TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Celestial choir => Topic started by: Chris Johnson on September 26, 2013, 01:00:19 PM

Title: What happened with the moon
Post by: Chris Johnson on September 26, 2013, 01:00:19 PM
Why didn't/couldn't FN take shots at the moon to correct their position?

Cloud - well there are reports of clouds to the NW but TIGHAR has then South of Howland, they confirm seeing island and vessel so visibility may not have been an issue.

Fred - lets not go there, he made the rest of the flight OK

Equipment failure - 2 devices so would be very bad luck.

Anything in the achieves strike you?
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Randy Conrad on September 26, 2013, 04:02:10 PM
In reference to Chris's question...I myself pondered on something similar to the thought of what happened or what would happen if Fred looked out his window and was taking a reading off of the Sun or Moon, but didnt notice that he was looking at a reflection on the wing of the plane? Is it possible Ric of this actually happening? Afterall, Caroline Kennedy's brother was killed in a situation where he thought were lights, but was the reflection off of the surface of the ocean. Yet, Amelia is up in the pilots seat, and he's in the back...supposedly...Fred thinks he sees the moon...and so does Amelia...it's quite late...very tired...my eyes are growing weiry...He gives her the reading...but doesnt notice that he was looking at the reflection of the moon in the wing of the aircraft. She takes it for granted that he gave her the right reading and sticks to it. So they continue flying. What I'm wanting to know Ric and others...is it possible for this to happen...and actually how far off would this take her? Let me know...Thanks!!!!
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 26, 2013, 04:16:39 PM
If he didn't, my first thought is 'cloud cover', the most common reason for not being able to make a shot.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Chris Owens on September 26, 2013, 09:38:52 PM
I myself pondered on something similar to the thought of what happened or what would happen if Fred looked out his window and was taking a reading off of the Sun or Moon, but didnt notice that he was looking at a reflection on the wing of the plane?

This is extremely unlikely for the reason that celestial navigation depends upon very precise measurements of angles (that's why a sextant is such a fussy piece of equipment and why taking a sight, especially on a moving object like a ship or airplane, is as much art as it is science.)  Consider standing on the equator at 6:00 AM watching the sun rise (sun is at zero degrees)..  A quarter away around the Earth to the east of you (6500 miles away or so) at the same instant, it's noon: another observer measures the sun right over head, at 90 degrees.  A one degree error in measuring the altitude of the sun is over 70 miles error in your position (I'm oversimplifying the math here to the point of being factually wrong, but you get the idea.)  Sighting a reflection rather than the real object wouldn't just be a little bit off, it would be way off, to the point that the numbers wouldn't make sense when you tried to do the calculations.   Beyond that,  the reflection of the moon (for example, on the surface of the water or of the wing) is actually *below* the horizon -- it would be physically impossible to point your sextant at it without turning the sextant upside down, which would clue you in instantly that you were pointing it at the wrong thing.

Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2013, 07:49:43 AM
I don't know, Chris.  I do know where Itasca said there were clouds such that might obscure the moon from being shot.

I also know where Itasca said there were 'stellar' conditions throughout the night for celestial navigation.

I guess we're stuck with 'what happened to the moon', or 'what happened to Fred', or 'what happened to Fred's octant (and preventer?)', etc.  'Clouds' are simply the first thing that comes to mind for failing to make a shot; as you have noted, there could be other reasons.  For now, and perhaps forever, it is a mystery.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2013, 09:26:19 AM
OK ***** Dump Question/Statement Time *****

Would it be practical to actualy take moon/star shots but not use them until later into the flight?

Shots are used 'when taken'; they are charted *and* useful later - in the sense of  that the earlier fix provides a position from whence one has come.  In that sense they are useful *later*. 

But that usefulness is very limited -

The pilot would have proceeded by dead reckoning after the last fix.  That includes the pilot factoring into her heading drift correction, etc.  Typically the flight would have proceeded by DR until the next fix.  The idea is then to get a new fix when able; a new fix is needed to validate one's then-present position.  DR alone cannot account for undetected changes in wind, etc. along the way since the last fix. 

If one cannot get a new fix later in the flight, then one is stuck at the mercies of DR and it's potential errors, i.e. winds having changed along the way since the last fix, etc.

There's more to it.  Fred also had a drift meter, so when he could see an object below - a ship, marker of some sort, etc. he might have gotten a good idea of what the actual drift was along the way since the last fix.  We don't know how much he was able to use it, for sure.  Had he been able to use it, the information should have been helpful to the DR exercise by amending drift and speed by having sorted out the winds aloft by drift observations.

We do know that during the night earlier in the flight Earhart reported overcast conditions - not good for getting star fixes.  We also know that she later in the night she reported improved conditions, so Fred may well have gotten a fix somewhere in that break.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Chris Owens on September 27, 2013, 09:26:53 AM
OK ***** Dump Question/Statement Time *****

Would it be practical to actualy take moon/star shots but not use them until later into the flight?

In some sense you always use an observation "later" if for no other reason than it takes some time (especially before the days of portable programmable calculators) to convert a sight to a line of position (navigators call this "reducing" a sight.) 


Typically, you might do this:  Take a sight, plot it, wait a little bit, take another sight (either on the same celestial object or another one), plot the second sight.  At this point you know: 

Now I'm probably not going to get this all plotted on my chart until 12:30 or so.....   it's all true whether I plot the lines at 12:30 or at 4 in the afternoon, but, of course, the data becomes less and less useful as it gets older.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2013, 09:46:35 AM
So Fred may have taken shots but winds may have forced the plane'southward'?

Would a pilot be asked to correct the flight path as they go along or would there be another stratergy?

BTW as you may see I don't really have a scobbie doo (thats a clue) about CN :)

Fred may have taken shots and gotten fixes; after shots taken and during dead reckoning efforts, winds could have 'forced' the plane south, north, slowed it, or sped it up.  There can be any number of combinations of those vectors, depending on where the winds were from.

The pilot would be asked to adjust heading if the navigator had new information that indicated a correction was needed.  That would mean having obtained a 'new' fix, or perhaps some drift observations that suggested that wind conditions had changed measurably.

We don't know where the winds might have been coming from.  Except for one early report from the plane reporting winds of 24 knots, all we have are ground observations.  We also do not know of any radical changes - the weather was reasonably settled as I understand it. 
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Alex Fox on September 27, 2013, 12:19:45 PM
Maybe the moon was fine, and Fred was fine, but his charts were wrong.  I know, the charts are ground already treaded on this forum, and we don't know what charts he was using. 

But if we're looking for a third option to the "where was the moon/where was Fred" debate...
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2013, 04:12:13 PM
Maybe the moon was fine, and Fred was fine, but his charts were wrong.  I know, the charts are ground already treaded on this forum, and we don't know what charts he was using. 

But if we're looking for a third option to the "where was the moon/where was Fred" debate...

A third option like that does not seem to relate to whether Fred shot the moon or not.  If one must, however, then a 'third option' to 'where was the moon/where was Fred' discussion would seem to warrant another string, perhaps called 'what and where were Fred's charts', IMHO. 

Not saying it's not an interesting pursuit - but I am not sure it would yield much.  For one thing, I believe TIGHAR has done an outstanding job of looking into Earhart and Noonan's route planning and it seems reasonably likely that Fred did use something on the order of established charts and information of the time (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Worldflight/2ndattemptroute.html) that would have provided reasonable positions for islands, etc.  You will see in that information that a 5 NM error may have existed as to Howland Island's position, depending on whether Fred had updated information or not - but that hardly seem material in my view, or TIGHAR's I believe.

Fred is also on record as having used reliable charts for certain other crossings (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-dakar), so we at least have a record of Fred's realizing the importance of acceptable charts, IMO.

Just MHO - YMMV, of course.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2013, 04:33:28 PM
OK long week and late night this side of the pond but........

does it make a difference that FN plotted PanAm routes via the west coast rather than the final flight via East?????

Not really - it is the very same skill set. 
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Alex Fox on September 27, 2013, 04:37:54 PM
A third option like that does not seem to relate to whether Fred shot the moon or not. 

It's a different subject, but I brought it up because the thread seemed to imply something was either wrong with the moon or Fred.  But if his charts were off, then he could have been perfectly conscious/competent, and the moon perfectly visible, and they'd still be lost.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2013, 05:06:49 PM
A third option like that does not seem to relate to whether Fred shot the moon or not. 

It's a different subject, but I brought it up because the thread seemed to imply something was either wrong with the moon or Fred.  But if his charts were off, then he could have been perfectly conscious/competent, and the moon perfectly visible, and they'd still be lost.

Whoops - sorry Alex - I meant to 'quote' and answer your post, but accidentally hit 'modify', so you'll notice an 'edited' notation.

I retracted my 'modification' and 'quoted' in a new reply, more appropriately of course.

My apologies.

Now -

It directly questions whether something went wrong with being able to shoot the moon (I think the moon was OK...), or with Fred, or anything else.  In that sense I see your point, but the charts have been a well-established factor so far as I can tell - a 5 NM error could have been the case, but that would hardly explain the debacle of that day.  Unless of course a 5 NM margin really was the tragic difference somehow - not likely so far as I can tell.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: John Ousterhout on September 27, 2013, 07:56:10 PM
"...Unless of course a 5 NM margin really was the tragic difference somehow - not likely so far as I can tell."
In a different thread I discovered that an aircraft similar to the Lockheed 10 became impossible to hear at a distance significantly less than 5 miles.  If Amelia had flown within visual distance of Howland, she would not yet been within hearing distance.  By the same token, she wouldn't have heard a search aircraft overhead until it was within about 60 seconds of arrival.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: richie conroy on September 27, 2013, 08:01:57 PM
And there is the possibility that the few seconds the plane could be heard from afar she was on radio to Howland/itasca taking all plane watchers off guard

Richie
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 28, 2013, 10:09:27 AM
"...Unless of course a 5 NM margin really was the tragic difference somehow - not likely so far as I can tell."
In a different thread I discovered that an aircraft similar to the Lockheed 10 became impossible to hear at a distance significantly less than 5 miles.  If Amelia had flown within visual distance of Howland, she would not yet been within hearing distance.  By the same token, she wouldn't have heard a search aircraft overhead until it was within about 60 seconds of arrival.

It seems like Gary LaPook shared some observations made from his home regarding similar aircraft / similar powerplants and from how far away he could discern the engine sounds.  Something like 5 miles sounds about right, if my memory is that good.  I'm sure it can be found in the annals here.

That seems reasonable enough to me.  I live in a rural area and occasionally we have a radial-engined airplane pass on a nice day - at times a DC-3, have seen a twin Beech a few times.  Dusters around here mostly use turbines these days - different prospect.  I don't know the mileage for sure - but I believe an approaching twin with radials 'gets my attention' from a couple to 3 miles away, time enough to get to the yard and spot it, if in view.  Then by another minute or two it has typically faded into the distance.

I don't know the facts of it, of course - but my belief is that if Earhart got within 5 miles - or even 10 miles, even puny Howland might well have been spotted - even the Itasca.  Have a look at the Nauticos site and see what they saw - yes, it can be tough - and I think I can see where a 20 mile or more 'miss' could easily make spotting the island very hard on the wrong day.  But 5 or 10 miles?  I have my doubts, IMHO of course, YMMV.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: John Ousterhout on September 28, 2013, 10:59:44 AM
Here's some general information of the sun and moon in the vicinity of Howland island.  (I picked GMT -11 hours, so don't confuse the 11.5 hour time used by Itasca) The moon had risen about 5 hours before sunrise, so it would have been almost directly overhead at sunrise, or a bit less than 90 degrees from the sun.  For clouds to obscure the moon at that time, they would need to be overhead and/or a solid overcast that couldn't be climbed above.  Note that the cockpit was the best place for Fred to "shoot the moon" ( ;)) at such a high elevation.
(from US Naval Observatory web site (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_pap.pl))
The following information is provided for Howland Island (longitude W176.6, latitude N0.8):

        Friday   
        2 July 1937           Universal Time - 11h           

                         SUN
        Begin civil twilight      06:23                 
        Sunrise                   06:45                 
        Sun transit               12:50                 
        Sunset                    18:55                 
        End civil twilight        19:18                 

                         MOON
        Moonset                   12:58 on preceding day
        Moonrise                  01:24                 
        Moon transit              07:37                 
        Moonset                   13:51                 
        Moonrise                  02:18 on following day

 
Phase of the Moon on 2 July:   waning crescent with 34% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 29, 2013, 07:59:55 AM
Here's some general information of the sun and moon in the vicinity of Howland island.  (I picked GMT -11 hours, so don't confuse the 11.5 hour time used by Itasca) The moon had risen about 5 hours before sunrise, so it would have been almost directly overhead at sunrise, or a bit less than 90 degrees from the sun.  For clouds to obscure the moon at that time, they would need to be overhead and/or a solid overcast that couldn't be climbed above. Note that the cockpit was the best place for Fred to "shoot the moon" ( ;)) at such a high elevation.
(from US Naval Observatory web site (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_pap.pl))
...

Phase of the Moon on 2 July:   waning crescent with 34% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

Precisely.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on September 29, 2013, 10:50:37 AM
If FN did not get a fix on the moon while they were flying towards Howland on the LOP 157/337, how did AE know she was 100 miles out when she made that radio report to the Itasca?  That report "100 miles out" makes no snse to me because it is 1/2 hour after she reported that she was 200 miles out.  Did she get "get home itis" and crank her speed to the max (200mph, 100 miles in 1/2 hour)?  Not likely, considering a potential fuel shortage.  Conclusion:they weren't 200 miles out at the time she reported that she reported that, they reached that point earlier but she didn't report it until her standard transmittal time of 15 past the hour and the half-hour.  She was a terrible communicator at a time when the accurate communication of information was critical!  And it cost them their lives.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on September 29, 2013, 11:14:41 AM
Around the time of the flight there were charts having Howland mislocated 5 nm to the west of its "true" location.  We don't know what charts FN used in planning the Lae to Howland Leg.  We are expected to believe that FN, perhaps the most expert over-water navigator in the world, planned to fly the reverse of a complex 16 point great circle route plotted out by some other navigator for some other flight.  Nonsense.

If, when they arrived in the vicinity of Howland and were on the edge of their visiblity circle, that 5 nm error was critical.  We don't know which chart FN used to plan the Leg, he didn't leave it behind.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 29, 2013, 03:05:34 PM
If FN did not get a fix on the moon while they were flying towards Howland on the LOP 157/337, how did AE know she was 100 miles out when she made that radio report to the Itasca?  That report "100 miles out" makes no snse to me because it is 1/2 hour after she reported that she was 200 miles out.  Did she get "get home itis" and crank her speed to the max (200mph, 100 miles in 1/2 hour)?  Not likely, considering a potential fuel shortage.  Conclusion:they weren't 200 miles out at the time she reported that she reported that, they reached that point earlier but she didn't report it until her standard transmittal time of 15 past the hour and the half-hour.  She was a terrible communicator at a time when the accurate communication of information was critical!  And it cost them their lives.

If memory serves (highly suspect) the thought was that Earhart believed she was first 200 miles out for some reason, (perhaps due to DR/time elapsed?) then the call of "100 miles out" came - and to me at least suggests revised navigational information. 

I don't recall that it was "100 miles out - ALONG the LOP", but thought to be "100 miles from Howland".  Then, when Howland did not appear as expected, she would then be 'flying the line of position' to look north, then southward for Howland along that line, at least as some of us tend to see it.

To me, the two calls - 200 miles, then 100 miles - the second call made in too little time after the first to have covered the difference of 100 miles - suggests a couple of things: she may have had a delay in her "200 mile" report transmission and had already covered some of the difference, or - perhaps she had revised position information suggesting she was closer to Howland than she first thought.

The second (revised information) seems more ominous to me - was the new "100 miles out" position reliably revised, e.g. by a celestial shot?  Or by some less reliable method?  Either way, I've never been able to get past the suggestion in those things that for some reason she was confused as to how far east-west she was at those points.  Of course we don't know that she didn't find the desired LOP, but I have long held a thought that she may well have, and by some many miles due to this possible confusion - whatever would have caused it.

The moon might have been useful as to how far north or south along the LOP, yes.  They were dependent on celestial sunrise shot for LOP offset, or failing that, DR / time elapsed.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 29, 2013, 03:23:52 PM
Around the time of the flight there were charts having Howland mislocated 5 nm to the west of its "true" location.  We don't know what charts FN used in planning the Lae to Howland Leg.  We are expected to believe that FN, perhaps the most expert over-water navigator in the world, planned to fly the reverse of a complex 16 point great circle route plotted out by some other navigator for some other flight.  Nonsense.

If, when they arrived in the vicinity of Howland and were on the edge of their visiblity circle, that 5 nm error was critical.  We don't know which chart FN used to plan the Leg, he didn't leave it behind.

No we don't, and as has been pointed out Noonan really didn't have to over-labor on a great circle set of heading changes for this near-equatorial flight, either.  A rhumb line across a Mercator chart would have done it as well.

Clarence Williams had done the original charting for east to west and did use a great circle projection - very elaborate.

It seems to me that the most critical part of the 5 mile error would have been the resulting 5 mile offset - at worst, Noonan would have been looking for Howland 5 miles sooner than truly would be the case.  While that does not seem earth shattering, I can see, for example, that if their estimated LOP arrivale point was actually about 20 miles too soon (too far west) - AND one adds another 5 miles, now the flight could be just outside of the fringe of visual range (for instance - YMMV, of course).  I can further see how that might have put them flying up and down a badly estimated LOP that could have been tragically offset some 25 miles too far west - which I don't think would preclude what TIGHAR has postulated for the Gardner landfall (but other's MMV, of course).

But that makes the basic question loom larger - WHY?  Was there some reason that reliable celestial nav fixes were not being taken?  Now we've throw a hypothetical E-W error due to perhaps a lack of a good sun-shot at dawn (or perhaps unforeseen DR errors AFTER the sunrise LOP offset was taken) on top of the possible N-S error resulting from 'no moon shot'.

I don't know that we'll ever know if the 5 mile error figured into the loss or not - but it is an interesting thought.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on September 30, 2013, 04:49:30 PM
"200 miles out" vs. "100 miles out" -

I stand corrected on this point - a review of the Itasca's radio logs  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Logs/ItascaRadioLog2.pdf) is revealing - look at the entries at 0614 and 0615, then 0646 -

0614 "Wants bearing on 3105 KCS  on hour  will whistle in mic"
0615 "About two hundred miles out  appx   whistling nw (now)"

That is the "200 mile" call.

Then -

0645 "Pse (please) take bearing on us and report in half hour"
0646 "I will make noise in mic abt (about) 100 miles out"

That is NOT "the 100 mile call" - it is a "will" (future tense) statement.

Therefore IMO the radio log does not support Earhart having 'covered 100 miles in a half-hour' -

Note the distinction in the language in the two calls - it appears significant:
- At 0614/0615 she reports at "about 200 miles out" and whistles for recognition.
- At 0645.0646 she asks for a bearing to be taken on her and reported in half-hour; also says "will make" noise in mic "about 100 miles out" -

No noise came to mark the 100 mile point, although there were subsequent calls; but we're never really informed as to what point in time put Earhart "100 miles out" by hers or Fred's estimate.

I suspect this distinction has been well covered before, but somehow I'd overlooked it until now, if so.

In any case, it still does not appear to relate to how far from Howland 'along the LOP' - but probably from Howland along the route of flight, or perhaps distance from what they hoped was Howland, AND where the LOP would lie.  That could include a deliberate offset, if that technique was being used (we don't know).

If FN did not get a fix on the moon while they were flying towards Howland on the LOP 157/337, how did AE know she was 100 miles out when she made that radio report to the Itasca?  That report "100 miles out" makes no snse to me because it is 1/2 hour after she reported that she was 200 miles out.  Did she get "get home itis" and crank her speed to the max (200mph, 100 miles in 1/2 hour)?  Not likely, considering a potential fuel shortage.  Conclusion:they weren't 200 miles out at the time she reported that she reported that, they reached that point earlier but she didn't report it until her standard transmittal time of 15 past the hour and the half-hour.  She was a terrible communicator at a time when the accurate communication of information was critical!  And it cost them their lives.

If memory serves (highly suspect) the thought was that Earhart believed she was first 200 miles out for some reason, (perhaps due to DR/time elapsed?) then the call of "100 miles out" came - and to me at least suggests revised navigational information (corrected - see above). 

I don't recall that it was "100 miles out - ALONG the LOP", but thought to be "100 miles from Howland" (and per above the "100 miles out" call never really came).  Then, when Howland did not appear as expected, she would then be 'flying the line of position' to look north, then southward for Howland along that line, at least as some of us tend to see it.

To me, the two calls - 200 miles, then 100 miles - the second call made in too little time after the first to have covered the difference of 100 miles - suggests a couple of things: she may have had a delay in her "200 mile" report transmission and had already covered some of the difference, or - perhaps she had revised position information suggesting she was closer to Howland than she first thought. (See above - more likely 'made the 200 mile out call', but never did alert Itasca as to '100 miles out'.)

The second (revised information) seems more ominous to me - was the new "100 miles out" position reliably revised, e.g. by a celestial shot?  Or by some less reliable method?  (See above - we have no idea at what time Earhart believed she was '100 miles out' - she may have known but it was not reported.)  Either way, I've never been able to get past the suggestion in those things that for some reason she was confused as to how far east-west she was at those points.  (I still believe that may have been the case.)  Of course we don't know that she didn't find the desired LOP, but I have long held a thought that she may well have, and by some many miles due to this possible confusion - whatever would have caused it.

The moon might have been useful as to how far north or south along the LOP, yes.  They were dependent on celestial sunrise shot for LOP offset, or failing that, DR / time elapsed.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on September 30, 2013, 06:17:31 PM
0646 "I will make noise in mic abt (about) 100 miles out"

That is NOT "the 100 mile call" - it is a "will" (future tense) statement.

This is a classic punctuation problem.

The transmission timeline (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmission_timeline) that I use reads like this:

Itasca1 states: "Earhart on nw reception fairly clr nw Wants bearing es [and] wnts rept in 1/2/ hr"; Bellarts states: "Pse [please] take bearing on us and report in half hour--I will make noise [sic] in mic - abt 100 miles out";[3] (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmission_timeline#cite_note-2) Howland Island reports: "(am using the D/F and receiving set sparingly due to heavy drainage on batteries) (the batteries are of low AM-Hour capacity) Earhart on the air, S4 [signal strength 4], "give me a bearing" Earhart did not test for bearing. Her transmission too short for bearing, static x5, her carrier is completely modulated. Could not get a bearing due to above reasons. 3105." Itasca bridge log states: "Miss Earhart reported position 100 miles from island reception fair."
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Ted G Campbell on October 06, 2013, 08:32:47 PM
Way to compecated for us simple minds.  What is your point?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: C.W. Herndon on October 14, 2013, 09:19:04 AM
Do we have weather logs from Itasca/Howland  or anyone else in the vicinity for the 48 hours after Earhart's disappearance?

Neff, that information is found here.  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Logs/Itascadecklog.pdf) This is a fairly large file so it might take a little while to download, depending on your computer.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on October 24, 2013, 09:56:37 AM
Do we have weather logs from Itasca/Howland  or anyone else in the vicinity for the 48 hours after Earhart's disappearance?

Neff, that information is found here.  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Logs/Itascadecklog.pdf) This is a fairly large file so it might take a little while to download, depending on your computer.

From the deck log prior to movement from Howland it appears clouds in area were (times local so far as I can tell) -

4 a.m.     a.cu (alto-cumulus) - coverage 2/10's - vis 8
5 a.m.     cu (cumulus) - 2/10's - vis 9
6 a.m.     s.cu (strato-cumulus) - 4/10's - vis 9 ("a.cu" could suggest some overcast, but report was only 4/10's so more than half of sky open in area)
7 a.m.     cu - 3/10's - vis 9
8 a.m.     cu - 3/10's - vis 9
9 a.m.     cu - 2/10's - vis 9
10 a.m.   cu - 3/10's - vis 9

After underway -

11 a.m. - total run 10.2 NM - HDG 337 - s.cu - 5/10's - vis 9
12 p.m. - total run 24.8 NM - last hour 14.6 NM on HDG 338 - cu - 5/10's - vis 9
1 p.m. -   40.8 NM - HDG 338 - a.cu - 6/10's (here "bc" changes to "c" - "sky mainly cloudy" - vis 9 
2 p.m. -   55.8 NM - last hour 15.0 NM on HDG 080 - cu 5/10's (back to "bc" conditions) - vis 9
3 p.m. -   70.4 NM - HDG 080 - cu 3/10's - vis 9
4 p.m. -   85.0 NM - HDG 080 - cu 4/10's - vis 9
5 p.m. -   99.6 NM - HDG 080 - ci.cu 5/10's (cirrus-cu) - vis 9
6 p.m. -   114.2 NM - HDG 080 - a.cu 5/10's - vis 9
7 p.m. -   128.8 NM - last hour 14.6 NM on HDG 345 - a.cu 10/10's ("o" conditions - overcast) - vis 8
8 p.m. -   143.4 NM - last hour 14.6 NM on HDG 080 - a.s (alto-strat?) 8/10's - vis 8
9 p.m. -   158.0 NM - last hour 14.6 NM on HDG 312 - a.s 6/10's - vis 8
10 p.m. -  172.6 NM - last hour 14.6 NM on HDG 338 - a.cu 2/10's - vis 8

Thence back on HDG 212 -
11 p.m. - 185.5 NM - last hour 12.9 NM on HDG 212 - cu 2/10's - vis 8
12 p.m. -  197.1 NM - last hour 11.6 NM on HDG 212 - cu 2/10's - vis 8

(Edited by JN - redid the rough math and added some comments on Thompson's direction that morning) -

Thompson seems to have found himself under heavier skies around 50+ 60+ NM north / northwest north-northeast of Howland - which appears to the area he concentrated on as probable for a crash at sea for his own reasons.  Those appear to include That does not preclude the afore-referenced (in my earlier post, above) mention of substantial clouds to NW of Howland as observed by Itasca in the Cruise Report.  For whatever reason, Thompson seems to have thought the clouds he could see may have played a role in the flight's failure to get workable celestial shots that might have brought them closer; he also seems to believe the flight had progressed further to the east than I had understood before (I believe he mentions that in the report or deck log perhaps).

That same Cruise Report noted 'stellar conditions' for celestial naviation to SE of Howland throughout the night before, and no heavy skies noted in that sector as to the day's observations.  Flying conditions at / immediately around Howland were said to be excellent.  Perhaps that contrast in conditions led Thompson away from the south / southeast as a probability that morning - IMHO, YMMV, of course.

This seems to suggest that there was no huge area of overcast all around Itasca, but some conditions approaching and briefly reaching overcast conditions were encountered to the NNW north and north-northeast during Itasca's search.  Couple that with the Cruise Report comment on large cloud formations to NW of Howland and the notion of Howland being on the SE edge - and some distance from - possible overcast (or at least observably cloudy) conditions to the NW.  My take-away is that Thompson viewed the significant cloud formations in the distance as possibly interfering with celestial navigation (perhaps saw formations suggestive of overcast above the flight's likely altitude).  He certainly realized the flight had failed at any meaningful radio direction finding - all said, I believe, in his report or the deck log.

If anywhere nearer Howland than 40 miles to west / NW / north it seems the flight should have had decent celestial nav conditions.

The same for an observable distance ('vis 9') from Itasca to SE of Howland, according to the report.

To me that mystery remains - what was Fred doing, and where was the moon?

Some things do make me want to reconsider the Benedictine bottle found on Gardner... oh, that's nasty - I'm getting too bored now.

In any case, given what Thompson had for information at the time, I can see why he went where he did.  Later reports of post-loss signals and analysis of Noonan's 'likely actions' led to a different tack by Friedell, as we know.

IMHO, Itasca had little chance of spotting the wreck on the sea that day, had it been there - for what that is worth: one slow little ship making its best effort to cover a speculated area of the flight's end. 

I will jump threads slightly and say that similarly, the Colorado's attempt among the Phoenix Group, as Ric Gillespie recently pointed out, can hardly be considered conclusive either - what began as an educated guess by an able navy officer based on some fairly extensive briefings that Thompson did not have earlier soon ended with near administrative brutality - 'we looked real good down there - go elsewhere'.  I'm not sure that Thompson's idea really got any better respect either in 1937 - just MHO, and I have the feeling that the biggest show in the Pacific at the time - the Lexington Group - did an exemplary job of covering a lot of ocean with near zero potential for yielding the wreck.

Anyway, back on track - where was the moon in all this?  Conditions don't seem to have been bad enough any where near Howland - even considering that chunk of heavy sky Thompson managed to steam under to the NNE, to preclude a shot.  Celestial conditions certainly seem to have been even better to the south-southeast, at least by what Itasca could see at vis 9 from Howland.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on October 29, 2013, 08:21:16 AM
Point: Between 6:45 and 8:45 it should have been easy for Noonan to get a good fix on his position assuming he could see both the sun and moon within a short period of time or even a fair fix assuming he saw them at disparate times and had to advance one LOP. 

The fact Earhart only gave a solar LOP suggest Noonan was only able to see the sun.

The LOP it's self suggest either a sunrise LOP perhaps nothing more than  Noonan's best guess of when the overcast lightened, or a sight between 6:18 and 7:18.

All facts consistent with but not proving Noonan was under an overcast the entire period.

Interesting.

If under the overcast long enough to have missed a clear sunrise and Fred had to estimate according to a brightening sky - or worse, nothing more than DR, then Fred may never have had a reliable LOP / advance after all.  The effect might have been a delayed apparent sunrise - perhaps leading Fred to believe the flight had not progressed as far East as it really had - meaning the flight could have been furhter east by many minutes than what Fred believed.

What of latitude?  Fred needed the moon for that.  If 'on latitude' - one would hope they would break out anf overfly the island, happy day.  But if to north and moon shot delayed due to continuing oscurity, and already having misjudged Eastward progress, the flight might go wide and far - to NE.  One hopes if near right latitude and progressing too far East, Howland could be spotted or the plane seen or heard.  None of that happened.

So where did they come from and go to?  One looks again to the clouds to NW and North - if coming out of cloudy NW, and flight was unwittingly to north and still in oscured conditions in the north, it may have been a while before they broke out enough for Fred to get a moon shot.  If he was finally able to do that, then he may have reasonably pegged his latitude - but never realized how far East he had come.

We don't know, of course - and likely never will.  But pitiably, the flight may have been well to East of Howland, never realizing it - but on same latitude due to a later moon shot after breaking out.  Any smoke from Itasca would drift to West - away from the flight and leaving no sign underneath if to East of Howland.  Vis should have been better looking away from sun in that case, but perhaps there's a hint in there are really too far East to pick Howland out among the distant cloud shadows. 

This all suggests more clearly to me why Thompson saw things as he did on that morning - search to N / NE / NW.  One now wonders if Thompson's own error was in not realizing that maybe Noonan DID get a moonshot, and had his latitude reasonably pegged; that it may have been a tragic Easterly displacement that screwed things up. 

One now wonders if a two-step error went unrealized:
1. no clear sunrise, delay of apparent sunrise and therefore underestimating real ground speed / distance = flight further East than known. 
2. if to north - where clouds and known events suggested at time to Thompson, the moon shot may have been delayed, Fred may eventually have gotten the moon shot and got to the right latitude - where final 'on the line' call came: buzzing up and down the line 337-157, but tragical some miles to East...

Just thoughts.

Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 01, 2013, 11:11:25 AM
Since this is my first post I'll say hello all a give a tidbit of my background!

I've been interested in AE's fate and reading this site for about 13 years.
I've also read Elgin Long's book, and am familiar with almost every site on the subject.

You may laugh, but I've been flying the FS Simulators since FS2000 version.
In the last couple of years several friends and myself have worked to develope a good model of Amelia's Lockheed L10E.
It is equipped with a sextant,driftmeter, E6B, and includes different gauge failures built to at random.
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/forumdisplay.php?10-MSFS-Multiplayer-Adventures

One of the persons who has developed this program has done extensive research on AE in several different locations including the Smithsonian and corresponded with Elgin Long, as well.

I'm also familiar with the Purdue University's Archives on Amelia Earhart the Putnam collection.   

I'm also a real world pilot and have been a Ham Radio Operator for years, so I know a bit about propagation, directional attennas, signal strengths, and mores code, which IMHO believe Amelia Earhart should have know as well.
All these things have led me to my own theories, but this post isn't about my opinion but is here for its factual value. 

I found researching this particular subject interesting and find it hard to believe anyone is inquiring as to whether or not FN used the MOON to navigate!

Of course he use the MOON as his primary LOP and this post will prove to you WHY he used it! 

Some sources, and I’m not pointing fingers, have suggested that FN was confused and was reading the wrong dated charts and instead of using Jul 3 data he may have been using Jul 2 data or vice versa. In fact one person goes into a very long dissertation, which is almost convincing, until you realize he fails to mention one very important detail, which would have been quite obvious with the use of the naked eye alone. (the MOON was available that night) The argument has also been supposedly confirmed by some navigator and that these chart errors could have put them 59.14 nm farther east or west of where they actually were.

I say nonsense! Here is a comparison of those two days of readings.
As example, if that were the case then the errors would have been as follows just before crossing the IDL (International Dateline)

For anyone who knows nothing or very little about celestial navigation here’s a crash course or refresher perhaps for navigators.

Fact: Fred N would have definitely taken three shots to acquire three LOP’s each time he was acquiring a fix at night. We know that from his Oakland to Hawaii records and that was protocol in those days.
You may ask why?

Take a piece of paper and draw a big X on it. Call where the lines intersect a two LOP fix. To confirm this fix the navigator takes another LOP and draws the third line on his graph. The third line should intersect exactly where the first two did. If not he knows exactly which one of the three LOPs is incorrect. And since the MOON would be the one so far off if he were reading the wrong day’s charts, he’d know it immediately. So he’d use at the next day’s chart, depending which side of the two star fix was, and recalculate.

Celestial Navigation Data for 1937 Jul 3 at 17:00:00 UT
Latitude S0* 06.1’ Longitude E 179* 56.1’
Object/GHA/Dec/Hc/ Zn
VENUS/ 122* 03.9'/ N16* 10.8'/ +30* 33.6'/ 71.1*
ACHERNAR 152* 27.1'/ S57* 32.9'/ +28* 29.2'/ 163.6*
MOON 139* 54.0'/ N17* 37.4'/ +46* 42.1'/ 63.7*

And readings from 1 day's charts at the some time and place.

Celestial Navigation Data for 1937 Jul 2 at 17:00:00 UT
Latitude S0* 06.1’ Longitude E 179* 56.1’
Object/ GHA/ Dec/ Hc/ Zn
VENUS/ 122* 04.8'/ N15* 56.4'/ +30* 37.0'/ 71.3*
ACHERNAR/ 151* 27.9'/ S57* 32.9'/ +28* 12.2'/ 163.1*
MOON 153* 09.0'/ N13* 34.9'/ +60* 02.1'/ 61.8*

The above star coordinates( VENUS and the MOON are the longitude (east and west) LOPs since their azimuths fall more vertically on the chart or, map if you’d rather think of it as such).
The difference in elevation of VENUS Hc is 3.4 minutes and Dec is 4.6 minutes.
The difference in elevation of ACHERNARs’ Hc is 17 minutes and Dec is 0 minutes (none).
(ACHERNAR is used to determine a latitude (north and south) LOP since its azimuth falls more horizontally on the chart or map).

Sometimes pictures help make things clearer
Draw a typical 30/60/90 degree (right triangle) and label it.
Label the 30 degree angle X to be the Hc (elevation angle) of the star, Side A is the side opposite of Angle A and represents the elevation of the star above the horizon, side B is the adjacent side (111nm) of angle A, and C is the hypotenuse. Use 28 degrees for Angle X.

In case you're wondering why 111nm, it is AE's average GS from the Lae Airstrip to when they reported being 200nm from Howland at 17:42 UT.

By using simple trigonometry (http://www.pagetutor.com/trigcalc/trig.html) as navigators do, for side B use 111, representing the distance traveled in an hour, and calculate. Increase or decrease angle X by 1 degree and leave side A's value and recalculate. Notice that only a difference of 5nm. Now divide 17 (minutes) by 60 (minutes) = .2833x5nm=1.4nm error.

Since each minute of latitude = 1nm and longitude (at or near the equator) is very close to 1nm, we can see that, if FN had used the wrong dated charts, the error differences in his star LOPs to acquire a fix, would only have been at most about a couple of miles. 

(The bubble sextant is only capable of reading within about 4-5nm while bouncing alone in an aircraft like the L10E). So you can see, the difference is quite negligible.

Which is the first point of this exercise of using the wrong day's data charts.

HOWEVER!! Since FN used the MOON as a 3rd LOP using the same method above notice a huge difference!

The MOON would surely be his primary celestial candidate, because of its brightness, accuracy of shooting a LOP with the sextant, and the simple fact that it’s changing its position faster than any another celestial bodies in the sky, including the Sun or planets.

Notice above, that by using the Moons’ LOP as a third source to acquire a fix, the difference in Hc’s are 14* 40’ and Dec’s 14* 14’ from one day to the next. Again, by using simple trigonometry, 111nm as Side B and an Hc of 46 for angle X and increase angle X by 14 degrees to 60. leave side A and recalculate and to see that side B decreases to a reading of 66nm, a difference of 45nm.   
Do the same and calculation and decrease the 46 by 14 = 32 and notice the error increases to 184 a difference of 73nm. 
Note: Since the Dec and Hc have both changed by  around 14 degrees, to be more accurate. you would merely use Pathagora’s Theorem a2 +b2 = c2. The difference in error between the two days would be a little more than 14 degrees. In this case I merely use 14 degrees which is close enough for illustration purposes.
 
Also note that the errors increase as take reading closer to the horizon which increases accuracy of readings of course.

So supposing FN was using the wrong chart and plotted two star LOPs to acquire a fix (where the two LOP lines intersect) and then acquired the MOON’s LOP. That line wouldn’t even come anywhere near to where the two star LOPs crossed to indicate a fix even if he was just one day off.

There's no doubt that FN would have used the MOON as a third shot since, as a trained navigator for many years, he knew this. If he was using the wrong day’s data he would have known immediately. Not after the crossing the date line and comparing two day's data. He would have known it by merely glancing at the charts and noticing the disparity. Anyone who has looked at the MOON on two different nights knows how much higher or lower it is from one day to the next.

We all know that AE and FN left Lae, NG for Howland island on the 3rd of July, local time.
However FS used July 2nd Charts to whole way since the charts based on GMT not locat time.
It made little difference to Fred when or where they crossed the ILD (International Date Line)
He only cared that he was changing from using a +179 degrees to a -179 degree for reference purposes.       

I hope this helps all to understand a little more about Celestial Navigation, the Sextant, and the myth about using incorrect charts.

Fred
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Bill de Creeft on December 01, 2013, 01:49:01 PM
Thank you!
...and at this point I'd be interested in your 'theories'; you've got my attention at least.

I believe that it happened, basically, the way it's been laid out; it's hard, because of where it is, to prove it.
I believe that if we could see it all together, it would/will seem simple .

I just kind of think that they really did get there, and the explanation of that is interesting...but the proof is what's missing!

That has to wait...but explanations , and 'theories' are the essence of what makes waiting interesting, and practical experience results in simplicity...I think!
What do you think happened to get them where they ended up?
And do you think they ended up their days on Gardner Is. ?
I would be personally interested, given your background...
I think they did.
Bill
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Ted G Campbell on December 01, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
Frederick Young

I found your analysis very interesting.  I have a question for you;  if the navigation process was as sophisticated (I have no experience in celestial navigation) as you have laid out in your post, what are the possible errors FN could have made in his calculations resulting in their missing Howland?

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 01, 2013, 05:26:59 PM
Thanks Bill for you interest

At this time I don't want to express my theories, but discusss them.
This is only my 2nd post here and until I have established some sort of trust here at TIGHAR, I rather stick to the subject of whether or not FN used the MOON's LOP to acquire a fix. 

I'm not here to agree or disagree with anyone's hypothesis.

And at this time my opion means nothing. :)

My question to you or anyone else is, what do you think of the crash course in celestial navigation?

Thanks all for reading and please try to learn a bit about navigation with the material I've attempted to provided.

I'd like to answer any specific questions, but not discuss theory.

As you might gather, from the provided link above, I'd rather teach fishing than fish.  :) 

Fred



 
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 01, 2013, 06:41:36 PM
Hi Ted,

As I tried to answer Bill, and created a new subject  ???, I'm new here. Different message board, different protocal. :)
Obviously I don't know what to do after being timed out and attempting to come back in just to find all was lost.

Until I've extablished some sort of trust here at TIGHAR, I'd rather not exlpress my opinions.

At this time I'm only interested in what your or anyone's thoughts are after reading what I'd writing.

Fact or Fiction Agree or Disagree and why!

I have some more ideas to present for discussion.

Please folks understand I'm not here to prove or disprove how Amelia may or may not have ended up at Gardner Island. I'm excited as anyone can be to find the truth. Rather than discuss or well on the end, I'd rather focus on the means.

You know like established beliefs that may or may not be factual.

As example. The 157/337 LOP is a myth pure and simple. Invented by someone who knew nothing about navigation I'd guess. That LOP would have only been true if AE and FN had arrived at W176, the longitude of Howland island, and they just happened to be dead reckoning directly to Howland at a heading of 67 degrees mag at the very moment of sunrise. As it was they were two hundred miles away, and hadn't turned to an offset heading of 67 +/- 10  or so degrees to offset an approach on one side or the other.
Anyway, not matter, 176 degrees, the longitude of Howland was their ONLY LOP to locat howland no matter when they arrrive at the said longitude.
Instead of a 90 degree turn in heading, think of if as aa turn to 176 degrees true heading due south or north (depending on their offset heading ) no matter what their heading was at the time they reached the NS176 degree LOP.

The sextant in the daytime only knows longitude. The only logical thing to do was to use it for what it was intended. I use the term LOP for longitude here but a better term description might be circle or LINE of uncertainy. That circle or line would vary depending on the accuracy of the sextant, which I already mentioned above, and their visibility east or west of 176 degrees at what ever altitude they were flying.

One more thing while we're on the subject of navigation.
I laugh when I keep hearing that AE and FS had no ideal which direction the wind was blowing. Please folks, you have to agree AE was and Ace PILOT the thousands of hours and flying anything that had wings. Why do you think she was cluless as to the direction and magnitude of the wind? My flight instructor forced me to find out.
The simple proceedure it this! Make a wide coordinated 360 turn at one fixed speed. As you're turning watch the IAS very closely. When da need go up your IAS is increasing and you're fliing into (running against the wind, we all know the song) and when da need go down we flying with the wind. (Sorry I'm have a funny memory here) At two point while fling in the circle da needle stay in da meddle. I know I' being funny, I told youi I could laugh when hearing some of these thing being said. Now of course you have acquired 3 differnet speed IAS readings. For instance, when flying east 120, north 110, west 120 and south 130 knots. I'll bet there's not one person who read this that can't tell us which way the wind was blowing and what magnitude of it was.

Thanks for response

Fred
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Bill de Creeft on December 01, 2013, 10:54:17 PM
Fred, I appreciate your attempt to answer me; couldn't find it!
But no matter...was just interested in your thinking on a subject in which I have no knowledge.
I flew on the nap of the earth for 25 thousand hours, and survived by never losing sight of it, as long as I could stay in the air and at the point where I could not do that it was time to put the plane down while I could...
So we are/were in two different worlds.

But I have to say: IAS is indicated air speed...and that won't change no matter what the wind is doing..or which way you turn, as long as the airplane keeps doing what it is doing as long as that is what you ask it to do...'by definition'...in my world.
You mean Ground Speed, right?...and that's where the navigation comes in, and that's where I withdraw !?!
Peace...

My approach to this is pretty primitive; I am convinced they got there, so something they did had that result....and that is where I would  look, I'm convinced of that!
At 81 years old, I hope every day for something new to show up!
But I do not have anything other than an interest...their fates were decided long ago, and I'm not strong enough or wealthy enough to contribute....or knowledgeable enough to argue any point!

It may even be that the answer to the question is somewhere on the ground, under a tree or where a tree used to be!...it's a very hard place to get to, and to look on!...it could take years...or it could happen tomorrow!

Back to watching...

Bill
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: JNev on December 03, 2013, 04:31:27 PM
So, Fred - if FN used the moon and had all those shots, why would the flight have become so lost?

Personally I believe it remains possible that FN was able to get comparatively few shots in the night (weather) and that had the moon been shot in the morning that a better realization of where the flight was relative to Howland in N-S terms might have been noticeably helpful.

But I am interested in how you 'know' what shots Fred had and how you are able to know it; didn't realize it was knowable.

As to trust, what is the fear, that someone might challenge your thinking?  Anything ventured in a forum like this is going to be not only subject to challenge, but probably challenged indeed, so I feel for you if you are waiting for a non-critical / non-individually-thinking audience in which to advance your ideas.  Good luck with that, but hats off - actually you've already expressed quite a few opinions, so your feet are good and wet.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Ted G Campbell on December 03, 2013, 09:03:25 PM
Fred,

Whoa, I think you just stepped over the line by calling the reported North/South line a “myth”.  This was recorded in the ship’s log at the time.  What makes you think it’s a myth?   Do you have information we don’t have.  Please explain.
Ted Campbell   
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 03, 2013, 09:31:40 PM
Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks for the response.

So, Fred - if FN used the moon and had all those shots, why would the flight have become so lost?

I'm not sure what you mean by "so lost." The plane has never been found. On what grounds to you qualify the statement? I could be 10 miles from Howland so some believe.   

Personally I believe it remains possible that FN was able to get comparatively few shots in the night (weather) and that had the moon been shot in the morning that a better realization of where the flight was relative to Howland in N-S terms might have been noticeably helpful.

Not really, In fact the higher in elevetion the less accurate the shot. There was little discernable difference in the azimuths of the sun and the moon by morning.

But I am interested in how you 'know' what shots Fred had and how you are able to know it; didn't realize it was knowable.

Fact:
The MOON was the perfect candidate for celestial navigation that night.
1. Experience: I’ve been a a student of celestial navigation for a number of years.

2. Research: The criteria for taking sextant shots is well known.
The first and most important consideration is the brightness of the heavenly body in which the navigator uses to acquire a fix.

The second is the azimuth in relation to the course being traveled. In this case the MOON. Once over the horizon it would be the number one choice, for both of these reasons.

3. Common sense: Once the MOON is visible its brightness alone tends to obscure other stars around it that would normally be easier to read. If you don’t know what I mean the next time you look at the moon notice how its brightness tends to do as I’ve said.         


I’m surprised so many folks here believe that FN had taken very few celestial fixes during the night of July 2, 1937 due to weather conditions.

I can’t in go long with this. The L10E had the capability for flying to a ceiling of 19,000 feet. Is there proof that there was heavy cloud cover above that altitude the entire night? Sorry I’m not buying that, however remote the possibility I suppose it still does exists.

I refuse to believe that stratospheric clouds condition could obscure the MOON at night or the SUN during the day at those altutudes. This old bird has spent many a nights star gazing. I’m what many may refer to as an “outdoors person.”

Could anyone explain what factual information that has led you to believe otherwise and why he DID NOT use the MOON to take a fix?

As I’ve said all alone “Show me the facts.”  I’m not here to disprove or prove any theories about the end. I’m here to discuss the means. In this entire thread no one has even suggested that FN used the MOON for anything other than it was there that night.
At the equator MOON rise at horizon was around 1230 GCT. Over 5 hours before AE reported that they were 200 mile from Howland 1744.

As to trust, what is the fear, that someone might challenge your thinking?  Anything ventured in a forum like this is going to be not only subject to challenge, but probably challenged indeed, so I feel for you if you are waiting for a non-critical / non-individually-thinking audience in which to advance your ideas.  Good luck with that, but hats off - actually you've already expressed quite a few opinions, so your feet are good and wet.


I think that much of what your calling opinion is fact. The fact that the MOON was in very two different locations from one day to the next is at fact. I'm sorry you didn't understand the crash course in celestial navigation. See, that the fear, of stateing facts and getting accused of it them being opinion.

As the saying goes, "Don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up" ,,,hopefully doesn't apply to me. :)

Here are some Non Facts: Things that I believe but have no proof of so are not facts. One the other hand I’m not one who believes in coincidences either.
I believe that the entire flight eastward from Oakland was timed for this flight in mind that the MOON would be in the perfect cycle. I believe the exact timing from when they departed from Lae was timed for their arrival at Howland at dawn, just as it was when they flew from Oakland to Hawaii. I believe the 200 miles out report was the distance they were at the IDL at W180 degrees. I believe the 5x5 radio signal at 2013 suggests that they were very close to the Itasca at the time of transmission. Coincidences, perhaps, but carry logical weight. I could argue these points forever, and never convince anyone so what’s the point.

Thanks for reading all.

Fred

 
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 03, 2013, 11:46:05 PM
Fred,

Whoa, I think you just stepped over the line by calling the reported North/South line a “myth”.  This was recorded in the ship’s log at the time.  What makes you think it’s a myth?   Do you have information we don’t have.  Please explain.
Ted Campbell

Ted, Thanks for the response.

As far as the 157/337 LOP, I'd forgotten about the radio communication to the Itasca.

That doesn't change the facts That she couldn’t have been.

Let me explain.
 
I believe she was simply reading the information that she had in front of her on her flight plan, which had been determined at departure some 18 hours beforehand.
 
What any team needs to be succeed is that each person on the team know and perform their particular function to the best of their ability by following the plan. In this case the team consisted of a pilot, a navigator, and various radio operators at Lae, the Itasca, and anyone else she contacted alone the way.
 
AE’s job as pilot was to fly the plane and communicate with the radio operators.
 
The radio operator’s job was to listen, respond and log the information period. All these people have a plan in front of them. In this case if was called the flight plan.
 
 FN’s job as navigator was to compile a flight plan file it and make any changes alone the way.
 
Flight plans change constantly the moment after departure, due to changes such as the route, weather, and even the performance changes of the aircraft. However, after departure there’s no way of changing the information that others have in front of them.
 
The 157/337  LOP is based on the “sun line” at sunrise at Howland. However, they weren’t anywhere near the longitude of W176 degrees at the time of sunrise at Howland.
 
At 200nm from Howland they would have been somewhere near the longitude of W180 degrees or near the IDL. Since the sun line changes constantly during the day, FN as navigator, already knew the flight plan had changed. He would have no reason to put them on that particular LOP. No one else did and even it they had, it wasn't there job to worry about it.
 

Well before the time of the that particular radio report FN already knew that the LOP wasn't going to be correct and too soon to have computed just what the required LOP would be necessary to fly the sun line upon arriving at the longitude of W176 degrees (Howland).           
 
So we ask ourselves, why would she report it then? There are several possible reasons.
 
My thoughts are that she was simply reading the information she had in front of her on the flight plan, which had been determined at departure hours beforehand.
 
Call it a white lie. If she'd reported anything other than what was on the flight plan it would just add confusion and alter what the radio operator was expecting her to report.  In the military with a secrete clearance, we called it the “need to know” basis.

The flight plan that was filed would have included an average GS speed of 140 knots since it was the AVERAGE GS of all the flights before this one. Had they maintained the GS they would have reached Howland at sunrise. That is evident from the original east west flight from Oakland to Hawaii. There's no mystery or coindence about it. Navigation at that time was safer at night using two to three stars to determine a lon/lat fix. During the daylight hour with only the SUN and occasionaly the MOON limits reading to longitude only.             

 
I haven't figured it out exactly because no one knows just exactly when they would have reached the W176 longitude , but using an average GS of 111- 140 and before the reported LOP they'd reached the sun line for an approach to Howland their LOP would have been somewhere around 127/307. Of course That LOP would only be valid for a few minutes. 

I also wouldn’t be surprised if FN just decided to just fly all the way to the W176 degree longitude then fly directly 180 degrees true south. It would have been safer. Especially since it was such a long time since he’d been able to acquire a latitude fix. At least that’s what I’d have done. But to avoid any confusion, I’d let Amelia report what was on the flight plan.
Keep in mind that once an approach LOP is established and they turn onto it the only method of acquiring the destination is the use DR from then on or until Fred knew they had passed the W176 degree longitude. Once he knew that then they would fly the prescribed square search for a period of time. After that period of time expired, Fred would have no choice but to fly to the W176 lon. and fly a true 180/360 NS LOP since that would be the only known. As I said the approach LOP is null and void after a one time shot at it using DR only.

Fred           
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Bill de Creeft on December 04, 2013, 12:45:09 AM
Hello Fred...

I was able to follow your last couple of posts, and have no quarrel with what you have written.

Because i don't know where your thinking has taken you, I am curious if you have studied "betty's notebook", and if you found any of the numbers (headings, distances??) interesting...?
I got pretty excited soon after i came on the forum because I thought there was some significance to a set of numbers rhat might have been a position close to landing on Gardner....since than it has been more complicated for me and I don't know what to think !?!

But for many reasons I still think that's where they ended up....so where does your thinking take you?

I don't want to go back through my thoughts and observations ...nor does anyone want me to !...it's all on the forum under my signature...but my experiences with low freq. radio messages over a distance...one of them sitting in Alaska and overhearing a sailboat going into Darwin talking on 2512 to the Harbormaster one night...but no point in talking about stuff on the ground unless we think it's the same ground...I guess we're talking for now about whether they would or could have gotten there; as you know I think they did.

I don't think I'll ever know enough to follow your thinking enough to come to the same conclusions, so I'm just asking for you to tell me what you think and allow me to see if it fits!

I want to dig where the Amelia style 'E' was in white coral rock !!

Bill
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Greg Daspit on December 04, 2013, 08:19:45 AM
See LOP questions (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/navigation.html).


Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: C.W. Herndon on December 04, 2013, 10:18:02 AM
I’m surprised so many folks here believe that FN had taken very few celestial fixes during the night of July 2, 1937 due to weather conditions.

I can’t in go long with this. The L10E had the capability for flying to a ceiling of 19,000 feet. Is there proof that there was heavy cloud cover above that altitude the entire night? Sorry I’m not buying that, however remote the possibility I suppose it still does exists.

I refuse to believe that stratospheric clouds condition could obscure the MOON at night or the SUN during the day at those altutudes.

As a former commercial pilot with over 30 years flying experience I will not get into a discussion of navigation here, but I will question your implication that FN could have made "moon shots" at altitudes up to 19,000 feet. I do not question that the 10E Electra, when loaded within normal limits, could climb up to that altitude. I do have a doubts that the crew, since there is no evidence that I have seen that indicates there was supplemental oxygen on board, could have functioned at that altitude.

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article about Aerospace physiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_physiology) which explains why I don't think it would have been possible. If you would rather read a more detailed discussion of this topic, see this FAA discussion of the subject. (http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/airman_education/media/IntroAviationPhys.pdf) Pay particular to the section starting on page 3.1.

I don't dispute that FN could have made sightings during the night, only that he could have made them from that altitude.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 04, 2013, 01:12:14 PM
Woody, I would agree with you about 19,000 for more than just several minutes. But I've done 15,000 in my Tomahawk for more than an hour without ill effects. And 15,000, for the purpose of his argument, is probably not much different than 19,000 in terms of cloud cover.

Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Greg Daspit on December 04, 2013, 02:36:14 PM
Fred,

Whoa, I think you just stepped over the line by calling the reported North/South line a “myth”.  This was recorded in the ship’s log at the time.  What makes you think it’s a myth?   Do you have information we don’t have.  Please explain.
Ted Campbell

As far as the 157/337 LOP, I'd forgotten about the radio communication to the Itasca.

That doesn't change the facts That she couldn’t have been.

Let me explain.
 
I believe she was simply reading the information that she had in front of her on her flight plan,

Fred         

Recorded(as in written down) radio communication is one of the few documented pieces of information on their navigation.
Regarding the LOP. Yes, the Sun came up before they were close to Howland but the theory is the LOP was advanced. It’s based on AE giving that line and when she said it. At least that is my understanding and it makes sense to me.

Also,  I find it hard to believe AE would tell what you call a “white lie” about what course they were flying on so as not to cause “confusion and alter what the radio operator was expecting her to report” 
Is there evidence the radio operator had this flight plan with 157/337 written on it so he could have possibly been confused?  Where is the flight plan documented?
edit:
Itasca logs regarding flight preparations (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/37_ItascaLogs/traffic.html)
Intended Route to Howland (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Worldflight/2ndattemptroute.html)

It’s seems to me providing the LOP was information AE gave on where they should look if they had to ditch. 
I just don’t understand the logic of telling a lie on what line you are on when you have not found the island you are looking for in the middle of the pacific yet, and you are low on gas.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 04, 2013, 07:42:57 PM
Woody, I would agree with you about 19,000 for more than just several minutes. But I've done 15,000 in my Tomahawk for more than an hour without ill effects. And 15,000, for the purpose of his argument, is probably not much different than 19,000 in terms of cloud cover.

Interesting you guy brought that up.  http://books.google.com/books?id=qcKs-TO2jZAC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=did+amelia+earhart+use+oxygen+when+flying&source=bl&ots=q-xW13zL71&sig=SjksQBVGv7165eevczNk_6ZeBjc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_JqfUtFnlM7IAcGXgIgP&ved=0CHoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=did%20amelia%20earhart%20use%20oxygen%20when%20flying&f=false
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 04, 2013, 08:30:14 PM
Interesting your guy brought that up.

Fred, to be honest, I can't think of anyone at TIGHAR that would consider me one of their guys.

I just tell it as I see it.

Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 04, 2013, 09:07:32 PM
See LOP questions (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/navigation.html).

Hi Greg, Thanks for the reply in case you were directing the reference to me.

An interesting explaination, but not practicle or feasable. There's no explaination as to how AE could or couldn't have maintained a heading of 157 degrees true for a matter of hours using only DR and sun for longitude readings.
There are several statements in that report that are just simply could not be true. One I can think of off hand was the presumed fuel reserve left. There's some math there.   

Don't shoot the messenger here!

I'm not saying that FN could or couldn't have reached Gardener Island. I'm merely saying that they couldn't have done it by following a heading of 157 degrees. Why would they even want to try when here was much better and safer way?

FN would have flown 180 degrees true due south to the longitude of next island south of Howland then jumped over the the longitude of the next then junped over to the longitude of Gardener and using the sun readings, which would have kept them at least on longitude. There was no reason to depend on DR corrections if the plan was to make Gardner.
 

Thank for your interest.

Fred
   
 
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 04, 2013, 11:23:22 PM
Interesting your guy brought that up.

Fred, to be honest, I can't think of anyone at TIGHAR that would consider me one of their guys.

I just tell it as I see it.

Hi Tim, thanks to your interest.

I was shocked that someone sort of agreed with anything I've said.

I'm new here to the message boards, and as you can see, not one of the guys either.
I've been a member of TIGHAR for a couple years, but have only posted recently when this thread about the moon caught my eye. The other one about FN possibly reading the wrong days charts caught my interest and then couldn't hold back after reading this thread one about the moon. 

I see you're a pilot. I used to fly back in the day when the Commander I took lessons in was selling for $7000. (used of course) :)

I just simulate flying these days. You'd be surprised how many real pilots fly the MS simulator.
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?251193-Amelia-Earhart-s-last-flight-75th-Anniversary (nikeherk67)

We fly an add-on model of Amelia's Lockheed Electra L10E, which is incredibly realistic and accurate e/w sextant, drift meter, e6b, a Cambridge air/fuel analyzer, extra fuel tanks, and mechanical and gauge failures that actually occur at random. A couple developers have created the a program that monitors your fly skills as  pilot as well, and not flying properly, can cause failures. For instance idling too slow can fowl the plugs, too heavy on the throttle can blow up an engine etc.   

As for altitude restrictions the FAA's figures are quite conservative and need to include some those health problems and all ages.

Amelia Earhart was defiantly altitude acclimated. Perhaps she would have needed to have been more concerned about Fred, but I'd imagine both could have obtained and sustained some pretty high altitudes by that time.

The thing today is to climb Mt. Everest without oxygen. It takes quite awhile as they need to "step climb" as they call it. It's quite a process. They climb up to a certain altitude and stay over night, then come back to base camp for a day or so. Then climb back up and make that next step their base and so on and so on.

Thanks for reading all,

Fred
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Greg Daspit on December 05, 2013, 10:30:45 AM
See LOP questions (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/navigation.html).

Hi Greg, Thanks for the reply in case you were directing the reference to me.

An interesting explaination, but not practicle or feasable. There's no explaination as to how AE could or couldn't have maintained a heading of 157 degrees true for a matter of hours using only DR and sun for longitude readings.
There are several statements in that report that are just simply could not be true. One I can think of off hand was the presumed fuel reserve left. There's some math there.   

Don't shoot the messenger here!

I'm not saying that FN could or couldn't have reached Gardener Island. I'm merely saying that they couldn't have done it by following a heading of 157 degrees. Why would they even want to try when here was much better and safer way?

FN would have flown 180 degrees true due south to the longitude of next island south of Howland then jumped over the the longitude of the next then junped over to the longitude of Gardener and using the sun readings, which would have kept them at least on longitude. There was no reason to depend on DR corrections if the plan was to make Gardner.
 
Thank for your interest.

Fred
   


Hi Fred
I believe the theory is they found Gardner when looking for Howland, not that they decided to go to Gardner.

Regarding the link on the LOP. Understand that even though the map in the link shows a line drawn from Lae intersecting the LOP near Howland it is clear from reading the text that it is not known where the flight intersected the LOP. I think a lot of people get confused by this and think they had to fly an extra 350 miles from Howland to Gardner. That is not the case if the flight from Lae intersected the LOP well south of Howland.
Regarding your belief they couldn’t find Gardner following a “heading of 157” . That is not exactly what she said. She didn’t say she was flying a “heading”, she said “ We are on the line 157 337”.  I understand the earth rotates while they are flying a compass heading but I think FN and AE knew the earth rotates too and made DR adjustments to stay “on the line” enough to spot Gardner . Since we don’t know exactly where they started on the line, it could be they were on it a short time. It may not have been a “matter of hours” as you presume.   I think if they did find Gardner,  it could be a little over an hour on the line so they could still land on the reef based on tide study Time and Tide.

Something else to speculate on regarding the Moon: Maybe FN suspected a problem with his octant and was relying more on what he knew with more certainty without using an octant. That the sun came up at a known time on the earth and Howland was somewhere on  an advanced sun line.  Flying the line may not have been just an attempt to hit Howland with pure celestial navigation but more an attempt to get closer to it for a radio fix or contact.  See Fred Noonan's memo to Pan Am (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Reports/NoonanPanAm.pdf) on the importance of radio fixes in large open water navigation
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Tim Gard on December 05, 2013, 08:31:30 PM
Well said Greg.

The parallels with the Electra's Atlantic crossing are becoming clearer for me over time.

When the overcast occurred, Fred gave Amelia a DR heading and went to sleep. Amelia would awaken him when the sky cleared. They would arrive at a location other than their original destination due to the undercast at the African coast (all supported by documents).

In the meantime Amelia wrote her prose and charged Sperry with maintaining the heading.
After the overcast cleared, Fred could get them an LOP once he could see a celestial body.
By this stage the two were a well rehearsed team.

Ric's recent decode of the radio logs positions the Electra brilliantly from the equator right up until Amelia's last broadcast.
 
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Greg Daspit on December 05, 2013, 11:26:34 PM
Why didn't/couldn't FN take shots at the moon to correct their position?

Equipment failure - 2 devices so would be very bad luck.

Anything in the achieves strike you?

Two instruments, say only one is wrong, they conflict, but which one is wrong?
I remember seeing documentaries where modern crews have stalled planes when two airspeed instruments conflicted and only one was wrong. They refused to believe the right one even with clues that should have told them which to use. I think it was Air France where they could have ignored both instruments, went with training, and set power at 85% and fly the plane. Isn't the saying "When it doubt, go with what you know"?
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: C.W. Herndon on December 06, 2013, 08:16:22 PM
Since this is my first post I'll say hello all a give a tidbit of my background! ........
I'm also a real world pilot and have been a Ham Radio Operator for years, so I know a bit about propagation, directional attennas, signal strengths, and mores code, which IMHO believe Amelia Earhart should have know as well.

Fred, you have stated that you are only interested in the facts are want to build the trust of the members of the Forum so I have a couple of questions for you. In the quote above you state that you are a "real world pilot" and have been a "Ham Radio Operator" for years.

1. I have searched the FAA Airmen Certification files and, while there are 22 different Frederick Youngs listed, there are no listing of any license for a Frederick Frick Young or a Frederick F. Young. There is a listing for a Frederick Young, who is listed as living in Ohio and being issued a Private Pilot License on May 4, 2010. Would that be you?

2. I also made a search of FCC Amateur Radio License directory and could not find mention of any license for a Frederick Young, a Frederick F. Young or a Frederick Frick Young.

Help me out with my trust here Fred, am I doing something wrong??
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 06, 2013, 08:23:09 PM
Hi Greg,

Yes, I'm aware of the theory here. Goes some like they flew hundreds of miles off course in the cloulds all night using DR only. That is the only explaination since the fuel useage has been revised. I've read countless explainations.   

Years ago, from reading and studying this site page  here  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/navigation.html).
I was under the impression that AE had attempted to located Howland on the 157/337 line, never located it and when they realized they’d missed it, just decided to keep on keeping on since that LOP crossed Gardner anyway. Perhaps the conversation when something like this.

AE “Well Fred, it seems we missed Howland, we should have been there a half hour ago.”
Fred “ Yeah, Ami, I’m in agreement. Tell ya what. Since we’re on the same line as Gardner let’s just go for it. Heck, it’s only about 3 bucks down the trail by now.

Very logical, so it seemed, at the time.       

That’s pretty much what is written and the illustrations imply. I was quite excited back in the earlier days, and then after expedition after expedition hadn’t turned up any smoking guns so I lost interest. Whoa, then someone found a landing gear and wheel. Oh boy, let’s go! Shucks no gear or wheel or sign of it could be found.  It must have slipped down over the abyss and too deep for divers to locate.

As I’ve written above here, for many years now I’ve flown the Microsoft flight simulator. At first I liked the modern aircraft, but being that you can just let the GPS fly the plane, it’s more like letting the computer fly the computer. What’s the use? Then a number of years ago a couple of developers designed a sextant. That grabbed my attention, as being a sailor I’ve always been interested in celestial navigation. So I learned to navigate with the sextant. I even started a thread a year and a half ago during the 75th anniversary of the tragic event.

I decided to shorten the Lae to Howland flight, because almost no one would fly the whole thing in one setting. So my simulated flight consists of only the last 542nm starting at the Tabiteuea North Airstrip in Kiribati.  here (http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?251193-Amelia-Earhart-s-last-flight-75th-Anniversary).

As you can see, I worked on this project for months and thought I’d come up with a pretty good flight. I’ve flown it at dozens of times using just the sextant. Some successful some not, as I’ve limited the fuel to 200 gals, which is much  less than AE would have had at that distance; however in FS we can afford to ditch and restart. Then I discovered this thread asking about the moon.

Hmm I asked myself the same question. I had no moon in my flight plan! What’s going on here? :( I can explainit now.

When Microsoft developed the flight simulator they went to great lengths of add accurate celestial bodies. They even got the moon right! That has to be some fabulous software programming. You can go back in history as far as you like and the moon and the sun will be there just as it was then. EXCEPT for a couple nuances, they couldn’t program in. One is the phases of the moon, so they left it at that. Still pretty impressive I’d say.

The reason I couldn't we can’t see the moon, on July 2, 1937 in FS is that FS was in the new moon phase. Another thing is that FS doesn’t include the crescents. It is only visible from quarter to quarter. So when I start on July 3, 1937, quite by accident, FS loaded the scenery for that date and sure enough shows the first phase of the moon. I’m aware that the moon was waning that night in 1937. Yes, something that has taken me years to figure out. What I discovered was two very important things. You can study the sextant and take many classes, but no one seems to teach the importance of the moon. As I said before here, which no one seems to have grasped what I've been trying to explain.   

The moon is quite an asset to the navigator when an the days of the month tht they have it at their disposal to use. The moon, unlike any other celestial body, varies in altitude and declination by about 14 degrees each day. The variation of the sun, planters and stars only varies less than 1 degrees from day to day depending, on the altitude and azimuth from the navigators assumed position.

Now, what does all this mean?

Here is "a single star landfall procedure" by the book. The fact is, that while working for PanAm FN was the best of the best. He probably had input to whomever wrote the book. I’m sure he did it many times prior to this.

At about 128nm out he would turn left or right to offset their position x amount of degrees, to offset x amount of distance from their destination. I’d say left in this case, because they would have reached the 157 LOP before passing Howland’s longitude instead of after crossing passing it if he'd turned right. By the use of DR and timing they would turn 90 degrees to intercept the 157 degree LOP. Again with DR FN would know when they should have reach W176 degrees 38 minutes, the longitude of Howland.

After several minutes had passed and they hadn’t seen Howland he would proceed to the next step in the procedure, which was to turn into the wind, and fly for 10 minutes, the turn 90 degrees +/= the WCA angle and fly cross wind for 10 minutes, then again turn 90 degrees and  fly down wind for 20 minutes, turn right again and fly for 20 minutes across wind, and again turn 90 degrees and fly 30 minutes downwind. He would do this two or three time, slowly increasing the downwind leg of the square  This produced a squared downwind pattern that was constantly expanding in the area they were searching.

The book doesn’t spell it out, because the navigator knows he only has one and only one recourse after failing to locate the destination. That is to increase altitude or whatever was neccessary until they could the sun, get a shot and find W176 dgr 38 min longitude.

Why, you may ask, just not continue down the 157/337 LOP? Because they had simply lost it while flying the landfall procedure. Remember that they had only reached that LOP by the use of DR alone. No rocket science here folks but basic navigation 101.

Here’s another thing that may interest you. Read AE's 2013 messages again. Notice the pause, after saying they were flying the 137/337 line. After a time she then stated we are flying north and south. That is because they had NO IDEA of what latitude they were at and no means to read the latitude during daylight hours.

As I’ve stated before, the 137/337 LOP is a onetime shot. That’s it. It can’t be located again without a latitude shot. 

I hope this shed some light

Thanks for reading all

Fred 
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 06, 2013, 08:47:35 PM
Since this is my first post I'll say hello all a give a tidbit of my background! ........
I'm also a real world pilot and have been a Ham Radio Operator for years, so I know a bit about propagation, directional attennas, signal strengths, and mores code, which IMHO believe Amelia Earhart should have know as well.

Fred, you have stated that you are only interested in the facts are want to build the trust of the members of the Forum so I have a couple of questions for you. In the quote above you state that you are a "real world pilot" and have been a "Ham Radio Operator" for years.

1. I have searched the FAA Airmen Certification files and, while there are 22 different Frederick Youngs listed, there are no listing of any license for a Frederick Frick Young or a Frederick F. Young. There is a listing for a Frederick Young, who is listed as living in Ohio and being issued a Private Pilot License on May 4, 2010. Would that be you?

2. I also made a search of FCC Amateur Radio License directory and could not find mention of any license for a Frederick Young, a Frederick F. Young or a Frederick Frick Young.

Help me out with my trust here Fred, am I doing something wrong??

Sure Woody no problem! Just this once just for you! :)

In 1972 I took flying lessons. I'd logged amost enough time to get my  ticket when an accident at work I broke both of my legs. It took a long time to heal. Since then I've had several friennds I've gone flying with to get a $50 hamburger.
So your are correct my friend. I am not a offically a pilot. Of course neither were the Wright brothers!

Also from 1972 until sometime in the 1990's with a Gemeral Class Ham Radio license until I let it expire. My FCC call was WB3HGC (huge green cucumbers) :)
Back in those days you had to copy morse code at 15wpm to obtain the ticket. Something that may have saved Amelia's life had she known it.
 
Perhaps that'll help you with your background check! Do I get the job? :)
I can save you a lot of time. If you'll PM me I can send my resume going all the way back to military service years  during the Viet Nam War. I can tell you some good flying stories and scan you some QSL cards as well!

 

Your not with the IRS are you? :)   

Now help me out woody.
What is the highest you've flown w/o oxygen?

and what would the FAA say about Amelia flying solo above 18,000 without O2 today?

One more question if you don't mind. As a commercial pilot, how many hours have you logged using the sextant as your only navaid?

If you're interesting in flying the simulator, I've written a great celestial navigation tuturial I'll be glad to send you as well. I'm looking for people to fly with!   

Thanks

Fred   
   
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on December 07, 2013, 07:22:43 PM
After several minutes had passed and they hadn’t seen Howland he would proceed to the next step in the procedure, which was to turn into the wind, and fly for 10 minutes, the turn 90 degrees +/= the WCA angle and fly cross wind for 10 minutes, then again turn 90 degrees and  fly down wind for 20 minutes, turn right again and fly for 20 minutes across wind, and again turn 90 degrees and fly 30 minutes downwind. He would do this two or three time, slowly increasing the downwind leg of the square  This produced a squared downwind pattern that was constantly expanding in the area they were searching.

Thanks for the posts Frederick, they are very informative and educational for total novices in navigation like myself. The part regarding a possible search pattern was debated a while back when GLP was still posting on the forum. A brief précis of the possible scenarios were as follows...

1. Expanding search pattern instigated
a) But still didn't see Howland Island or Itasca smoke because they were so far off course?
b) Ran out of fuel while on the search pattern and ditched into the Pacific?
c) The expanding search pattern brought them close to another group of islands?


2. No expanding search pattern instigated
a) Did something else instead obviously as doing nothing was no longer an option?
b) Flew in the direction they thought Howland Island should be from where they thought they were?
c) Headed for a larger group of islands that they knew were in the vicinity?
d) Ran out of fuel while trying one of the alternative options and ditched in the sea?

These are just a few of the points raised in the previous debate and of course nothing can be proven or not as these are just possible scenarios. Apart from the fact that they never saw Howland Island or Itasca's smoke and, Itasca never saw them. Personally I liked the idea of an expanding search pattern as proposed by GLP and yourself, it opens up new possibilities as to what happened. Of course everything hinges on where they actually were and, where they thought they were which, as the outcome shows, wasn't close enough to Howland Island to save them.

Jeff
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Tim Gard on December 07, 2013, 07:44:43 PM
Quote
Why do you think she was cluless as to the direction and magnitude of the wind? My flight instructor forced me to find out.
The simple proceedure it this! Make a wide coordinated 360 turn at one fixed speed. As you're turning watch the IAS very closely. When da need go up your IAS is increasing and you're fliing into (running against the wind, we all know the song) and when da need go down we flying with the wind. (Sorry I'm have a funny memory here) At two point while fling in the circle da needle stay in da meddle. I know I' being funny, I told youi I could laugh when hearing some of these thing being said. Now of course you have acquired 3 differnet speed IAS readings. For instance, when flying east 120, north 110, west 120 and south 130 knots. I'll bet there's not one person who read this that can't tell us which way the wind was blowing and what magnitude of it was.

Thanks for response

Fred

I could imagine this working when viewing a visible ground reference, but not over featureless water. The wind force acts equally and continuously on the airframe no matter what heading the aircraft flies.

The ASI may register any gusts or increases or decreases in wind velocity that the aircraft happens to fly through, including its own slipstream, but otherwise being able to determine wind drift without a nav aid, ground or celestial reference seems a falacy to me.

Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: C.W. Herndon on December 08, 2013, 08:57:17 AM
Sure Woody no problem! Just this once just for you! :)

In 1972 I took flying lessons. I'd logged amost enough time to get my  ticket when an accident at work I broke both of my legs. It took a long time to heal. Since then I've had several friennds I've gone flying with to get a $50 hamburger.
So your are correct my friend. I am not a offically a pilot. Of course neither were the Wright brothers!

Also from 1972 until sometime in the 1990's with a Gemeral Class Ham Radio license until I let it expire. My FCC call was WB3HGC (huge green cucumbers) :)
Back in those days you had to copy morse code at 15wpm to obtain the ticket. Something that may have saved Amelia's life had she known it.
 
Perhaps that'll help you with your background check! Do I get the job? :)
I can save you a lot of time. If you'll PM me I can send my resume going all the way back to military service years  during the Viet Nam War. I can tell you some good flying stories and scan you some QSL cards as well!

 

Your not with the IRS are you? :)   

Now help me out woody.
What is the highest you've flown w/o oxygen?

and what would the FAA say about Amelia flying solo above 18,000 without O2 today?

One more question if you don't mind. As a commercial pilot, how many hours have you logged using the sextant as your only navaid?

If you're interesting in flying the simulator, I've written a great celestial navigation tuturial I'll be glad to send you as well. I'm looking for people to fly with!   

Thanks

Fred   
 

Hi Fred. Thanks for answering my questions. I'm sure that it will go a long way toward establishing that trust with the Forum members here.

Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you but I have some vision problems that frequently severely limit how long I am able to read my computer screen. I am usually in church with my wife at this time on Sunday morning but today we are in the grip of an ice storm and unable to get out. In the interest of fairness, I will try to answer your questions to me.

1. No I am not with the IRS.
2. The highest I have flown without oxygen was about 12,000 feet in an unpressurized A/C and about 35,000 feet in a pressurized A/C.
3. If AE flew above 18,000 feet without O2 today, the FAA would say that she had violated the FARs (see attachment below).
4. During my commercial flying career, (ATP AMEL, CP ASEL, Rotorcraft Helicopter, Instrument Helicopter), I flew in SE Asia, Europe and the US, including several hundred hours in the Gulf of Mexico, and never had to use a sextant even as a secondary "navaid"

I agree that our discussion is probably getting off topic here and would be better continued through PMs. If you want to continue please send me a PM.

Thanks again,
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 09, 2013, 09:30:51 AM
Sure Woody no problem! Just this once just for you! :)

In 1972 I took flying lessons. I'd logged amost enough time to get my  ticket when an accident at work I broke both of my legs. It took a long time to heal. Since then I've had several friennds I've gone flying with to get a $50 hamburger.
So your are correct my friend. I am not a offically a pilot. Of course neither were the Wright brothers!

Also from 1972 until sometime in the 1990's with a Gemeral Class Ham Radio license until I let it expire. My FCC call was WB3HGC (huge green cucumbers) :)
Back in those days you had to copy morse code at 15wpm to obtain the ticket. Something that may have saved Amelia's life had she known it.
 
Perhaps that'll help you with your background check! Do I get the job? :)
I can save you a lot of time. If you'll PM me I can send my resume going all the way back to military service years  during the Viet Nam War. I can tell you some good flying stories and scan you some QSL cards as well!

 

Your not with the IRS are you? :)   

Now help me out woody.
What is the highest you've flown w/o oxygen?

and what would the FAA say about Amelia flying solo above 18,000 without O2 today?

One more question if you don't mind. As a commercial pilot, how many hours have you logged using the sextant as your only navaid?

If you're interesting in flying the simulator, I've written a great celestial navigation tuturial I'll be glad to send you as well. I'm looking for people to fly with!   

Thanks

Fred   
 

Hi Fred. Thanks for answering my questions. I'm sure that it will go a long way toward establishing that trust with the Forum members here.

Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you but I have some vision problems that frequently severely limit how long I am able to read my computer screen. I am usually in church with my wife at this time on Sunday morning but today we are in the grip of an ice storm and unable to get out. In the interest of fairness, I will try to answer your questions to me.

1. No I am not with the IRS.
2. The highest I have flown without oxygen was about 12,000 feet in an unpressurized A/C and about 35,000 feet in a pressurized A/C.
3. If AE flew above 18,000 feet without O2 today, the FAA would say that she had violated the FARs (see attachment below).
4. During my commercial flying career, (ATP AMEL, CP ASEL, Rotorcraft Helicopter, Instrument Helicopter), I flew in SE Asia, Europe and the US, including several hundred hours in the Gulf of Mexico, and never had to use a sextant even as a secondary "navaid"

I agree that our discussion is probably getting off topic here and would be better continued through PMs. If you want to continue please send me a PM.

Thanks again,

Thanks Woody,

A very impressive resume for sure! I'll PM you and save the thread for the moon.:)

 I am interested in knowing when you flew in SE Asia!

Fred

Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 09, 2013, 10:09:00 AM
Quote
Why do you think she was cluless as to the direction and magnitude of the wind? My flight instructor forced me to find out.
The simple proceedure it this! Make a wide coordinated 360 turn at one fixed speed. As you're turning watch the IAS very closely. When da need go up your IAS is increasing and you're fliing into (running against the wind, we all know the song) and when da need go down we flying with the wind. (Sorry I'm have a funny memory here) At two point while fling in the circle da needle stay in da meddle. I know I' being funny, I told youi I could laugh when hearing some of these thing being said. Now of course you have acquired 3 differnet speed IAS readings. For instance, when flying east 120, north 110, west 120 and south 130 knots. I'll bet there's not one person who read this that can't tell us which way the wind was blowing and what magnitude of it was.

Thanks for response

Fred

I could imagine this working when viewing a visible ground reference, but not over featureless water. The wind force acts equally and continuously on the airframe no matter what heading the aircraft flies.

The ASI may register any gusts or increases or decreases in wind velocity that the aircraft happens to fly through, including its own slipstream, but otherwise being able to determine wind drift without a nav aid, ground or celestial reference seems a falacy to me.

Hi Tim,

you're right about land as far as visual references. However, in a small aircraft, it's more about momentum of the aircraft and the feel of the controls. If I'm flying with the wind at a certain IAS and turn 90 degrees left or right my IAS is going increase and vice versa if I'd been flying into the wind.   

The ocean is not exactly featurless. If you look down and see white caps you know there's a a pretty stiff wind. I don't sail on the ocean, but rather on a lake. By merely looking at the water I have a pretty good idea, within 5 knots or so, how hard the wind is blowing. I'm quite sure Amelia didn't drop down in the middle of the flight to observe the ocean, however at a 1000 feet, and with her experience, she probably had a pretty good idea as well.     
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 09, 2013, 10:26:23 AM
Fred, you've got to be kidding.

Your indicated airspeed is never affected by wind directon. The only reason IAS decreases slightly when you initiate a turn is the loss of lift, which will require more power if you want to maintain the same IAS in the turn.

I think you are confusing IAS with Ground Speed (GS), which is affected by wind direction when you make a turn.

Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Frederick Frick Young on December 09, 2013, 11:02:25 AM


The only reason IAS decreases slightly when you initiate a turn is the loss oif lift, which will require more power if you want to maintain the same IAS in the turn.

Isn't that what I just said? The reason the IAS decreases or is the force of wind across the Pitot tube. As I said Momentum of the aircraft and feel (loss of lift). To maintain altitude with loss of lift you'd need to pull back on the yoke. With loss of lift the nose goes down.   
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 09, 2013, 11:15:58 AM
No, Fred, you were talking about flying with the wind and then initiating a 90 degree turn and observing the IAS increase.

Please don't go flying in a real airplane before taking a refresher course.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Jeff Palshook on December 09, 2013, 04:20:06 PM
Mr. Young,

Did you fly during the Viet Nam war in military aircraft, as a pilot or air crewman?  If so, which service -- Army, Navy, or Air Force?  Which aircraft?  Pilot or air crewman?

Thanks,


Jeff P.
Title: Re: What happened with the moon
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 10, 2013, 10:16:16 AM
This thread has drifted far off topic.  The original question was "What happened with the moon?" with respect to Noonan's celestial navigation during the Lae/Howland flight.  There seems to be no evidence that anything happened with the moon.  The thread is now locked.