"Understanding Crashed & Sank" has, so far, been read by over 16,000 people, some of whom had good questions. I responded with a couple of explanatory postings.
A REASONED DISCUSSION OF CRASHED & SANK – PART ONE
Too often, comparisons of the various theories about the fate of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan amount to little more than “sound and fury signifying nothing.” We at TIGHAR believe – perhaps naively – that reasoned discussion is the only avenue to an informed evaluation of the proposed possibilities.
In a comment to “Understanding Crashed & Sank,” TIGHAR Facebook follower Jeff Schulze cites what he considers to be two “pluses” in favor of the Crashed & Sank theory. They are good points that are frequently misunderstood. I’ll address the first one here and the second one in a subsequent posting. My purpose is not to argue but to present clear distinctions between documented facts and selective interpretation.
Jeff feels there is “High statistical probability of crashing and sinking. This is based on: "gas is running low" within a couple hundred miles of howland (from Amelia's radio transmissions and opinion of Itasca's radio operator), the shear ocean vs. land surface area, poor visibility, being fatigued, possibly disgruntled at each other, and flying at only 1,000 feet of altitude.”
Let’s look at each of these points.
• Did Earhart really say “gas is running low”? That depends on whom you believe. The only real-time sources for what Amelia said are the two Radio Logs of USCG Itasca and, unfortunately, they do not agree. As Earhart was approaching Howland, two radio operators were on duty aboard Itasca, Radioman 3rd Class William Galten and Radioman 3rd Class Thomas O’Hare. Each sat in front of a telegraph key, a microphone, a typewriter, and a clock. They usually listened for signals using headphones but receptions could also be broadcast over a loudspeaker. They typed what they sent and what they heard into the log noting the time of each entry.
That morning, both operators were listening on Earhart’s “nighttime” frequency, 3105 kHz, and her transmissions were being broadcast over the radio room loud speaker.
At 07:40, O’Hare logged, “Earhart on now. Says running out of gas. Only ½ hour
left. Can’t hear us at all.”
At 07:42 Galten logged, “KHAQQ calling Itasca . We must be on you but cannot see you. But gas is running low. Been unable to reach you by radio. We are flying at 1000 feet.”
Both operators were clearly reporting the same transmission heard over the loudspeaker. The two-minute time discrepancy is unexplained but it could be that their clocks weren’t synchronized. Note that Galten directly quotes what he heard Earhart say while O’Hare paraphrases what he understood her to mean. Earhart was still transmitting an hour later and said nothing about running out of gas at that time, so O’Hare’s version of the message would seem to be less credible. His reference to “½ hour” may be transposed from her 06:45 transmission in which she said “Please take bearing on us and report in half hour.”
Let’s accept that, at 07:42 (or so), Earhart said “gas is running low.” Like many of Amelia’s in-flight radio reports, it’s not very helpful. How low is “running low”? We’re forced to speculate based on other information. We know that she left New Guinea with 1,100 gallons of gas. We know that, if she followed the fuel management plan designed for her by Lockheed’s Kelly Johnson, she should have had roughly 24 hours of fuel. We know that the flight to Howland was expected to take 18 to 19 hours. We know that a 20% reserve was standard for long distance flights, so 24 hours of fuel for a 19-hour flight is about right. That all makes sense.
Her comment “but gas is running low” was heard 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight. “We must be on you but cannot see you. ” Her destination has not appeared, she doesn’t know why, she has not been able to contact Itasca, and she is now burning into her reserve. “Gas is running low” seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate comment and does not necessarily imply imminent fuel exhaustion.
• “The shear ocean vs. land surface area.” No doubt about it. Lots of ocean, not much land. If there is no evidence that the plane reached land it seems reasonable to assume it ended up in the water. If there is strong evidence that the plane reached land, the size of the ocean is irrelevant.
• “Poor visibility.” The visibility was not poor. Itasca’s Deck Log records visibility of 20+ miles (the maximum) that morning. It is, however, true that cloud shadows can make islands difficult to make out.
• “Being fatigued, possibly disgruntled at each other.” They were certainly fatigued but I’m aware of no reason to think they were disgruntled at each other.
• “Flying at only 1,000 feet of altitude.” We know from Itasca’s Deck Log that there was a deck of scattered clouds that morning, as there is almost every morning in that part of the Pacific. As any pilot can tell you, if you’re flying above a scattered cloud deck you can’t see landmarks ahead. Flying at 1,000 feet was not a sign of distress or imminent disaster.