I can totally see Amelia saying "Just fix the @#(&#$^(^#$ thing, and fix it NOW!" ... and PanAm or whoever doing a workmanlike, but hurried, job.
So can I, but Aris Scarla is quite sure that work like this would require a engineering drawing approved by the local Bureau of Air Commerce office and the finished work would have to be signed off by a BAC inspector. I don't think PanAm would risk a violation by doing otherwise. Finding that paperwork would be great but it's hard to know where to even start to look. It apparently didn't end up with the rest of the airplane's documentation.
I respect Aris's view of that and agree with the 'requirement', but life isn't always so neat.
These kinds of things DO happen WITHOUT official oversight - and think about it: the last thing Earhart needed was public scrutiny over yet another mishap (presuming for a moment that the hard landing may have necessitated some attention to the window area, including perhaps even a precautionary reinforcement by covering over).
No, PanAm likely would NOT want that entanglement - and may well have lacked the official capacity to do ANYTING to a Lockheed 10 anyway: they were likley 'rated' for working on their own ships, not just any that came along; repair stations are still 'rated' that way, and I'm not sure PanAm would have had need of an unlimited rating and therefore likely had nothing like that granted to them. The guidanc of the day also pointed toward the manufacturer doing this sort of work, field stuff of that magnitude was discouraged (stress skin work was still in the relatively early days, somewhat more art than science in a way). Obviously there were exceptions - but despite extensive Air Bureau files on the belly, etc. (I've now seen some of it), nothing has turned up so far either to install this window, or to cover it - nada.
That's not saying PanAm didn't support - but it may have been with materials and looking the other way while some of their guys unofficially helped Earhart out.
I'll stop short of confessing to the point that a sitting FAA FSDO manager might want to know how I, an A&P and former IA happen to realize these things personally (
), but I'm sure he realizes it can, does and has happened before. Shouldn't, but does - and Earhart arguably had reasons to want to breeze by in this case, IMO. Of course I would never do such a thing, ever...
Funny what you notice if you work late enough into the evenings around a few airports, though. I know a gent (now retired, I'm sure) who rose prominently at FAA to HQ level for maintenance. Grand, smart guy - used to go to country airports where some questionable work was occasionally suspected; would drive up in his U.S. Guvmint motor pool sedan and sit in the heat with A/C on while the hangars all closed their doors, and wait... until the heat in the hangars started driving the owners out - where he'd meet them in friendly fashion and start asking about their prized birds... uncovered some mischief and helped keep things more honest, apparently.
Not a perfect system - but think where we'd be if we didn't have it.