New Guinea, The Philippines, Singapore, etc. I cannot recall any such reference to the KOSHU, nor am I aware of any such vessels visiting the Phoenix group (though I concede such a possibility). As to your question of why such vessels would be in the Japanese mandated islands, I would assume that such islands would be among their ports of call since the Mandates were under the control of the Japanese government. After all, American intelligence gathering vessels stopped at American ports of call, and I presume that while they were there, their purpose was not to gather intelligence but to accomplish such mundane chores as refueling and re-supply. David Evans Katz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:25:47 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Probability of success For Tom MM > When Bob was DR'ng that DD out there, he no doubt did his level best to > estimate every component that could affect his estimate of position, and he > had at least a good feeling about the size of the area of uncertainty of > his position estimates, and based on that, an idea of what he could do (or > maybe not do) navigationally under the circumstances. You can bet your bippy that I was a stickler for navigation. Running aground can ruin your entire day. > FN would have done > the same, and it would be part of the decision process. I seriously doubt that FN was very analytical about it. Given his situation - - knowing at best that he was somewhere on the LOP - - he really had no choice but to go for the Phoenix Islands. I agree with Ric - - quantifying the probability won't tell us anything new in terms of the TIGHAR hypothesis. It really doesn't matter what the probability was at the point that FN decided to go for it. Having made his decision, there were only two possible outcomes with respect to finding land - - success or failure. Bob 2286 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:12:34 EST From: Woody Subject: The wreck of the CANTON Ric, One of the National Geographic articles I sent you has the story of the Canton towards the end of the article. It might be worthwhile to post it. I would but I hate typing. Woody *************************************************************************** From Ric It's worth at least summarizing because it is an instance of castaways being marooned on an island in the Phoenix Group. At 1:30 a.m. on March 5, 1854 the New Bedford whaler CANTON went aground at an island known previously and variously as "Mary Balcout's Island", "Swallow Island", "Mary Island", "Balcout Island", and Bulcot Island". She had been in a tropical storm and the captain believed that he was not near any reef or island until he found out otherwise in the worst possible way. (This very similar to the way Norwich City ended up on the reef at Gardner 75 years later.) Being a whaler, CANTON had four boats that were used to take her entire 32-man (no women) crew ashore safely and also bring off a quantity of water and provisions before the ship broke up. They hung out on the island until March 30, 1854 when, supplies running low, they decided to try to rescue themselves by sailing the small boats to some inhabited place. They were shooting for the Kingsmill Group but missed it and ended up at Tinian in the Marianas after 45 days at sea. Lots of hardship and adventures, but all four boats made it and there was no loss of life. In 1872 the island where they had been wrecked was renamed "Canton Island" by Commander Richard W. Meade of the USS NARRAGANSETT in honor of the crew's epic voyage of survival. This incident, and the wreck of the NORWICH CITY, point up what seem to be some typical characteristics of maroonings: - Because ships are crewed by a number of people, a number of people are marooned together. The "lone survivor" scenario appears to occur primarily in fiction - as in "Robinson Crusoe" and Ishmael in "Moby Dick" - both of which were inspired by real life incidents neither of which actually involved a sole survivor of a shipwreck. - Both the CANTON and NORWICH CITY incidents involved groundings on the reef rather than sinkings at sea, resulting in wrecks that remained visible at the island for years. - Both incidents resulted small boats being ashore on the islands. - Neither event, as far as we know, resulted in the death of anyone who survived the initial wreck. What has always seemed odd about what Gallagher found is that it was the remains of one person and possibly evidence of two people - a man and a woman - with no indication of how they may have arrived on the island. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:19:05 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: KOSHU I agree wholeheartedly. The Koshu was most likely used as a coastal survey ship. When the Japanese acquired those islands by invasion in 1914, there were few charts of the area in existence.When they were granted mandate over them in 1920 I'm sure that mapping wasn't a great priority. As their influence and control increased as the years went by, the need for more accurate charts would have increased as shipping became more frequent.People seem to forget that Japan was a land poor country, overpopulated even by our standards in the 1920's. Many of the ethnic Japanese that migrated to the mandates did so for the same reasons that our own forefathers moved out west. As their need for products from home increased, so would the amount of shipping. I dont think a railroad would work too well( sarcasm extrordinare!). When commerce and building increased in the mandates along with the advances in aircraft technology, air travel would become more popular to use as a means of transportation. The reduction in travel time was nothing short of phenomenal for the era. Having a seaplane base on Saipan is no surprise either. Look at a map! Saipan is the best suited island for a civilian seaplane service facility.No big military secret. You need a centrally located facility on your routes wether they are a regular or irregular flight terminus to commit major service on your planes. Their bases at that time were no more military in makeup than the ones PAA had on Guam, Wake and Midway. If you look into the history of domestic airlines, both US and Japanese, you will find that most of their pilots and aircrew were military reservists. A great place for good training and free flight time. The japanese military was patterned after ours, all the way down to rank and insignia. And while spleen venting on the subject, has anyone ever read Captain Parkers report on the mandates? His crew was rescued by the Japanese after their ship the "Fijiian" blew up and sank in the Marshalls. They slowly made their way back to Japan via seamail. His report describes the "Kamoi" to a T as being at Jaluit in late spring along with three battleships. Does this constitute a military buildup? NO. Do any of our old salts on the forum remember the term "port-o-call"? Someplace that you could get some R&R, replenish your water and food stores, and if your'e lucky, a night out with one of the local ladies? The japanese certainly had that right as the government administrators of the area. My point of this diatribe is to point out that there is no BIG mystery as to why the Japanese were in the area or what they were doing. It's called colonialism. One more little thing - Amelia's disappearance was front page news in Tokyo- I've seen the paper. Although I dont read japanese, her picture was the central photo on the front page. Woody ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:25:25 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Koshu Mark Peattie's book, Nanyo, describes the " Koshu" as a Japanese navy "small survey ship". The Capt was Konishi Tatehiko, who "served from 1934 to 1937 as the head of the Imperial Japanese Navy's liasion office in Koror..." He assumed command in 1933 but was reassigned to Toyko in 1937 (date unknown), so he may not have been the CO in July 1937. The vessel was permanently homeported at Koror and was the only IJN ship permanently stationed in Micronesia until the late 1930's. The vessel gathered data re weather, topography,etc., spending considerable time in the Caroline Islands. Loomis said the Capt of the Koshu, a "survey ship", in July 1937 was Capt Hanjiro Takagi. In June 1984, Bilarmon Amaran described the ship as a "Japanese Military-cargo ship" to author/researcher Randall Brink, but Amaran identified the ship as the "Kamoi". Amaran reportedly told some earlier interviewers he wasn't sure what the ship's name was. Amaran does not provide any detailed description of the ship,i.e., length, superstructure,etc. Note: It appears that the 17,000 ton Kamoi, a ship that carried 16 seaplanes, was a much different type of ship then the 2,100 ton Koshu cargo or survey ship , and easily distinquishable. ltm, Ron Bright *************************************************************************** From Ric Thanks Ron. I hadn't realized that Peattie mentioned the KOSHU. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:26:46 EST From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Going in Great Circles > From Oscar Boswell > > To go back to Noonan's navigation for a moment (or I should say, to > navigation in general - let's decide if it applies to Noonan later) - > what should a navigator do who finds himself well off his intended track > on a long flight over open ocean, laying aside questions of wind or > weather? Let's try this again. The navigator's job is to get to the destination. If he gets to his destination then it doesn't matter how he navigated to get there. Success is success. If he fails to find the destination, then it matters a great deal how he navigated. Failure is failure. In Noonan's case, the question is whether the celestial navigation procedures he used enroute to Honolulu were good enough to find Howland Island without a radio bearing to steer by. If he used the same celestial procedures enroute Howland as he used enroute Honolulu, then we know the answer. They weren't good enough without a radio bearing. He didn't find Howland. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:43:53 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: KOSHU > Was the Koshu a "battleship" or not ? I believe international law says that a > warship is any vessel flying a nation's war colors (navy flag), sailing > under Unless I missed something in international law about sneak attacks I'm not sure Japan could be counted on to follow international law in regard to their ship classifications. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:46:08 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Failure to communicate Brandenburg states "if, as we suspect, Earhart's DF gear was rendered inoperable on takeoff at Lae, . . . " Did I miss something? The last I heard, TIGHAR was of the opinion COMMUNICATIONS (i.e, reception on 3105/6210) was what was lost when (presumably) the belly antenna was knocked off on takeoff. If, as I believe, that antenna was a "sense" antenna for the DF, it would not render the DF inoperable, only reduce reception sensitivity to some degree, since the loop was certainly still there. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric That's right. Either way, the loss of the belly antenna should not have affected the loop. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:48:40 EST From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Plan B > The big problem ( I think) was that AE had switched frequencies. Amen! That probably also answers the question as to why she didn't tell anyone what was going on or where they were going. The answer is that she most likely did.... on a frequency few if anyone ever heard. Alan #2329 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:00:36 EST From: Vern Klein Subject: Re: Lagoon Deposit Responding to Ric's post... >It's actually called a dredge - sort of like a an industrial strength Shop >Vac. Yes, it's deployable from a small boat. We bought it prior to the 1997 >trip thinking that we'd need to suck up and seive deposits of silt on the >lagoon bottom, but when we go to the lagoon bottom we found that there's not >enough silt to be worth sifting. Just enough to get stirred up and ruin the >visibility. Ric, Are you saying the dredge is not capable of moving enough material, Silt, Coral sand, etc., to be of any use in examining what might be deposited just inside the passage into the lagoon? Is the design of the thing such that one can attach a hose to the outlet to get material on shore for sifting? I'm hoping for a hose inlet and a hose outlet. Maybe it's not like that. **************************************************************************** From Ric Yes, it's like that and no, it's not capable of moving enough material to do a meaningful investigation of the sandbar inside the main passage. That area is HUGE. To search it you'd need a barge and some really heavy-duty dredging gear, and then you'd probably screw up the morphology of the whole island. Fortunately, there's little reason to think that anything is buried in that sandbar, according to a PhD reef biologist at the University of Hawaii who has considered the situation. Material washed through the passage should be on the lagoon bottom at the base of the "talus slope". One thing we'll need to check, however, is whether the edge of the sandbar has moved over the years. We have good aerial photography from 1939 and, with luck, the satellite imagery we'll be acquiring this spring should give us something to compare it to. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:01:39 EST From: Vern Subject: 3105 kc Crystal Does anyone know where/how I might get hold of one of those 3105 kc crystals? I have an experiment in mind and I would much rather use a crystal oscillator than a VFO sort of arrangement. There must be some of those crystals floating around. Is that frequency still designated for aircraft use? Of course, modern transmitters would synthesize from some other crystal frequency. Thanks, Vern ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:31:31 EST From: Tom MM Subject: Re: Probability of success Well I try, but I obviously can't claim to be clear at all. Trying to explain some of these ideas via e-mail can prove to be quite a challenge. First, let me quash a rumor that was perhaps my fault - I did not estimate the probability of success at 20%; that was part of an example trying to explain why I thought it was important to look at this. My own "optimistic" estimate is somewhat higher if you define success as hitting either Niku or McKean. I have given your comment about navigating a B-47 some thought, and being of marine extraction I had to consult my "recent" vintage of AFM 51-40 (15 Mar 83 reprinted 89). Lo and behold after a brief search I did not find extensive discussion of the type of error estimation that I am referring to. But it did occur to me that we are talking about a different generation of aircraft than NR 16020, both in speed and in terms of navigation technology. Certainly by 1983, high speed aircraft and technology were the standard. I suspect that by the time the B-47 flew, the ability to fix position had improved, and the problems of following a specific heading, and the need to estimate external forces had diminished somewhat. At 500 KT, an aircraft is still deflected 25NM by a 25KT crosswind in an hour, but the angular deflection is far less than with a 130 KT aircraft. Anyway, I remain convinced that it is worth looking into. The estimate that I refer to is one which can be done quickly - give yourself about the time FN would have had, and take a shot at best and worst case to get a sense of the range. I'm not asking for a rigorous post analysis - that would not be useful. After all, the decision would have been based on FN's rough estimate of the relative merits of the alternatives facing him, and it had to be assessed under great pressure. Here is another way of stating the question. You are making what you think to be a landfall approach - you are close, but are using a single LOP to home in with. That fails. Now you are faced with a decision. Continue to search for Howland via some rational pattern, strike out for the cluster of the Phoenix group, run down your present LOP (which has not resulted in finding an island even though you have run a reasonable distance in each direction), or head somewhere else. Which of these you choose may depend on your on the spot assessment of your chance of success. Actually, we should look at EACH option in exacting detail, AND we should consider the possibility of subsequent LOP's being taken (why not?) to improve the chances of each of these options, but that is another story. Looking for the moment at the running down of the LOP (via DR), we can ask the following: how far would you run down an LOP to a very small target if missing your destination was certain death? Let's say, that via prior fixes, you were pretty certain that you would turn onto the sun line LOP within XX NM of your target. Your search along that line fails, but you notice that another island (also in the middle of nowhere) lies 2,000 NM away along that LOP. Would you expect to hit it if you ran down (via DR) that LOP? Probably not. First, your confidence in your LOP itself might be waning, and then there are the difficulties of flying that LOP exactly given the concerns I listed (also, at longer distances are you trying to fly the (rhumb) line of position or the actual circle of position via offsets?). When do you decide that the odds are too long relative to your other choices - 50 NM, 350NM, 500NM? That's another way of looking at the question. You can view this from a couple of sides. If you feel that the Niku bones are certainly AE and FN, then who gives a hoot about the logic that got them there. If the question remains unresolved and the LOP logic troubles you, you may appreciate all that TIGHAR has done and is doing, but still wish that they would consider casting the net a little wider - at least as far as other islands in the Phoenix group. TOM MM **************************************************************************** From Ric Let me address your wish that TIGHAR cast its net a little wider - at least as far as other islands in the Phoenix Group. In learning all we can about Gardner we have, by necessity, also delved extensively into the history of the other islands of the Phoenix Group. (I could regale you for weeks with Tales of the Phoenix Islands Other Than Niku.) We don't talk about them much because we haven't come across anything that indicates that the flight may have reached any of those islands. Put another way, if we started from scratch and asked the question, "Of all the islands of the Phoenix Group, is there any one where some unexplained event is known to have happened that might have been associated with the Earhart flight?" - the answer would be "Unequivocally yes. Gardner." In short, TIGHAR's net does cover the entire Phoenix Group. As you know, we've also looked very carefully and at great length into the crashed-and-sank hypothesis and have found it unsupported by any direct evidence. It has merit only as a default explanation if the apparent positive indications that something else happened can be otherwise explained. Likewise, we've considered the Japanese-capture hypothesis and have found it to be utterly without merit. Our focus is on Gardner because that's where everything points. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:35:37 EST From: Mike Holt Subject: Re: Plan B > From Alan Caldwell > > > The big problem ( I think) was that AE had switched frequencies. > > Amen! That probably also answers the question as to why she didn't tell > anyone what was going on or where they were going. The answer is that she > most likely did.... on a frequency few if anyone ever heard. Who would have been listening to her frequency at that time? Mike Holt **************************************************************************** From Ric The radiomen aboard Itasca and Cipriani on Howland were the only game in town. Nobody else started listening for Earhart until she was reported missing. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:31:19 EST From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Plan B Ric wrote: >> The big problem ( I think) was that AE had switched frequencies. Alan wrote: > Amen! That probably also answers the question as to why she didn't tell > anyone what was going on or where they were going. The answer is that she > most likely did.... on a frequency few if anyone ever heard. Bingo! I fault AE and FN for their failure to problem-solve their radio problems more than anything else. She (the only one recorded on the transmitter) never seems to have understood how grave their situation was. Even if the Itasca had been able to get a bearing, how was she supposed to receive it? Whatever mistakes or limitations there may have been in FN's celestial navigation, this sealed their fate. Marty *************************************************************************** From Ric Venturing off-topic into dangerous territory, I'll suggest the possibility that this kind of behavior was basic to AE's entire approach to life. Let's look again at her now-famous poem, written in 1928 after she had learned to fly but before she became famous. ****************** Courage is the price that Life exacts for granting peace. The soul that knows it not, knows no release From little things; Knows not the livid lonliness of fear, Nor mountain heights where bitter joy can hear The sound of wings. How can life grant us boon of living, compensate For dull gray ugliness and pregnant hate Unless we dare The soul's dominion? Each time we make a choice, we pay With courage to behold the resistless day, And count it fair. ********************************* I've seen this mindset in other contexts. Sometimes its proponents are called "crazybrave" or "adrenaline junkies." They only feel alive when they are in immediate danger of dying. Conquering fear becomes an end rather than a means to an end. I suspect that it's what AE was really talking about when she said she flew for "the fun of it." In aviation, it's an attitude that will get ya killed. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:48:05 EST From: Woody Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart For Ron, It is still there, buried in a bunker on the beach. I am working on funding to go do just that.But dont get me wrong , Ron, that's not her plane in the photo. The length versus wingspan ratio is not correct. And the two seat Zero it's supposed to be buried with isnt the famous fighter plane either. Woody **************************************************************************** From Ric Anybody who would like to help Woody may contact him at planeguy@etahoe.com but we're not going to discuss his theory on this forum. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:23:57 EST From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: 3105 kc Crystal If Vern is looking for a 3105kc xtal, it might be worth a try to check out Fair Radio Sales Co. in Lima, Ohio. They deal with lots of gov't & commercial electronic/radio surplus, and have always had a lot of xmtrs, rcvrs, xtals, tubes, etc., from very vintage eras, at reasonable prices, too. Their webpage is at www.fairradio.com and their email address is: fairradio@wcoil.com . I have seen xtals similar to what Vern is describing in the old ARC-5 units, which used a dynamotor for power. Today, 3105 kc, or 3.105 Mhz is located in the area of the short wave bands where one generally finds utility-type stations, sending facsimile (fax) or radioteletype (rtty) transmissions. Some morse code (CW) transmissions turn up around there, too. Good luck in your search, Vern! Dr. Gene Dangelo, N3XKS, #2211 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:32:12 EST From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Plan B For an excellent example of the type of personality profile that looks for peril and adversity with at most a cavalier attitude towards routine safety procedures, read Jon Krakauer's book, "Into the Wild". A young college man walks into the Alaska wilds to survive as a " test", not a suicical attempt. Admired by some as "courageous" and "nobel", others regarded him as a "reckless idiot, a wacko,...who perished out of "arropgance and stupidity". Perhaps that profile is quite close to AEs almost defiant attitude towards her radio and DF capabilities that would have saved her life on this 2556 mile trek. She reportedly did not have a "plan B", an alternative landing field. Ron Bright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:02:33 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Harmonics I just received and read the latest TIGHAR Tracks. Regarding the article on Betty's notebook, could either Ric or the radio experts put together and post a brief explanation of what is meant by radio "harmonics"----it may have been described before, but I suspect that I am not alone in forgetting what it is, and it's essential to understanding the article and the validity of the notebook. Thanks, and I apologize if this goes over old ground a bit. --Chris Kennedy *************************************************************************** From Ric I'll give it a shot. A harmonic is nothing more than a multiple of a given frequency. In other words, when AE was putting out a signal on 3105 Kilocycles she was also putting out a signal on multiples of that same frequency, although at lower power. Bob found that, although the chances of Betty hearing AE on 3105 were effectly zero, she could theortetically have heard her on one of the higher multiples (harmonics) of that frequency. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:44:51 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Harmonics Thanks---what I am thinking is that these harmonics are sort of like an "echo" of the main transmission frequency? How far off am I (no jokes!)? --Chris Kennedy **************************************************************************** From Ric If it helps you to think of it that way.... but they occur simultaneously with the transmission. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:45:50 EST From: Don Neumann Subject: Understanding the LOP <<...'When worst did come to worst, the decision about how far to explore northward along the LOP was dictated purely by the estimate of remaining fuel and the known distance between Howland and the farthest island on the LOP (Gardner). When they start southward Noonan is still hoping that the island that will eventually appear will be Howland. I think Amelia's "running north and south" message is ambiguous because she really didn't understand what Noonan was doing. Yes, when the plane was probably headed southeast the ship was headed in the opposite direction but that didn't happen until two hours after the 08:43 message. The big problem ( I think) was that AE had switched frequencies'... LTM, Ric.>> My problem is simply trying to understand how FN could know just how far they could safely fly to the NW on the LOP, if he had no idea (even approximately) where they were on the LOP upon turning NW ? For instance, _if_ at the point where the LOP should be intersecting with Howland they _actually_ were already 100 miles NW of Howland & flew yet another 50-100 miles NW from _that_ point, wouldn't returning to that _original_ point of turning NW & then flying another 100 miles SE, back toward Howland make the actual total miles flown to reach Gardner &/or another of the Phoenix Islands, (from the original point they started to...'run north'...) close to 500-700 miles, instead of the 350-400 miles calculated to the SE directly from Howland ? However, _if_ FN _had_ calculated a specific offset to the SE of where he _expected_ Howland to be, FN would at least have had _some_ reasonable approximation as to just how far they could fly to the NW on the LOP in order to properly limit consumption of their dwindling fuel supply, before turning back, in order to refly that same distance to the original turning point on the SE leg of the LOP & to continue on to successfully reach an alternate landfall at Gardner. Assuming they had been able to determine rate of fuel consumption throughout the flight, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, they certainly should have been able to at least reasonably approximate the _total_ number of _hours_ they could remain aloft before draining the tanks. However, if they did not know (even approximately) how close they were to Howland or even whether they were NW or SE of Howland, how could they determine the outer limits of their flight to the NW on the LOP, in order to keep fuel consumption within sufficient parameters to assure they could reach a safe landfall at Gardner ? Maybe it's just the limitations of my navigationally challenged, non-aviator's mind-set, but this aspect of the flight to alternate landfall at Gardner has always given me trouble! Don Neumann **************************************************************************** From Ric I think you may be making it more complicated than it is. Draw a line seven inches long, each inch representing a hundred nautical miles. Now put a dot in the middle of the line. That's Howland. Put another dot about a half inch to the right of Howland. That's Baker. Put a third dot at the right-hand end of the line. That's Gardner. (We'll keep it simple and not worry about McKean.) The Problem Okay, so you have your line with the three dots. You feel quite certain that you are someplace on that line, but you dont know where. You would much prefer to find the middle dot but you MUST find one of the dots or die. You believe you have enough fuel to travel about 4 and a half inches along the line. What course of action can you follow that will maximize your chances of finding the middle dot while guaranteeing that you will not die? The Solution Again, assuming that you are someplace on the line, what is the greatest distance you can be from a dot? Three and a half inches (350 nm) if you are at the extreme left end of the line. You have four and a half inches worth of fuel, so you can do anything you want with that extra inch as long as come back to your starting place and start down the line to the right when you have three and a half inches left. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:47:46 EST From: Mike E. the Radio Historian #2194 Subject: Re: Harmonics "Echo" is not the right concept at all. Think of harmonics as OVERTONES. Just as a piano string vibrates at its resonant frequency, it also contains multiples of that frequency. >Thanks---what I am thinking is that these harmonics are sort of like an "echo" >of the main transmission frequency? How far off am I (no jokes!)? See above. >but they occur simultaneously with the transmission. Yes. Absolutely. An "echo" is something that occurs "later." Like, when you shout across a canyon, you hear it come back to you. Or, like a signal bounces off something (a la radar) and returns to the receiver. We are not, repeat NOT, dealing with that concept. Ric, give this horse a .30-06 betwixt the eyes before he gets out of control.... LTM (whose loud voice carries all over the neighborhood) and 73 Mike E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:38:47 EST From: Mike E. the Radio Historian (aka writing teacher) #2194 Subject: Re: Plan B Yeah, this is off topic, but it's interesting nonetheless. I take up this thread all the time with my creative writing students, when dealing with profiling characters. >Venturing off-topic into dangerous territory, I'll suggest the possibility >that this kind of behavior was basic to AE's entire approach to life. >Sometimes its proponents are called "crazybrave" or "adrenaline junkies." They only >feel alive when they are in immediate danger of dying. Conquering fear becomes an end >rather than a means to an end. This sort of personality is defined by psychologist Carl Jung as "sensation" behavior. It is a common attribute of entertainers, cheerleaders, athletes, others who "live for/in the moment," who enjoy public adulation, often reacting immediately and instinctively, often without regard to the consequences of their actions. LTM (who thinks through everything) and 73 Mike E. **************************************************************************** From Marty Moleski > Courage is the price that Life exacts for granting peace. > The soul that knows it not, knows no release > From little things ... > ... she flew for "the fun of it." In aviation, > it's an attitude that will get ya killed. Agreed. And yet, maybe, when all is said and done, AE and FN died happy. Thanks for reposting the poem. Marty **************************************************************************** From Ric I would speculate that it's hard to feel happy when you're lying alone and fever-stricken with the crabs waiting for you to finally expire. **************************************************************************** From Ross Devitt > she said she flew for "the fun of it." In aviation, it's an attitude that > will get ya killed. Damn.. Now I have to find another reason to fly... :-( >A young college man walks into the Alaska wilds to survive as a " test", Then there was the American a couple of years back that did the same thing in the Australian desert. Fortunately someone noticed he was missing, decided he was an idiot and set off a full scale search to find him before he died, so he can go and do it again somewhere else and cost them a fortune in S&R funds.. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Woody >A young college man walks into the Alaska wilds to survive as a " test", Ron , Did he die? Maybe he lives in Japan. Woody *************************************************************************** From Cam Warren >Venturing off-topic into dangerous territory, I'll suggest the >possibility that this kind of behavior was basic to AE's entire >approach to life. I can understand Ric's reluctance to "venture", but I personally congratulate him (sincerely) for the apparent maturation in his thinking. In broadening the focus of investigation into the disappearance of the Electra he's made a giant leap forward. Formerly, the "scientific method" has been TIGHAR's sole and exclusive approach to a solution of the problem, despite protest from a few of us dissenters. We have no quarrel with the scientific method properly applied, but (to oversimplify perhaps) it is best applied to inanimate objects. If that famous tree falls in that distant forest, we answer the question "why?" by a precise analysis of weather, soil conditions, type of wood, age of the tree, etc. etc., arriving at a scientific conclusion. (Which generally means that the event can be duplicated by repeating the precise conditions). When the incident involves animate objects (read "humans"), new parameters are introduced. We know that when the lady pulled the trigger, the weapon's hammer struck the cartridge, the bullet traveled through the air at a precise, measurable velocity, and killed her husband. (The scientific analysis). But WHY did she shoot him? As your average capable detective would suggest, "you'd have to get into her head" for the reason. (That means psychological profiling.) In the Earhart case, fuel exhaustion is a reasonable scientific explanation, although admittedly one of several "inanimate" causes. But how would Amelia and/or Fred react? Where would they go? That calls for close consideration of their past performances, experience, attitude toward life, etc. etc. In short, the "human factors". Despite ridicule expressed or implied by TIGHAR members I (and others) have continued to examine these less tangible factors, which have provided some credible clues as to AE/FN's likely behavior. Such analysis, perhaps hard to quantify, is perfectly legitimate,and absolutely necessary to solve the Earhart enigma. It is NOT dangerous territory, and belongs in the TIGHAR repertory. I have no quarrel with your fixation on Nikumaroro, except to say that in my estimation it would not have been the alternate landing spot of choice. There's also a strong liklihood that Amelia would have stubbornly followed her own instincts, and headed for the Gilberts. I do believe Noonan was more than adequately competent, while admitting there seems to be some evidence of over-confidence. And I, along with the real experts, think the plane rests on the ocean bottom, but have no tangible proof. Except to say, "the ratio of sea to land is huge, and the Electra hasn't been found ashore. Ergo, it's at the bottom - somewhere!" Certainly that's an arguable conclusion, and "the ball is still in play". But, for now, I again applaud the indication of TIGHAR "widening the (investigative) net" It's better for all of us. Cam Warren **************************************************************************** From Ric While I appreciate Cam's kudos, I'm not sure that we're doing what he thinks we're doing. We've used scientific methodology to arrive at an understanding of what happened - to the limited extent that is possible based upon the available information. Knowing what AE did (i.e. embarked upon and proceeded with a dangerous flight despite conditions and circumstances that would have caused a more prudent pilot to abort) we can make some informed speculations about why she might have done something like that. It's a big jump from that to trying to draw conclusions about unknown events based upon speculation as to what she "would" do. **************************************************************************** From Hue Miller That's an interesting take on the Trans World flight, I've not seen it summarized this way before, which seems to reveal AE as an "Xtreme Sports" practitioner of her time. Hue Miller **************************************************************************** From Ric In the years I've been living with Mrs. Putnam I've come to see her as a far more interesting and complicated - if not necessarily as admirable - person than the popular icon. I think flying terrified her, and that's why she did it. **************************************************************************** From Denise Re: Plan B: I see A.E. as more of an Alexander the Great type ... one of those supremely self-confident people who is absolutely convinced that s/he is in the hands of the gods all of whom are lined up just waiting to work personal miracles for her/him in every situation. A.E. should have taken heed that the gods finally deserted Alexander just as they finally deserted her. You remember that story? How Alexander the Great discovered his own "mortal-ness"? How, when leaving India, against all advice he took the impossibly difficult, shorter path through the desert, rather than the easier but longer path along the coast? Everyone said this trip would kill him and his army, but his attitude was that since he was A.t.G, the gods would again work their miracles to get him and his army through ... but this didn't happen. Although he survived, he lost most of his beloved warriors ... and he never recovered from this. The shock to his system caused by godly desertion was so great he just sat back, got fat, wallowed in depression, and he died shortly afterwards, a shadow of his former self. I wasn't in the least surprised when I heard that A.E. and Fred were joking and laughing in their post-crash radio messages. I feel A.E. was still operating within her belief that she was "beloved of the gods", and that she'd have a miracle worked on her behalf, and that she kept this attitude until Fred's death. I think it wasn't until then she realised just how serious a situation she was in, and I think the realisation would have been a brutal kick in the teeth. I also think that, like Alexander, when discovering her own mortal-ness, she would have just sat back and waited for death; all fight gone. LTM (who also sees Lawrence of Arabia in these terms) Denise **************************************************************************** From Ric Joking and laughing in their post-crash radio messages? Where did that come from? The only real similarity I see between AE and Alexander is perhaps the dimensions of their egos. AE did not believe herself to be immortal and almost delighted in anticipating her own imagined heroic demise in her various "popping off" letters. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:54:11 EST From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: The wreck of the CANTON Ric wrote: > What has always seemed odd about what Gallagher found is that it was the > remains of one person and possibly evidence of two people - a man and a > woman - with no indication of how they may have arrived on the island. I always wondered about the missing bodies. How many bodies were missing? Could one or two have washed ashore somewhere, dazed or too injured initially to go searching for friends at the other end of the island? It is the only other alternative however unlikely that could throw a spanner in the works. It could account for the sextant box, the corks on chains and the bottle. It isn't my personal favourite as I still tend towards the Electra on the reef idea. I lean towards the Electra being pulled back into deep water rather than the lagoon. One look at the Luke Field inventory shows that the natives would have had a treasure trove of stuff had they found the thing intact, or even if it had broken up anywhere on the reef. Odd useful bits would have been washed ashore for years. A coupe of thermos flasks, canteens, torches, heaps of rope, spare aluminium pieces for repairs, food. One thing that is always popular on islands is beach combing. Th' WOMBAT **************************************************************************** From Ric Eleven men were lost in the wreck of the Norwich City. Three bodies washed ashore and were buried by the survivors. The Luke Field inventory is not a record of what was aboard the aircraft three months later. We really have no idea how much debris may have been washed up and subsequently used by the local population. We do have several anecdotal accounts and a few suspicious artifacts, but the nature of the local use of aluminum was apparently consumptive (fishing tackle and small decorative objects such as combs). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:57:23 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: How Common Are Castaways? Alan C. wrote: >You could bog down yourself and Ric and any of us trying to "define" "rare" >to some arbitrary scientific quantify and it would solve nothing. >We all know what "rare" means. You know what "rare" means. Why not deal with >something that moves the ball forward. There are some points that need to be made here. 1. Rare is a meaningless term to me if it cannot be quantified. Either you have the data to support that an event has a low probability of occurring or you do not. The casual use of the term "rare", by layman and folks who know better, has perpetuated a lot of myths and scams through the years. 2. TIGHAR, and some members of the Forum, have separated themselves from the pack by applying scientific principles to aviation archaeology and historic research. Given that fact, if a forumite states the a particular occurance of a piece of evidence is "rare" or, for example, that Earhart had a Plan B, the Forum has a duty to ask that the statement be backed up. "Rare" (or not) in the context of a castaway may not be as important as finding Plan B but If you let the little things slide in some scientific investigations the big stuff will follow. 3. Asking questions about the available evidence (shoes, castaways, dados, plexi etc.), and trying to place it within some context, does move the investigation forward. No one knows where the line of inquiry will lead. In my experience, casting the light of context, historical or otherwise, onto the available evidence often times leads to unexpected but fruitful results The recent questions I asked about the 1991 shoe (and the Colonel's response), the work Mike F. did on 2-2-V-1, Ric's work on the map box, etc. all moved the investigation forward even though none of them served to directly find Earhart. Aside from visiting Niku, you do not get anywhere by not asking questions and brainstorming about issues related to the evidence. Alan C wrote: >Say there were a hundred thousand [shipwrecks]. But if we know of none in the >Phoenix group we could still say it was a rare occurance on Niku. Your key words here are "if we know of none....we could....say it was rare" We do not know that there were none (no additional) castaways in the Phoenix group so it is not fair to say the event is "rare". My research into castaways in the Pacific continues. I see your postings occassionally. Refresh my memory. What part of this investigation are you researching to "move the ball forward"? LTM Kenton Spading, 1382CE ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:21:17 EST From: Oscar Boswell Subject: Re: Going in Great Circles (But Making Some Progress) Bob Brandenburg wrote: > The navigator's job is to get to the destination. > > If he gets to his destination then it doesn't matter how he navigated to get > there. Success is success. > > If he fails to find the destination, then it matters a great deal how he > navigated. Failure is failure. > > In Noonan's case, the question is whether the celestial navigation procedures he > used enroute to Honolulu were good enough to find Howland Island without a radio > bearing to steer by. > > If he used the same celestial procedures enroute Howland as he used enroute > Honolulu, then we know the answer. They weren't good enough without a radio > bearing. He didn't find Howland. I was absolutely delighted by Bob's response to my question "what should a navigator do who finds himself well off his intended track on a long flight over open ocean?" It neatly exposes the problem I have with this whole series of postings. The three appropriate reactions to Bob's response might be called legal, emotive and logical: a- Legal: Motion to strike as non-responsive (Bob answers a question that was not only not asked, but was specifically excluded - "let's decide if it applies to Noonan later"); b- Emotive: "Say what??" c- Logical: with all respect, I think Bob's reasoning suffers from concealed (or, as a teacher of mine used to say, "inarticulate") major premises - as we all do, from time-to-time. Some of these previously unarticulated premises (as I would prefer to call them) appear in Bob's response. And in spite of the brevity of that response, it exposes the shifting nature of the reasoning, and the tendency to string phrases together in pretend syllogisms. If "success is success," and "failure is failure", why are we bothering with this discussion? We know they [note the pronoun well] didn't reach Howland - if that equals "failure by the Navigator" the discussion is over, isn't it? ( But didn't Bob deny just the other day contending that Noonan would have missed Honolulu without the radio bearing? Can we flip Bob's reasoning around: If "success is success", the Honolulu flight was successful - and would have been successful without radio; therefore, etc.etc.) Bob says "the question is whether the celestial navigation procedures [Noonan] used enroute to Honolulu were good enough to find Howland Island without a radio bearing ..." No - that's not the question at all. The question is whether the procedures Noonan used en route to Howland were good enough to find Howland without radio - and the question is not answered simply by saying "they didn't reach Howland." Bob is right that the procedures that Noonan used en route to Honolulu might be of some use in answering that question; I think, however, that he may be incorrect in jumping to conclusions about those procedures and overstating his case. I think what Bob is saying is that the chart shows: a- Noonan relied on "two-body" fixes rather than "three-body" fixes, which are more accurate; b- Noonan didn't take fixes often enough; c- Noonan didn't hold either the rhumb line or great circle tracks; d- on receiving Mapakuu beacon, FN made a course change and navigated to it. These are interesting points, but so are the following: a- GUBA's navigation accross the entire Pacific in 1938 relied exclusively on "two body" fixes. b- GUBA averaged fixes every three hours or so, not the one hour a forum participant suggested was barely adequate the other day (did someone suggest they should have been done every 20 minutes, or did I imagine that?); c- GUBA approximated the great circle to Hawaii, but was 10 to 15 miles South of the great circle at one point, and 30 or 35 North of the great circle at another; d- on receiving the beacon (at about 120 miles - much closer in than FN) GUBA (then 20 miles or so North of the great circle and perhaps 40 miles North of the rhumb line) made a 10 degree course change to the South. Ric has assured me that I will see a "contrast" between GUBA and FN' s work, and perhaps I will. Because "a mind closed on any subject might as well never have thought at all," we should all try to approach the matter objectively. But the point of the GUBA information listed above is this - one can write it up in a way that makes the GUBA's navigator seem inadequate, as Bob's write up of FN's work tends to make FN look inadequate. Perhaps he was (though Weems didn't seem to notice it), or perhaps there are other interpretations of (and explanations for) what appears on Bob's map, which I look forward to finding at my office tomorrow (today is Mardi Gras, so Louisiana is closed). Ric has also promised me "a map showing the track of the 1935 PAA Clipper flight from Alameda to Honolulu" from Weems' 1938 "Air Navigation" - I haven't received that yet, but if this is the same "course chart" given as Figure 65 on page 99 of the 1943 edition of "Air Navigation", let me point out that that chart is rather obviously one that tells us more about the DF than it does about Noonan. Look at the "last bearing from Alameda (1540) miles," which appears on the rhumb line at roughly the same latitude (time) as a bearing from Hawaii on the great circle. Unless FN was able to be in two places at once, the chart depicts the variation in bearing between the two stations, not Noonan's track. Remember, the stated accuracy of the PAA Adcock direction finder was 1 1/2 degrees at 1000 miles This equals 38 or 39 miles at 1540 miles. Factoring in an error of 18 or 19 miles from the other (closer) direction finder gives a total of nearly 60 miles difference, about what we see on the chart as the difference between the two bearings around 146 W. (The bearings, incidentally, were taken by the ground stations and radioed to the plane - which had a small DF that it used only close in for checks. (See W.S. Grouch, "Skyway to Asia," pages 195-97.) Let's go back to the question Bob chose not to answer - which had a point to make: "what should a navigator do who finds himself WELL OFF his intended track on a long flight over open ocean, laying aside questions of wind or weather?" The question postulated that the flight was 200 miles North of the rhumb line and 100 miles North of the great circle at the midpoint of a 2000 mile flight. The answer is that the navigator should chart a new course for the destination - he should NOT attempt to return to the original track (great circle or rhumb line, as the case may be). He should navigate from where he is to where he needs to go. (This is, remember, for an uncontrolled flight over open ocean. Questions of airways, ATC, terrain clearance, etc., might vary the answer in other contexts.) The point in relationship to the Oakland - Honolulu flight is that comments that FN failed to return to the rhumb line or great circle course (which may have been made by persons other than Bob) are not valid criticism. If you're off the intended course substantially, that is not necessarily the right thing to do. There are a number of other interesting questions with regard to the navigation to Lae to Howland that should be addressed. May I suggest the following as a start: a- what DF accuracy could have been expected even if things had worked (there was no Adcock DF at Howland, was there)? 10 degrees; 20 degrees? See Weems, page 98. b- would the absence of a navigation hatch or bubble have impaired FN's ability to obtain usable sights? (I.e., would the bearings of the bodies in relationship to the plane's course have caused a loss of some bodies as references?) May I ask another question - will you post Noonan's chart with Bob's map? Best wishes. Oscar **************************************************************************** From Ric Regretably, I don't have a copy of Noonan's Oakland/Honolulu chart. Randy Jacobson might. Let me clear up one point of confusion. It was me, not Bob, who said that Noonan would have missed Honolulu were it not for DF. That was not a valid conclusion, but the mistake was mine, not Bob's. You're correct that the illustration in Weems indicates the position of the Adcock bearings rarther than the track of the flight. Again, my error. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:23:17 EST From: Kenton Spading Subject: Castaway Research Thank you for your reply on the castaway research post I agree that post-1941 castaways need to be qualified given the influx of personnel to the region during the war. All of the other points you made in your post are good and worthy of consideration. you wrote: ........but if we're attempting to determine the statistical "rarity" of castaways in the Pacific in 1940.............. That is only part of the effort that is underway. My goal is to find the Gardner Island bones. Sometimes you have to ask questions and pursue lines of research that on the face of it seem unrelated to the end goal. I have not articulated the plan very well and do not have time to get into it right now. More later. LTM Kenton S. **************************************************************************** From Ric I'm all in favor of finding the bones. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:27:50 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Failure to communicate Cam Warren wrote: > Did I miss something? The last I heard, TIGHAR was of the > opinion COMMUNICATIONS (i.e, reception on 3105/6210) was what > was lost when (presumably) the belly antenna was knocked off on > takeoff. If, as I believe, that antenna was a "sense" antenna > for the DF, it would not render the DF inoperable, only reduce > reception sensitivity to some degree, since the loop was > certainly still there. Cam - and others - this supposition seems realistic, but there is more to the story. We do know that the RDF or RDF-like unit had 5 tuning bands. Thus, it seems most likely, comparing it to the 6-band high frequency, type RDF or type DU units, it could not tune to 7500. Rather, top end would seem to be either around 1600, or maybe ~4800, if it was in fact a high frequency type. In NEITHER case would the loop, sans sense antenna, develop ANY output by itself, in the out-of-resonance condition. I believe Long gets this wrong also. IF the bottom antenna was in fact lost, this seems to say, strange as it may seem, that the top antenna was switched over, via T/R relay in the transmitter, to serve as sense antenna. Sorry to bring up the antennas conundrum again, but i think this point needed to be made. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:29:06 EST From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: 3105 kc Crystal > From Vern > > Does anyone know where/how I might get hold of one of those 3105 kc >crystals? Odd coincidence - I was at Old Technology Shop in Seattle on Sunday and handled one of these. I was looking for specific aircraft-type crystal holders for someone else. (He will not ship anything - but if you still need in a couple months when i go up there again, i can fetch it.) By all means, ask at Fair Radio, Lima Ohio. If no luck, probably a notice on the military radio collector group at qth.com will get you one. Hue Miller ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:35:54 EST From: Denise Subject: Wholehearted Agreement, but ... Ric says: Okay, here's another reading of those words. "We must be on you....." carries the implied prefix "According to our calculations...". I concur wholeheartedly, but now the meaning is "According to our calculations, we're here. But the island still isn't!" This changes things HOW? LTM (who blows raspberries in Sean Wilson's direction!) Denise *************************************************************************** From Ric This changes things by acknowledging that there are three possible reasons for the airplane and the island not being in the same place. 1. The island is not where it is "supposed" to be. 2. The airplane is not where it is "supposed" to be. 3. Neither the airplane nor the island is where it is "supposed" to be. Thus my disgreement with your statement that "We must be on you but cannot see you." must be interpreted as meaning that AE and FN had incorrect coordinates for Howland's position (or, as you put it, had the WRONG MAP). LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:45:31 EST From: Gene Dangelo Subject: Re: Harmonics Mike E., the Radio Historian is quite correct! In my college days, when I was earning my first music degree (and already being a radio buff) and had to study both music theory and acoustics, I was amazed to find that the formula for effective organ pipe length and that for effective antenna length was, in fact the same formula, with only a vastly different coefficient multiplied in the formula, due to where in the wave spectrum we are. Harmonics, in the musical sense and in the radio sense, are the mathematical MULTIPLES of a basic, or "fundamental" frequency. That would explain, for example, why we have the note "A" at not only 440 Hz, but also at 880 Hz (an octave higher), and at 1760 Hz (yet another octave higher), and so forth, until we leave the audible spectrum. Radio frequency harmonics, while out of the audible spectrum of frequency, follow the same principle. If someone is transmitting at 3105 Khz, it is conceivable that under the right circumstances their signal may also be picked up at 6210Khz as a harmonic. Image frequencies are also a radio phenomenon to be reckoned with, having to do with the intermediate frequency of the radio equipment. If memory serves me correctly, sometimes amplitude modulated signals could be picked up at a false frequency which was the fundamental frequency plus twice the intemediate frequency (usually 455 kc) of the receiver, if the receiver's selectivity was not the best. That would yield, with a 3105kc signal, an image at, say, 3105 + (455x2), or 3105 + 910=4015 kc. Anyway, the interesting aspect of all of this acoustical math, is that it was all devised by Pythagoras, long before we knew anything of radios! Gene Dangelo # 2211 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:46:42 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Ocean Islanders Thanks to Denise for the info. re. the "Ocean Islanders" (aka Banabans). Yes, I'm aware of their relocation (Harry Maude was instrumental in arranging for it, and they have a web site at http://www.ion.com.au/~banaban/. As for Koata's son, however, I understand that he was working for Government on Ocean Island in the '50s, and as far as I know wasn't involved with the community itself. Talking to Banabans is a good idea, though, and I'll look into it. I doubt if they're hanging around the Grand Pacific, however; as of '99 the great old hotel (where we held team meetings in '89) was thoroughly boarded up and fenced. It cries out for rehabilitation, but.... LTM (who'd love to have the Fiji Dollars to put the Grand Pacific back in business) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:23:44 EST From: Chris Kennedy Subject: Re: Castaway Research On the issue of castaways in the Pacific, a useful source of information and direction may be the International Maritime Organization. This is one of the few U.N. organizations which is non-political, and really does excellent work in the area of all things maritime (safety, law, the problem with stowaways, piracy issues, etc.). Maritime issues are the same the world over, and there is a tendency to uniform ideas and concepts so that international commerce can be conducted (the cargo owner in France has the same interest as the cargo owner in Japan for the safety of his goods). They have a website, and I will bet that somewhere they have good information on the historical record of castaways/people lost in the Pacific. It seems to me that one problem with this whole line of research is basic source material, and the IMO may have developed an objectively sound methodology to approach it (for example, how many people have been lost overboard/shipwrecked over the years based on ships logs, etc). Otherwise, the line of research seems to rely on "survivor stories/books" over the years, which probably don't give an accurate picture of the magnitude of the problem. --Chris Kennedy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:30:02 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Aluminium I think Christian may be envisioning our being able to see both the aluminum and the ferrous metal on the surface of the lagoon floor, and checking which is which with a magnet. Unfortunately, it's quite likely that it WON'T be on the surface. What we'll see on the surface (if anything) will be whatever has most recently been swept clear of sediments by the currents through Tatiman Passage. It could well be that NOTHING will appear on the surface, but that magnetometers will go crazy when passed over the surface. On the other hand, of course, there could be all kinds of stuff lying around, readily visible. We're going to need to think about both possibilities, and several scenarios in between. LTM Tom King **************************************************************************** From Ric What evidence do we have that anything gets buried on the lagoon bottom? The one area we've examined had only a thin covering of silt and the depth of the lagoon in that area had not changed significantly since the Bushnell soundings in 1939. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:31:02 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: A woman on Gardner or Not I suppose that one could do some sort of quantitative analysis of historical sources on shipwrecks in the Pacific and come up with a measure of how rare castaways of the female gender have been, but it would be hard to be sure of accuracy, and it doesn't seem like a priority to me. I think we can assume that most people who float around the Pacific don't get cast away, and that before the age of extensive adventure touring by people of both genders most Europeans floating around the Pacific and hence eligible for casting away were male -- though certainly there were exceptions, including those noted by Kenton. I'm with Ric on this one. LTM (who's never been cast away) Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:26:44 EST From: Dave Bush Subject: maritime losses Ric: I will contact the IMO and check on their sources (if any) for castaways or maritime losses in the Phoenix Island chain. Yours, Dave Bush **************************************************************************** From Ric Dan Postellon also found this: Unknown wreck on Hull (Orona) between 1965 and Nov. 29, 2000. Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 http://www.pbs.org/odyssey/odyssey/20001129_log_transcript.html It's a fishing trawler and it was there in 1970 when Bruce Yoho visited the island. I've seen his home movies of it. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:33:31 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Koshu and Kamoi Fascinating, Kerry! I wonder if what happened was that the Japanese put the word out for "the public" (koshu) to keep an eye out for the plane, castaways, etc -- as the British apparently did in the Gilberts -- and this got translated into the notion that a ship called Koshu had been assigned to the search. Tom King ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:34:32 EST From: Cam Warren Subject: Re: Failure to communicate Hue says: "We do know that the RDF or RDF-like unit had 5 tuning bands." And therein lies the problem, because we DON'T know that. Whatever the validity of Hue's further comments, that one fact remains. And we DO know (thanks to Hue, curiously) that the Bendix RDF-1B DID cover frequencies to 8 mc. Cam Warren ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:36:04 EST From: Tom King Subject: Re: Flying boat search for Earhart Taroa was subjected to a pretty thorough archaeological survey several years ago by the Marshall Islands Historic Preservation Office, then under the direction of the Dr. Dirk Spenneman mentioned in an earlier post. Unaccountably, the Electra on the runway seems not to have been noted. LTM Tom King ************************************************************************** From Ric That's because it's buried in the beach (according to Woody). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:37:24 EST From: Phil Tanner Subject: Re: Castaway Research I honestly think this is not a productive avenue. There's a certain intellectual stimulation in pondering definitions of the word "rare", but that's not the issue, surely? In as sparsely populated an area as the Phoenix Islands in 1937, by any sensible definition there weren't that many skeletons knocking around, period. And while I'd hate to reopen the "you can't prove a negative" thread, the only way to prove the bones and artefacts (UK spelling!) related to the flight is to prove that they belonged to Earhart or Noonan, because saying "they couldn't have belonged to anyone else" will never constitute proof. LTM, Phil 2276