Print

[Irvine John Donald]

In all seriousness Gary, while I am a firm believer in the TIGHAR hypothesis, I would thoroughly enjoy "hearing" your ideas on what happened, as I also suspect many members of this forum would. Just don't play with us by starting it "Once upon a time ...". 

It is my hope that you take my light hearted ribbing in this forum as just my attempt to keep this forum from getting too serious. While the topic is immensely interesting it's important to remember that life is too short to take ourselves too seriously. 

[Gary LaPook]

I found the source for the argument that FN must have had a second instrument, a "sextant", back on page 3, #32, from GL: "... And that's with a marine sextant which is much more accurate than a bubble sextant."

In researching bubble Sextant accuracy I discovered GL's article on the very subject, in which he test flies a Navey A7, Mk3 Model 1 bubble sextant and proves that even in flight it is sufficiently accurate to find Catalina Island.(http://www.freelists.org/post/navlist/Test-flight-with-A7-bubble-sextant-to-investigate-accuracy-on-Noonans-navigation-on-Earhart-flight)

Gary's test and analysis convinces me that Fred's bubble sextant was accurate enough to locate their position precisely enough, especially standing still. There is no need to invoke a second instrument on board.

Fred's Octant was a Brandis/Pioneer aircraft octant, Bu.Aero Serial 12-36, and likely looked like a conventional marine sextant except for the 90degree limitation.  The resemblance assumes the similar vintage aircraft bubble octants are the same.  Perhaps Gary can tell us why he believes Fred's octant would look like his A7, and the difference in accuracy?

I used an A-7 which was a further development of the Mk 5 and the Mk3 Pioneer octant. The main difference between mine and the one used by Noonan is the simple pencil marking averger that makes marks on the altitude adjustment knob with each sight. By lining up the center of these marks with the pencil after completing all the sights, you find the average (actually the median) of the altitude which you then use with the average time, half way between the first and last observations. Noonan had to write down the individual altitudes and figure the average. Same accuracy either way but easier and quicker with the A-7, two minutes versus three minutes for the sights plus about one and a half minutes for Noonan to figure the average, so using the A-7 is about twice as fast.
BTW, Brandis had nothing to do with the Pioneer octant, Brandis was supposedly only the manufacture of the sextant box supposedly found on Gardner.
I have attached a photo of the Pioneer octant, you can compare it with the photos of my A-7.
More information about these octants is here.
My report of testing Noonan's single line of position landfall procedure is here.
BTW, these octants have an advantage over all other octants and sextants in that the eyepiece can be swiveled to the side which allows sights to be taken off to the side and even over your shoulder making it much easier to use in confined places. I have even used it in coach seats on transatlantic airline flights, not much room to move around. Another advantage of these octants is that the index prism is at the front of the instrument so you can place it right up against a window and take very high altitude observations and this is not possible with other types of octants in which the index prism is located further back in the instrument.

gl

[Gary LaPook]

Good points, John.



I'm not sure how one would miss Catalina, with or without an octant or sextant, but it is an interesting exercise that Gary shared (I'd like to hear more about the $100 hamburgers too  ).
LTM -

Actually buffalo burgers.
It's the best way to visit Catalina, cheaper and quicker than taking the boat across. You land at the airport and take a half hour bus ride into town for sightseeing. The airport is on a plateau 1500 feet above the sea with a cliff at each end of the runway, don't get low on approach or you end up making a smoking airplane shaped hole in the cliff.
If you take the boat over, you end up taking the same bus tour to see the buffalo and the other wildlife so flying in just lets you take the tour starting at the other end and you take the bus back to the airport with the other tourists.

gl

[John Ousterhout]

Gary - I'd appreciate some help finding documentation defining FN's octant/sextant.  The only documention I've found describes the one that Harry Manning loaned him as a "Pioneer...#12-36", presumably meaning Bureau of Aeronautics (Bu. Aero) serial 12-36.  This doesn't identify the Mark or Model number.  Is that information available?  The Pioneer model 342 (Mk.3, Mod.1) and model 206 (Mk.1, Mod.4) were both being sold in the early 30's, yet were physically quite different.  How do we know which model was on the flight?  You discussed this to some extent in your post #8 in "Questions for the Celestial Choir", but did not at that time have documentation.  Have you found any yet that you could share?
Note that it makes more sense to me that FN would prefer an A5-style instrument, similar to your A7, for taking shots out a nearly vertical Lockheed side window. A more traditional open-frame sextant or octant would not be handy shooting high elevations, with the possible exception of shots from the front seats, making the presence of such an instrument seem less likely to be useful.  On the other hand, you also mentioned that a marine sextant is more accurate than an aeronautical octant, so it might have been Fred's preference for critical navigation work.
Defining the instrument borrowed from Manning would help a little.

[Gary LaPook]

Gary - I'd appreciate some help finding documentation defining FN's octant/sextant.  The only documention I've found describes the one that Harry Manning loaned him as a "Pioneer...#12-36", presumably meaning Bureau of Aeronautics (Bu. Aero) serial 12-36.  This doesn't identify the Mark or Model number.  Is that information available?  The Pioneer model 342 (Mk.3, Mod.1) and model 206 (Mk.1, Mod.4) were both being sold in the early 30's, yet were physically quite different.  How do we know which model was on the flight?  You discussed this to some extent in your post #8 in "Questions for the Celestial Choir", but did not at that time have documentation.  Have you found any yet that you could share?
Note that it makes more sense to me that FN would prefer an A5-style instrument, similar to your A7, for taking shots out a nearly vertical Lockheed side window. A more traditional open-frame sextant or octant would not be handy shooting high elevations, with the possible exception of shots from the front seats, making the presence of such an instrument seem less likely to be useful.  On the other hand, you also mentioned that a marine sextant is more accurate than an aeronautical octant, so it might have been Fred's preference for critical navigation work.
Defining the instrument borrowed from Manning would help a little.

We don't know exactly which Pioneer octant he had on the flight.
The marine sextant is more accurate and precise only when used on the sea but that accuracy is not available for observations taken in flight due to uncertainties about the height of the plane above sea level which affects the "dip" correction and the indefinateness of the horizon when seen from high altitude. That is why nobody used marine sextants in flight after the bubble octant had been perfected by the Pioneer instrument company. Only the early pioneers used marine sextants because better instruments were not available, such as Gago Coutinho and Chichester.

gl
gl

[Gary LaPook]

Good points, John.



I'm not sure how one would miss Catalina, with or without an octant or sextant, but it is an interesting exercise that Gary shared (I'd like to hear more about the $100 hamburgers too  ).
LTM -

Actually buffalo burgers.
It's the best way to visit Catalina, cheaper and quicker than taking the boat across. You land at the airport and take a half hour bus ride into town for sightseeing. The airport is on a plateau 1500 feet above the sea with a cliff at each end of the runway, don't get low on approach or you end up making a smoking airplane shaped hole in the cliff.
If you take the boat over, you end up taking the same bus tour to see the buffalo and the other wildlife so flying in just lets you take the tour starting at the other end and you take the bus back to the airport with the other tourists.

gl

Very cool, Gary!  Sorry I forgot the distinction of 'buffalo burger' - I realized that but lapsed as I wrote it.

I'm envious - you have a wonderful area to fly about in to enjoy many attractions.  What you've described is one of the great things about the privilege of flying easier access to some real wonders out there in this world.  Catalina is a beautiful and kind of mysterious place in terms of aura, I think.

Maybe one day I can fly there in person too - quite a nice adventure right off the coast!  I'd have to 'do' the Bahamas to get anything llike the same offshore effect, passport and all - and that would be very 'different' anyway.

Thanks again for sharing that!

I've rolled my wheels on Andros, Abaco, Grand Bahama, Treasure Cay, New providence, Staniel Cay, Great Exuma, Long Island, Crooked Island and Great Inagua. Further along, South Caicos, Grand Turk, Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, Tortola, Dominican Republic and Jamaica.  Winter is a good time to go.
My twin sister has been a Designated Pilot Examiner for about 20 years. She is constantly complaining to me about the quality of training the applicants of today are getting. Applicants come in all the time who do not meet the minimum experience requirements for the rating. She blames the instructors who sign them off without making sure about that and without having placed all the required endorsements in the logbook. She had to disapprove an applicant last week for a Commercial Certificate because his required 300 nautical mile "long cross country" was 10 NM short. His instructor had told him "it would be O.K." Today's applicants appear to just try to meet the minimum requirements and they often miss that mark. We used to fly because we enjoyed it and we used the planes to take us places. I remember when I was taking my flight test for the Commercial Certificate, the examiner said, "show me the 300 NM 'long cross-country' in your log book." I said, "How's Chicago to Kingston Jamaica, that good enough?"

gl

gl

[Irvine John Donald]

Interesting comments Gary. I have a good friend who flies Airbus for Air Canada. He says lots of the new guys seem to see it as a job. He says he still gets a huge kick out of the flying aspect of the job himself and thats what helps him put up with all the paperwork, policy and procedures.

[Gary LaPook]

Through WW2 celestial navigation was the only method of long range, oceanic navigation. Towards the very end of the war, LORAN-A came on line and was installed in some planes. For example, the B-17 carrying Rickenbacker (a very big VIP on a high priority mission) only had celestial navigation for navigation and had only one octant on board and this was five years after Earhart disappeared. 

gl

The LORAN station on Gardner did go on the air until November 15, 1944, the same for Baker and Canton, see Gardner LORAN station.

I have attached the LORAN chart for the area near Howland showing the LORAN lines of position. If Noonan had had this equipment he could have set the equipment to receive on channel 2 and at pulse recurrence rate L3 (25 and 3/16 pulses per second) and interpolating between the lines for 2L3 1450 and 1500 find the time delay for Howland to be 1460 microseconds. Doing the same for the 2L0 chain he would have found 3250 microseconds delay and could have easily found Howland. Unfortunately, the LORAN stations were set up to support our efforts in WW2 and weren't available until 1944 and they were removed in 1946.

BTW, I was "the first kid on my block" to have LORAN in a plane. In the early 80's they did not have LORAN-C units available for planes so I bought a Micrologic boat unit, it was as big as a breadbox. I duct taped it on top of the instrument panel and ran a wire out the door tied to the VOR antenna on the tail to act as the antenna and it worked real good.

gl

[Irvine John Donald]

Hi Gary. Carrying on from Jeff's post....  Are you a "gadget guy" too?  Latest phone, tablet, electronics in general or just for flying?  I got a great "visual" in my head of this plane with a "breadbox" taped to the top of the instrument panel flying down the runway with this single pair of eyes desperately peering around the box with one hand twiddling with the knobs. Great fun!

[Gary LaPook]

We still have an old Lowrance set on our trawler.  I've thought at times recently that it would make a fair anchor, but it was great in its day!

Well, that's all you can use it for now since the Coast Guard shut down the LORAN C system this year.

gl

[Gary LaPook]

Good points, John.

One of the problems with Gary's arguments is... that they are just arguments.  We can only have an 'opinion' based on what we can observe.  I think you have shared some very important observations that reinforce my own belief that sorting out latitude at Gardner was not that mean a challenge for FN from the ground.

I'm not sure how one would miss Catalina, with or without an octant or sextant, but it is an interesting exercise that Gary shared (I'd like to hear more about the $100 hamburgers too  ).  And yes, it does tend to underscore an important point by which we might learn much about FN's equipment and habits.

I suspect FN would have had no problem dialing in his handy-dandy gear of choice, even with interpolations if necessary, to get a read.  Time and firm ground would have been on his - or even AE's - side by the time stranded on Gardner.

Even AE?  Not out of the question.  She may have been a scatter-brain in many ways, but I don't think she even approached stupid.  She had to have had some decent grasp of spatial orientation with the globe, and desperation is a mighty lever.  Time can a hearty bowl of oats, too, when you are waiting desparately for rescue.

LTM -

If Noonan was on Gardner with any kind of a sextant he would have had no trouble at all in determining his latitude at Noon. But not a chance in the world that Earhart would have been able to do the calculation necessary to do the same based on her complete disinterest in the things that directly affected her duties on the flight it is highly unlikely that she took any interest in what Noonan was doing. She would have had to have Noonan teach her about it and that seems unlikely. How many of you pilots reading this know how to operate a sextant, read a Nautical Almanac and do the noon sight computation? It is not normal knowledge for pilots.
But how accurate would Noonan's latitude have to be in order to guide rescuers to him? Gardner is the only island at a latitude between 4° 39.3' S and 4° 41.8' S. The closest island in latitude is Hull and the southern end of it is 4° 32.7' S, 6.6' north of the northern shore of Gardner. So if Noonan's latitude was 4° 36.0' S or greater then the only island that it could refer to is Gardner. He could be off by 3.3' to the north and quite a bit more to the south without creating any ambiguity. Even if he computed a latitude in the 4° 30' range it would still limit the search to just two islands, Gardner and Hull.

gl

[Gary LaPook]

We pilots would like to have two of everything but, in spite of this desire, most planes get by with only one engine, one compass, one altimeter, etc. So Noonan with one drift meter and  one octant is certainly within normal bounds.

gl

Maybe so, Gary.  But we're not in FN's shoes, and he'd certainly done otherwise on at least one other occasion, regardless of how you might see it.

The circumstances of flying the Pacific with AE may easily have prompted the same caution in FN that led him to carry a "preventer" on at least one previous occasion. 

No amount of argument from me or you can prove what he did aboard NR16020. 

We do have one record of FN having carried a "preventer" in a certain circumstance once before. 

He apparently also thought enough of that detail to not only mention it in a personal letter to a colleague, but to state it in a Pan Am memo.

I just re-read Noonan's April 29, 1935 memo to Pan Am  and I didn't see any mention of a preventer, can you point it out?

I am not aware of any other record where FN stating that he did otherwise, on any occasion.  Which proves nothing about the AE flight. 

But it does tell us something about what may have been important to FN, at least at a point in history that is recorded, regardless of what another might find important or rational. 

Now, if there were a record of FN having said something like:

"I later found the carriage of a 'preventer' to be a waste of time, space and weight and elected to go without it",

He did say that all sights were taken with the bubble octant.

- then we'd have an equally compelling record about FN deviating from something he previously had bothered to point out, wouldn't we? 

That would be far more than speculating about what you or I might do, if we were FN, as we see it today.

I guess the probabities are that we'll never know what he did for certain.  I guess we can also draw our own conclusions about what we think he probably did, too.

LTM -

If you guys want to believe that they landed on Gardner you will have to do it based on evidence other than the sextant box. To get the sextant box to Gardner you first have to get it on the plane and you have no evidence for that except a two year old letter talking about what Noonan did when he was employed by Pan Am. My first job was in a machine shop and there was a drill press there. I worked on the drill press but when I quit they didn't let me take the drill press home with me. If you want to now prove that I do have a drill press then produce an invoice from Sears or a photo of me with a drill press in my home or at least a witness statement saying they saw me using a drill press at home. You can't, so it is completely unjustified to make the leap that I have a drill press just because I used to work on one at my job. Even if I haven't made a statement that "I don't have a drill press" you can't make the absence of such a statement proof that I do have a drill press as you have done above where you point out that there is no statement from Noonan saying he didn't have a marine sextant, that he found them to be a waste of time.  You are turning logic on its head.

All you have is Noonan's letter about a flight for his employer, Pan Am, in his employer's airplane, using his employer's equipment, two years prior to the Earhart flight on which he says a marine sextant was carried. (I guess you believe that everything on the plane belonged to Pan Am with only one exception, the marine sextant, does that make any sense?) This statement is just like my statement that there was a drill press in the machine shop where I was employed. You do not have any photos or witness statement showing a marine sextant carried on the Electra anywhere around the world. There was no marine sextant mentioned in the Luke Field Inventory. 

Before you can place the sextant box in Earhart's plane you first must prove that Noonan had a marine sextant in 1937.
Noonan's letter said that "two sextants were carried" it didn't say "I brought my own sextant" on the flight, (see attached.)
What makes you think he could take the marine sextant home with him when he left the employ of Pan Am? Do you think he took the bubble octant home too? What about the fire extinguisher? What about the chart table? What about the left engine, did Pan Am let him take that home? Wait, we know that Pan Am didn't let him take the bubble octant home because they had to scrounge one up for the Earhart flight. Where did they go to scrounge up a marine sextant? If you believe that he had a marine sextant from his days on the sea then you must take into account that he had been working for Pan Am since 1930, seven years prior to the Earhart flight so didn't need a marine sextant to navigate his ship. And do you have any evidence that he even had a marine sextant of his own when he was a sailor? Even if he did have one when he was at sea it is certainly reasonable that he would have sold the valuable instrument in the intervening seven years since he didn't need one at Pan Am.

Marine sextants are expensive now and they were expensive then, see: http://www.celestaire.com/Cassens-Plath/View-all-products.html
Some have claimed that the marine sextant was modified for use aloft by adding a bubble horizon attachment although there is nothing in Noonan's letter or any other evidence that was the case. Today, a bubble attachment for a marine sextant costs $950 in addition to the $1795 cost of just the sextant and they weren't cheaper in 1937, see prior link. Do you think that Pan Am would allow Noonan to take home such a valuable piece of equipment when he quit, or was fired? If Noonan bought one after he left Pan Am then where did Noonan get the money to buy one since he was unemployed for some time prior to hooking up with Earhart? A couple of days ago I posted that Earhart had a Colt Pistol, Ric demanded "documentation." Where is your "documentation" showing Noonan owning a marine sextant in 1937? Do you have a bill of sale? A photo of him with his marine sextant at home in 1937? A statement from any witness saying that they saw him with a marine sextant at home in 1937? Or even a statement that Noonan had told them that he owned a marine sextant in 1937? I'll answer that for you, no you don't.

What we do have is an interview with Helen Day, a friend of Noonans. In sum, Day recalled that she was at Noonan's room in Miami, helping the party gather their equipment and stuff for the flight. Helen said she helped carry down some of their stuff, including a pith helmet, thermos, a machete (in case they were forced down in a jungle, ."Someone carried AEs small suitcase......Fred carried only his octant". Nobody was carrying a "preventer" out to the plane for the departure from Miami. Noonan obviously did not leave the octant in the plane when they were in Miami and he certainly would not have left the equally valuable marine sextant in the plane either. Day's statement is direct evidence that they did not load a marine sextant aboard the Electra and you have no evidence in any form to contradict that statement nor any evidence that Noonan even owned a marine sextant in 1937.

So believe all you want that they landed on Gardner but do it without relying on the sextant box.

gl

[Ricker H Jones]

 
See  TIGHAR TRACKS,Vol. 14, No. 1
Letter accompanying gift of sextant to the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, FL
"6 June 1968
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I, hereby, certify that the accompanying
Navigation Sextant was the property of Mr. Frederick J Noonan,
who was copilot-navigator on the World flight with Amelia Aerhardt [sic]
when their plane was lost in the Pacific Ocean.
This instrument was borrowed by the under-
signed who at that time was studying navigation under Mr. Noonan
in preparing for service in the Pacific Division of Pan American
Airways, for use in practice praticle [sic] navigation. Identification
marks are not in evidence, however, the undersigned hereby certifies
as to the authenticity of the above remarks.

W. A. Cluthe
Retired Captain, Pan American
World Airways.
Ex. C.A.P. USN, Number 12.
4312 Winding Way,
Mobile, Alabama-36609"
 
 

[Irvine John Donald]

That's interesting Ricker.  Doesn't this suggest that Noonan did not likely have "his" sextant with him if he had loaned it to someone?  We shouldn't now make the suggestion that FN owned lots of these, enough so he could loan them out to people and still have his own for the trip.  This makes the borrowing of the Octant more credible. 

Of course there is the credibility of this gift due to no identifying marks.  Does anyone know if the donor was ever interviewed?  Is there any official record of the donor being a pupil of FN?

[Harry Howe, Jr.]

Gary
I haven't seen the Helen Day letter but, accepting your summary, her statement is "evidence" only that she didn't carry a sextant (octant) onto the plane nor did she see anyone else except FN carrying a sextant (octant) to the plane.  She didn't know what was already on the plane or what others might have carried when not in her eyesight.