=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Feb 2003 11:20:22 EST
From:          Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Hurray!

Ric:

Does Bill Shea's posting mean we get to discuss the wreck photo again?

Alfred #2583
*********************************************************************
From Ric

I'm happy to discuss anything that is on topic, provided the discussers have something substantive to add to the discussion.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Feb 2003 11:23:39 EST
From:          Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Forum admin matters

I don't know how Ric sees my raw postings, but they are done on a Unix system and I generally work only in plain text. This note is being written in Mozilla's mail app (Netscape).

Most of the problems with text from different platforms and apps is in how they relay end of line information. Macintosh needs only a Carraige Return (CR), while Unix needs only a Line Feed (LF) While DOS/Windows needs both a CR and a LF. That's the cause of the double spacing most likely. Other issues can result from setting the text width beyond 80 characters.

If you guys are Mac people, take a look at BBEdit which I haven't used in years, but had the capability to remedy the situation. For a more detailed explanation and maybe more or better asnswers do a search for a program called CleanTxt -- it's a in/DOS app, but has a pretty good details about cross platform problems. Hope this helps.

Bob
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Bob.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Feb 2003 11:28:28 EST
From:          Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Phoenix Rising

Just out of curiosity, how long will Marty be in Fiji & will he need any assistance?

LTM,
Mike Haddock #2438
**********************************************************************
From Ric

About six weeks.  We can always use help, especially from people who are famiilar with doing historical/archival research but they'd need to be self-funded.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 1 Feb 2003 17:29:48 EST
From:          Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forum at half-mast

Today's forum (Sat., Jan. 31, 2003) is abbreviated due to the news of the Columbia disaster and out of respect for the brave flyers we lost today.

The forum will resume on Monday
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:39:47 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Clips

Ric wrote:

> ... Whatever these things are, they do not appear to be a standard part of
> anything.  They could be home-made replacements for standard parts that
> wore out or were broken, or they could be unique unto themselves. ...

When thinking about the doohickeys, it's important to remember that a lot of non-AE/FN debris is in the same area: the Tarawa Police water tank, screening material, sheet metal, broken Coast Guard plates, spent shells, glass shards, some wooden posts, an oil can cap, etc.

I'm gonna place my bet on something made by a native from the colony rather than AE or FN.  If the Seven Site is where the bones were found, then native workers were there first doing some logging and clearing; and probably Gallagher had some more come with him at least from time to time when conducting the "more thorough" search.

Just a hunch.  I won't kill or die for this opinion.

The reason the cap was so much more exciting was that the patent numbers ultimately led to its positive identification.  Kudos to the people who collected it, to Jeff Glickman, to the folks who searched the patent lists, and to the man who found the matching specimen now pictured on the web site.  It was GREAT detective work, even if seems to have been a gun oil cap rather than the smoking gun.

LTM.
Marty #2359
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The work we've done in the village has given us a good feel for the manufacturing and metal-working capabilities of the colonists and we never seen anything known to have been made on the island that even approaches theses things in complexity.  The most sophisticated locally-made metal devices we've found have been a few hair combs fashioned from aircraft aluminum, and they're pretty crude.  Whoever made the "clips" had the capability to cut serations and drill holes and had American screws.

From what we've been able to learn, even the Coasties would probably have to have something like this made for them in a shop on Canton.  Among those who might have brought these objects to the Seven Site, I think the colonists are way down on the list.

Given the fact that the castaway is known to have had a wooden box in his/her possession, and that the screws are wood screws, and that one of the plates is bent (suggesting forcible removal), and that the sextant box was thought to have been used most recently as a general-purpose container (how would you know that unless internal fitting had been removed to make more space?) - and given all the other reasons we have to suspect that the castaway was an American (specifically Amelia Earhart) - I personally think that, of all the artifacts recovered from the Seven Site  - the "clips" are among the most likely to be associated with Earhart.

Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:47:27 EST
From:          Bill
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

Can anyone clarify what info we have on Noonan's chart - that Howland Island might be charted in the wrong position?  This has been suggested many times.

If Howland was charted in the wrong position on the chart that Noonan used, does that also mean that Baker and Gardner might also have been charted wrong? If it was  just Howland that was charted wrong would Noonan have still used the 157/337 Line since they all wern't in a line.

Also, if  all three were chartered wrongly and Noonan didn't see Howland, how could he have flown 157 to Gardner?  Hmmmmmm Cheers from Bill
****************************************************************************
From Ric

No one knows whether AE/FN had the correct coordinates for Howland.  All the speculation about them having the wrong coordinates are based on the fact that Clarence Williams, the retired Navy captain who hand-made strip maps for Earhart's first World Flight attempt, had the wrong coordinates for the island.  However, we also  know that the correct coordinates were known to the flight's main contact and advisor at the Bureau of Air Commerce, Bill Miller.  It's hard to imagine that he didn't fill them in, but nobody knows for sure.

In any event, the discrepancy was only about 5 miles.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:05:26 EST
From:          Christian D.
Subject:      Re: Breaking News speculation

Ric, what I don't understand is why, while you keep the >>location<< of the item confidential, you can't tell what it is...  Knowing what it is won't help anybody to go steal it!

OR: is it possible to think of something very specific, which, by its own nature, MUST be in a very specific location on Niku???  Hard to fathom... What >>AE-related<< item would have to be in a certain place only???  I suppose for ex, that teeth would be somewhat likely to be in the famous skull hole? But what else?

Christian D

************************************************************************
From Ric

As I said before, we've satisfied ourselves that it needs looking at.  Any discussion of what it might be would not change the fact that we need to go check it out.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:07:53 EST
From:          Tom Riggs
Subject:      Navigating The Pacific Circa 1937

Ric....if you think this article is too large for the Forum, please delete article text cut/pasted below and replace with this link for interested readers:  http://www.ion.org/newsletter/v8n2.html  Thanks. TR

*********************************************************
From Ric

This is the paper by Bill Polhemus that many of us are familar with.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:12:44 EST
From:          Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Paradise Now

The Paradise Now raffle is up and running on the TIGHAR website.   Go to the home page at www.tighar.org and you'll get a pop-up screen that provides a direct link.  This is too good to miss.  You can order your chances right on the secure website.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:20:06 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Why the Long Flight from Lae to Howland?

Please forgive me if this has been asked and answered in the history of the Forum.

My buddy is reading Shoes and asked me why AE & FN didn't stop in the Gilberts to gas up.  If they'd taken a full load of fuel on there, they might have had enough gas to fly east, miss Howland, and fly back.

LTM.
Marty #2359
*************************************************************************
From Ric

There was no airstrip and no avgas in the Gilberts or anywhere else in the Central Pacific in 1937.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:31:36 EST
From:          Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Radio matters

Ric asks:

>To somebody listening for a transmission might this make a sound
>"something
>like a generator starting up and stopping"?

It's possible.  It would be nice to know, however (and we obviously can't know for sure), exactly what the person meant by those words.

If one is listening for a CW signal, and hears a transmitter key up asn the dynamotor is spooling up, there is a definite "yoop" to the CW "note." until the dyno reaches speed.

Is it deja vu...?  I think we have been in this area before, a long time ago.

73
Mike E.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Maybe...but it's of particular interest right now as we're looking more closely than ever before at the post-loss receptions.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:42:23 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      KGMB via shortwaves

Now here's an interesting tidbit (at least i think so, momentarily):

RADIO NEWS magazine, December 1936
pg 366

KIO  Kahuku...11680 kc/s....relaying KGMB....Gallagher [ not THE Gallagher ] reports them on 1110 heard testing Aug. 24  8:30 PM  [ 1936 ] EST.....

KKP Kahuku 16030 Relays KGMB Tuesdays....

KKH Kahuku  7520 used again for regular Monday evening programs to the CBS...

Didn't that Wyoming fellow report AE reception around 16000 kc/s ?

-Hue Miller

 ************************************************************************
From Ric

That Wyoming fellow heard what he heard on or about 16000 kcs on Sunday, not Tuesday.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:36:37 EST
From:          Rich Young
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

From Betty's notebook:

"Help me"  "This is Amelia Putnam"  "SOS"  "Speak"  "Help, help us quick" , etc.

If genuine transmissions, Amelia is trying to initiate TWO-WAY radio traffic.  In that case, unless directed otherwise, response is expected to be on the same frequency as the initial transmission!   Although it's possible to pre-arrange a radio net to transmit on one frequency, and listen for a reply on a different frequency, this has to be agreed to ahead of time, and is usually only done if a "repeater" is being used to extend range.  Further, not all transmitter/receiver sets are capable of such operation, many have the tuning features of the transmitter and receiver sections either shared or mechanically linked to MAKE SURE that listening and transmitting occur on the same frequency.  In the absence of transmitted directions - "I will listen for reply on 6210 cycles", for example, - anyone who wants to respond is going to respond on the same frequency they hear the transmission on.  Since no such requests are logged, (bear in mind how many times "Marie" and "New York" appear, and then think that reply instructions SHOULD have been part of every transmission if indeed she was listening on a different frequency), she was expecting a reply on the same frequency.  This is supported by the "Oh, if they could hear me" comment - IF she was listening on a different frequency than she was transmitting on, and whoever she was hearing didn't know it, there would be no possibility of them hearing her!  So obviously, she's transmitting on the same frequency as she is listening to, going by the notes.  Nothing else makes sense.  So even if she COULD listen to a completely different frequency, if she hopes to establish communication, as indicated by the notes, she would be listening to the SAME frequency she is calling on - which means if the transmitter is keyed, (and she should know this, there is probably a light that comes on when transmitting, the dynamotor under her seat will be spinning like a heavy-duty twist drill, her battery amperage and voltage will be falling like Enron stock,  and, at worst, the static in her headphones is suddenly gone - either muted, or replaced with a REAL LOUD copy of what she is transmitting.  Therefor there is no need to "listen, put your ear to it" IF she is transmitting, but she MUST be transmitting, or else BETTY couldn't have heard it.

In fact, in ANY of her radio traffic, when it was pre-arranged and POSSIBLE to transmit and receive on different frequencies, did she EVER use that technique?  WHY would she start now, in the absence of any expectation that such a thing would result in a conversation?  Were her transmitter and receiver wired to DIFFERENT "coffegrinders" for frequency tuning, or were they both slaved to one remote unit, which would require "re-tuning" after every transmission in such a mode?

To put this in perspective, for Amelia to be transmitting on e one freq. and listening on another would be akin to asking for help on CB channel 9, but switching to channel 19 to listen for a reply - WITHOUT telling anyone. Logical? You make the call...

LTM (who sends threes and eights to everyone)
Rich Young

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Transmitting and receiving on different frequencies was not at all unusual.
*************************************************************************
From Mike Everette

>one of the books on aircraft communications
>shows the control wiring peripheral to the this specific
>equipment. I don't think it's the Sandretto book, it may
>be the Morgan book, or possibly even Nilsun & Hornung.
>I definitely did see it.

What you may have seen is in Morgan.

I have a copy of it in front of me.  When this was made, i blew it up on the copier and lost the page number but the illustration is "Figure 89."

This shows the wiring for a bench test setup for the transmitter.

I have not seen anything showing how it interconnected with the receiver.

As for transmitting and receiving at the same time:  On the same frequency it would be impossible.

I do not believe it would be possible to transmit and receive simultaneously with this system, regardless of frequency, if it is interconnected according to the standard practices of the day which include receiver muting when the transmitter is keyed.  This of course means that the receiver is disabled while transmitting, either by breaking the audio output to avoid potential feedback, or by opening the high voltage supply to the receiver, or by removing the screen-grid voltages from the RF and IF amplifier tubes.  Given the information in the receiver schematic, I'd say it is an excellent bet that the receiver's high voltage supply was disconnected on transmit -- using an external relay.

The one thing I have wondered about, is whether there was some provision for "whistle thru" or any other means to zero the receiver to the transmitter frequency.  I can't see that on any diagrams I have available.

LTM (who doesn't believe in whistling in the dark)
and
73
Mike E.
**************************************************************************
From Mike Everette

Ric writes:

>Mike Everette seems to think that, if you and I are right about the belly
>antenna, simultaneous transmission/reception WAS possible.  The fact that the
>quality of the reception would be greatly reduced doesn't seem to be a good
>reason to discount AE's apparent attempt to convince FN to "here, put your
>ear to it."

If you re-read my last few posts, especially the one this reply references, you'll see that I put a qualifier on this.

It would definitely NOT!!! be possible to receive and transmit (duplex operation, a la the familiar telephone) at the same time, ON THE SAME FREQUENCY, under ANY circumstance.  No way.

If the receiver used a separate antenna -- not in any way connected through the antenna change-over relay in the transmitter -- it MIGHT (read, MIGHT!!!) be possible for an incoming signal to be heard through the receiver, depending upon:

(1) how much the receiver was desensitized on account of being "swamped" by the RF field from the transmitter -- which will be a great amount, if the frequencies are close together, and TOTALLY if one happens to be listening to 6210 while transmitting on 3105; and a lesser amount (but still occurring to some degree) on more widely separated frequencies, i.e. 3105 and 7500.

(2) whether the system was configured to "mute" the receiver, when the transmitter was keyed up -- if it was so wired, there is no way simultaneous reception/transmission could occur;

(3) and even if the receiver was not muted on transmit (which, frankly, I can't really imagine, knowing how these systems are usually configured), simultaneous reception would be impossible if the receiver shared a common antenna with the transmitter, because the change-over relay GROUNDED the receiver input during transmission, through an extra set of contacts.

Now, read this carefully.

The RF output from a "50-watt" transmitter is NOT going to "burn out" a tube-type receiver, unless the transmitted power is connected directly to the receiver's antenna input.

Ham radio operators have, for many, many years, used separate receive and transmit antennas when they couldn't obtain a proper antenna change-over relay, or wanted to operate "break-in CW" which requires an antenna relay capable of following a Morse key... not an easy thing to find.   I've done it myself, so I know this first hand.  A low power transmitter will not pose a threat to the receiver.  (And if you are truly worried about it, put a neon bulb between the receiver antenna terminal and ground.)

Now back to the WE system, and the issue of "high RF voltages at the transmitter antenna post":

There is no danger posed to the receiver, in any circumstance, if the receiver input was coupled through the transmitter's change-over relay, because the relay had an extra set of contacts which GROUNDED the receiver input, on transmit.

Now, on to the cockpit audio system:

Regardless of whether an interphone system was present, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there were separate "jack boxes" provided in the cockpit for the headsets/mics for the left and right seats.

73
Mike E.
************************************************************************
From Ric

So simultaneous transmission and reception is impossible on the same frequency, but may be possible on dissimilar frequencies.  But if AE is hearing code from Itasca on 7500 and is transmitting on 3105 or 6210, that is the case.

Try this:  AE transmits on 3105 or 6210 saying something that Betty writes down as "W40K or WOJ Howland port".  She says something about "waters high". She does (or doesn't) stop transmitting and suddenly hears code on 7500.  She begins transmitting again, trying to reply and also tells Noonan "Here put your ear to it." after which she stops transmitting and passes the headset to Noonan who hears the code.  He then puts on the second headset and picks up the other mic as AE is sending "This is Amelia...etc." Noonan starts injecting his own words into the transmission and Earhart tells him to stop. Both Earhart and Noonan were almost certainly severely hearing impaired after nearly 24 hours sitting between those engines and, rather than shout at each other, they may have used the radio (in the absence of an intercom) to talk to each other - each wearing a headset and using a microphone.  That's why Betty hears not only intended transmissions but also some of the interpersonal exchanges.

****************************************************************************
From Hue Miller

Ric wrote:

> 1.  There was no "transmitter/receiver system".

Actually, there was. The PTT switch does not simply turn the transmitter on/off. Your radio expert can verify this. It also handles the muting of the receiver. We can ask your radio expert about this. If i show you the wiring diagram for the WE transmitter receiver SYSTEM, would you agree that this would seem to be the system on this particular plane, or is there some reason AE would elect to go with a pointless, technically retrograde setup?

>The loop
> antenna over the cockpit was, I maintain, operated via a "coupling unit" to
> the receiver under the copilot's seat.  A switch alowed the pilot to select
> which receiving antenna the receiver would use - belly wire or loop.

And, just to ensure we each have the same understanding on this, the switch is on the loop unit, yes? Because the loop unit needs a 'sense antenna', and when 'looping' ( DFing ), it used the same wire receiver antenna as its 'sense antenna'.

> I can
> see no evidence in the available photos that the transmitting system in the
> tail of the airplane (operated via a remote in the cockpit) and the receiving
> system in the nose were in any way connected.

The evidence shows up in the SYSTEM schematic, not in a photo. If  you can see the interconnect wires and connections, then you truly hold some exceptional photos. The system schematic is discussed in one of those 3 texts  i mentioned in a previous post- not available to me at present, but i can eventually lay my hands on these again. Perhaps Mike has these and can verify the setup.

> 3.  We still need to figure out why it might be that the PTT seems to have
> been locked down - but you're not helping.

Actually, the exceptional claim is that the "PTT seems to have been locked down". This would be for the proponents to explain. The PTT apparatus is quite robust. Even throwing it at a brick wall would break off the button but not jam the switch. As for relays jamming, etc. etc. or such a conjecture, such a hard landing would damage vacuum tubes first.

Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

This whole line of argument is bogus.  There is no requirement stated or implied in the notebook that the PTT be locked down or that transmission and reception is occurring at the same time.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:16:55 EST
From:          Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Forum issues

For today's forum (Monday Feb. 3) I've posted and replied to roughly a third of the postings.  Pat will post the others later today as time permits.

I'm spending as much time as I can trying to get the Post-Loss Radio report finished while also trying to keep the fundraising going.

These are tough times for all nonprofit organizations (and for-profit businesses, for that matter).  Many have fallen, and many more will fall victim, to the shrunken and stagnant economy and to the uncertain and unpromising future.  But "this too, shall pass" and the survivors will be the ones who manage their assets wisely and who continue to earn and receive the trust and support of their members/customers.

We'll do our part, but you'll need to do yours - as most of you do.  We don't, and we won't, make it a requirement, but everyone on this forum who has been a subscriber for more than a month should be a TIGHAR member.  If you're not, you're riding the bus without paying the fare.  It's an honor system.

Everyone on the forum should take advantage of the Paradise Now raffle.  It has never been easier to support the work you care about and do something for yourself and your family at the same time.

This forum is an important part of TIGHAR's total effort to conclusively solve the Earhart mystery and we encourage you to participate with your questions, comments, and opinions - but please remember that every time you submit a posting either Pat or I  has to open it, read it, possibly respond to it, copy/paste it into a separate document, and send it on for distribution.  Once it goes out, over 800 people have to, at a minimum, look at it and decide whether or not to open it and read it or delete it.  So please do us all the courtesy of familiarizing yourself with the exhaustive (and admittedly exhausting) information on the website, and let's try to hold the witty one-liners to a minimum.

As we've said a hundred times or more, the purpose of the Earhart Project is to develop and demonstrate sound techniques and methodologies in historical investigation - in short, learning and showing how to discover truth.  That mission has never been more important than it is now.

Thank you for your help,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:13:22 EST
From:          Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: drift information

Marty wrote:

> Bob wrote:
> >
> > I don't mean to be contentious <G> but do we know that there was a drift
> > meter on board?
>
> Evidence that there MIGHT have been equipment like
> that on board comes from the inventory of the contents
> of the plane after the crash in Hawaii:

Thanks, Marty.  I have a copy of the Luke Field inventory.

My question for Alan was rhetorical.  The intent was to prompt reexamination of the apparent assumption that FN had access to an installed drift sight of the type that essentially is a telescope mounted in a vertical tube through the bottom of the fuselage, equipped with a rotatable grid sight for finding drift angle.

Inventory item 107, "type D-270 speed and drift indicator", might be a circular slide rule of the type that evolved into the modern E-6B, used for solving time/speed/distance and drift calculations.  Or, it might be a drift sight intended to be mounted externally on the two brackets installed on the outside of the fuselage at the aft edge of the cabin door frame.  If so, mounting and using the device would have been interesting, to say the least. First, FN would have to open the cabin door several inches, against the pressure of the slip stream, and latch the door open in that position. Then he would have to reach through the door opening and attach the sight to the brackets, being careful not to drop it or let the slip stream rip it from his grasp.  After mounting the sight, he then would have to position his head in or very close to the door opening to take readings.

Item 122, "Mk II B pelorus drift sight", was very crude compared to the modern grid-type drift sight.  There is a photo and description of this sight in Dutton, "Navigation and Nautical Astronomy", published by the U.S. Naval Institute, 1948.

Dutton's description states, in pertinent parts:

"It consists of a sighting tube about eight inches long mounted by a pivot joint on a post free to turn in a base. The sighting tube contains no lenses: there is a peep hole at one end and cross wires at the other".  "The post can be adjusted in height by releasing a thumb screw and sliding the post up or down in the index arm".  "When a drift observation is to be made with the Mark 2B drift sight, the aircraft is flown over some prominent stationary object on the ground at constant heading and speed and as the object draws aft, the cross wires are kept centered on it.  When the object is left some distance behind and the line of sight through the tube has steadied, after perhaps half a minute or a minute, the angle between the the track (reciprocal of the line of sight) and the heading (longitudinal axis of the plane) is read on the drift scale at the base opposite the index line on the index arm.  This is the drift angle."

The Mark 2B installation in NR16020, with the pivot mounts at the cabin windows, restricted its field of view such that the sea surface was not visible forward of the wing trailing edge, or more than 30 degrees aft of the beam, or more than 50 degrees below the horizontal.  The Mark 2B could have been useful for taking bearings on mountains and islands in the early hours of the flight from Lae, but there were no "prominent stationary" objects on the sea surface for FN to use in finding drift in the vicinity of the 157/337 LOP.

So, if it is assumed that FN was able to get drift information, how did he do it?

LTM,
Bob
#2286
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:14:02 EST
From:          Dennis McGee
Subject:      Speculation

I am skeptical that this marine biologist saw anything on the island "that might be an identifiable component of a Lockheed Electra."

You say the biologist was familiar with TIGHAR's work, yet he neither photographs the find nor recovers it because he assumed we already knew of it.  If he is aware of TIGHAR's work then he would also be aware of what we know and don't know, and obviously we knew nothing of this artifact or else something would have been on the website about it.  And even if we did know of it, it did not dawn on him at that time to take a quick photo or two just to document its present condition.

By chance, did the biologist mark the site in any way -- a pile of stones or debris, a GPS coordinate, a rough map, a yellow ribbon around the old Kanawa tree -- so it could be quickly relocated?  Anything?  I'll bet not, because he assumed we already knew of it so there was no need to document it, and because it was a "brief visit" (10 minutes? 12 hours? 2 days?) and he didn't have time to waste on something he thought we already knew.

I think the guy is pulling our leg, but we still have to check it out.

LTM, who suffers from pulled-leg syndrome
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:14:38 EST
From:          Dennis McGee
Subject:      One more?

Ric said:  "I'll take your suggestion and leave it up to the forum to decide whether I need to spend my time and theirs responding to your efforts to keep me honest."

Sactodave, Janet Whitney, Cam Warren . . . Hue Miller!

LTM, who does not suffer in silence
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:15:40 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

> Marty we may be having a misunderstanding. I am 100% certain that the
> 157-337 LOP was derived from one (and probably a lot more than one) sun
> line observation with Noonan's sextant. My point is that it would not be
> a "dawn sight" taken only at the time that the sun peeked up over the
> horizon.

My apologies, Gary.

I misunderstood you and misrepresented your position (intellectual, not line of).  :-O

If Fred could have gotten a good LOP drawn on his chart during the hour after sunrise, it would give him a good starting point for dead reckoning to a parallel line through Howland & the Phoenix Islands.

I know that the preceding sentence begins with "if" and continues with "would."  All I'm presenting is a conjecture.  I did not invent the conjecture. It dates to 1937 and resurfaced in the 1980s, I believe.

All I've ever said or meant to say is that this scientific WAG makes sense to me.  ;o)

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:18:49 EST
From:          Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: 31.05 revisited

I vote to keep keep Mr. Hue Miller around - May be just to find out why he is still riding around with a burr under his saddle over Miss Betty and her "note book" - A person is never so blind as one who chooses not to see. 

Respectfully:
Tom Strang

Ric wrote:

>Because they're the ones who have to read all this stuff (or delete it), I'll
>take your suggestion and leave it up to the forum to decide whether I need to
>spend my time and their's responding to your efforts to keep me honest.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:19:48 EST
From:          Mark Prange
Subject:      Refraction variability

>Let's.....say that Fred uses a
>different line derived by a ...........significantly
>post-dawn sun shot, which he advances through Howland.
>He then flies until he reaches the advanced line but, ooops, no Howland.
>He can't then just start flying the 157 337 line because he has no way of
>knowing where he is in relation to the 157 337 that passes through
>Howland........

Post dawn sun observations would indeed give him information as to whether he was on the line through Howland.

Mark
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:21:21 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

> My argument for the 157 337 line being a sunshot LOP advanced through
> Howland is that  it's the only way he can get to the advanced line,
> not see Howland, and then start running on the line and have any
> confidence that that it will eventually bring him to an island.

I'll talk to you Monday about this but I'm being technical about what I say. I totally agree with you that is probably what occurred. I'm only pointing out that "it ain't necessarily so." <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:22:15 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: MARCH OF  TIME TAPE

Ron, thanks very much for taking the time to post that piece from MOT. I agree that there is no similarity. But we didn't expect it would be did we? I am certainly with you that the notebook leans more to the 2nd of July, six days before the MOT was broadcast just for starters.

I cannot conceive that the notebook is anything but genuine and I'm one of the most cynical sceptics of all. Some here will not believe that from my posts but Ric knows. <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:23:32 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Drift information

Marty Moleski wrote:

> Duties and Responsibilities of
> THE NAVIGATOR
> Excerpt from the Pilot Training Manual of the B-17 Flying Fortress
>
> "When flying over water, desert, or barren land, where no reliable pilotage
> points are available, accurate DR navigation still can be performed. By
> means of the drift meter the navigator is able to determine drift,

Now you see why I would not discuss the drift meter. Two reasons. Everyone could find this same URL just as easily as Marty. Two, it did not explain the technique for obtaining drift over open ocean and I really didn't want to start that thread. Since the issue has been opened let me touch on it briefly and leave everyone to their own research to answer whatever questions this brings up. I'm not trying to be difficult or mysterious but my time is not totally free any more than that of everyone else.

Obvious stuff: Find some object floating and use it for the drift target. Drop a flare or other object and use it. If AE knew how to do the drift problem she could have tossed Fred out after he failed to find Howland. <G> Finally there is a technique using waves to run the drift problem. Ah Ha! Who knew that? <G>

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:24:28 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

Gary LaPook writes

> The speculation that this LOP was based on an observation of the moon or a
> planet does not hold water. The only time on July 2, 1937 that an
> observation of the moon while in the Vicinity of Howland was 1620 through
> 1626 Z way before NR16020 would have been close to Howland. Venus would
> produce the same azimuth only during the period 1752-1801 Z which is after
> sun rise when it would be very difficult or impossible to observe Venus.

Gary, I know of no speculation that a planet was used to obtain an LOP. The moon most certainly could although I am not saying that was the source of the LOP. I am saying it could have been. It doesn't make any difference what time the moon shot was available.

While you are checking all this out I would suggest you look at how little time Noonan had to do sun shots from the time he could see the sun and the time he reached the vicinity of Howland. I think there is an erroneous view that Noonan had considerable time to shoot and move sun lines. That is not so.

You DID make a good point that I've made in less clear terms that I suspect  few are understanding and that is that the azimuth of the sun changed so slightly that Noonan had a good opportunity, weather permitting, to refine his LOP position AFTER 7:42 L. THAT point is far more significant, in my view, than many understand.

Every little clue like that makes me more convinced that either Noonan was a far less qualified navigator than is supposed or he had Howland's coordinates wrong. I'll opt for the latter. Why? Because he had an hour to redo his work and Howland STILL was not where he plotted it to be. Could he have been that bad? OK, the weather could have prevented subsequent celestial but the weather reports do not support that probability (nor do they refute it).

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:25:45 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: MOT

> Numerous places I've researched MOT indicates they were broadcast
> by NBC, not CBS.  For example, I cut/pasted the following information
> from the Library of Congress SONIC database for one of their many MOT
> recordings:

No, they were broadcast by CBS. NBC took over that Fall, unfortunately AFTER the July broadcasts.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:26:36 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Drift information

Gary LaPook wrote:

> Over land you sight on fixed objects but over water it is a little trickier.
> If there are whitecaps you can sight on them if they persist for a while.
> Each whitecap stays in one place.

Rats! Gary, you told. Now they don't have to look it up. <G>

Good explanation. I hope everyone can start to see that Noonan was far from limited in what tools and  techniques he had at his beck and call.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:28:06 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Texas

Ric wrote:

> Sure looks "central" to me but I'm sure Texans have their own definitions
> for such things.

I'm in Austin which is central Texas. Ft. hood is 70 miles from me. I go there shopping so I know. Texans use odd descriptions of their areas. I'm in the "Hill country" which is flat. My lady friend used to live in Cisco which is called "West Texas." Cisco is east of me and north of course. It's far closer to Dallas than El Paso or even Lubbock. Then there's the valley. That's Kingsville which is not in a valley.

There is an Austin County but Austin is not in it. I could go on and on but you get the idea.

Ric is correct. Ft. hood is central Texas. Keep in mind this is a big place. Don Meridith, former Cowboy quarterback, used to say that if you tip Texas up to the North Brownsville would be about 65 miles from the Canadian border. If you tip it to the South Texarkana would be several hundred miles south of Acapulco into the Pacific. If you tip it to the West Orange would be several hundred miles out in the Pacific and if you tip it to the East El Paso would be several hundred miles out in the Atlantic.

For Chris, Gary, and hue, please don't bother checking your maps. This was a joke and not absolutely, perfectly accurate. Just the best I can remember Meridith's story.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:30:19 EST
From:          Mark Prange
Subject:      Re: Astronomy

>One note:  the 157/337 line is the perpendicular line to the horizon
>sunrise point on that day.  In order for Noonan to find that line
>accurately, he absolutely must have taken a shot of the Sun when it
>rose.

But Noonan did not have to find the azimuth accurately.  The 067 azimuth is what would have been gotten out of "Navigation Tables for Mariners and Aviators."  The azimuth angle is seldom measured in celestial navigation.

>Noonan likely predicted where he expected to be when the Sun rose, and
>knew that the LOP would be at that angle, but it's a meaningless line
>*unless* he measured it when the Sun rose.

Not really.  For an assumed position, a navigator computes or looks up the azimuth.  That azimuth is helpful sometimes to predict which direction to find the body, and definitely to find the alignment of the LOP through that assumed position.

>It makes no sense to use it
>as a reference without a measurement that morning, as they wouldn't
>know where the line really was without an accurate measurement of the
>sunrise azimuth.

It is conventional to use the predicted azimuth, rather than the measured azimuth, because the azimuth applies strictly to observatioins from the assumed position, not the observer's position.  The azimuth/LOP alighnment is not as critical as is the height of the body.  The 067 azimuth of the sun would have obtained over a broad swath of latitude and LHA; (a look at some sight reduction tables shows it to be about from N 10 degrees to S 9 degrees, if I remember correctly, and a considerable span east and west, too).

>That's why I'm so sure that they had to know their
>course angle, within the errors of their instruments, at sunrise;
>Earhart would not have been flying that LOP unless Noonan knew, with
>certainty, what the angle was.

If he was using "Navigation Tables for Mariners and Aviators" then he knew the angle with more precision (tenth of a degree) than he could measure it. To navigation along the LOP it is useful to have an idea of its alignment, but repeated Sun height observations are what tell how closely an LOP is being flown.

>Measuring azimuthal angles against a compass is easy.

For that reason known azimuth angles are useful in determining accuracy of the compass, because navigational compass accuracy doesn't have to be within small fractions of a degree.  Normally the azimuth angle is not measurable with enough accuracy to be useful in posiion finding.

>......we found our
>position, using a sextant and transit......

Azimuth instruments, when available to the navigator, are used more for determining heading or bearing, or determining compass error/corrections. But for position finding the navigator normally uses a height instrument--a sextant--without relying too much on azimuth instruments.

>...I don't know how being in a plane would
>affect the accuracy, though.

Plus or minus 6 NM is doing really fine.

>You also really need three measurements to
>find your position; two will get you by, but it's not nearly as
>accurate.

There is much to be said for having three bodies, especially if the intercepts are either all TO, or all FROM.  With daylight, Noonan would have been down to just one body, the Sun for some of the time.  The moon's azimuth didn't differ enough from that of the Sun until later in the morning.

>I don't
>understand how navigators were trained to do their job, but I'll work
>on that.

A few were trained first in surveying.  Many began as mariners.  In the 1930s more and more were aeronautical navigators from the start.  When surveyors use celestial observations it is not usually so much for position finding as it is for determining bearing along a line.  The azimuth observation has not so much primacy with navigators.   Celestial navigators focus more on a body's predicted and measured angular height.  In marine navigation, traditionally the various corrections are made to the sight.  In aerial navigation, the preference is to make the corrections beforehand to the (pre)computed height, so that a position line can be plotted more promptly after an observation.

Mark Prange
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:32:35 EST
From:          Christian Duretete
Subject:      Re: Query

Ric wrote:

> What you're missing are the umpteen previous postings that have explained
> that the nature of the reef surface prohibits any taxiing to the shore.
> Only the first couple hundred feet of reef near the ocean is smooth enough to
> land or taxi on.  Move any closer to shore and the reef becomes deeply pitted
> and jagged.

Details, details...  Myself, while I remember the smoothest area was at the edge, for landing, I hadn't understood that taxiing to shore was out of the question. Thanks for this detail.

CD
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:34:23 EST
From:          Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Drift information

my sincere thanks to all who answered my questions regarding drift measurements

harvey Schor #2387
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:35:34 EST
From:          Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Breaking news

I had kinda promised myself I'd stay out of this ....

A "brief visit" by a marine biologist suggests to me that the scientist was going somewhere else, and Niku was on the way to someplace else.   He (identified as "he" in Ric's initial announcement) landed on the island mostly to be able to say to his friends back home that he'd been to the island ... unless there is something of special interest to such as he.    Is there something on Gardner that would attract marine biologists?

I suspect the chap went to some place on the island that TIGHAR may not have gone, but which is familiar in some way to marine biologists. The biologist may not have had a clear idea what parts of the island had been explored by TIGHAR.    He just went somewhere that looked like some places he knew well.     What's his area of research?

We on the Forum don't know yet whether the artifact was on the land or in the water, nor do we know if -- were it in the water -- whether it was detected visually or remotely.   Since it appears that the island has been at very least surveyed completely from the air, my first guess is that the artifact is submerged, or has been covered in brush or sand which for some reason has been cleared away.   Have there been any storms there recently which would have changed the shape of the beach or the extent of the brush?

Given that he new about TIGHAR, it may be assumed that he's at very least an aviation enthusiast.   But that may be in error: it may be equally likely that Niku fits a profile in which he is interested professionally, or that Niku is on the way or near to someplace of particular interest to marine biologists.   What he knows about aviation leads to the possible identity of the artifact.   If he knows, for example, what I know, the artifact is going to have to be identifiable obviously as an airplane part from the right era.  If he's a pilot of some experience and of different airplanes, that broadens  the possibilities.   Is he a pilot, or does he simply pick up a copy of "Air Classics" on his way home?

Given what I recall about the rates of destruction of metals on that island, whatever it is has to be fairly substantial.   I vote, therefore, for either an engine or landing gear, buried in sand underwater.

LTM
Mike H.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:37:54 EST
From:          Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: Closest Point of Approach (CPA)

Ron Bright wrote:

> Safford says in "Flight into Yesterday", chpt 11, "The Electra had no chance
> of hearing the ITASCA's 7500 KC signals at night, nor of taking a bearing on
> them by day until within about 40 miles of the ship."  A bit confusing, but
> it seems to confirm that 7500 kc signals could be heard by AE if within 40
> miles.

Ron:

This illustrates, yet again, the folly of accepting anecdote as fact.  I don't know how Safford derived his conclusions, but it appears that he was not in possession of the relevant facts.

It's worth noting that the Itasca's signal you cite was sent in daylight, about 2 hours after sunrise, using the 500-watt T-16 transmitter.   I ran this case in the ICEPAC model, and the signal was receivable "loud and clear" within a radius of about 600 nautical miles.

Safford's claim that "The Electra had no chance of hearing the ITASCA's 7500 KC signals at night, . . ." is not credible on its face, but I ran a night case out of curiosity and the signal was "loud and clear" within a radius of about 1000 nautical miles.

As for not getting a bearing on the Itasca's signal until within 40 miles, Safford may have been referring to the ground wave reception limit.  But if so, he was ignoring the fact that the Itasca's signal had a strong skywave component at any distance, which would make it virtually impossible to get a minimum (null) with the loop antenna on NR16020.

LTM,
Bob
#2286
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:38:41 EST
From:          Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

Dave Bush writes:

>Also, I remember reading in one of Stephen Coonts' books about a WWII
>fighter pilot who was in a shootout with a ME-109 who went thru the whole
>fight with his mike "open".

I think what you remember is not from Stephen Coonts (unless he "borrowed" it), but from "Thunderbolt!" by Robert S. Johnson.

The German a/c was a Focke-Wulf 190.

73
Mike E.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:39:08 EST
From:          Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: Query

In response to Pat Gaston's question about taxiing the Electra across the reef flat to the Niku beach shoreline, Ric wrote:  "What you're missing are the umpteen previous postings that have explained that the nature of the reef surface prohibits any taxiing to the shore...."

Not only would the nature of the reef surface prohibit taxiing to shore, but also:

    1- taxiing the Electra to shoreline would discount Tighar's theory that tide and wave action floated the Electra over the reef edge.

    2- improbable that only seven days later on July 9, 1937 Lt. Lambrecht didn't happen to notice a huge 7000lb. shiny aluminum airplane sitting on the edge of Niku shoreline.

Tom Riggs #2427
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:40:35 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      antenna musing

One thing that struck me as i pawed through the Navy type DU manual (equivalent to AE's Bendix-commercial unit), that i hadn't really notice before, i don't think, is that the unit uses the 1 wire antenna, the communications antenna, for both the communications ( operating coupler in "through" mode ) and as loop sense antenna, in "direction finding" mode. ( In this mode, it turns down the signal from the wire antenna to compensate for its stronger signal, compared to the loop.)

The coupler then has one wire to the receiver, this wire carries  the signal from either the loop or wire.

This is saying that ONLY ONE antenna served for sense and receive. So, it was not the case where the ventral was sense and dorsal V, receive/ transmit. The belly antenna served all receive purposes, OR the V topside antenna served all receive + transmit purposes. In the latter case, the belly antenna would be unused. I am thinking, with AE's concern for weight and streamlined flying, she would not keep a useless apendage on the plane.

Does this help at all clarify the way the setup may (?) have been, or muddy the water more?

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:41:01 EST
From:          Ed
Subject:      Re: Clips

When we think of the village and the hand-made items (combs, box inlays, etc.) that were fabricated from aircraft aluminum, the remnants of that craftmanship may prove to be of value. Likewise other salvaged items may still lie within the village perimeter. Any thoughts of spending more search time there looking for the smoking gun?

LTM
Ed of PSL #2415
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:41:40 EST
From:          Eric
Subject:      Betty's Radio (Update)

Here is a response I received from ORZ at the Old Radio Zone web site
(http://www.oldradiozone.com/).
I pass it along without comment for what it's worth:

It would be impossible to track down all 1000Z owners.  I seriously doubt she [Betty] listened on a 1000Z.  Were Betty's parents extremely wealthy?  The 1000Z was $750, which was a fortune back then.  I live in Florida and I have never heard of a 1000Z coming from Florida.  How old is Betty today? How tall was Betty in 1937.  The 1000Z is a very tall model at about 4 feet tall. There are also wooden sliding doors on this model.

ORZ
www.oldradiozone.com

Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:43:41 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: KGMB via shortwaves

> Didn't that Wyoming fellow report AE reception around 16000 kc/s ?
> -Hue Miller
>
>*****************************************************
> From Ric
>
> That Wyoming fellow heard what he heard on or about 16000 kcs on Sunday, not
> Tuesday.

However, this Tuesday thing is not all that decisive. This listing is for Dec 12, 1936, allowing plenty of time for schedule changes. The rest of the text, maybe i should have quoted more, states in a couple places "testing". The point is, the precedent:: KGMB reached USA via shortwave in 1936, in 16000 band. I think an impartial judge would say based on this, it would not be unexpected for Kuhuku to be broadcasting KGMB to the USA in mid-1937.

Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:45:08 EST
From:          Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

Out of curiosity, the other day I logged into the Library of Congress to see what AE related pictures they may have.  The one photo I found most interesting is virtually identical to the one taken from the overhead hatch, where AE is sitting in the co-pilot's seat.  It has to have been take about the same time, because in the photo with AE, there is clearly something missing from the panel "table", and there is what looks like a block of wood inserted in the hole.  In the LOC photo, the picture is taken from the same vantage point, and the block of wood is clearly there.  What's not there is AE.  The photo clearly shows the cockpit sidewall next to the co-pilot's seat.  Although the thumbnail of the photo is small, there is clearly a set of earphones hanging next to the co-pilot's seat.

While we obviously don't know for sure that the headphones made it aboard for the second flight, it is reasonable, I think, to presume they did.

> From Ric
> She does (or doesn't) stop transmitting and suddenly hears code on 7500. She
> begins transmitting again, trying to reply and also tells Noonan "Here put
> your ear to it." after which she stops transmitting and passes the headset to
> Noonan who hears the code.  He then puts on the second headset and picks up
> the other mic as AE is sending "This is Amelia...etc." Noonan starts

If in fact the second earphone set was present, she wouldn't even need to hand hers to Fred, just tell him to put his " ear to it".

(Ric, I'll send you a copy of the thumbnail of the photo in another email)

ltm
Jon
2266
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:48:24 EST
From:          Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Breaking news

This was not my post. I'm not nearly this articulate! There is a fellow forumite who signs his postings Mike H.--ain't me buddy. It would simplify matters if he wouldn't use initials.
LTM
Mike Haddock #2438

>From Mike Haddock
>
>I had kinda promised myself I'd stay out of this ....

***************************************

Yes, it would make our lives easier if *everyone* would sign first and last names to their posts, please! Also, include attribution (So-and-so wrote:) when quoting as we don't necessarily remember who wrote what by the next day. Thanks!

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:52:51 EST
From:          Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Clips

I have 2 questions related to the clips;

When I look at the photos, I do not conclude, or even think, that they are home-made. (Perhaps there is something about them that is more apparent when you hold them in your hand.) What specifically is it about them that makes you conclude home-made?

Do you and Angus need any help on any research related to these things?

- Alfred
**************************************************************************
From Ric

If you held them in your hand you'd know what I mean.  The plates are well made but very imprecisely made.  The rounded one is a bit lopsided and the corners of the rectangular one are not quite square.  The serrations on both are not symmetrical.

Angus had them for several weeks and has done what he could in terms of physical analysis. We've explored a number of possibilities and find that the closest similarity is to fasteners on the internal fittings found in sextant boxes - but no exact match.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:08:36 EST
From:          Mike Holt
Subject:      Re: Breaking news

>From Mike Haddock
>
>I had kinda promised myself I'd stay out of this ....

Wrong Mike H!   Mr. Haddock, you didn't write that one; I'll take the flak myself.    I'll add my complete last name next time!
********************************************************************
From Ric

With 800-plus subscribers we're bound to have some duplication in names and intials.  It's a good idea to include your first and last name in your posting, or some other distinguishing handle like "Ed in PSL" or "Dave in Houston".  While we're on the subject, it saves me a lot of time if you begin your posting with "From (whoever)" so I don't have to do it.  Thanks.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:11:36 EST
From:          Dave Carmack
Subject:      Re: One more?

I dont know if I am allowed a vote or not since I am not a member, only a lurker, I must red-facedly admit.

But I would vote to keep Hue around. I think the problem is not with his skepticism about certain things but more with certain parts of his dialogue, as when he gets perhaps a little too personal sometimes. However, I would say in his defense that given the obvious bias a lot of the members here have towards any TIGHAR theory, that the way THEY respond to someone with skepticism can provoke some of these personal affronts. If all the innuendos and cynical remarks could be deleted from the posts it would alleviate this a lot . Of course it would not be as entertaining but personal attacks I dont consider all that entertaining. Im sure if the positions regarding this particular matter---Bettys notebook--were reversed, that almost all the Tighar members would be finding ways to support it and not the other side. Sometimes the views on this are like listening to the OJ Simpson trial--  a lot of lawyers throwing out so much information in the hopes it will confuse everyone and that some of it may stick.

In short, I think it is good to have someone like Hue around trying to present a different point of view.

Hue, I would say--stick by your beliefs only try to keep from any kind of personal remarks.....and the same to everyone else. Of course no one will admit to being the one who started it, but cant someone be big enough to say -'I will be the first to quit' Arguments are good for progress, but with personal things thrown in they can deteriorate into just plain mud-fights. We can see that on Jerry Springer. Sincerely,

David C
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:38:15 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

> From Ric
>
> Transmitting and receiving on different frequencies was not at all unusual.

In which communications realm, in 1937?

> From Mike E.
>
> For Hue Miller
> What you may have seen is in Morgan.
>
> I have a copy of it in front of me.  When this was made, i blew it up on the
> copier and lost the page number but the illustration is "Figure 89."
>
> This shows the wiring for a bench test setup for the transmitter.
>
> I have not seen anything showing how it interconnected with the receiver.

The other book is "Aeronautic Radio" by Eddy, 1940? Has a 2 page expanded schematic of transmitter, with comments. This one is good for explaining the transmit relay timing sequence, things that weren't immediately obvious to me.

I think we need to look at the "Transmitter Bench Testing Setup" diagram, and the receiver diagram (with a magnifying glass and ruler!!) and tease out the wiring. I am thinking the receiver highvoltage relay is in the receiver dynamoter box.

> The one thing I have wondered about, is whether there was some provision for
> "whistle thru" or any other means to zero the receiver to the transmitter
> frequency.  I can't see that on any diagrams I have available.

Yes- me too. They either had to search for the call of the correspondent station on the dial, "around where expected", or was this receiver the modification shown in the book, with crystal controlled receiver channels?

Ric wrote:

> This whole line of argument is bogus.  There is no requirement stated or
> implied in the notebook that the PTT be locked down or that transmission and
> reception is occurring at the same time.


Ric, is this fiat, or based on fact, or even probability?

Mike does have a point about receiver silencing, even when receiving on a different band. Howsoever, the bridge you must cross, to validate any possibility of your simultaneous 3105 transmit, 7500 receive scene, is how her duplex mode acted when on same frequency.

In other words, your proposed radio switchover setup, how does it act when normally used? When AE was communicating on 3105, for example, with no auto muting of her receiver - unlike every other aircraft radio station we are familiar with, and unlike any portrayed in the Morgan or Eddy books, or any aircraft radio manual i have seen. ( Mike? )

Now, as Sandretto's radio engineering text explains, the receiver is muted because: (excluding the damage reason, excluded per above.)

1. Transmitter signal in receiver is so strong it requires volume manually turned down immediately before  transmit, or operator's hearing is threatened. Then turned back up when done speaking. Every time! Don't forget, or you'll be tearing off off your headphone! ( This aggravation is  why PTT and relays were used!)

2. Audio feedback from transmitter>receiver>transmitter can set  reciever to howling or screeching in headphone, when transmitter is on.

3. Receiver is desensitized or blocked for a period of some seconds after transmitter is turned off ( as AGC discharges ).

 "Okay, Amelia, before you give it back to Itasca, be sure to tell them to count to 20 before transmitting.")

I can quote Sandretto for you if you think i concocted this.

So, you are saying AE lived with this disadvantage, so she could enjoy the dubious advantage of hampered reception while transmitting? I also note your scene envisions 2 microphones. Before you see the schematic, Ric, are you really sure you want to go with this supposition?

-Hue Miller

***************************************************************************
From Ric

I said:

>There is no requirement stated or
> implied in the notebook that the PTT be locked down or that transmission and
> reception is occurring at the same time.

You asked:

> Is this fiat, or based on fact, or even probability?

It's based on the notebook.  We have no way of knowing how much time elapsed between entries.

You asked:

>So, you are saying AE lived with this disadvantage, so she could enjoy the dubious 
>advantage of hampered reception while transmitting?

I'm saying that the whole discussion about simultaneous transmission/reception is based upon the assumption that Earhart did not release the PTT after asking Noonan to put his ear to (presumably) the headphones.

You ask:

>I also note your scene envisions 2 microphones. Before you see the
>schematic, Ric, are you really sure you want to go with this supposition?

The Luke Field inventory shows two microphones aboard and they had the same transmitter then as they did in July, so if you have a schematic that doesn't permit 2 microphones then you apparently don't have a schematic for that particular transmitter.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:05:08 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: 31.05 revisited

Tom Strang wrote:

>    I vote to keep keep Mr. Hue Miller around - May be just to find out why he
> is still riding around with a burr under his saddle over Miss Betty and her
> "note book" - A person is never so blind as one who chooses not to see.

I vote to have a vote. Does discussion of  the probability of a simultaneous receive-transmit situation ( for example), or shortwave propagation and station calls,  fit this forum, assuming it is a forum, or is the Betty story beyond criticism? If the latter, i will certainly yield, and with a new understanding of how the forum works.

Hue
************************************************************************
From Ric

This forum and this investigation are about the process of arriving at the truth.  No item of evidence is beyond criticism, but for criticism to carry any weight it has to survive the crucible of peer review.  In my opinion, your attempts to discredit the Betty story are useful, if a bit tedious.  You force us to consider issues that we may not otherwise have dealt with. Your technical expertise in radio matters is considerable (certainly far greater than mine) but you make the same mistake that so many others make in fastening upon an assumption (the simultaneous transmit/receive question for example) and then treating it as a fact that can be used to prove or disprove a premise.  That's exactly what the crashed-and-sankers do.  You can't seem to be able to separate anecdote from contemporaneous written documentation and you take your own interpretations of ambiguous material as gospel - which is just what the Japanese capture crowd does.

You see our acceptance of Betty's notebook as blind faith and wishful thinking.  So far, your attempts to discredit it look to me to be based upon unsupportable assumptions.  Time and again, the validity of attempts to solve the Earhart mystery turn upon questions of methodology.

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:06:20 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Radio minutiae XCIX

I don't have any desire to force forum readers to have to read about radio minutiae. Nor do i want to hide behind the internet. Any forum reader who wishes to chastise me, correct me, debate me, submit facts, anything, without clogging this forum, here i am at:

kargo_cult@msn.com

Thanks-
Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:23:54 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

> You DID make a good point that I've made in less clear terms that I suspect
> few are understanding and that is that the azimuth of the sun changed so
> slightly that Noonan had a good opportunity, weather permitting, to refine
> his LOP position AFTER 7:42 L. THAT point is far more significant, in my
> view, than many understand

By 19.12 GMT Zn was already a degree different at 65.9 degrees at Howland. By 20.12 Zn was 62.9 degrees. This does not seem a negligible change. Are you suggesting by "refining his LOP position" that he would be redefining his position as on some new LOP at a different angle later in the day? Or are you saying that he could better define the position of the 157/337 line he was running on (since arriving at the 157/337 line through Howland depended on perfect dead reckoning from the last sight to choose the correct time to turn)? Perhaps you can explain exactly how he would have done this?

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:25:26 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Mark Prange wrote:

> Post dawn sun observations would indeed give him information as
> to whether he was on the line through Howland.

These lines that we're talking about are slanting lines running NNE (357) and SSE (157).  If Fred got the observations he needed to place one of these lines on his chart--a line that represents his position at the time of the observation--it would not be a "line through Howland."  A line drawn slanting from 357 to 157 through Howland would be parallel to the line of position Fred had drawn on the chart. The distance between the two parallel lines would show AE & FN how much further they had to fly before turning left or right on the "line through Howland."

There is a magnificent page on TIGHAR's web site showing the two parallel lines:

<http://www.tighar.org/forum/navigation.html>

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:27:37 EST
From:          Tom King
Subject:      Re: Clips and village archeology

For Ed -- Maybe I can lighten Ric's load and respond to your query about more search in the village, since working there has been one of my schticks.

The village certainly may contain a smoking gun or two.  No question that the villagers were "quarrying" aircraft aluminum for use in making stuff, and if they were quarrying some of it from the Electra they may well have brought in a diagnostic part or two (like the dado but better).  But the village is a big place, and searching it with proper archeological control is time consuming.  It's heavily forested, heavily covered with palm fronds and nuts, and there's so much metal of all kinds that a metal detector search is pretty frustrating.  Doing a job on it involves clearing selected chunks of ground, gridding it off, and doing both metal detector and visual search -- crawling around on the ground with a trowel turning things over and digging them up, plotting them, deciding what to take and what not, and so on.  Can't do much there in a single episode of fieldwork.

We've kicked around whether there might be some particular place where folks tossed stuff they didn't need -- like complicated airplane parts that weren't much good for combs because they were all messed up with ID numbers and such.  There's noplace that's obvious either archeologically or historically, but the best bet seems to be the near-shore water in the lagoon and on the ocean side.  The ocean side is where we figure that wreckage would have washed up anyway, if the plane went down where we think it would, so working along this shore could give us a double whammy -- stuff that's washed up, and stuff that's been thrown in.  So, that's high priority for 2004.

Meanwhile, some of us are trying to intrest academic archeological institutions with access to foundation grants to take on the "non-Earhart" archaeology of the village, doing studies that would necessarily involve clearing housesites and would turn up airplane parts along with all the other interesting stuff the sites contain.  There's interest at a couple of institutions in Canada and the U.K., and Gary Quigg and I will be doing a presentation at this year's Society for American Archaeology meeting in Milwaukee that may attract some US institutional interest.  Of course, academic institutions face the same problems we do with work on Niku; they just have access to different funding streams.

Hope that helps answer your question.  In a nutshell, you're right, and we're working on it, but it ain't easy.

LTM
Tom
==============
Thomas F. King, PhD
Consultation, Training, Dispute Resolution
in Cultural Resource Management
PO Box 14515
Silver Spring MD 20911
tfking106@aol.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:28:36 EST
From:          Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

Ric: Amelia using the last name Putnam might not be such a stretch. Let's say she has been calling and calling hoping to get an answer. She hears other operators on her radio, but her calls go unanswered. Then she realizes (or thinks) that maybe people are hearing her (because she hears their outgoing messages), but they aren't replying to her calls (and she doesn't realize that she could be hearing them but they might not be hearing her). So she thinks that they might not be replying because it could be a hoax, so by using a different name, she hopes that they will reply to that distress signal. Thus she stops using Earhart and starts using Putnam.

Just a thought.

LTM,
Dave Bush
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:30:29 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Speculation

Dennis writes:

> If he is aware of TIGHAR's work then he would also be aware of what we
> know and don't know...

Even most forum members aren't aware of what we know and don't know.

Alan

******************************************

Oh, OUCH!!! Alan, can we say "some" instead of "most"?

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:31:32 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Closest Point of Approach (CPA)

For Bob Brandenburg,

Thanks. But don't infer that I am accepting Saffords stuff as the gospel. He has some radio expertise and credentials, of course.

But my point was that CDR Thompson is the one cited in the May 1938 newspaper article indicating that the Electra must have been no further than 30-35 milers away for her to receive the 7500 coded msg.

So who is giving Thompson that information or "fact", Leo Bellarts?  I doubt if Thompson would have an independent knowledge of the 7500kc range. It may be based some facts we are not aware of, or someone's erroneous conclusion.

Thanks,
Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:32:34 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: KGMB via shortwaves

The Wyoming fellow (Randolf) heard on Sunday, 4 July at 8:am, Rock Springs, Wyoming Time (MST) a faint voice saying "Amelia Earhart calling...ship on reef south of equator." Nothing else. That is 4:30 am Sunday, 4 July Honolulu time ,  and 3:30 am Gardner Island time. [Honolulu Star Bulletin, Mon, 5 July 37, from an AP release at Rock Springs, Wy. No byline.]

 I figure it was 10:00am Sunday, St Petes time.EST (?)

From what I have seen in the MOT broadcast, there was no mention of "reef" or "equator" , so I still doubt Betty heard a MOT signal, AM or shortwave.

Ron Bright
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:35:13 EST
From:          Rich Young
Subject:      OK so no stuck switch - then why...?

Ric wrote:

>Transmitting and receiving on different frequencies was not at all
>unusual."

In ANY leg of the RTW flight, did Amelia ever use the technique of transmitting on one frequency and recieving on another?  According to what we know about Lae and Itasca's logs, she was expecting to recieve and transmit voice on the same frequency.  Could she even tune the reciever to another frequnecy, or are the tuning circuits of the Westrn Electric 20 series slaved to the same coffee grinder as the transmitter?  Is there any record of the PTT circuit in her airplane being modified to disable the reciever muting, and why?

>This whole line of argument is bogus.  There is no requirement stated or
>implied in the notebook that the PTT be locked down or that transmission
>and reception is occurring at the same time.

I thought YOU posited transmitting and recieving at the same time to explain transmitting "here, put your ear to it" and that YOU hypothesized a stuck mike to explain all the background noise and conversation being transmitted, in the absence of situations reports, locations, yadda, yadda, yadda, but... Okay, we'll play it YOUR way...so Amelia deliberately pushed the PTT switch and cried into the mike so that...?  Fred could hear her cry?  Itasca could hear her boo-hoo?  This doesn't strike you as the least bit melodramatic/out of character/FAKE?

LTM, (who doesn't cry for me, OR Argentina, either)
Rich Young
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:38:28 EST
From:          Daryll Bollinger
Subject:      "Yoop"

Mike E. wrote and Ric responded:

>Ric asks:
>>To somebody listening for a transmission might this make a sound
>>something like a generator starting up and stopping?
>
>It's possible. It would be nice to know, however (and we obviously can't
>know for sure), exactly what the person meant by those words.
>If one is listening for a CW signal, and hears a transmitter key up asn
>the dynamotor is spooling up, there is a definite "yoop" to the CW
>"note." until the dyno reaches speed.
>Is it deja vu...? I think we have been in this area before, a long time
>ago.
>73
>Mike E.
>**********************************************
>From Ric
>Maybe...but it's of particular interest right now as we're looking more
>closely than ever before at the post-loss receptions.

I have asked Mike this question before, maybe he has had more time to think about.

The "281 message" has a statement from the operators who heard it, "KEYED TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND THE CARRIER"

The question that I had and still have is how the operators could have made that statement? How could they give their opinion regarding the operation of the key compared to the carrier wave being generated? It is a matter of record that experienced radio operators could identify the "fist" of the operator sending the Morse Code. That is one reason that Yamamoto left the original radio personnel behind in the home islands when the Pearl Harbor attack force sailed, but the "fist" is a human element separate from the equipment being used.

Would this "yoop" be the reason for the statement in the "281 message"?

Would you expect to hear this "yoop" from a hoaxer using a commercial power source that was NOT dependant on a dynamotor for power?

The "281" sender used the KHAQQ call sign in the message and the transmitter might have  exhibited indications that it was being powered by a dynamotor 3 days after the airplane would have ran out of gas.

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:28:34 EST
From:          Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: OK so no stuck switch - then why...?

On the trip from Oakland to Honolulu, AE set up a radio procedure that she would broadcast on 3105/6210 and listen to PAA station on 29XX kHz for bearing information determined by them.  My understanding is that this was pretty much standard procedure: listen on a different frequency than broadcasting.  Not too many people had capabilities of crystal-controlled 3105 and 6210 kHz transmitters.  The receiver was broadband, and could be tuned to any number of particular frequencies.

Randy Jacobson
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:29:50 EST
From:          Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Breaking news

Mike Haddock writes:

>Is there something on Gardner that would attract marine biologists?

Niku is so far off the beaten path that, with the exception of about 20 years, it is essentially untouched by man.  The biodiversity there is excellent, and the reefs are perfectly natural.  No overfishing, no poisoning from salt water aquarium collectors, very few anchors crushing the coral, no crude oil spills, etc.  Niku is so pristine that it is considered a baseline upon which to study the degredation of other coral atolls.

Niku is the kind of place marine biologists are attracted to so they can observe what it was like before man arrived and screwed up the ecosystem.

LTM (who prefers the pristine)
Andrew McKenna
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:31:23 EST
From:          Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: OK so no stuck switch - then why...?

Rich Young wrote:

> I thought YOU posited transmitting and recieving at the same time to explain
> transmitting "here, put your ear to it" and that YOU hypothesized a stuck
> mike to explain all the background noise and conversation being transmitted,
> in the absence of situations reports, locations, yadda, yadda, yadda, but...
> Okay, we'll play it YOUR way...so Amelia deliberately pushed the PTT switch
> and cried into the mike so that...?  Fred could hear her cry?  Itasca could
> hear her boo-hoo?  This doesn't strike you as the least bit melodramatic/out
> of character/FAKE?

Perhaps I've missed this conversation in the archives, but... I don't see how we can assume that after hours of frustration trying to establish two-way communication in a confusing and stressful environment that we can assume that snippets of this conversation *shouldn't* contain some melodrama.

The microphone as well as the radio could be experiencing technical malfunctions -- that could explain the open mic. Asking Fred to listen says to me that whatever she was or *wasn't* hearing took her a bit by surprise and wanted someone else to hear it. I think the human element needs to be considered on these post loss messages.

Bob Lee
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:33:42 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: OK so no stuck switch - then why...?

Rich Young wrote:

> Okay, we'll play it YOUR way...so Amelia deliberately pushed the
> PTT switch and cried into the mike so that...?  Fred could hear
> her cry?  Itasca could hear her boo-hoo?  This doesn't strike
> you as the least bit melodramatic/out of character/FAKE?

No - you've got it all wrong.

(CRYING NOW) "AE back on the radio now" - see note in Betty's notebook. Why is she back on the radio? Well actually she isn't because Fred still has the mike and its HIM who still has the button depressed. He's probably thinking - "perhaps if they can hear her blubbing they'll really believe this isn't a hoax". He's standing right next to her because only a few minutes earlier she said "here - put your ear to it" and the crying is overheard but it sounds like she's back on the radio to Betty. Can you really not figure that out?

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:36:09 EST
From:          Mark Prange
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

I wrote:

>> Post dawn sun observations would indeed give him information as
>> to whether he was on the line through Howland.

Marty Moleski wrote:

>These lines that we're talking about are slanting lines running NNE (357)
>and SSE (157).

I am only talking about the precomputed 157/337 line through Howland.

>If Fred got the observations he needed to place one of these
>lines on his chart--a line that represents his position at the time of the
>observation--it would not be a "line through Howland."

Fred's getting the observations would give an idea--even without placing each line representing his position on his chart--of how far he was from that precomputed line through Howland.

Mark Prange
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:37:34 EST
From:          Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Re: Clips

Ric wrote: "The plates are well made but very imprecisely made."

I see. One thing I had noted was that the bend in the one is not uniform. It does not appear to be a smooth, constant radius. To me, this suggests that it might have been bent sometime after it was made. It certainly does not look like a mandrel-formed bend, which I would expect from a manufactured item.

Alone, the lopsidedness of the flat one does not convince me of it not being a manufactured item. Same with the asymmetrical serrations. I have seen some pretty oddball, low-tech-looking things that were mass-produced. Even today, this can be seen in items produced in developing countries.

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:55:14 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Speculation

> Oh, OUCH!!! Alan, can we say "some" instead of "most"?

I suppose that caught me in one of my rare cynical moments. <G>

I'll go one better and stand corrected. I'll say a FEW forumites are less than knowledgeable of what is known or what is on the web site.

Is that better?

Alan, humbling away in Austin.

PS. I have not heard this announced publicly yet but from a "knowledgeable" source who shall remain anonymous, shuttle parts have been found now in Sugarland, Texas. For those not familiar with the geography down here that is hundreds of miles further south from the Columbia's track than the main debis field. Initially it was thought as a 30 mile wide swath then a 50 mile wide swath. CBS will carry that info.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:56:05 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Marty wrote

> These lines that we're talking about are slanting lines
> running NNE (357) and SSE (157).

Good concise explanation, Marty, and I know you meant 337 degrees. You might also reiterate what I posted earlier that Noonan did not have very much time to do that between sunrise and when he was to his turning point. Even less if he waited to get a more accurate reading when the sun was higher in the sky.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:00:17 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Breaking news

Ric wrote:

> With 800-plus subscribers we're bound to have some
> duplication in names and intials.

This is true. Occasionally I see posts that have errors in them from someone claiming to also be Alan Caldwell. The emails with errors in them are from the fake Alan Caldwell not me. <G>

The real Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:02:49 EST
From:          Ed Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Clips and village archeology

Tom,

Thanks for your response. I'm convinced that the gun lies on Niku somewhere. Betty's experience points out that they landed somewhere with Niku the best bet. Did you ever find out any more regarding the use of the sea lions to do the underwater archeology? You know, maybe the networks could be approached to some sort of reality series based on Niku with the competition being a supervised dig, underwater search, etc. You never know what they may find attractive or different, e.g., "Search for Lost American Heroes". I read the book last year, excellent work, very tantalizing!

LTM
Ed of PSL #2415
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:03:47 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: AE's 'open' MIC

Maybe you guys have already covered this but was 1937 too early for noise cancelling mics? If this mic was that type then it wouldn't pick up Noonan unless his lips were up against it.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:04:17 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      W40K

I think I asked this before, W40K, Is it "whiskey- four-zero-kilo" or "whiskey-four-oscar-kilo"?

Gary LaPook
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:08:56 EST
From:          Christian Duretete
Subject:      Re: Clips and village archeology

Tom King wrote:

> The village certainly may contain a smoking gun or two.  No question
> that the villagers were "quarrying" aircraft aluminum for use in making
> stuff, and if they were quarrying some of it from the Electra they
>  may well have brought in a diagnostic part or two (like the dado but better).
> We've kicked around whether there might be some particular place where
> folks tossed stuff they didn't need -- like complicated airplane parts that
> weren't  much good for combs because they were all messed up with ID
> numbers and such. There's noplace that's obvious either archeologically
> or historically, but the best bet seems to be the near-shore water in the
> lagoon and on the ocean side.  The ocean side is where we figure that
> wreckage would have washed up anyway, if the plane went down where we
> think it would, so working along this shore could give us a double whammy --
> stuff that's washed up, and stuff that's been thrown in. So, that's high
> priority for 2004.

Isn't there a fair chance that a medium sized piece of the airplane washed up somewhere, was too big/heavy to drag to the village "workshops", and so it was butchered in-situ. Nowadays, there could be a collapsed skeleton of aluminum framing under the brush somewhere in back of the beach, too small to be found by someone looking for a "plane", but still fairly big, like a half wing skeleton, with all the skin removed? Is this considered as an avenue of search?

> Meanwhile, some of us are trying to interest academic archeological
> institutions with access to foundation grants to take on the "non-Earhart"
> archaeology of the village, doing studies that would necessarily involve

Tom: what would be interesting on Niku for them?

Regards.
Christian D
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:09:49 EST
From:          Christian Duretete
Subject:      Re: Can't transmit and receive at the same time.

Ric wrote:

> transmitter then as they did in July, so if you have a schematic that doesn't
> permit 2 microphones then you apparently don't have a schematic for that
> particular transmitter.

Why are we concerned about how many mikes there was?  There is no indications anywhere that I remember, that there was an >>intercom<< -which would have necessitated several mikes...  But there is a good reason to carry a spare mike, as it is not unusual for the mike cord to go bad, or the carbon capsule to go weak.

FWIW
Christian D
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:14:18 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Back to the microphone issue

Those who have used carbon microphones on vintage radio equipment may still be puzzled how the microphone in the cabin of AE's plane was able to pick up ambient sounds so well. For example, how do you cry into a carbon communications microphone, unless you are really trying? How are sounds of "wrasslin'" and "lashing out" and shouting, and yes, conversation (per Betty interview tape) - EVEN IF they both have their own microphones to broadcast into? How much wrasslin' and lashing out can you do, with a non-coil cord microphone? I don't know.

Okay, for non-vintage-microphone people, we are not dealing with a telephone microphone here. Communications designers do not consider it a side-benefit if an industrial grade, comm microphone picks up engine sounds, track sounds, wind, crowds, gunfire, room noise, background conversations, etc. Think about using a walkie-talkie. That's why these are known as "close-talking" microphones.

Did AE have her mic sensitivity turned up? Itasca reported her signal as "R5", excellent, but did not report any engine noise. Nor apparently did previous ground stations, for example Lae, when testing in the days before. So why this  apparent change in microphone specifications?

This aircraft microphone had a sensitivity internal adjustment ( required soldering to change it the setting ). Was it set to "high sensitivity"?

"For use in quiet locations (ground stations, boats, etc.) the large section can be short-circuited to increase sensitivity if desired".  [ Aeronautic Radio, Myron Eddy, 1939 ]  That still doesn't mean you get broadcast studio action, you just don't have to raise your voice as much.

"Then he started wantin' to get on the radio"  [ How'd Betty know? ]
"Like she thought she heard somebody....said here put your ear to it"
"Like neighbors fighting"
"She finally got back on the radio"  [ after cabin noises had been continually broadcast? ]
"Where are you going"  [ why broadcast this? ]
"Are you so scared?"  [ AE was so overwrought she held the microphone button down even while asking these questions? ] and there's more.

These quotes are from Betty, in the interview tape. I do think we still need to work out an explanation of how and why such seemingly odd material came to be broadcast.

Remember, in your damaged microphone scenarios, that a hard landing that bad would most likely have damaged the glass radio amplifier tubes. If there are gaps in the heard reception, are these all due to propagation, or AE pressing the button inadvertently? Why all this button pressing?

-Hue Miller
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:16:49 EST
From:          Benjamin Allen
Subject:      Open Conjecture

Dennis writes

> If he is aware of TIGHARS work then he would also be aware of what we
> know and don't know.

I have been aware of a group searching the Phoenix Islands for Amelia Earhart since the time I was in fourth grade. I knew the founder of the group was one, Richard Gillespie. However, until recently, I did not know the name of the organization, or what they may or may not have found. I always figured when they found NR16020, CNN would kindly inform me.

My point is this:

Let us assume that a year ago, I was on an Island in the south Pacific.  I notice what appears to be an aircraft part. I would have tracked down this man called Gillespie and informed him of what I had seen. I would have found him, and told him, without knowing the name of his organization, or any progress they may have made.

Breaking News States :

>TIGHAR has learned that last year a marine biologist...
>assuming we had already seen it...

Just how, I wonder, did TIGHAR come to "learn" this information? Said MB was operating under the assumption, that "we had already seen it".

Surely, that can only mean, YOU CANNOT MISS IT.

Was he traveling with someone who attempted to change his assumption? Was the evidence he saw, so compelling, he became later convinced we could not possibly have seen it yet? I suspect, our mysterious Marine Biologist told TIGHAR himself what he saw.

b. A.
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:18:10 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: LOP/Navigation thread

Without pointing fingers and in spite of the Electra's poor outcome, I think AE was fortunate NOT to have some of our posters as her navigator.

I spent more than twenty years with this in SAC, TAC, USAFE, and PACAF and the subject comes easy to me but it is not a simple process and I can see why few seem to not ever understand the concepts.

Part of the problem, of course, is the difficulty of communicating through emails and part is an inability to get past a preconceived idea or agenda.

If anyone is interested in clearing up some of these thoughts you may email me at acaldwell@aol.com rather than to continue to bore and befuddle our compatriots.

This offer is for those who have misunderstandings not for those who want to argue theories.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:21:14 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: "Yoop"

> >From Ric
> >Maybe...but it's of particular interest right now as we're looking more
> >closely than ever before at the post-loss receptions.
>
> I have asked Mike this question before, maybe he has had more time to think
> about.
>
> The "281 message" has a statement from the operators who heard it, "KEYED
> TRANSMISSION EXTREMELY POOR KEYING BEHIND THE CARRIER"
>
> The question that I had and still have is how the operators could have made
> that statement?

The dot and dash pulse lengths should aspire to the accepted ratio of one to the other. Then there is the spacing between groups of dots/dashes forming individual characters, this should show a definite separation, with its own lenth, and so on.

SO the extremely poor keying can come from operator sloppiness, or a makeshiftt telegraph key that's hard to use. (Yes, this would include a microphone push to talk button.)

>How could they give their opinion regarding the operation of
> the key compared to the carrier wave being generated?

I agree with Mike, i think we trod these sands one time. But with no conclusions, it doesn't hurt to try again... When i first read this, i thought, "A2 mode???"  ( Pure telegraphy (CW) just turns the bare carrier wave on/off. No audio, no  nuthin' else, and in your ordinary radio you just hear SOS like SH' SH' SH'  SHHHHH SHHHH SHHHH SH' SH' SH', no tone.) A2 is the old military term for "tone telegraphy". The carrier is switched on and stays on. Then an audio tone is added and this tone is keyed. This would be just like whistling SOS in your microphone while holding down the TALK button. In fact, if you could whistle a perfectly steady tone, there would be no difference between "real" tone telegraphy and your whistle message.

I think Mike also mentioned tone telegraphy in those posts a while back, in this connection, because of the cryptic "Behind the carrier" remark.

> Would you expect to hear this "yoop" from a hoaxer using a commercial power
> source that was NOT dependant on a dynamotor for power?

If a hoaxer was using a non-crystal controlled transmitter, it could sound worse than the dynamotor & relay keyed AE transmitter.

[There used to be some networks in the Pacific area til the mid-1980s, with Morse keying so bad it was laffable. Rumor had it that these were Chinese fishing boats, using surplus BC-375 US military aircraft transmitters. Don't laff - after WW2 even some US companies modified aircraft gear for fishing fleets. While the Chinese used them as is, the US companies were forced by FCC rules to modify them for crystal control.]

Only reservations i have about keying by the microphone button, is i wonder how long the transmitter fuse would hold up under that kind of surging amperes abuse.

BTW, i would be quite surprised if the Lockheed, which i believe was a single- control plane, had two microphones up front. Carbon-type microphones are vulnerable to carbon "packing" from heat and moisture, you might think they would keep one packed up as spare. In addition there was no electrical intercom.

Hue Miller
*************************************************************************
From Ric

The Model 10  definitely featured "dual-controls" - that is, there were duplicate flight controls and instruments for pilot and copilot.  In fact, photos of the cockpit of NR16020 show that the radio controls were on the copilot's side
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:34:04 EST
From:          Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Background noise

Hue wrote:

>Itasca reported her signal as
>"R5", excellent, but did not report any engine noise. 

Only once, during the final 08:43 reception, did the Itasca radio operator make a notation in the log about the strength of the signal received.  All of the other information about the strength of previous signals comes from later recollections.  The 08:34 transmission was logged as S5 (maximum strength). No description of its "readability" (R) was offered.

>Nor apparently did
>previous ground stations, for example Lae, when testing in the days before.
>So why this  apparent change in microphone specifications?

Not true.  When Nauru reported hearing post-loss transmissions later that night they described the voice as similar to that heard from the plane in flight the night before but "without the hum of the plane in the background."

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:44:50 EST
From:          Eric
Subject:      Re: Zenith Stratosphere 1000Z

ORZ at the Old Radio Zone web site e-mailed me one additional comment about the possibility of Betty's family owning a Zenith Stratosphere 1000Z:

"There is NO way a working class family has a Zenith Stratosphere model 1000Z in 1937.  I think we can rule that out now."

ORZ
www.oldradiozone.com

However, there are still three other possible Zenith radios which might be the one in question:

Zenith Stratosphere 16-A-61:  sold for $375.00
Zenith Stratosphere 16-A-63:  sold for $295.00
Zenith 12-U-159: sold for $175.00 (this was the model for those who couldn't afford a Stratosphere but who still wanted a "top of the line" radio.  I have one of these and it is really a nice set.  The big black round dial is  about the same size as the 1000Z's.)

All three of these radios can be viewed at www.oldradiozone.com.

The two Strats in particular might well have been able to pick up a weak distress call, particularly if they were connected to a good outdoor antenna, which Betty's father apparently had.

LTM (who only listened to a Philco "Cathedral" model radio)
Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Let's remember that Betty has never claimed that her family's radio was a Strat 1000Z.  She says only that it was a very nice Zenith with a black dial and "cave"- like cabinet such as the ones shown on the website mentioned above.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:20:32 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> Marty wrote
>> These lines that we're talking about are slanting lines
>> running NNE (357) and SSE (157).
>
> Good concise explanation, Marty, and I know you meant 337 degrees.

DOH!  Right.  Typos happen.  :o(

> You
> might also reiterate what I posted earlier that Noonan did not have very
> much time to do that between sunrise and when he was to his turning
> point. Even less if he waited to get a more accurate reading when the sun
> was higher in the sky.

I'm not too clear on when AE & FN may have hit the terminator marking the end of night and the beginning of day.  That would be their "dawn" in the airplane.

I found some data for Niku that day (see below).  I set the time for GMT (Zulu, UT, UTC) because AE & FN took off at 0000 hours GMT.  The last transmission from them was heard at 0843 LOCAL TIME on Howland (-11.5 GMT), so that would make the time of the last radio reception 1913 GMT.   "Dawn" in the plane as it flew west of Howland and Niku would be later than on the two islands, but then again, if AE and FN were at 8,000 to 10,000 feet, they would see the sun before the terminator was directly underneath them, so ... nice round numbers ... Fred might have had something like 90 minutes from observing the sun until having to make the turn to 337 or 157 to search for Howland along the line.

U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department
<http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html>

Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Nikumaroro
(longitude W174.0, latitude S4.0):

        Saturday
        3 July 1937           Universal Time

                         SUN
        Begin civil twilight      17:21
        Sunrise                   17:44
        Sun transit               23:41
        Sunset                    05:37 on following day
        End civil twilight        06:00 on following day

                         MOON
        Moonrise                  12:18 on preceding day
        Moonset                   00:35
        Moonrise                  13:13
        Moon transit              19:22
        Moonset                   01:30 on following day

                    Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:20:46 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Clips

Before Ric first sent the clips to me, he commented that they looked homemade and from the pics on the website I was not immediately convinced. When I was able to examine them it rapidly became apparent that there was no doubt that they were homemade and were very low tech. The underside flats had been roughly filed with a fine file, the aluminium quality varied between the two, the pitch of the teeth varied on each clip and was different between the two and the holes for the screws had been drilled undersize and the screw forced through. The oval clip was assymmetric in ovality and appeared to have been made from bent, straightened and then filed aluminium. The edges did not exhibit the typical shear striations and upper-rounded / lower-sharp edges of  punched out sheet metal but showed signs of filing. There is simply no doubt that they were not manufactured items. They had been hand made with some degree of care but probably with limited tools and material.

The wood screws are of American origin.

If the clips were made by islanders for what purpose were the clips made? They would have probably have been made post Loran in order to source American woodscrews as the colony was British. The Coasties, according to evidence collected by Ric, had little patience for making anything. If the clips were hand made for a sextant box by Pan Am's workshops one would expect uniform aluminium sheet, not straightened and filed scrap and the holes would likely be the right size for the screws. However, if they were made by Fred Noonan to modify a Pan Am box to suit his own sextant, they might well have been made from whatever scrap he could find. The Pensacola sextant box once owned by Noonan does show evidence of previous crude modification by chiselling away the wood to suit a different sextant or instrument and is probably a Pan Am box rather than a Ludolph one.

I am fairly confident that these artefacts were indeed securing clips of some sort and if I had to hazard a guess as to their use, I could not think of anything more likely than the above explanation. My guess is that the two numbers were Pan Am inventory numbers.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:22:08 EST
From:          Tom King
Subject:      Re: Clips and village archeology

For Christian --

Re. structure with aluminum cut off it -- Sure, that's a possibility; we just haven't seen it.  A very likely place for such a thing, if our hypothesis about the landing site and our flow models are correct, is the area we plan to search in 2004, along the ocean side adjacent to the village.  Such a structure could be buried in the sand overwash there.

Re. what would interest academic archeologists:  There's a "school" of archeological practice called "household archaeology," that tries to learn things about social structure from the organizations of households.  They're always interested in sites with good documentation about household organization, population size and structure, and so on, that can be studied to try to derive generalizations that can be applied to prehistoric sites where the same kind of documentary data don't exist.  A site like the village, with tons of demographic and historical data and very well-preserved house sites, would be an ideal place to do household arch. studies.

LTM (whose household was far too clean to interest an archeologist)
Tom

================
Thomas F. King, PhD
Consultation, Training, Dispute Resolution
in Cultural Resource Management
PO Box 14515
Silver Spring MD 20911
tfking106@aol.com

For a chance to help in the archeological search for Amelia Earhart, and to win a prize, go to www.tighar.org and click on "breaking news".
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:29:08 EST
From:          Pete Gray
Subject:      Re: Zenith Stratosphere 1000Z

Hello Ric!
Forgive me, but was it not our own Forum that decided that Betty's radio was a Stratosphere?  I recall searching for a Sears Silvertone for quite awhile before her recollections lead us to the Strat by appearance.

As for not affording the Strat, did not Betty's father work for the Power Company, and thus was able to afford top of the line?

Love to Mother
Pete Gray  #2419
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We decided that the Betty must have had one of the Zenith Stratosphere models because she remembered that it was a Zenith, had the black Zenith dial and that the cabinet design had a "cave" in the front.  We did not, as I recall, conclude that it was necessarily the top-of-the-line Strat 1000Z.  I don't know how we'd be able to be that specific.

Yes, Betty's father got a break on the price because he worked for the power company.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:33:40 EST
From:          JDubb
Subject:      Re: Open Conjecture

Are we taking bets yet on who the biologist was who found the mysterious object? If so my money is on someone who was in the Phoenix Rising 2002 Primal Ocean Project.

Jdubb
*************************************************************************
From Ric

We can do raffles but parimutuel wagering is beyond our scope.

By the way, it won't do you any good to figure who the marine biologist was because he ain't talking.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:49:55 EST
From:          Dave Porter
Subject:      breaking news speculation

My guess, based on the information that (1)the item was found by a marine biologist, and (2)the folks you plan to send are all divers, is that the item is underwater, and in an area that hasn't been searched by TIGHAR previously.

BTW, there was some discussion after the last expedition regarding the bright red algae (or was it coral) that comprised the anomalous pixels in the satellite image.  Was there ever a satisfactory answer as to whether or not the "red spot" might have gotten that way by growing atop some rusting metal?  If not, maybe you could get a knowledgable answer from the friendly marine biologist fellow.

LTM, who fondly remembers the "Seinfeld" episode where George claimed to be a Marine Biologist.
Dave Porter, 2288

PS:  I wrote this posting single spaced, double spacing between paragraphs, in my email program (hotmail) which seems to allow about 70 characters per line.  I receive the forum digest, and the only problems I've ever had are lines of more than 70 characters being made into two lines, and some posts being filled with numerical gibberish. (and I'm NOT referring to the LOP and fuel consumption related posts <G>)

I think that you got some from me that way once, and we figured out that "rich text" had been enabled in my program, and that deleting it solved the problem.  Hope this helps
***********************************************************************
From Ric

We had divers down on the red algae and that's all it is - red algae.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:59:58 EST
From:          Rich Young
Subject:      radio, still...

Randy Jacobson replied to me:

>On the trip from Oakland to Honolulu, AE set up a radio procedure that she
>would broadcast on 3105/6210 and listen to PAA station on 29XX kHz for
>bearing information determined by them.

Exactly!  Transmitting and receiving on seperate frequencies HAS to be pre-arranged!  WHen you are down on a reef, broadcasting a distress call to anyone available, it's not POSSIBLE to pre-arrange a multi-frequency net, At least until 2-way traffic was firmly established, any one who DID hear her would respond on the same frequency upon which the distress call was sent.  Anything else would require the responding party to "read her mind" to determine the respone frequency:  please note the conspicuous absence in Betty's notebook of any transmission similar to "...AM LISTENING ON 6210 CYLES"  or "...REPLY ON 6210".

LTM (who doesn't beleive in Mistress Cleo)
Richard Young
***************************************************************************
From Ric

You're making the common mistake of assuming that things back then were the way things are now.  Context, context, context....

Here's an explanation from one of our airline veterans who wrote to me privately on this subject:

It was -Not -usual for pilots [airlines excepted] to use a single freq. for comm.   The 'single channel' did not come about until well after the war.

Many on the forum just do not understand the '30's use of aero radio; which was used only by the 'well to do private' [and airline] pilot. and differently than today.

Her use of 3105 for both xmit & recv. was an anomaly related solely to the Itasca, for the specific flight.  She had the world at her finger tips if she wanted to listen to other stations from 200kc to at least 10 mc but she would not hear anyone on 3105 except the Itasca.  Pilots did not hear other pilots calls to the  ground because they had only LF recvrs.  For 1937 AE was in rare company with an 'all-band' recvr.

Almost assuredly AE used 3105 xmit & 200-400 to recv. while in the US at least.  Although she expected to hear the Itasca on 3105, that would have been her only listening on 3105 because it was an air to ground freq.  and not the reverse.  All during the period thru WW-II, light signals were used for T.O. , landing, and taxiing at airports, and I suspect that AE did the same especially when her recvr. was inop.   Red-Green lights .. and the cost was the reason a radio xmtr. did not become mandatory until years afterward.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:03:12 EST
From:          Mike Haddock
Subject:      Re: Zenith Stratosphere 1000Z

Yesterday I was discussing my interest in AE with a new employee and she told me that she has an autographed book by AE "The Fun of It". She brought it in and it's in great condition. Inside the back cover is a small record titled "Amelia Earhart's International Broadcast" in London, May 22, 1932 as picked up in New York by Silvertone. I have to confess when I saw AE's autograph I was very touched--oh well. My friend is interested in donating the book to a worthy organization or foundation. Any suggestions? 

LTM (who is easily excited)
Mike Haddock #2438
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We have a copy of "The Fun Of It" with the little record in the back, but it's not autographed.  That would be nice to have.  If she wanted, we'd be happy to do a swap so that she'd still have a copy of the book.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:33:48 EST
From:          Tom King
Subject:      Re: Clips and village archeology

For Ed Hamilton

Thanks for reminding me about the sea lions.  I actually tried to look into it, but got nowhere; people kept telling me I'd never teach them to use trowels.

================
Thomas F. King, PhD
Consultation, Training, Dispute Resolution
in Cultural Resource Management
PO Box 14515
Silver Spring MD 20911
tfking106@aol.com
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:36:19 EST
From:          Edgard Engelman
Subject:      Re: W4OK

whiskey-four-oscar-kilo : if it is the HAM call-sign.

In 1937 HAM call-signs had only 1 number (4 in this case). So the O is Oscar not Zero

There has been a very complete explanation by Mike Everett a few days ago about this.

 Edgard
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:36:57 EST
From:          Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Breaking news

> Niku is so far off the beaten path that, with the exception of about 20
> years, it is essentially untouched by man.

Of course, we're all hoping it was essentially touched by a certain woman.....

Th' WOMBAT
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:38:14 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Zenith Stratosphere 1000Z

Eric writes

> There is NO way a working class family has a Zenith Stratosphere model
> 1000Z in 1937.  I think we can rule that out now.

My grandfather was a retired RR brakeman and there was no SS. He even bought a brand new Studebaker sedan in the late 30s - early 40s. Your source is not credible.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:38:39 EST
From:          Tom Riggs
Subject:      Re: The Wyoming reception

Ron Bright wrote:

>The Wyoming fellow (Randolf) heard on Sunday, 4 July at 8:am, Rock Springs,
>Wyoming Time (MST) a faint voice saying "Amelia Earhart calling...ship on
>reef south of equator.

I think it was discussed on the Forum before that the word "ship" may not have been in reference to the Electra, but could possibly have been AE's attempt to draw attention to the Norwich City?

Tom Riggs #2427
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:40:21 EST
From:          Tom Riggs
Subject:      Purdue University Collection

FYI....The entire collection of Amelia Earhart archival material donated to Purdue University (by the Putnam family?) is now available on-line at:

http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/Earhart/EarhartDisplay

I entered a keyword search for the word "cockpit" which resulted in lots of photos of the Electra showing engine cowlings, radios, etc.  Here is the link to the photos:

http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/Earhart/EarhartDisplay/search.cfm?criteria=cockpit&type=search&kind=full

Click on any thumbnail image and it will put the image into an editor that allows you to zoom-in on anything in the picture.  For example, you can zoom in on a particular instrument in the Electra's instrument panel.

Tom Riggs #2427

***********************************

This is indeed a fine collection, and well worth browsing. Thanks for reminding everyone, Tom.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:41:06 EST
From:          Tom Riggs
Subject:      More From Purdue Collection

You would not believe the dozens and dozens of high-quality photos of AE, FN, and the Electra stored in the Purdue collection!!!  A small portion of these photos you have seen published many times, but the large majority I have never seen before.  For example, a picture of the Lae to Howland navigation calculations signed by Clarence Williams.  If you are an AE/FN buff, I guarantee you will not be disappointed viewing these photos.  Sit back and enjoy.  Here is the link:

http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/Earhart/EarhartDisplay/list.cfm?type=subject&Criteria=1937

Tom Riggs #2427
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:42:42 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: OK so no stuck switch - then why...?

Up through the '60s all towers in the US monitored just a few frequencies for aircraft that only had a few crystal controlled transmit frequencies. They also had low frequency channels that they monitored. If you ever used a six channel "Super Homer" vhf aircraft radio with 6 transmit channels and a tunable receiver you will know what I am talking about.

gl

Randy Jacobson wrote:

> On the trip from Oakland to Honolulu, AE set up a radio procedure that she
> would broadcast on 3105/6210 and listen to PAA station on 29XX kHz for
> bearing information determined by them.  My understanding is that this was
> pretty much standard procedure: listen on a different frequency than
> broadcasting.  Not too many people had capabilities of crystal-controlled
> 3105 and 6210 kHz transmitters.  The receiver was broadband, and could be
> tuned to any number of particular frequencies.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:43:53 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

> I have now obtained the altitude correction tables found in the 1937 edition
> of the Nautical Almanac. (The librarian at the US Naval Observatory was kind
> enough to fax me these pages.) This gives proof as to why Noonan would not
> use a "dawn sight."

> It turns out that the 1937 Nautical Almanac only provided refraction
> corrections for the sun down to a minimim sextant altitude (Hs)  of 6 degrees
> and 30 minutes (6.5 degrees.) The modern Nautical Almanac gives the
> corections all the way down to zero. Because of this Noonan could not have
> used sun sights at a lower altitude than 6.5 degrees since he couldn't look
> up the necessary corection to use. This also rules out the "dawn sight" since
> at dawn (sunrise) the sun is well below 6.5 degrees, in fact it is actually
> more than  1.5 degrees below zero, ( minus 1 Degree and  37') when observed
> from 10,000 feet which is 8 degrees lower than the corection table allows
> for.
>
> The correction becomes very non-linear at low altitudes. Noonan's table gave a
> correction of  7.4' for an Hs  of 7.0 degrees and 7.9' at the minimum altitude
> covered of 6.5 degrees which is rate of change of 1 minute per degree. A
> linear extrapolation would give a correction of 14.4' at Hs of zero and 15.9'
> for a sunrise Hs of about 1.5 Degrees below zero
>
> However, the modern Nautical Almanac continues down with 8.5' for 5 Degrees,
> 11.8' for 4 D, 14.4' for 3 D, 18.3' for 2 D, 24.3' for 1 D and 34.5 ' for
> zero degrees which is very non linear. The modern Air Almanac continues down
> into negative territory with a correction of 50' for the sunrise altitude of
> 1.5 Degrees below zero. If Noonan used the lowest availabe corection value
> from his table of 7.9' for a sunrise sight his correction would be 42.1' in
> error ( 50 - 7.9 = 42.1) which would result in an error of his position LOP
> of  42.1 Nautical Miles (NM) since one minute of Hs equals one NM. Even if he
> extrapolated to 15.9' he would still be in error by 34.1 NM.

It does not seem likely that Noonan would use a sight that has an unknown error since his correction table did not cover such a low altitude sight, especially since his life depended upon it. The sun's altitude would be above the necessary 6.5 degrees after 1818 Z (0648 Itasca time) in the vicinity of Howland Island on July 2, 1937. This is approximately the same time that AE reported "100 miles out." This means that they had about 100 miles and between 40 and 45 minutes to take multiple shots of the sun to derive the most accurate interception of the 157-337 sun line LOP through Howland. There would be no reason to take a "dawn sight" with an unknown refraction correction and then advance  it by dead reckoning (and introducing an additional approximately 15 NM error) to find Howland since much more reliable higher altitude sun sights would be available as the plane approached the 157/337 LOP.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:45:46 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Angus Murray wrote:

> By 19.12 GMT Z was already a degree different at 65.9 degrees at Howland. By
> 20.12 Zn was 62.9 degrees. This does not seem a negligible change. Are you
> suggesting by "refining his LOP position" that he would be redefining his
> position as on some new LOP at a different angle later in the day? Or are you
> saying that he could better define the position of the 157/337 line he was
> running on (since arriving at the 157/337 line through Howland depended on
> perfect dead reckoning from the last sight to choose the correct time to
> turn)? Perhaps you can explain exactly how he would have done this?

Well, yes, that is a negligible change for flying a landfall procedure.

The landfall is plotted slightly differently than what is normally used to find a fix. The destination is used for the assumed position (AP) and the LOP is drawn through the AP on the azimuth of the LOP. You might plot several different LOPs on different azimuths corresponding to different arrival times. Then the sight is taken and compared to the precomputed altitude curve so that you know instantly the distance between your position and the LOP. You do NOT plot the LOP for where you actually are as that is not important because using the destination as the AP means that the difference between the precomputed altitude at the destination and the altitude measured with your sextant is the distance you are away perpendicularly from the LOP that runs through the destination.

As the day goes on and the azimuth of the sun changes the LOP plotted through the destination will rotate as though on a pivot stuck on the destination. So a one degree change in the azimuth of the sun to 066 at 1846 Z (which lasted until 1923 Z including the time of the "must be on you" message) results in a 156-336 LOP and would result in only a one nautical mile (NM) error in you position only if you were at least 60 NM out from the destination on the LOP. ( The sin of one degree is approximately 1/60th. so a one degree change results in a one mile change for each 60 miles flown. It is actually one part in 57.3 but navigators use the approximation  of one part in 60.) A one mile error falls well within the margin of error of the sextant shot.

The azimuth of the sun stays at 066 until 1923 Z; 065 until 1945 Z; 064 until 2003 Z and was 063 at 2012 Z when they reported being on the LOP which result in only a 4 degree difference. So even at 2012 Z it would only produce a 4 NM error at 60 NM from Howland on the LOP and only 2 NM if 30 NM from the island. You would expect that this period would have allowed enough time for them to find Howland.

Eventually the azimuth does change enough so that you have to plot the new azimuth and plan your heading to track that new course. At this point you recalculate your landfall again. By 2230 Z, a time when  they could have been approaching Gardner, the azimuth would be 040 and so they would have had to compute a new landfall and plan on following a 130-310 LOP since the 157-337 LOP no longer existed. This is why they couldn't have  just followed the 157-337 LOP to Gardner.

You can check the textbooks at:

http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/landfall.html

for how this procedure is plotted and computed. Look particularly at Weems, page 396; TM 1-206, pages 110-112 and 174-175;  and AFM 51-40, 1951 edition, pages 306, 309, and 311.

gl
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:47:41 EST
From:          Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Marty wrote;

> "Dawn" in the plane as it flew west of Howland and Niku would be later than
> on the two islands, but then again, if AE and FN were at 8,000 to 10,000
> feet, they would see the sun before the terminator was directly underneath
> them, so ... nice round numbers ... Fred might have had something like 90
> minutes from observing the sun until having to make the turn to 337 or 157
> to search for Howland along the line.

Marty, how do you know that they wern't already somewhere on the 157/337 line when dawn broke over Howland?

Cheers from Bill
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:47:00 EST
From:          Eric
Subject:      Betty's radio

Ric wrote:

> Let's remember that Betty has never claimed that her family's radio was a
> Strat 1000Z.  She says only that it was a very nice Zenith with a black dial
> and "cave"- like cabinet such as the ones shown on the website mentioned
> above.

A Strat 1000Z was introduced into the mix in Bob Brandenburg's project bulletin dated March 15,2001 ("Could Betty Have Heard Earhart on a Harmonic") in the section subtitled "Betty's radio."  The issue seems to have been receiver sensitivity and tuning range in order to be able to hear signals from Gardner Island on a harmonic.  The article also states that Betty positively identified a photo of a restored Strat 1000Z as the model she had used.  However since there are other Zenith sets which had similar sensitivity and tuning range, the real answer might well be the antenna rather than the specific set.

Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, Ca.
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:48:06 EST
From:          Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Still more on the Clips

Thanks, Angus, for your explanation of the clips.

From the two different sextant box photos I have seen, the securing clips used would have to be bent, then rotated in order to remove the sextant. A spring steel metal seems ideal for this purpose. The clips we have are serrated, presumably to engage wood fibers and prevent rotation? I can't completely square these two things yet. But they certainly could be securing clips that do their securing in some other way, not requiring rotation.

Also from the same two sextant box photos, I see only one hole in each securing clip. There is no need for another hole, as our clips have. This, in my mind, opens up many other possible uses or questions.

So the oval clip is aluminum. What metal is the other one?

I have some thoughts on the bent clip, which I sent in earlier in a note entitled "More on the Clips", but it has not been posted yet.

As to the numbers, do you refer to the numbers that were on the sextant box? I thought a relationship of some sort had been established between these and the numbers on another sextant box now in a Florida museum. Or am I recalling this wrong?

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:54:25 EST
From:          Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Harbor Lights Villa and the Raffle

OK folks on the Forum, I've gotten a couple of inquiries about Harbor Lights Villa and I thought I'd just post a general email with information that will hopefully answer everybody's curiosity, especially the one of you who will be travelling down there as the winner of the Paradise Now Contest.

Harbor Lights Villa is a separate and detached rental Villa, not a  condo, that sits on 0.82 acres in an upscale neighborhood of St.  Thomas USVI overlooking the entrance to the harbor.  It is not  waterfront property, but rather sits about 300' up the hill from the  shore.  The house is convenient to shopping, groceries, and town, but  is not considered to be in town.

My neighbors are prominent folks, doctors, lawyers, and business  people of the VI community, and the neighborhood tends to be quiet  and private, so bathing suits at the pool are optional.  I bought  this house in 1984, and lived there full time for over 4 years.  When  life took me to other parts of the world, I couldn't bear the thought  of selling it, so I turned it into a weekly vacation rental Villa,  and it has done quite well averaging well over 220 occupied days a  year for the last 14 years.  Harbor Lights is one of the most popular  Villas on St. Thomas due to its location and setting.  The going rate for 3 couples during the tourist season (12/15 to 4/30) is $4,000.00 per week, so this prize has real value especially including the airfare.

The house itself is 1600 square feet with three queen size bedrooms, 2 baths, LR, DR, Kit,  with an additional 1600 square foot of decking along the view side of the house and around the pool / hot tub area. 3 couples on vacation work very well in this house.  There is a full kitchen, complete with stove, dishwasher, microwave, frig, pots, pans, silverware, dish ware, glasses, toaster, BLENDER :-), BBQ, etc etc, about everything you might expect to find in your own kitchen. Bed linen and towels are provided including beach towels, and the cleaning crew will be there shortly before your arrival to ensure that everything is in order.

The view of the Harbor and the main part of the island of St. Thomas is really unsurpassed, especially at night when the lights of the island make for a beautiful sight.  In the morning the cruise ships come in past the house and dock nearby, watercraft of all types are seen moving about during the day, and for the aviation enthusiasts in the crowd, you can watch the Twin Otter on floats take off and land in full view (back in the old days, it used to be a Grumman Mallard). On a clear day you will be able to see St. Croix to the South, Vieques Island in the SW, and even Puerto Rico 50 miles to the West.

The Virgin Islands have been owned throughout history by many countries including Britain, Spain, and Denmark.  St. Thomas was home to many pirates including the infamous Bluebeard as well as another priate named Blackbeard.  I guess there were a lot of bearded guys in the Pirate Corp.  The USA purchased the VI from the Danes in 1917 in a strategic move to prevent the Germans from establishing a naval base in the Caribbean.  The US operated a Submarine Base on St. Thomas for many years, and the Navy still occasionally drops by for shore leave R&R.  Sir Francis Drake sailed his armada past St. Thomas on his way to defeating the Spanish Fleet near Puerto Rico.  Lots of Naval and maritime history here.

St. Thomas is a wonderful place and the vast majority of folks who venture down there enjoy themselves tremendously.  Temperatures average about 85*F daytime and 75*F nighttime during the "winter" months, and about 5*F hotter during the summer time.  The lowest recorded temperature is 62*F, (and it hailed once) so you won't have to worry about your winter jacket except on the ride home, although you will see the locals wearing their winter jackets if the temp gets below 75*F, Brrrrrrr!

At 15* latitude, the sun is very strong, stronger than most people expect, so don't ruin your vacation by  getting sun poisoning.  Bring plenty of SPF with you, and avoid lying out like a beached whale between 10am and 2pm.  That's a good time to go shopping down at the shops next to the cruise ship dock, or in the historic downtown.  St. Thomas, as a US territory, is outside the US customs zone, so all imported goods are "duty free".  If you are in the market for a new camera, electronics, or jewlery, there are many good deals to be found.  Booze is a particularly good deal, with most imported brands costing 30% to 50% of what they might cost in the states.  You are allowed to bring as much as 6 bottles back with you duty free.

One of the more unusual things you will notice upon arrival (unless you're from parts of the British empire) is that everyone is driving on the wrong side of the road.  The USVI still drives on the left, which is a remnant of the Danish system in put in place in the early 1900's.  At least the cars will be familiar  as they use US left hand drive cars.  It takes some getting used to, but if you just follow everybody else you'll get the hang of it quickly.  You will want to rent a car as taxis are expensive, buses unreliable, and  walking is not an option due to the hills and lack of sidewalks except in town,

Watersports are plentiful in the islands.  Water temp varies between 78 and 82*F.  All beaches have public access so you can go pretty much anywhere and swim and snorkle.  The nearest beaches to Harbor Lights are no more than a 5 minute drive, although the famous mile long Magen's Bay, once considered one of the 10 best beaches in the world, is about a half an hour over the hill.  There are several dive operators on island, and you can also rent your own boat, power or sail, with or  without crew, for the day.  Other diversions include the Atlantis Submarine, Coral World underwater aquarium, a challenging golf course, taking the ferry to St. John to visit the VI National Park, or visiting the British VI.

For night life, there are many, many great restaurants, bars, and many hotels have some kind of local reggae or steel drum band playing on weekends.  St. Thomas is fond of partying, but lots of guests find that they prefer simply to stay home, cook on the BBQ, and enjoy the view with their friends.

So, if you can picture yourself and your friends in the hot tub or floating in the pool with the blender purring and a pina colada in your hand watching the sun set while the cruise ships light up and slip out of the harbor, then please go to the TIGHAR website and purchase as many chances as you feel comfortable buying.  It's for a good cause, and the odds are far better than lotto, getting hit by lightning, or eaten by a Niku shark.

Get your friends involved, and start planning!  Isn't it worth $100 to get 5 chances to win a $5,000 dream vacation?  Pack that swimsuit now, March 31 is the drawing.

Somebody has to win, why not you?

If there are more questions, please feel free to ask them via the Forum.

You can see more pictures of the Villa at these web sites:

http://www.hideaways.com/profile.cfm?Pref=3D1901&CFID=3D533727&CFTOKEN=3D527=66761

http://www.mclaughlinanderson.com/  Search for Harbor Lights on St. Thomas

www.harborlights.vi    (one nice photo taken from the deck showing the hot tub, pool, and the Club Med II cruise ship leaving the harbor under sail at sunset)  You could be there!

LTM (who uses lots of sunscreen and rum)
Andrew McKenna
----
Harbor Lights Villa
A Special Place in the Caribbean
www.harborlights.vi
720-635-1166
Win a week at harbor Lights, go to www.tighar.org and look for "Paradise Now"
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:00:46 EST
From:          David Carmack
Subject:      Re: More From Purdue Collection

I could not get to the website from this address---it said there may have been an error in the spelling. David Carmack

****************************

http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/Earhart/EarhartDisplay/list.cfm?type=subject&Criteria=1937

The problem is that the automatic line length function of the ListServ software breaks up the address. Copy the entire thing, paste it into the appropriate place to tell your browser where to go, and then, before clicking on "GO", remove the returns and extraneous characters --- a return between Cr  and  it, and returns between   it   and    eria=1937.

http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/Earhart/EarhartDisplay/list.cfm?type=subject&Criteria=1937

It'll work. Did for me. Reproduced above again but will probably do the same thing.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:49:39 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Still more on the Clips

Alfred Hendrickson wrote:

> Thanks, Angus, for your explanation of the clips.
>
> From the two different sextant box photos I have seen, the securing
> clips used would have to be bent, then rotated in order to remove the
> sextant.

The clips only needed to be rotated, not bent. The end with the teeth I believe was for getting a grip with the fingertip and the end away from the pivot screw turned in the horizontal plane over some part of the instrument.

I think it likely that the oval clip was designed to operate where space was limited and/or only a small projection was available for the clip to engage. An example of this would be an auxilliary eyepiece which has a narrow projecting flange. It is usually stored in a cylindrical hole in a block of ood at one side of the inside of the sextant box. The screw would be positioned close along side the hole and the oval swung over the projecting lip. If the hole in the block was counterbored (spot-faced) this would ensure the flange was flush and the clip able to swing over it without any form of spacer required on the screw.

>A spring steel metal seems ideal for this purpose. The clips we
> have are serrated, presumably to engage wood fibers and prevent
> rotation?

See above.

> I can't completely square these two things yet. But they
> certainly could be securing clips that do their securing in some other
> way, not requiring rotation.

No -  these ones couldn't work any other way than by rotation. They are both aluminium, which is not very springy (being soft) and would soon fail by fatigue if  repeatedly bent.

> Also from the same two sextant box photos, I see only one hole in each
> securing clip. There is no need for another hole, as our clips have.
> This, in my mind, opens up many other possible uses or questions.

The second hole may have been designed to engage with eg a screw head on the instrument to prevent the clip from moving once swung into position. It is also possible that the second hole was drilled to allow the clip to be secured in two places (eg to a block of wood or by two screws held in the vice). This would allow the teeth to be filed when making it, without the clip tending to rotate. The clips may also have been copied from some commercial design which may well have had a second hole. Often such a manufactured device will have a second hole which merely derives from jigging in the manufacturing process. An example would be jigging for electroplating. The hole is actually redundant in use and sometimes the plagiarist will slavishly copy a feature that they don't really understand.

> So the oval clip is aluminum. What metal is the other one?

Aluminium

> I have some thoughts on the bent clip, which I sent in earlier in a note
> entitled "More on the Clips", but it has not been posted yet.

I think the bent clip has merely been bent in removing it or alternatively damaged subsequent to its removal.

> As to the numbers, do you refer to the numbers that were on the sextant
> box? I thought a relationship of some sort had been established between
> these and the numbers on another sextant box now in a Florida museum. Or
> am I recalling this wrong?

The numbers on both boxes have similarities. At least one number on the Gardner box was "stencilled". Neither of the Pensacola ones were. They both had a number comprised of four digits beginning with 3. My comments would apply to either box as it seems very possible to me that both of the boxes originated with Pan Am. The lower standard of quality of a Pan Am box (or even a homemade box) might well explain the comment to the effect that the Gardner box could in no way be associated with an attempt at circumnavigation of the globe. Since the corners were dovetailed, a homemade origin seems very unlikely however. Incidentally, the box was described as being possibly of French origin from the dovetailing but this I do not believe. French dovetailing is merely a style of dovetailing and has nothing to do with the country of origin.

Regards Angus.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Actually, the number similarity is a bit stronger.  The box found by Gallagher reportedly had the number 3500 stencilled on it and another number, 1542, rendered in some fashion.  The sextant box that once belonged to Noonan has the the number 3547 written on the bottom, with a second number, 173, written below it.

Each box has two numbers.
In each case, the first number has four digits beginning with 35.
In each case the second number begins with 1.

The Pan American Pacific Division survey flight's, for which Noonan was the senior navigator, were made in 1935. (music up, fade to black)

LTM,
Ric
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:51:02 EST
From:          Betty Brown
Subject:      A note from Betty

Ric or Pat...Tell " Know it all" Miller I never heard any other people talking, but Amelia and Him .... She tried to get other people, that was her voice saying those words.....I never heard any other voices....Hue at least when you attack, get your facts straight......You had me hearing a Ham ,etc....Betty
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:54:12 EST
From:          Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: OK so no stuck switch - then why...?

Anyone ever hear of "whistle stop tuning?".  In the early sixties a popular narco model had this feature and like Gary says it had a minimum number of transmit crystals.  The term was called "simplexing" when you transmit and recieve on one frequency.  Many of the aircraft towers transmitted on several frequencies simultaneous, but very few radios could simplex, so most times you would transmit on your crystal known to be monitered by the tower, and listen on a different frequency which was not always easy to tune. With the whistle stop, you could easily find the correct listening frequency by twisting the variable tuner whilst the tower was transmitting since you heard a loud whistle when you reached the same frequency as the one for your transmitting crystal.

Amelia did not have this feature so she had to talk on her crystal, and then try and tune the reciever to catch the other end of the conversation.  I guess the argument is did she have a 3105 and 6210 transmit crystal, and also the corresponding 3105 and 6210 recieving crystal.. Otherwise she was talking and twisting on the variable tuner to get locked on and I can tell you It aint easy to alwyas get the reciever tuned.

from the old timers school of variable tuners,, the stoker,, 2535
*************************************************************************
From Ric

There's no argument.  AE had transmit crystals for 3105, 6210 and 500.  She had no receiver crystals.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:03:51 EST
From:          Tom Strange
Subject:      Betty's Note Book?

Ric or Pat,

   As keepers of Betty's note book I have two quick questions you can easily answer - Betty's note book "originally had 96 pages" with a few up towards the front torn out - How many pages are still in place? -  How do you ascertain that the missing pages were from "towards the front" of the note book?

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
****************************************************************************
From Ric
 It looks like a total of five pages were torn out - 4 all together right after the first page and 1 just a couple of pages later.  You can easily see the ragged remnants of the torn-out pages down near the spine. The Earhart transcription begins on page 49 (the pages are not numbered).
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:10:30 EST
From:          Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Purdue University Collection

I tried the link, it didn't work, but I modified it and got to the site. I clicked on the only two pix that I could find that showed the instrument panel - big difference between the two panels. Check the instruments in the second at:

http://gemini.lib.purdue.edu/Earhart/EarhartDisplay/search.cfm?criteria=cockpit&type=search&kind=full

There is a very interesting pic of a radio - but everything is out of focus, so hard to get a lot of detail. Also, she has a turn and bank and artificial horizon. On the panel to the right of the throttle quadrant is what appears to be an ADF or some type of DF equipment.

Do we know when these pix were taken? They are pretty much useless without dates since we don't know what the final panel configuration was on the world flight.

Also, at the very top of the instrument panel directly above that DF (radio compass?) is another instrument that looks like some other type of radio compass - there is a white bar that slants or else it is two hands connected in the middle. I thought perhaps an altimeter, but the hands would be set for something pretty high.

But, then you've been thru all of their photo collection haven't you?

LTM,
Dave Bush

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Yup.  I don't have time right now to go throgh a complete run-down of what we know and don't know about the evolution of her instrument panel but I can tell you that the  instrument mounted below the magetic compass up on top of the panel directly behind the windshield centerpost was the head for the Cambridge Exhaust Gas Analyzer.  It was moved down into the main panel before the World Flight.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:15:18 EST
From:          Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Purdue University Collection

Ric: I was looking over the two photos that show the cockpit and noticed that they are both listed as having been taken in 1937 - the first one says that it is before all the instruments have been installed. I also noticed something else - the instrument panel appears to be hinged and opens downward to reveal the radios behind the panel. Is this correct or am I seeing things? Or is the radio just set in the panel temporarily. Still it appears that the panel is hinged, whether the radios are just sitting there temporarily or not.

HMMMM?
LTM,
Dave Bush

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Don't take the information provided by Purdue as gospel.  They do their best but they're not authorities on the evolution of the airplane.

What you're seeing is the hinged face of the Sperry GyroPilot opened to show the plumbing behind it.  No radios there.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:19:58 EST
From:          Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      The Clips

Angus wrote: "I think the bent clip has merely been bent in removing it or alternatively damaged subsequent to its removal."

I agree with you that the bent clip looks to have been bent after the fact. Bent during removal looks most plausible to me. To develop that curved shape without the use of a form of some sort, one would have to fix one end (in this case, the end opposite the serrations) against rotation, and apply a force parallel to the screw to the other end. The bend radius tightens at the fixed end because this is where the bending moments are highest. If we knew the type of metal we had here, the thickness, and the width, I think we could calculate the bending moment required to force this thing into the shape we see. (Whether this piece of information would be useful is not clear to me yet.) The metal has been forced into it's yield zone, that is clear. It took a certain force to bend this thing, and the location at which that force was applied appears to me to coincide with the location of the screw.

A couple of other musings:

The aluminum these things are made of - is it aircraft aluminum?

Is it a stretch to say they may have come from the Norwich City, or can that be reasonably ruled out?

LTM, who would like these clips, I'm sure,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I say again, the aluminum does not appear to be aircraft aluminum. We have never seen any aluminum debris associated with Norwich City, only iron/steel and brass.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:25:52 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Clips & clippers

Ric said:

> Each box has two numbers.

 Not so!  The Pensacola box has three with the additional number being 116.

> In each case, the first number has four digits beginning with 35.
> In each case the second number begins with 1.
>
> The Pan American Pacific Division survey flight's, for which Noonan was the
> senior navigator, were made in 1935. (music up, fade to black)

What other flying (and to where) did Noonan do in the Pacific after 1935 other than pioneering the clipper flights?

Regards  Angus
**************************************************************************
From Ric

You're right.  The Pensacola box has 116 on the front.  The other numbers are together on the bottom.

Noonan regularly flew the  PAA trans-Pacific route after passenger service was inaugurated following the survey flights.  If I recall correctly his last trip was in December 1936.  Shortly after that he left the company, apparently in a dispute over working conditions.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:42:55 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Gary wrote

> This is why they couldn't have  just followed the 157-337
> LOP to Gardner.

Gary, you were outstanding right up to the end except for the last sentence above. You are misleading and confusing folks with that statement. They not only could follow the 157/337 LOP to Gardner but that was the ONLY LOP that would take them to Gardner unless of course they started from some place other than Howland. What is correct is that they couldn't drive down that LOP simply by shooting the sun to see if they were still on it. Once they got the LOP drawn on their map it stayed there and that line is what they HAD to follow to get to Gardner. Any other direction would not get them there. The question is how did they stay on the LOP. Sun shots would be an aid in determining their position but sun shots alone would not precisely do the trick. There is no reason to think shooting the sun was Noonan's ONLY navigational capability, however.

Assuming Noonan DID drive SE and DID shoot additional sun shots they would merely give him a new LOP somewhat parallel to his course but it would take additional information for him to know roughly where on that line he was. THAT would then tell him where he was in relation to the original LOP of 157/337 which is simply a course on the map now. I don't know whether he HAD additional information to supplement a sun shot. If not he was hard pressed to maintain course other than merely laying a parallel line to the new LOP to go through Gardner and altering course appropriately. Not difficult at all. In any case he was still following the 157/337 LOP as that was the only road to Gardner.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:44:46 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Gary wrote

> This means that they had about 100 miles and between 40 and 45 minutes to
> take multiple shots of the sun to derive the most accurate interception of
> the 157-337 sun line LOP through Howland.

Exactly right, Gary. That's what I've been trying to point out that there was only a short time for Noonan to shoot the sun. The significance of that is that in that short time he had to refine his ground speed and as the wind speed reports show they were dropping off from just before 1400Z on the inbound leg. In a short distance an error is much harder to catch. That could mean they may have overshot Howland because they were going faster than they thought.

If so they may have turned on the famous LOP some miles beyond Howland and of course couldn't see it. What disturbs me is why could Noonan not refine his east/west position between 7:42 L and 8:43 L? One conceivable answer is that they were sufficiently south of course that their NW run didn't take them far enough to see Howland. Other possibilities I see is that Noonan didn't take another sun shot or couldn't because of rough air or cloud cover.

He had an hour. It seems to me the first thing I would do is recheck my figures and recheck my position. I suppose another possibility is that he was so certain of where they were that they thought it was just hard to find in the glare, haze, if any, clouds and shadows so they just flew around looking.

Alan
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:45:57 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Gary LaPook wrote:

> ... This is why they couldn't have  just followed the
> 157-337 LOP to Gardner.

OK.  But you have (again) overlooked the fact that the navigator on board the fatal flight had the pilot fly a 157/337 line.  This is what AE told the Itasca they were doing in the final message recorded at (I think) 1913 GMT. Seems to me that FN disagreed with you and your textbooks about what he could and could not do that morning.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:48:17 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Bill Shea wrote:

> Marty, how do you know that they wern't already somewhere
> on the 157/337 line when dawn broke over Howland?

AE's messages (available at
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/06_05_02Bulletin/Itascalog.html)
make no mention of running the line until the last message was received.

DRAT!  I just found another mistake.  I have not been adding the 11.5 hours difference between Itasca and Greenwich correctly.  0843 local would be 2023 GMT <dope slap>, not 1923 as I said in the last few messages.  <wailing and grinding of teeth>

OK, back to our regularly scheduled rant: I argue, without proof, that the most natural explanation of the following message is that AE & FN were coming in from the west:

"200 miles out" at 0615 local / 1745 GMT

I don't think at any time FN thought he was 200 miles south, east, or north of the island. "We must be on you" is transmitted at 0742 local / 1912 GMT. My guess is that they must have crossed the terminator west of Howland some time during those 90 minutes.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:50:16 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

> The sin of one
> degree is approximately 1/60th. so a one degree change results
> in a one mile change for each 60 miles flown.

I have to agree that a degree is not much of a sin of bad navigation - more of a sine.<G>

Seriously though, I take your point that always providing AE was not too far from Howland, the error introduced would not be large and probably still keep them within the visual range of their destination at their closest approach on the LOP. Thanks for your exposition on the point.

Regarding the sunrise sight, let us suppose you are FN. The sky is partly cloudy and you have a hunch that the weather may be closing in as it looks worse to the north. Dawn is coming up and you have a limited time to take some sights before you reach a planned advanced LOP.

Do you ignore the moment of sunrise on the basis you don't even have the appropriate corrections for very low angle sights or do you time it anyway on the basis you may not get another chance? Its an easy job after all. OK, lets suppose he extrapolates the correction and determines his LOP 34 nm too far east because he thinks the sun is higher than it really is and he then fails to get another shot. The chances are that his sight timing won't be perfect and his DR won't be perfect (as he gets no speed lines and has a headwind) and he could underestimate the time to the advanced LOP. Lets say his timing is 1 minute late (15nm) and his DR short by 15 nm. He could then still arrive close to an LOP through Gardner on the basis of a sunrise sight.

However, from his vast experience it seems likely that he would have had some idea of the error inherent in a sunrise sight even if he had no tables to give him exact figures and his errors in everything may have been less.  I don't think we can altogether rule out that the 157/337 AE referred to derived from a sunrise sight.

Regards Angus.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:51:10 EST
From:          Daryll Bollinger
Subject:      Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

for Marty & Bill;

My guess that sunrise for AE & FN was very near 17:45 GMT (06:15 Itasca) when AE reported "ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MILES OUT....".

The simulator showed the upper limb at 17:55 GMT from 10,000 ft. The time difference has a lot to do with the winds and course I selected.

Gary L pointed out that the nav tables didn't have a correction for the sun shot (upper limb) at altitude in '37'.

The upper limb could have given Noonan a distance estimate which I think AE used when she said "ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MILES OUT....".

Daryll
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:53:17 EST
From:          Patrick Gaston
Subject:      Re: A note from betty

Betty Brown wrote:

>Ric or Pat...Tell   'Know it all' Miller I never heard any other people
>talking, but Amelia and Him .... She tried to get other people, that was her
>voice saying those words.....I never heard any other voices....Hue at least
>when you attack, get your facts straight......You had me hearing a Ham,
>etc....Betty

Betty, thank you for the clarification.  We now understand that during the hour and a half or so that you were listening, you heard two voices and no others:  Amelia and Him.  Also a while ago I think you said that you never re-tuned the radio during this period.  Now I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind:

1.  Was the radio already on when you came home or did you turn it on?

2.  Do you remember anything else about the television hole?  Was it covered with something or was it just an opening in the front of the radio?

3.  On Page 49 of your notebook, you wrote:

--Bob
--Come here just a moment

Do you think the man's name could have been Bob?

I look forward to hearing from you, either on the Forum or privately at patrick@gaston.as  This is most interesting.

LTM (who doesn't pretend to know everything)
Pat Gaston
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:58:21 EST
From:          Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Clips and things

I think a discussion of the clips and the sextant box is incomplete without including artifact 2-6-S-43, the sort of conduit-clamp looking thing. This could be a part of the sextant box.

What is the status of this? Does anyone have any thoughts on it? Or has it been hashed out already?

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583

*************************************

We have a good I.D. on this piece; it is part of the internal structure of a much larger radio than Earhart's, and almost certainly came from the Loran station:

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/02_22_02Bulletin/artifacts.html

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:00:52 EST
From:          Pat Thrasher
Subject:      Re: 2-6-S-43

sorry about that last "no subject" post.

We have defined a new measurement of time --- that infinitely small increment between pushing the "Send" button and noticing the error in the post or email now irrevocably on its way.

It's called the typo-second.

Pat

=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Feb 2003 09:00:04 EST
From:          Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Clips and typo-seconds

(For me, Pat, the typo-second is the period of time in which I realize how dumb my question is! <g>)

I want to expand on my earlier (dumb) question: I have it that the clips are aluminum, but I am not sure about one other thing. Ric said earlier, "The plates (one rounded and one rectangular) seem to be aluminum, but not Alclad aircraft-grade aluminum." Does this rule out both AE's plane AND the military plane that crashed on a nearby island as the source? I seem to recall a difference between the aluminum from these two planes.

LTM,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
***************************************************************************
From Ric

From the mid-1930s, throughout WWII, and right up to today, most airplanes were, and are, made from 2024 Alclad (known in Earhart's day as 24ST Alclad).  Same stuff.
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:09:10 EST
From:          Bill Shea
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Marty wrote:

> AE's messages (available at
>http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/06_05_02Bulletin/Itascalog.html
> make no mention of running the line until the last message was received

Marty, AE mentioned to Itasca during her normal sked radio call that they were on the line. She didn't say, we just got on the line, they could have been on the line for a long while before mentioning it during her call to the Itasca.

So, i again say, why does everyone assume she was coming in from the west during those '200 miles' when it could have been from any direction - even north or south of Howland on the line. And by the way, she just thought she was 200 miles away from the Itasca and howland; obviously she wasn't. Where ever she was, she never made it; proving to me that even being more than 200 miles north or south on the line is not out of the question.

Cheers from Bill  #2577 (and hopeful winner of a trip to St Thomas.)
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:15:49 EST
From:          Eric
Subject:      Pricing on Zenith Stratosphere

Alan Caldwell writes:

> Eric writes
>
> > There is NO way a working class family has a Zenith Stratosphere model
> > 1000Z in 1937.  I think we can rule that out now.
>
> My grandfather was a retired RR brakeman and there was no SS. He even bought
> a brand new Studebaker sedan in the late 30s - early 40s. Your source is not
> credible.

Most people would accept the fact that a working man in the 1930's could have afforded a Studebaker automobile.  However, if you claimed that your grandfather had bought a Duesenberg, you shouldn't be surprised if there are some skeptics.  As has been pointed out in this Forum: the Zenith Stratosphere 1000Z sold for $750 during the Great Depression when the purchasing power of a dollar was considerably more than it is today.   As a result of this "stratospheric" price, only a few hundred of these sets were ever sold, and we must assume that their purchasers were of the same economic class as the people who could have afforded a Duesenberg if they so desired. Now, it's quite possible that Betty's father did, in fact, own a Strat 1000Z.   However, it's more logical to assume that, being a practical man and someone who was careful in managing his money, he probably opted to purchase a good quality, but somewhat less expensive model Zenith radio.  With proper receiver sensitivity and tuning range (plus a good outdoor antenna) this less expensive set could just as well have picked up AE on a harmonic as a Strat 1000Z.

LTM (who was careful with her money as well)
Eric, NAS NORTH ISLAND, San Diego, CA.

*******************************************

Eric, you have apparently missed the fact that Betty's father could get a major discount on any radio he bought because he worked for the power company. We don't know the details, but Betty is quite clear on the subject.

Also:

>it's more logical to assume that, being a practical man and someone
>who was careful in managing his money,

piles supposition on supposition. We really don't know too much about Mr. Klenck's personality, money management philosophies, practicality, and so on. What we know is what is in the notebook, and (with reservations) what Betty has told us. Treating suppositions as facts from which to reason puts us on thin ice, and we try to avoid it.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:17:29 EST
From:          Jim Tierney
Subject:      Re: clips and clippers

Noonan's last trip MAY have been the first Revenue Passenger flight to Manila. Left SFO on October 21, 1936 and returned to SFO on Nov 4, 1936. That is documented and he is listed as Ass't Navigator--why I don't know --with Captain Musick commanding. There is a possibility that he made one more trip and  had returned and resigned by Dec 1936. That is probably what happened.

LTM
Jim Tierney
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:20:17 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: A note from Betty

Betty wrote:

> Ric or Pat...Tell " Know it all" Miller I never heard any other people
> talking, but Amelia and Him .... She tried to get other people, that was her
> voice saying those words.....I never heard any other voices....Hue at least
> when you attack, get your facts straight......You had me hearing a Ham
> ,etc....Betty

Thanks, Betty, the reason i asked this was exactly to determine why there was other strange material in the notebook. Like the letters  you read out aloud in the interview tape, "W4OK" and "WOJ". I just wanted to be sure no one other than Amelia or Fred  said those words.

The way you read "W4OK" and "WOJ"  sure made it sound like you think they're call letters, just like i do. You see, Amelia didn't know these call letters, and she had no way to hear them, from where she was in the Pacific. So, altho i know it all, i just don't get  how Amelia knew to say them. Why would she say something like that? She didn't have any way to hear these stations, or contact them. Only someone in the USA could, at that time of day.

Also, you could help us out a lot if you could say a little on why you thought Amelia was in a "large place".

Actually, there are lots of things that are way beyond me. Like Amelia never asks Fred how he is, she asks him where he is, and why he's so scared. She fights to keep Fred from getting on the radio, but Ric says both of 'em had microphones, so i don't understand this fight. Was Amelia trying to get Fred's microphone away from him? I don't get why Amelia didn't know where Fred was. He had to be either in the cabin or behind it, isn't  that right? Was it dark in there? I still don't get why Amelia kept the radio on that long, using up her battery and gasoline, so we could hear them wrassling, her asking Fred why he was so scared, how she felt regret, and so on.  ( By the way, after looking at those Purdue photographs, i gotta feel that wrassling in that plane would be like wrassling in a Ford Fiesta. ) Maybe she could have spent a moment or two more on telling any listeners just where she was. Lotsa puzzlements for me.

Thanks-  Hue
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:23:25 EST
From:          Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: typo-seconds

> We have defined a new measurement of time --- that infinitely small
> increment between pushing the "Send" button and noticing the
>  error in the post or email now irrevocably on its way.
>
> It's called the typo-second.

<g> If your reflex is faster than a typo second, then make a fast grab on the phone line and unplug the modem. (approximatly 1/2 typo-second)

Claude Stokes 2435
ltm who knows that same feeling
****************************************

Alas! we use cable modem, which is not so easy to unplug and also it causes unusual network problems if it gets unplugged....
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:24:10 EST
From:          Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: typo seconds

Yes, and it's approximately the same duration as the amount of time between when the signal light turns green, and the idiot behind you honks the horn...

ltm
jon

> sorry about that last "no subject" post.
>
> We have defined a new measurement of time --- that infinitely small increment
> between pushing the "Send" button and noticing the error in the post or email
> now irrevocably on its way.
>
> It's called the typo-second.
>
> Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:25:46 EST
From:          Gary laPook
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

How about 2013 <G>

We had a discussion a couple of months ago about the proper sign convention for doing conversions between local time and GMT. You are now the poster boy for why knowledge of this convention is important <G>

gl

Marty Moleski wrote:

> DRAT!  I just found another mistake.  I have not been adding the 11.5 hours
> difference between Itasca and Greenwich correctly.  0843 local would be 2023
> GMT <dope slap>, not 1923 as I said in the last few messages.  <wailing and
> grinding of teeth>
=========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:29:56 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

Sunrise at Howland at sea level was 1746 Z (GMT) one minute after AE's "200 miles out" transmission. Assume that the 200 mile report was in nautical miles, was accurate  and that they were approaching Howland on the direct course from Lae which means they were approaching on a heading of 078 True and so were on a bearing from Howland of 258 T (the reciprocal of 078). This would mean that they were 195 NM west of Howland and  41 NM south of Howland. (This whole discussion also assumes that he the visibility allowed them to see the horizon and that it was not obstructed by clouds or haze.)

(Also, remember, that this discussion is based on using the sunrise tables for something they were not designed for. They  only give the times to the nearest minute which is equivalent to a precision  of +/- 15 NM. and so this is only intended for illustration and discussion and are accurate enough for this purpose. This is not how the computations would have been done in real life.)

The terminator ( the sunrise line) moves westward as the earth rotates towards the east at a rate of 900 Knots at the equator, which is 15 NM per minute of time. 195 divided by 15 means that sunrise would occur at that position at sea level 13 minutes after it occurred at Howland or 1759 Z. But, assuming that they were at an altitude of 10,000 feet, they will be able to see the sunrise earlier than an observer on the surface directly below them because their horizon is about 97 NM away. In addition, the extra refraction of the earths atmosphere at the negative 1 degree 37 minute altitude that Noonan would observe the upper limb of the sun would allow an additional 16 NM for a total of 113 NM. (Sunrise at the surface includes refraction at the surface of 34 minutes of arc and refraction from 10,000 feet would be 50 minutes, a difference of 16 minutes, equivalent of 16 NM.) This means that the sun would rise for them at the same time it would rise for someone at sea level that was 113 NM further to the  east. This would be equivalent of  82 NM west of Howland so they would see the sunrise about 5 minutes after it was observed on the surface at Howland or 1751 Z, 6 minutes after they reported 200 miles out. This means that they would not have yet seen the sunrise at the time of their report and so could not have based the report on their having seen the sunrise.

If we do the same calculations with the assumption that she meant 200 statute miles then the time of sunrise at their position at 10,000 feet would have been 4 minutes after sunrise at Howland or 1750 Z, still 5 minutes after the report, so the same result.

But let's say that they did see the sun at 1745 Z. The above discussion proves that they could not have been 200 NM or even 200 SM from Howland at that time but would have had to have been further to the east and closer to the island. Sunrise occurred one minute earlier, at 1745 Z, for someone on the surface 15 NM east of Howland. At 10,000 feet the sunrise will be observed at the same time but 113 NM further to the west as shown by the previous computations. So in this case the plane would only be 98 NM west of Howland ( 113 -15 ) or 100 NM (115 SM) from Howland on the 258 bearing. If Noonan was doing the equivalent, but much more accurate,  computation he would hardly come up with "200 miles" when they were only 100 NM or 115 SM out.

In addition, the above computations were made using what we know about refraction today, information that was not available to Noonan. He would not have known that he was experiencing 16 minutes of arc more refraction that someone on the ground. This would cause his computations to show him 16 NM further to the east  and even closer to Howland. Doing the same computations with Noonan's knowledge of refraction we come up with the plane at 1745 Z being only 82 NM west of Howland and 83 NM (96 SM) out from Howland which Noonan would hardly call "200 miles."

So, where did the 200 mile figure come from? Most likely from a recent star fix with a short dead reckoned leg since the time of that fix. But the above illustration shows that it did not come from seeing the sun at 1745 Z or any earlier time.

gl

Daryll Bollinger wrote:

> My guess that sunrise for AE & FN was very near 17:45 GMT (06:15 Itasca) when
> AE reported "ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MILES OUT....".
>
> The simulator showed the upper limb at 17:55 GMT from 10,000 ft. The time
> difference has a lot to do with the winds and course I selected.
>
> Gary L pointed out that the nav tables didn't have a correction for the sun
> shot (upper limb) at altitude in '37'.
>
> The upper limb could have given Noonan a distance estimate which I think AE
> used when she said "ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MILES OUT....".
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:35:30 EST
From:          Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: Pricing on Zenith Stratosphere

Eric [don't know last name]  makes some interesting points about the Zenith Betty claims her family owned.  I hadn't realized only several hundred were sold---what's the source of that information?  Also, converting $750  in 1937  to "X" dollars in 2003 can be really misleading as to the purchasing power of $750 in 1937, as people were in such dire shape to get money that lots of things were sold extremely cheaply---for example, I remember hearing stories from my grandmother about people being able to buy a decent little house in their neighborhood in Atlanta for only a few thousand dollars during that time period.  So, can we get some handle on what $750 could've bought in 1937?  Does anyone know what the median income was (in 1937 dollars) during that time?  Also, the point Eric makes about a lesser model Zenith being able to pull in the Earhart transmissions should be run by Bob Brandenburg to see if he concurs.

--Chris Kennedy
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Can we please remember that Betty has never claimed that her father bought a $750 radio?  I'd welcome Bob's comments as always, but I believe that Mike Everette and others have already said that the less expensive "Strats" had long-distance capability that was virtualy equal to that of the 1000Z.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:47:42 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Time zones

What  was the time zone for Ocean Island in 1937? What was the time zone for Nauru?

Regards Angus.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Randy, do you have these off the top of your head?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:49:05 EST
From:         Betty Brown
Subject:      Betty replies

Ric or Pat.....Questions asked by some on the Forum.....Answers are, The missing pages were school things.  I was given the book for school work . Now I was using it for drawing and writing down words of songs from the radio, so I tore the pages out. I would turn the radio on for songs, then next turn it to short wave. The concave in radio was always open because I remember stacking pillows in it... the word Bob was just one word  that was clear and it sounded like Bob....Fred was the name of the man with her not Bob....This might help, I put down the words I heard clear, in a line and even if they were on the same line they weren't meant to be a connected sentence lots of times. When I heard Amelia I stopped there and never moved it...Betty
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:00:46 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: radio, still...

Ric wrote:

> Here's an explanation from one of our airline veterans who wrote to me
> privately on this subject:
>
> It was -Not -usual for pilots [airlines excepted] to use a single
> freq. for comm.   The 'single channel' did not come about until well after
> the war.

My question: does this apply to US/ Canada AND to open stretches overseas?

> Her use of 3105 for both xmit & recv. was an anomaly related solely to the
> Itasca, for the specific flight.
>
> Almost assuredly AE used 3105 xmit & 200-400 to recv. while in the US at
> least.

You are correct about in the USA - the Eddy book on Aeronautic Radio has the FCC rules- planes could not use 3105 or 6210 to call the airfield from more than 30 miles out. They would listen for the field's reply on the fields (low power) 15 watt transmitter on 278. If the plane needed longer range communication, it would need to setup additional HF frequencies for service to the airfield or to a particular communications service company. I would assume these rules no longer applied when offshore USA.

> Although she expected to hear the Itasca on 3105, that would have
> been her only listening on 3105 because it was an air to ground freq.  and
> not the reverse.

Of course, in mid Pacific, this rule would not seem to be necessary.

Hue Miller
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Two observations:
- U.S. Bureau of Air Commerce rules certainly would not apply over the mid-Pacific.

- In July 1937 there was no air traffic over the mid-Pacific except for Earhart and the occasional PAA transpacific Clipper.  We know that PAA did not use 3105 or 6210 for long-range communication with the Clippers because their DF stations had to abandon monitoring those frequencies for post-loss transmissions from Earhart whenever a Clipper was inbound.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:07:36 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Pop quiz

Here's a little puzzle readers may enjoy working. All you have to do is match:

Scene 1: Airplane floating on surface of ocean

Scene 2: Airplane grounded on rocks or reef off island

...with your choice of the following  transcripts  from cabin conversation and  radio  calls - purely imaginary, you understand - that seems to fit best. See how you do! Self-grading, but no cheating, please!

A. "Water's coming up. Up to my knees. I can feel the plane slipping deeper. No way to bail out, no raft, no place to go. Please, please send help quick! Time is of the essence!  Uh oh, let's get out of here!

B. "Hmmmm....water's rising. Tide maybe coming in? I can feel plane moving around a bit. Gee, maybe we shouldn't stay in here, til we see what happens with it. Anyway, no need to panic, we're still in one piece, not like we had to land out there in the ocean. There's still hope. Look, there's trees out there, shade from this heat, maybe water, maybe something to eat. We can hold out for a while, they'll be searching for us anyway, soon. C'mon, lets get outa here. Let's bail!"

Scene 1. transcript ____
Scene 2. transcript ____

(via Hue Miller)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I assume that there's supposed to be some point to that but I can't, for the life of me, imagine what it is.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:56:10 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Bill Shea wrote:

> So, i again say, why does everyone assume she was coming in from the west
> during those '200 miles' when it could have been from any direction - even
> north or south of Howland on the line.

I make that assumption because it seems reasonable to me.

It fits the profile of the flight (known capacities of the plane, a good estimate of headwinds, traditional navigational techniques) and what I consider to be the standard human way of talking in such circumstances. No compass bearing is specified because Itasca expects her from the west, so she does not need to say "200 miles to the west of you." ---  "200 miles out" is sufficient.

I grant you that I cannot force you to make the same assumption. If you wish to assume otherwise, by all means do so. :o)

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:58:11 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: refraction variability
> How about 2013 <G>

OH, YES! I had that straightened out once, then lost it again. :o(

> We had a discussion a couple of months ago about the proper sign
> convention for doing conversions between local time and GMT. You are now
> the poster boy for why knowledge of this convention is important <G>

I had the sign convention correct. It's the pure mathematics of adding and subtracting half-hours that got me (twice).

I didn't even say 1923 in the preceding messages. I was saying 1913, because I had found my first error. It crept back in when I was correcting my second error.

2013 GMT is the magic number, then, for the last transmission received by the Itasca. 2013 - 11.5 gives 0843 local.

LTM.
Marty #2359
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:04:25 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Clips and clippers

Jim Tierney wrote:

> Noonan's last trip MAY have been the first Revenue Passenger flight to
> Manila. Left SFO on October 21 ,1936 and returned to SFO on Nov 4, 1936.That
> is documented and he is listed as Ass't Navigator--why I don't know --with
> Captain Musick commanding. There is a possibility that he made one moretrip
> and had returned and resigned by Dec 1936. That is probably what happened.

Thanks Jim for that information.

Incidentally, forumites may be interested to see the conspiracy website about "Fix on the Rising Sun" which concerns the disappearance of the Hawaii Clipper between Guam and Manila.

Plenty familiar here. A July disappearance without trace in the late thirties (38), possible Japanese capture, delayed take-off, Pan Am, false positions given by radio, DF bearing anomalies, Morse communications ......and more.

Perhaps the Electra disappearance was a practice run.

See http://www.hawaiiclipper.com/hijack.htm

Perhaps after the Earhart mystery is conclusively solved we could move on to establishing the final resting place of the Hawaii Clipper. I doubt it will be Japan though.

Regards Angus
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:07:04 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Airspeed and settings

Ric/Oscar,

I believe these were the latest recommendations sent by KJ for fuel management.

TIME             ALT.             MAN. PRESSURE          RPM        GAL./HR.
1 hour        0-8,000 ft.         28.5 inches                   2,050           100
3 hours      8,000 ft.              28 inches                      1,900             60
3 hours      8,000 ft.              26.5 inches                  1,800             51
3 hours      8,000 ft.               25 inches                     1,700             43
Rest          10,000 ft.             24 inches                      1,600              38

Is it possible to ascribe some true airspeeds to these various settings for each of the time periods?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:15:19 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

Adding to my previous post which approximated AE's postition IF they had seen the sunrise at exactly 1745 Z I had written:

> (Also, remember, that this discussion is based on using the sunrise tables
> for something they were not designed for. They only give the times to the
> nearest minute which is equivalent to a precision of +/- 15 NM. and so this
> is only intended for illustration and discussion and are accurate enough for
> this purpose. This is not how the computations would have been done in real
> life.)
>
> But let's say that they did see the sun at 1745 Z. So in this case the plane
> would only be 98 NM west of
> Howland ( 113 -15 ) or 100 NM (115 SM) from Howland on the 258 bearing. If
> Noonan was doing the equivalent, but much more accurate, computation he
> would hardly come up with "200 miles" when they were only 100 NM or 115 SM out.

For anyone who is interested in the actual computation that would be done by a navigator here is the much more accurate computation:

The GHA (Greenwich Hour Angle, equivalent to the west longitude of the point  directly below the sun where its altitude would equal 90 degrees, straigh t up) of the sun at 1745:00 Z was 85 degrees- 18 minutes (85-18) and its declination (Dec) ( equivalent to the latitude (Lat.) of the point directly below the sun where its altitude would equal 90 degrees, straight up) was 23-02.3 north. Using Howland as the AP (assumed position) the latitude of th e AP is 0-48 north and the longitude is 176-38 west. Subtracting the sun's GHA  from the longitude of Howland we get the difference in longitude of 91-20 as  the angle "t" to the east which is used in the HO 208 Navigation Tables for Mariners and Aviators used by Noonan.

(Modern practice is to use LHA, Local Hour Angle, which is always measured t o the west. In this case LHA would be 268-40 which is simply 360 - "t". Using either "t" or LHA in the trig computations produces the same result.)

You then compute Hc (computed altitude) at the AP of Howland by using the standard formula:

Sin Hc =(sin Lat x sin Dec) + (cos Lat x cos Dec x cos "t") [or cos LHA if you prefer]

This is easy to do on any electronic calculator that has trig functions. Do the calculation and you come up with an Hc of negative 0 degrees - 55 minutes. This would be the altitude of the center of the sun if measured at Howland at 174500 Z which is why it could not yet be seen, it was not yet sunrise there because the sun was still hidden by the earth and was below the horizon.

We also compute the azimuth (Zn) of the sun with the formula:

Sin Zn = (cos Dec x sin "t") / cos Hc

Doing the trig you find, not surprisingly, that Zn = 67 degrees.

If Noonan saw the upper limb of the sun on the horizon (sunrise) from the plane 10,000 feet in the air the measured altitude would have been negative 1-37 or negative 97 minutes due to the "dip" of the horizon, he was looking down towards it at this angle from his altitude. This means his Hs (sextant altitude) was - 97'.

He then has to correct this for refraction and semi-diameter (radius) of the  sun to calculate the Ho (observed altitude) for the center of the sun. The modern value for the refraction correction in this situation is - 50' and th e semi-diameter correction is - 16'. So putting this altogether:

Ho = -97 + (-50) + (-16)

Ho = -163' (or negative 2-43)

We then compare Ho with Hc.

Ho -Hc = the distance the aircraft is away from the LOP running through Howland. So - 163 - (- 55) = -108. Since the Ho measured at the aircraft is lower (more negative) than the Hc at Howland the airplane must be further away from the sun than Howland so we know it must be on a LOP 108 NM from Howland on an azimuth of 247 the reciprocal of 067 that runs 157 - 337 which  is perpendicular to 067. (One minute of altitude difference equals one NM.) This LOP crosses the inbound course line 110 NM (126 SM) from Howland and could hardly be confused with "200 miles out" by Noonan. The other calculation was a pretty good approximation of this.

But, as mentioned in the previous post we do not know what value Noonan woul d have used for the refraction correction but we can be sure that it was not greater that -50'. If he use the - 7.9' (call it 8') which is the value for the lowest altitude in his Nautical Almanac he would have come up with and Ho of -111 which would place the plane only 56 NM from Howland. If he extrapolated to a refraction correction of -15 then he would have place the plane at 63 NM from the island. Each of these cases makes it much less likel y that they would have reported 200 miles out.

Noonan did not have the use of an electronic calculator and would have had t o do the computations using tables of logarithms of trig functions which is what HO 208 consists of. Although he could not calculate negative Hcs he could do the calculations by using an AP further to the east of Howland and make the appropriate correction so as to calculate Hc at Howland. After doing this he would come up with the exact same distances that the above calculation does.

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:17:34 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

Gary LaPook writes:

>But the above illustration shows that it did not come from seeing the sun
>at 1745 Z or any earlier time.

Good post, Gary. Using several scenarios ought to shut down this argument pretty well. The more I look at this the more I'm concerned the Electra may have over shot Howland.

I'll make a longer post on this later but suffice to say at this time the reported winds are lighter than forecast and the Ontario was calling for a very occluded sky after 10:00 GMT so I'm not sure what chances Noonan had fo r celestial after Nauru.

A bigger concern is his north/south position. That problem is not computing for me. I'm not seeing any significant reason he would be off track very far  yet being south of Howland fits better with the lack of sighting Howland and  Baker.

The second problem I'm having is why could Noonan not pin his position down in the hour between 7:42 L and 8:43 L? The Itasca was calling scattered CU and fairly clear to the South if I'm not mistaken. Was the air too bumpy at 1,000' to take a celestial shot? Did he try? Wouldn't FN have tried every  trick in the book to get his position accurately refined at this time?

Confusing.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:19:10 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Pricing on Zenith Stratosphere

Eric, I looked up photos of the old Studebakers and a 1939 cost about $660 new supposedly. From the pictures my Grandfather's car had to be a 1932 President. It was black and four-door and in that style. I don't know what that would have cost but that's probably in the same neighborhood. I don't know what his radio cost but I know he didn't buy anything second hand. He was very proud and dressed in a three piece suit with a gold watch and chain on Sundays to go to the square downtown. The car had pull down blinds on the windows and bronze glass flower vases between the front and rear doors on the inside of course.

The radio was in beautiful condition and I know the antenna was on the East side of the house but ran up only about ten or so feet higher than the second story roof. A wire went from there across the garden maybe 50 feet or so. There was a lightning rod on top. <G>

I listened to stations in Europe and other countries but I don't remember picking up anything in the pacific. I might have and passed them up as not being in a language I could understand. I know the radio was a Zenith floor model with doors that closed to the center covering the lower half if I remember correctly. Beautiful shiny wood they kept in perfect condition.

I did not hear Amelia at any time that I can recall. <G>

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:20:39 EST
From:          Gary laPook
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

One other addendum to previous post.

The GHA and declination of the sun are found in the 1937 Nautical Almanac which is available at:

http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/almanac-1937-22.JPG

You can do linear interpolation for the slow change in declination for any time between the listed even hour times. You figure the GHA by increasing the listed GHA at a rate of exactly 15 degrees per hour. With the almanac data and the formulas given in the previous post you can compute the altitude and  azimuth of the sun for any second of the day of July 2, 1937 at Howland, Gardner, or any other chosen assumed position.

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:22:31 EST
From:          Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

Gary LaPook writes

> This means that they would not have yet seen the sunrise at
> the time of their report and so could not have based the
> report on their having seen the sunrise.

This is true. They could, of course, have based the report of "about 200 miles" on the obvious approach of sunrise and the light in the Eastern sky - nautical twilight starts about an hour before sunrise; civil twilight about half an hour before. I have always thought that the apparent discrepancy between "200 miles out" and "100 miles out" was explained by the observation of sunrise between the two reports (assuming you believe that the "100 mile" report came from the plane, and was not a radioman's estimate). The sunrise observation corrects and refines the "about 200 estimate" to a "100 mile" estimate a half hour later.

Whatever limitations a low-level observation entailed, it is rather obvious, isn't it, that FN intended to rely on the observed time of sunrise (rather than a later observation of the sun's elevation)? The ETA at Howland was 1800, around 15 minutes after sea level sunrise. If that ETA had been achieved there would have been no time for refining the observations of the sun when it was higher in the sky.

Oscar
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:24:59 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Reflection

Periodically it helps to pause and see where we are and what we are doing, I think. We have a far more simple mystery than some make of it. AE and FN took off at 10:00 am on July 2, 1937 from Lae and flew to the vicinity of Howland Island, couldn't find it and went somewhere else. That, I think, is about the sum of it.

Some folks are trying to figure out where they went. Some others only want to try to show the first group they are wrong. This second group adds nothing to solving the mystery. I don't fully understand the purpose of the second group. Now, don't get me wrong. If the first group advances a theory that doesn't hold water it needs pointed out. I have no problem with that. But that's not what the second group does. What they do is argue against everything without supporting their argument. Let me give you some examples.

There is a big argument as to what the Electra's belly antenna was for. Someone tell me what significance that fuss is. There is a scenario that on take off the bottom antenna ripped off and thus the Electra couldn't receive. We have spent an inordinate amount of time arguing the antenna didn't rip off. Glickman is wrong. The bottom antenna isn't for the receiver. The antenna is too long or too short. Good grief. what difference does any of that make? We know AE couldn't hear anyone on the radio. No one even argues she could so what difference does it make WHY.

Another example is the LOP. What is all the discussion about? There is an argument as to what the source of the 157/337 LOP was. What difference does it make? It was a line on the map drawn through Howland in a 157 direction to wherever 157 goes. It doesn't make any difference whether it was from a moon shot, sun shot, precomped or just drawn there for the heck of it. There is an argument AE couldn't fly it to Gardner. Of course she could. No other route gets there.

Betty's notebook is under fire. Why? Why does anyone want to try to prove it is a fake, hoax or whatever? Group two does not have any documentation, supportable rationale or even a half baked theory of their own on any issue they argue against. Why is that? What is their point? I've noticed in almost every case they create a "fact" and then use that to "prove" group one is wrong about whatever. Do they actually think we won't notice that? How many emails does that generate to straighten things out so the many others in the forum won't be confused and to get things back on track?

For all the bogus arguments regarding Betty's notebook group two doesn't want to recognize she started hearing the broadcast BEFORE the coastguard announced AE was late or missing. They don't want to even think about the 31.05 notation or the ship on a reef below the equator notation. No, they want to pick on indecipherable notations and make them into something they can dispute when no one knows what they meant in the first place.

The radio call itself. Who cares how Betty heard it or on what frequency or how the transmission got to where it got or what kind of radio she had?

Group two argues that radio transmissions couldn't get to her receiver. That in any case it wasn't AE. They argue specific notations in her notebook prove it is a fake even though they don't know what the notations mean or if they were recorded accurately. They argue AE couldn't get to Gardner as quickly as the notebook indicates even though they don't know where she started from or if she was on Gardner or what time all that occurred. Amazing.

Fuel. We can argue fuel flow until the cows come home. Kelly Johnson told us what the fuel usage should be. The Express had different results. Long had considerably different results. What difference does it make? We have radio calls indicating the plane made it to dry (sorta) land some place so they had fuel to get wherever they got.

I've also read every reason under the sun why the Electra couldn't have been on Gardner and by folks who haven't a clue what they are talking about, can't support anything they say and have nothing to contribute of a positive nature.

Each of the people in group two are bright folks and have significant expertise which if used positively for a change could provide great contributions to moving the ball forward. I have high hopes that will occur.

If someone proposes something wrong point it out (with support) but don't oppose everything just for the sake of opposing and putting people down. If you don't like a certain theory offer an alternative one. Otherwise you are wasting your time and that of everyone else.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:24:18 EST
From:          Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Clips and clippers

According to University of Miami PAA archives, as uncovered by Randy Jacobson, Noonan's last official flight was on the Philippine Clipper to Manila and back (Nov. 22 - Dec. 7, 1936). He was the navigator. The flight J. Tierney refers to was an earlier Manila run by the Hawaiian Clipper.

blue skies, jerry
====================================== 
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:26:29 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

One other point to add regarding the accuracy of the computation of navigation data.

You may be wondering if I was overstating the accuracy of the computation  of LOPs based on celestial observations since I showed the results to an accuracy of one nautical mile. In fact, these same computations are normally  done to an accuracy of one tenth of a nautical mile (.1 NM) and the resulting LOPs are also accurate to .1 NM so I have actually rounded the computations up to one nautical mile. This .1 NM accuracy is normally achieved in marine navigation. In aerial celestial navigation such accuracy for an LOP is not attainable due to the inaccuracy of the sextant observation taken from an aircraft. Although you can still compute Hc to an accuracy of .1 NM it accomplishes nothing since you are comparing it to an Ho which is only accurate to 2- 5 NM. so it is normal in aviation to just round the computation off to 1 NM.

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:37:46 EST
From:          Tom Corbitt
Subject:      zenith pricing

I'm new to the group and a little unsure who/where to post a response on the "forum" so rather then breach some protocol I decided I'd send this to you. Below is some information I found regarding the "buying power" of $750 dollars in 1937 in modern terms. Maybe I'm missing something but when I go to the website I don't see anyplace to see (or post) the "recent" forums. Am I missing something?

Tom Corbitt

 ====================================================================== 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a CPI (consumer Price Index) for each year that take into account current economic trends by tracking commonly used items and inferring "buying power" based on their cost. They even have a handy calculator to use. I plugged in $750 and selected 1937 as the year and it states that this would have the same buying power in 2002 as about $9400  ($9369.79) You can also plot nice graphs of the cost of iceberg lettuce over time, which would probably make for fun conversation at parties (or maybe not ;)

Website is located at:
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm
*************************************************************************
From Ric

All you need to do to submit a forum posting is hit "reply" just as you would for any email.

You can access "recent" forum archives directly from Listserve (the company that distributes the forum).  The instructions are in the Welcome Message you received when you first signed up.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:39:58 EST
From:          Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: Reflection

Alan Caldwell writes

>For all the bogus arguments regarding Betty's notebook group two doesn't
>want to recognize she started hearing the broadcast BEFORE the coastguard
>announced AE was late or missing.

I agree that this is likely, but have we PROVED on which date Betty - who I believe heard Earhart - took her notes?

LTM, Phil Tanner, 2276

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Of course not, and there's some new evidence that sheds a somewhat different light on the question.  I'll lay it out for everybody in a separate posting.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:40:53 EST
From:          John Clauss
Subject:      Re: Reflection

>Periodically it helps to pause and see where we are and what we are doing,
>I think.

Exactly!  You have spoken for a number of us.

Thanks

John
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:45:47 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Reflection

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> ... Some folks are trying to figure out where they went. Some others only
> want to try to show the first group they are wrong.

There are THREE kinds of people in the world: those who can count and those who can't.  :-P

> There is a big argument as to what the Electra's belly antenna was for. ... what
> difference does any of that make? We know AE couldn't hear anyone on the
> radio.

This could be a false statement.  The Itasca radiomen say that they heard her say that she heard the letter A transmitted on 7500 and could not get a null.  If neither she nor the Coast Guard radio operators were lying, why did she hear that transmission and no others?

I grant you that answering this question doesn't tell people where to look for the remnants of the plane and crew.  It MAY reveal something about AE's inadequacies as a radio operator and as a problem solver.  Her inability to get directions from the Itasca on what kind of tone to make, on what frequency, and for what length of time prevented them from getting a bearing on her plane; and even if the Itasca had gotten a bearing from her transmissions, they couldn't transmit it to her.  If she and Fred had solved
their radio reception problem, they probably wouldn't be lost and TIGHAR would still be searching New England ponds for the Midnight Ghost.

> No one even argues she could so what difference does it make WHY.

I am fascinated by the question of why she heard nothing on 3105 or 6210 but DID hear the A's on 7500.  The failure to communicate is what killed AE & FN.  What caused the comm failure?  The anecdote of the lost antenna, coupled with the photo analysis, may provide a clue.  It may be a red herring.  Perhaps it was fatigue or carelessness in tuning her receiver.  I don't know.  But I know it is an important question in reconstructing the fatal flight, even if all answers to it are necessarily speculative.

> Another example is the LOP. What is all the discussion about? There is an
> argument as to what the source of the 157/337 LOP was. What difference
> does it make? It was a line on the map drawn through Howland in a 157
> direction to wherever 157 goes. It doesn't make any difference whether it
> was from a moon shot, sun shot, precomped or just drawn there for the
> heck of it.

The information from the 2013 GMT transmission is one of the few clues we have about what AE and FN thought they were doing.  The bearing 157/337 isn't just a line drawn "through Howland" the night before or during the flight.  There isn't just one LOP with that bearing.  It is conceivable that Fred determined a LOP at dawn that had the 157/337 bearing and that did NOT pass "through Howland" because it was parallel to the Howland line and 60, 80, or 100 miles to the west (see Gary's message for the right numbers and the mathematics).

I find that thinking about the slant of the terminator and about its usefulness for dead reckoning is fascinating. This information helps to make sense of why Fred might have thought flying 157/337 (or, more likely, 337, then 157) was a useful thing to do.

I cannot prove that learning about navigation is interesting or worthwhile.  I assert, without proof, that I find it so; others may disagree.

> There is an argument AE couldn't fly it to Gardner. Of course
> she could. No other route gets there.

Two things:

    1. She and Fred were looking for Howland, not Gardner.

    2. She and Fred couldn't fly "it" to either island
        unless they had good reason to think they had
        reached "it."  Turning on a parallel 157/337
        line ten miles too soon or ten miles too late
        wouldn't get them to either island.  Amelia
        didn't tell us what hoops Fred jumped through
        to to determine that it was time to make the
        turn NNE or SSW, but it seems legitimate to
        me to imagine that Fred had his reasons.

> For all the bogus arguments regarding Betty's notebook group two doesn't
> want to recognize she started hearing the broadcast BEFORE the coastguard
> announced AE was late or missing.

We don't know that for sure.  She did not date her entry. Ric argues (plausibly, but not incontestably) that Saturday, July 3, is the most reasonable date.  It is an important rule that we shouldn't turn assumptions into facts.

> The radio call itself. Who cares how Betty heard it or on what frequency
> or how the transmission got to where it got or what kind of radio she had?

All these factors help the jury determine the credibility of the witness.  If she had claimed to have heard the transmissions on a cat's-whisker crystal set, nobody would give her the time of day.

> Fuel. We can argue fuel flow until the cows come home. Kelly Johnson told
> us what the fuel usage should be. The Express had different results. Long
> had considerably different results. What difference does it make?

I'm very much comforted by the fuel calculations.  The Electra should have been able to fly for another four hours (at least) after the 2013 GMT transmission.  Without that fuel calculation, the alleged radio receptions seem less plausible.

TIGHAR exists as a tax-exempt, educational-purposes corporation. It does not exist to find AE, FN, and the plane.  It is supposed to be teaching people what good historical investigation looks like.  Sometimes, like making sausage, it gets a little messy. 

LTM.
Marty #2359
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:47:40 EST
From:          Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Time zones

Ocean Island was 11 hours fast (-11GMT) and Nauru was 11.5 hours fast (-11.5GMT).  The earliest record I have for Nauru's time zone is 1940.
******************************************************
From Ric
Thanks Randy.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:50:35 EST
From:          David Carmack
Subject:      Re: Reflection

Alan wrote:

>Some folks are trying to figure out where they went. Some others
>only want to try to show the first group they are wrong.

This is the kind of attitude I am talking about....belittling other people opinions and holding your own up as gospel even though you have no proof either. Granted some people let their personal feelings show thru in their postings but this goes both ways --and I have seen arrogance on both sides.

I have seen some who voiced opinions against TIGHARS that were over the limit and contributed nothing substantial. On the other hand I can see there are some skeptics out there who are genuinely trying to present another line of thought--even tho there may not be anything concrete to back them up. Again ,as I have said ,this sounds like a courtroom argument here between lawyers sometimes. one side tries to discredit the other with whatever means possible---only to try to win the case...not necessarily get the truth.

If  this is such a simple mystery then I say by all means for those people to scrape together all the money they can and go get the hard evidence and bring it back. Perhaps this will prove to be the case when TIGHAR returns to the island. I know I would hope they would find something...and I think most of the people in this "other group" would applaud it as well. Most of them I think are only voicing their  own ideas about the evidence TIGHAR has so far. I see no problem with this myself but of course it is Rics forum and he can regulate it however he sees fit. Some of the other ideas I see from the "other group" tho seem like worth looking at with an unbiased eye from the "first group"-instead of automatically and disdainfully sometimes dismissing them. It like the defense here is the "first group" and the prosecution is the "second group", like the OJ case. The 'first group' rebutts any kind of common sense or even expert testimony with their own biased experts and evidence. sometimes neither side wants to look at anything the other side presents as plausible. is this a courtroom here? who is on trial?

I think this forum is the best and probably only way to get any kind of good information about Amelia and what happened---but like anything else , when you get people polarized on anything sometimes they all become blind to reality. 

David Carmack
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:53:24 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Pop Quiz

Yesterday i posed a Pop Quiz for the readers. Here is an alternate version, which may be more understandable:

Instructions: Your situation is, you are receiving a mysterious SOS radio signal.

Here is some of the information you hear. Your job, is to pick the situation you think BEST MATCHES what you are hearing. The message came in interrupted and somewhat jumbled, but nothing has been added since. This is all the information you have:

"Water's high"

":SOS - help us quick!"

(sound of crying)

"Hurry"

"It's going....."

"I can feel it..."

"Knee deep over"

"Let me out of here"

(sounds of shouting and fighting...)

"We can't bail out"

"Where are you going?"

A. Crash landed on reef area near island, tide coming in 
B. Crash landed on ocean, floating, no land in sight
C. Neither of the above
D. An airfield in Burbank

(via: Hue Miller )
********************************************************************
From Ric

Yes, that's much clearer.  Thank you.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:54:57 EST
From:          Betty Brown
Subject:      From Betty for Hue

For Hue,  I would like to let you know, your email was nice and forgive me, I get feisty once in awhile and especially when I am hurt.... you are not a"know it all." I respect the fact that people have questions about My book ... I will be glad to answer your questions... I will make a copy of them and send them to Pat and Ric...You can send me an email if you want to......Betty
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:55:56 EST
From:          Betty Brown
Subject:      From Betty for Pat Gaston

For Pat Gaston . The reason I feel like she landed on a reef is, when you heard them, it was like the water was coming up ..not that she was sinking. The knee high was the water coming up to the under side of the plane and it was slipping. That day when I had no thoughts of Amelia and to hear that desperate voice saying it was Amelia Putman then  EARHART  was a shock....I was just dialing slow like I had always been doing. When I heard that I stopped right there. Since I had already been writing music words and drawing I grabbed the pencil, book and started writing and listening... It is hard to describe what it was like to go through that, with them....Betty
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:49:25 EST
From:          Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Betty July 5th?

As yet one more example of how continuing research can cause us to rethink conclusions, it now looks like Monday, July 5th may be a better date for Betty's reception than July 2nd.  Let me hasten to add that we still don't KNOW (and it's hard to imagine how we ever WOULD know) which day Betty heard what she heard, but it is reasonable to look at all the factors and facts we have and try to see where it fits best.

As you'll recall, in Episode One we speculated that if the plane was on the reef at Gardner and if Betty's impression (supported by the notebook) of an increasing threat by rising water was correct and if our tidal hindcasting is reasonably accurate, then July 2nd fits best because it's the only day when the tide was rising during the time of day Betty heard the transmissions. 

July 2nd is attractive because:

- We can explain their presence in the airplane in the heat of the day because they've just arrived and don't know any better.
- We can explain Fred's bizarre behavior as the result in an injury sustained in the landing.

But, as we all know, July 2nd also poses some problems:

- The plane needs to get to the island, land, and start calling for help by 10:00 local time.  That's theoretically doable but it forces us to put the airplane further south at 08:43 than we would prefer and also forces us to make interpretations about the strength of the 08:43 radio call that we'd rather not have to make.
- At no time is the water on the reef high enough to be "knee deep" so, again, we're forced to "interpret" that twice-occurring depth judgment.
- There is also the problem that nobody else seems to have heard anything on the morning of the 2nd, despite Itasca's constant and frantic attempts to make contact with the plane.  If Betty, 6,000 miles away in Florida heard intelligible voice from Earhart on a harmonic, why didn't Itasca, 400 miles away near Howland hear at least something on one of the primary frequencies?

However, of the 45 instances during the Earhart search when the Itasca heard an unidentified signal on 3105 (they never heard anything on 6210) there are two occasions - and only two occasions - when a signal was heard during local daylight hours.  Those two instances were at 09:57 local and 11:52 local on the morning of July 5th.  These times bracket, almost to the minute, the beginning and end times written in Betty's notebook (the equivalent of 10:00 and 11:45 in the Central Pacific).

Here's the sequence of events according to the Itasca radio log (Chief Radioman Bellarts has the watch):

09:57 - HEARING SIGNAL ON 3105// LITTLE LOW IN FREQ..

10:00 - CALLED EARHART//3105 KEY (meaning he sent the message in Morse code)

10:05 - CALLED EARHART//3105 KEY

10:22 - CALLED AS ABOVE 3105 OR NEAR//

11:25 - NO SIGNALS/ ON 3105 OR NEAR//

11:45 - KEEPING ALERT WATCH ON 3105 AND VICINITY//

11:52 - VERY FAINT SIGNAL ON 3105

Of course, when Bellarts is sending on 3105 he can't be listening at the same time.  At no time does he send voice in reply, only code, but he does transmit at times that COULD match "Here put your ear to it." (10:05?) and "Hear it" (10:22?).

That Itasca heard signals on 3105 during broad daylight is significant. According to Bob Brandenburg, such signals "could only have come from somewhere within a few hundred miles of the Itasca.  At that time of day, signals on 3105 (and 6210) were severely attenuated.  The absorption loss was ferocious on those freqs at midday. A signal on 3105 from a 50,000 watt transmitter at Tokyo would be about 25 dB below the detection threshold at the Itasca at the times of interest."

This all occurs during the most hopeful moment in the entire search.  The 281 message was heard the night before, Baker Island reported hearing "Strength 4, Readability 7" signals from the plane earlier that same night, and Cipriani on Howland got his NNW/SSE bearing (the NNW component was seen to support the "281 north Howland" location).  At the time these signals are heard Itasca, still believing that the plane can transmit if afloat, is racing northward under orders and expects to arrive at "281 North Howland" around 5 p.m. The ship about 150nm NNW of Howland and a good 500nm from Gardner.

Cipriani on Howland didn't hear anything because at 17:45Z they had shut down to recharge batteries and didn't open the watch again until that evening.  We don't know what was happening on Baker but they had been maintaining a watch the night before were probably doing the same thing.

Monday, July 5th, was of course a work day and Betty's father could have come home from work as she described.  I don't know what news of the search the St. Petersburg Times carried that day but the New York Herald Tribune carried banner headlines:

NAVY RUSHES 60 PLANES TO EARHART SEARCH
HOPE FOR SAFETY OF TWO FLYERS IS REVIVED
AS SIGNALS BY RADIO RECUR ALMOST HOURLY

With the searchers hearing signals from the plane "almost hourly" why should the Coast Guard in St. Pete get excited about some local folks who said they heard them too?  News of the 281 message had not yet hit the East Coast pape rs but it may have been covered on the radio or even in internal Coast Guard message traffic.  It may be that  the St. Pete CG station gave Betty's father the brush-off not because they didn't believe him but because they did.  As I recall, she said they told him that they "had the situation under control" or something like that.

If July 5th is the correct date the transmission comes at the end, rather than at the beginning, of the drama on the reef and our interpretation of the scene described by the notebook necessarily changes.  The reef at Gardner 75 feet inland from ocean (where we think the plane was landed) was dry during this entire period but the night before saw the highest tide since the 2nd and it may be that the plane has moved seaward and is now awash and in real danger of going over the edge.  That could explain a last desperate attempt to call for help.

Just as with the July 2nd date, it's all speculation, but the puzzle pieces now appear to fit better on the morning of the 5th.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:54:46 EST
From:          Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Airspeed and settings

Angus Murray writes:

> I believe these were the latest recommendations sent by KJ for fuel
> management.
>
> TIME       ALT.            MAN. PRESSURE        RPM     GAL./HR.
> 1 hour     0-8,000 ft.      28.5 inches         2,050         100
> 3 hours    8,000 ft.         28 inches           1,900           60
> 3 hours    8,000 ft.         26.5 inches         1,800           51
> 3 hours    8,000 ft.         25 inches          1,700           43
> Rest        10,000 ft.        24 inches          1,600           38
>
> Is it possible to ascribe some true airspeeds to these various
> settings for each of the time periods?

I believe a simple direct question deserves a simple direct answer, but unfortunately the state of the documents does not permit me to give it.

IF you accept the data on page 34 of Report 487 ("487-34") by interpolation we can give the following simple answer:

    Hour 1 - say 120 mph (statute) average (with climb)
    Hours 2 to 4 - 165 mph increasing over 3 hours to about 170 mph
    Hours 5 to 7 - 170 mph increasing  to 175 mph
    Hours 8 to 10 - 160 mph increasing to 165
    Hours 11 and following 150 mph increasing gradually to about 165 (rate of increase a little more than 1 mph each hour).

What's wrong with this simple answer ? It doesn't match the two cross-checks we have.

1. The simple answer projects a (still air) distance flown in 7 hours 20 minutes of about 1183 statute miles. The first cross-check is "the fix" at 7+20 (4 34 S; 159 07 E), which is 853 statute miles from Lae. Laying aside questions of the time of the calculation of the fix, or the accuracy of the radio report, this implies the loss of 330 miles to a headwind in 7+20, which equals an average headwind component of 45 mph (statute) for the first portion of the flight. Too high.

2. On the South Atlantic crossing, AE gives detailed information on her power setting and altitude "5 and 1/2 hours out". Estimating weight based on takeoff with 900 gallons, and interpolating from 487-34, the expected speed is 170 mph+  true. But she writes "indicated our speed 140" which for the altitude given (after correcting for temperatures about 10 degrees F. higher than standard) converts to about 156 mph true - perhaps 15 mph slower than would have been expected from 487-34.

I think that the plane was significantly slower at weights over normal gross than Report 487 indicates. (Ironically enough, Report 465 indicates that at normal gross, the 10E was significantly faster than Report 487 indicates.) The conflicts are there, and I have been unable to reconcile them.

I can't resist the opportunity to pass on an "aerodynamic estimate" story, which is found in Robert Corum, BOYD: THE FIGHTER PILOT WHO CHANGED THE ART OF WAR (Little, Brown 2002). (You don't know who John Boyd was? - well, neither did I until I stumbled across this book.). We learn on page 253 that Boyd (who was quite a character) loved to tell the story of his encounter (in the early 1970's?) with "a world-famous designer", the "top engineer" for an aircraft manufacturer who "had sold an extraordinary series of aircraft to the U.S. Government". Boyd looked over the "wildly optimistic" performance curves presented with the proposal, and mentally extrapolated them beyond the boundaries of the chart, pointing out that the curves implied that the plane had negative drag, which meant that even with the engine turned off, "you got to tie the goddamn thing down or it will take off by itself." Boyd dismissed the project as being constructed of "balonium."

Oscar
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:58:28 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Reflection

John Clauss write:

> Exactly!  You have spoken for a number of us.

Thanks, John but I was not intending to speak for anyone but myself. As is usual those who didn't like my posting seem to think I'm against opposing views in spite of the fact I specifically said otherwise. I guess none of us read as carefully as we should.

One reply thought I was against any view that did not have "concrete" support. That was a good example of making up a "fact" and then using it as an argument. Nowhere did I say that or use the word "concrete."  All I want is ANY rationale for someone's opinion. ANY! Most do that. Gary, for example, supports his postings in great detail. So does Oscar, just to name a few. That helps.

Of course we don't have the answers to much of this puzzle and every idea is welcome. Positive ideas are most helpful as anyone can sit in front of their computer and put down theories if they don't have to support their positions. That's what I look for - any kind of rationale for a viewpoint. If someone says, Betty couldn't have a certain radio because it's too expensive, as Eric has implied, at least he gives his reasons. That allows everyone to think about it and realize we don't know what Betty's dad paid for it so we can't really say he couldn't afford it. Interesting but the bottom line is whatever radio they had that's what Betty was listening to and quality, antenna and all the other factors combined did not prevent her from hearing what she did. If there was ANYTHING in all that to prove conclusively it was impossible this would be a productive thread. Such has not proven to be the case.

With my posting I meant to do just what I said. I wanted folks to give pause to what is going on and think a bit about what they write. Be positive. Add something. If you disagree say why.  Some took my posting for just that and nothing more. Others wanted to read more into it and some like Cam Warren's private note to me contained nothing but the usual childish garbage Cam is especially noted for.

TIGHAR is going to solve this mystery and I have no doubt. We have a great amount of expertise in this group and though we sometimes stray far afield with unproductive threads for the most part we keep moving the ball down the field.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:02:10 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Pop Quiz

Hue Miller wrote:

> A. Crash landed on reef area near island, tide coming in
> B. Crash landed on ocean, floating, no land in sight
> C. Neither of the above
> D. An airfield in Burbank

<snip>

> "Water's high"

Makes no sense in any context except high tide with the A/C on the reef. In a floating A/C one might say "water's coming up" but not "water's high" (A)

> ":SOS - help us quick!"

If your navigator is seriously injured, you're short of water and the heat is unbearable this could apply to either situation (A or B)

> (sound of crying)

Ditto (A or B)

> "Hurry"

Ditto (A or B)

> "It's going....."

...to be hot today.....

OR...to be difficult to get ashore

OR....(description of signal fading)

OR... to sink

the possibilities are endless

- so either situation (A or B)

> "I can feel it..."

..heat of the sun

...wind blowing up (cockpit hatch would be open)

...movement of the A/C in the surf

...reference to head injury

- either situation but more likely A

> "Knee deep over"

...over the reef

...over here

...over there

- either situation (A or B)

> "Let me out of here"
>
> (sounds of shouting and fighting...)

... out to get fresh air

...out to get ashore

either situation (A or B)

> "We can't bail out"

Quit the aircraft because of the state of the tide

Bail the water out of the A/C

either situation (Aor B)

> "Where are you going?"

either situation but more likely a reef scenario as you can't go far from a floating A/C. The question could be rhetorical of course. (A)

By a small margin a reef scenario is most likely. "Water's high" is the classic way to refer to the state of the tide but one is more likely to say that the A/C is "lower in the water" in a sinking scenario. "Quick" and "hurry" imply urgency but there is nothing to indicate that the urgency is due to the aircraft being about to sink. "I can feel it" would not be used in respect of an aircraft sinking as there would be little change in sensation. However, an A/C bumping and grinding on the reef one would certainly feel. "We can't bail out" (meaning reduce the water level) would be an unlikely remark to make of an A/C sinking due to leaking fuel tanks. That would be pretty obvious. If it referred to quitting the A/C, why not - if it was sinking?? Even swimming is better than going down with the plane. "Knee deep" in this scenario could only apply to water inside the A/C but could apply to either inside or outside for an aircraft on a reef. "Let me out of here" would more likely apply to a situation where there was somewhere else to go than to merely escaping the heat to the unshaded top of the fuselage in a floating scenario.

Regards Angus
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:03:41 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Reflection

David Carmack wrote:

> ... I see no problem with this
> myself but of course it is Ric's forum and he can regulate it however he
> sees fit.

Two corrections:

1. Pat is moderating the forum these days. Ric speaks up when he feels the need.

2. Both Ric and Pat are "trusted servants" of TIGHAR, which is a tax-exempt corporation with a board of directors to whom they answer.  The forum is a service provided by TIGHAR and is funded through membership fees, donations, and sweat equity.  Pat and Ric make the calls about what is and is not acceptable on the forum, but they do so in line with the principles of the organization.

LTM.
Marty #2359
"Paid in full since 2000"
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:21:07 EST
From:          David Carmack
Subject:      Re: Reflection

thanks, Marty.. I stand corrected on those points
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:34:34 EST
From:          Joe Weber
Subject:      Re: Reflection

It is not "proven" and also "improvable"  - How would you "prove " someone heard something on the radio at a particular time - without a time machine.

Joe Weber
Bedford, IN
*************************************************************************
From Ric

It's not easy, and it takes some special circumstances, but in a separate posting today I'll describe one example that has just recently surfaced during our Post-Loss Radio Signals investigation.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:53:50 EST
From:          Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Pierson heard Itasca

It appears that at least one of the stateside "amateur" listeners who claimed to have heard post-loss signals from Earhart did indeed have the capability of hearing transmissions from the Central Pacific on Earhart's primary nightime frequency.

The July 6 New York Herald Tribune carried a story about how one Karl Pierson, a "radio engineer" in Los Angeles, had at 04:30 PST on July 5th, heard three long dashes from an unknown station (suspected to be Earhart) on 3105 in response to Itasca's request for four long dashes.  Itasca was heard "on slightly lower frequency".  Pierson said he heard the dashes again at 04:51 PST.

The Itasca's radio log shows that at that same moment (12:30Z on July 5) Chief Radioman Bellarts heard 

THREE VERY RAGGED DASHES, SOMEWHAT OFF 3105

The log also shows that seven minutes earlier Bellarts had made the following transmission on 3105:

NRUI CALLING KHAQQ  INDICATE RECEPTION BY FOUR LONG DASHES AND THEN GIVE BEARING HOWLAND NORTH OR SOUTH

Itasca never told anybody about sending that request for four dashes and getting three in response.  It wasn't mentioned in any outgoing message or press release and Commander Thompson didn't list it in his later "Radio Transcripts" report.  The only way I found about it was by compiling and time-lining all of the reported post-loss messages form all sources. There is no way Pierson could have known about it unless he had heard it just like he said he did.  I know of no way to prove or disprove that the dashes heard by Itasca and Pierson were from Earhart, but whether he was using a radio or a Ouija board, ol' Karl was hearing traffic from the Central Pacific.

I know that we've talked about Pierson and his buddy Walter McMenamy before. They claimed to have heard Earhart on several occasions and they received quite a bit of press at the time.  McMenamy, in later years, went off the deep end with allegations about government conspiracies and I have, frankly, been pretty dubious about the claims he and Pierson made during the search, but with the realization that Pierson (at least) was truly capable of hearing what was going on in the Central Pacific we need to take a much harder look at these guys.

Mike Everette has some recollection from previous forum discussions that Pierson was using a commercial broadcast antenna array rigged to a shortwave set, in which case he could have had awesome reception capabilities.  Let's dredge up what we know and see what more we can find out.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:02:08 EST
From:          Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: Pop Quiz

Hi there Ric, Getting up to speed. Can Betty's story be collaborated with any other sources? i.e. Pan Am, Wake anybody?

According to: http://www.janeresture.com/kiribati_pheonix_group/gardener.htm places a mean tide at 4 1/2 feet. It also calls the reef 300 yards wide but only showing 100 yards at low tide. 4 1/2feet of calm water should be enough to float the Electra not to mention rough surf. It doesn't look like the AC could have handled much of that surf for to long.

Regards,
Mike Juliano
*************************************************************************
From Ric

As discussed in my recent posting, there is some possible corroboration of Betty's reception on July 5th.

We have much better information about the reef and tides at Niku (having been there a few times) than does the website you cite. During the period in question the high tide water level on the reef was closer to two feet.   But you're correct in that surf on the reef at high tide would be a problem for the plane.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:03:31 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty July 5th?

I have copies of the St Petes newspaper from 2 July on. The July 5th Monday St Petes Times: Major Headline Article. 'MISS EARHART MAY BE ALIVE. " 57 AIRPLANES AND 3000 MEN ARE BEING SENT TO AN AREA NEAR HOWLAND. Paraphrasing, recurring repots of a faint voice, perhaps Amelia...almost hourly radio workers from inland American to the mid-Pacific picked up signals of mysterious wireless and voice signals...heard unaccountable dashes which reportedly caught the trained hears... the dash signals began about 2:30am EST after radio station KGMB broadcast instructions...PanAm radio picked up a an unintelligible man's voice...doubtful bearing of 313. ..signals faded with daylight...Coast Guard SF reported it heard a "mans voice or a woman with a cold" at 7:01 EST.

On and on.

July 6, St Pete Times  "Weak Signals revive Hope for Aviators".  At 7:12 EST three radio operators at Wailupe heard the final words...281..north Howland...call KHAQQ.  beyond North...don't hold with us much longer...above water...shut off." (Fragments sound a bit like Bettys)

If TIGHAR wants the whole newspaper and articles, let me know.

Ron Bright
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Ron.  That would be good to have.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:21:00 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty July 5th?

Ric wrote:

> As yet one more example of how continuing research can cause us to rethink
> conclusions, it now looks like Monday, July 5th may be a better date for
> Betty's reception than July 2nd.

So if I want to beat some folks to the punch that means the word WAS out well before Betty heard her radio calls. That means Betty had plenty of time and information to fake her notebook. (No, Betty, don't get angry at me. I don't believe that for a second. I'm just giving a few folks a friendly hard time. <G>) That also means that since ALL the radio calls were either hoaxes or misunderstandings of  other radio calls that the hoaxer had to quickly fly to a point within a few hundred miles of the Itasca and get a coconspirator to fly to Florida to relay the hoax.

Sounds OK to me. <G>

Alan
**************************************************************************
From Ric

The whole question of hoax messages come down to this.   On numerous occasions on each of the first three nights, signals on 3105 suspected of being from Earhart were received stronger and more clearly by stations in the search area (Itasca, Howland, and Baker) than by stations farther away (Oahu, Midway, Wake, etc.).  If the messages were hoaxes, the hoaxer had to be somewhere closer to Itasca, Howland, and Baker than to the stations farther away.  To find the hoaxer you have to find somebody in the middle of the ocean who has a transmitter and the capability to send on 3105 and stays in the same area for about four days.

The handful of shortwave listeners scattered across the continental U.S. who hear intelligible voice on higher frequencies are a different question entirely.  If they are hearing hoaxes you have to explain why they are the only ones who hear the hoax (none of them overlap with each other).  On a very few occasions, they overlap with signals heard on primary frequencies in the search area.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:30:06 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty July 5th?

>Let me hasten to add that we still don't KNOW
> (and it's hard to imagine how we ever WOULD know) which day Betty
> heard what she heard, but it is reasonable to look at all the factors and 
> facts we have and try to see where it fits best.

With each scenario we can point out problems we would prefer not dealing with and of course that's pretty much consistent with most problems. In some cases the anomalies are because we are wrong about our theory but in other instances it is because some aspect of our input data is incorrect. Possibilities, of course, are the actual start time of Betty's reception, the tide information, where the Electra was at 8:43 L and so on. The radio strength doesn't bother me because I've had occasions many times when reception was weak then strong then weak as I flew toward or away from its source. I have difficulty putting the plane very far south of Howland at 7:42 L but not at 8:43 L and again the radio strength is not a fatal flaw as far as MY experience is concerned. I think (though I may be wrong) that Bob and Mike will agree that although normally we can expect signal strength and distance to have a direct relationship it is not always so. If this is possible then it would seem to follow that the fact that the Itasca did not hear signals or did not report hearing signals between 10:00am and 12 noon on the second may not be a fatal event or nonevent as the case may be.

Conversely the tidal information for the 5th may not be as accurate as we might think and there COULD have been a water problem OTHER than the suggestion made that the previous night's tide may have washed the plane farther out.

The 5th certainly sounds more likely with the additional radio evidence and I see nothing to kill the idea even if the tidal data is correct.

The more important point I'm seeing is that to keep the plane off Gardner or any other land for that matter ALL the radio calls have to be disregarded and I can't see how that can rationally be accomplished. If ANY one call is legitimate - JUST ONE - then our famous duo HAD to land safely (sorta) on land some place within fuel range of Howland. Anyone disagree with that? It's OK if someone wants to disagree but they have to explain how the radio call could occur without the plane being on land some place. Fair?

What land? I guess we don't know that. We DO know that a reasonable landing could have been made on Gardner but that appears not to be the case for McKean. Is that what your visual evidence suggests, Ric? The Winslow reefs sure look unlikely but I guess Canton cannot be entirely ruled out. I just have not paid all that much attention to other island possibilities but I think we may well have beat those to death at some time or another. That issue may need to be revisited but I'm not suggesting that be done without some indication of its necessity.

The bottom line of all this seems to me to be that TIGHAR is heading in the right direction and I see no credible evidence to go off in some tangent. Anyone see something I'm not seeing?

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

There is no place to land an airplane at McKean or, Lord knows, Winslow Reef.  There may be, and probably are, places to land at other islands of the Phoenix Group.  In our 14 years of study we have not confined our inquiries to Gardner.  Far otherwise.  We have made it a point to learn as much as we can about the history of the entire group and have physically visited Mckean and Canton.  So far, Gardner is the only island of the group with an established body of folklore about an airplane wreck that pre-dated WWII and the only island with a documented castaway.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:34:15 EST
From:          Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Reflection 2 Cents

   A forum is a medium for open discussions enriched with the understanding that no two cowpokes view the landscape in the same way -  The TIGHAR Earhart Forum is most definitely enriched - We are also blessed with the ability to DELETE what ever we feel is less than relevant to the discussion.

Respectfully:
Tom Strang  # 2559
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:34:58 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Airspeed and settings

Oscar,

Thanks for your usual excellent reply.

Can we use the South Atlantic crossing data to come up with a "fudge factor" to arrive at airspeeds for those times at weights considerably over normal gross? I realise that it may not be a linear relationship between actual airspeed and the predicted airspeed KJ's figures would suggest. It may also be very difficult to make any assessment of how high weight affects predicted speed if we only have one data point at 5.5hrs out. However, if there are other data points - can you make any rough assessment of actual airspeeds based on such a fudge factor? Would a speed of 156/170 = 0.92 of predicted have any meaning other than during hours 5-7? 

Regards Angus.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:42:25 EST
From:          Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Betty July 5th?

Hmmmmmm. But now we have around 69 hours to account for between a probably landing on the afternoon of the second and the messages on the 5th. If both are alive and of reasonably sound mind one would presume a little more *order* to the broadcast on the 5th with more specific information. I realize Betty's notes are just a transcription of what *she* determined interesting so we can't totally rely on the notebook.

Now, would two exhausted people's health improve or deteriorate on Niku over the next couple of days? Is Fred alive or has be perished already? If Fred is no longer, is the male voice that Betty heard possibly from the Itasca?

All in all, I like Episode Two.

Bob
**************************************************************************
From Ric

From the radio logs we have a very good handle on what the Itasca radio operators said.  Most of their transmissions (and all of their administrative transmissions) were sent in code, and they never sent anything in voice during the time of day that Betty heard what she heard.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:43:35 EST
From:          Jack Clark
Subject:      Celestial after Nauru

Alan, in a recent reply to Gary laPook you question whether FN. had opportunity to make celestial observations east of Nauru.   In a posting some time ago I listed an Ocean Island weather report for 2/July at 20:00 Local time (09:00 GMT)    I estimate this as about 3hrs prior to AE/FN passing that way around 12:00 GMT.   The report gives the sky as clear .   I conclude from this that FN would have had opportunity to make celestial observations after Nauru.

Jack Clark  #2564
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:44:14 EST
From:          Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: Pricing on Zenith Stratosphere

Chris Kennedy wrote:

>  So, can we get some handle on what $750 could've bought in 1937?

  I remember an uncle of mine buying a new Ford around that time and paying $650

Harvey #2387
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:59:40 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Time zones

Ocean Island is east of Nauru so how can its time zone be less fast with regard to GMT Nauru????

Regards Angus
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:01:34 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

Well, Allan we disagree on some things but I certainly agree with you on these points.

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:02:34 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Question for Betty

>"When I heard Amelia I stopped there and never moved it" Betty 

I have a couple questions for Betty on  this, if I may.

When you switched over from listening to music, to shortwave, how soon did you find Amelia's broadcast?

I mean, about how long did  you tune around before finding Amelia there?

I also wonder, the other times when you were listening to shortwave, if you had to retune the radio every once in a while,  touch it up, to keep the station in?

Also, what was that "televsion hole" in the front of the radio?

Thank you.    - Hue Miller
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:18:26 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      2 microphones

I seem to recall a recent post suggesting AE and FN each had their own microphones and used them to talk to each other in the plane on the reef.

This seemed a bit strange and I did some math to see how this behaved - using the voltages and resistance values given on the transmitter wiring diagram. I found with the microphone sensitivity in the low sensitivity position (as for aircraft), with two low resistance carbon microphones in parallel, the output level is actually about 3 db lower (1/2 power) from using 1 microphone alone. [ 12 volts thru 2000 ohms plus microphone resistance ]

This is not a big deal. 3 db change is not substantial. Another factor is that the radio system does not use the vacuum tubes to amplify this "sidetone". It seems to apply it right to the headphones. This still would not be a problem, altho volume would be lower for both reasons, than if the system had a true intercom ( "interphone").

Here is something that puzzles me more, regarding the 2 microphone situation:  Each microphone has a PTT (push to talk, changeover switch), so each can turn the radio on the radio. But- per the interview:

"They would wrassle around, when he would try to get on [the radio ]."

"Then he started to wantin' to get on the radio"

Do I assume AE tried to take his microphone away, or what? She already was holding one microphone, remember?

Also, I note:

Ric: " 'Are you there ( fuzzy )'. What's that mean? "

[ referring to Amelia, page 4 of the Notebook]

Betty: "Well, my understanding now of it, there were time when she thought she heard something from somebody. That might have been one of the times"

However, page 3 of Notebook has "Water's knee deep - let me out"

If the water's only knee deep outside, why can't we "bail out" and walk to land?

If the plane is on a reef, why would you care to bail out, as in remove water?

Forget this possible meaning of the word "bail", if on reef. It may have meaning if one is talking about a floating, sinking plane. If the water's knee deep ( 20" ) inside, it may be 5-6 feet deep outside, and it's high time to get going.

Also, if the "water's knee deep" inside the plane, the radio receiver is long gone, and there's nothing to hear from anybody.

-Hue Miller

********************************************************************
From Ric

The exchange you cite does suggest fighting over one microphone.  I don't have a problem with that.  We've already established that Earhart's mic could pick up background sounds ("hum of plane") and the cockpit of an Electra is a very tight space.

I think we can discount the possibility that the water is knee-deep inside the plane.  If it's knee-deep in the cockpit then the dynamotor and the receiver are under water.  If it's knee-deep back in the cabin then the transmitter is under water.  Knee-deep has to refer to the water level outside and, therefore, only fits the reef scenario unless the Pacific was a lot shallower then than it is these days (Global Warming?)

As I mentioned recently, if the event happens on the morning of the 5th the plane has had plenty of time to shift seaward.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:30:05 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Altitude

Angus Murray wrote:

> Would you agree that once Noonan was on the 157/337 line through Howland, it
> should not have been too difficult to predict the direction of Howland from
> the sign of (Ho minus Hc) for discrete points (together with considering the
> direction of travel north or south), even if he had no pre-computed curve
> for comparing Hp and Hs (always assuming he could get the required shots)?
> If this is the case (and we assume they were indeed on the LOP - because
> they reached Gardner) then any error in choosing direction on the LOP ought
> to have been rectified fairly soon and the minimum amount of fuel wasted in
> running in the wrong direction. How long do you estimate it might have taken
> to establish they were going away from Howland (if this was in fact the
> case), with and without a pre-comp curve? This may put some bounds on the
> length of a "wasted" first search leg along the LOP.

At their ETA at Howland they can be certain that they have passed the island.

Philip Van Horn Weems wrote in  "Air Navigation", 1938 edition  on page 173:

"Reasonably efficient dead reckoning should produce an accuracy well within 5 percent of the distance flown, or within 5 miles in 100, 10 miles in 200, 15 miles in 300."

So contrary to what we are constantly reading on the forum that they had "no idea where they were north and south" we can expect that the error would be limited to 5 miles for every 100 miles that they had flown since their last fix.

Sunrise at Howland was 1746 Z and civil twilight occurred 22 minutes earlier at 1724 Z at which point the sky would have been too bright to see the stars and to obtain a fix. Sunrise and civil twilight would have occurred even later at their position west of Howland by an additional one minute for each 15 miles that they were west of Howland. We can assume that they had arrived close to Howland at 1912 Z when they reported "must be on you." This is 1 hour and 48 minutes after civil twilight at Howland. and the Electra would have flown 235 nautical miles in this time at 130 knots. Civil twilight occurred 16 minutes later 235 west of Howland so they could have obtained a fix slightly later than 1724 Z at 1740 Z which would mean that the plane flew one hour and 32 minutes from the last fix to the 1912 Z report covering approximately 195 NM. This would produce a possible DR inaccuracy of slightly less than 10 NM. Add to this inaccuracy of 10 NM the possible prior fix uncertainty if 10 NM gives a total uncertainty of their DR of only 20 NM. at the time of the 1912 Z report. 

But being conservative let's say the last fix was obtained even earlier at 1715 Z. From 1715 Z to 1912 Z NR16020 would have flown 260 nautical miles at 130 knots so the accuracy of their position would only have deteriorated 13 nautical miles based on 5% of the distance flown in that period. If you add this 13 nautical miles to the uncertainty of the original fix, say 10 nautical  miles (based on what Noonan himself reported to Weems in a letter published at page 424 of the same book), they should have known their position  within 23  nautical miles.

A more modern textbook "Air Navigation" published by the U. S. Navy Oceanographic Office as PUB. No 216, 1967 edition page 184 suggests that a beginner navigator should use a more conservative value for the accuracy of  dead reckoning of  20 miles per hour plus 1 percent of the distance covered. Even using this greater error level the accuracy would still be 43 nautical miles plus the 10 mile original fix accuracy for an uncertainty of 53 nautical miles at 1912 Z.

Assuming that the error was all in the north-south direction the worst case is a 53 nautical mile north-south error. Noonan would have made the same calculations based on his previous experience, maybe he even rounded this value up to an even 60 or even 80 nautical miles to make sure that his offset exceeded any possible error in the DR.

 As they approached the island the sun line would have plotted at almost (but not quite) right angles to their course. The course from Lae to Howland is 78 degrees and the sun line ran 157-337. Since it was not exactly a right angle it would be slightly shorter flying  to alter course  to intercept the line north-northwest of Howland. If they were going to intercept south-southeast of Howland they would be flying past the island and then having to double back slightly. Noonan would have computed his ETA at Howland allowing for the extra distance flown on the offset approach. When they reached the ETA, after following the LOP since intercepting it, they would not have proceeded further to the south-southeast but would have started a search pattern. This is because when figuring out how far to offset to the north normal practice is to over estimate any possible DR error since the last fix. Since the actual error will be less than this overestimation the navigator can be certain at the time of the ETA that he has already gone past his destination. There is no way that the navigator would continue for hours to the south-southeast still expecting to find Howland.

gl
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Every once in a while it becomes necessary to remind everyone that anytime we use the words "would", "would have", "would not have", we're guessing.  If you know what Noonan did, say so, and then prove how you know it. Personally, I try to avoid using any form of "would have" because, for any experienced investigator it's an immediate red flag that somebody is trying to present opinion as fact, or worse, maybe doesn't know the difference.  If I can't stand it and just have to use "would have" I try to remember to always preface it with "It seems to me that so-and-so would have..."
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:31:15 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

But by 1818 Z , only 18 minutes after your scenario, the sun would have been above the minimum 6* 30' allowed for in the refraction table in the 1937 Nautical Almanac. Since they had 24 hours of fuel (according to TIGHAR) they had plenty of fuel to loiter for the requisite time to allow the sun to reach an altitude where accurate sights could be made.

BTW just where does this 18+00 ETE come from? The ETE for the original Howland to Lae leg called for 17+01. I assume the longer ETE going eastbound is a result of anticipated head winds versus an anticipated tailwind going the other direction. But why exactly 18 hours and no minutes?

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:32:26 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

But if they overshot Howland, as soon as they got a sun line, they would have known it and reversed course. Did Ontario have any upper air data? If there were low clouds Ontario would have reported cloudy conditions but such low clouds would not have caused a problem for Noonan getting a fix while flying above the cloud tops.

I agree with your last two points, I can't see how their north south error could exceed 60 NM (and possibly much less depending on the time of the last stellar fix. Noonan would have had a good handle on this since he knew the time of that last fix.) and I don't understand why Noonan couldn't pin down his position either. I posted a long time ago that I would have expected him to do everything possible, including wing walking if necessary, to get a moon shot to produce a fix.

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:35:51 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: "Bail out"

Let's look at "we can't bail out" ( Notebook, page 3 ) again.

[ Sound of groans. ]

Now, "bail out" = remove water by dipping
                        = parachute from an airplane
                        = get outa someplace, slang, jocular?

JUST from the Notebook, and interview material, not US looking thru the window at the reef, surf, etc., we know:

They could not parachute, so forget that meaning.

They could try bailing out the plane, but couldn't, if the tide was rising (why even try, in that case?), and could NOT, if the plane was leaking water and sinking.

(Forget your nose down, fuel tanks, etc.and what YOU know about this aircraft - for this exercise we are limited to information from ONE source.)

They CAN  "bail outa" there, and in fact they do, at the end of the story. ( Notebook with amendments, not as mailed out but as appears on website.) As to whether they'd really say, "bail out", instead of just "get out of", too hard to tell, but we can have our opinions....

-Hue Miller
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I have always taken the phrase to simply mean "We can't just give up."
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:36:54 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Three points.

I expect that his sight timing would be perfect (at least within one or two seconds.) He checked his chronometer prior to departing Lae. Normal navigation practice is to get the time to the second. You count seconds from the time you complete the sight until you look at your watch and subtract that number of seconds to determine the accurate observation  time. This is unlikely to be in error by as much as two seconds. Try it.

He could have turned onto what he thought was the LOP through Howland 34 miles too soon and so would be on a parallel LOP but 34 miles short. If he then maintained that heading he probably would have missed Gardner also. But the main problem with this scenario is that he would not have thrown his sextant overboard after making the turn but would have taken additional sights on the sun through the flat glass window on the left side of the plane to ensure that they were maintaining the correct LOP. Itasca reported good weather so there is no reason to believe that they could not have obtained these additional sights. These additional sights would have shown them right away that they were still too far to the west and they would have corrected immediately to find Howland.

Even with Noonan's vast experience how would he have known the error of a low altitude sight. First, I doubt that he ever took any low altitude sights in his career because there was no need to do so. Most celestial was done at night when there is a myriad of stars to choose from and no reason to choose a low altitude star. Secondly, even during the day, except for the first and last about 20 minutes of the day, the sun is above the 6* 30' minimum altitude in the refraction table. Unless, just by chance, he needed an LOP during that very limited period (which doesn't seem very likely) he would just wait until the  sun was high enough to take an accurate sight. Third, even if he wanted to, how would he learn the error. He would have to measure many low altitude sights while knowing his position accurately so as to be able to compare his Hs with the Hc for the known position to determine the size of the error. He would never be  able to do this in any meaningful way over the ocean. He could do it over land while circling over clear landmarks but is there any reason to believe that he ever undertook such a scientific investigation. No one else had either at that time and refraction tables for such low altitudes were not published in the Nautical Almanac or in  the subsequent Air Almanac until many years later.

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:45:03 EST
From:          Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: Pierson heard Itasca

I would like to point out that everyone in the world is not pure and 100% honest 100% of the time. Liars, cheats and, otherwise disreputable people can witness things going on around them. It may be harder to believe but you have to lend them an ear. perhaps with a little backup testimony. Don't toss out what they have to say because of their lousy reputation. If it can be backed-up take it with a grain of salt. I don't know Mr. Pierson or any of the other people mentioned in the forum but a lot of people are ridiculed here for giving their part of the story.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

We're talking about evaluating reported post-loss radio signals, not forum postings, but in both cases, we have to try to be objective and use the hard evidence in front of us.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:46:56 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Refraction variability

Gary LaPook wrote:

>Well, Allan we disagree on some things but I certainly agree with you on
> these points.

Gary, if we agreed on everything one of us would be unnecessary. <G>

Sometimes I think disagreements are simply because we have not communicated well. We mistake what someone writes or the writer meant something else.  At least those on the forum are able to disagree in good faith. Some prefer to email individuals with their anti everything, never making any positive points but just disputing everything everyone else has taken the time and effort to put forth in good faith and for peer review.

I always welcome email when someone has what they think is a good point or idea but not the usual "I disagree with everything" stuff. So no more side bars of anti everything. If someone has a positive thought I would enjoy discussing it but otherwise have the courage to present the anti everything items to the jury.

Don Neuman and Bill Shea occasionally email me off forum and the discussions are always good. We rarely agree entirely but they are excellent emails just the same.

Your emails Gary are always well supported and usually go into my files. Same with Oscar and many others.

The detractors don't seem to understand that even though some points are heavily supported there is often room for disagreements and no one has shown to me to be dogmatic and unmoving.

There is also an opinion that TIGHAR and many of the forumites have zeroed in on one single solution to the puzzle and every effort is directed in that direction and no other possibility is even open to discussion. That's a mistaken view of course. At the same time no one is going to buy into totally unsupported ideas that are untestable or otherwise a complete waste of time. Some folks who disagree give good reasons for their opposition. Others live only to oppose. Rarely do either give a rational alternative. Those who give reasons for their disagreement still do a good job pointing out holes in theories and making everyone think. I hope everyone can see the difference.

BTW, Gary, I came from a poor Irish family. My folks could only afford one "L" for my name.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:50:01 EST
From:          Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: 2 microphones


I think Hue may be referring to my recent post about the Library of Congress photo that shows the right side of the cockpit, where there are a set of earphones.

ltm
jon
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:59:58 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Celestial after Nauru

Jack Clark writes

>    Alan in a recent reply to Gary laPook you question whether FN. had
> opportunity to make celestial observations east of Nauru.   In a posting some
> time ago I listed an Ocean Island weather report for 2/July at 20:00 Local
> time (09:00 GMT)   I estimate this as about 3hrs prior to AE/FN passing that
> way around 12:00 GMT.   The report gives the sky as clear .   I conclude from
> this that FN would have had opportunity to make celestial observations after
> Nauru.

Thanks very much, Jack. I missed that. That's very important. I was looking at a couple of reports from the Ontario that had the sky occluded 70% then 80% but that was the farthest east I had any weather. 1200 GMT would have been a great point to still be able to get fixes.

Contrary to what many think it is not all that necessary to get a lot of positions. Flying east and west the winds have most of their effect on speed but not the North/south vector. If folks will think about it the answer seems clear. The plane has a vector of 130 knots and the wind maybe 15 to 25 but mostly a head or tail wind. The right angle vector is very small.

I've flown clear across the country and sometimes one of the oceans on one wind. Of course my speed vector was nearly 500 knots so the right angle wind component was tiny.

The point of all that is that Noonan could have got fairly close just applying one wind and heading to his course. He would not have been all that far off. Navigators I've known usually make few corrections until near destination. The question would be what capability did Noonan have for the last hundred or so miles?

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:01:47 EST
From:          Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Time zones

Ric: I don't have access to what I responded to, but IIRC, Nauru was -11, and Ocean -11.5.  Ocean Island is further east that Nauru, so that makes sense.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:08:37 EST
From:          Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

Gary LaPook writes:

> But by 1818 Z , only 18 minutes after your scenario, the sun would have
> been above the minimum 6* 30' allowed for in the refraction table in
> the 1937 Nautical Almanac. Since they had 24 hours of fuel (according to
> TIGHAR) they had plenty of fuel to loiter for the requisite time to
> allow the sun to reach an altitude where accurate sights could be made.
> BTW just where does this 18+00 ETE come from? The ETE for the original
> Howland to Lae leg called for 17+01. I assume the longer ETE going
> eastbound is a result of anticipated head winds versus an anticipated
> tailwind going the other direction. But why exactly 18 hours and no
> minutes?

1. Why not simply leave an hour or two later if your intention is to take a sight of the sun at a higher altitude? That's a good deal safer than planning to "loiter" in mid-Pacific. The Chater Report says that the original plan was to leave at 9:30 AM on July 1, which would have put them over Howland a half hour earlier. My only point is that they seemed to be attempting to arrive right around sunrise, not later when the sun was higher.

2. I confess that I don't remember the original source for the "18 hour" ETE right now. It's been a constant in this discussion forever. Perhaps someone will remind us of the source. (My impression is that it comes from a radiogram to Itasca informing them of the plane's time of departure.)

Oscar

***************************************************************************
From Ric

The following message was sent from Lae to Dept. of Interior representative Richard Black aboard the Itasca about an hour after Earhart's departure.

AMELIA EARHART LEFT LAE TEN AM LOCAL TIME JULY 2ND DUE HOWLAND ISLAND 18 HOURS TIME
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:12:59 EST
From:          Matt Mondro
Subject:      Re: How to put the forum on hold

Ric, could you send me a mail on how to stop my forum mail for the holidays or send a note to the forum, I'm probably not the only one who wants to do this and can't remember the command. thanks......

Matt Mondro
***************************************************************************
From Ric

To put yourself on hold, send a message to
LISTSERV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

that says SET EARHARTFORUM NOMAIL

To reactivate, send a message to that same address that says
SET EARHARTFORUM MAIL

Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:00:57 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

Gary LaPook wrote:

> and I don't understand why
> Noonan couldn't pin down his position either.

Gary, I've probably put more thought into that issue than anything else and to no avail. As I recall the Itasca reported scattered cu about 3/8 with bases around 2400 feet and I think that was about an hour later than arrival time. That's off the top of my head and may not be accurate but I think that was the general idea.

Given that I agree there seems no good reason not to be able to get a good sun shot. There was no report of the tops but scattered is not much in the way of cloud formations. I've thought maybe the air was so rough he couldn't get a decent shot but he could have climbed to do so. Even momentary shots could have helped. Also I suppose it's possible he was so sure he was over Howland he didn't recheck. I think that's a stretch just as putting the plane off course significantly to the South would be.

I can make a case if the plane is south say 20 or 30 miles. He turns south 157, flies for 20 miles and turns back NE for 40 to 60 miles and he still is south of Howland but he would see Baker unless he was also short or long. My problem is I can't see a good reason for Noonan to be off to the South that far. Don't you think 20 or 30 miles is an unreasonable distance to miss Howland to the South considering the wind should have been off to the right of his nose?

With the wind speed falling off I think he could have easily over shot by 20 or 30, however.

Will we ever know? <G>

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:01:10 EST
From:          Ed Croft
Subject:      Re: Pierson heard Itasca

The message "NRUI CALLING KHAQQ  INDICATE RECEPTION BY FOUR LONG DASHES AND THEN GIVE BEARING HOWLAND NORTH OR SOUTH".

Does 'GIVE BEARING HOWLAND NORTH OR SOUTH' mean if you're north of Howland to say HOWLAND NORTH, or if you're south of Howland (and Howland is north) to say HOWLAND NORTH ?

This question ties into the 281 message.

Thanks,

Ed Croft
#2523
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't know what it means.  I only know what it says.  You are Amelia Earhart.  How would you respond?

<<This question ties into the 281 message.>>

Sure does.  The three dashes heard by Itasca and Pierson come right at the very end of the one hour period during which Navy Radio Wailupe hears the fragmentary 281 message in "extremely poor" code.  The last thing Wailupe hears is "shut off".  The letter "O" in Morse is three long dashes.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:03:25 EST
From:          Bill Shea
Subject:      antenna question

Isn't the antenna on the top of the Electra 10E the one that she was transmitting out when calling the Itasca? It looks like to me that the signal strength to anyone listening ( Itasca) would be determined on what direction the plane was flying in relationship to the Itasca's receiver. Shouldn't the antenna be perpendicular to the Itasca to enjoy the highest sig strength?

If that is the case then the Itasca would hear a lesser signal strength if the 10E was flying at them or flying away from, and stronger signal strength if flying perpendicular to the Itasca. What do you think?

Cheers from Bill Shea #2577
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:07:17 EST
From:          Jim Preston
Subject:      Saipan Story

I have just tuned in to your forum and have found it very interesting. As an ex-Air Force Pilot MATS Type and also that I flew for Air Micronesia from 77-80 I have heard many strange stories out of Guam. I was on SAIPAN in 1970 for the first time and was told my some locals about the building (jail)  where Amelia and Fred were supposed to have been kept. I was shown the building and I looked around and the locals pointed out the faint writings on the wall supposedly in there hand writing. Next time I returned to Saipan was in 1977 and when I went to where the building had been here was only bare ground with grass growing no telltale marks that anything had ever been there. When I got back to Air Mic Flight Opts, I asked some locals what happened to the jail. They said one day/night an Air Force Cargo plane landed with equipment on board and the people went to the site took the building, put it on the Airplane, cleaned up the grounds and left. I thought it was strange at the time and would further enhance Conspiracy theories. I am sure you all have debunked this.
Jim Preston
***************************************************************************
From Ric

According to legend, AE and Fred were imprisoned in Garapan jail which, as far as I know, is still standing and is a fairly popular tourist atraction. Maybe the "real" jail where they were kept is now at the Smithsonian.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:51:29 EST
From:          Robert Klaus
Subject:      Re: Donation

Visited the website trying to verify a bit of information from my memory, I finally did find what I wanted, but had to deal with the annoying 'Raffle' popup ad.

I was going to complain, then decided not to, as I am not one of the ones paying for the site.  Since I enjoy the forum discussion, and use information from the site, it occurred that perhaps I ought to help pay the freight.  So I went back to the website to make a donation.  Much to my surprise I found it was not possible to make a donation on site.  You can join, or gamble, but apparently not donate.  Is this true?

LTM
Robert G. Klaus

PS I'm getting about half the posts with the text repeated twice.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Interesting point, and an oversight on our part.  We'll fix it.  Thanks. In the meantime, feel free to use the membership part of the site to make a donation, or you can also fax us credit card information at 302-994-7945 or send a check to TIGHAR, 2912 Fawkes Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:56:28 EST
From:          Tom King
Subject:      Re: Saipan Story

First, Jim, thanks for getting my family and me around Micronesia safely back in the late 70s.  I was there in '77-78, and was always in awe of Air Mike pilots.

Can you recall where the disappearing jail was on Saipan?  As Ric says, the Garapan jail complex is still standing, mostly, though there are a few buildings that have been reduced to foundations.


Thomas F. King, PhD
Consultation, Training, Dispute Resolution
in Cultural Resource Management
PO Box 14515
Silver Spring MD 20911
tfking106@aol.com
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:58:03 EST
From:          Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Airspeed and settings

Angus wrote:

> Can we use the South Atlantic crossing data to come up with a "fudge factor"
> - can you make any rough assessment of actual
> airspeeds based on such a fudge factor? Would a speed of 156/170 = 0.92 of
> predicted have any meaning other than during hours 5-7?

I don't know. I've made two or three long attempts on the Forum to estimate the effects of weight on speed, and I harbor the suspicion that they are not too far wrong, but they don't match LOCKHEED's estimates in Report 487. I also believe that AE had something better than Report 487 to rely on - something based upon the actual performance of her 10E, rather than estimates. But I don't know of any real evidence of this, other than the implications in C.L. Johnson's KELLY that he provided such information.

Absent new documentation, I feel rather at a dead end on the subject.

I personally am persuaded by Roy Blay's analysis of GROUNDSPEED  in LOCKHEED HORIZONS (Issue 26 May 1988), which shows an average groundspeed of 116 mph (statute) from 0 to 7+20; 132-133 mph from 7+20 to 10+30; and 138 mph for the balance of the flight. With groundspeed, and information on aircraft performance, one could estimate the winds. With groundspeed and the winds, one could estimate aircraft performance. But with only  groundspeed, one can't do either, with the accuracy we'd like to have. (If groundspeed is 138 for a segment, is TAS 153 into a wind of 15; or 163 into a wind of 25; or 148 into a wind of 10? It's important, but we don't know.)

Oscar
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:00:41 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Altitude

Gary LaPook wrote:

> So contrary to what we are constantly reading on the forum that they had
> "no idea where they were north and south" we can
> expect that the error would be limited to 5 miles for every 100 miles that
> they had flown since their last fix.

The only context in which this assertion is made is with respect to a single celestial observation, namely the line of position (LOP) obtained by observing the time of sunrise.

All that that single observation gives the navigator is a longitudinal position.  From that single observation--with due care being given to calculate for altitude & refraction--all that the navigator can do is draw a line on the chart and say, "I know from this single observation that we were somewhere on this line when I made the observation," plus or minus some percentage of error which comes from the various factors: the human eye, handheld instruments, clocks, the altimeter, the small scale of the map, and the width of pencil lines, vibrations from the engines, turbulence, and the like.

In the particular case of the morning of July 2, 1937, the navigator could draw a line that slanted from NNW (337) to SSE (157) because in that part of the world, that is the line drawn by the shadow of night giving way to the light of day.  Of course there are much more technical terms for the observations & calculations, but in layman's terms, this is what is happening and why--if you know what time it is in Greenwich--you can tell how far east or west you are from 0 degrees and can know that you are on a line of position parallel to the line between night and day.  But from that single observation, you don't know exactly how far north or how far south you are on that line.

I believe before you became active on the forum, there was an extensive discussion of how close the fatal flight could have come to Howland without seeing it.  Probably the most important testimony is from Linda Finch's semi-recreation of AE's flight.  She said that they did not see Howland until they were very, very close (under ten miles, if I remember correctly--and I don't think we know her altitude).

No one is saying that Fred tried to dead reckon from a single observation and that he was totally clueless about his latitude.  What I think is certain is that  1) they didn't make it to Howland;  2) when last heard from, they were  flying on a NNE/SSW line parallel to a LOP that they could have drawn on their charts around dawn;  3) they should have had plenty of gas to fly for roughly four hours after 2013 GMT.

LTM.
Marty #2359
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:03:13 EST
From:          Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Time zones

I double-checked my information, and Nauru was -11.5, and Ocean Island -11. Ocean Island is indeed east of Nauru, but basically run independently of the British, who ran Ocean Island.  Even back in 1937, there were  no real standards for world-wide time zone allocations!
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:02:18 EST
From:          Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Betty July 5th?

Ric wrote:

>From the radio logs we have a very good handle on what the Itasca radio
> operators said.  Most of their transmissions (and all of their administrative
> transmissions) were sent in code, and they never sent anything in voice
> during the time of day that Betty heard what she heard.

Sorry about that Ric. I misread the original post about July 5th. Dazed and confused as usual.

********************************************************************
From Ric

Welcome to the club.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:03:57 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: MOT

Eric wrote:

> Two additional places to check:

> New York Public Library (they are supposed to have an extensive
> collection of old radio shows.)

I cannot check this online.  They require a valid NYPL code before they will answer questions via e-mail. Have we got any New Yorkers who'd like to check this out?

> J. David Golden/Radio Yesteryear, Box C, Sandy Hook, CT 06482  (He was
> collecting old radio transcription discs when everyone else was throwing
> them away.)

He does not have the broadcasts we want in his index: <http://www.radiogoldindex.com>.  I tried to telephone him this evening, left a message on his machine, and have faxed him a letter.  We'll see if he provides any further leads.

LTM.
Marty #2359
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:07:23 EST
From:          Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: 2 microphones

We had an old Ercoupe with that very setup - sitting shoulder to shoulder with headphones on you talked to one another thru the "intercom" using the mikes - but you had to turn a switch on the panel to the intercom position.

LTM,
Dave Bush

**************************************************************************
From Ric

That's not what we're talking about.  The Electra had no intercom.  We're talking about using the transmitter as a virtual intercom.  Not very practical and, as Hue has pointed out, hard to square with the idea of Noonan struggling to get on the radio.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:25:00 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty July 5th?

Alan Caldwell wrote:

>That also means that since ALL the radio calls were either hoaxes or
> misunderstandings of  other radio calls that the hoaxer had to quickly fly to 
>a point within a few hundred miles of the Itasca and get a coconspirator to
> fly to Florida to relay the hoax.

You boys be tryin' to divert attention from the problems with  the Betty story? Who has said all the messages were hoaxes, other than you 2 ? Is this called a "straw man" ?

Hue
****************************************************************************
From Ric

What problems with the Betty story?  I don't know of any problems with the Betty story except the ones you can invent by speculating about what various phrases must mean.  None of us was with AE and Fred so none of us can say what they would or would not have said.

>Who has said all the messages were hoaxes,
>other than you 2 ?

I don't think either of us said they were all hoaxes but that allegation was certainly made by Commander Warner K. Thompson, CO of the Itasca, who wrote in his "Radio Transcripts - Earhart Flight" report:

"Amateurs reported several messages, all probably criminally false transmissions.  ...Extremely doubtful that Earhart ever sent signals after 0846, 2 July."

Then there was the commander of the Coast Guard's San Francisco Division, Stanley Parker who wrote: "NOT ONE (emphasis in the original) of the amateur reports received during the Earhart search was accurate, and all reports of receipt of signals from the Earhart plane were definitely known to be false,.."
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:58:04 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty July 5th?

>If they are hearing hoaxes you have to explain why they are the
> only ones who hear the hoax (none of them overlap with each other).
> Ric

Just a suggestion that this question may not be the strongest of your arguments. I am not suggesting an army of hoaxers, but keep in mind, for any individual instance of a hoax, the radio device could range all the way from a toy-like broadcasting device with a few blocks range, up to a commercial service or ham transmitter with hundreds of miles range.

Hue Miller

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that every one of the 10 amateur shortwave listeners (including Betty) who reportedly heard signals they believed might be from Earhart were the victims of one or more hoaxers or were, indeed, themselves perpetrating a hoax and never heard any such thing.  As I said before, none of the 10 events overlap in time with another of the 10, or with any of the 29 reported receptions by HAMS.  Maybe all were the butt of practical jokes played by their next-door neighbors. However, one of the 10 shortwave listeners (Mabel Dunklee) is known to overlap with signals heard in the Central Pacific.  If Betty's reception was on July 5th it would be the second instance we know of when this happened.

From 08:00Z to about 08:45Z on July 3 (20:30 to about 21:15 on July 2nd in the Central Pacific) Mabel Dunklee in Amarillo, Texas heard what she said was Amelia Earhart calling for help. "Her message stated the plane was down on an uncharted island.  Small, uninhabited.  The plane was partially on land, part in water. She gave the latitude and longitude of her location.  I listened to her for 30-45 minutes.... I heard her message around 2 A.M. daylight saving time from my home in Amarillo, Texas.  She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously injured. Needed help immediately.  She also had some injuries but not as serious as Mr. Noonan."

At 08:00Z the Coast Guard's Hawaiian Section heard long dashes and weak unintelligible voice signals on 6210.
At 08:31Z Nauru Radio heard "Fairly strong signals, voice not intelligible, no hum of plane in background but voice similar to that emitted from plane in flight last night." on 6210.
At 08:33Z Itasca heard "Weak sigs on 3105, unreadable" which continued until 08:43Z.
At 08:43Z Nauru Radio again heard the "Fairly strong signals, voice not intelligible, no hum of plane in background but voice similar to that emitted from plane in flight last night." on 6210.

The above four reported receptions by professional stations in the Central Pacific occurred during the time period reported by Mabel Dunklee.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:02:44 EST
From:          Adam
Subject:      Betty's Notebook + 281 North

>This question ties into the 281 message.

Could Betty's inexplicable "Howland port" really have been "Howland north"?
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:05:06 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Pierson heard Itasca

Ed Croft wrote:

> Does 'GIVE BEARING HOWLAND NORTH OR SOUTH' mean if you're north of
> Howland to say HOWLAND NORTH, or if you're south of Howland (and Howland
> is north) to say HOWLAND NORTH ?

I'd think that Itasca would expect all location information to relate to the plane, not from the standpoint of the ship. So wouldn't she be expected to respond with something like "Flying to you on x degrees SE" ? Itasca apparently still believing her DF working. If I was AE and could not get a bearing null on Itasca, maybe if the signal was too weak/constantly changing  from the day/night edge skywave instability, I would still switch to "Direction" and try at least to get an idea of which direction was true, even tho that indication is not as precise as the bearing information. Who knows if she tried that, or even if that function worked either.

>The last thing Wailupe
> hears is "shut off".  The letter "O" in Morse is three long dashes.

As is "quit while in progress" ?  Fuse blown out? Splash and sank?

-Hue Miller

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Hue, you're not paying attention.  This is all happening on July 5th.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:09:42 EST
From:          Jeff Lange
Subject:      Re: No-brainer

I want to hopefully instill the idea in more of our TIGHAR members and all of the Forum members( and lurkers too!) to step up and purchase their chances in the raffle for the Harbour Lights Villa. THIS IS A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY!!! The odds couldn't get any better than this!

So, as a first step, in what I hope many more of our subscribers out there will also take, I want you to put me down for $100.00/ 5 chances in the raffle. You should have my credit card info, if not reply and I'll send it to you again.

Come on everybody- let's enter to win, and remember that TIGHAR, and all of us, win either way the raffle goes!

Jeff Lange
# 0748C
Ann Arbor, MI
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Jeff.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:13:17 EST
From:          Daryll
Subject:      RE ; Pierson heard Itasca

Ric wrote;

>...Itasca was heard "on slightly lower frequency". Pierson said he
>heard the dashes again at 04:51 PST. 
>The Itasca's radio log shows that at that same moment (12:30Z on July 5)
>Chief Radioman Bellarts heard "THREE VERY RAGGED DASHES, SOMEWHAT OFF
>3105"...

Ric, you have acknowledged the time similarity with the reception of the "281" message.

Pierson was quoted hearing the Itasca <"on slightly lower frequency"> (?) BUT then the Itasca reports <"THREE VERY RAGGED DASHES, SOMEWHAT OFF 3105"....> Doesn't this seem to square with the '281' message "....POOR KEYING BEHIND THE CARRIER..."?

It would seem that WALIUPE copied (281 message) the response from the transmitter to the Itasca's questions <"NRUI CALLING KHAQQ INDICATE RECEPTION BY FOUR LONG DASHES AND THEN GIVE BEARING HOWLAND NORTH OR SOUTH"> WALIUPE caught more of the transmissions and the ID of the sender's transmitter, KHAQQ.

>...McMenamy, in later years, went off the deep end with allegations
>about government conspiracies......"

What you describe as going "off the deep end" can be viewed as frustration with NOT being believed while the "Crash & Sank" scenario was being peddled to the American public.

You also note that you only discovered this with a time line comparison and that Thompson didn't report this in his original reports. Recall also that Morgenthau (and Gibbons) went to Hawaii and debriefed Thompson there . 

I won't go any further because "we" don't want to open up the "conspiracy can of worms" do "we".....   

Daryll
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:29:10 EST
From:          Christian D.
Subject:      Re: Altitude

Marty Moleski wrote:

> Gary LaPook wrote:
>
> > So contrary to what we are constantly reading on the forum that they had
> > "no idea where they were north and south" we can
> > expect that the error would be limited to 5 miles for every 100 miles that
> > they had flown since their last fix.
>
> The only context in which this assertion is made is
> with respect to a single celestial observation,
> namely the line of position (LOP) obtained by
> observing the time of sunrise.

Marty: Gary's statement is for a 5% error "FROM THEIR LAST FIX".... THAT  is the context of his assertion... The word "fix" has a very specific meaning: it is NOT a LOP!  Gary is only stating what the error for a typical DR would be in 1937....   >When< the last fix was obtained during the nite is another debate.

Regards.
Christian D

PS: by the way, I think this forum is wasting too much of my time endlessly sub-splitting hairs...
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:05:57 EST
From:          Bob Brandenburg
Subject:      Re: antenna question

Bill Shea wrote:

> For Bob or Mike,
>
> Isn't the antenna on the top of the Electra 10E the one that she was
> transmitting out when calling the Itasca? It looks like to me that the signal
> strength to anyone listening ( Itasca) would be determined on what direction
> the plane was flying in relationship to the Itasca's receiver. Shouldn't the
> antenna be perpendicular to the Itasca to enjoy the highest sig strength?
>
> If that is the case then the Itasca would hear a lesser signal strength if
> the 10E was flying at them or flying away from, and stronger signal strength
> if flying perpendicular to the Itasca. What do you think?

Yes, the dorsal antenna is the one she used when transmitting.  I discussed the antenna's radiation pattern in some detail on the forum a couple of years ago.

LTM,

Bob
#2286
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:07:10 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Altitude

Marty Moleski wrote:

> All that that single observation gives the navigator
> is a longitudinal position.

Marty, we ALL continue to write as though the ONLY possible navigational assistance Noonan could possibly have is a single sun shot. I can't imagine why there seems to be such a dedicated insistence on that limitation. I'm not referring to you but to most all of us. Is there some reason that has escaped me that he could not shoot anything but the sun and couldn't use his drift meter or use any other technique his years of experience might have taught him?

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:08:31 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Straw man?

Hue, no, it wasn't a straw man but I was interested in who would argue against that statement. The point being that if ALL weren't hoaxes, if just one was from AE then she landed safely on land somewhere. Just one legit radio call from AE wipes out all the crashed and sank folks. Well, that's not fair. Not the folks but their theory.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:12:18 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Betty July 5th?

Ric wrote

> She gave the latitude and longitude of her location.  I listened to
> her for 30-45 minutes..

Which was what?

Alan
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Over the years, Mabel lost the piece of paper.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:14:44 EST
From:          Tom Strang
Subject:      Betty's Note Book?

How was " original 96 pages" arrived at? - Was a listing of 96 pages printed on the front or back covers? - Or was this an educated guess on your part?

Respectfully:

Tom Strang
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Educated guess - but fairly well-educated.  It's easy to see where pages were torn out.  Why is the number of pages so important?
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:43:08 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Itasca Frequencies.

Although this may be well known to the radio experts, I found this hidden in a sidebar piece in the Honolulu Advertiser Newspaper. July 3. Frequencies of the Itasca's transmitters were changed from the frequencies that Amelia used to separate them. This was to "clear the air" around that part of the wave band and avoid confusion of signs.

It was thought the brief msg picked up on July 2 , Friday night (no time indicated), believed to have come from Amelia, might have been from the ITASCA trying to signal the fliers.

This might account for the remark that the Itasca transmission came in at a lower frequency. And this may then discount the possibility of mixing up Itasca's traffic with  those thought to be from Amelia.

Ron Bright
***********************************************************************
From Ric

I'm not sure what the Advertiser was referring to.  As far as I know, it is not the case that Itasca ever intentionally tried to contact Earhart on a frequency near, but not on, 3105.  The danger of calls by the Itasca to Earhart being misunderstood as calls from Earhart was well appreciated. Itasca was instructed not to call Earhart on that  frequency without special permission.

It's also not clear which "brief msg picked up on July 2, Friday night" they're referring to.  There were 31 separate receptions reported that night but the Honolulu Advertiser probably only knew about the ones heard by stations on Oahu, but there were 5 of those - 2 by PAA, 2 by COMHAWSEC (Coast Guard Hawaiian Section), and 1 by U.S. Army, Ft. Shafter.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:55:53 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Pierson's receptions/News accounts

For additional contemporaneous news sources, I perused the Los Angles Times, the New York Times and the Honolulu Advertiser for references to any receptions that Carl Pierson reported to the Coast Guard. Pierson, as I understand , along with Walter McNenemy, was a friend to the Putnams. Pierson is mentioned in books by Dillion and Goldstein, Lovell and Brink. Both say they could recognise her voice having met with her. McMenemy, Karl Pierson, a Patterson radio Corp engineer, Joe Gurr and Guy Dennis, all were active members of the Radio Relay League in LA.

LOS ANGELES TIMES

3 July  (Front page)  " FAINT SIGNALS HEARD". In sum,  McMenamy and Pierson, two radio amateurs, reported hearing faint signals at 6pm PST [ 11:30am, ITASCA ?] on 3105. It is not clear if both heard this but McNemeny heard 'L-A-T". Both thought the signals came from a portable transmitter with a handcranked generator.

4 July  Pierson and McNemeny heard both voice and code, "SOS- KHAQQ", some 18 hours after her last transmission. ( I couldnt find a time)

NEW YORK TIMES

July 2, 1937 (AP) Los Angeles. Carl Pierson reports hearing on 3105 "weak signals" at 12:00 pm (Eastern Daylight Time). The signals were erratic and indecipherable. Again he opined they came from a hand cranked generator. July 3, 1937 (AP)  Los Angeles. Pierson and McNemeny hear '"faint distress signals" on voice at 6:42 am and 7:00 am (Pacific Daylight Time) ( 10:42, 11:00am EDT). They heard "KHAQQ-SOS", repeated thrice.

July 5, 1937 ( A McMenemy reception)

HONOLULU ADVERTISER

July 3, 1937  Los Angeles (AP) "OPERATORS IN LA SAY THEY HEARD AMELIA"
The article reports that Walter McMenemy and Carl Pierson, two LA amateur radio operators, "claimed to have received distress calls from " AE, one at 4:12 am and 4:30 am Honolulu time. They also reported that they heard the " KHAQQ-SOS" signal at 11:00pm, Honolulu time, on 2 July. The article continues reporting that McNenemy and Pierson said they heard on both 3105 and 6210 signals that were "so weak they could hardly hear them". Once they heard "lat" (presumable latitude), but the rest was "blotted out by interference." The article concluded that the Coast Guard Headquarters at LA and SF said they did not receive the messages.

Note: Someone may recall that Paul Mantz was with McMenemy on one of the occasions listening and he couldn't confirm what Mc was hearing.

July 5, Los Angeles (UP) Karl Pierson, amateur radio operator with a "powerful long range receiver"(unidentified) said today that he heard additional messages "apparently " coming from Earhart's plane.  He heard the US Coast Guard Cutter ITASCA ask Earhart at 4:30am and 4:50am (PST) to reply by four long dashes if her call was received.

Pierson said that he heard "three" dashes immediately thereafter both times. He believed he lost the first dash "while tuning".

Each signal ended in a "ripple", which Pierson thought  that the batteries for emergency sending were dead and AE "was using a motor generator".

Comment
This may help in putting together a contemporaneous matrix of the signals reported by these amateurs. Time Zones again were probably as confusing to the reporters then as it is to us. As far as I can tell, Pierson's receptions were from his residence separate from McNemeny. I don't know if McNemeny went off the deep end but he did report that on 5 July he heard AE's last msg: " He must be at least an Admiral", as she was describing the Japanese shore patrol that was nearing her plane. [ Brink,p 151, based on an interview with McNenamy in 1980] I have not seen any contemporaneous reporting of that msg to newspapers in July 1937.

Ron Bright
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Ron.  I'll check those press reports against what we already have and post the results. I know that McMenamy did hear transmissions from Earhart during her 1935 Honolulu to Oakland flight.  Whether or not he was a "friend of the Putnams" is less clear.  Everybody who ever had a passing acquaintance with AE later claimed that they were her bosom buddy and closest confidant.  It's a common phenomenon.

My statement that Walter later "went off the deep end" is based upon an audio tape of an interview he gave in 1955 in which he alleges the most outlandish stuff you can imagine - including that the Electra was secretly equipped with solid rubber tires for landing on rough coral.  Daryll would love it.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:04:04 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

Something we lose sight of is that the "single line of position landfall procedure" was a fall back position and was not as desirable as arriving at night when it would have been possible to shoot several stars and so be able  to determine an accurate fix from two or more LOPs. Had they departed at 2330 Z with an ETE of 18+00 they would have arrived at Howland at 1730 Z (0600 Itasca time) just 7 minutes after civil twilight which occurred at 1723 Z (0553 Itasca time). One can usually continue to shoot stars until civil twilight and sometimes even a little afterwards. (Civil twilight occurs when the center of the sun is 6* below the horizon, the sky is bright and only the brightest  stars and planets may remain visible.) This means that they could have continued to get accurate fixes until within 7 minutes and about 15 NM from Howland. This last fix should have only a 10 NM uncertainty and the 15 NM DR (dead reckoning) leg from the fix to Howland would have introduced only 1.5 NM additional uncertainty in the position for a total uncertainty of only 11.5 NM. The 10 NM fix uncertainty is an extreme case and most fixes are  more accurate with most of the fixes falling within only  5 NM. ( BTW the 10 NM fix accuracy is required by Federal Aviation Regulations, see 14 CFR 63, and is almost always achieved.) Such an early arrival would not have required a sun line to locate Howland.

Even leaving an hour later at 0000 Z with the same planned ETE would have them arriving only 37 minutes after civil twilight which means that they could have continued to shoot fixes until within 80 NM of Howland and only 37 minutes prior to ETA. This would have required dead reckoning for only 80 NM which might result in an uncertainty of the DR position at Howland of from 14 NM  to 18 NM using estimates of DR accuracy that were current at the time. The lower figure is based of  a possible 5% error and the second is based on a possible 10% error of the distance flown since the last fix. This DR uncertainty of 4 or 8 NM is added to the fix uncertainty of 10 NM to arrive at the total uncertainty as in the first situation.

In the event, they ran into stronger than expected headwinds and arrived well after sunrise and long enough after civil twilight that the resulting DR leg from the last possible fix would have resulted in too great an uncertainty to ensure being able to spot the island as discussed in my prior post. This necessitated using the "landfall procedure" and the 157/337 sun line LOP.

Visit http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/sextantaccuracy.html to see reference works discussing the accuracy of aerial sextant position.

See http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/dr-accuracy.html for similar information on DR accuracy.

See http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/landfall.html on how the landfall procedure is accomplished.

gl
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Good point Gary.  That makes sense.  The Oakland/Honolulu flight was planned  so as to reach Hawaii just after sunrise.  As it turned out, they were early  and had to slow down to wait for the sun (the airport had no lights).  Still , the chart they used shows that without a DF bearing, Noonan would have missed Oahu by 50 miles.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:28:20 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

That's true and they were flying the sun line LOP in an attempt to find Howland which they knew they were very close to. They did not say that they would fly for 2   hours south-southeast along the line to find Gardner. Noonan was certainly capable of taking additional sights of the sun and using those sights to fly on the computed LOP through Howland as well as to fly on parallel offset lines to the east and west in a search pattern to locate the airport.

gl
****************************************************************************
From Ric

You're doing it again.  Noonan (Earhart) did not say that they would fly for 2 hours south-southeast along the line to find Gardner.  Neither did she say that Noonan would take additional sights of the sun and use those sights to fly on the computed LOP through Howland as well as to fly on parallel offset lines to the east and west in a search pattern to locate the airport.

You may believe that Noonan had the capability to do that, and maybe he did. And maybe he didn't.  If he had the capability maybe that's what he did, or maybe he made a different decision than Gary LaPook would make.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:29:53 EST
From:          Gary laPook
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

40 to 45 minutes to me is a long time, not a short time. Observations of the sun take only about 2 minutes and less than one more minute to compare the measured altitude (Ho)  with the precomputed altitude to determine if they were on the LOP to Howland. They could have done this 10 to 15 times.

You are right, with short time intervals between the sights the computed ground speed could have had significant errors. But, since they could continue to take sights until right up on the LOP the ground speed errors would have no effect, they would turn when the sextant said they were at the LOP.  Even if the last shot was 5 minutes before interception even a large ground speed error results in only a small distance error during a 5 minute run  Even a 10 knot error would result in less than 1 NM error after 5 minutes. And then Noonan could continue to
shoot the sun through the left flat plate window on the left side of the aircraft and make additional adjustments to ensure that they were following the LOP to Howland.

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:38:29 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

Ric wrote

>Noonan would have missed Oahu by 50 miles.

Just how did Noonan's track deviate from intended course - ie north or south of intended course and by what angle?

Regards Angus.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Bob and Randy can provide more detail if they'd like but, in essence, the chart shows that the flight was well north of course several hundred miles out and had to make a roughly 18 degree heading change.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:38:01 EST
From:          Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Pierson's receptions/News accounts

Here's a run-down on the first of the McMenamy and Pierson press reports posted by Ron Bright.

Ron provided:

>LOS ANGELES TIMES
>
>3 July  (Front page)  " FAINT SIGNALS HEARD". In sum,  McMenamy and Pierson,
>two radio amateurs, reported hearing faint signals at 6pm PST [ 11:30am,
>ITASCA ?] on 3105. It is not clear if both heard this but McNemeny heard
>'L-A-T". Both thought the signals came from a portable transmitter with a
>handcranked generator.

The version we have comes from an AP story in the July 3rd New York Times. The complete story reads:

-LOS ANGELES, July 2 (AP) -- Two amateur radio operators claimed to have
-picked up signals tonight on frequencies officially assigned to the plane of
-Amelia Earhart.
-
-Walter McMenamy said he picked up weak signals on 6210 kilocycles at 6 P.M.
-(10 P.M. Eastern daylight time) and heard the letters "L-a-t" which he took to
-mean latitude. The letters were followed by indecipherable figures. The signals
-continued for some time. Mr. McMenamy expressed belief they came from a
-portable transmitter. He received other signals from a Coast Guard boat,
-presumably the cutter Itasca, requesting listeners to "stand by and listen
-on all frequencies."
-
-At 8 P.M. (midnight Eastern daylight time), Carl Pierson, chief engineer of the
-Paterson Radio Corporation, picked up similarly weak signals on 3105 kilocycles,
-Miss Earhart's daytime frequency. He said they were erratic and indecipherable.
-Both Mr. McMenamy and Mr. Pierson said the signals came from a hand-cranked
-generator. Miss Earhart carried one in her plane.

There are two separate reports here. McMenamy at 6 P.M. and Pierson at 8 P.M.   McMenamy's reception was on 6210.  Pierson's was on 3105.  Both said that the signals came from a hand-cranked generator.

The first intercept described by McMenamy comes at 18:00 PST on July 2nd (14:30 in the Central Pacific and 02:00Z, July 3rd).  In other words, it's midafternoon in the search area and the path between there and Los Angeles is mostly in daylight.  Itasca is listening on 3105 but not on 6210 during this time.

McMenamy says that he heard "a Coast Guard boat" tell everybody to "stand by and listen on all frequencies."  Itasca did broadcast an alert but that's not what it said.

About an hour before McMenamy's 02:00Z intercept, at 01:03Z, Itasca had broadcast the following message to "all ships, all stations":

AMELIA EARHART PLANE ENROUTE HOWLAND ISLAND FROM LAE NEW GUINEA UNREPORTED SINCE 2045 GCT JULY 2 AND APPARENTLY DOWN AT SEA,  POSITION UNKNOWN. ITASCA SEARCHING PROBABLE NORTHWEST SECTOR OFF HOWLAND ISLAND. REQUEST SHIPS AND STATIONS LISTEN ON 500 KCS FOR ANY SIGNALS FROM PLANE COMMANDING OFFICER U S COAST GUARD CUTTER ITASCA

No mention of 3105 or 6210.

At 02:45Z, forty-five minutes after McMenamy allegedly heard the signals on 6210, the U.S. Government San Francisco Hydrographic Office sent the following message to "all ships, all stations":

US COASTGUARD SHIP ITASCA BELIEVES MISS AMELIA EARHART DOWN BETWEEN THREE THREE SEVEN AND NINE ZERO DEGREES FROM HOWLAND ISLAND AND WITHIN ONE HUNDRED MILES OF ISLAND. POSSIBILITY PLANE MAY USE RADIO ON EITHER 3105 6210 OR 500 KCS VOICE. REQUEST ANY VESSEL THAT VICINITY LISTEN FOR CALLS AND CONTACT ITASCA CALL NRUI ON 500 KCS

Did McMenamy hear the Itasca way out in the ocean, or did he hear the Hydrographic Office just up the coast?

What about this portable transmitter, hand-cranked generator stuff?  At 03:10Z the Coast Guard's San Francisco Division notified Itasca that there was a "possibility plane may attempt use of radio on water as radio supply was battery and antenna could be used on top of wing."

This message was widely misinterpreted as meaning that Earhart had a portable, emergency transmitter aboard.  In other words, the reports by both McMenamy and Pierson appear to seek credibility by asserting a detail that was later shown to be a misconception.

Let's look at Pierson's 8 P.M. intercept on 3105.  The time is 16:30 (still daylight) in the search area, 04:00Z. Nobody else hears anything at this time, but it doesn't look like anyone else is listening on either 3105 or 6210 at that moment.  All Pierson claimed to hear at that time were "erratic and indecipherable" signals.  The chances that he heard anyting on 3105 at that time of day are infinitely remote.

In summary, both of these alleged intecepts are highly suspect.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:39:22 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: Altitude

Alan wrote:

> Marty, we ALL continue to write as though the ONLY possible navigational
> assistance Noonan could possibly have is a single sun shot.

I have never said that.  If you read that into anything I have written, then you have misunderstood me.

> I can't
> imagine why there seems to be such a dedicated insistence on that
> limitation.

It is a matter of fact about the kind of information you can extract from one (1) celestial observation at a particular time of day: observing the time of sunrise.  All that particular observation gives you is longitude, more or less, not latitude.

It is a matter of fact that that single observation gives a LOP that corresponds to the last line being run by AE & FN, 90 minutes or so after dawn.

> I'm not referring to you but to most all of us. Is there some
> reason that has escaped me that he could not shoot anything but the sun
> and couldn't use his drift meter or use any other technique his years of
> experience might have taught him?

Of course not.  When it was dark and they were (presumably) not under the clouds, Fred could take all kinds of star sightings.  The number of available stars diminishes as dawn approaches.  I believe people have speculated about whether or not Fred could have gotten a LOP from the moon that was significantly different from that of the sun (I don't remember that discussion in detail).

If Fred derived a fix from a combination of observations and dead reckoning, AE did not transmit the fix.  When she transmitted, "We must be on you but cannot see you," they may already have turned on the 337/157 line and traveled it to where Fred expected it to traverse Howland.  We don't know.

LTM.
Marty #2359
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:44:53 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Gary wrote:

> You are right, with short time intervals between the sights the computed ground
> speed could have had significant errors. But, since they could continue to take
> sights until right up on the LOP the ground speed errors would have no effect,

I agree whole heartedly, Gary, that IF FN did that he ought to have been extremely close. I can't imagine what happened with a reasonable answer.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:51:35 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Ric wrote, in response to Gary:

> You're doing it again.  Noonan (Earhart) did not say that they would fly  for 
> 2 hours south-southeast along the line to find Gardner.  Neither did she  say
> that Noonan would take additional sights of the sun and use those sights t o
> fly on the computed LOP through Howland as well as to fly on parallel 
> offset lines to the east and west in a search pattern to locate the airport.

The way I read Gary's post I thought that's what he said.

Quoting Gary "They did not say that they would fly for 2hours  south-southeast along the line to find Gardner."

As to the rest of his post, I think Gary was just agreeing with one of my  suggestions of what Noonan should have been able to do.

I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the only mistake AE made  was not having Gary and me on board. <G>

OK, seriously what IS becoming more obvious is that for all these wonderful suggestions we make as to what Noonan could have done it is clear he didn't do any of them for one reason or another. Reasons that come to mind might be  his instruments failed, rough air, clouds, mistaken belief he already knew where he was and so on.

It is also clear that many of us are not making a clear distinction between what we know or believe to be true and what we think ought to have occurred.  That makes the posts confusing to the newer folks and obviously to the old hands also.

I believe you made a plea not too long ago that we take special pains to identify our should haves, would haves and could haves. Good idea.

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

Gary's observation that AE and FN were probably figuring on hitting sun-up much closer to Howland than they did - and thus had a much longer daylight run-in to the island than anticipated - was worth waiting for.  It's just a shame that we have to wade through all the manure to find the occasional pony but that's the way it goes.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:54:28 EST
From:          Tom Strange
Subject:      Re: Betty's Note Book?

You could say house cleaning on my part - I find 96 pages strange - 100 has a better ring - Most note books have 50, 100, 200 pages etc - I strongly suspect that the smooth transcription of betty's note book came from some where else - Possibly from those missing pages.
Resspectfully:
Tom Strang
******************************************************************
From Ric

If what we have is a "smooth transcription" of Betty's original notes it has entirely escaped her recollection that she did any such thing.
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:08:18 EST
From:          Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

Ric wrote:

> The Oakland/Honolulu flight was planned
> so as to reach Hawaii just after sunrise.  As it turned out, they were early
> and had to slow down to wait for the sun (the airport had no lights). Still,
> the chart they used shows that without a DF bearing, Noonan would have missed
> Oahu by 50 miles.

This is the third or fourth recent repetition of this non sequitur. You say NOONAN's chart shows that they were 50 miles North when they intercepted the beacon. Implicit in your statement is the acceptance of the accuracy of Noonan's position. The fallacy lies in your conclusion  that Noonan (KNOWING HIS POSITION) would have continued on the same course indefinitely and missed. I suspect that the chart (which I wish you would post so that I can be certain I have not misunderstood your point) simply shows an offset and a beacon interception.

Oscar
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm all in favor of eliminating non sequiturs.  Let's see if we can sort this out. Randy Jacobson's analysis of the Oakland/Hono flight, including a facsimile of Noonan's chart, is Chapter IV, Section A in the Eighth Edition. The statement you object to is mine, not Randy's.

I understand the logic of your position.  If Noonan could plot his position on the chart he obviously knew where he was.  If he hadn't gotten the DF bearing he could have made his own course correction and DRed to Oahu.

I did not say that the flight was 50 miles north of track when they intercepted the beacon.  There was, in fact, no beacon to intercept.  PAA Mokapu took a bearing based upon a transmission sent from the plane and relayed that bearing back to the plane.  This first PAA bearing was received when they were about 3 hours and about 360 nm out.  At that time the flight was about 120 nm north of its intended track and made about an 18 degree correction southward.  Had it not made that correction it would have missed Oahu by about 50 miles, but as you say, it doesn't make sense that Noonan would not have made some type of correction.  How accurate that correction would have been is a matter of speculation.

The northward deflection from the intended track was definitely not an intentional offset.  The flight had drifted northward much earlier in the flight and at one point was 135 miles north of track when Noonan made a correction which arrested the northward drift and put them back parallel to the intended track but did not attempt to rejoin it.  He let the flight continue well north of course until they were close enough for PAA to give them a steer.

As we've said many times, Noonan's style was not to micro-manage the progress of the flight.  On the contrary, his style was laissez faire. He kept the plane generally heading in the right direction with very infrequent course corrections until close enough to the destination to get a DF bearing. Combine that style with (surprise, surprise) no DF and a much longer than expected time between the last multiple-body celestial fix and the ETA and you have a formula for big trouble.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:30:34 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's Note Book?

To allay speculaton,  can you post the five pages between the "doodle page" of faces with the KGMB/31.05 and the page that begins Betty entries from the transmission? (Unless they are of a private nature or of innocuous doodles) What do they contain?

Ron Bright
****************************************************************************
From Ric

I have no way to post images on the forum but I'm happy to provide a description of the pages.

The page containing the KGMB and 31.05 notation is a left-hand page and also contains numerous (I count 20) sketches of male and female faces, some large, some quite small. The page also has "Johnny one Note" (a song title) written in faint pencil and what looks like "11:H".

The right-hand facing page has 9 relatively large sketches of faces, 7 female and 2 male.  No words.

The next left-hand page has the title and words to "All God's Children's (sic) Got Rythum (sic)" written in pencil on the top half of the page. Nothing else on that page.

The center seam stitching of the notebook is between the left and right-facing pages.

The right-hand facing page has the words "Merrygoround Broke Down" and "Oh the merrygoround broke down as we went" written in pencil and then crossed out/scribbled over in pencil.  Also on the page are four sketches of female faces.

The next left-hand page has the words "You Can't Run Away From Love Tonite (sic)" at the top of the page and the words "You can't run away from love tonite, not while there's a moon above tonite" written in pencil on the top half of the page.  On the bottom half of the page, close to the center seam, also written in pencil but much more carefully and clearly referring to the facing right-hand page is "Amelia Earhart  July 1937". The Earhart transcrition begines on the right-hand facing page.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:38:05 EST
From:          Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

My experience in oceanography, for what it's worth, was to recover instruments at sea at night, using their flashing light beacons to better see the instruments when they bob on the surface.  Taking this one step further, it may well have been better for AE to arrive at Howland about 30 min prior to dawn, and use the Itasca search lights and bonfires on the island itself to better locate the island at night, then loiter for a few minutes for the dawn to land.  This would also give FN the opportunity to use celestial navigation at the very end to help find his position.
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I've always suspected that the 00:00 GCT takeoff was more coincidence than intent.
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:48:48 EST
From:          Emmett
Subject:      Final Approach prints

Haven't received my final approach poster yet.

Emmett 2405S
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Neither have we.  The artwork and prints were arranged through the good offices of Thomas Van Hare at Historicwings.com.  The artwork is being printed in Sweden and we expected to have the prints in hand before now. We're hoping to see them soon.  I've asked Thomas for an update.  I'll let everyone know as soon as we know something.  Sorry for the delay.
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:50:02 EST
From:          Jim P.
Subject:      Re: Altitude

As an Ex-Air Force Pilot of 12 years who flew with Navigators they would do everything possible to have a correct position because it reflected on their character. They were proud guys, a little different perhaps, but were professionals.

Jim P
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Feb 2003 11:56:16 EST
From:          Ross Devitt
Subject:      Re: Betty's Note Book?

>I find 96 pages strange - 100
> has a better ring - Most note books have 50, 100, 200 pages etc

I missed whatever this thread was about, but in some countries, although "notebooks" may have 50, 100, 200 pages etc.  for some reason school "exercise books" as we call them often have/had 48, 96 and similar numbers of pages.

Something to do with the imperial measurement system (A4 - A3 - A2  B*c*  Quarto  Foolscap and the rest).

Th' WOMBAT
***************************************************************************
From Pat Thrasher

Tom Strang writes:

> I find 96 pages strange - 100
> has a better ring - Most note books have 50, 100, 200 pages etc

That's true, now. However, you may have the wrong impression of what kind of notebook it was. Not spiral bound! It is an "old-fashioned" sewn notebook. Such folios are created by the octavo method --- a very large sheet of paper is printed (in this case just with lines), folded, and stacked with others like it; the whole sewn into a cover, and then the whole trimmed/cut. So necessarily such notebooks are sold in page counts which are multiples of 8.

TIGHAR Tracks is done the same way <G>. So are most books and magazines. If you were to carefully unpick the staples from a magazine and look at the resulting large pages, folded in half, you would see that the layout is complex. Computers make it much easier but still weird things can happen.

Anyway, that's how we know how many pages the notebook was born with and how many have been torn out.

Pat
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:00:12 EST
From:          Daryll
Subject:      What does it take?

What I'd like to know is how much, of what kind of evidence,...will it take,...for Ric to realize that Noonan used deliberate off-sets on very long legs ? It has been shown by contemporaneous documentation by leading aviation trail blazers (mentors of Noonan) that that was the technic to use without the availability of Radio Nav aids (which AE&FN didn't have). Is there anything short of Noonan's signed notation on a chart "deliberate offset here with an arrow"  that would alter your mind-set that these wereN'T mistakes or errors that he made?

Tom King can tell you why villagers built their fires on a certain side of the village but we can't see a consistency in Noonan's plots!

Just think for a minute how much the Electra was limited to a certain part of the ocean because it burned 38 gph at gross weight! Nobody seemed to question that the energy 38 gallons of gasoline produced during that hour was used to support an airplane that was continually getting lighter.

Daryll
************************************************************************
From Ric

Daryll, have you seen ANY of the existing charts used by Noonan?
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:06:43 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

> As we've said many times, Noonan's style was not to micro-manage the progress
> of the flight.  On the contrary, his style was laissez faire. He kept the
> plane generally heading in the right direction with very infrequent course
> corrections until close enough to the destination to get a DF bearing.
> Combine that style with (surprise, surprise) no DF and a much longer than
> expected time between the last multiple-body celestial fix and the ETA and
> you have a formula for big trouble.

It is so often repeated that Noonan was such a great navigator and yet this laissez faire attitude smacks of a very misplaced complacency. A great navigator plans for the unexpected (like no DF and/or being unable to get a sight!) and is as precise as conditions will allow. However, if he made infrequent corrections and yet knew pretty much where he was even when off course, perhaps the criticism is unfair.

Returning to the question of deviation from course to Oahu, can we analyse why this happened? Are there any indications, for example, of a discrepancy of forecast and actual weather? Was it miscalculation, unexpected weather, unrecognised instrument failure etc that pushed them so far off course?

Regards Angus.

*************************************************************************
From Ric

It may be a mistake to characterize the deviation seen in the Oakland/Honolulu flight as "far off course".  Noonan was very familiar with the capabilities of the PAA Mokapu DF facility.  Close enough was close enough.
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:09:06 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Randy writes

> Taking this one step further, it may well have been better for AE to arrive
> at Howland about 30 min prior to dawn, and use the Itasca search lights and
> bonfires on the island itself to better locate the island at night,

OK, AE should have had RANDY, Gary and me on board.

Alan
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I agree.  Just don't ask me to fly with her.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:19:35 EST
From:          Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

The reason for the northward track of the Oakland to Honolulu flight relative to the great circle or rhumb line path was due to southerly winds of a fairly major weather cell, documented in weather charts compiled long after the flight from contemporary observations.

****************************************************************************
From Chris Kennedy

A better question is why should we assume (if we are)  that Noonan intended to navigate the Lae-Howland flight the same way as the Oakland/Honolulu flight?

--Chris Kennedy
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Noonan did not exactly have a choice as to which way he would navigate the flight (Hmmm...shall I use GPS, inertial, or Loran; or shall I just wing it with DR and celestial?)  The question is whether it's justified to assume that he "tried harder" on the Lae/Howland flight than he did on the Oakland/Hono flight.

**************************************************************************
From Alan

Ric wrote:

> It may be a mistake to characterize the deviation seen in the
> Oakland/Honolulu flight as "far off course".  Noonan was very familiar with
> the capabilities of the PAA Mokapu DF facility.  Close enough was close
> enough.

Micro analyzing a non micro managed navigation leg may not be very productive. I flew a lot of missions when my plan was to simply head westerly or easterly and the like. The idea was to always know where I was but where that actually was seldom was all that critical. Today that is extremely important with all the traffic but not in 1937 or not all that important during my flying days. Crossing the Atlantic was a comfy casual flight. There were very few folks out there and we could easily see each other. We had altitude separation and didn't really worry about it. Only when it was getting time to hit an airborne refueller or a destination did we get busy with the task at hand. We always knew where we were and that's what counted.

If Noonan was off several hundred miles even on the Lae to Howland leg what difference did it make as long as he knew it. You didn't get points for maintaining a track which was your own creation in the first place.

Alan
*************************************************************************
From Chistian D

I must try again to disagree with Ric (et al)

> Just how did Noonan's track deviate from intended course - ie north or south

Has anybody ever said that Noonan   >wanted<   his track to  >remain<  on top of the great circle course???

I maintain he surely did NOT!   For example he may have estimated he'd get a bit more advantage from the NE Trade winds by being a bit north of direct great circle route...

>It may be a mistake to characterize the deviation seen in the

........."deviation"  sounds like a leading term...    :-)

>Oakland/Honolulu flight as "far off course".  Noonan was very familiar with
>the capabilities of the PAA Mokapu DF facility.  Close enough was close
>enough.

Noonan didn't have to keep his track "close enuf" to the direct great circle route, for a safe navigation.  He could have followed a sawtooth track or whatever, as long as the >precision< of his DR and fixes was the same "close enuf"...

>Oahu by about 50 miles, but as you say, it doesn't make sense that Noonan
>would not have made some type of correction.  How accurate that correction
>would have been is a matter of speculation.

Unfair: given the >same< quality DR fix, the correction would have the same accuracy, whether that fix happened to be on top of the great circle route, 20 miles south or 50 miles north, or whatever. Even if they had been on the west side of Hawaii, for that matter!

>The flight had drifted northward much earlier in the
>flight and at one point was 135 miles north of track when Noonan made a
>correction which arrested the northward drift and put them back parallel to
>the intended track but did not attempt to rejoin it.  He let the flight
>continue well north of course until they were close enough for PAA to give

Well: if he "let" the flight etc, isn't that intentional?   :-)

>As we've said many times, Noonan's style was not to micro-manage the progress
>of the flight.  On the contrary, his style was laissez faire. He kept the

Compared to an autopilot tied to inertia/GPS, this is indeed >not< micromanaged.  But for 1937 air celestial over water it seems >not< laissez faire, but instead adequate to me:

1---Do we know that Noonan didn't want to play wind patterns to advantage? Or was he putting himself in the offset position -just in case?
2---It is well known that, for example,  if wind drift is alternating right and left, constant heading corrections (like a GPS autopilot) are counter productive, increase time in transit, increase fuel burn overall.
3---Not having a continuous hi-accuracy GPS fix, Noonan had to wait "LONG" intervals between good quality fixes, before he could calculate a reliable wind vector and come up with a meaningful heading correction.
4---Increasing the >number< of speed and heading corrections has a slight negative effect on the DR precision.

>plane generally heading in the right direction with very infrequent course
>corrections until close enough to the destination to get a DF bearing.
>Combine that style with (surprise, surprise) no DF and a much longer than
>expected time between the last multiple-body celestial fix and the ETA and
>you have a formula for big trouble.

Again: NO trouble at all, if, everything else being equal, "style" means having the DR track not sitting on top of the great circle route.  But indeed there is trouble if the quality of the DR itself is "laissez faire".

In one word: I reject the idea that the "deviation" between Noonan's track and the great circle route is any indication of the quality of his DR and celestial fixes.

Regards.
Christian D

***************************************************************************
From Ric

The question of Noonan's navigational performance on the Oakland/Hono flight is an example of one of those questions (like some of the radio questions) that takes considerable expertise to answer - expertise that is beyond the ability of most forum subscribers to even follow, let alone exercise.  On these subjects I'm as much out of my pay grade as most of you.

In these situations, much as we dislike doing so, we have to rely upon the findings of "experts".  Fortunately, navigation is a science as well as an art and competent practitioners should be able to agree on answers to objective questions.  Bob Brandenburg  has checked Noonan's work on the Oakland/Hono flight and has found that significant errors were made in celestial observations that resulted in the flight not being where Noonan thought it was.  Bob agrees with my statement that, without DF bearings, Noonan may well have missed Oahu by 50 miles.

I have learned to have faith in Bob's work in his field(s) of expertise but it is central to this project that we don't ask anyone to take anything on faith.  We have other experienced navigators on this forum, some of whom are TIGHAR members, some not.  To check Fred's navigation you need: 

- a copy of Noonan's charts
- H.O. 208 (Dreisonstok's sight reduction tables)
- the Nautical Almanac for 1937

I will be happy to provide a full size photocopy of Noonan's Oakland/Hono chart from the Purdue archives for the cost of oversize photocopying and shipping (call it 20 bucks).  Those who have the expertise to use them should be able to obtain the other required publications.  If not, we can help steer you in the right direction.

As always, we encourage peer review.  Just let me know if you want to play.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:20:35 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's Note Book?

Thanks for the description of the five pages, never know where a clue may be hidden!

Ron B.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:27:11 EST
From:          Jim Tierney
Subject:      Betty's Note Book

Regarding the style of Bettys Note Book--

Those of us old guys remember those cardboard cover-marbled black and white cover books-with a space for your name on the front...

They were available in 48 and 96 pages and maybe one giant size larger...
They were about 8 1/2 by 11 inches...They sold for about 20-25 cents...
They had a black tape on the  outside left edge that covered the stitched seam....

We all used them both in public and catholic schools....You started the term with neat notes on what Sister said--underlining in red and green ink- the important parts.....By the third week-you were wrapping your lunch and PE sneakers in it.....

Ah -the good old days.....
LTM--who used the extra pages from last terms book-to write letters/lists
Jim Tierney
Simi Valley, CA
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Those who have a copy of the interview tape have seen the notebook.  Your description is pretty close except the cover is a mottled blue and less stiff than the marbled black-and-white cardboad covers.
**************************************************************************
From Marjorie in Montana

Oh, boy -- a point on which I have relevant expertise.

> I find 96 pages strange

Sorry, Tom, but in the printing business, 100 has a far worse "ring" than 96. Printing is done on  very large sheets of paper which are then folded, cut and bound into folios of 16 or 32 pages (depending on the size of the finished product in relation to the size of the sheets of paper fed into the press). 100 is an odd number in printing, because it is only divisible by 2 and 4. 96 is a wonderful number for printing -- it is evenly divisible by 16 AND 32.

Printing in Betty's notebook? Those lines had to get put on the pages before the notebook was bound.

(This principle applies even to this morning's daily newspaper. If a section had a number of pages not divisible by 4 -- say 10 instead of 8 or 12 -- it means they had to put one half-width roll on the press as well as two full rolls.)

LTM (who rather courageously bought me my first "printing press" when I was 10)
Marjorie
**************************************************************************
From Tom Strang
Ross Devitt and Pat,
   Thanks for the explanation, it is what I was looking for - Confirmation of previous research - Nice to know if the ducks are in a row or not.
Resectfully:
Tom Strang
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:28:34 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

Daryll wrote:

> What I'd like to know is how much, of what kind of evidence,...will it
> take,...for Ric to realize that Noonan used deliberate off-sets on very
> long legs ?

Daryll, NOTHING has shown what Noonan did on the Lae to Howland leg. I don't know what he did but I'll tell you if I was flying that leg I would fly directly to Howland whether I had radios, DF, GPS, radar or anything else. If all that stuff failed I would still fly directly to where I wanted to go.

Here's what you're missing with this incredible offset technique. If Noonan knows his position well enough to figure a particular offset course and the exact place to turn then he also has the capability to fly directly to his destination. If he can't do that then he can't fly an offset that will get him there either. The offset folks want to believe Noonan couldn't figure out his latitude close enough to find his destination in spite of the fact there is no information to support that contention.

If you had your way Noonan would offset 200 nm to the North, turn on some magic time and fly 200nm and hope Howland was at the end of that leg. If instead he flew directly to Howland and didn't see it he might be 10 or 20 miles at the most off course and even if he didn't know in which direction the most he would have to fly is about 60 or so miles, 20 in one direction and 40 or so back. If he was short or long no offset would help him. Even if the offset was only 100 nm direct still wins.

The offset was a widely taught and touted technique but hardly practical.

We were taught all kinds of instrument penetrations and approaches but no one used them. We just flew straight in. On occasion we might have to hold at altitude and let down in a prescribed manner but that was rare. Wonderful ideas but no real reason to use them.

Having said that I have no doubt you or anyone else can construct a scenario whereby an offset would be wise but off hand I can't think of one.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:33:44 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Altitude

Jim P wrote:

>As an Ex-Air Force Pilot of 12 years who flew with Navigators they would do
> everything possible to have a correct position because it reflected on they
> character. They were proud guys, a little different perhaps, but were
> professionals.

Different is an understatement. <G> You're correct about maintaining correct positions but the reason in the latter years was necessity more than pride. Even in my days of flying we DID fly many very exacting navigation legs because they were being scored for accuracy.

Alan
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I always loved the quote from the opening scene in "Flight of the Phoenix" where the grizzled old pilot Jimmy Stewart tells his copilot Richard Attenborough (I paraphrase): "Flying has changed Lou.  It used to be that you felt like you had really accomplished something if you could just......get there."
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:37:39 EST
From:          Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook

 Tom Strang says

>  "You could say house cleaning on my part - I find 96 pages strange=20 - 100
> has a better ring - Most note books have 50, 100, 200 pages etc"
 
Context, context.   You're thinking modern day.   They way they used to bind  paper, and still do in some cases, they would take a bunch of sheets of paper and fold them in half to make pages, and stitch and / or glue the fold to the binder.   96 is 8 bunches of 12 pages (6 sheets folded in half), 12 bunches of 8 pages, or some such formula.   How many pages per bunch probably depended upon the capability of the machine doing the binding.   If that capability is anything other than a number divisible by 5, you probably won' t get an even 100 pages in a notebook.   (OK OK, 2 and 1 work, but what good is a machine that can only bind 2 pages at a time?)

Ric, can you determine anything from looking at the binding of Betty's  notebook?

Andrew McKenna

***************************************************************************
From Ric

The notebook is stitched in a single bunch.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:38:17 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      photo of Niku

This site allows you to zoom into a higher resolution of the satellite image of Niku.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/amelia_plane_010711-2.html

Go down the page to where it says "zoom in on high resolution image of island" and click on it.

P.S.  I thought this might be some thing new

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:12:17 EST
From:          Phil Tanner
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> Having said that I have no doubt you or anyone else can construct a scenario
> whereby an offset would be wise but off hand I can't think of one.

I know very little about navigation (well, more than I did three years ago...) but would it be fair to say in 1937 you might use it if you are inbound to a coastline with identifiable features, but not in the other direction?

LTM, Phil Tanner 2276

***************************************************************************
From Ric

If the coastline has identifiable features on either side of your destination there's no reason not to shoot straight for the destination.  If you miss you'll quickly be able to figure out where you are.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:15:42 EST
From:          Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

>   I will be happy to provide a full size photocopy of Noonan's Oakland/Hono
> chart from the Purdue archives for the cost of oversize photocopying and
> shipping (call it 20 bucks).

Please send me the chart. You have my CC #, I believe.
Thanks. Oscar
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Sho 'nuff.  Just as soon as we can get dug out from under all this snow.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:17:31 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

> Micro analyzing a non micro managed navigation leg may not be very
> productive.

Micro analysing anything may not be very productive but you don't know so until you do it.

> If Noonan was off several hundred miles even on the Lae to Howland leg what
> difference did it make as long as he knew it.

This rather begs the question that if he was so damn clever and always knew where he was, why was he off course in the first place - especially 135 miles?

> You didn't get points for
> maintaining a track which was your own creation in the first place.

You do get points however, for staying near your projected track so that if you go down at least the sucker who has to come and look for you will have a chance of finding you. You get more brownie points for using as little fuel as possible, not just for saving the planet, engine hours and fuel costs but also to be able to cope with any eventualities or emergencies you may encounter better.

I take the point that frequent course change can be counterproductive due to difficulties in getting good sights at short intervals, wind considerations etc and the other points made by Christian but to get 135 miles off course you have to travel either at a large angle to projected track for a short time or at a small angle for a loooong way. Either way seems like it was occasioned by a mistake unless it was forced by weather etc.

I think it is important to understand exactly what Noonan's general thinking probably was to be able to infer his probable actions for the Lae-Howland leg. OK so he may have done something entirely different on the day because he had breakfast late but it does give us a start. One has to make some starting assumptions with any theory. That does not mean one cannot come back at a later stage and change those assumptions in the light of new evidence.

Regards Angus.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:23:34 EST
From:          Bill Shea  
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

Alan wrote to Daryll:

> Having said that I have no doubt you or anyone else can construct a scenario
> whereby an offset would be wise but off hand I can't think of one.

If they did see the SS Myrtlebank and they might have been heard flying over Tabiteuae, then this seems to point that he was north of the direct track at that point. If is is accepted that they found themselves north of that track then wouldn't it be a lot easier to turn it into a northern offset track?
(hang in there Daryll).

Cheers from Bill
************************************************************************
From Ric

Tabituea is a long skinny atoll that lies across their path.  If they flew over its northern end they were bang on course.  If they flew over any other part they were somewhat south of course.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:25:29 EST
From:          Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Betty's Note Book

Jim Tierney wrote:

>Those of us old guys remember those cardboard cover-marbled black and white
>cover books-with a space for your name on the front...

Are these the ones that told you how many pounds in a quintal of butter, or in a perch of stone?
Dan  TIGHAR#2263
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:28:48 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

Is there any evidence extant that PAN AM in that era routinely used the "offset" navigation method to Wake, Guam, etc on their transpacific flights. Did other navigators use that method? I am wondering as every researcher seems to rest their case that this was the usual, standard method, and ergo Noonan most likely used it. A myth?

The straight in method as described by you and Alan must have also been used extensively and seems to be confirmed by Noonan's letter to Weems dated April 1937 describing his equipment, techniques, etc on the flight from Oakland to Honolulu. He used the celestial fixes as a primary, and concluded that: "That this method proved to have been quite accurate, as indicated by the very nearly direct track we made for the entire westbound flight. However, he added,  [this method] would not be so desirable in a region where sudden wind shifts could be expected. Then reliance would necessarily be placed on DF bearings despite their lack of extreme accuracy". Still no mention of any offset method for accuracy.

Ron Bright
***************************************************************************
From Ric

I'm aware of no evidence that Pan Am routinely used offsets.  The whole point of the  company's DF system, installed at great difficulty and expense, was to provide a method by which a transoceanic flight could fly direct to its destination.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:34:01 EST
From:          Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

Please remember that we really don't know that Fred Noonan was in charge of the navigational "orders" to Earhart on the Oakland to Honolulu flight.  The primary navigator was Harry Manning.  We don't know on this flight as to who was in charge of navigation and providing input to Earhart.  The charts are very instructive, however, as it reveals Noonan's navigational techniques and methodologies.  As to whether he had the authority to tell Earhart directly that she was off-course is not determined; it may well be that he consulted with Manning, who then told Earhart.  Manning, therefore, could have over-ruled Fred's suggestions.
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Excellent point.  Noonan was very much the new boy at that point.  Manning was an old friend. Remember also that Paul Mantz, her "technical advisor", was in the right seat.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:44:13 EST
From:          Tom Strang
Subject:      FN Oak - HA Nav. Chart

I'll play! - In the interest of understanding crew member proficiency please send me a copy of F/N's Oakland to Hawaii navigation chart - I believe you have my CC # and address - Thanks, may even help me follow along with the songs the forum's celestial choir sings from time to time.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang  # 2559
***************************************************************************
From JHam 2126

Can I get one of those actual-size chart copies also if I send you a check for $20?

blue skies, jerry
***************************************************************************
From Gary LaPook

 Ric, I would like a copy of the chart for the OAK- HNL flight, where do I send the check?

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Checks should be made payable to TIGHAR.  The address is:
TIGHAR
2812 Fawkes Drive
Wilmington, DE  19808

Getting the over-size copies made is a pain and I only want to make one trip to Kinko's, so this offer will expire at 5 p.m. EST on Wednesday, July 19. So far I've got:
Oscar Boswell
Tom Strang
Jerry Hamilton
Gary LaPook

Going once, going twice...

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:46:54 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

A couple of thoughts;

1. Wasn't Manning the head navigator on the OAK- HNL  flight? with Noonan just being backup? so being off the Great Circle (GC) course to HNL may be attributed to Manning, not Noonan.

2. I have to agree with Alan once again.  You always know where you are even  if it is just the middle of the ocean. The important question is do you know your position to the level of precision necessary for your purposes at the time. On along overwater leg it is not necessary to know your position to a high level  of precision, so even hundreds of miles off to one side is not a problem. But when you are shooting an ILS to 200 and a half you better know your position with in just a few feet.

3. The leg from OAK to HNL is 2095 NM (call it 2100 NM) just slightly shorter than the Lae to Howland leg. On long legs you can deviate way off to the side without incurring much of a penalty in distance traveled or fuel used. Being 135 NM off to the side at the mid point would add only 16 NM to the trip which is only an extra 0.7 % of the total distance. You would have to be 157 NM off to the side to increase the trip distance by just 1% or 21 NM. (You can figure this out for yourself by drawing it to scale on a chart, or by trig or even by using the Pythagorean theorem, you remember that one, don't you?) And, get this, you could be 328 NM off to the side and only increase the trip distance by 100 NM, less that 5%! This is the reason it is easy to deviate around weather in the Midwest on a flight from LAX to JFK because it is such a long leg. It incurs a much larger fuel and time penalty to deviate around weather on a Chicago to St. Louis flight because the leg is so short to begin with.

4. Because there is little penalty on a long leg to a deviation well off to the side of the GC course it is common to make such deviations on purpose if there is the chance to pick up a tailwind or to avoid nasty weather on the GC. For the 135 NM deviation mentioned, a ONE KNOT tailwind would have been more than enough  to make up for the increased distance and any greater anticipated tailwind would have been gravy. In fact, any anticipated tailwind greater than 7 knots would justify the 328 NM deviation mentioned above! Because of this it is common to figure  a minimum time flight path that deviates greatly from the GC by taking anticipated winds into account.

5. It also became common practice (but I am not sure that the technique was known in Noonan's time) to make a single heading flight allowing for the net of all the cross winds and the net of the lateral drift. This could be accomplished by estimating the winds for different segments of the long leg and figuring the  total displacement at the end of the flight Or, even easier, it can be computed as  part of  "pressure pattern navigation" in which all you need to know is the atmospheric pressure at the departure and the forecast pressure at the destination at the ETA, although more accuracy can be obtained by using upper air constant pressure charts such as the 850 MB chart. With this information you can predict the total net drift right or left of the destination and choose the heading to cancel it out and hit the destination. Then, while in flight, the path of the aircraft will deviate left and right but you still end up at your destination in less time than by slavishly trying to stay on the GC track and usually avoiding the less than ideal weather in the center of low pressure areas.

6. It is almost impossible to miss the Hawaiian island coming from OAK since  they stretch 320 NM across your course line and represent a target 8.5*  wide.  The islands are high and can be seen from great distances and the gaps are small enough that it would be very difficult to pass between two of the island without seeing one of them. (This is exactly the opposite from trying to find the Phoenix islands.)
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:53:09 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

I think it very unlikely that the uncertainty in Noonan's  latitude exceeded  36 NM as I laid out in my Wednesday post "Re: altitude" based on his obtaining a stellar fix sometime between 1715 and 1740 Z less than 260 NM from Howland.

People misunderstand the "offset approach" ( more properly the "single line of position landfall procedure") and have them wandering hundreds of miles north and south of Howland. In fact, the navigator only deviates off to one side of his destination only by the amount that he estimates the amount of uncertainty in his DR (dead reckoned) position. Noonan knew the time of his last fix and would have estimated the uncertainty of his DR position based on advancing that fix to the time of the ETA. Even if, on purpose,  he greatly overestimated the uncertainty to make sure he did  not miss the island it seems very unlikely that he would have used an offset greater that 60 NM, almost twice the level of  uncertainty accepted in 1937.

Even if they did not use the "offset" but proceeded directly towards Howland , when they obtained the sun line showing that they were on the 157/337*  LOP through Howland they would have turned one way or the other and searched along that line in an attempt to find the island. But, and this is very important,  they would not have proceeded further along the LOP than the same estimate of uncertainty in the DR that would have been used for an "offset." Once they had traveled that far, say 36 NM (or being very conservative 60 NM)  they would have been certain that they had overshot the island and would turn back the other  way  to continue the search. They would not have proceeded for hundreds of miles in either direction hoping to find Howland.

gl

***********************************************************************
From Ric

I count five "would haves" and two "would not haves" in the above.  Insert "it seems to me that" before each of them.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:08:12 EST
From:          Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Half Splashed? Or Half Baked?

I'm not sure if this is a new idea or not, but I have read many "Betty's Diary" postings and I note that the "we can't bail out" phrase perhaps indicates a splashed landing. I am not sure if it is conclusive that radio transmissions from the A/C could occur if it splashed. I assume for the moment they could have. Could the A/C have hit the water right near Niku? Then, AE and FN radioed for help, which was recorded by Betty. They made it out of the plane and then swam ashore. NR16020 subsequently washed ashore and was seen later by islanders. Sort of a hybrid theory, if you will. Half splashed. Is this even remotely possible?

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
***********************************************************************
From Ric

No transmissions were possible from the airplane if the floor of the cockpit (where the dynamotor was) was submerged.  If the airplane "splashed" the floor of the cockpit was immediately submerged.  No transmissions from a floating Electra.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:11:43 EST
From:          Russ Matthews
Subject:      correction Re: FN Oak - HA Nav. Chart

Ric writes:

>this offer will expire at 5 p.m. EST on Wednesday, July 19. 

July 19 is a Saturday this year... could you mean tomorrow (Wednesday, February 19)?

LTM,
Russ

***************************************************************************
From Ric

That was a test.  ( I even looked at the damned calendar to make sure Wednesday was the 19th then I merrily typed July 19.)   Sorry guys.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:12:47 EST
From:          Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

Thanks, Gary, for remembering pressure pattern/single heading flight. I would be surprised if FN actually understood it in 1937 - John Bellamy came much later. I used it on a flight from El Paso to Guam - we spent lots of time with the weather folk to bring it off, but it worked. We took off #3 - 20 minutes after the leader, and landed in Guam #1, about 20 minutes before the leader. It's the least-time path. PMB.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:13:51 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Sunrise for AE&FN (re; refraction variability)

Ric wrote:

> I count five "would haves" and two "would not haves" in the above.  Insert
> "it seems to me that" before each of them.


It seems to me Gary is probably correct. <G>

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:20:59 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

> Excellent point.  Noonan was very much the new boy at that point.  Manning
> was an old friend. Remember also that Paul Mantz, her "technical advisor",
> was in the right seat.

Does that mean it might have been Manning who made the errors on this flight rather than Noonan?

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

It was Noonan's job to do the celestial work.  It was Manning's job to do the radio work.  It was AE's job to fly the airplane.  Mantz was just along for the ride but he was very much the senior aviator aboard.  Amelia was Pilot in Command but who was really calling the shots?  At the end of the flight it was Mantz who landed the airplane.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:22:22 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

> Noonan's letter to Weems dated April
> 1937 describing his equipment, techniques, etc on the flight from Oakland
> to Honolulu.

Like most issues it is back and forth, back and forth. Having just asked if it was Manning who did the navigation and celestial on this flight I now have to ask if that letter specifically says Noonan did it?

To Ron, as to the "offset" or straight in approach, of course we will never know but as Gary pointed out even if an offset was used, IT SEEMED TO HIM, it would have been a very small distance off course. If so it is unlikely (it seems to me) that it makes any difference. Whether Noonan drove straight in or offset he could have been (it seems to me) just as far off one way or the other and so the result might have been the same it again seems to me. <G>

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:26:23 EST
From:          David Chase
Subject:      Noonan's Navigation

Noonan wrote a magazine article (my recollection is that he penned it, not an interview) discussing his navigational techniques. Somewhat technical as I recall. Do you have this piece? If not I'll dig it up and send you a copy.

Dave
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Dave. Noonan wrote a letter to P.V.H. Weems which was later published in the May 1938 issue of Popular Aviation.  We have that.  If you know of a different article we'd love to see it.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:27:42 EST
From:          Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: FN Oak - HA Nav. Chart

Put me down for a copy of the chart also.  I will phone Pat tomorrow with the new CC number.

ltm
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:29:05 EST
From:          Christian D.
Subject:      Re: Navigation

Ric sez...

> south flight and has found that significant errors were made in celestial
> observations that resulted in the flight not being where Noonan thought it
> was.  Bob agrees with my statement that, without DF bearings, Noonan may well
> have missed Oahu by 50 miles.

Very interesting!  Now, that fits my definition of poor navigation -an error of 50miles...  Now if Noonan had assumed that the Howland DF capabilities would work as well as in HNL...  Looking for a microscopic island...

Cheers.
Christian D
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:33:45 EST
From:          Denise
Subject:      Early Fiji aviation

Ages ago you asked me if I knew what planes were flown by Fiji Airways during its earliest "cowboy" days.  I didn't know then but I've found out a little since.  (And it turns out I should never have been so rude about these early pilots because all the ones I've managed to trace are grandfathers of friends, and since I remember them as lovely old guys, I'd like to take back every disparaging remark I may have made about their sanity.)

1) The first plane in Fiji was a home-made job, built in 1922, by a man called Fleming.  Apparently it was a legendary "accident waiting to happen."

2) The next was a British-built Simmonds Spartan bi-plane, brought over and assembled in the streets of Suva by Captain Gordon Fenton, although I don't know what year.  Apparently it started its flying life with its wings on backwards. Once the problem was rectified it could fly the 112 miles between Suva and Lautoka in 1 hour and 35 minutes, which apparently was quite a breathtaking achievement for those days. Captain Gordon Fenton went on to found the original Fiji Airways ... except it went broke during the depression and was shut down, and I have no idea when it started up again and who the people were who did it.

3) Shortly after this bi-plane arrived in Fiji, Alf Marlow imported a 1922 German-built Dornier Libelle flying boat.  He loved it so much he brought two more in from New Zealand, including the one which killed famous Kiwi aviator Major Donald Harkness.  Legend has it that if Alf got tired of flying his plane during his Suva-Lautoka flights, he used to land it atop the Colonial Sugar Refinery cane train in Sigatoka and let it take him the rest of the way. Dornier Libelle in Germany bought back Marlow's first plane in 1978 for a huge sum of money, because it apparently was the last in the world.

As far as I know, these planes all flew for Fiji Airways during its earliest days, but I think there were other planes as well. What they were and who their pilots were I have no idea. (But legend has it Captain Fenton would only hire pilots who could fly under the penny-farthing bridge on Rewa River at high tide without a moment's hesitation.)

I don't know, either, which one of these planes made the legendary reef landings.

Oh, and I have to mention another plane that was in Fiji during this time ... but it's here just for bragging purposes:

5) Sir Charles Kingford-Smith, flying with Ulm, Lyons and Warner, landed The Southern Cross on Albert Park in downtown Suva during the world's first trans-Pacific crossing in 1928.

LTM (who loved a good cowboy!)
Denise

********************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Denise.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:35:45 EST
From:          Kathie
Subject:      briefs or boxers?

I'm sorry if this has been addressed already, please forgive me, I'm new around here.

I've read an anecdote about a Russian sailor reporting having seen a white woman wearing men's underwear, signaling from the shore of a tropical island, and the speculation that it could have been AE.  The anecdote was related in an Earhart biography for another purpose, not to suggest a possible landing and survival for a time.

I'm wondering if anyone associated with TIGHAR (and therefore taking a rigourous approach) has looked into this anecdote and what was found out. Did it dead-end in any reasonable way or is it still out there as just a "story"?

Thanks for your patience.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

That's a new one on me Kathie.  Anyone else know about this story?
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:37:01 EST
From:          Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

It is only my opinion, but it seems like an offset would be a 2 headed snake that can bite you from each end.  What if due to unexpected winds near the destination you overshoot, or undershoot past your line of sight??  You then will turn onto the offset heading and just sail right on past something as small as Howland Island.  Remember, the only thing you have going for you to reach the limit of your offset is your clock, and ESTIMATE of your ground speed (assuming your real good at  holding a compass heading).  Not too good for the middle of the Pacific ocean where the winds can and do change direction.

I agree with Alan to just line up your best course and shoot straight in.

ltm Claude Stokes #2535
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:40:32 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Betty July 5th? Whoa!

Ric wrote:

> > As yet one more example of how continuing research can cause us to rethink
> > conclusions, it now looks like Monday, July 5th may be a better date for
> > Betty's reception than July 2nd.

-Gee, now we contrarians will have to trim our sails too, to the direction of the changing  winds.

Now I have to figure out why AE and FN wade back to the plane after a couple days, to have a wrasslin' match there in the stifling heat, she won't let him back out, they fight over the radio, after a couple days it's "come quick!". "We can't bail out", and surprise, "water's up to knees", and whaddya know, they gotta use microphones to talk to each other, or AE is hearing something from the flooded radio receiver. Is this story looking better?

Yes, I know they didn't have water, so maybe that explains "quick". Maybe they had alcohol, and that explains the rest.

Alan wrote:

>That also means that since ALL the radio calls were either hoaxes or
> misunderstandings of  other radio calls that the hoaxer had to quickly fly to
> a point within a few hundred miles of the Itasca and get a co-conspirator to
> fly to Florida to relay the hoax.
> Sounds OK to me. <G>

Whence "ALL",  Alan, or is this just the usual black/white of the True Believer? You do understand the Harmonic theory and on the other hand, how a hoax would work? It doesn't require jetting anywhere, just some elementary attention to news broadcasts and magazines.

Ric wrote:

> The handful of shortwave listeners scattered across the continental U.S. who
> hear intelligible voice on higher frequencies are a different question
> entirely.  If they are hearing hoaxes you have to explain why they are the
> only ones who hear the hoax (none of them overlap with each other).  On a
> very few occasions, they overlap with signals heard on primary frequencies in
> the search area.

Ric, sorry, I think this is spelled "s t r a w  m a n". You are lumping the very possible reception reports from the Pacific area with the very questionable ones from the inland USA, which seem to have one thing in common at least: all the interceptors were, well, not what you'd call real technical types. As for Mabel, maybe before you invest too heavily in this story, you maybe should have Bob Brandenburg speak to the issue of what frequency Mabel could heard AE on, at 03:00 Florida time.

Hue
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:42:11 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

We should be more exact in our terminology and we would avoid some of our seeming disagreements.

There is a difference between a LOP and a course but we have been using the term LOP inexactly sometimes when we are actually talking about a course. You're right, they could attempt to follow the 157* COURSE to the Phoenix Island s. But the 157*  LOP ceased to exist as the sun moved across the sky. Subsequent sun shots could only tell them where they were in relationship to the new LOPs which were no longer parallel with the course to Gardner. Because of this, new sun shots would not allow them to establish that they were staying on course to Gardner. This has been my point for a long time and I think that you agree with me on this. Noonan was free to use any other navigation aids he had available (such as a drift meter) to help him maintain a course to Gardner but nothing  else would have provided the same level of accuracy in this situation as had the previous sun line in relationship to Howland Island. This is because drift sights are merely a method used to improve the accuracy of dead reckoning (DR) and DR is not a "position finding" method only a "position keeping " method. The accuracy of all "position keeping" methods degrade as time passes and distance is covered. This is as true today for the multi million dollar inertial navigation systems (INS) used on our space craft and for "Carrousel" INS units used on airlines as for traditional manual DR techniques, only the scale of the errors and uncertainty has been greatly reduced. Even so, it is common to have the Carrousel INS unit's position to be off by 25 NM after crossing the Atlantic .

When MNPS rules came into being and "coast ons" were tracked by radar they found that aircraft with INS often violated the navigational accuracy requirements . GPS came along just in time. GPS, just like celestial, is a "position finding" system and they are just as accurate at the end of a long flight as at the beginning. Just as INS has greatly improved accuracy over manual DR, GPS has much improved accuracy over celestial.

Another point to remember is that even with three Carrousel INS units on board KAL 007, the aircraft ended up so far off course that it was shot down by Soviet fighters in 1983. The flight crew was apparently "fat, dumb and happy" thinking that the INS would DR them safely to Korea and didn't do anything to ascertain the accuracy of their position.

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:45:38 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Fred's significant navigation errors

Just exactly what were these "significant errors" that Fred made? Were they in observation or in calculation or use of his tables?

Regards Angus.

****************************************************************************
From Ric

On at least one occasion he misidentified a star and on another he seems to have  misread the readings on the instrument.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:39:56 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: briefs or boxers?

Kathie wrote:

> I've read an anecdote about a Russian sailor reporting having seen a white
> woman wearing men's underwear, signaling from the shore of a tropical
> island, and the speculation that it could have been AE.

This sounds more like wishful thinking on the part of the Russian sailor than anything else. Just how close do you have to get to tell the difference? And if you're that close, why not invite her on board for a shot of vodka?

Perhaps we can set up a group to investigate fashions in Russian underwear to see if the Russian sailor's interpretation of a male garment may have been skewed by a familiarity with the rather economical designs for men occasioned by the failure of the seven year plan for cotton production.

Regards Angus.

**********************************************************************
From Ric

Hey man, I just post 'em.
**********************************************************************
From Alan

And Ric asks, "Anyone else know about this story?"

I don't, but now I want to know what NOONAN was wearing.

Alan
*********************************************************************
From Ric

Had briefs even been invented by 1937?

***********************************************************************
From Herman De Wulf (#2406)

A Russian sailor? Sailing the Pacific in 1937? Do we have any friends in Moscow or thereabouts who could check on this? I seem to remember we had a Russian posting some questions on this forum at one time. Perhaps Ric can try and trace him in his computer? One question: if he (and probably other crew members) saw a white woman in men's underwear on a tropical island, why didn't they stop and have a look? Especially since they apparently knew of Amelia Earhart.

LTM
*************************************************************************
From Ric

Our Russian sailor friend visited Niku in the 1970s.  He now lives in New York.  If we really want to scour the old Soviet archives we should find someone who lives closer - like maybe Belgium. 
**************************************************************************
From Jon Watson

I've not heard of this, but having met a Russian or two (okay they weren't sailors, but never mind) I find it virtually impossible to believe that, if true, they didn't stop to investigate...shucks, I would.

You realize, of course, this opens up a new thread on Fred's nether garments... I'll make the first speculation that given the route they were on, he was probably NOT wearing red flannels...

ltm,
jon
*****************************************************************
From Ric

You're telling me that if you saw a topless woman waving from the beach you wouldn't just wave back and sail on by?
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:44:11 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Gary LaPook wrote:

> We should be more exact in our terminology and we would avoid some of our
> seeming disagreements.

Agreed.

> There is a difference between a LOP and a course but we have been using
> the term LOP inexactly sometimes when we are actually talking about a  course.

Agreed.


> You're right, they could attempt to follow the 157* COURSE to the
> Phoenix Islands.

That's the COURSE that they reported they were flying in the last message received.  We don't know whether they were heading NNW (337) or SSE (157) at the time of the transmission.

> But the 157* LOP ceased to exist as the sun moved across the sky.

Now you are being inexact and are producing the appearance of disagreement as a consequence.

When a navigator calculates a "line of position" from a celestial sighting, he/she usually draws the line on the chart.  That line represents their position on the face of the earth at the time of the observation, plus or minus some percentage of error.

The line drawn on the chart does not disappear or change as the sun rises further in the sky.  It is what it is: a reasonable calculation of where they used to be.

What you mean to say is that NEW sun shots later in the morning would produce NEW lines of position that would be different from the dawn LOP.

> Subsequent sun shots could only tell them where they
> were in relationship to the new LOPs which
> were no longer parallel with the course to Gardner.

Subsequent LOPs derived from the sun would help Fred estimate how far they had traveled from west to east. But we have no evidence that Fred thought the way that you do, because the information given in the last message received is a LOP parallel to a LOP that could have been drawn on the chart at dawn.

LTM.
Marty #2359
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:44:59 EST
From:          Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

In looking over my "sketch" of the flight path heading, sun position at sunrise, LOP, it would seem to me that any offset would be to come in south of Howland and just north of Baker -- increasing your chances dramatically of seeing one or the other. It appears to my untrained eye that an offset to the north would mean a longer distance to fly -- not much sense in that. I have to admit, however, I've found NO information to support any offset at all.

Bob
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:54:04 EST
From:          Daryll
Subject:      To off-set or not to off-set

Ron Bright wrote:

>Is there any evidence extant that PAN AM in that era
>routinely used the "offset" navigation method to Wake, Guam, etc on
>their transpacific flights. Did other navigators use that
>method?.............Then reliance would necessarily be placed on DF
>bearings despite their lack of extreme accuracy". Still no mention of
>any offset method for accuracy. 
 
Ric wrote:

>I'm aware of no evidence that Pan Am routinely used offsets. The whole
>point of the company's DF system, installed at great difficulty and
>expense, was to provide a method by which a transoceanic flight could
>fly direct to its destination.

I think we should consider the Lae to Howland leg closer to a SURVEY flight than an established Pan Am route. We need to see how Pan Am did their SURVEY flights and what methods they used before a route was established and declared a route. I think that is where you will see the off-set method employed by Pan Am. SURVEY flights assumed that there was no DF or radio navaids. You had to find destinations using celestial both at night and during the daylight.

For Pan Am the Pacific was a big place. They had the northern route established. What was left for them was to tie up other routes across the Pacific? 

Musick was in trail (along with the other scheduled Clipper) behind AE going to Hawaii in March.   His job was to SURVEY the route to Pago Pago and New Zealand. Which I believe came to be known as the southern route. From a strategic airline standpoint, Pan Am would do well to have a central route through the Pacific. The central route would border the Japanese Mandates on the south side as compared to Pan Am's northern route.  Because of the two sabotage attempts (Japanese) on the Clippers at Oakland, it would not be a leap to think that the central route would be politically sensitive in the area of geopolitics.

Back to the off-set method. Noonan wrote to Gene Pallet  how bad the radio was on the South Atlantic crossing. Any DFing on a station in Africa would seem to be out of the question, which brings us to AE's story of turning north instead of following Noonan's instructions to turn the other way to Dakar.

AE tested the DF at Lae, which was to some extent, was inconclusive. Before even leaving Lae, Noonan should considered the possibility of NOT having DF to find Howland.  The first call from AE (about 200 miles out) to the Itasca wanting a DF steer was at 17:45 GMT (06:15 Itasca), close to sunrise . This would be SOP for a Clipper to make that call at that distance (even 300 miles is not out of the question using an Adcock system and key).  They seemed to be expecting a response at that time, that never came. This would seem to be the first red flag to go up (no radio contact). At this point Noonan was faced with possibility of finding Howland without DF.  The second request (about 100 miles out) for a DF steer came at 18:15 GMT (06:45 Itasca) and they still had no radio contact.


The 17:45 GMT request went unanswered and Noonan should have realized that the off-set method (Safford referred to it as an emergency procedure) required more time to execute than a new heading change from DF information. Of the two methods of approach to Howland the off-set had to be started first.

What might be revealing is an examination of Noonan's charts that he used on SURVEY flights. 

Daryll

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Someone who knows, please correct me if I'm wrong (talk about an unnecessary  request), but it's my impression that Pan Am "survey" flights were only made  AFTER the DF stations were in place.  They surveyed the route prior to carrying passengers but there would be no point in flying the route until then.  ======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:59:40 EST
From:          Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Fred's significant navigation errors

Angus asked:

> Just exactly what were these "significant errors" that Fred made? Were they
> in observation or in calculation or use of his tables?
>
> ****************************************************************************
>From Ric
>
> On at least one occasion he misidentified a star and on another he seems to
> have  misread the readings on the instrument.

It seems to me that Angus was requesting more specific information on Fred Noonan's navigational errors. Can someone tell us exactly what the errors are, how we know they were made, and the net effect? (If this is already set out somewhere on the Forum, please point it out.) Many thanks.

Oscar
**************************************************************************
From Ric

That's the whole point in sending out the charts - to give other experts a chance to check Noonan's navigation.  I don't want to bias the evaluations. The copies are made and will be mailed tomorrow.  I'll only ask Bob to be more specific about the errors if others have trouble finding them.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:00:49 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

Re: Noonan's letter to Weems/April 37

 Upon closer reading, Noonan's description of the flight to Hawaii refers to his work on one of the  Pan Am "Clippers" flights westbound and eastbound. No dates. But it apparently was not the Electra flight.  He was too busy preparing for the Oakland to Hawaii flight so that this was a delayed response to an earlier question. Again he depended on celestrial fixes and the D.F. into Mokapu, with no "off set" method implied.

Ron Bright
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:02:24 EST
From:          Dave in Fremont
Subject:      Re: Fred's significant navigation errors

Sorry to interrupt the thread (and an interesting thread it is, too), but I just wanted you to know that I got my materials yesterday and I'm now "official."  Thanks!

LTM,
Dave in Fremont #2585

P.S. I'm encouraging all forum "visitors" to pony up and join.  From personal experience, I can testify that not only is it painless, it is for extremely worthwhile research and gives you a "warm fuzzy"... Cripes, the bickering and sniping on the forum, alone, is worth it:)

**************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Dave.  We're always happy to interrupt a thread for a commercial.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:04:54 EST
From:          Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: briefs or boxers?

Herman asks:

>A Russian sailor? Sailing the Pacific in 1937? Do we have any friends in
> Moscow or thereabouts who could check on this?

Certainly they were there earlier as whalers.  Thus the island named Vostok.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
*****************************************************************
From Alfred Hendrickson:

I'm with Alan. I, too, want to know what Noonan was wearing.

Seriously, Kathie, you indicate that this was related in an Earhart biography. What biography? I'd like to look this one up.

LTM, who generally preferred to wear more feminine attire,
Alfred Hendrickson #2583
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:18:20 EST
From:          Jim Tierney
Subject:      Noonan's Navigation Habits

First- Captain Ed Musick was in command of the FIRST survey flight to Auckland on March 17,1937...They left SFO 0n the 17th and arrived in Honolulu on the 18th. Route was  SFO-Honolulu-Kingman Reef-Pago pago-Auckland. Aircraft was an S-42B- Pan Am Clipper II.

Pan Am did survey flights on all routes without passengers and mail to check out all operational aspects....Then they made an official flight with mail-no passengers. Then came the first revenue flights.....

They made no survey flights unless there was the Adcock DF Radio setup on the island/destination--checked out and working---Then they would take off...

Jim Tierney
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:31:39 EST
From:          Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: Fred's significant navigation errors

> That's the whole point in sending out the charts - to give other experts a
> chance to check Noonan's navigation.  I don't want to bias the evaluations.
> The copies are made and will be mailed tomorrow.  I'll only ask Bob to be
> more specific about the errors if others have trouble finding them.

Say what? Who are these "experts"? I certainly don't claim to be one, though I think I can read a chart and understand navigation well enough to see whether or not the experts understand what they are talking about. That's the whole point.

Are you telling us that some expert says there were errors, that you don't understand what the implications of those errors were, and that none of us can understand either - so we needn't be told, we must simply accept it second hand? Sorry, but I don't buy it. The worry about "bias" is not a real concern - either the errors are on the chart and documentable, or they are not. In any case, I concede  that I will have trouble finding the errors, please ask Bob to explain them.

Thanks.

Oscar
************************************************************************
From Ric

There seems to be some confusion about what I offered to do.  Let's run through it again and I'll try to be clearer.  Here's what I said:

"The question of Noonan's navigational performance on the Oakland/Hono flight is an example of one of those questions (like some of the radio questions) that takes considerable expertise to answer - expertise that is beyond the ability of most forum subscribers to even follow, let alone exercise.  On these subjects I'm as much out of my pay grade as most of you.

In these situations, much as we dislike doing so, we have to rely upon the findings of "experts".  Fortunately, navigation is a science as well as an art and competent practioners should be able to agree on answers to objective questions.  Bob Brandenburg  has checked Noonan's work on the Oakland/Hono flight and has found that significant errors were made in celestial observations that resulted in the flight not being where Noonan thought it was.  Bob agrees with my statement that, without DF bearings, Noonan may well have missed Oahu by 50 miles.

I have learned to have faith in Bob's work in his field(s) of expertise but  it is central to this project that we don't ask anyone to take anything on faith.  We have other experienced navigators on this forum, some of whom are TIGHAR members, some not.  To check Fred's navigation you need:
- a copy of Noonan's charts
- H.O. 208 (Dreisonstok's sight reduction tables)
- the Nautical Almanac for 1937

I will be happy to provide a full size photocopy of Noonan's Oakland/Hono chart from the Purdue archives for the cost of oversize photocopying and shipping (call it 20 bucks).  Those who have the expertise to use them should be able to obtain the other required publications.  If not, we can help steer you in the right direction.

As always, we encourage peer review.  Just let me know if you want to play."

*******************
As I said above, we don't ask anyone to take anything on faith.  The question of Noonan's record of performance on previous flights is an important one. At this point it looks to Bob like Noonan made some significant errors on the Oakland/Hono flight and I've offered to make available copies of Noonan's chart for peer review.  If Bob is right, those who have the expertise to evaluate Noonan's work should agree with him.  If not, we need to know that. Right now, Bob is helping us with other important research and neither he nor I have time to stop and have him explain it all to me so that I can, in turn, put it all in layman's terms for the forum.

I understand that everyone wants all the answers to everything right now.  So do I.  For the moment however, the most efficient use of time is to let those who do have the expertise look at the charts and tables and almanac and see if they agree with Bob.  Of the people who have requested a chart I would think that Gary LaPook has the experience and expertise to do such a review - and nobody would accuse him of being inclined to agree with TIGHAR.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:36:52 EST
From:          Oscar Boswell
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Marty Moleski writes:

>That's the COURSE that they reported they were flying
> in the last message received.  We don't know whether
> they were heading NNW (337) or SSE (157) at the time
> of the transmission.

It seems to me that they reported that they were flying "North and South", not 157/337 - or am I mistaken ?
*************************************************************************
From Ric

There is an exact copy of the Itasca radio log on the TIGHAR website.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:40:49 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

> Upon closer reading, Noonan's description of the flight to Hawaii refers to
> his work on one of the  Pan Am "Clippers" flights westbound and eastbound.
> No dates.

Thanks, Ron. I can always count on you to get it right. We all write stuff sometimes off the top of our heads but eventually we are all heading in the same direction.

Here's a good example. I am in the throes of a self created controversy over what props were on the Electra. (Stay out of this thread Ric. Focus on the post loss stuff and we'll get to the bottom of the prop issue.)

I have Johnson's report #465 test flight on the Electra 10E which never specifies which model 10E he was flying. It was done in Nov of 1935. At any rate the S3H1 engines were using Hamilton Standard 6095-6 propellers and the report clearly states they were 9 foot props. I've never doubted that until I started emailing Hamilton Standard about the weight of the prop blades. They are now Hamilton Sundstrand.

They (Jim Bennett) tell me the 6095-0 is 9 foot but the 6095-6 is 8.5 feet in diameter. ARRRRRGGGH!

I'm now trying to sort out what was on the plane before and then after the Honolulu wreck. One significance is performance and the other is the measurements on the wreck photo and for those who are reading this fantastic new information with abated breath there is probably little or no significance to the whole issue. My unabated curiosity is all.

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

I have explained to Alan that I went through all this with Hamilton Standard years ago.  The props were 9 feet.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:44:47 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

Bob Lee writes:

> In looking over my "sketch" of the flight path heading, sun position at
> sunrise, LOP, it would seem to me that any offset would be to come in
> south of Howland and just north of Baker --

Bob, look over your sketch again. Given the angle of the LOP (NW/SE) they would reach it NORTH of Howland first not south. The beauty of that particular LOP is that IF the were north and turned SE on it they SHOULD (although obviously they didn't) see first Howland then Baker and eventually the Phoenix group. No other LOP or scenario will do that.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:50:53 EST
From:          Dusty
Subject:      Re: briefs or boxers?

The answer is briefs, and but the guy was not Russian (unless there is a completely different story than I have never heard)

This is the story of an American guy whose name would take me a while to find, who contacted George Putnam in August of 1937 to tell him he had his wife on board a ship on which he was working and demanded $2000.00 for her release.  The reason that George believed that this might be true is because the man said that when the ship found her, she was wearing men's briefs, and nothing else.  Gene Vidal, as we all know, bought Amelia men's briefs to wear on her flight and was present at the meeting between the would-be extortionist and George.  No one else, save Amelia, Gene and George (and perhaps Fred) knew that Amelia was wearing men's briefs to fly in.

Even though the man was able to give George one of Amelia's scarves as evidence that he had her on the ship, still, George was suspicious enough and called the FBI. It turns out the man got a hold of one of Amelia's scarves when it came off her during some big event she was at. The FBI eventually arrested the guy and last time anyone heard, he was locked up in the nut house.

Cheerio and adios - Dusty
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:53:59 EST
From:          Carl
Subject:      Re: Arriving at dawn (worth reading)

If you fellows would read parts of Ernest K Gann's mostly autobiographical book "Fate is the Hunter" published in 1961  he goes into many of the subjects that are discussed on the forum including overwater navigation  and operations and  just a little later than the time [1939- 45] we focus on.
                            thanks for listening  Carl
***********************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Carl.  Many of us consider Fate Is The Hunter to be holy scripture but the aviation world was changing so fast in those years that we can't use anything that happened in 1939 as a model for 1937.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:55:12 EST
From:          Kathie
Subject:      the underwear story

It's on page 291 of the Susan Butler biography.  Butler is pretty much accepting of the "crashed and sank" theory, so she doesn't present this as evidence of landing/survival, by any stretch of the imagination.  And it's also presented that all the principals generally regarded it as a hoax at the time it was reported.  The discussion in the bio is actually about whose underwear AE is wearing, because it's known that she wore men's underwear when flying long distances.  Butler indicates that the men in AE's life each believed she wore the ones they purchased for her - and yes, Vidal wore briefs.

I'm not saying this is evidence for the Niku theory, I'm just asking whether anyone in Tighar had looked into it.  It certainly sounds like a hoax, especially if it were widely known (by Russians?) that AE wore men's shorts.

LTM, (who always said wear clean ones)
k
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:55:30 EST
From:          Maggie
Subject:      Re: briefs or boxers?

It is a known fact that AE wore men's underwear under her slacks.  Since women's underwear at that time was not conducive to being worn under slacks, AE had to rely on men's fashions.

LTM,
Maggie
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I hope that known fact is better than all the other known facts about Earhart that are pure myth.

========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 Feb 2003 08:45:10 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: briefs or boxers?

Maggie wrote

> Since women's underwear at that time was not conducive to being worn under
> slacks, AE had to rely on men's fashions.

I have no personal experience to fall back on as at five years old I was a little shy with girls but Maggie seems to be implying there was some underwear technical problem that has escaped me. Possibly we don't need to know what that was.

Alan
***************************************************************************
From Bob Sherman

Maggie wrote:

> ... Since women's underwear at that time was not conducive to being worn under slacks,
> AE had to rely on men's fashions.

My wife says, Baloney!   She wore regular women's 'briefs' under slacks long before and after the AE flight.   She also adds, my brothers 'shorts' were more bulky than the ladies briefs of the time .  Soo!  If AE wore men's underwear, you have a whole new aspect to look into ..
RC   [Bob Sherman ..  who also wore men's underwear...
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 Feb 2003 08:46:31 EST
From:          Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

Alan wrote:

> Bob, look over your sketch again. Given the angle of the LOP (NW/SE) they
> would reach it NORTH of Howland first not south.

Of course Alan -- my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

Bob
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 Feb 2003 08:47:48 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

Ric wrote:

> I have explained to Alan that I went through all this with Hamilton
> Standard years ago.  The props were 9 feet.

Ric DID explain all this to me but this email was already in the send list when he did it. Ric, explained TIGHAR's contact at H-S went through all this some time ago and confirmed the Earhart props WERE nine foot props. ALL the paper work incorrectly referred to the -6 when they should have stated -0 props. H-S explained to me it was a CAA certification using the wrong suffix and it was just continued down the line.

As a practical matter other factors of the prop such as width, aerodynamic design,  etc would have had more effect than the length says H-S. Bottom line is that it wouldn't make a significant difference.

No doubt there will be other little anomalies we'll stumble onto that have long ago been put to rest.

I thought I had found something to get everyone away from navigation but alas such is not so.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 Feb 2003 08:51:54 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Fred's significant navigation errors.

Since Amelia and Fred were, we presume, flying at times at a height of 10,000ft, has the possibility of hypoxia on the Lae-Howland leg been considered? I believe that most people show symptoms of oxygen starvation above this altitude. Smokers, however, suffer worse than non-smokers on account of their lowered blood haemoglobin content. Whilst Amelia was not a smoker, Fred was. It seems entirely possible that his judgment was adversely affected and he could have been more susceptible to making mistakes. I do not know the altitudes they were flying but could the errors and mistakes on the flight to Oahu have been caused in this way?

I also imagine that Fred was "out of practice" in this respect when he signed on for the world flight.

Of course if they had flown extensively at high altitude on previous legs, they may have become partially acclimatised, but full acclimatisation takes considerable time. Alcohol and caffeine both exacerbate altitude sickness, both of which Fred seems to have had some interest in from anecdotal accounts.

Regards Angus.

*********************************************************************
From Ric

Low grade hypoxia, fatigue, hearing loss - all of these factors could have influenced performance.  I just don't know any way to quantify it.
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 Feb 2003 08:54:00 EST
From:          Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty July 5th? Whoa!

That other Miller, Hue, says:

>-Gee, now we contrarians will have to trim our sails too, to the direction of
> the changing  winds.

And I'd like to applaud Ric and others for continuing to consider the evidence after first thinking that July 2 fit best. Sometimes further consideration of the evidence yields new thoughts and a solution that fits better than the original.

>Now I have to figure out why AE and FN wade back to the plane after a couple
>days, to have a wrasslin' match there in the stifling heat, she won't let him
>back out,

I can explain that for you, Hue. The airplane is being bounced around by high tides and might float out to sea. It may be their last chance to send a radio message and thus risking the stifling heat is a risk they might reasonably take. Wrassling? I could see being ready to rip someone else's eyeballs out in that situation ...

>Yes, I know they didn't have water, so maybe that explains "quick". Maybe they had
>alcohol, and that explains the rest.

Stress and panic from being stranded on a deserted Pacific Island with no (or very little) fresh water in stifling heat would also explain things, wouldn't it? Although the alcohol angle does add a certain charm to the story, I can see Fred hoisting a bottle of, say, Benedictine, up to his lips for the last time ...

Paige Miller
========================================================================
Date:         Sat, 22 Feb 2003 08:54:56 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: What does it take?

You need to draw it out again. The aircraft would be approaching Howland on a true heading of 078* so they would be on the reciprocal or 258* from Howland. The sun line LOP ran 157-337*. Right angles to the approach course was 168 - 348* . You can see that the 337* segment is only 79* from the line on which they were approaching while the 157* leg was 101* away. So it was shorter turning off to the left to intercept the 337* portion of the LOP.
gl
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:10:22 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Signs of Life at Sydney

Looking through an AP news article on 12 July 37, I am reminded that one of the Colorado planes flying over Sydney (Manra) reported sighting "letters scooped in the sand spelling dozens of Polynesian word." The flyers  however said there was no sign of life, and discounted the possibility that the markings were related to the lost plane. Were there other more complete reports?

I know we discussed this before, but was it resolved? Sydney wasn't populated by PISS until after 1938, hence who was on the Island?

LTM,
Ron Bright
****************************************************************************
From Ric

The "letters in the sand" story comes from a press report from one of the reporters aboard the Colorado.  There is no mention of it in Lambrecht's written account, in pilot Bill Short's newsy letter to his father, or in Capt. Friedel's official report of the search.  It's possible that the whole thing was joke that the pilots pulled on the media pukes (modern term) to get even for the razzing they took a few days earlier for not being able to find Winslow Reef.

As for the huts on Sydney: In the 1890s Sydney, Hull and Gardner had all been under lease to John T. Arundel whose laborers had planted coconuts on each atoll.  The plantation on Gardner had failed, with only a few trees surviving into the 1930s, but the plantations on Sydney and Hull had prospered.  In early 1937, Burns Philp Southseas Co. of Australia bought the rights to harvest coconuts in the Phoenix Group.  The operation was overseen by a former naval officer by the name of John William Jones who set up his headqurters on Hull.  Apparently a brief visit was made to Gardner but it's not clear that anyone even went ashore.  Nothing there worth harvesting.  At Sydney, laborers were put ashore and housing was built, but by the time of the Earhart search in July that operation had been abandoned.  The huts that Lambrecht saw on Sydney were the recently abandoned Burns Philp shacks.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:19:15 EST
From:          Ron Reuther
Subject:      Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

The following excerpts are from the book Flying The Oceans by Horace Brock , 1979. Brock was a PAA pilot in the Pacific 1937-?

Before each departure from Alameda the crew and plane always made a pre-departure flight the day before, of not less than three hours, and everything on board, particularly instrumentation, was checked by the flight engineer and an inspector...

Everyone (the flight personnel) was at the base every day and the senior co-pilots helped a great deal in teaching navigation.  Many stories passed around.  Fred Noonan, a tall, dark Irishman, had been the first and chief navigator for the division - Musick relied heavily on him - was famous, but Fred Noonan had one problem: drink.  Musick had him followed and watched the day before departure, but once the shadow failed and well on the way to Honolulu, Noonan was found asleep and un-wake-able.  Fortunately, one of the pilot crew was Harry Canaday, an Annapolis grad who turned out to be as good a navigator as Noonan; and Musick's problem was solved.  Noonan left soon after and was employed by Amelia Earhart...

The navigating techniques we used had been set up by Noonan after consultation with Harold Gatty who with Wiley Post had circumnavigated the glove in a singe-engine Lockheed in 1931.  Gatty; was considered the foremost authority on air navigation and was consultant to Pan Am...  The navigator was very seldom off his feet although eventually we got stools for the chart tables.  We stood watches, four hours on and two off.  There was no pressurization yet in any aircraft.  Fortunately one became so exhausted, partly from nervous strain, that one could always sleep; but the navigator never did...

Friday morning at daybreak we left for Midway.  On Wednesday, the flight from Alameda to Honolulu had been 2,080 nautical miles, nothing but dead reckoning and celestial navigation all the way - but at least we had had the Matsonia and Lurline on our route and we had talked to them and gotten their positions (by CW, of course) en route...

The next day, after a  good dinner at the Pan Am hotel, a night's rest and breakfast, we were off early for Wake, only 1,034 nautical miles, our shortest leg.  Now we navigated in earnest.  There was nothing within a thousand miles of Wake and not enough fuel to get back to Midway once we passed the point-of-no-return which Navy carrier pilots call the "Splash Point."  During the middle of the day sun-sights gave us good checks on our latitude, but what could we use for a distance check?  How far had we gone?  It was clear at a comfortable 8.000 feet and we got a good observation of Venus behind the sun in the east.  An observation of one heavenly body works out to a line of position on the chart upon which you are located somewhere.  A second sight on another body gives another line, but the lines must cross at a good angle to give a reliable fix.  It is necessary to get two bodies, one ahead or behind and one abeam, to get a good fix.  A third body to give you a three-line fix is desirable, but what three bodies could you see in daylight?  We had the sun, sometimes the moon and occasionally Venus, and nothing else...

On this leg the navigator took frequent drift sights, opening a little trapdoor and throwing out a glass flask filled with aluminum powder which, when it hit the water below, made a large splotch. Sighting this splotch with a pelorus mounted by the hatch enabled one to measure the drift.  If the plane was drifting sideways above the surface due to a crosswind, the drift bomb mark would not stay directly behind the plane but angle off slightly to one side.  That angle would be the drift angle.  Taking drift sights on two different headings gave two drift angles from which wind and ground speed could be calculated.  Of course it was not all that easy because the plane was not a stable platform and it would roll and yaw, continuously introducing large errors into the drift readings which had to be averaged to get a useable figure.  The M-130  was anything but stable.  Musick used to say it was the only plane he ever flew that was very stiff and unstable around all axes.  The Sperry autopilot was almost useless as it normally hunted so badly in yaw that it would make the passengers in the tail seats sick,  and it also produced a dutch roll making it very difficult to get a good octant reading.  during the taking of sights, the plane was always flown manually.   If we had serious doubts about our position, we would get a sun line when the sun was low in the sky in the later afternoon, as when nearing Wake, and then advance the line to have it run through Wake on the chart.  Then we would make a definite turn to the north or south and dead reckon up to the line, so as to be reasonably sure we were north or south of Wake.  Then we would turn to fly down the line till we made landfall.  It was somewhat nerve wracking.  Radio bearings would have made it all so easy - had good ones always been obtainable.  Often they were not...

The British called this method "Aim-Off."  Chichester used it in his crossing of the Tasman Sea to find Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands.  He used a sextant, flying at 100 to 150 feet, having found it impossible to use a bubble octant in his little light plane.  He used precomputed sun altitudes to give him L.O. P.s (lines of position) running through his targets...

When nearing your destination, it was very easy to think you saw the atoll and very hard to stick to the course posted by the navigator on little clip on the dash.  Under no circumstances could you change course to take a look at a light green spot or a cloud shadow just to see if it wasn't the island.  It would throw off the navigation.  Positive identification was essential.  We never changed course until we were absolutely certain...

We might get radio bearings from the U.S. Navy Station at Apra on the island of Guam, and even from Japanese Rota, to get a nice fix on approaching, but then again we might not.  Anyway, no bearing was possible until we were far beyond the point-of-no-return.  As always, we were essentially dependent on celestial navigation and dead reckoning...

The navigator never rested.  It took about ten minutes to take and plot a line of position, and nearly 30 minutes to get a three star fix.  We could usually get these only at night between Honolulu and San Francisco...

While domestic airline pilots were limited by law to eight hours a day and eighty-five hours a month, we flew up to 24 hours in a day and were limited only to 250 hours in three months.  Of course, a Pacific crew was a multiple crew; everyone stood watches, four hours on and two off, but there was no way to get out of the environment.  It was just as tiring off duty as on... 

The navigator worked hardest because sighting any celestial body with the bubble octant involved ten readings of the altitude, each written down in degrees and minutes, noting the  time you started and stopped taking the sights.  Then the ten readings had to be averaged, meaning that they had to be added up and divided by ten, and this was a column of degrees, minutes and seconds, no nice decimal system here.  The time for the sight would be taken as the halfway point in the time recorded which would then have to be corrected for any error in your watch vs. the plane's chronometer.  And you must never make a mistake.  Averaging the ten altitudes would have to be done several times to check the addition.  When very tired, it would sometimes seem as though no matter how many times you added up the column, you could never get the same answer twice.  We tried using little mechanical pocket adding machines and still couldn't always get the same answer twice.  One might even have to lie down for a minute and then try again.  We did not carry oxygen and we had been told that 8,000 feet was the maximum for any prolonged period if normal alertness and speed of thought were to be maintained...

My next trip was with Captain Tilton, January 20, 1038, and it was to be my first as navigator.

[several trips later]

On the last trip I had been out one month and now had a month and a half off.  I was through with all school courses for a while, and instead spent most days teaching navigation to newly transferred pilots...

Ron Reuther
**************************************************************************
From Ric

That's good information Ron.  Thanks.

This is the first hard evidence I've seen that offsets were sometimes used by the clippers.  Sounds like the use of offsets depended upon how confident they felt about the radio bearings on a particular occasion.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:19:57 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Did  Amelia's "hallucinations" contribute to missing Howland?

In March 1936, Amelia presented a lecture at the St Petersburg Congregational Church, St Petersburg, addressing her role in the promotion of aviation, "not of Amelia Earhart".

In  her lecture Amelia said, "The last hour of the flight is the hardest for me.  I begin to have hallucinations then." [1]

We all are aware of the rigors of her round-the- world trip from Miami to Lae including  multiple time zones, perhaps dysentery, nausea from gas fumes,  fatigue, stress and noise in the cockpit and other related  problems.

Although unprovable, her comment regarding experiencing "hallucinations'" during the last part of a 20 plus hour flight, may have also contributed to the flight failure more than we speculate. Inadequate radio procedures, navigation errors, etc. all were apparent. It surely must have been a factor.

"My greatest faith in success (for experimental flights)", she said, "lies in the instruments ...A pilot can't count on what he thinks is right or on hunches, he must stick by his instruments in every case". [2] (All this before the approach to Dakar )

LTM,
Ron Bright
[1] St Petersburg Times, Sunday , 4 July 37, by Virginia Laughner.(not copyrighted)
[2] Ibid
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:20:41 EST
From:          Jim Preston
Subject:      Re: Altitude

I remember flying( C-97's) 180 kts indicated, Alt  8m to 25m, Travis-Farallon Islands heading 244 after passing the Farallon's. We basically DR'r to Hickam, I could fly that in my sleep, sometimes the Nav's pass up a heading change: 1 deg left or 1 degree right, most of the time we didn't do anything and would arrive at the HNL adiz where we were supposed to. We could get a long range heading off any radio station using our twin adf's. Why couldn't Noonan do that, they had radio stations in the 30's? During Viet Nam, 65-70, we either went south to Kwaj or north thru Wake to Guam ( DUTY FREE STORE) or Kadena then to the Philippines before Viet Nam. Even then we felt the Navigators were there to get us coffee as we had dual adf, dual vortac and Loran A. Most of the Pilots had thousands of hours  of which I ended up with over 2000 hrs flying in the Pacific. Even then there were ADF stations or Radio stations all over the Pacific. I'm only 62 but feel old when some of the new stuff is brought out.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:22:12 EST
From:          Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: Fred's significant navigation errors.

Angus Murray wrote:

> Since Amelia and Fred were, we presume, flying at times at a height of
> 10,000ft, has the possibility of hypoxia on the Lae-Howland leg been
> considered?

A friend of mine was on a VFR trip in his Cessna Skylane at 12,500 feet.  He was telling me about the trip and says he remembers checking his scan, and feeling really great and sort of giddy, then the next thing he remembers was waking up at 3000 feet in a spiral at red line airspeed.  Hypoxia is deadly and is worse at night than in the day.  Almost all of AE trip was night.  I wouldn't be surprised if she saw demons banging on the windshield much like what happened to Charles Lindbergh.

ltm Claude Stokes #2535
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:24:45 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      GCT v GMT

In 1937 I understand (thanks to Walt Holm's post in Jan 01) that what is now called UCT was referred to as GCT. I also understand that GCT and GMT measured the same thing after 1925, before which time they differed by 12 hours. The old GMT was renamed GMAT (Greenwhich mean astronomical time). (Before 1925 astronomers, observing at night, liked to use GMT where the days began at noon).

I believe navigational tables (navigators having so much in common with astronomers) were expressed in terms of GMT rather than GCT before 1925 and the almanac of this date carried a warning on the outside cover and an explanation of how to convert.

 Is it likely that Noonan would have referred to what we now call UCT as GMT rather than GCT in 1937, in spite of the fact that his tables did in fact state GCT? Is there any evidence of Noonan referring to GMT?

Regards Angus.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

AE referred specifically to GCT in her radio messages.  I don't recall any reference by Noonan one way or the other.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:26:27 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Marty Moleski wrote:


> Gary LaPook wrote:
>
> > You're
> > right, they could attempt to follow the 157* COURSE to the Phoenix
> > Islands.
>
> That's the COURSE that they reported they were flying
> in the last message received.  We don't know whether
> they were heading NNW (337) or SSE (157) at the time
> of the transmission.

Well since we are trying to be technically exact,  there were actually two different pieces of information, 1 ) they were on the 157/337 LOP, and 2) they were running north and south. They didn't actually way they were following the LOP just that they were on it. "North and south" is not following the LOP but differs from it by 23*. So they did not report that they were following the 157* course.

> > But the 157* LOP ceased to exist as the sun moved across the sky.
>
> What you mean to say is that NEW sun shots later in the
> morning would produce NEW lines of position that would
> be different from the dawn LOP.

I agree with you.

> > Subsequent sun shots could only tell them where they
> > were in relationship to the new LOPs which
> > were no longer parallel with the course to Gardner.
>
> Subsequent LOPs derived from the sun would help Fred
> estimate how far they had travelled from west to east.
> But we have no evidence that Fred thought the way that
> you do, because the information given in the last
> message received is a LOP parallel to a LOP that could
> have been drawn on the chart at dawn.

Adding to your last sentence, "or at any time within one hour after dawn." However by 2230 Z, a time when  they could have been approaching Gardner, the azimuth of the sun would be 040 and so the resulting LOP would run 130-310* closer to east-west than north-south. and nowhere close to the 157* course to the Phoenix islands. Since the 2230 Z LOP did not run north-south, a sun sight taken at that time would NOT tell him " how far they had traveled from west to east" and so, as I said before, it would not be of use in telling them if they were staying on course to Gardner.

GL
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:56:52 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: 157/337 Line of Position

Paige Miller wrote:

> Gary LaPook writes:
>
> >The 157/337 LOP cannot provide any guidance to Gardner because the azimuth
> >of the LOP changes as the sun moves across the sky.
> 
>  So what happens next ...
> you have flown a certain period of time with the heading 157 and you
> haven't found your intended destination. Is it logical to continue to
> fly 157 a little further to see if your intended destination will appear
> over the horizon? And if it doesn't, is it still logical to follow 157
> even further? Yes, I think it is logical.

It is NOT logical to continue hundreds of miles further on the 157* heading. It is only logical to follow it to the extent that Noonan estimated the uncertainty in his DR which I pointed out in other posts was more like 36 NM and unlikely to exceed 60 NM. Once having followed it that far he would know for sure that he had flown past Howland and should reverse course to go back the other way to search for it.

gl

**************************************************************************
From Ric

You have just said that he would know something "for sure" that was based upon an "estimate".

But let's play this out.  Let's take 60 nm as his estimate for the most his DR can be off.  He gets to the advanced 157/337 LOP at about 19:00 but there  is no island in sight.  He figures he has about four hours of fuel left.  He  turns left and flies 60 miles NNW which takes about half an hour.  No island .  Now he has 3.5 hours of fuel left.  Because Baker is 40 miles southeast of Howland and he didn't see Baker he has to conclude that either:

A.  He hit the advanced LOP north of Howland and has been flying away from Howland for the past half hour.
or
B.  His 60 nm estimated maximum error was wrong and he hit the advanced LOP more than a hundred miles southeast of Howland.

He must investigate Choice A first so he turns around and flies 60 miles bac k to where he started and continues on for another 60 miles.  That takes him another hour and now he's down to 2.5 hours of fuel left.  Still no island.  At this point it's apparent that his 60  mile estimate was wrong because he has explored 60 miles either side of where he first hit the line and no islands have appeared.  Now he has to make a decision.  If he decides to explore further NNW on the line he has to turn around and fly another hour just to get to where he left off searching northwestward before.  If he does that, all of his eggs will be in the NNW basket because he won't have enough  fuel to come back and do any more searching to the SSE.  However, if he keep s going SSE he is immediately searching new territory.  If he was further off to the NNW than he previously believed, he will soon reach Howland.  If he is further off to the SSE than he previously believed there are at least some other islands down that way.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:59:12 EST
From:          Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Hypoxia

From Herman De Wulf (#2406)

12.500 ft is high for a VFR flight. In Europe you'd be restricted to 5,000 ft. in most air spaces and flying under ATC control anyway with transponder and all. What's the use of flying so high under VFR when for practical reasons you are flying IFR anyway?

LTM (who was told never to climb above 10,000 ft AGL)

**********************************************************************
From Ric

I've frequently gone to 10, 11, and even 12,000 feet VFR to get over weather en route.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:00:19 EST
From:          Bob Lee
Subject:      Radio Xmit Info?

Over the weekend I re-read the book Kon Tiki. About 1/2 way into the book, a short paragraph describes, in some detail, their ability to communicate from the Pacific with a 6 watt transmitter in the 13xxx freq. range. They were able to talk consistently with LA and also had some luck reaching both Norway and Sweden. I am not a radio expert and don't know if this could relate to AE and FN's radio abilities at all, but I didn't see any references to this in the archives, so I thought I'd post it. Yes, this was 10 years later (1947).

I am sorry for the lack of specific detail, but I didn't think much of it at the time I was reading it and have since returned the book to the library. No sweat retrieving it again if anyone is interested.

Bob
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:37:13 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Radio Xmit Info?

An interesting comparison.

Having a copy of Kon-Tiki at hand, I looked up your reference. Their SW transmitter "did not send out more than 6W" and yet "late one night" they reached a guy by the name of Christian Amundsen (hopefully not Hans Christian Andersen) in Oslo. They were able to send a birthday message to King Haakon (of Norway) direct from the raft, the king responding by way of Christian a day or two later. This shows the path was feasible more than once. They were transmitting on 13990Kc. Later their messages were passed on to Norway via other radio amateurs so it seems they were not at that time in direct communication with Norway.

They also reached HAL aka Harold Kempel, in LA every night (who was initially trying to contact someone in Sweden). They themselves did not make contact with Sweden.

It seems they were about halfway across the Pacific at this time maybe about 6deg S, heading for the Marquesas although there is no real way to estimate this. These contacts were of course at night and on a higher fundamental frequency than AE's transmitter. Interestingly 1947 was the next sunspot maximum year in the cycle after 1937 and this was probably not long before June 10th ie at a similar time of year.

Regards Angus.
========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:16:09 EST
From:          Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Hypoxia

Now I see. Flying over the weather is forbidden over here. One has to stay in visual contact with the ground when flying VFR. Hence my saying that "for practical reasons you are flying IFR anyway" at such an altitude.

LTM
***************************************************************************
From Ric

We have (or at least I assume we still have) something called "VFR on top". It doesn't make any sense but neither does anything else over here.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:48:56 EST
From:          Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Hypoxia

Another reason to fly at higher altitudes sometimes is to pick up wind advantages.  Ron Reuther

***************************************************************
From Mike

VFR on top is still valid.
***************************************************************
From JDA

Other possible reasons for higher altitude...

1) True airspeed (TAS) increases with altitude for any given indicated airspeed (IAS), probably resulting in an overall fuel savings on a long leg where time to climb is not large in comparison to length of flight.

2) Taking advantage of more favorable tailwind at altitude.  Winds aloft increase with altitude and, if favorable, can increase ground speed (GS) considerably.

3)  Possibly to achieve more comfortable conditions, i.e, lower temperature, escape turbulence, etc.

JDA
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:54:21 EST
From:          Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

I don't think it would make sense to fly sse to the Pheonix group unless while flying the offset course the "Sperry Gyropilot" malfunctioned and they "yawed" their way to a position closer to Gardener. At her 200 mile call they could have been further south than they ever thought because of the lessening tail winds.
Just a thought. Mike Juliano
************************************************************************
From Ric

I don't mind you disagreeing with a suggested scenario.  We welcome informed discussion of possibilities.  But to be taken seriously you've got to do better than "I don't think it would make sense to fly sse to the Pheonix group (sic)".
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:59:23 EST
From:          Ron Reuther
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

I agree that these excerpts suggest that PAA crews often used dead reckoning and LOPs.

Brock was a PAA pilot from 1936 thru 1948 when he became a division (Atlantic I think) manager for PAA and ultimately he retired from PAA. There is a typo in my original message toward the end.  It was January 20, 1938 when Brock made the flight with Tilton.

Ron Reuther
*************************************************************************
From Ric

This is progress.  I hope we're beginning to get a more realistic picture of how the Pan Am crews actually carried out the navigation.  Company propaganda, of course, promoted the idea that navigators like Noonan were wizards and the Adcock DF system was flawless, but neither was true.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:01:31 EST
From:          Alexis
Subject:      ...flying in Europe

I wonder if Herman ever flew in Europe, because most of what he wrote is wrong.

VFR on top is absolutely legal in Germany, all you need is a VOR, COM and a transponder. In Germany you have to set the Xpdr to 0022 above 5000 and set your altimeter to 1013/29.92, that's all you need. It IS ok to fly VFR, even without communicating to ATC in most controlled airspaces.

Also, VFR in Germany is not limited to 5000 ft but to Flight Level 100. Above FL100 you can still get a clearance, for example if you need to stay above clouds. Actually, I do it all the time, my normal cruising altitude through Germany and France, and also Austria is between FL 80 and FL100.

Alexis
editor fliegermagazin Munich
(flyer's magazine)
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:04:03 EST
From:          Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Amelia's "hallucinations"

I think that this is one of the most gripping (although unproveable) aspects of the mystery. The last 7 hours on board that plane and the next 72 hours on Niku(?) with exhausted, wounded(?) and frustrated people must have really been something.

I just wonder at what point early that final morning it really dawned on them just how dire their situation was.

Not much help in locating the plane or solving the mystery, but fascinating none the less.

Bob
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:09:56 EST
From:          Joe WEber
Subject:      Re: Hypoxia

VFR on top makes a lot of sense -  When instructing in T-37s at Moody AFB, where the weather is bad in the summer (stratus-fog)  we would launch formations (2-ship) IFR Get on top, split, fly a normal Contact (acro etc) mission, rejoin in the holding pattern at pre-arranged time (approach times were assigned on climb-out),. and  fly a VOR or VOR/GCA approach and landing.  We got twice as many planes up that way, and was less work for ATC and RAPCON.
Joe Weber
Bedford, IN
**************************************************************************
From Ric

We're getting waaay off-topic here but let me clarify what I meant when I said VFR On Top doesn't make any sense.  For an instrument rated pilot in a properly equipped airplane it makes all the sense in the world, but to let a VFR-only pilot get himself into a situation where he's counting on the weather opening up down below in order to get back down is just asking for trouble.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:11:44 EST
From:          Tom Strang
Subject:      Betty's Note Book?

For Ron Bright,

In a recent post you stated that you had copies of the St. Petersburg Times from July 2, 1937 on - Question for you - What edition of the St Petersburg Times carried the first story of Amlia Earhart as being missing?

Respectfully:
Tom Strang
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I can answer that.  Saturday, July 3rd.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:13:00 EST
From:          Tom Strang
Subject:      Betty's Father?

You have stated that Betty's father contacted the St. Petersburg Coast Guard Station in person - How far away was the Coast Guard Station in relationship to Betty's home address of 2027 Auburn Street South in 1937.

Respectfully:

Tom Strang
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Anybody know this?  Why is it important?
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:20:38 EST
From:          Bob Sherman
Subject:      60 MILE ERROR 157/337

In response to Gary LaPook & Ric

Both of you present scenarios wherein Fred was within 60 miles of his position and each of you postulate how he could have flown back & forth to the extent of their fuel.

Don't short change Fred.  He could have just as easily been only 15 miles in error in his Eastward position!    With an extreme of 14 miles visibility, they could have passed HOW .. even more than once, without ever seeing or being seen.  RC

*************************************************************************
From Ric

Very true, in which the scenario I outlined still applies.  All I did was accept Gary's speculation about 60 miles being the maximum Noonan may have thought he could be off (north/south).  The only other assumption I made is that he didn't see either Howland or Baker, which I feel is a fairly safe guess.  I then outlined a possible course of action(s) which seem to proceed logically.  I don't if that's what happened, but it seems to me to be one possibility.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:34:19 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 157/337 Line of Position

Ric writes

> .......he has to conclude that either:
> A.  He hit the advanced LOP north of Howland and has been flying away from
> Howland for the past half hour.
> or
> B.  His 60 nm estimated maximum error was wrong and he hit the advanced LOP
> more than a hundred miles southeast of Howland.

Ric, the point you are making in this note is exactly correct and I can't understand why it seems so difficult to understand but perhaps we have still not quite made the LOP thread as clear as previously thought.

I might add, however, that in addition to the above most probably and logical conclusions there is also the possibility they hit short or long on their LOP. If they hit long then it would seem to me they must have also been north or south as they did not see the islands at any time on their over flight. But again I can't come up with a reasonable (to me) explanation as to why Noonan couldn't refine his east/west position during the hour between 7:42 and 8:43.

Alan
************************************************************************
From Ric

Exactly.  He gets his 157/337 LOP and he advances it through Howland and does his damnedest to figure out how long it's going to take him to get there. Once he reaches that point there is no island in sight.  Now he has to search for Howland.  He knows that his north/south position is a lot shakier than his east/west position.  He has to base his search on the best information he has (his east/west position) so it makes the most sense to run north and south - just like AE said they were doing.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:35:56 EST
From:          Denise
Subject:      Russian Extortionists!

Note to Dusty:  That story you tell about the ransom, the underpants and the scarf, I heard that one too ... but in the version I heard the guy was still a Russian, but travelling on a ship registered to one of those fake Panama companies.

LTM (who was endlessly fascinated by how stories evolve as they travel.)
Denise
***************************************************************************
From Ric

The ransom hoax is well documented.  The guy was not a Russian.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:26 EST
From:          Hue Miller
Subject:      Re: Radio Xmit Info?

Bob Lee wrote:

> Over the weekend I re-read the book Kon Tiki. About 1/2 way into the
> book, a short paragraph describes, in some detail, their ability to
> communicate from the Pacific with a 6 watt transmitter in the13xxx
> freq. range. They were able to talk consistently with LA and also had
> some luck reaching both Norway and Sweden....

Thor Heyerdahl, the radio operator, passed away last year, I think it was. He worked with the Norwegian resistance in WW2, and this portable transmitter carried on the Kon Tiki, in addition to the standard higher power ham equipment, was a U.K. type B2 "spy radio". However, when you say "talk", you need to realize that this transmitter only worked telegraphy mode.

I previously cited the old rule of thumb that radio telegraphy, actually a slow speed digital mode, with on/ off character elements, was as effective as a voice transmitter 10 times  as powerful. However, I see in  _Short Wave Radio and the Ionosphere_, T. Bennington, 1950, page 121 table 5, shows "Signal strength for intelligible reception, in db above that required for radiotelephony [voice AM ]", lists "Manual CW telegraphy" as -17 db. That means a voice, AM transmitter requires approx. 32 times as much power to get the message through, reliably, as a slow or moderate speed telegraph (Morse code) message. ( In modern terms, I suppose you'd call this "rate adaptive" transmission, where the sending speed is adjusted, according to what "data rate" the problems with the path allow). I think the old 10x rule of thumb applies to "High speed automatic telegraphy", which includes teletype, because this book rates that as -11 db required, compared to AM voice. ( When I say "voice" here, i mean DSB AM,  double sideband plus carrier, amplitude modulation,  the main voice mode up to the 1960s/ 70s, and of course the same mode that AE's WECo radio operated.)

Little off topic, but the above is a slight digression anyway- Kon Tiki is one swell story. If you enjoyed it, and admire the manly man Thor Heyerdahl, you might want to look up a book titled "Fatu Hiva", about his and his new bride's attempt to live on a south pacific island, around 1938?? I think. Turned out to be a paradise NOT, and they finally had to give up and leave. Nat'l Geographic also told their story in one issue of about the same year.

We could speculate that if AE or FN had taken from 2 to 4 weeks to gain some elementary Morse code ability, and taken along a telegraph key, they might have survived.

Hue Miller
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:40:47 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Mike Juliano wrote:

> I don't think it would make sense to fly sse to the Pheonix group unless
> while flying the offset course the "Sperry Gyropilot" malfunctioned and they
> "yawed" their way to a position closer to Gardener. At her 200 mile call they
> could have been further south than they ever thought because of the lessening
> tail winds.

Mike, I'm not clear on what you mean by this. I agree with Ric that you need more explanation. By that I would have liked to see you write, "I don't think it would make sense ........... BECAUSE..........." As you wrote it the use of "yaw" is confusing as it simply means rotating the longitudinal axis of the aircraft about the vertical axis without changing the actual flight path. It's also called "crabbing" and is accomplished by, for example, holding right rudder and left aileron. The plane just keeps going on the same course but a bit cockeyed. <G> The technique is often used on final in crosswind landings and to lose altitude when too high on the approach.

In your posting yawing would not alter the course flown and so would have no effect on getting "closer to Gardner." My guess is that you meant something else.

I also suspect you have, in your mind, not clearly separated the infamous "LOP of 157/337" with a course of SSE. The 157/337 LOP was a line of position derived possibly from a sun shot, projected east to run through Howland and drawn on the map. Once drawn on the map, for all practical purposes, it ceased to be an LOP and rather became a simple course line. As an LOP its function was to tell the navigator that he was on that line some place when his computed ground speed told him he had reached it.  At that point it is just a course drawn on the map to fly. That is accomplished by, in this case, turning to 157 or 337, adjusted for wind, and attempting to fly that path over the ground or water.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:33:45 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Amelia's "hallucinations"

Bob Lee wrote:

> Ron,
> I think that this is one of the most gripping (although unprovable)
> aspects of the mystery. The last 7 hours on board that plane and the
> next 72 hours on Niku(?) with exhausted, wounded(?) and frustrated
> people must have really been something.

Guys and gals I think we may be over emotionalizing this. I've flown long distances and certainly I was tired but I get tired sitting at this computer. Getting tired is not all that much of a big deal. I don't doubt for a minute they were weary near the end. They were probably weary before they reached half way but BOTH were pilots and could take turns resting or napping. Why would they not?

And the hallucination comment is likely to have been taken too literally. I can't believe she actually meant that.

I can see the flyers tired and anxious but little else. these two were grown ups and fairly well experienced. Rather than panic and going bonkers I would more easily accept a resignation to a poor outcome of their flight. In Vietnam we used to tell each other not to tighten up in a precarious situation as all we would accomplish is dying all stressed out. Clearly one or both could have suffered some injury in a landing but I think we are allowing ourselves to be carried away with the presumed magnitude of such suggestions.

Alan
**********************************************************************
From Ric

This is one of those imponderables.  How would these people react in this situation?  We have little bit of hard information in the fact that the in flight transmissions heard by the Itasca do not reflect anxiety but not any irrationality or panic.

If Betty's notebook is an authentic transcription of phrases heard from the Electra, it gives us almost too much information about the mental state of Earhart and Noonan on whatever day the transmissions took place.  None of the other alleged post-loss receptions have anything like the emotional content of Betty's notebook.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:20:25 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Radio Xmit Info?

Hue Miller wrote:

> We could speculate that if AE or FN had taken from 2 to 4 weeks
> to gain some elementary Morse code ability, and taken along a
> telegraph key, they might have survived.

It is very noticeable, that although there seemed a number of attempted CW transmissions, only a couple were intelligible to any degree in spite of the fact that one of those that was, was described as "not the best but quite readable". This seems to imply that the quality of the sender's Morse or lack of a Morse key was not necessarily the essential problem with the other unintelligible CW transmissions. Voice, on the other hand, which in theory should have been less intelligible, was received plenty of times with intelligible content. Any ideas as to why this might have been would be welcome.

Incidentally, Heyerdahl was not the radio operator. It was Torstein Raaby and Knut Haugland who operated the radio.  From the reef at Raroia they were also able to reach a ham in Colorado at about 10.00pm their time. Interestingly the information that this transmission was from Kon-Tiki and that they were stranded on a desert island in the Pacific was greeted with disbelief and the ham went off air.

One can  imagine that some messages sent by AE ten years earlier may well have elicited exactly the same response.

Regards Angus

**************************************************************************
From Ric

A little preview:
Of a final tally of 184 post-loss "events"
57 (31%) were carrier wave only
48 (26%) were unintelligible voice
35 (19%) were intelligible voice
22 (12%) were Morse code
20 (11%) were dashes
2 (1%) were not specified by the reporter

As you can see, voice transmissions account for nearly half of all reported events. Almost all of the unintelligible voice events (44 events) were reported by professional operators and more than half of those (26 events) were heard by stations that were within 1,000 nautical miles of Howland Island.

By contrast, all but four of the instances when intelligible voice was heard (31 events) were reported by amateurs in Hawaii (2 events) or the mainland U.S. (29 events).  This is, of course, just backward of what one might expect and is the reason that the amateur reports were so widely discounted.

Disregarding for the moment all of the voice events, intelligible or unintelligible, that were heard outside the search area, we're left with the impression that there was a transmitter somewhere in the search area sending voice signals that were too weak to be heard as intelligible messages most of the time.  However, the Itasca radio log contains three post-loss occasions - one by Itasca, one by Howland, and two by Baker - when an operator logged an unequivocal identification of a signal from the Earhart plane.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:23:11 EST
From:          Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Hypoxia

For those of us whose take off roll starts at 5,200 feet MSL, 12,000 + is not an unusual altitude to attain on a VFR flight, especially if we are headed east - West over the Continental Divide.  Most of the passes are between 10K and 12k.

Spending time at altitude definitely gives you an advantage, and I would think that Fred and Amelia would have been fairly well acclimated to an altitude greater than sea level such that operating at 10,000' would not have caused a Hypoxia problem.  Most people do not have problems at 10K, which is why the regs are written such that only above 12,500 ft does supplimental O2 become an issue.

I think Hypoxia is a non issue.  Unlikely to have occurred, would have been cured by descending to 1000 ft, and pure speculation at best.

LTM (who enjoyed her high altitude chamber flight)

Andrew McKenna
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:53:38 EST
From:          Michael Smith
Subject:      Re: 157/337 Line of Position

Ric, you fail to play this scenario out all the way.  At the end of your scenario, Noonan is 60 miles SSE of the point at which he originally hit the LOP.  He has explored the LOP 60 miles NNW and 60 miles SSE of his initial contact point on the LOP without sighting any land.  He has 2.5 hours of fuel left.  You suggest that it makes sense for him to continue SSE.  I agree.  However, I cannot agree that it makes sense for him to continue in that direction until he sights land or runs out of gas.  Let's suppose that Noonan flies an additional 60 miles SSE on the LOP.  At this point, he has explored 120 miles SSE from where he initially hit the LOP--more than twice his estimated maximum error.  He has 2 hours of fuel left.  Now Noonan has another choice.  He can:

A.  Turn around and fly NNW up the LOP for 240 miles, which would put him 120 miles NNW of where he initially hit the LOP; or
B.  Continue SSE and hope he finds Gardner.

If Noonan has any confidence at all in his estimated position, it seems to me that he turns around and looks for Howland.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

This seems to be an impossible point to get across. There is no point at which he decides to go to Gardner.  He doesn't know where he hit the line and the farther he looks along it in either direction without finding an island the less confidence he has.  Every time you double back you waste time and fuel reflying the part of the line you just searched, and every time you do that the wasted time and fuel is that much greater.  The problem with doubling back the second time to look still farther to the northwest is that the penalty for being wrong is death.  If you press on to the SSE and you're wrong you at least stand a chance of finding another island and surviving. The stakes don't get any higher than that.  I wouldn't turn around again.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:57:49 EST
From:          Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Betty's Note Book?

Ric is correct, it was Sat, 3 July. Big Headlines. Radio stations indicated "news broadcasts" from CBS and NBC, but no content identified.

On 2 July there is an interesting insert article from AP, Sydney Australia, indicating her flight from Lae was postponed because of "a break in her plane's fuel line and static which interfered with radio signals."  (I had never heard of a fuel line break).

And on 1 July, SF, that radio operators were standing by" and taking up listening posts around the world...

For something else to munch on, there was a huge power boat regatta that weekend in St Pete, and one of the boats participating was "MARIE", captained by BOB Bell!!( Yes, I know it is a coincidence) Several SOS calls and sinkings and Coast Guard rescues too!! But alas, no "Amelia Earhart" calls.
Ron B.
********************************************************************
From Ric

The Chater maintenance report makes no mention of fixing a fuel line.  It could be that some reporter misunderstood:

"Petrol pump removed from starboard engine on account of fluctuation of pressure at cruising revolutions. Spare petrol pump fitted."

The reference to static has to be the problem Fred had getting his time hack.

That's really weird about Marie and Bob.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:59:37 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Hypoxia

> I think Hypoxia is a non issue.  Unlikely to have occurred, would have been
> cured by descending to 1000 ft, and pure speculation at best.

One of the problems associated with hypoxia is its insidious nature. If you don't realise there's a problem you don't descend. You are not aware your thinking is impaired.

I quote:

"There is a commonly encountered misconception among aviators that it is possible to learn all of the early symptoms of hypoxia and then to take corrective measures once symptoms are noted. This concept is appealing because it allows all action, both preventive and corrective, to be postponed until the actual occurrence.

"Unfortunately, the theory is both false and dangerous. One of the earliest effects of hypoxia is impairment of judgment. Therefore, even if the early symptoms are noted, an aviator may disregard them and often does, or he may take corrective action which is actually hazardous, such as disconnecting himself from his only oxygen supply. Finally, at high altitudes, hypoxia may cause unconsciousness as the first symptom."

It is interesting that Brock of Pan Am states "We did not carry oxygen and we had been told that 8,000 feet was the maximum for any prolonged period if normal alertness and speed of thought were to be maintained...

It is well recognised today that in susceptible people, degradation in performance can occur at anything above 8,000 ft in daylight. In MOST people there are measurable effects above 10,000ft. Fred was very likely more susceptible than most people because he was a smoker. As has been pointed out, the problem is also worse at night and after long periods. The modern recommendation is for oxygen supplementation over 5,000 ft at night. They were flying at probably TWICE this height.

We also hear......."on the way to Honolulu, Noonan was found asleep and unwakeable". If this is not an exaggeration, either Noonan was severely drunk or possibly he was actually unconscious, due perhaps to a combination of alcohol and oxygen deficiency. Alcohol is well known for its exacerbatory effect on altitude impairment.

 This is by no means "pure speculation". It is determined fact.

Regards Angus.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:02:29 EST
From:          Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Going to Gardner?

Ric wrote: "This seems to be an impossible point to get across."

I agree, Ric. This is a difficult thing. I'm not sure I completely understand it, but this what I have:

They fly to where they think Howland is. They do not find Howland. They begin to look for Howland, first to the NNW (337). They go some distance (60 nm?) that direction and still do not find Howland. They turn (180 degrees) and proceed SSE (157) going back across the point where they originally turned. (I'm guessing that, at this point, they feel they still have a decent chance of finding Howland.) They go some distance to the SSE of the turn point. They still do not find Howland. They continue SSE, probably reasoning that they will stay the course to the SSE until they either:

A: Find Howland, or
B: Find some other landfall, or
C: Run out of fuel.

They never "decide to go to Gardner". Rather, they happen upon Gardner as they head SSE. They successfully land on Gardner, do a round of high-fives, and the rest is . . . well, I don't know what it is.

LTM, who always preferred three of a kind to two pair,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
************************************************************************
From Ric

To paraphrase Prof. Higgins:  By Jove I think he's got it.
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:06:11 EST
From:          Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: ...flying in Europe

As a matter of fact I did fly for some 20 years and can tell you flying VFR on top is illegal in Belgium (unless there are holes in them big enough to claim you are in sight of the ground). Air space is controlled from 4,500 ft. up (not 18,000 ft like in the US). Anything higher is controlled airspace where altimeter setting is 1013 mb. Transition altitude is 4,500 ft. as a rule. Even when flying VFR below 4,500 ft. altitude will be determined by the semicircular system from 3,000 ft. up. Flying VFR in controlled airspace is in fact called CVFR and requires two way radio to remain in contact with ATC all the time, VOR , transponder etc. And it pays to have a the good old fashioned ADF to get to some places. Commercial radio stations sometimes still work wonders to get to places without DF. When flying VFR on weekdays remember to stay above 1,500 ft. to allow military traffic to pass underneath (usually F-16s Alpha Jets or Tornado's). Belgian and Dutch airspace is very crowded, with lots of restricted and prohibited areas (GPS is very handy) and flight plans are compulsory for most flights but from and to uncontrolled grass fields. Even a 20 minute hop across the border from a grassfield in Belgium to a grass field in the Netherlands makes a flight plan compulsory because you will be entering an other FIR and believe it or not, but military authorities will have to be informed of this...

Even with all the recent TFRs since 9/11 flying in the US today is a lot easier than flying over here. Being near the North Sea the Low Countries have the same climate as the UK, meaning it is raining 200 days a year. Hence when flying VFR at 4,500 ft. you will probably already be dodging clouds. You are not allowed to fly through them unless flying IFR. As a rule of thumb you'll meet clouds from anything between  1,500 to 2,000 ft AGL. Visibility is usually around 4,000 meters (3,000 ft. is the legal limit) but in Belgium we have a "Special VFR", allowing trained pilots to limp to an airfield with visibility down to 1,500 m. Visibility rarely exceeds the 8 km required for crossing busy areas. For flying above clouds (out of visual contact with the ground) you do need an IFR qualification. If you cheek and pretend to be flying IFR without having the license, expect your local ATC friend to have warned the authorities at your destination. I've known this to happen. Also, if you fly VFR at 3,000 or 5,000 ft. or at any altitude (with transponder and all) expect to be ordered by Brussels ATC to descend below the cloud base. This too I've known to happen to Germans transiting Belgian airspace VFR to the UK.

LTM (who said the difficult part of flying is remembering the things that are forbidden)
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Can you guys maybe sort this out at the next EU meeting?
========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:09:01 EST
From:          Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Thanks Alan , I stand corrected. What I was trying to say was that while on the last leg of the flight , which would have been under a star-less night, AE/FN would have had to rely heavily on Dead re-conning and pilot-age to get them to a position where FN could a fix. AE had documented problems with the "gyropilot" . Without an autopilot a leg of say 1142miles can be very stressful. Even with a properly working autopilot you still have to keep up with your gyrocompass settings. So what I'm saying is that the actual course they flew on their "last leg" to Howland was well south of the intended course line. When AE called "about 200 miles out" that estimate must have been based on pilot-age only otherwise she should have given lat and long from Noonan so they could have been 200 miles to the sw or 200 miles nnw of Howland. I say they were to the sw of Howland and their course because 1.AE complained the autogyro turned (not yawed)to the right before it was "repaired". 2. The head winds had diminished considerably during the night. (If she had set up the AC for a right-quartering headwind and the wind lessened the AC would have turned  more to the right.) 3. Like Ric said when the line of position was taken they could have been anywhere. But in my opinion that "anywhere" was closer to Gardener than to Howland. Mike J.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:44:06 EST
From:          Alexis
Subject:      flying in europe (one more :-))

Well, Herman, maybe what I find strange is that you call Belgium "Europe".

The rules in MOST of Europe are different, and they are very different in Europe. I have not flown in Belgium, only crossed it (VFR in FL80).

SO maybe you just shouldn't call Belgium "Europe" and I'll believe what you say.

In Germany you are allowed to fly on top. No visual ground contact necessary if you have a COM and a VOR and a XPDR(and I wonder what you need an ADF for, today). All you need is to make sure that your destination is VMC.Controlled AIrspace called E starts at 2500/3500n AGL up to FL 100. And you do NOT need to communicate unless you want to enter Airspace C (similar to US-C).

Ok, forget it, but remember: Belgium is not (yet) the same as "Europe". It just happens to BE in Europe.:-)

Alexis

PS. thanks anyway, I'll fly IFR the next time when passing Belgium, seems to be easier.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:46:23 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: refraction variability

Mike J wrote

> the last leg of the flight , which would have been under a star-less night...
> the actual course they flew on their "last leg" to Howland was well south
> of the intended course line...
> When AE called "about 200 miles out" that estimate must have been based on
> pilotage only

Those are good thoughts Mike and there certainly is a possibility they were south of Howland.

I have to tell you you'll get adverse comments back when you make "factual" statements like above that have no basis in fact. Most of us know those issues have not been determined but newer folks don't and that is confusing for them. We need to identify what is proven and what we are just supposing. We inadvertantly make a wrong statement and it grows wings. <G>

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:54:19 EST
From:          Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: 157/337 Line of Position

Something I'm thinking is since he will hit the lop north of Howland sooner than if south of Howland,  if he flies the number of clock ticks that will take him right at Howland, then if he is north he will overshoot, if he is south he will come up short.  Either way he will not be on the lop when the clock runs out.  It seems like an impossible dream without a df steer, that is the major trouble.  All the variables can compound, sum, or negate or all three.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Stoker, you're assuming that when he gets his original LOP he is directly on course for Howland and then veers either north or south and, hence, hits the advanced line earlier or later than he expects to.  We have no evidence that such was the case.

If he is off either to the north or south when he gets his initial LOP and then flies to the advanced line, it's the same distance either way.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:55:11 EST
From:          Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Radio Xmit Info?

RE: Morse signals - it was said that AE had two sets of mikes. But according to Betty's diary, they were arguing over one mike. What if they were trying to make a "Morse code" key by taking one mike apart and sparking two wires together?

LTM,

Dave Bush
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:16:17 EST
From:          Tom Van Hare
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

On reading the forum postings about Noonan and PAA's navigation techniques, it brought back some memories of a posting I did a long time ago, back in March 1999, in which I quoted from the book, "China Clipper", by Robert L. Gandt.

The original posting, edited somewhat, may be worth reviewing. Hereupon it follows, with Ric's original comment at the end:

From Tom Van Hare (hw@historicwings.com)
3/7/99  22:43

Ric, in a recent reply to a "281 message" wrote:

> It has often been assumed that Noonan off-set his approach to
> Howland but we're aware of no evidence that he did.  It's not
> a technique that Pan Am used.

Ric, in my recent efforts to acquire new data for the effort, I have been purchasing and reading through books in related fields and areas. And so, I have recently found this interesting quote from the book, "China Clipper", by Robert L. Gandt -- it is a publication of the Naval Institute Press in 1991, ISBN: 0-87021-209-5. Since it really has nothing to do at all with Amelia Earhart (making brief mention of her once in its 214 pages), I don't really believe that the quote is not accurate, but perhaps we should contact the author to check the source.

The thrust of the quote is that Fred Noonan and Pan Am did in fact use "aim off" navigation, for which you used the terms "off-set his approach". The book describes the first flight of Pan Am's China Clipper and goes into some detail, including notes about the flight enroute to Wake Island. In it, there are several short references to Fred Noonan, the navigator for that first China Clipper voyage under the famed Pan Am captain Ed Musick.

Here, quoted from page 104 of "China Clipper":

"At dawn the China Clipper was again westbound. There were no signposts marking the 1,260-mile route to Wake. After Kure Island, only twenty minutes past Midway, there were a thousand miles of trackless ocean. No landmarks, no chain of atolls pointed to the destination. There was only Wake Island -- two-and-a-half square miles of sandspit -- barely awash in the Pacific.

"It was the most demanding feat of aerial navigation in the world. There were no alternate landing sites and not enough fuel for a return to Midway. The only aids to navigation were the sun, sometimes a glimpse of Venus, the driftsight, the navigator's own dead reckoning, and the Adcock Direction Finder, a capricious device not fully trusted by navigator Noonan. (4)

"From his bag of navigational tricks, Fred Noonan produced a technique called "aim of." "Aim off" was a tricky but effective way to ensure that a vessel or aircraft did not overshoot a tiny target like Wake.

"The navigator would deliberately fly a course to one side of his destination. Then, when he had intersected a precomputed line of position he would obtain by sun sight, he would turn and fly down the sun line to his target. "Aim off" was not infallible, but it solved half the navigational problem -- that of knowing on which side, north or south, the China Clipper might be from Wake. (5)"

---
And to complete the passage, here are the related End Notes:

(4)  Captains Horace Brock and Marius Lodeesen described the difficulties and techniques of navigation aboard the China Clipper. The problem was compounded by the flying boat's tendency to wallow, even in smooth air. According to Brock, the China Clipper "was unstable in all three axis."

(5) "Aim off" was described by Australian navigator Harold Gatty, who flew round the world with Wiley Post in 1931.
---

In short, what I am trying to say is that if this book's research is accurate, and I believe it is, we can say that Fred Noonan was not only familiar with "aim off" but used it to find Wake Island on the Clipper's first flight and, by inference, that "aim off" was a navigational technique used on Pan Am's Clippers by at least one of their navigators -- their most senior one who set the standard for the rest to follow. That record-setting flight commenced out of San Francisco on November 22, 1935. Notably, in the search for Wake Island, it involved a similar navigational challenge as finding Howland Island for Amelia Earhart. This would lend strong evidence that Fred Noonan would have done the same thing on that fateful morning just a few years later when Earhart and Noonan somehow missed Howland Island and disappeared.

Furthermore, the quote about Noonan distrusting the Adcock Direction Finder is more than a little interesting. If accurate, he would have probably mistrusted it for the flight with Earhart as well, particularly in that the operators were not Pan Am staff but lesser experienced US Navy personnel. The comment about his distrust of the DF also implies to me that he had more than a passing familiarity with its operations though this should be open to discussion and debate....

Thomas Van Hare
***************************************************************
And from Ric, posted originally in March of 1999:

It's because this sort of thing happens that I phrase sentences like "It has often been assumed that Noonan off-set his approach to Howland but we're aware of no evidence that he did."

This is very interesting Tom.
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Daryll recently asked "what it would take" to convince me that Noonan used an offset approach to Howland.  I still see no direct evidence that Noonan used the technique on the approach to Howland but information like the above, and the other quotes we've had recently from Pan Am navigators, makes it clear that Noonan was familiar with the technique and had used it on other occasions when the reliability of DF was in doubt.

If we speculate that Noonan used an offset, we then have to compound the speculation and guess whether he might have offset to the left or the right. What factors would influence that decision?  If he already knew that the flight had drifted to one side or the other of the straight course to Howland might that determine which side he would offset?  Doesn't seem like it would make much sense to go slinging back to the other side of the course.  If that is true, then the "which side to offset?" decision was based not upon the distribution of islands at the destination but upon en route wind conditions that affected the actual flight path.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:20:54 EST
From:          Lawrence
Subject:      Heard it before

I don't mean to be rude or contrary, but why are there so many postings of "What I used to do" many years ago. Surely our walls are filled will our conquest, which impress all who come to visit. There are so many brilliant minds on this forum, do we have to impress each other?

**************************************************************************
From Ric

I know what you mean.  I do what I can to hold it down but it's a pilot thing.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:25:22 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Hypoxia

Angus writes:

> I think Hypoxia is a non issue.  Unlikely to have occurred, would have been
> cured by descending to 1000 ft, and pure speculation at best.

Except that they REPORTED that they HAD descended to 1000 feet.

gl
*************************************************************************
From Ric

I hope we can all agree that hypoxia was probably not an issue during the final hours of the flight.  Whether it might have played some role in the accuracy of en route navigation is one of the many imponderables we can endlessly debate and end up back where we started.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:41:14 EST
From:          Harvey Schor
Subject:      Lockheed Horizons magazine

I would greatly appreciate it if Ric, Oscar or anyone else would tell me where I can obtain back issues of Lockheed's  Horizon Magazine.I am particularly interested in the articles by Roy Blay which have been referred to by forum members.

thank you,

harvey #2387
**************************************************************************
From Ric

I would imagine that back issues are pretty hard to find.  We included Blay's article "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" in an early edition of the Earhart Project book and got copyright clearance from Lockheed at that time.  We can scan the article and put it on a CD as a PDF file.  Twenty-five bucks covers the hassle and postage.  Anybody who wants one just let me know.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:22:10 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Turn left for Dakar

At what angle and whereabouts did the aircraft approach the coast on reaching Africa?

Since Dakar is on a promontory and the projected inbound course was from the southwest, if she thought they had arrived at the "Petite cote" to the south of Dakar, an inclination by AE to "turn left" for Dakar was entirely understandable and logical. However, to arrive on the "Grande cote" to the north on a course of 36 degrees would mean more or less overflying Dakar. AE would not then be "turning left" but carrying more or less straight on to get to St Louis as they would hit the coast at a glancing angle. That they could have overflown Dakar or come close to it without seeing it seems unlikely. Why also would AE talk about "turning left"?

Whilst there is much to be said for your suggested explanation of the diversion to St Louis, could AE merely have thought they had arrived at the coast south, rather than north of Dakar?

Regards Angus.

*********************************************************************
From Ric

Noonan's chart for the second half of the South Atlantic crossing tells a pretty interesting story.  Here's how it looks to me.  About 650 miles out from Dakar at 13:41 GCT, Noonan has the flight plotted a little more than 200 miles north of course.  He makes a course correction to the right which is calculated to take them direct to Dakar.  At 17:00 GCT he plots another position.  They're a little less than 300 miles from Dakar but now they're more than a hundred miles SOUTH of the course to Dakar he had plotted 3 hours and 20 minutes earlier.  In fact, he's now 40 miles south of the direct course from Natal to Dakar.  At this point he does not try to shoot straight for Dakar, which would mean a fairly sharp correction back to the left. Instead, he makes a slight correction to the left taking the shortest route to the African coast where he can get a firm position.  An hour later, at 18:00 GCT, he's about 50 miles off the coast and about 150 miles south of Dakar. He plots a line up the coast, but he doesn't head for Dakar which, as you note, sits on a peninsula that sticks out into the Atlantic.  Instead, he aims 22* True (02* Magnetic) for St. Louis, which is up the coast another 120 or so miles beyond Dakar.  This route would take them abeam Dakar about 50 miles off to their left at roughly 19:00 GCT but, according to Noonan's letter to Gene Palette, the visibility along the African coast was down to half a mile in haze.  Local time in Dakar is the same as Greenwich.  It's getting dark. They continue up the coast and land at St. Louis.

As you can see, there is no point in this whole affair where Earhart's story about disagreeing with Noonan about which way to turn makes any sense.  The famous note that is reproduced in Last Flight and is now in the Purdue
archive says: 

3:36 change to 36*
Estimate 79 miles to
Dakar from 3:36 PM

Below that, in Earhart's hand, is written:

What - put us north

79 miles to Dakar at 3:36 PM (15:36) only makes sense if AE is still on Natal time which is Greenwich minus 3 hours today.  If Noonan's 18:00 GCT position was correct, they could be off Bald Cape at the mouth of the Gambia River and just about 79 miles from Dakar at 18:36 (3:36 PM to AE), but the heading change to 36* makes no sense at all, either True or Magnetic.  From that point to Dakar is North to NNW True or NNW to NW Magnetic depending on just how far offshore you are.  There is no way that 36* in any form will get you to Dakar.

Neither can I make sense of "What put us north"  - unless the note was passed to Earhart way back prior to 17:00 GCT (2:00 PM to AE) before Noonan realized that he had badly misjudged the correction from the 13:41GCT position, in which case Earhart's "What put us north" is a query about why the flight strayed so far north of its intended transatlantic route.  THAT makes sense, but it means that the note has nothing to do with the supposed disagreement which, from what I can see, never took place.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:01:23 EST
From:          Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Turn left for Dakar

The story is somewhat more involved than what you suggest.  Buried deep within the chart are some lines that are erased.  In particular, an erased line oriented 36* that passes through Dakar and just west of the remaining pencil line that goes to St. Louis.  What I think happened is that Fred determined that once he gets to the 36* LOP, AE should turn to 36* and head towards Dakar.  I can't remember off hand whether the 36* is true or magnetic.

As you stated, the weather was too bad to actually determine what had happened until they were well over land.  I believe that Fred/AE overshot the LOP, ending up about 10 miles further east.  They first would pass the ocean/land boundary, but because of cloud cover or haze, they didn't see it.  They continued on, and the haze gradually got a little better. Finally, they see the land/sea transition, and notice that the coastline is oriented NE/SW, so they now know they are north of Dakar.  At this point, AE asks Fred what set us north (knowing that FN was to put her directly into Dakar).  With dusk approaching and haze towards Dakar, they then head to St. Louis and land.

Upon arrival in St. Louis, FN figures out what went wrong.  He backtracks his course, erasing his original line and puts in the navigational line they actually flew, and he determines he overflew his estimated LOP by about 10 miles.

Anyway, that's how I interpreted the plotting sheet.

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Randy.  So they took a shot at Dakar, missed it, and decided not to backtrack and try again.  I can understand the decision. Backtracking would mean flying into the setting sun. Anyone who has flown in thick haze heading into the sun knows that you can't see anything - might as well be on instruments.  They were already past Dakar and running out of daylight.  Good call.  As I've said before, I suspect that AE made up the story about disagreeing with Fred to make the probably illegal landing at St. Louis (not an  "airport of entry"?) look like an accident.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:05:38 EST
From:          David Katz
Subject:      Unequivocal Earhart Signals?

Ric said:

> However, the Itasca radio log contains three post-loss occasions -
> one by Itasca, one by Howland, and two by Baker - when an operator logged an
> unequivocal identification of a signal from the Earhart plane.

"UNEQUIVOCAL identification of a signal from the Earhart plane"?  This is news.  Who determined that the post-loss signal was definitely from Earhart's plane and when was this determination made?  How was the determination verified?  If it was determined at the time that the post-loss signal was unequivocally from Earhart, why was this fact never before released?

Please explain this.

David Katz
****************************************************************************
From Ric

Happy to.  First let's define some terms.  I said that on four occasions "an operator logged an unequivocal identification of a signal from the Earhart plane."  I meant exactly that.  An operator made a log entry that said that he had heard a signal from the Earhart plane without adding any equivocating or qualifying remark like "suspected signal..." or "possible signal...".

You ask how the determination was verified.  I don't recall saying that the determination was verified.  I'd like to know how such verification would take place.  A guy says, "I just heard Amelia Earhart."  How you gonna verify that without asking Amelia if she just talked to the guy?

You ask if it was determined at the time that the post-loss signal was unequivocally from Earhart and why was this fact never before released.  I never said that any signal was unequivocally determined to be from Earhart. Again, how the heck would you do that?  As for the release of the information, it has been right there in the Itasca radio logs in the National Archives all along.

Here are the bare-bones facts on these events:

1. On July 2nd, after calling and listening all afternoon and hearing nothing, at 18:25 local time (just after sundown) Itasca radio operator Tom O'Hare logs:

"We hear her on 3105 Kcs now, very weak and unreadable/fone."

That's what he wrote.  Make of it what you will.  He says specifically that the transmission was unreadable and yet the log entry is unequivocal that it is the same person he heard earlier that day.  You can say that he might have been wrong or that he was making an assumption, and that is certainly true. But it is also true that O'Hare, who had heard Earhart on the radio that same day, wrote: "We hear her...now."

2.  At 21:40 local time aboard Itasca a message was received from the Coast Guard radio station in Honolulu (COMHAWSEC):

"Baker Island reports heared following NRUI (Itasca) from KHAQQ voice short while ago.  Howland heard weak voice." That's what the message said.  Make of it what you will.

3. At 22:16 local time on July 4th the radio operator aboard Itasca asked the radio operator on Howland Island, "Do you hear anyone on 3105?" The reply was, "Yes.  At 22:46 (Howland was using Hawaiian Time, an hour later than Itasca) heard Earhart call Itasca...."  That's what the guy said. Make of it what you will.

4.  In that same message the Howland operator continued: "...and Baker (Island) heard Earhart plane QSA4 R7 (strength 4, readability 7) last night at 8:20 pm." That's what the guy said.  Make of it what you will.

All of this will be covered in more detail and context in the upcoming Special Report issue of TIGHAR Tracks.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:09:09 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Radio Xmit Info?

> RE: Morse signals - it was said that AE had two sets of mikes. But according
>to Betty's diary, they were arguing over one mike. What if they were trying
> to make a "Morse code" key by taking one mike apart and sparking two wires
> together?

It's noticeable that AE got intelligible voice messages through on a good number of occasions. FN on the other hand did not - maybe only a couple. This bias seems surprising. They both had to sleep. Could  his mike have been faulty one wonders? Or was only AE's suitable for voice after Fred's was modified to a Morse key? It would make sense in that Fred was probably more competent to make the mod and so would work on his own mike. He would also be probably more competent to send Morse and so once again it would be more sensible for him to have the "key mike". Post-loss Morse transmissions are much more closely associated with a male voice than a female, supporting the theory.

And had they similarly modified the "Voice mike" so that it was on continuously and perhaps switched to high sensitivity explaining the conversation we would not expect to hear? It could then only be switched off by unplugging it.

Regards Angus.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:10:41 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Hypoxia

> Except that they REPORTED that they HAD descended to 1000 feet.

Yes, hypoxia was obviously not intended to be directly relevant to the time after which they had descended. However, there was plenty of opportunity for relevant resulting errors before that time whose effect would continue after descending.

Regards Angus.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:11:59 EST
From:          Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

Winds from the ESE if I remember correctly. The "running north and south" radio message would seem to indicate that they had turned north on the advanced LOP and then south. This doesn't seem to make much sense if they had purposely "aimed off" to the north.

I posted a few days ago my thought that an offset to the south made more sense to me. I had two reasons for this, one at a point on their original course they could have steered a near 90 degree course to a point just north of Baker and south of Howland. That seemed to make sense from the standpoint of spotting some land. I also made the comment that offsetting to the north would result in a longer trip -- Alan(?) corrected me on that error as I was only looking at a perpendicular line north and south through Howland and ignored the LOP. My obvious prowess in navigational techniques becomes obvious....

Fire away.

Bob
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:16:49 EST
From:          Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: Hypoxia

I know that hypoxia wouldn't be a real issue but how about the fumes from the 1100 gals of 87 octane ? Even with a small amount venting into the cabin it could have had a toxic effect ? Mike J.

**************************************************************************
From Ric

The fuel tanks were certainly not vented into the cabin and if there were strong gasoline fumes in the airplane they had bigger problems than nausea. Earhart complained of feeling sick from gas fumes at the start of the South Atlantic crossing but that was because the folks in Natal had spilled a lot of gasoline during the fueling.  No reason to think that was a problem in New Guinea.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:22:59 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Turn left for Dakar

Randy Jacobson wrote:

> I believe that Fred/AE overshot
> the LOP, ending up about 10 miles further east.

Are we to understand from this that they flew a line parallel to and east of their intended 36* LOP and so crossed the peninsula with Dakar ten miles to their left? Did they then reach the coast north of Dakar from the land? If so, Dakar would indeed be reached by turning left at the coast.

This seems to suggest that they actually approached the coast from the sea north of Dakar for "turning left" to put them on course for St Louis. I can't believe that AE, even if being devious, would have thought up a scenario that bore no relation to their actual course because if they got quizzed it might become quite embarrassing if it became obvious that the story bore no relation to the truth.

Is there any chance Randy could post a sketch? (Or if using type to represent places is too difficult perhaps he could e-mail me one?) Ric has my e-mail address. Thanks

Angus.
========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:27:16 EST
From:          Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: hypoxia

Angus says:

>It is interesting that Brock of Pan Am states "We did not carry oxygen and we
>had been told that 8,000 feet was the maximum for any prolonged period if
>normal alertness and speed of thought were to be maintained...

and

>This is by no means "pure speculation". It is determined fact.

At 0742 hrs the Itasca reports that she said she was flying at 1000 ft.  Whatever effects they might have encountered at altitude, and I'm not suggesting there were any, they would not have continued to suffer from them having descended to 1000 ft.  Are you suggesting that she was so disoriented she reported the wrong altitude?

I can't tell who you are quoting from, but if you are quoting Brock of Pan Am reflecting on the 1930's, his info is out of date and what is known about Hypoxia now far surpasses the simple notion that oxygen is needed above 8000 ft.  Picking an arbitrary altitude is too simple because your susceptibility is partially relative to what altitude you are acclimated to.  Lots of people live above 8000', and somehow they don't constantly fall over asleep.  Lindbergh did much of the good work on hypoxia, didn't he?   When was that folks?  After the war if memory serves.

By the way, who's recommendation is it to use oxygen over 5000' at night?

For some people who aren't acclimated, it can be a problem, but for Fred and Amelia who had spent a considerable amount of time during the previous months at altitude, I have to believe, and it is just my opinion, that they would have had to be somewhat acclimated to altitude greater than sea level, and 10K should not have been a problem, just as I'm acclimated to 5000', and I don't have a problem spending the day at 10 or 12K the way somebody from sea level does.

I'm not suggesting that Hypoxia as a medical condition doesn't exist, isn't insidious, or that it can't affect people at altitude, and yes smokers are more susceptible, and alcohol and other drugs can have an effect.  You may not learn all the signs, but you can learn your own signs by participating in a high altitude chamber flight which are available to all pilots with a medical, and a very worthwhile training activity.

Part of the smoker equation is the amount of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide in the blood, both of which relate to how recently you lit up.  I have a hard time imagining Fred lighting up in the back of the Electra with several hundred gallons of av gas back there with him, but who knows maybe he did.

Nonetheless, our trying to figure out whether or not it had any bearing on the Earhart flight is most definitely "pure speculation". Until we find Fred's journal describing his disorientation at altitude we're just talking about possibilities with no supportable foundation under this specific event.

Andrew McKenna
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:15:07 EST
From:          Chris Kennedy
Subject:      3105 in 1937

In an earlier posting I think it was said that the 3105 frequency was not a frequency that was especially reserved for Earhart, but was also used by others for various purposes.  If this is true, if someone was listening on 3105 during the first week of July in 1937 on the Itasca, what type of chatter (e.g., radio stations, marine transmissions [?]) might they have heard in addition to Earhart?  Would any of this possibly come in on carrier waves?

--Chris Kennedy

*************************************************************************
From Ric

No.  There were no carriers in the area until the Lexington arrived on July 13 and it didn't cause very many waves. (Sorry.  Couldn't resist.)

The question of how much traffic would "normally" be heard on 3105 in the search area is a legitimate one.  The frequency was not unique to Earhart but it was uniquely an aviation frequency in U.S. territory.  Of course, there was no air traffic of any kind in the search area except for the search aircraft from the Colorado and later the Lexington and they did not use 3105.  It was not a marine frequency and there should have been no marine traffic on that frequency unless it was associated with the Earhart search.  The other sources for signals on 3105 are commercial broadcast stations in foreign countries.  There are a couple of instances during the search of Japanese music being heard on or near 3015.  When all you hear is a faint underlying signal (carrier wave) there is no way of telling whether you're hearing a very weak transmitter that is relatively close by or powerful transmitter that is very far away.

The pattern of post-loss receptions over the period when intense listening was going on shows dramatic spikes of activity during the first three nights following the disappearance followed by an abrupt return to a much a lower number of receptions that remains constant until intense monitoring stops several days later.  In other words, the distribution of the number of reported events over time indicates that something unusual was happening for the first three nights.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:18:04 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: hypoxia

Andrew McKenna wrote:

>  ... By the way, who's recommendation is it to use oxygen over
>  5000' at night?

It seems to be a commonplace in the aviation world.  I don't know who gets credit for determining the threshold:

"Hypoxia is an insidious killer. There is a tendency for euphoria to develop while motor skills and reasoning abilities deteriorate. The result is that in many cases the pilot may become seriously hypoxic without appreciating that there is a problem. To the observer tachypnea, cyanosis, mental confusion and loss of muscle coordination are obvious. To the pilot however, the only symptoms may be slight dyspnea, dizziness, fatigue, decreasing vision and finally loss of muscular control. Night vision can be impaired at as low as 5000 ft. Tolerance to hypoxia varies from individual to individual and from time to time. Tolerance can be increased by continual exposure to high altitudes and varies with the level of the hemoglobin and the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. It is decreased by fatigue, cold and poor physical conditioning. Even at 5,000 ft.night vision is decreased."

<http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Cam/tp13312-2/section2/hypoxia.htm>

(Some sad stories on this page about balloonists who first learned about hypoxia in the 19th century.)

LTM.
Marty #2359
***********************************************************************
From Ric

Lordy.  Oxygen above 5,000 feet.  What next? 
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:19:48 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

Bob writes

> I posted a few days ago my thought that an offset to the south made more
> sense to me.

Bob, all this is pure speculation and not likely to get us anywhere BUT for the fun of it and for the fact we have no idea what AE's flight path actually was you might consider the possibility they were somewhat south of course AND corrected back toward Howland putting them at right angles to the infamous "LOP" and thus allowing them a choice as to offset to the right OR the left. The first turn then could have been in either direction.

So you can see all this fussing over this stuff will get us nowhere as they could have done most anything.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:21:53 EST
From:          Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Turn left for Dakar

Angus: you almost have it right.  Yes, they did pass east of Dakar, but first crossed into Africa east and SOUTH of Dakar.  I suspect they intended to fly the 36* course directly to Dakar, but when they turned left to 36*, they had already passed the intended turning point but didn't know that at the time.  If the weather was clear, they would have seen the coastline trend NW/SE, and would have known that Dakar was to the left, and could have followed the coast right to Dakar.  Dakar had the excellent position of being on the peninsula, so that if AE/FN hit the coast, they would immediately know which way to turn to Dakar, regardless of whether they were north or south of Dakar.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:23:47 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

Ric wrote

> If that is true, then the "which side to offset?" decision was based not
> upon the distribution of islands at the destination but upon en route
> wind conditions that affected the actual flight path.

See my earlier post. We are never going to answer this without knowing what the Electra's flight path was inbound to Howland. Noonan conceivably could have offset in either direction, if at all, and thus turned in EITHER direction upon reaching his LOP. To explain again, if they had drifted south of course and corrected back to Howland and thus been close to 90 degrees to the LOP, which would not have taken much, then he could have offset in either direction and thus turned in either direction upon reaching the LOP. I think we have been suggesting his inbound course should have been about 78 degrees. Drifting south a little amount might then have allowed a 67 degree inbound course which is only 9 degrees different and now a right angle to the LOP. ALL THIS IS SUPPOSITION AND HAS NO BASIS IN FACT FOR WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

I still see no reason to believe he DID offset. If he knew where he was he didn't need to. If he didn't know where he was he wouldn't know where to offset. It SEEMS TO ME he would have headed directly to where he thought Howland was.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:25:10 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: 157/337 Line of Position

Ric writes

> If he is off either to the north or south when he gets his initial LOP and
> then flies to the advanced line, it's the same distance either way.

For the Stoker's benefit, IF Noonan decided to offset he would have recomputed his time for the new heading and STILL ended up on the same LOP, IT SEEMS TO ME.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:27:28 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: hypoxia

Andrew McKenna writes:

> Angus writes:
>
>> It is interesting that Brock of Pan Am states "We did not carry
>> oxygen and we had been told that 8,000 feet was the maximum for any
>> prolonged period if normal alertness and speed of thought were to be
>> maintained...
> and
>
>> This is by no means "pure speculation". It is determined fact.
>
> At 0742 hrs the Itasca reports that she said she was flying at 1000 ft.
> Whatever effects they might have encountered at altitude, and
> I'm not suggesting there were any, they would not have continued to
> suffer from them having descended to 1000 ft.

Wrong - The effects of bad decisions continue after you've made them.

> Are you suggesting
> that she was so disoriented she reported the wrong altitude?

No - I'm not - although its not impossible.

> I can't tell who you are quoting from, but if you are quoting Brock
> of Pan Am reflecting on the 1930's, his info is out of date and what
> is known about Hypoxia now far surpasses the simple notion that
> oxygen is needed above 8000 ft.

If you look back only a day or two at your forum archive, you'll see this quote. See Ron Reuther's post 24/02/03. I made the point that not only was this believed in the 30's but also it is also true today. The fact we know more about hypoxia doesn't alter that - it confirms it.

> Picking an arbitrary altitude is too
> simple because your susceptibility is partially relative to what
> altitude you are acclimated to.

Yes - and I mentioned the fact that they might be somewhat acclimatised. However, they weren't flying continuously at 10,000 ft. People who live at 10,000 ft or whatever have had a lifetime to acclimatise. I also did not choose an arbitrary height for AE and FN to be affected. I was careful, to say "susceptible people" and "most people" and I said, "over 8,000 ft" for example. Whilst it may not be possible to assign a height at which specific people ARE affected by hypoxia, it is certainly possible to specify a height above which one might expect them to be affected. That is what I did.

> Lots of people live above 8000', and
> somehow they don't constantly fall over asleep.  Lindbergh did much
> of the good work on hypoxia, didn't he?   When was that folks?  After
> the war if memory serves.

Who said anything about constantly falling over asleep? My point is that even mild hypoxia makes you make errors and bad decisions. I'm not suggesting anything more than that.

> By the way, whose recommendation is it to use oxygen over 5000' at night?

I suggset you search by Google on "Oxygen, 5000ft, night". There are many pages listing that recommendation.

> For some people who aren't acclimated, it can be a problem, but for
> Fred and Amelia who had spent a considerable amount of time during
> the previous months at altitude, I have to believe, and it is just my
> opinion, that they would have had to be somewhat acclimated

Exactly what I said - so why give the impression I said anything to the contrary?

> to altitude greater than sea level, and 10K should not have been a
> problem,

It depends what you mean by "not a problem". No they weren't probably hallucinating or dropping unconscious. There is every chance that their judgment was affected however.

> just as I'm acclimated to 5000', and I don't have a problem
> spending the day at 10 or 12K the way somebody from sea level does.
>
> I'm not suggesting that Hypoxia as a medical condition doesn't exist,
> isn't insidious, or that it can't affect people at altitude, and yes
> smokers are more susceptible, and alcohol and other drugs can have an
> effect.  You may not learn all the signs, but you can learn your own
> signs by participating in a high altitude chamber flight which are
> available to all pilots with a medical, and a very worthwhile
> training activity.

And as the quote I posted earlier shows, you can then well make a bad decision even if you recognise the signs (and there is no guarantee you will). Someone recently posted the experience of someone who felt fine one moment, the next he was unconscious. That was at 12,500ft.

> Part of the smoker equation is the amount of carbon dioxide and
> carbon monoxide in the blood, both of which relate to how recently
> you lit up.  I have a hard time imagining Fred lighting up in the
> back of the Electra with several hundred gallons of av gas back there
> with him, but who knows maybe he did.

There are two effects from cigarette smoking, short and long term. Acute effects from ongoing smoking increase arterial blood hypoxia. Long term effects from smoking result in a sustained reduction of the oxygen content of the arterial wall 24 hours after the last cigarette with normal levels of arterial blood oxygen. In other words, smoking as a habit results in less oxygen being available to the tissues even when the blood oxygen is normal.

> Nonetheless, our trying to figure out whether or not it had any
> bearing on the Earhart flight is most definitely "pure speculation".

Pure speculation is speculation without evidence. This is not speculation without evidence. From what is known about hypoxia, the height they were probably flying at, the fact that Fred was a smoker and now a number of anecdotal accounts of his drinking, there is good circumstantial evidence to believe that Fred Noonan was experiencing some degree of hypoxia.

> Until we find Fred's journal describing his disorientation at
> altitude we're just talking about possibilities with no supportable
> foundation under this specific event.

Until we find AE's journal the same is true regarding the ultimate fate of AE. (always assuming it is not a forgery). That does not mean that speculation is pointless. Often speculation (even with a degree of supporting evidence) may mean little in isolation. Its only when other evidence is brought together with it that its significance is appreciated or its validity confirmed. Speculate and accumulate the evidence.

Regards Angus.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:31:45 EST
From:          Jon Watson
Subject:      Re: Lockheed Horizons magazine

For Harvey -

I got my copy of Lockheed Horizons (Issue 26 is the one you're interested in) on Ebay.  I haven't seen another one offered since, so Ric's offer is a good deal.

ltm
jon
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:33:28 EST
From:          Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

I have been pursuing the question of Noonan's and PAA's use of the off-set approach for quite a while now. The results are still not totally clear. My own opinion at this time is that it was a technique which was held in reserve for a when-needed situation. I have found no evidence that it was the standard island approach.

Per VanHare's comments regarding Robert Gandt's book: I have had a number of discussions with Gandt about his book and research. He made the following summary statement to me, "So, did Noonan use "aim off" on the first C.C. leg to Wake?  In my opinion, probably.  That's the best I can offer for now."  He was in the process of relocating homes and did not have access to his original notes at the time of this conversation.

In my interviews with early PAA navigators and pilots I found no one who said the technique was used on a regular basis. Everyone I talked with said it was a "hip pocket" option when needed.

Based on my research to date, Noonan and early PAA navigators trusted their celestial navigation first and foremost. They went to other options, including Adcock DF and off-set approaches, only when they were unable to accurately position themselves with celestial. However, I am not done digging at this issue yet.

blue skies, jerry
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:38:29 EST
From:          Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: airspeed and settings

Yet another attempt to summarize my findings for the SA (South Atlantic) flight.

I am trying to justify the use of R487 when applying it to the SA flight. Oscar Boswell in his letters,(ref. 1, 2) has raised legitimate concerns regarding the accuracy of R487 quoting evidence that the 487 airspeeds during the flight are too high and lead to unrealistically.  I agree that the 487 speed at 5.5 hours as reported by AE is high.

However,as described below,there is an additional secondary source data at 6   hours, which seems to be well documented.It needs verification by the quoted source,Purdue U.    In brief,this yet to be verified data reports an average ground speed of 147 mph  at about the half way point in the flight. This figure is close to the ground track  drawn by FN on the SA flight chart, recently provided to me by TIGHAR As Randy Jacobson points out, (ref 3) there is a carefully drawn track  extending from Natal which shows a nominal,constant 150 mph ground speed. Probably,I think,what is referred to as a 'precomp'. I would assume that the FN chart is considered primary information.  Even though  Long must be considered a secondary source for the moment,I will pursue this thread since it is the only flight data I have found.I found a citation in his book (ref.1) on page 140,where,after describing the  fix Fred took at 6 hours 28 minutes,he quotes the following, "A few minutes later,Fred  passed a note to Amelia reporting that they had averaged a ground speed of  147 mph since taking off from Natal". On page 272, in a note referring to this quote, Long says "by a second observation-find we are north of course-have averaged 147 mph".,June 7,1937.PUL.  I will try to contact Purdue so as to gain access to this data and thus verify the groundspeed data from a primary source. What is the best way to do this,I wonder?the web site?   So we have a secondary source of information telling us that the plane's average ground speed for the first half of the SA flight was 147 mph.   To determine the airspeed from R487,we need to estimate the takeoff weight. I first used Oscar's very reasonable  estimate given  in his posting of Feb.8,02,page 5 that her TO weight was 13700 lbs at 900 gallons.  I then applied R487and a model of the plane's performance to a simulated flight following the K.Johnson recommendations from take off to 6.45 hours.The air miles covered was 1154 statute, the weight was  reduced to 11553 at 6.45 hours by simulated fuel usage.The results were not good.I got a high value of  162 mph for  airspeed ,and for an assumed headwind of 25 mph,the average ground speed is 154 mph,higher than FN's alleged reported speed of 147 mph.   At this point, I speculated that IF the assumed  Natal takeoff weight of 13700 was actually greater by 8% or 14800 lbs,I would get  ground speeds more in line with the 147 mph figure.  When I again assumed an average headwind of  25 mph, I obtained good results from the R487 computer model at 6.45 hours,namely a true airspeed of 153 mph,a ground speed of  147 mph and ground distance of  951 miles from natal..The other simulated data at 6.45 hours is 1111 air miles,and a weight of 12647.   I have no evidence that AE had tanked up to this extent.It is pure speculation. The 900 gallons would,I believe, have provided an adequate reserve for the 1867 mile trip to Dakar. My goal was to show that if we are willing to consider a greater TO weight,then we can still use R487 as a tool.But is this a reasonable assumption?

Perhaps, AE/FN wanted to get a preview of the Lae to Howland performance at the appropriate weight.   I have some ideas on applying R487 to the Lae to Howland leg but will wait until another time.

The reason I seek for ways to use R487 is that it uses a solid building block approach All components,engine (from R465),propeller,drag and lift,etc.have been integrated into the total plane perfornance.If  there are errors,it is worth while thinking about where these may be and possible corrections.If I were to look for a 'soft' spot it would be the drag polar.but thats enough for now.

Ref 1  Oscar Boswell,forum letter,Feb.11,2003
Ref 2  Oscar Boswell,forum letter Feb 13,03
Ref 3   Elgen Long,  " AE,The Mystery Solved"
Ref 4   R. Jacobson forum letter of Jan.30,2003

Harvey #2387
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:39:44 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      chart

Thanks Ric, I received the chart (of Noonan's navigation on the Oakland/Hono flight of March 17/18, 1937) and I will let you know what I find.

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:40:57 EST
From:          Betty Brown via Ric
Subject:      St. Pete CG station

Betty replies to Tom Strang's question:

From my home on Auburn St. to the Coast Guard Station was about 4 or 5 miles.  It was right south of the Airport.....Betty
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:19:10 EST
From:          Chris Kennedy
Subject:      Re: 3105 in 1937

Once the news of Earhart's loss became public, would a possible source of the three-day spike you mention be people trying to contact Earhart, and these attempts to contact the plane being picked up by others and confused with transmissions from Earhart?  Would this potential confusion be especially true with respect to carrier wave receptions?

--Chris Kennedy
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Of course, and that possibility was recognized at the time.  In the search area, only Itasca was cleared to transmit on 3105.  But for someone to send a transmission on 3105 they had to have the capability to send on that frequency.  I'll ask our radio experts to comment on who might have that capability in 1937.

The reception of just a carrier wave is, of course, the most ambiguous type of signal. All it means is that somebody somewhere is transmitting on that frequency or a lower harmonic of that frequency.

Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:21:26 EST
From:          Dave Bush
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

As to FN's choosing an offset - if it was me and there was a large island that could be seen at some distance, such as Baker, I think I would make for Baker, find it, then take the heading I needed to the smaller island, since I would be flying from a known spot that I could easily come back to. Or was Baker any easier to find than Howland?

LTM,
Dave Bush

***************************************************************************
From Ric

Baker is roughly the same size as Howland.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:24:49 EST
From:          Angus Murray
Subject:      Re: Turn left for Dakar

Randy Jacobson wrote:

> Angus: you almost have it right.  Yes, they did pass east of Dakar, but 
> first crossed into Africa east and SOUTH of Dakar.

Isn't this exactly what I said? viz:

"Are we to understand from this that they flew a line parallel to and east of
their intended 36* LOP and so crossed the peninsula with Dakar ten miles to
their left?"

> I suspect they intended
> to fly the 36* course directly to Dakar, but when they turned left to 36*,
> they had already passed the intended turning point but didn't know that at
> the time.  If the weather was clear, they would have seen the coastline
> trend NW/SE, and would have known that Dakar was to the left, and could have
> followed the coast right to Dakar.  Dakar had the excellent position of
> being on the peninsula, so that if AE/FN hit the coast, they would
> immediately know which way to turn to Dakar, regardless of whether they were
> north or south of Dakar.

I think you miss the point of my post. Whether they first saw the coast from the sea south of Dakar or when approaching it from the land north of Dakar, both situations would require a left turn for Dakar since their track was from the southwest. Turning left is what AE claims she did by way of explanation of their diversion - and yet they arrived at St Louis. If they turned left they should have arrived at Dakar.  How do you explain this?

Regards Angus.

***********************************************************************
From Ric

As you note, there is no way to make the navigation documented on Noonan's chart fit Earhart's story.  Earhart lied.  She did that a lot.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:26:03 EST
From:          Bob Lee
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

Alan, I simply posted my "pure speculation" in response to Ric's comments. I see NO evidence that an offset was used and there seems to be some evidence that it wasn't. The fact that they flew 'north and south' indicates to me that no offset was used in this case.

I'll stop fussing.

Bob
*****************************************************************
From Ric

We sure can cover a lot of ground and end up in the same place.
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:28:49 EST
From:          Marjorie in Montana
Subject:      Re: hypoxia

Ric wrote:

> Lordy.  Oxygen above 5,000 feet.  What next?

As someone who lives her daily life at 5000 feet or so, I'm flabbergasted. I suspect that my Texas-dwelling daughter would say it explains a lot, however, like why I continue to play the accordion in public despite her oft-expressed chagrin. 

The point about being used to altitude is an important one. On a trip to the Andes of Peru two years ago (we spent a week at altitudes of 9,000 to 12,000), my 80-year-old mother and I were the only members of the tour group who didn't experience any altitude sickness symptoms. No one else in the group came from any place higher than Minneapolis.

LTM (who obviously thrives at this altitude)

Marjorie
************************************************************************
From Ric

>I continue to play the accordion in public...

How'd you like to do some fundraising?
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:29:40 EST
From:          Jim
Subject:      Re: 3105 in 1937

That is a very low HF frequency, 3105. I was taught in the 60's the higher the sun the higher the freq. I know the most well used freq during the day in the Pacific was 11176. But maybe they didn't have many in the 30's
Jim
========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:45:24 EST
From:          Christian D.
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

> there seems to
> be some evidence that it wasn't. The fact that they flew 'north and
> south' indicates to me that no offset was used in this case.

Excellent point Bob!   (Two of the most meaningful lines on this Forum in a while).  I had never thought of this.  Plus that was early in the morning if I remember correctly; later on they might have more doubts, and more reasons to backtrack, even after an offset arrival.

Christian D
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:02:56 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

> From Bob Lee
> Alan, I simply posted my "pure speculation"

I know you did, Bob, and that's fine. I know it was speculation but one of my friends has looked at some of our postings and got way off track. Not from yours but from the Dakar stuff.

Alan
**************************************************************************
From Ric

Just goes to show....it's dangerous to pass this stuff around out of context.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:05:00 EST
From:          Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lockheed Horizons magazine

> I got my copy of Lockheed Horizons (Issue 26 is the one you're interested
> in) on Ebay.  I haven't seen another one offered since, so Ric's offer is a good
> deal.

I also have a copy. Lockheed sent it to me but I would take Ric up on his offer as being easier and much less a hassle.

Alan
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:07:04 EST
From:          Bob Sherman
Subject:      Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

The story about navigators not trusting radio bearings .. related to long distance stuff, not the kind one would get 25 miles from a homing beacon ..  PAA liked to tell a guy 500 or more miles away what heading to fly .. or a fix from several stations up to 1000 miles away ..  To a pilot I think it would only confirm that he was going toward destination, not away from it .  Adcock HF DF was better than nothing ..   but a bearing from 25 to 50 miles out would be great.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:22:00 EST
From:          Mike Everette
Subject:      Re: 3105 in 1937

Ric wrote:

>for someone to send a
>transmission on 3105 they had to have the capability to send on that
>frequency.  I'll ask our radio experts to comment on who might have that
>capability in 1937.

Let me address the matter of possible participation by ham operators in this scenario.

Most ham transmitters in the late 30s were crystal controlled.  This was because hams did not trust variable-frequency oscillators to be stable enough that they would not drift out-of-band.  Much amateur transmitting gear during this era was home-built, with varying degrees of success, and high-quality components that resulted in high stability (particularly capacitors) were often hard to come by.  (Even today it's not exactly a "given" that a home-brew VFO will exhibit good stability.)

Most amateur transmitters were designed to cover multiple bands by using harmonics of the oscillator, whatever the type (crystal or VFO), because the ham bands were (most still are) directly harmonically-related.  So, the oscillator would operate in the 160-meter band (1.75-2 MHz) and frequency multiplication was used to get output on 80 (3.5-4 MHz) and 40 (7.0-7.3 MHz) meters, and perhaps 20 (14-14.4 MHz) and 10 (28-30 MHz) meters as well.

Before the reader gets excited about harmonics in general and confuses this issue with the AE radio situation and our theory about harmonics of her radio, please realize:

3105 KHz is unrelated to any ham frequency, either on the fundamental or on a harmonic.

Most hams (read: 99.999%) would not have had the capability to transmit on 3105 without doing some transmitter modifications, especially in the frequency-control portion (oscillator stage).  Extremely few hams (read: almost NONE) would have had access to a 3105 crystal.  Someone who worked around airplanes might have such a crystal in the junk box  at home, but that's about it.

Crystals were relatively expensive and late-Depression-era hams only owned a few, maybe less than a half dozen.  (Most hams of this era did not use all the bands available, either; transmitters were optimized for maybe 2 or 3 bands for the most part.)  They would not have wasted money on an odd-ball, out of band crystal.  And, one doesn't build a VFO overnight.  Not then, not now.

For those reasons, I would deem it unlikely that hams were the source of stray signals on 3105.

Plus, the FCC had a lot more respect, and a lot more teeth, than it does now, and most hams were scared stiff of the "G-men."  Getting caught for out-of-band operation would cost you your license, and in those days, this meant "for all time, forever and ever amen!"  Might even mean, time in the slammer.

>The reception of just a carrier wave is, of course, the most ambiguous type
>of signal.

Cain't NOBODY tell who's throwing out a "dead carrier," if the signal doesn't have modulation, keying or (failing that) some easily identifiable characteristic (rough note, key clicks, etc etc) that has been previously associated with a particular transmitter...!

>All it means is that somebody somewhere is transmitting on that
>frequency or a lower harmonic of that frequency.

Per-zack-ly.

Point:  Harmonics are ALWAYS higher than the fundamental.  There is no such thing as a lower harmonic of the operating frequency.  The correct term is "submultiple." 

LTM (who prides herself on being easily identified)
and
73
Mike E.
***************************************************************************
From Ric

Thanks Mike.  So HAMs are pretty much out as likely sources of calls to Earhart on 3105 (or its harmonics) which may have been misunderstood as call FROM Earhart.  Foreign commercial broadcast stations thousands of miles away are not terribly likely to be trying to call Earhart.  That leaves ships that might have the frequency capability and might be trying to be helpful.  I wonder how many commercial vessels in 1937 would have the capability of sending voice on 3105.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:23:14 EST
From:          Mike Everette
Subject:      1930s Ham practices, crystals

To follow up my earlier posting, re ham equipment capabilities in the 1930s and "who could generate a signal on 3105:"

Store-bought crystals were indeed expensive; however:

Many amateur radio operators practiced "crystal-grinding," the process of making one's own crystals from "blanks" of quartz.

One could buy such a "blank" from numerous sources; usually these were roughly cut or "shaped" according to a number of standards ("AT-" or "BT-" cut are two examples) which were applied according to the grade of the quartz and its "raw" shape from which to start.

The grinding process used some sort of abrasive, the best being optical rouge but many Depression-era "penny pinching" hams used Comet cleanser for rough grinding and tooth powder (precursor of toothpaste) for finishing.

Since most hams did not have high-quality means of measuring exact frequencies, they ground the crystals to within a few kilohertz of where they wanted to be.

This is not a speedy process.  Success is not guaranteed either.  Sometimes the grinding proved too much for the quartz blank and it would not oscillate at all.

Be aware, it's not possible to lower the frequency of a crystal by grinding; only to raise it.

The amount of grinding necessary to raise the frequency of any crystal used to generate a ham-radio frequency, up to 3105 KHz would be impractical to the point of impossible.  If one tried to take a crystal for 160 meters (1.75 to 2.0 MHz) up that far, it probably would not oscillate.  The process would almost certainly ruin the crystal.

And that is not speculation. ("Almost certainly" means, "it'd take a miracle to succeed.")

I have ground a few of crystals myself, to slightly (SLIGHTLY) alter the frequency thereof, like maybe 50 to 100 kilohertz.  (FT-243 types, for those inquiring minds who want to know... using optical rouge, and a flat glass plate for the grinding surface).  They didn't always work in the end, either.  To do this with precision takes time and patience.  And, a good frequency standard, highly calibrated receiver or heterodyne frequency meter (a counter makes it much easier but at the time I did not have one).

Most hams in the 30s had none of the above (nobody had counters then, of course!).

My point is, that grinding a 3105 crystal is not something to be done on the spur of the moment, or on the fly, by a supposed hoaxer.

The crystal manufacturers used machines to do it, and their process included keeping the crystal oscillating in the final stages of "lapping" to exact frequency while the frequency was continuously monitored.

LTM (who monitors everything)
and
73
Mike E.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:31:43 EST
From:          Harvey Schor
Subject:      Re: airspeed and settings

I would like to add two requests:

1) please tell me the source for AE's reported "indicated our airspeed 140"

2) for any data or comments  relating to the TO weight at Natal.

Thanks,
harvey #2387

***************************************************************************
From Ric

The Chater letter (see the "Documents" section of the TIGHAR website) reported that 4 hours and 18 minutes after departure Earhart was heard to say "HEIGHT 7000 FEET SPEED 140 KNOTS" and some remark concerning "LAE" then "EVERYTHING OKAY".   Elegen Long's assertion that "140 KNOTS" refers to airspeed is pure speculation (and poorly reasoned speculation at that).

I don't have any figures on take off weight at Natal.  Do we know anything about the fuel load out of Natal?
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:40:44 EST
From:          Claude Stokes
Subject:      Re: 157/337 Line of Position

Alan writes:

> Ric writes:
>
>> If he is off either to the north or south when he gets his initial LOP
>> and
>> then flies to the advanced line, it's the same distance either way.
>
> For the Stoker's benefit, IF Noonan decided to offset he would have
> recomputed his time for the new heading and STILL ended up on the same
> LOP, IT SEEMS TO ME.

From Claude Stokes (lagging behind the more advanced students har har ) I can see that the distance is the same either way, and Im not saying he was making an offset or was making heading changes.  What occurs to me is that unless the heading approaching Howland is 67 degrees, there is an angular difference from the lop that causes the timing to reach the exact 157/337 line, (from the initialy lop plot), which passes directly through Howland to be different if north or  south. Sure, to reach the imaginary lop the timing is the same no matter if your north or south.  It seems that they did not reach the exact 157/337 line that passes through Howland, or maybe did not search carefully.  Like everyone already said, we dont know the heading they were on approaching Howland and never will.  It just seems to me that if they were flying say at 80* from the initial lop and used an estimated ground speed to project the lop, then if they hit north of Howland (by accident or design) they would over fly the exact line 157/337 which passes through HOWLAND, but, they would be exactly on the projected imaginary lop.  There must be a thousand 157/337 lops out there, which one did the hit. Not the one which passes directly thrugh Howland.  Question: when was the last opportunity for FN to make a 2 or 3 celestial body observation and get both latitude and longitude?

Im assuming that the 157/337 lop was from the sun shot only giving longitude but no latitude.

from Stoker,
ltm
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:24:27 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: hypoxia

>  Night vision can be impaired at as low as 5000 ft.
> ***********************************************************************
> >From Ric
>
> Lordy.  Oxygen above 5,000 feet.  What next?

But the only effect that low is due to less O2 to the retina reducing night vision, nobody's mental processes are effected. So if you have it available it is good to use O2 above a 5,000 foot cabin altitude but at night only.

gl
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:26:25 EST
From:          Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques

Jerry Hamilton wrote:

> Based on my research to date, Noonan and early PAA navigators trusted their
> celestial navigation first and foremost.

You are missing one point, "aim off" is one method of celstial navigation andis one of the celestial methods "that they trusted first and formost."

gl.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:29:17 EST
From:          Ron Berry
Subject:      Re: 157/337 Line of Position

Let me see if I have this right?  The 157/337 line can be drawn anywhere on a map. It is a line that was drawn at sunrise in this case, using the speed of the aircraft that was computed from the time of takeoff to sunrise. At this time the aircraft was suppose to be aligned with Howland? Then all they had to do in fly this line, and walah Howland Island. If FN made an error in computing the correct overall airspeed then the line would be drawn on the wrong spot on the map? Is that correct?
***************************************************************************

From Ric

No.  For an explanation of what the 157/337 LOP was see the FAQ section of the TIGHAR website.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:50:09 EST
From:          Daryll
Subject:      OOOH darn it Fred...we ran out of gas !!

The prevailing thought by the American public was that Amelia just ran out of gas. It's damn easy to accept that fact because most of us have ran out of gas in our cars at some time or another, it was even a dating excuse for parking with a girl friend. Some fancy cars now days have a computer to tell you how many gallons per mile that your are using and when you will run out.

Can any of us say that we have driven to Aunt Millie's house, without stopping, and arrived with a predetermined amount of gas left in the gas tank?? If you did then you had to use "Cruise Control". Not the cruise control that maintains vehicle speed on the free way but "Cruise Control" used in the aircraft sense.

Noonan quit (conveniently) his job at Pan Am on Dec. 8, 1936.

Two people, Manning and Noonan were presented as the navigators on the first attempt. A legitimate question is what did each bring to the table? Manning seemed to the better man on the radio. They could both navigate. BUT I believe Noonan knew and could use "Cruise Control". The scale tips.

In Brock's book he talks of qualifying for "Cruise Control", meaning that Pan Am had a course in "Cruise Control" and required passing it for advancement. This was circa April '37' - July '37'. Brock credits John Leslie of Pan Am's front office for developing "Cruise Control" for Pan Am.

The question is what was the state of the art of "Cruise Control" when Noonan left Pan Am in Dec. '36'? This is what Noonan brought to the table that Manning with ship experience didn't.

What's the big deal about "Cruise Control"? It's mainly about conducting long range flight safely. For Pan Am to get mail contracts they had to reliably deliver mail. Mail was more profitable than carrying passengers. To do that you can't run out of gas in the middle of the ocean with hundreds of pounds of air mail.

"Cruise Control" was the operation of the airplane AND navigation in concert. It was a way to operate, safely, the flight on an hourly basis. The Captain of the Clipper could make decisions on an hourly basis as to whether the flight was going as flight planned.

One of our researchers, Paul Rafford, a Pan Am Clipper man, related an Atlantic crossing he had. While on the way to the Azores, the passengers went to sleep. During the night the decision was made to turn back to New York because of fuel considerations. The passengers were perturbed to see the New York skyline when they awoke, but fully understood that it was because of their safety that the Clipper turned around.

How did the Captain make that decision ? The flight crew's (pilot /co-pilot) job was to maintain headings and power settings. The navigator was maintaining a "howgozit" and a "Navigational Score" on his charts. When Noonan gives AE a time they are ahead or behind of schedule, he got that information from his "Navigational Score".

The "howgozit" is a flight plan chart (fuel vs time). The chart is maintained, by the navigator, using different colored pencils which represent different lines on the chart. Fuel reserve line is drawn in red. The "Navigational Score" is green. The forecast fuel is black. The actual fuel consumption is blue.

From The American Flight Navigator.

"To summarize, the howgozit and navigational score provide this information:

1. When the blue fuel-verses-time line falls exactly along the black line, the fuel consumption is the same as forecast.

2. When the green score line falls exactly along the black and blue lines, the flight is proceeding as forecast.

3. When the green line falls above the blue line the flight is ahead of schedule, and when it falls below the blue line the flight is behind schedule.

4. When the green line falls below the black line, however, regardless of its relation to the blue line, the fuel consumption is greater than forecast.

5. If the green line falls below the red line, or shows a trend toward crossing it before the equi-time point, remedial action must be taken since it is indicated that there won't be enough fuel left to complete the flight. On over-water flights, in this case, the alternatives are (1) to reduce the rate of fuel consumption without undue sacrifice in ground speed, or (2) to return to point of departure.

This short "Cruise Control" discussion goes to Alan's oft asked question "how would Amelia know to do that?".

In my view, when the Electra lifted off at Lae at 00:00 GMT it was not Howland or bust. Noonan was monitoring a floating PNR "Point of no return" which was mainly wind dependant. He could have given Amelia the turn around command "back to Lae" at any time up to that point. As long as the green line didn't fall below the black line, the flight proceeded.

After the equi-time point or PNR, what was their alternative if they encountered excessive winds? We all know about AE's supposed statement "back to the Gilberts". I think we should picture why she would say that. The Gilberts form a line of islands roughly North & South, within eye sight of each other at altitude. The Marshalls also form a similar island line except for a gap of about 120 miles of open water.

TIGHAR refers to the Phoenix Islands catcher's mit. The Gilbert and the Marshall islands could be referred to as the Gilbert / Marshall fence line.

"Cruise Control" could be used to preserve the Gilbert Islands as a viable alternative from a fuel management standpoint. When AE said "RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY ONE HALF HOUR LEFT" she didn't say that just by  looking at the fuel gauge. In all likely hood Noonan gave her that time from the howgozit. That time would be very near their calculated PNR for the Gilberts. This could be the reason the Itasca didn't hear her on the radio for a couple of hours flying around in a search pattern looking for Howland.

Oscar's work with report 487 and the Daily Express flight could provide that aircraft / power management portion of "Cruise Control"  as it pertains to the 10E. A howgozit chart could be prepared for the flight using forecast winds and the winds we know about.

To paraphrase Alan "we don't what actually happened" but maybe we could tell what could have happened.

Daryll
*********************************************************************
From Ric

>The prevailing thought by the American public was that Amelia just ran
>out of gas.

How do you know that?  I don't recall anyone taking a poll.  That's certainly not the opinion that was being most discussed in the press during the search.

>Noonan quit (conveniently) his job at Pan Am on Dec. 8, 1936.

How do you what date Noonan left Pan Am and what is so "convenient" about December 8th?

>In my view, when the Electra lifted off at Lae at 00:00 GMT it was not
>Howland or bust.

Of course not.

>TIGHAR refers to the Phoenix Islands catcher's mit.

No we don't.

>When AE said "RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY ONE HALF HOUR LEFT" she didn't say
>that just by looking at the fuel gauge.

As you surely know, there were versions of what she said at that time.  Why do you pick this version?

>This could be the reason the Itasca didn't hear her on the
>radio for a couple of hours flying around in a search pattern looking
>for Howland. 

Huh?  Whether she flew a search pattern looking for Howland, turned back for the Gilberts, or flew along the line of position - how is that reason for Itasca not hearing her?

>maybe we could tell what could have happened.

Lots of thing could have happened.  We're trying to determine what DID happenand we're not going to do that by endlessly speculating about the navigation.

LTM,
Ric
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:10:49 EST
From:          Marty Moleski
Subject:      Re: 157/337 Line of Position

Ron Berry wrote:

> Let me see if I have this right?  The 157/337 line can be drawn anywhere
> on a map.

Yes.  There are 360 degrees in a circle.  North is both 0 degrees and 360 degrees.  East is at 90 degrees.  South is at 180 degrees. When we talk about a "157/337" line, it is drawn slanting from South Southeast (157 degrees) to North Northwest (337).

Pick any point on a map.  You can draw a slanting line through that point that runs 157/337.

But that random, slanting line on the map is not a line of position for you  UNLESS  you have some good reason to think that it represents your position on the face of the earth.  IF you have that good reason, then the thing you draw on the map is a Line Of Position (LOP).

If you know how to look at the sun, the moon, and the stars, you can draw lots of lines on your chart.  Each one of them represents your calculation of a Line Of Position.

> It is a line that was drawn at sunrise in this case ...

We don't have Noonan's chart, so we don't know what lines he may or may not have drawn on them.

We may say, using information for July 3, 1937, that IF Fred did a sun shot at or near dawn, and IF he used reasonable care in his computations, THEN he COULD have put a 157/337 LOP on his chart.  It is also possible that in his planning for the trip, he figured out in advance that a 157/337 LOP would be obtainable from a dawn sighting and decided to draw a 157/337 line through Howlan in anticipation of using it for the final run-in; but, since we don't have his charts, we don't know whether or not he did that pre-computation.

What we DO know is that 20 hours and 13 minutes into the flight (8:43 AM local time), the last transmission from AE said that they were "on the line 157 337."

> It is a line that was drawn at sunrise ... using the
> speed of the aircraft that was computed from the time
> of takeoff to sunrise.

No, no, no, no, no!  The line is derived from looking at the sun and your watch at the same time, more or less.  After making that observation and calculating a LOP from it, Fred  MIGHT  have had only dead reckoning to help him decide when they had reached a parallel 157/337 line that passed through Howland. He  MIGHT  also have had other sun shots or shots of the moon or a planet (Venus) to help him track their progress from the dawn line to a line that passed through Howland.  We don't know because we don't have Fred's chart and they didn't say anything on the radio about what he did during that time.

> At this time the aircraft was suppose to be aligned
> with Howland?

No.  Amelia never said explicitly where they were when Fred got his last "fix" (two or more LOPs crossing on his chart).  It  SEEMS  to me that dawn found them west of Howland.  IF Fred drew a 157/337 LOP on his chart from a dawn observation, it would be out in the ocean.  But what that single LOP derived from a single sun sighting would do for him is tell him how far west he was of a PARALLEL 157/337 line drawn through Howland.  Then all he had to do was to figure out when they had moved from the western parallel line (the LOP derived from the sun sighting) to the eastern parallel line (a line drawn through their destination).  Once he figured  (MAYBE  by dead reckoning,  MAYBE  by further LOPs)  that they had reached the "advanced line," then it was time to turn on the line either on a heading of 337 or on a heading of 157 and "fly the line" to Howland.

> Then all
> they had to do is fly this line, and walah Howland Island.

You mean, "voila," French for "Here it is!"--but, yes, IF their dawn sighting was accurate and IF their further calculation of their progress from west to east was correct, all they had to do was "fly this line" and it would bring them to Howland.

> ... For an explanation of what the 157/337 LOP was see the FAQ section of
> the TIGHAR website.

Hear, hear!  It is one of the best pages on the site:
<http://www.tighar.org/forum/navigation.html>.

LTM.
Marty #2359
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:20:06 EST
From:          Mike Juliano
Subject:      Re: 157/337 Line of Position

Hi guys, Chapman's "Small Boating and Seamanship" has a very understandable LOP section. A LOP can be entered at 22.5*,45*, or 90* relative to your course line. The LOP can be advanced or regressed. With out accurate course, speed, wind correction where you are is where you is- (where-ever that may be. By the way was 157/337 magnetic or true?)
LTM
Mike J.
************************************************************************
From Ric

Perhaps someone can help Mike with this.
========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:26:52 EST
From:          Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: St. Pete CG station

Thanks for passing my question on to Betty - Please also pass on to Betty that I greatly appreciate her response supporting her note book. Respectfully:
Tom  Strang
************************************************************************
From Ric

Of course.  Although not technically subscribed to the forum due to some local computer peculiarities, Betty keeps a close eye on all of us.  She has found that she can pick us up on a harmonic on her microwave. (Just teasin')