Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:24:23 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Ron Bright says: > I have an order into the LA Times for the 24 June LA Times article. Thanks Ron. > In my Last Flight edition, p.123, soft cover, she wrote that about > an hour after their arrival at Bandoeng a telephone call from New York > reached her. She speculated that it was like being in Cleveland in Mayor Jack > Berry's office, and Jack would probably say "G.P wants you to check in". > > The actual content of the telephone call or the sender is not reported. The content was not reported in Last Flight but it was described in Amelia's article in the next day's New York Herald Tribune (June 22, 1937). The call was from her husband and "The conversation mostly concerned arrangements being made for the two flights from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island and thence to Honolulu." In digging into this further I am embarrassed to discover that I have been laboring under a huge misconception about the level of communication available to Earhart during this portion of the World Flight. Ever since she reached Khartoum in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan on June 13th she had filed daily stories with the New York Herald Tribune office by TELEPHONE. The stories the Tribune published are very clear. Some are bylined "By Amelia Earhart - via wireless" while others say "By Amelia Earhart - via telephone." All of the stories she sent from South America and Senegal were via wireless - in other words, radio telegram. She filed no stories during the three-day trip across Africa, but once she got to British Khartoum, telephone service became available and her stories from Massawa, Eritrea; Karachi, India; Calcutta, India; Akyab, Burma; Rangoon, Burma; Singapore; and Bandoeng, Java in the Netherlands East Indies were all phoned in. Putnam, at this time, was in New York. When he talked to AE on the phone he simply went down to Herald Trib office. As for the alleged phone call from Sourabaya to Cheyenne, I'm pretty well convinced it never happened. She filed no story from Sourabaya but the Herald Tribune correspondent who did used wireless. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 15:31:17 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: the phantom phone call Ric, But couldn't future arrangements to call GP at Cheyene have been made by AE on the 22 June telephone call, as things were getting pretty tight. The LA Times will take about 7-10 days, but their researcher is on it as we speak. Can you call Long for more details.... Ron B. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:09:47 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Ron Bright asks, > But couldn't future arrangements to call GP at Cheyene have been made by AE > on the 22 June telephone call, as things were getting pretty tight. Let's look at the situation as it was known to Earhart and Putnam at the time of the June 22nd phone call. For AE in Bandoeng, it's early afternoon on Tuesday, July 22. She hopes to get an early start the tomorrow morning (Wed. the 23rd) and make the 1,665-mile flight to Darwin, arriving there before dark. She has no intention, at that time, of stopping in Surabaya which is only 355 miles from Bandoeng. For Putnam in New York, it's 2 a.m. Tuesday morning. He is planning to leave for the West Coast that night and probably knows when his flight is scheduled to stop in Cheyenne. We have the United Airlines schedule for August 1937. June may have been somewhat different but probably not much. If he was flying on United, GP really had only one choice - Flight 3 "The Continental Sleeper" - a DC-3, or more accurately a DST (Douglas Sleeper Transport) that departed New York daily at 5:55 p.m. Flight 3 arrived in Chicago at 9:40 p.m. Central Time. That's 712 miles in 5.25 hours averaging 135 mph. A bit slow but probably allows for traffic. It departed again at 10:00 p.m. and arrived in Cheyenne at 2:33 a.m. Mountain Time. That's 887 miles in 5.5 hours averaging 161 mph. The airplane departed Cheyenne at 2:48 a.m. and arrived in Salt Lake at 5:29 a.m. That's 392 miles in 2.75 hours averaging 142 mph. "The Continental Sleeper" departed Salt Lake at 6:00 a.m. Mountain Time and arrived in San Francisco at 8:40 Pacific Time. That's 654 miles in 3.66 hours averaging 178 mph (which seems awfully fast). Flight 3 continued on over to Oakland - GPs destination - at 8:50 arriving there at 09:00 a.m. I'm frankly amazed that they could turn the airplane around, including refueling, as fast as they did. The airplane is only on the ground in Cheyenne for 15 minutes. I think anyone can see how utterly absurd it is to think that Earhart could have intercepted her husband there even if she knew the published schedule. In a marathon trip like that, the chances of the airplane being in Cheyenne for that particular 15 minute period would seem to be very remote. More to the point, what could possibly be that urgent, and that she would know in advance would be that urgent, to justify even trying such an interception when he was scheduled to be in Oakland just a few hours later. > The LA Times will take about 7-10 days, but their researcher is on it as > we speak. It will be interesting to see what it says. > Can you call Long for more details.... I'm not going to start querying Elgen. His book has to stand as he wrote it. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 20:39:05 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: the phantom phone call Ric, Pretty convincing evidence based on those schedules that AE couldn't have intercepted GP at Cheyenne. (Unless he called her, but noone reports that). As you say , why call then? The big question remains, is why would AE or anyone fabricate that story. It doesn't seem earthshaking regarding her flight, mission, and logistics. Why the importance? Does anyone have a Last Flight, p 178, Long's cite? LTM, Ron ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:49:49 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Ron Bright wrote: > Does anyone have a Last Flight, p 178, Long's cite? Ron, I'm missing something. "Last Flight" only has 140 pages and there is nothing remotely resembling this issue in Long's book on page 178. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:21:50 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: The phantom phone call > From Ron Bright > > Does anyone have a Last Flight, p 178, Long's cite? I have the first edition, in hardback, and there is a description -- on page 178 -- of a phone call from Putnam to Earhart in Karachi. The last sentence of the conversation is "Well, I'll cable tomorrow an estimate of when we should get to Howland. Good-by (sic) . . . See you in Oakland." A footnote at the bottom of page 178, states that the call was "recorded mechanically in the office of the Herald Tribune in New York." On page 209, there is a brief mention of a telephone call to Earhart from "New York", just an hour after arriving in Bandoeng. No details of the call. LTM, Bob ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:50:00 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Phantom phone call Bob Brandenburg writes, > I have the first edition, in hardback, and there is a description -- > on page 178 -- of a phone call from Putnam to Earhart in Karachi The > last sentence of the conversation is "Well, I'll cable tomorrow an > estimate of when we should get to Howland. Good-by (sic) . . . See > you in Oakland." And she did. On 6/16/37 she sent a cable to Putnam that said: "ESTIMATE ONE WEEK KARACHI LAE LOVE" Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 09:49:19 From: Monty Fowler Subject: Was there or wasn't there? I assume that at some point we are going to be enlightened about why whether or not Amelia called George in Cheyenne (oh man, did I do some really stupid stuff there while in college!) is important to our efforts? LTM, Monty Fowler, #2189 ******************************************************* Well, it has to do with the arrangements made for the radio protocols -- or rather, figuring out that NO arrangements were made for radio protocols, so Itasca had bad information. All will be made clear. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 10:17:52 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Was there or wasn't there? For Monty Fowler >I assume that at some point we are going to be enlightened about why >whether or not Amelia called George in Cheyenne The Cheyenne-English Online Dictionary gives no Cheyenne equivalent for "George," so I don't suppose she could have. N (Namehoto)TM ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 11:39:28 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Alan, The reference to the long distance tel call from AE to GP is in Last Flight, page 105, my edition, which I was confusing with the Long book. So check out the footnote, where tucked in there is the reference to AE talking with GP at Cheyenne, during a twenty minute fuel stop on a United plane. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:40:08 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Ron Bright says: > The reference to the long distance tel call from AE to GP is in Last Flight, > page 105, my edition, which I was confusing with the Long book. So check out > the footnote, where tucked in there is the reference to AE talking with GP at > Cheyenne, during a twenty minute fuel stop on a United plane. You're right. Thanks. It's there. The footnote starts out referring to the phone call from Karachi but then goes on to say: "Later there were other long long-distance conversations, from Calcutta and Bandoeng and Soerbaga (sic), the latter two covering about 12,000 miles. For the last, G.P.P. en route to california by United plane, was picked up at Cheyenne, wyoming, his back-of-the-world chat being sandwiched into a twenty minute refueling stop there. The last conversation, with both voices clearly recorded, ended: G.P.P. - Is everythng about the ship O.K. now? A.E. - Yes. Good night, Hon." G.P.P. - Good night. ... I'll be sitting in Oakland waiting for you." Bizarre as it seems, the phone call apparently did happen. ( I wonder what ever happened to that recording?) The fact that they were able to pull off something like that demonstrates the remarkable level of communication available to them and yet, when it came to coordinating with the Coast Guard for the Lae/Howland flight, they set up an extremely awkward and cumbersome system by which Earhart sent commercial telegrams to the office of the Governor of American Samoa. The telegram would then be given to the U.S. Navy radio station at Tutuila, American Samoa and they would radio the information to Itasca. When Itasca replied they would reverse the procedure. Messages took a minimum of four hours, and often much longer, to reach the intended party. Messages and replies crossed in transit causing no end of confusion. But Earhart filed her June 30th story to the Herald Tribune from Lae by telephone, so phone service from Lae WAS available. In theory, she could have telephoned the Coast Guard's San Francisco Division in Oakland. They were maintaining frequent radio schedules directly to Itasca. The problem seems to have been money. Earhart had to pay for the phone calls and, due to the delays in Java, she was running out of cash. After calling in her June 30 story she sent a wire to Putnam saying that if the Tribune wanted more stories they would have to set up an account in Lae. They didn't, and her last "Denmark's a prison..." story on July 1st was sent as a collect telegram. Maybe it wasn't possible to make a collect international phone call. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 14:18:23 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Thanks, Ron. I was sure it was a page number problem. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 08:52:03 From: Pat Thrasher Subject: Where is everyone? Busy with the new school year? Busy helping Katrina victims? Just busy? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 20:51:38 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Maybe it was! Phantom, that is. Although it was possible that AE could make a shortwave link to landline a call to GP at Cheyenne at the fuel stopover, it may have been contrived. Look again at the source. The footnote on p. 105 in "Last Flight", is written in a different voice, and I would suggest that was added by GP during his editing. The " Yes. Good night , Hon" by AE and Georges's response of "Good night...I"ll be sitting in Oakland waiting for you." seems a bit self serving. I wonder what was omitted here in the ellipsis. I think GP made up some things for the benefit of the public. He claimed [to Muriel Morrisey] for instance that he made a three day trek behind enemy lines to hear "Tokyo Rose" ( it wasn;'t) and that he stopped in Saipan enroute home in 1945 to look for AE, but found no trace. I can't find any other source to corroborate GPs actions here. In the latter instance, GP is giving some credence to the Saipan survival theory. I have never seen a first person report by GP of either statements. Maybe the "phone call" was designed to make him look much better as a concerned husband. Just a few tidbits for a slow forum... The LA Times article has been ordered. LTM, Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:03:51 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Ron, for what it is worth, in my conversation at tea with Muriel in 1976, she made not the slightest reference to GP nor to Saipan or anything else hinting at a Japanese connection. She believed simply that her sister went into the sea. She did not indicate whether she thought she crashed, ditched or ran out of gas. I had the feeling GP was not all that high on her list. She had only disdain for Gervais and Goerner. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:13:34 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: The phantom phone call For Alan: Thank you very much for sharing - very interesting! ... About Goerner and (especially) Gervais: some admirers of the "conspiracy concept" believes that Muriel was as if a part of conspiracy and knew much more then she admitted... Personally i do not believe in this... but what was your impression after speaking with her? (i never had such an opportunity!) LTM - Best regards, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:17:13 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Ron Bright says, > Maybe it was! Phantom, that is. > > Although it was possible that AE could make a shortwave link to > landline a call to GP at Cheyenne at the fuel stopover, it may have > been contrived. After digging into it quite a bit more, I think it really happened. Once you understand the context, it makes sense. The whole sequence of events will be in the chapters that will be included in the new TIGHAR Tracks later this month. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:40:07 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: The phantom phone call For Alan, Thanks for the recollection of your conversation with Muriel. Do you by any chance have notes of what she did say, details, etc. about Bolam, GP. It would be interesting to post them, or at least to me. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:10:43 From: Rom Bright Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Ric, I am still hoping we can get a more "primary" souce of the phone call, and the LA Times may have it, or the Herald Tribune archives. Although it most likely happened, GP may have well wanted to erase the "business like" relationship he supposedly had with Amelia by adding a warm and fuzzy note, undoubtedly added by him, to show he really had a love for AE with the "goodnight Hon" stuff., Just speculating. Will look forward to the next edition. (I wonder if the Cheyenne newspapers would have reported this stop over. Worth checking???).. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:44:59 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Ron Bright asks > I wonder if the Cheyenne newspapers would have reported this stop > over. Worth checking??? Good thought. Anybody able and willing to check? It's somewhat surprising to find just how embellished Last Flight is. For example, in describing the attempted flight from Akyab, Burma to Bangkok, Siam on June 19 (June 18 in the U.S.) the book has Earhart describing the horrific rain storm they ran into and saying, "After trying to get through for a couple of hours we gave up, forced to retreat to Akyab." Later on the page she says, " (Noonan's) comment was, 'Two hours and six minutes of going nowhere.' But an Associated Press report from Akyab that day says that the plane departed Akyab at 6:30 a.m. and was back on the ground at 7:43 a.m. That's 73 minutes total - roughly 36 minutes out and 36 minutes back. Also, Last Flight claims "Finally on June 27th we left Bandoeng. ... our landing in Koepang five hours after our start was too late to permit safely carrying on to Darwin that day..." In fact, Earhart and Noonan left Bandoeng on the 26th but only went as far as Surabaya. The flight on the 27th was from Surabaya to Koepang. Picky? Yes, but these little distortions are emblematic of the factual errors that have often been taken as gospel. LTM Ric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:51:39 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Truth Ric writes: > ...these little distortions are emblematic of the factual errors that > have often been taken as gospel. I'll second that one, Ric. Separating fact from fiction in this mystery is a full-time job. LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:37:35 From: Tom King Subject: Re: The phantom phone call >Yes, but these little distortions are emblematic of the factual >errors that have often been taken as gospel. True, and it's good to correct them, but your choice of words illustrates why some of your writing unnecessarily (in my opinion) irritates some people. Did Earhart "distort" the facts, or was she just a bit sloppy with them? If the latter, it's no different from our saying it was 120 degrees on the beach at Niku one day when it was really only 115, or that the Tiger shark at McKean was 12 feet long when it was only 10. People do that kind of thing all the time, quite innocently, but when you call it a "distortion" (which I'll agree that technically it is) you make it seem like the distorter is up to something. A person who is quite sure that the same party was perfectly honest though certainly human can take that as an expression of bias on your part, and as a result dismiss everything you have to say. LTM (who abhors distortions) ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 21:37:18 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: The phantom phone call. For: Ron Bright The "achilles heel" in the "Phantom Phone Call" scenario is the communication infrastructure did not exist in June 1937 to facilitate a phone connection between southeast Asia and Cheyenne, Wy. Compound this with only a 15 to 20 minute window of opportunity to make the phone call happen, has about the same possibilities as pushing a rope up hill in a straight line. Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ***************************************************** From Pat Well, it *may* be that you are wrong, Tom. (Of course, you may also be right!) We are trying to nail this down but it appears that international telephone connections may well have been possible. By calling an operator, arranging the call, having the operator open the lines on a schedule, and knowing everyone's travel plans... just possible. We are looking into the technological history but if anyone can help we'd be very grateful. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:10:00 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The phantom phone call My last position in the air Force was Command and control. Not in 1937 of course but I cannot see any technical reason the call could NOT be made. The brief window of opportunity is a misleading factor. It would take very little in the way of communication to make that easily work out. I don't know what element of communications was "non existent" in 1937 that made this impossible. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:11:07 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The phantom phone call > True, and it's good to correct them, but your choice of words > illustrates why some of your writing unnecessarily (in my opinion) > irritates some people. You're entitled to your opinion. > Did Earhart "distort" the facts, or was she just a bit sloppy with > them? If the latter, it's no different from our saying it was 120 > degrees on the beach at Niku one day when it was really only 115, or > that the Tiger shark at McKean was 12 feet long when it was only 10. > People do that kind of thing all the time, quite innocently, but when > you call it a "distortion" (which I'll agree that technically it is) > you make it seem like the distorter is up to something. That Tiger at McKean had to be a 20 footer. Fish never get smaller and stories always get better with each telling. The story teller who is a bit sloppy with the facts is usually up to something - that something being making the story better. The distortions, or if you prefer, inaccuracies, in Last Flight are many and varied. Whether attributable to Earhart, or to Putnam, or to the editor, the effect is almost always to make Earhart look better. > A person who is quite sure that the same party was perfectly honest > though certainly human can take that as an expression of bias on your > part, and as a result dismiss everything you have to say. A television documentary producer once accused me of being "biased toward the facts." I plead guilty as charged. LTM Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:00:47 From: Tom King Subject: Re: The phantom phone call >The story teller who is a >bit sloppy with the facts is usually up to something - that something >being making the story better. Of course. My point is simply that this is a very human tendency, and I think that a decent respect for everybody's humanity, including Earhart's and Putnam's, should cause one to treat it rather lightly, rather than highlighting it as though it were some kind of reflection on the person's character. I am, again, not saying that you're wrong; only that I don't see the point in shading your language in such a way as to bias readers unnecessarily against you. Only my opinion, of course, and thank you for allowing me my entitlement to it. LTM (who doubtless has her own opinions, but keeps them to herself) ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:01:23 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The phantom phone call > From Ric > > ... The > distortions, or if you prefer, inaccuracies, in Last > Flight are many and varied. ... In the case of the last discrepancy mentioned, I can imagine two different measures being used for the length of the flight. One is when the doors and closed and the final pre-flight checks are made until the time that all post-flight checks are done and the crew exits the aircraft. I don't see any reason why that couldn't take "two hours and six minutes," even if the wheels-off to wheels-down time (real FLIGHT time) was only seventy-two minutes. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:34:07 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: The Phantom Phone Call Pat Thrasher wrote: > Well, it *may* be that you are wrong, Tom. (Of course, you may also be > right!) We are trying to nail this down but it appears that > international telephone connections may well have been possible. By > calling an operator, arranging the call, having the operator open the > lines on a schedule, and knowing everyone's travel plans... just > possible. We are looking into the technological history but if anyone > can help we'd be very grateful. Pat, The 1937 FCC annual report lists the overseas countries and territories to which telephone service was available from the United States as of June 30, 1937. The list includes India and the Netherlands Indies -- now known as Indonesia. No details of which cities in either place had the service available, although the 1936 FCC annual report specifically mentions Java as having point-to-point radiotelephone service to San Francisco. LTM, Bob #2286 ************************************************* Thanks, Bob. Do you have a copy of the report? Or is it available on line? P ======================================================================== = Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:01:34 From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Pat Thrasher wrote: > Thanks, Bob. Do you have a copy of the report? Or is it available on > line? > > P The reports are available on line at www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan When you get to that page, scroll to the bottom of the list and click on "1927-1998 Annual Reports to Congress". That will take you to a menu from which you can select the report(s) you want. LTM, Bob ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:01:58 From: Mike Haddock Subject: Re: The phantom phone call To: Ric And I would acquit you of those charges to which you pleaded guilty. Good to hear from you Ric. Hope all is well with you my friend. LTM, Mike Haddock, #2438 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:49:25 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: The phantom phone call I've mentioned this before but once again, the Electra operating manual uses block out and block in times NOT wheels up or even start take off roll. In section two of the operating manual there are examples of flight planning ALL using block times for time and fuel planning. Flight time was block out to block in. alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:40:11 From: Caldwell Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Alan writes: > I've mentioned this before but once again, the Electra operating > manual....... Do you have access to a 10E operating manual or are you referencing a 10A manual? John Clauss ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:41:17 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Tom King writes: > My point is simply that this is a very human tendency, and I think > that a decent respect for everybody's humanity, including Earhart's > and Putnam's, should cause one to treat it rather lightly, rather than > highlighting it as though it were some kind of reflection on the > person's character. Decent respect notwithstanding, there is a point at which this very human tendency to stretch the truth becomes something that should not be treated lightly. Recent history abounds with examples. Based upon the documentation I have seen, Earhart and Putnam crossed that line early and often. The gap between the government's expectations and Earhart's actual performance was, in fact, the fundamental cause of the entire tragedy. > I am, again, not saying that you're wrong; only that I don't see the > point in shading your language in such a way as to bias readers > unnecessarily against you. Where did this idea come from that my choice of words irritates some people or biases them against me? With the knowledge and encouragement of our publisher, the Naval Institute Press, we have (so far) sent out the Introduction and four draft chapters of the book for peer review to the entire TIGHAR membership. We have received numerous compliments, criticisms, comments, suggestions, and corrections. To date, the only charge of irritation or bias that we have received has come from a non-TIGHAR member to whom you forwarded the draft chapters despite my explicit request that you not do so. If there are TIGHAR members on the Forum who have found the draft chapters irritating or biased I encourage you to tell me so, either publicly via the Forum or privately to TIGHARIC@mac.com. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:07:51 From: Tom King Subject: Re: The phantom phone call >Where did this idea come from that my choice of words irritates some >people or biases them against me? With the knowledge and encouragement >of our publisher, the Naval Institute Press, we have (so far) sent out >the Introduction and four draft chapters of the book for peer review to >the entire TIGHAR membership. We have received numerous compliments, >criticisms, comments, suggestions, and corrections. To date, the only >charge of irritation or bias that we have received has come from a >non-TIGHAR member to whom you forwarded the draft chapters despite my >explicit request that you not do so. I don't want to get political about this, but there's a fellow who lives not far from me in a big white house, who goes about vetting his ideas and expressions in similar fashion; some think this practice has gotten him in a bit of trouble lately. LTM (who says "Don't fight, children") ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:45:25 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Model 10 operating manual The manual is a Model 10 operating manual. "A"s and "E"s operated with essentially the same check list. They had the same function. They hauled cargo and people. The procedure is the way things were done. It has nothing to do with which model airplane is being operated. All passenger and cargo facilities did and still do use block times. If you think about it there is no other way they can operate. If your plane is due to take off at 10:00 AM that's when it leaves the gate. We don't board at the end of the runway. The only way to coordinate the use of a passenger or cargo plane is with block times. New guinea airways used block times in 1937 as well as their other years of operation. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:45:48 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: The phantom phone call Tom King says: > I don't want to get political about this, but there's a fellow who > lives not far from me in a big white house, who goes about vetting his > ideas and expressions in similar fashion; some think this practice has > gotten him in a bit of trouble lately. If you're equating our restricting the peer review process to TIGHAR members with your neighbor's habit of speaking only to his supporters, it's a cheap shot that you know is not true. Anybody with $55 can join TIGHAR and this forum is ample evidence that some of our most severe critics are TIGHAR members. LTM, Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:49:28 From: Tom King Subject: Re: The phantom phone call As the sickly cannibal said, I throw up my hands. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:49:45 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: The phantom phone call > From Alan Caldwell > > I've mentioned this before but once again, the Electra operating manual uses > block out and block in times NOT wheels up or even start take off roll. In > section two of the operating manual there are examples of flight planning > ALL using block times for time and fuel planning. Flight time was block > out to block in. Fred may or may not have not been following the manual when he said to AE as they left the aircraft, "that was a waste of two hours of our lives." LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:50:19 From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Block vs. engine time Alan Caldwell wrote [in part ] > All passenger and cargo facilities did and still do use block times. > We don't board at the end of the runway. Alan That may be true, but friends of mine who owned planes in '37, used T.O. to Landing for engine and aircraft time because taxi and wait time shortened the time between costly engine & plane inspections and overhauls. A.E. was quite cognizant of that and begged out of an insrtument check because she did not want the engines or plane to run out of time while on the 'big trip'. A few minutes of taxi in and out & wait for each flight of whatever type or duration, added up. A.E. was not engaged in 'passenger or cargo facilities'. "Record flights" use, 'off & on' as their time. I would bet that she used Fred's actual off and on times for the log book. Cheers, RC ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:26:33 From: Larry Turner Subject: Choice of words For Tom King > True, and it's good to correct them, but your choice of words > illustrates why some of your writing unnecessarily (in my opinion) > irritates some people. Tom, (in my opinion) your nitpicking of what Ric said (and you agree he's right) irritates me. It is a distortion, lighten up and don't be so grumpy. I'm here for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Larry Turner ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:27:37 From: Gary LaPook Subject: Re: Block vs engine time Its still true. Aircraft maintenance intervals are based on "time in service" which is time the airplane is off the ground. If you keep track of this on a log sheet you can save money on the required 100 hour inspections. However, it is common practice to use either a recording tachometer or a hobbs meter to record engine operating hours and use this as the measure of maintenance intervals because it is so convenient. See FAR 1.1 and 91.409 (14 CFR 1.1 and 14 CFR 91.409.) http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/14cfr1_05.html TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PART 1_DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS--Table of Contents 1.1 General definitions. Time in service, with respect to maintenance time records, means the time from the moment an aircraft leaves the surface of the earth until it touches it at the next point of landing. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/14cfr91_05.html Subpart E_Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations Sec. 91.409 Inspections. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. The excess time used to [[Page 247]] reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time in service. ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:28:50 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Choice of words Ric wrote: "...The gap between the government's expectations and Earhart's actual performance was, in fact, the fundamental cause of the entire tragedy" - - sorry, but just a few remarcs... Can we say and "define" for sure what exactly the "government's expectations" about Earhart's flight were about? Personally I don't think so... There are many opinions and theories about it, presented by different "schools of thinking". Can we make an easy and unconditional verdict - especially the negative one - about "Earhart's actual performance" in this fatal flight? Personally i don't think so. Many specuilations about this are based rather on the "post-factum knowledge syndrome" (i.e. everybody knows now that flight was ended with tragedy), then on any really documented and factually confirmed lack of abilities or bad performance of Earhart (and Noonan). In fact, nobody can blame for sure neither Earhart nor Noonan about some wrongdoing - simpley because of nobody was there with them in the cabin., and they are not there now for to present their first hand evidence. All other are just our speculations reflecting rather our personal beliefs, opinions or even agendas. Can we draw any conclusions from such an unreliable soil about Earhart and Noonan, especially about such a special and delicate aspect as their personal characters? Can we insist that all these"failures" of them (in fact, rather still just our speculations) really "reflects their personal character"? Personally, I really dont' think so. The very first idiom that knocks into my door about this, is about "kicking a dead lion"... Pretty easy... irritating for many... but actually proves nothing. In short, i do agree with Tom King. LTM - best regards, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:21:47 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Choice of words > From: Marcus Lind. > ... Many speculations about this are based rather on the > "post-factum knowledge syndrome" (i.e. everybody knows now > that flight ended with tragedy), than on any really documented > and factually confirmed lack of > abilities or bad performance of Earhart (and Noonan). ... It seems to me that the flight ended in tragedy because of a failure to communicate. Documentation: the radio logs that showed AE and FN only heard one transmission from the Itasca on 7500 kcs. We know from the Coast Guard records that the Itasca had only CW capabilities on that frequency--no phone. We know that both AE and FN ducked the CW test for international flights. Documentation: correspondence on file in the archives. Following the lead of folks who know much more than I do, I accept the line of reasoning that if they could have exchanged CW messages with the Itasca, they would have learned that AE needed to key the mike to give the Itasca time to home in on her; they would then, in all likelihood, have gotten a bearing to the Itasca; and the flight would then have had a happy ending. It's not a perfect case--other things could still have gone wrong. But as the documentation stands, I think it shows "lack of abilities" on AE and FN's part. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:02:03 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Choice of words For Marty Molesky It looks rather like a purely theoretical dispute and, just "technically" and "formally", you can be right of course... but still, I tend to see too much of this "post-factum knowledge syndrome" in the statement that the failure of the two-way communication with Itasca can be attributed so necessarily to some general "lack of abilities" of Earhart and Noonan. What exactly we know about how exactly the radio equipment worked in the cabin during the Lae-Howland leg, and what the technical problems actually were about? The answer is -- nothing... we can only speculate. And -- as I am pretty sure -- if they would be a bit more lucky and somehow find Howland, nobody would remember about that key and blame them in misjudgment, or incompetence, etc... Rather they would be praised for "well calculated risk", etc... This is why I metioned the "dead lion"... alas it is truth that the history is usually written - and conclusions formulated - by winners.. or just by ones who survived... and the people who are not here now for to present their view and explanations, are usually easily blamed. THIS was what seemed as non-productive and not very fair and reasonable for me... LTM -- Best Regards, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:58:14 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Choice of words Marcus Lind questions my assertion that > "...The gap between the government's expectations and > Earhart's actual performance was, in fact, the fundamental cause of the > entire tragedy" He doubts that it is possible to: > "define" for sure what exactly the "government's expectations" about > Earhart's flight were about? because > There are many opinions and theories about it, presented by different > "schools of thinking". My response is that it is absolutely possible to know the government's expectations to the extent that those expectations are described in the thousands of official documents, letters, and messages written during the period when the government was preparing to support the Lae/Howland flight. The information contained in those sources is not opinion or theory, nor does it represent different schools of thinking. It's simply a record of what was going on in the months, weeks and days leading up to the flight. As far as I know (and I'm pretty darned sure about this) there are only two people in the world who are thoroughly familiar with that record - me and Randy Jacobson, the guy who compiled it. You can theorize that there were other communications that we don't know about (between Earhart and Naval Intelligence, for example, or between Putnam and the Pod People of Planet Xanos) but such speculation is meaningless without hard evidence that it exists. Marcus also doubts that it is possible to: > make an easy and unconditional verdict - especially the negative one - > about "Earhart's actual performance" in this fatal flight? because > Many specuilations about this are based rather on the "post-factum > knowledge syndrome" (i.e. everybody knows now that flight was ended > with tragedy), then on any really documented and factually confirmed > lack of abilities or bad performance of Earhart (and Noonan). I don't recall making any easy or unconditional verdict about the fatal flight and I have no intention of doing so. The events of July 2, 1937, however, did not occur in a vacuum. The Department of Interior, the Coast Guard and the Navy had eight months of history in dealing with Amelia Earhart and George Putnam and the official records that detail that history provide a great deal of information about the government's expectations and Earhart's (and Putnam's) performance during that time. That's one of the main reasons I'm writing the book. It didn't happen the way everybody has been saying it happened. > Can we draw any conclusions from such an unreliable soil about > Earhart and Noonan, especially about such a special and delicate > aspect as their personal characters? Can we insist that all > these"failures" of them (in fact, rather still just our speculations) > really "reflects their personal character"? My book will not pass judgment on anyone's personal character. The book relates what various people did, rather than tell the reader what those people were like. You will, for example, find no descriptions such as: "As far as we can tell, Earhart was a thoroughly competent professional...." or [Earhart was] "Maybe not the person you'd want at the controls of a 747 carrying hundreds of passengers across the ocean." or "If Earhart were alive today ...she'd probably be working on becoming the first woman on Mars." or "Gillespie...can be brash, he can be abrasive. He's a true polymath, as is Thrasher - they have amazing encyclopedic knowledge of the most dizzying assortment of things - and both can be impatient, even haughty, with lesser mortals - and almost everyone winds up in the 'lesser mortal' category from time to time." All of the above quotations are from Tom King's book "Amelia Earhart's Shoes." LTM Ric ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:03:32 From: Pat Thrasher Subject: Irritating This thread is now dead. No more posts will be accepted on the subject. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:15:08 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Block vs. engine time Bob, what your friends did in 1937 is not relevant and I don't know what "record flights" are or what kind of planes and operations your friends engaged in. I DO know that passenger and cargo operations DID and still do use block times. I also know that the Electra Model 10 operating manual used block times. I do NOT know what Earhart used but the fact she was not carrying passengers or cargo is also not relevant. Her plane was still a passenger and cargo plane and she still had the same check list. Gary, pointed out that maintenance inspections used time in service and kindly provided the definition and of course that is true. Also many planes use a tach for that purpose. The Swift, for example. However, the block time concept has nothing to do with maintenance. It has to do with flight and fuel planning. I suppose a comparison with the Electra log book and tower records could resolve what Earhart used but I don't know if we have such records. In the service MAC used block times whereas we in TAC rarely did but that was because MAC operated on a hard schedule and we did not. If anyone doesn't understand that I'll explain. It would be nice to be able to answer the question as we have one report of a 10:00 AM departure from Lae and one report of 10:20. Small significance but at the end of the flight it could have been important. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:30:41 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Other missed calls? IF GP and AE did talk during his refueling at Cheyenne, how did she get his phone number? Of if he called her, how did he get her number? And how did they exchange the info so as to intercept GP at Cheyenne? Via AE's contacts with the New York Tribune (?) ? I can only assume someone called directory assistance in Cheyenne and asked for the phone number at the airport, which was passed to AE. Was it really that simple? Finally, can anyone rustle up a copy of the 1937 Cheyenne telephone book? LTM, who's called bluffs but never in Cheyenne Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:51:27 From: Ron Bright Subject: The GP/AE phone call I have forwarded the articles from the Cheyenne archives of the Rock Springs, Wy paper and the Cheyenne Wyoming paper concerning the Dana Randolf intercept of AE's signals and of GPs telephone contact at Cheyenne from Amelia from Sourabaya. It lasted 3 minutes and was $24.00 Very interesting details. LTM,DS Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:18:40 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: AE/GP phone call Ron Bright said: "It lasted 3 minutes and was $24.00." Wow! That was pricey. Adjusted for today's dollars that would be $315.23, or a fill-up for some one's SUV. Use this link http://www.hughchou.org/calc/cpi.cgi LTM, who's short-winded Dennis O. McGee #0149E ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:03:44 From: Amanda Dunham Subject: Re: AE/GP phone call Wow! Using that calculator puts a whole new spin on that story about AE getting mad about GP wanting to charge kids $3 for a cheaply made autograph hat. Assuming that incident took place around 1935 we get $40.85. Yikes! (The episode is recounted in Soaring Wings - I think. I'm at work and can't look it up.) -- Amanda Dunham #2418CE ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:52:40 From: Don Iwanski Subject: Grace McGuire Interesting article about Grace McGuire Regards - Don I. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/nyregion/20ink.html ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:05:30 From: Richard Metzger Subject: Re: Grace McGuire "Ms. McGuire says that if her dream takes flight, she will prove that the 39-year-old Earhart was the victim of faulty coordinates. She claims to have documented proof - a journal kept by a Howland colonist in 1937 - that the aviatrix and her navigator, desperate to land as their fuel was nearly exhausted, survived after ditching their plane in the ocean and boarding a raft, but eventually succumbed to the heat and shark-infested waters." Is she the only one that knows about this "secret journal" Richard Metzger **************************************** I guess. I mean, we know about the NOT secret journals, but the secret one? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:11:17 From: Stretch Johnson Subject: Re: Grace McGuire Ok, I'll bite. Which journal? Who's is it and what "proof" does it document? Stretch *************************************** Randy, can you tell us more about the journals? I know you've read them all. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:34:50 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: A Raft? Lessee here: Proof, a secret journal, AND a raft. Hmmm. I'll bet they have the actual raft, too. Right? Maybe they're gonna auction it off in pieces, each with a certificate of authenticity? LTM, yeah right, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:40:42 From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: Grace McGuire Richard Metzger says of Grace McGuire: > She claims to have documented proof - a journal kept by a Howland > colonist in 1937 - that the aviatrix and her navigator, desperate to > land as their fuel was nearly exhausted, survived after ditching their > plane in the ocean and boarding a raft, but eventually succumbed to > the heat and shark-infested waters." I suppose Grace could have a journal in which a Howland colonist expressed his belief that something like that happened, but how a Howland colonist would know for sure that it happened is rather hard to fathom. Ric ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:25:44 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Grace McGuire "She claims to have documented proof - a journal kept by a Howland colonist in 1937..." Sounds like the wonted mistaken notion of what "documented proof" means along with a dash of promotional hyperbole sprinkled on top :) William Webster-Garman ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:26:38 From: Stretch Johnson Subject: Re: Grace McGuire Yes, that hardly constitutes "proof" of anything, by any stretch of the imagination. Ric wrote: > I suppose Grace could have a journal in which a Howland colonist > expressed his belief that something like that happened, but how a > Howland colonist would know for sure that it happened is rather hard to > fathom. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:55:49 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Grace McGuire This is the journal from Howland that documents that a Rocket Propelled Grenade was launched against AE and FN without authorization. You mean you don't know about this? The colonists were even more in the dark about AE's journey than the Itasca personnel. There's no way that anyone on any of the islands would have a scintilla of information helpful about where AE went during the flight. ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:11:49 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Grace McGuire > rather hard to fathom. Was that intentional? Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:49:07 From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Grace McGuire Did they even have rocket propelled grenades then? I think there were rifle grenades, but wasn't the bazooka/panzerfaust a late WW II development? Dan Postellon TIGHAR#2263 LTM (love those munitions) ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:49:37 From: Richard Metzger Subject: Re: Grace McGuire Sooo, Grace Mc. is basing the last part of her round the world reinactment of AE and FN's flight on a fathom streach of (her) someone's imagination. Good luck!!!! Richard Metzger ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:01:24 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Grace McGuire Randy Jacobson wrote: > There's no way that anyone on any of the islands would have a > scintilla of information helpful about where AE went during the flight. Ebay is going to be very disappointed, Randy. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:18:26 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: Grace McGuire The RPG's were a secret development by the Japanese, provided to the colonists to use against the Imperialist Americans at an auspicious moment. Once Thompson on the Itasca saw the RPG attack, he high-tailed it to the Northwest in search of a cloudbank to hide from further attacks; what a coward. The Navy thought it was radio controlled, so they monitored 3105 and 6210 kHz closely to verify the control frequencies, hoping it would be used again. After the Colorado tried unsuccessfully, the Lexington was sent to send planes in the air, hoping to provoke another attack, or to find the remnants of the RPG used on AE so the Americans could reverse engineer it. But of course, there was only one RPG provided, and nothing was found of the one used. Because the RPG development was so secret, most people don't know about it. You're not going to find it on the History Channel, or will you? My tongue is so deeply buried in my cheek, I'm not sure I can extract it. ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:28:44 From: Chin Koon Fun Subject: Re: Grace McGuire Well I wish Ms. McGuire the best and hope she isn't serious enough to want to duplicate the part about ditching the plane in the ocean and eventually succumbing to the heat and shark-infested waters as well. Never knew the Electra had a raft on board in 1937 though....... :-) Chin 2689 ************************************* > Never knew the Electra had a raft on board in 1937 though Yeah. Neither does anyone else know this ... Also, it is our understanding -- although the info may be outdated -- that Ms. McGuire doesn't have a multi-engine rating. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:01:48 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: Grace's 10E I have it that Grace McGuire's plane is the only original Electra 10E in existence. The other two 10E's (Finch, Beuhler) started out life as 10A's, and were converted. Is this information correct? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 **************************************** Yes, so far as we know. P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:39:18 From: Rusty Metty Subject: Re: Grace's 10E Is it also true she is unwilling to let TIGHAR examine the plane? Rusty Metty ******************************** Some years ago Ric made a request to examine and measure some specific parts of the aircraft, and she refused. Some time after that we learned that she had been very very ill with Lyme disease, and work had come to a stop on the aircraft while she got herself healthy. I hope that this new news report means that she is on the mend or well and back in the cockpit. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:31:33 From: Ken Leggett Subject: Re: Grace McGuire From: Ken Leggett Do you know that she has a current medical certificate? Ken #2690 ************************************* We haven't checked one way or the other. I'd really like to end the thread, anyway. Let's talk about something interesting. Say, I know! Amelia Earhart! P ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:39:48 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: End of McGuire Thread, Onward and Upward >> Let's talk about something interesting. Say, I know! Amelia Earhart! Pat, we're bored out of our skulls - and on the last day of summer, too! Send us some book chapters. Send us drafts, pictures, footnotes, index, start a discussion about the book cover illustration, hardback, paperback, how much money is in the Literary Guild Fund, who's the book gonna be dedicated to, embossed or plain spine, anything. Shoot, we'll even discuss the font style or the type of paper! Can we come watch Ric write? :-) LTM, (Let's talk manuscript) Alfred Hendrickson #2583 **************************************** Oh, gee. Let's see. Definitely hardback. As of yesterday the Literary Guild fund was $9800, THANKS!!!!!!!!! As is the usual rule, we don't have much to say about the cover illustration, look, font, paper, etc. except we more or less can jump up and yell NO and they'll listen. But the Naval Institute Press puts out a really nice product, we aren't worried about it. The really big project (aside from the writing) is assembling the DVD of all the sources and resources. I've digitized a ton of stuff over the years for the website, but there are several tons more to be done. Everything that is not forbidden by virtue of copyright and lack of permission will be on that DVD, it will be a one-stop shop for Earhart research. You guys do know that the book will come with a DVD of sources and resources? Every book, in a sleeve. The USNIP is thrilled at the idea and is busily plotting how to promote the whole deal. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:17:25 From: Ron Bright Subject: For the bored Dear Bored Alfred, Here is a mystery that remains unsolved...who belongs to an Electra 10A, tail number NC14547? Amelias signature appears on the photo of the plane, but no one, including the FAA or the Lockheed 149 planes matches this number. Help!! Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:47:00 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Earhart's status > Let's talk about something interesting. Say, I know! > Amelia Earhart! It was not until I read the drafts of Ric's opening chapters that I fully began to comprehend how much AE needed to complete the World Flight in order to salvage her professional reputation and maintain her status as a professional celebrity. With the Electra on the reef, probably beyond salvage, is it likely that, had she been rescued, she could have gotten anyone to buy her another airplane and sponsor additional flights? And would her celebrity status have remained intact or would a rescued AE have faded into that special obscurity reserved for those who fail to live up to their supporters' expectations? Hunkered down on Gardner Island with the Birgus latro closing in, do you think she realized that the adoration and perks she'd become accustomed to as a "role model for women" might well have slipped beyond her grasp? I wonder. Your comments, please. LTM (who shunned publicity, herself) Eric ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:30:08 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Earhart's status Eric Beheim wrote: > Hunkered down on Gardner Island with the Birgus latro closing in, do you > think she realized that the adoration and perks she'd become accustomed > to as a "role model for women" might well have slipped beyond her > grasp? It's all speculation, but with her personality, charisma and drive... and GP too? IMHO, had she been rescued they could have turned it into the biggest celebrity book promotion of the 1930s and she would have flown again. Noonan's professional prospects, however (had he survived), might have been less appealing. He was apparently hoping to open a navigators' school in Florida and whatever the true circumstances, the publicity of not having found his target, one can assume, would have been harder to spin. William Webster-Garman ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:30:36 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Earhart's Status For Eric -- There's lots to wonder about, thinking of AE with the B. Latros closing in. Maybe she contemplated the damage the crash had done to her professional reputation, maybe she thought about what great lecture-and article-fodder her stranding on a desert island would make. Maybe she thought about making THAT adventure part of her role-modeling for women. Maybe she thought: "How the hell can I get away from those *&^%$#@ crabs?" Sure wish we could find her journal..... LTM (who's all in favor of role models) ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:35:44 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Earhart's status > From Eric Beheim > > ... Hunkered down on Gardner Island with the Birgus latro > closing in, do you think she realized that the adoration > and perks she'd become accustomed to as a "role model for > women" might well have slipped beyond her grasp? > > I wonder. Your comments, please. I have taken a vow against using my powers of ESP when dealing with mere mortals. :o) I speculate that if AE survived on Niku, she would have kept a diary in the hope of being able to publish a book about her latest adventure. She could have been a far greater celebrity and model if she (and Fred) had been rescued than if they had completed the flight as scheduled. My own guess is that the empty sextant box near the skeleton found on Niku may have held AE's diary. I fear that she may have died with it in her hands and that it is now lost forever. All speculation, of course. I have no contemporary testimony to back up these intuitions. :o( Whoever the poor soul was who died alone and unburied on Niku, they may well have spent some time torn between hope and despair before they were torn apart by the coconut crabs. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:39:22 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Earhart's status For: Tom King Why do you believe AE would create a journal? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:54:55 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Earhart's status For Tom Strang My tongue was in my cheek when I said I wish we could find her journal, but to the extent I "believe" she would have kept one, I think my reason for doing so is the same as Ric's. AE was a writer, she made her living substantially from publicizing her activities; it simply would have been the natural thing to do. It's what I'd do. No other reason. LTM (You should see HER journal) ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:04:21 From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Mystery 10A Ron Seems there was one listed at the Museum of Alaska Transportation and Industry with serial unknown. Apparently it has gone to NZ for renovation. have you got that one accounted for? > The Lockheed 10A Electra listed as being at the Museum of Transport > and Industry in Alaska was purchased by me in mid 1997. Late in > 1997, it was dismantled and shipped to its new home in Auckland, New > Zealand where it is presently being restored to pristine flying condition. See http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/museums/ak/mati.htm Andrew McKenna ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 22:05:37 From: George R. Werth Subject: Flights of fact and fancy I draw you attention to page 3 of the San Diego Aerospace Museum web site noted above. It explains Amelia Earhart's Last Flight, according to David McNerny. Click here: http://www.aerospacemuseum.org/ George R. Werth TIGHAR Member #2630 PS. My own theory is that she diverted her flight to go shopping and got hopelessly lost. ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 09:39:50 From: Ron Bright Subject: Mystery 10A Andrew, I will email Mackley about his Electra. He should have some kind of serial number or former tail number. I see that a John Wariner, of San Diego, Ca is writing a book "Amelias Voice" and was looking for the glide ratio of an Electra and needed a walk thru of a current Electra at a Museum, or one that is available. Ron PS The Nov 2001 "Air Classic" magazine shows an unidentified Electra 10 at the Chino, Cal airport. No further identification. Ron B ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:22:25 From: Don Jordan Subject: Mojave B-24 If anyone is interested, there will be another article on the Mojave B-24 crash site in the Sunday edition of the Charleston Post and Courier. The link is: www.charleston.net I took a representative from JPAC to visit the site on the 15th of this month. They are very interested in completing the excavation, and are looking for a few volunteers to help in the project when the time comes. Some unscrupulous individual(s) had found the site in the last few weeks and have haphazardly dug up in the very hole that we removed many bones from. They weren't looking for bones, or interesting aircraft parts though. They found more human remains, but just discarded them on the side of the crater. It was very disappointing to see what damage they had done. The newly discovered remains were gathered up before we left. They will rejoin the other remains, be identified if possible, and then will be sent home for burial. Don Jordan Cal City, CA ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:23:20 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Re: Earhart's status > with her personality, charisma and drive... > and GP too? IMHO, had she been rescued they could have turned it into > the biggest celebrity book promotion of the 1930s There was a time when I would have assumed this too. However, after reading Ric's manuscript, I began to realize that, even in 1937, credible people were starting to publicly question AE's ability as a pilot, and the practical value of her World Flight. In order for AE and GP to successfully spin this second debacle into a win-win situation, they would have had to shift the blame onto FN as well as the Coast Guard and perhaps one or two other agencies that were responsible for insuring that she was properly certified. A rescued FN could have pointed out, in all honesty, that he had successfully navigated many Pan Am flights long distances over the open ocean to small island destinations. And the Coast Guard and other the agencies would certainly have defended their actions as well, and perhaps even raised some embarrassing points, such as AE's competency with her radio equipment and why the Federal Government provided support to a civilian stunt flight. While AE would certainly have had her defenders, her carefully cultivated public image would undoubtedly have taken some serious hits over this. LTM (who had no use for a public image) Eric ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:25:00 From: Tom King Subject: Re: Mojave B-24 Don -- You've run into one of the scourges of archaeology -- the jerks who go out and dig around in sites of all kinds and effectively destroy them, looking for whatever it is that excites them. They're breaking the law if they're digging on Federal or Indian tribal land, or on private land without the property owner's permission, but there aren't enough cops in the country to bust them all. LTM (who raised her children not to do that sort of thing) ======================================================================== Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:09:34 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: Mojave B-24 Dr. King, We did find out that the crash site is on private land. We went further and got permission to do what ever we want at the site. When we took the rep. from JPAC out there we also turned over all personal crew items found. Actually I should say the individual who found them turned them all over to JPAC. If you will recall I stated that I was against digging on the site in the first place. But at the time I had no idea that there were two crewmen still undiscovered. So I basically had no artifacts of significance. I recovered a few trinkets to send to the inquiring next-of-kin, and that's where they went. However I feel so much better knowing that the two crewmen will now be going home as well. Treasure hunters, and that's all they were, went to the site sometime in the last couple of weeks and crudely shoveled dirt around looking for God knows what. They unearthed many more bits of human remains, but just carelessly threw them out of the hole and went on. They didn't even bother to take the interesting pieces of aircraft wreckage that they dug up. They must have been looking for coins, jewelry or anything of value. In the package turned over to JPAC were many coins of the era, along with three rings, a silver dollar from 1896, a navigator's stopwatch and other navigational equipment. There were ten men on that flight, and all died in that very hole. I must say that I can't wait to see what else turns up. JPAC will be doing a first rate job of it, and I hope to be on site with them as much as I can. I'll keep you or TIGHAR posted off forum if you like. Feel free to contact me at any time. Don Jordan Cal CIty, CA ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:31:24 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Earhart's status For me, it doesn't seem reasonable to guess that the failure of Earhart's flight - if she (and FN ) would be rescued - would somehow seriously harm her position and "role model status". The "credible people" who questioned Earhart's abilities were usually her rivals (like Elinor Smith, who criticized AE a lot of times - and everybody quotes it - but who broke on landing her own Vega - that one that AE flew for several years later - that almost nobody remembers now...). Or, they were the narrow profesionals who worked in the young civil aviation industry (some radiomen, technicians, pilots) who felt some jealousy that the media attention and public admiratuion is focused not so much on their important but prosaic work but still mainly on older generation of the ones usually called as "stunt pilots". Of course the fact that this industry was born exclusively because of spirit, courage and and competence of these peopneer was completely ignored in this "narrow professional" point of view. The promotional efforts of media - and particularly GP - were useful and helpful of course for AE - especially for to make some money for future flying and to get some "tribune" to preach her views, especially about women rights in aviation and in society in general. But still, the fame, status and charisma of Earhart were not an "artificial products", and it was NOT because of "cultivated public image". Earhart really did what she did; she really mafde the record flight that she made, frequentluy in most difficult, sometimes extreme conditions; and no "cultivated image" may help you in heavy storm with broken devices over the ovean at night, if you are not a REALLY good and competent pilot. Also, the numerous people who knew AE definitely confirms in their memories that her human qualities and "charisma" wee the real thing, and very definitely not a product of "cultivated public image". The statements about lack of competence of AE in radio-matters became almost a "common point" now, but it still seems that the influence of "post-factum knowledge syndrome" is significant here. If she would complete her flight, naturally nobody would blame her in bad judgement, and her solutions - like not to use the key etc. - would be described as "risky decision that worked!", or something like this. At least personally i am convinced about this. Naturally, since she failed, she became "guilty"... particularly bevcause of she wasn't there anymore for to present her understanding of the situation. And all the statements about how "competent" or "able" AE was during the ill-fated Lae-Howland leg, seems for me as not based on any firm soil - as, in fact, we do not know what happened there, what an eqyuipment could fail and why, and so on... There were TWO people in the cabin - AE and FN... anything else is just our guess, and it is my firm belief that the guess cannot be a legitimate reason for any definite statement, especially a negative one, and especially about such a delicate matters as a professional competence of the specialist... particularly a pilot. Before 1937, there were already several incidents in AE's flying career. Unlike many other incidents with many other pilots (insluding some very well known names), she walked away from it enough successfully; with no one killed or seriously injured; and in a decent and deserved manner of behavior, that the public saw and respected. There were some attacks on her abilities and competence well before 1937 - particularly because of some of that incidents... But it did not harm the public sympathy to Earhart - just because of her achievements were real and proven, and her behavior was appropriate and tactful. In such a cases, usually the strong and not very kind and scrupulous criticism rather turns against the critics themselves, prompting to people to suspect them in some kind of bias or prejudicy. In Earhart's case, it was specially actual, as undoubtedly a significant amount of critics could be caused by male chauvinism... as for many men of the industry it was irritative to see a woman who dared to "intrude" into "their exclusive territory" (as they liked to think then...) Thus, i don't think that the failure of this World Flight would cause a collapse or serious harm about public's attitude to AE. In my opinion, if she would be rescued, the US publuic would rather just say - "welcome home, heroine! " LTM - Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:14:43 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Earhart's status For: Marcus Lind You appear to be doing a lot of supposing on Earhart's behalf. Why? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:44:54 From: Robert Wear Subject: New Earhart book Not sure if this is general knowledge, but the Library of Congress is going to publish a new book about AE next spring via Simon Schuster. The book is being finalized for the printer. ******************************************** Where does this info come from? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:48:57 From: Robert Wear Subject: Re: New Earhart book The author is a friend of mine. **************************************** Is it a biography, a history, a novel? Pat ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:47:01 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Earhart's status Personally, i don't think the word "suppose" is a very right word here... I am trying to operate rather by facts. For me, it seems as a firm and undoubtful fact that Earhart really did some important pioneering flying, at difficult conditions and in competent professional manner... and many of her colleagues, whose professionalism is beyond any doubts (like Wiley Post, Leighth Wade, Jackie Cochran, and others) admitted her professionalism and resprected her for it. The numerous memories of many credible, serious witnesses, who contacted Earhart personally, certainly confirms that she was a decent and deserved individual, with a character and human qualities really worth of respect and admiration. She was certainly not a "fake" created by "media", in any sense. At these conditions, when sometimes some pretty sharp critical suppostitions are proposed - especially when based rather on some guesses, prejuduice, or bias of any sort - it simply seems for me as reasonable to remind about these abovementioned factors. It it just dictated by "fair play" feeling... i assure you i have no any commercial or any other private "interests" in protecting Earhart and her legacy. Best Regards - LTM, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:55:59 From: Paige Miller Subject: Re: Earhart's status To Marcus Lind: The outcome of a flight and the ability of the operator to use the radio are not necessarily correlated. In fact, back in 1937, one could have horrible radio skills and still complete flights. You say "The statements about lack of competence of AE in radio-matters became almost a 'common point' now, but it still seems that the influence of 'post-factum knowledge syndrome' is significant here." Yet at the time, AE couldn't send in Morse code other than trivial sequences of letters, and apparently she flew with radio problems the entire trip and either didn't know or didn't care. This is not post-factum knowledge, this is AE's performance in 1937. To Robert Wear I didn't know that the Library of Congress actually published books. In fact, the complete lack of detail you provided makes me not believe your statement. (Oh -- you did mention Simon and Schuster, but their website shows no upcoming Earhart book, but lots of other upcoming books). Maybe you could provide us with a detail or two? -- Paige Miller ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:31:00 From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: New Earhart book re Book I may have posted this earlier but an author John Wariner wrote or is going to publish 'Amelia's Voice". I have no other information. Ron Bright ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:38:08 From: Robert Wear Subject: Re: New AE book We are in the middle of Federal Year end, so have not had a chance to follow-up with my friend about her book, i.e. the type of book, etc. I can assure you that LOC does prepare and publish books...they did one on the American Civil War, and my friend is also deeply involved in the preparation of a comparable book on WW II...a project that I have provided on-going, substantial information for. For the person making pejorative comments about my believability...please do not. I am surprised the moderator allowed that comment to be posted. They are beneath all of us and this list. I could have been off line when the question was raised (which I was), or real life may have contributed to a delayed response...in other words, do not throw stones when you do not have sufficient evidence or cause to do so. ************************************************* I have re-read Paige's comments and don't see them as pejorative. Lack of substantiating detail is one of the hallmarks of Earhart "trolls" -- folks who post truly outrageous statements but then fade away when asked for background. The moderator (that's me) is here to keep out spam, abusive attacks, and complete idiocy. The Forum crucible does the rest. Pat ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:38:44 From: John Harsh Subject: B-25C retrieved from Lake Murray A B-25C has been raised from a lake near Columbia, SC. If you search the various news outlets for "b-25" and "Lake Murray" you should get the articles. Or follow this link. If you dig long enough there is broadcast footage of the the cockpit and artifacts. http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3886408&nav=0RaP LTM JMH 0634C ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:39:03 From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: Re: New AE book Paige writes: "I didn't know that the Library of Congress actually published books." I rather wondered about that one myself, Paige. Robert, give us some more particulars, please. LTM, who didn't miss anything, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:39:33 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Earhart's status To Paige Miller: As you fairly mentioned, the radio skills and the ability to complete the flight successfully are really not necessarily correlated. In other words, in 30s it was pretty possible to be not an ace in the radio skills but still a competent and able pilot. At least, it certainly seems unfair for me to say that somebody from 20s-30s was "not a good pilot" just because of some doubts in radio operating skills of this person. In my view, the influence of the "post-factum knowlegge syndrome" here is, first alf all, in assumption that the fatal outcome of the flight was caused first of all by the radio problems (although - we still cannot know what a problems exactly!) - and - "thus" - AE was a bad pilot. I am simply disagree with this pretty speculative "straight linking", that is a great simplification of the complex situation, and ignores a lot of aspects and "backgrounds" of many sorts.. that's all. Again; since the Electra and its crew alas gone forewer and we cannot ask them now - or examine the plane and equipment - it seems for me as unreasonable and baseless to insist that all the problems with radio during that flight - real or speculated - happened exclusively due to the AE's "incompetence" about this. Just an observation of comon nature... it seems enough curious for me that - although there were two people in the cabin - AE and FN - there are (and it is good, i think) almost no critical attacks or "discrediting guesses" about Fred's abilities and competence... although if about AE - there is a lot of it. I can see in this some, maybe even unconscious, tendency in many people "to debunk a celebrity"... to show that the famous person was "far not so good as the legend says"... etc. Just personally, I think, one of the reason for this quite common attitude (if not to mention the routine jealousy that existed in all times) is the current situation about celebrities... as many of them are really "artificially made" now.. a purely artificial creatures of the media and show business, who actually did nothing for the benefit and progress of society, and whose behavior is frequently really inaproppriate and simply irritating. But, i think, we must not forget the difference between such a "celebrities" and the really deserved ones - like AE, who was REAL and really did the very real things for which she was and still is respected and admired. For SUCH a celebrities, i think, it is really worth to be more careful and respectful... just for the benefit of fairness and the historical legacy of the country to which these outstanding people belongs. Respectfully - LTM, Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:40:10 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: New AE book > From Ron Bright, > I may have posted this earlier but an author John Wariner > wrote or is going to publish 'Amelia's Voice". > I have no other information. It's a novel and/or a movie script: LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:26:13 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Radio and crashes Marcus Lind said; "In my view, the influence of the "post-factum knowlegge syndrome" here is, first alf all, in assumption that the fatal outcome of the flight was caused first of all by the radio problems (although - we still cannot know what a problems exactly!) - and - "thus" - AE was a bad pilot. I am simply disagree with this pretty speculative "straight linking", that is a great simplification of the complex situation, and ignores a lot of aspects and "backgrounds" of many sorts.. that's all." Marcus, no one here said that AE flying skills and radio skills are directly linked. What has been documented is that she was involved in several accidents throughout her career, which lead some to believe she was at best a marginal pilot while others claim her record is about par for the time period. Second, the record clearly shows that her grasp of radio and her demonstrated skills with it were woefully inadequate for the Lae-Howland leg of the world flight. Having poor radio skills did not make her a bad pilot and having several earlier accidents did not directly impact her ability to use radio. What connects the two is her ability to judge risks. She was grossly negligent, in my humble opinion, to underestimate her need for radio skills and her machinations to avoid learning them. This, combined with the circumstances of her earlier accidents, can be used to evaluate her risk-management process. Her overall lack of good judgment skills is not an attitude that surfaced overnight but rather, as with most of us, it is acquired over a period of time until becomes part of the fabric of how we view challenges and life in general. AE was definitely a risk taker, and for that she is revered and honored. But an essential part of that process is good judgment -- managing risks. And in my view AE failed to exhibit good judgment during many phases of her final flight, which is why it was her final flight. LTM, who manages just fine, thank you Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:30:58 From: Jim Preston Subject: Re: Radio and crashes Dennis, very good analogy. I agree with you completely. When I was taught to fly in the Air Force,1965, I found out if you don't have command of all the tools available you cannot to a safe competent job. I wasn't taught Navigation so I asked my Navigators Questions until I retired. I passed the basic Morse Code to pass the minimun exam to get a license but would hate to stake my life on it because we didn't use it then. Jim Preston ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:31:22 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Radio and crashes Good points, Dennis. In that era there WERE a lot of accidents, partly from lack of adequate skill and partly from the state of the art the flying machines were in. Many of those early planes were aeronautically less than sound. You will also notice the successful flights of note were equally without what we today would consider good planning. They were risky flights. Some worked others did not. The spirit of St. Louis worked. The Electra did not. The White Bird did not. The Daily Express did. It is easy sitting around today seeing what AE should have done to make HER flight a success but you notice we don't do that with the ones that worked even though they were equally risky and poorly planned. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:37:16 From: William Webster-Garman Subject: Re: Radio and crashes To expand on Alan's helpful point (if I may), they were living in an entirely different aviation culture, which for starters accepted bodily risks more than ours does. We have millions of years of person-hours of inflight experience to draw from today so I don't think it's reasonable to compare our notions of flight risk management to the sort of risk-taking Earhart and Noonan were involved in. It's possible they knew more about the risks than they let on, only because they loved to fly. One of AE's books was called "For the Fun of It", after all, not "Principles of Aviation Risk Exposure: Histiographic Assessment & Reduction." :) William Webster-Garman ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:24:54 From: Danny Brown Subject: Artifact 2-2-V-1 While doing some work at my desk at home tonight, I casually glanced up at the framed original photos of Amelia inside the 10-E before and after the additional tanks were added. I suddenly realized that the photo of her gazing over the newly installed tanks shows that the tanks were riveted -- and the tanks certainly look to be aluminum. It struck me that perhaps artifact 2-2-V-1 is a part of one of the tanks and not the aircraft's skin. The tanks of particular interest are the small ones at Amelia's left and right shoulder. The big one she is leaning on seems to have larger rivets than the artifact. I know you have probably already checked this, but I thought I'd make sure. At any rate, what do I know about aircraft construction? As a journalist, the only thing I really know how to do is put some words together (hopefully in a correct way) to communicate some reasonable thought. The words are easy -- it's the reasonable thought that gives me problems. LTM (who was always gassed) Danny Brown ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:23:05 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Radio and crashes Dennis McGee wrote: "What has been documented is that she was involved in several accidents throughout her career, which lead some to believe she was at best a marginal pilot..." - personally, i tend to think that this belief of them was rather a good exapmple of specific (chauvunistic?... quite possibly, i think...) prejudice against AE. Certainly she hadn't a worse "record" about accidents then any other contemporary pioneering/record breaking pilot of comparable status. Many of them - certainly a skillful and competent professionals - died in accidents... but, happily, practically nobody is blaming them now, or questions - especially on public - their well deserved reputations and competence. This is exactly why i think it is really unfair and quite illogical that these speculations about AE are still enough popular... and tend to see a sort of "double standards" here. Really... Who from the those early "Greats" never had an accident??? I don't think we can remember such a person. The Great Colonel Lindbergh lost his planes in the air and jumped with parachute at least 4 times... but nobody blames him - and it is fair, because of it was such a time, and it was such a nature of his pioneering flying... But when it is about AE - who was a woman, and a socially active one (read: "irritating" for enough many...), many people were and still are always ready to blame her, or quote uncritically the allegations of her rivals and opponents who had their own reasons to be overly critical... And the fact that she never lost the plane in the air, and generally "her accidents were usually ather incidents" (as Ric once wrote), without fatal consequences and caused primarily by a technical reasons, is simply ignored with such an access... It is exactly what was written yet in AE's "The Fun Of It" - yet in 1932: "nobody will blame a man if he will crash rthe plane, but everybody will be here to blame when the sister stobs her toe" (sorry - NOT an exact quote - as i haven't the book just here near me... but must be quite close to it i believe). Still, i personally tend to think that it is certainly rather a "post-factum knowledge syndrome" when the fatal outcome of the flight is definitely attributed to AE's "poor skills" in radio (we still don't know what exactly could cause those problems in that flight, and especially the Lae-Howland leg... we weren't there... ), or "bad judgement" of her, etc. It is pretty easy to blame a pilot - or navigatior - at such a consequences, when they are not here to explain the stuff from their side. It is not like i am saying that AE and FN were saints and never could make any error... I am simply trying to say that it seems unreasnable to propose a definite "Guilty!" - verdict without complete knowledge about all the exact facts that caused a tragic outcome, and to draw a common conclusions about AE's flying competence and skills on the base of guesses related mainly to her last fatal flight, factually ignoring - with such an access - her previous outstanding career with 16 years of flying (since 1921!)... Not more, not less... Respectfully - best regards, LTM - Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:25:46 From: Eric Beheim Subject: Re: Radios and crashes > It's possible they knew more about the risks than they let on, only > because they loved to fly. And for monetary gain. As Ric points out in his manuscript, AE, a professional celebrity, undertook the World Flight primarily as a commercial enterprise that would result in book royalties, speaking engagements, etc. LTM (who was NOT a professional celebrity) Eric ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:02:00 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Radios and crashes Of course the monetary aspect was substantial for AE and her flying - in pragmatic aspect... as obviously she needed some money, just for to continue to fly. However, just judging on all that is known about her as a character, and her motives - from her own private letters, books, speeches, countless private memories of most different people who knew her personally - it seems unlikely for me that the monetary aspect was really the top priority that drove her. It seems obvious that she was an idealist in significant degree, and just loved to do what she did... and did it just "for the Fun of It". People saw, and felt it... and people usually loves and admires a real enthusiasm and sincereity in celebrities... it was an important part of her famous charisma. Personally, I would not call AE a "professional celebrity"... Usually, these words are associated with an artificially created "celebrities" - a pure creatures of media (like models, podium stards, etc.) AE's fame and "celebrity status", however, was different - as it was just a natural RESULT of her professional, continuous and record-breaking FLYING and very real things that she did on this field... LTM - Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:59:54 From: Tom Strang Subject: Re: Radios and crashes For: Marcus Lind Marcus, you appear to be whipping a dead horse here. Mr. McGee's recent forum post comes very close to providing a rational characterization of Amelia Earhart's flight capabilities. You appear to have made the choice to ignore it. Why? Respectfully: Tom Strang # 2559 ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:47:46 From: Paige Miller Subject: A broad spectrum To Robert Wear I can understand why you are so busy, as I get very busy at times myself. Nevertheless, I cannot understand why you have chosen to write a 146 word response and you still have not provided a single additional detail -- not the author's (your friend's) name, nor the title, nor even the genre of the book. I suggest that instead of writing another reply to the forum, you first (when you have the time) e-mail your friend to learn the details, and then let us know. To Ron Bright Thank you for providing details about a new Earhart book. To Marcus Lind I think you make a very good point (if I understand things properly) that a good pilot can still make terrible mistake and this results in fatalities. Just as Michael Jordan missed last second potential game-winning baskets at times. Nevertheless, I would like to ask you a question that you have not addressed directly: what, in your opinion, was the cause of the failure of the flight; the cause that prevented them from safely reaching Howland Island? -- Paige Miller #2565 LTM ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:21:59 From: Don Jordan Subject: Re: What happened? I just had to respond to this question. > Paige Miller asked: > > "Nevertheless, I would like to ask you a question that you have not > addressed directly: what, in your opinion, was the cause of the > failure of the flight; the cause that prevented them from safely > reaching Howland Island? " The answer is simple! They couldn't find it! ! ! Don Jordan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:07:30 From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: A broad spectrum Paige Miller wrote: > I think you make a very good point (if I understand things properly) > that a good pilot can still make terrible mistake and this results in > fatalities. Paige, you are SO right. Last week my long time friend Lt/Col Jim Weaver was giving flight instruction to a young Air Force Lt. Jim had seen it all, done it all -- a great fighter pilot. But it only takes one little slip and now I have lost a great friend. The student was apparently practicing a forced landing and hit a power line. Alan ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:07:58 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Re: Radios and crashes For Tom Strang: Of course i did read Mr. McGees's recent Forum post (since i quoted it) - so obviously i didn't "make choice to ignore it". I just used the "freedom of speeking" and prefered to comment it with a somewhat different estimations and "accents" proposed... as iit seems for me it is pretty routine (and not a crime, isn't it?) when a different people are tending to make a different conclusions about the same stuff - depending on their factual awareness, and/or some bias, and/or some personal views and opinions. For Paige Miller: I am joining the reply of Don Jordan, that is really good and laconic. They simply couldn't find the island... Why exactly is another question, and if we would have a ready answer for it, there would be almost nothing to discuss! :) Respectfully - LTM, best regards - Marcus Lind ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:08:34 From: Herman De Wulf Subject: Re: A broad spectrum To Page Miller In my opinion the one reason for the failure of the flight was overconfidence. It is a frequent phenomenon at some point in any flyer's career. Sometimes it becomes fatal. Things started to go wrong during the test flight Amelia Earhart made at Lae the day before departing for Howland Island. During that test flight she discovered the RDF equipment wasn't working. She wrongly concluded it didn't because she was flying too near the transmitter. RDF was (and still is) essential in ocean flying. It was the system Pan American Airways had decided to rely on when embarking on trans ocean flying with its flying boats. And it was at Pan American that Fred Noonan learned his trade. It was procedure to navigate by the stars as near as possible to the destination in those days, then, when within radio range, use the RDF. The needle of the equipment would then point in the direction of the transmitter. Today this system is still used but it is now called ADF (Automatic Direction Finding). Amelia Earhart made a second mistake after take-off from Lae. She apparently did not check whether her RDF was working when she was out over the ocean. Had she done so she would have realised they were embarking on a dangerous adventure and would have returned to Lae to have the RDF fixed. Perhaps she was too much occupied with the other planning: the one that would bring her back to the US on the 4th of July. That we shall never know. Whatever the reason, this was the point where according to me overconfidence came in. She relied on Fred Noonan's expertise to navigate them to Howland Island by the stars, knowing that state of the art navigation technique would bring here to within 10 miles. From there she would see the island. According to me this was proof of overconfidence. Like so many others before and after he she must have been thinking: "It has worked so many times in the past, it ill work now". It didn't. When the Electra reached Howland Amelia Earhart could not see the island. Another reason for the failure of the flight was poor pre-flight planning. Any pilot who takes off to any destination must know the radio frequencies he will need to get there. Amelia Earhart didn't. She was not familiar with radio's, which were pretty new to her. She didn't realise what Itasca could do for her and what Itasca could not. In fact she was expecting what in today's parlance is called a QDM: a vector provided to fly to the ship. Itasca was not equipped to do that. This, to me, is another indication she embarked on an adventure not realising the dangers of flying without her RDF working properly. When she arrived near Howland Itasca began transmitting in the belief she would pick up the signal with her RDF. She didn't and that is why the flight ended in failure. At the bottom one finds the main reason for the disastrous end of the flight is a mixture of overconfidence and poor planning. LTM ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:16:02 From: Marcus Lind Subject: Fatal mistakes For Alan: Please, accept my condolence and sympathy about the loss of your old friend... I think you explained the key point in a quite conclusive and exact way... the one can be a great pilot, and a competent and skilled professional, but it still doesn't insures him - or her - from some errors, or the cases of bad judgement, etc. It really can be caused by "overconfidence" sometimes, but far not necessarily... it can be also caused by just a fatique, or some miscalculation in planning or supply, or just a moment of loss of concentration - a thousand of possible reasons... but the result can be still a fatal one. And naturally, such a fatal outcome still does not give a legitimate base to place under doubt the general competence and professionalism of the specialist... From the human point of view, it is just unfair and disrespectful; from the logical point of view, it is certainly unreasonable; especially if the general competence and professionalism of the individual was proven many times before, and the exact reason of the tragic failure is still uncertain and definitely can't be claimed with absolute confidence.... Kind Regards - LTM, Marcus ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:16:35 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Re: Fatal mistakes Alan Caldwell said: "But it only takes one little slip and now I have lost a great friend. The student was apparently practicing a forced landing and hit a power line." Alan, I'm sorry to hear of your loss. I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I'd venture to guess that the Air Force looses more instructor pilots than fighter pilots during peace time. Flight instruction is a very hazardous occupation, especially when the plane gets low and slow. Years ago a Ploesti vet near here died when the Piper Archer he was instructing in lost power on take-off. He tried to do a 180 to get back to the field, but... The irony has never left me that a 35-mission WWII bomber pilot (wounded over Ploesti) could survive all of that carnage and then die 35 years later instructing in SEL aircraft. LTM, who saw the writing on the wall Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:17:54 From: Randy Jacobson Subject: Re: fatal mistakes Herman De Wulf wrote: > During that test flight she discovered the RDF equipment wasn't > working. She wrongly concluded it didn't because she was flying too near the > transmitter. RDF was (and still is) essential in ocean flying. It was the > system Pan American Airways had decided to rely on when embarking on trans > ocean flying with its flying boats. And it was at Pan American that Fred > Noonan learned his trade. > > It was procedure to navigate by the stars as near as possible to the > destination in those days, then, when within radio range, use the RDF. In fact, Pan Am had a secondary system for navigation beyond the RDF onboard the plane: they had RDFs at each of the islands. By using the island RDF and knowing the general direction the plane was coming from, and relaying that information to the plane, a backup system was in place. AE sorta relied upon that capability only when she approached Howland and asked the Itasca to take a bearing on her, but of course, they couldn't. A primary error in judgement was not being assured that this backup system was in place and operating correctly prior to taking off from Lae. ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:19:15 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: fatal mistakes Herman De Wulf wrote: > ... It was procedure to navigate by the stars as near as possible to the > destination in those days, then, when within radio range, use the RDF. The > needle of the equipment would then point in the direction of the > transmitter. Today this system is still used but it is now called ADF > (Automatic Direction Finding). Amelia took out a Hooven Radio Direction Finder that used a needle for indicating the bearing of the transmitting station. See . She replaced that unit with the manual (and very photogenic) antenna. The more primitive system had no needle. The bearing was found by listening for a "null" (the direction from which the signal was weakest). Hooven's report is not a contemporary document, and he might be faulted for being self-serving in thinking that his equipment would have saved AE and FN, but I tend to buy his argument that AE made a mistake in changing the equipment. > Amelia Earhart made a second mistake after take-off from Lae. She apparently > did not check whether her RDF was working when she was out over the ocean. Excellent point! If others have made this observation before, I hadn't noticed it. In any event, the proper problem-solving step for her to have taken, either on the day of the test or, as you suggest, at the beginning of the flight, was to fly further away from Lae and make sure that the RDF was working properly. Her cavalier treatment of the failed test supports your view that she was overconfident. > ... At the bottom one finds the main reason for the disastrous > end of the flight is a mixture of overconfidence and poor planning. That seems to me to be a very reasonable conclusion. One might also go back to a much earlier link in the accident chain. If only AE could have managed the takeoff from Hawaii properly, her three assistants on board the aircraft probably could have made the radios and DF work to find Howland. The story of the ground-loop is shrouded in AE's defensive statements and in the unwillingness of her passengers to testify against her, but I don't see how it was anything but pilot error on her part that led to the Luke Field crash. Ric has shown that the planning for the first flight was far superior to the planning for the second attempt. If she had made that takeoff, she probably would have completed the world flight successfully. It is hard to make these judgments in our modern culture. We are cautioned against "blaming the victim" and warned to "speak no ill of the dead," who cannot testify in their own defense. But I think it is important for us to learn from others' mistakes, as far as we can. A friend told me of a sign that hung (very briefly) in the fire station on an air base. It read, "You crash, we dash; you burn, we learn." Amelia provides a role model for all of us in her love of flight, her courage, and her persistence. Her lapses of judgment in flight preparation are a model of what we ought not to do. LTM. Marty #2359 ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:20:00 From: Dennis McGee Subject: Risks vs. Rewards Alan Caldwell said: "You will also notice the successful flights of note were equally without what we today would consider good planning. They were risky flights. Some worked others did not. The spirit of St. Louis worked. The Electra did not. The White Bird did not. The Daily Express did. It is easy sitting around today seeing what AE should have done to make HER flight a success but you notice we don't do that with the ones that worked even though they were equally risky and poorly planned." Alan, I understand your point, but I think it would be unfair to compare AE's final flight with others' earlier exploits, specifically Lindberg's flight or that of the White Bird. The bottom line is AE's flight was vastly more complex (and riskier??) then Lindberg's (and others'), not just in the equipment used but in its flight planning and preparation. However, both shared some common obstacles, such as the financial ability to acquire an airplane, equipping it with additional fuel tanks and creating a fuel management system to allow them to balance the fuel during flight and get maximum use of it. They both had to be skilled in taking off a grossly overloaded aircraft from an unimproved airstrip. They both needed rudimentary navigation skills and at least a passing knowledge of weather forecasting. Once airborne, Lindberg's biggest obstacles would be fuel management and staying awake for 30-some hours until he reached Paris. His navigational needs were minimal; just hold a specific heading and he'll find Europe. Weather forecasting was a non-starter because it was always a crap shoot anyway. This is not to demean the colonel's efforts; it was a great milestone for aviation, but in terms of complexity and opportunities for errors Lindberg had fewer challenges. AE, on the other hand, needed greater navigational skills (thus FN!), had to deal with two engines rather than one, needed innumerable permissions from foreign countries to over fly their territory, needed to ensure there was adequate and proper fuel at numerous stops, had to operate complex navigation equipment, and had to fight the effects of long-term fatigue. Yet, for all of its complexity, the flight would add little if anything to the overall body of aviation knowledge. LTM, who does a poor job managing her fuel Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:02:36 From: Marty Moleski Subject: Re: Risks vs. Rewards Dennis McGee wrote: > ... His navigational needs were minimal; just hold a specific heading > and he'll find Europe. Lindberg used a rough approximation of a Great Circle, changing course every hundred miles. > ... Yet, for all of its complexity, [AE's] flight would add > little if anything to the overall body of aviation knowledge. Agreed. Her trip would have been longer than either of Wiley Post's (the second of which was solo). That was the attraction of flying "around the equator." But other than the charm of her writing about what she experienced on the trip, there were no other "firsts" for the flight--oh, except first woman to make the trip in an airplane, I guess. LTM. Marty #2359