TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on February 19, 2012, 10:27:37 AM
-
"Maybe she meant the reserve" and as you typed those words you knew that it is as contrived as the old "the dog ate my homework" excuse, created to try to explain away this "inconvenient truth" because it doesn't fit your theory.
No Gary, I don't 'know' that it is 'contrived' at all - my best understanding of what I read there says that what you have concluded is far from certain - that's the point.
LTM -
The other radio operator, Leo Bellarts, who logged "BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW" also said:
Earhart’s Voice: “The last time we heard her voice it was so loud and clear that you could hear her outside the radio shack. We heard her quite a few times, but that last time, it sounded as if she would have broken out in a scream if she hadn’t stopped talking. She was just about ready to break into tears and go into hysterics, that’s exactly the way I’d describe her voice, I’ll never forget it”.
Sounds like somebody running on fumes doesn't it, not somebody with a large fuel reserve left in the plane. I have missed instrument approaches and have had to divert to an alternate and I never went into hysterics because I DID HAVE A FUEL RESERVE to use on the way to the alternate. What about you, Jeff, did you ever get hysterical after you missed an approach and had to go to your alternate, using your fuel reserve?
ITASCA Radio Operators: “During the flight, the ITASCA radio operators were getting disgusted with her for not staying on schedule and just hanging up after just a few words. She apparently didn’t listen for us at all. She’d call, come on and just say, the weather’s overcast and then just hang it up, not go ahead. She never tried to establish contact until the last - the last quart of gas she had. ..."
Looks like Bellarts also interpreted Earhart's statement that she was out of gas, not that she had some reserve of fuel left. The other people on the scene also interpreted her words the same way. The captain immediately recalled the shore party and they were aboard only 30 minutes after her last transmission and the ship was underway an hour and a half after that at 2210 Z, less than two hours after her last transmission at 2013 Z.
This is another "standards of evidence" question. Bellart's description is from an interview he did with Elgen Long on April 11, 1973 - 36 years after the event. Anecdotal recollections of events many years in the past are not reliable.
The question of whether Earhart sounded panicked or hysterical in the last radio transmission heard by Itasca was addressed early on. A rumor that Earhart had been heard to scream was the subject of May 16, 1938 letter from the Commandant of the Coast Guard to Department of Treasury Ass't Secretary Gibbons (attached). We found the letter in "Misc. Correspondence" at the archive of the Naval History & Heritage Command in Washington. No explanation why someone drew a big X on both pages.
As you see, the Commandant quotes an October 18, 1937 from Commander Thompson. Thompson wrote that he was "personally present in the radio room during the last hour she was on the air and heard all of her transmission, as she was coming in very clearly on the loudspeaker." .... "I can assure you personally that she did not scream and even though she was apparently under a tremendous strain, she seemed to be definitely removed from any idea of hysteria."
In an August 10, 1937 letter to his wife (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Kenner.pdf), Itasca XO Frank Kenner wrote:
"I heard her last broadcasts myself. She realized too late that she was in trouble, then she went to pieces. Her voice clearly indicated that fact, by the desperate note in her transmissions."
So the best available contemporaneous evidence suggests that Earhart's voice in her last transmission clearly reflected "tremendous strain" and "desperation" but not "ready to break into tears and go into hysterics" as Bellarts claimed 36 years later.
Nobody ever came up with the "fuel reserve" interpretation until TIGHAR conveniently invented it more than 50 years after the event to support their theory.
Gary, that is not true. TIGHAR didn't invent anything. It was widely accepted at the time of the 1937 search that the plane should have had enough fuel to fly for at least 24 hours.
-
Ric
"It was widely accepted at the time of the 1937 search that the plane should have had enough fuel to fly for at least 24 hours. "
Wasn't that based on 1200 gallons of fuel? With the 1100 gallons they had on board when they left Lae (Chater, Collupy(sp?)) wouldn't that mean that their endurance would be 22 hours? i.e. arrival Howland at 2200 (GCT), 1000 AM Howland, 1030 AM Itasca.?
-
Another question and the TIGHAR hypothysis backs it up is - did AE after having an initial 'panic attack' pull herself together with the help of FN to succesfully navigate to and land on one of the Phoenix group, specificaly Gardner Island?
It is quite natural to panic as this is part of the flight or fight mechanism that the human race uses so well.
-
Sorry about the ambiguity in last post about arrival Howland.
What i meant was, they had fuel enough to get there as late as 2200 GCT and they "got there" (we must be on you ...) at 1912 GCT. that leaves 2 hiours 48 minutes endurance left.
That's if her fuel burn was 50 gallons per hour.
With a burn rate of 40 gallons per hour the endurance would be 27.5 hours, and with 45 gallons per hour it would be 24.44 hours.
She had enough fuel, endurance to leave the area of Howland just after her last radio transmission at 2025 GCT, and fly the 3 hours to Gardiner (404 statute miles at 133 mph)
Period, end controversy hehe
-
at what distance away from howland, could u be for them to register ur signal at S5
-
I think Chris makes a good point. Whether she had a panic attack or not, something happened and they ended up somewhere.
I also thought it was determined they had the fuel reserves.
-
This is another "standards of evidence" question. Bellart's description is from an interview he did with Elgen Long on April 11, 1973 - 36 years after the event. Anecdotal recollections of events many years in the past are not reliable.
The question of whether Earhart sounded panicked or hysterical in the last radio transmission heard by Itasca was addressed early on. A rumor that Earhart had been heard to scream was the subject of May 16, 1938 letter from the Commandant of the Coast Guard to Department of Treasury Ass't Secretary Gibbons (attached). We found the letter in "Misc. Correspondence" at the archive of the Naval History & Heritage Command in Washington. No explanation why someone drew a big X on both pages.
As you see, the Commandant quotes an October 18, 1937 from Commander Thompson. Thompson wrote that he was "personally present in the radio room during the last hour she was on the air and heard all of her transmission, as she was coming in very clearly on the loudspeaker." .... "I can assure you personally that she did not scream and even though she was apparently under a tremendous strain, she seemed to be definitely removed from any idea of hysteria."
In an August 10, 1937 letter to his wife (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Kenner.pdf), Itasca XO Frank Kenner wrote:
"I heard her last broadcasts myself. She realized too late that she was in trouble, then she went to pieces. Her voice clearly indicated that fact, by the desperate note in her transmissions."
So the best available contemporaneous evidence suggests that Earhart's voice in her last transmission clearly reflected "tremendous strain" and "desperation" but not "ready to break into tears and go into hysterics" as Bellarts claimed 36 years later.
Actually that 1938 memorandum actually adds support to Bellarts' later statements since it shows that Earhart's mental state was in question, not 30 years later, but at the time of the events. This shows that Bellarts did not just come up with it at a latter date. If you leave out the words "panic" and "hysteria," the description in the memo of Earhart's voice at the end supports my point that she was not sitting on a large reserve of fuel but was expecting the engines to go quiet at any moment. The sound of her voice could be described, fairly accurately, by Bellarts in the way that he did (just his choice of words,) we are just splitting hairs here.
Regarding the "big X," I have that memo on microfilm along with a different version without an "X" so it is possible that the memo you have is just a draft and is not the final version.
gl
-
Actually that 1938 memorandum actually adds support to Bellarts' later statements since it shows that Earhart's mental state was in question, not 30 years later, but at the time of the events.
No it doesn't. Waesche (the Coast Guard Commandant) and Thompson were trying to quash rumors about Earhart's "mental state," not support them. As Thompsom wrote: " ... even though she was apparently under a tremendous strain, she seemed to be definitely removed from any idea of hysteria."
-
Ric,
Thanks for that information and the guidance on applying it - that makes sense and the conclusion you state is sensible.
I can trust that much more than singling out what Bellarts had to say so long after the fact. As I recall you've personally experienced the effect of delayed recall from interviewing others - and shared it openly, even if it was disappointing that more positive evidence didn't come from it (Emily's recollections on the plane wreck at Gardner). That is the fundamental principle that gives TIGHAR so much credibility in my book - thanks for that.
There is little to question about the aircraft's range or endurance - we have the numbers - as you note others had in 1937, and as Harry notes. Good enough for me.
LTM -
Good points Jeff. TIGHAR and Ric are using multiple sources of evidence while Gary is latching onto one interpretation. As far as delayed recall is concerned I am sure it's a defense Gary uses in court and I'm sure knows how to counter when this defense is used. I'm sure Gary knows what he is doing. Throw enough crap at the barn wall and some will stick. Maybe in court but not in this forum.
-
Actually that 1938 memorandum actually adds support to Bellarts' later statements since it shows that Earhart's mental state was in question, not 30 years later, but at the time of the events.
No it doesn't. Waesche (the Coast Guard Commandant) and Thompson were trying to quash rumors about Earhart's "mental state," not support them. As Thompsom wrote: " ... even though she was apparently under a tremendous strain, she seemed to be definitely removed from any idea of hysteria."
Sure, Thompson was trying to quash those rumors but by doing so admits that they existed at the time and that Bellarts did not just dream it up 30 years later. And the description in the memo and in Kenner's letter, "then she went to pieces," show that Earhart sounded like a person about to run out of fuel, not someone with a large fuel reserve. That is my point, that the Kenner, Thompson and Bellerts statements support the logged transmission "BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW" and "SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT."
Also, nobody disputes that Earhart actually said "1/2 hour left," Thompson included that information in the message he sent out that morning at 1015, only one and a half hours after her last transmission. (attached)
gl
gl
-
Sure, Thompson was trying to quash those rumors but by doing so admits that they existed at the time and that Bellarts did not just dream it up 30 years later.
Bellart's wasn't dreaming anything up. He was telling a story he had told probably a thousand times and, like all oft-told stories it had evolved to fit the teller's agenda. To Leo Bellarts, Amelia Earhart was an emotional, arrogant, incompetent woman who got herself lost despite the heroic best efforts of the Itasca's men.
And the description in the memo and in Kenner's letter, "then she went to pieces," show that Earhart sounded like a person about to run out of fuel, not someone with a large fuel reserve.
If Earhart had the 24-hour range she was expected to have and which she should have had based on the 1,100 fuel load and Kelly Johnson's recommended procedures, at 08:55 local time (2025Z) - the apparent actual time of the last transmission heard by Itasca (see Last Words (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/49_LastWords/49_LastWords.html)) - she had ballpark three and a half hours of fuel left. Hardly what you'd call a "large reserve" in her situation.
Thompson says, "...towards the end I could distinctly notice an inflection of tension coming into [her voice] and a decided increase in pitch as though she was talking under a great deal of stress or emotion." She was worried - real worried - and with good reason, but to say that the reported tone of her voice somehow shows that she was about to run out of fuel is more than a bit of a stretch.
That is my point, that the Kenner, Thompson and Bellerts statements support the logged transmission "BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW" and "SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT."
I agree that Kenner and Thompson's accounts support Galten's log "BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW". When you're lost in the middle of the Pacific with three and half hours of fuel remaining, gas is definitely running low. O'Hare's "SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT" is clearly a mistake, either by O'Hare or by Earhart, because she was still in the air an hour later. I wrote about O'Hare's log entry at length in Finding Amelia (pages 95-6).
Here's what Ballarts had to say about it in his 1973 interview with Elgen Long:
"Well, don’t go on O’Hare’s log, because I say—I wasn’t even aware that O’Hare was putting that stuff down. . . . No, I mean that. . . .
O’Hare shouldn’t have been putting that down because it was not his responsibility. It was actually mine and Galten, you know. [Laughs] . . . That stinkin’ O’Hare. . . . It’s in error . . . it should never have been in O’Hare’s log. He’s just adding confusion to it and that’s not correct. Possibly O’Hare might have had something in his little punkin’ head that he might have, you know, thought he was going to make a bundle of jack on that or something."
Also, nobody disputes that Earhart actually said "1/2 hour left," Thompson included that information in the message he sent out that morning at 1015, only one and a half hours after her last transmission.
As I wrote in Finding Amelia (page 96):
"At the time, however, Itasca’s commanding officer knew only that he had two different, but not necessarily contradictory, reports of Earhart’s fuel situation. He had little choice but to accept the more pessimistic version. Commander Thompson was not present in the radio room and did not personally hear the call. In his official report, he quoted both versions accurately, but after O’Hare’s “running out of gas, only 1⁄2 hour left,” he added the parenthetical comment “(unverified as heard by other witnesses).” Sometime later, the “un” in “unverified” was crossed out by hand."
I personally think that O'Hare heard the "gas is running low" transmission and conflated it with Earhart's earlier request that Itasca take a bearing and report "in half hour."
-
I read that the radio operator in Lae told Earhart that pitching her voice higher may help the transmissions be more audible. If she thought there was communication problems, she may have taken that bit of advice. Whether pitching up was an attempt to improve transmission clarity or the result of increasing anxiety/stress/panic or some combination of all, from a technical standpoint would pitching up the voice provide a benefit in voice radio transmission/reception?
What level of sexual bias comes into play with the interpretations of those hearing the broadcasts? With confusion over times & frequencies, the Itasca crew & others already formed some less favourable opinions. If you plugged Lindbergh (or another male pilot) into the cockpit instead of Earhart and everything else remained the same, do you think the reports would have differed? Flip it around with another situation, swap out the male astronauts on the Apollo 13 flight and replace them with just as competent women. How would reporting and interpretations change?
If she cracked, are there any semi-credible post LOP pre crash/landing broadcasts heard by others that further support that? Any broadcasts from Noonan expressing their dire situation?
If Earhart wasn't capable of piloting further due to her mental state, would Noonan's experience be enough to land the electra himself, assuming he clear headed enough?
-
Very interesting observations Jaeson. I have to believe that not finding Howland had to create some anxiety. Both in AE and the Howland support people including Itasca radio operators. It's not like there was a nearby alternate airfield. Plus AE and FN would be rethinking the decision to leave so much survival gear back at Lae. Anxiety? Yes. Hysteria? No, in my opinion. AE may have had a bad reputation for not learning as much as she could about her instruments. Maybe she wasn't the best pilot either. But she had the nerve to take on all her record breaking events. That says to me she had the "steel" to handle the situation she found herself in, not go to pieces.
-
I guess we should consider the fact that when AE reported 'low on gas' no one actually knew the exact location of the Electra at the time of the transmission. That would include the Itasca and AE/FN ?
Would that be correct?
-
That is correct Jeff.
-
So if no one, and that includes themselves, new where the Electra was then, the debate about having half an hour or x amount of hours of fuel remaining is only debatable if we knew the exact position of the Electra when she made that transmission?
Example:
1. If they were twenty minutes from the nearest landfall then half an hours fuel would suffice.
2. If they were one hour from the nearest landfall then seventy minutes fuel would be enough.
And so on...
Do you see the logic behind this line of thought?
They might have got lucky, Land Ho! or ended up ditching. It all depends on where they were and, how much gas was left when they knew the game was up.
-
The question Jeff is really more that we know she didn't make Howland so where was she when she said "we must be on you". At that point AE and FN thought they should see Howland below them. How much fuel they had left to search and make an alternate plan was/is important because until they realized they couldn't see Howland they would have been navigating according to plan. Now they deviate. What did they actually do is what all the speculation is all about. Enough fuel for an alternate plan, Phoenix Island group, or with little fuel she crashes and sinks. How much fuel she had is very important.
-
Here's what Ballarts had to say about it in his 1973 interview with Elgen Long:
"Well, don’t go on O’Hare’s log, because I say—I wasn’t even aware that O’Hare was putting that stuff down. . . . No, I mean that. . . .
O’Hare shouldn’t have been putting that down because it was not his responsibility. It was actually mine and Galten, you know. [Laughs] . . . That stinkin’ O’Hare. . . . It’s in error . . . it should never have been in O’Hare’s log. He’s just adding confusion to it and that’s not correct. Possibly O’Hare might have had something in his little punkin’ head that he might have, you know, thought he was going to make a bundle of jack on that or something."
I think that this is quite funny. Talking about Bellarts' recollection of Earhart's voice, a position you disagree with, in the first post on this topic you wrote:
"Bellart's description is from an interview he did with Elgen Long on April 11, 1973 - 36 years after the event. Anecdotal recollections of events many years in the past are not reliable. "
But when you can use Bellarts to support your position by his bad mouthing O'Hare in the same interview, 36 years after the event, suddenly his recollections are as good as gold. Boy, both sides of your mouth must be getting tired. :D
gl
-
I agree that Kenner and Thompson's accounts support Galten's log "BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW". When you're lost in the middle of the Pacific with three and half hours of fuel remaining, gas is definitely running low. O'Hare's "SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT" is clearly a mistake, either by O'Hare or by Earhart, because she was still in the air an hour later. I wrote about O'Hare's log entry at length in Finding Amelia (pages 95-6).
Not necessarily a mistake because the plane was flying a half hour after her estimate of running out of fuel. Who here has not hit "EMPTY" on the fuel gauge in their car but kept on going believing that he still had 10 or 20 miles left in which to find a gas station. So how far can you go with the gauge reading below empty? have any of you tried an experiment and just drove and drove until the car finally ran out of gas just to find out? The same thing applies to airplane fuel gauges by regulation they must indicate "EMPTY" prior to the tank actually being empty. How long can you go with the fuel gauge in your plane on "EMPTY?" you want to do THAT experiment. Earhart saw the gauge was approaching empty and estimated 1/2 hour left and it is not at all surprising that she had another 1/2 hour of fuel in the tank with the gauge reading below empty. The regulations governing fuel gauges are much more specific and we discussed them here (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,528.msg7225.html#msg7225).
gl
-
Gary,
Do we even know that the Electra HAD guages for the additional tanks?
As you've recently pointed out, the regs have changed over time, for one thing, but for another - NR16020 was "NR" registered for limited purposes - in essence it was "expermental" as that stood in its day - and not obligated to follow all of the rules. A watch is sufficient for monitoring fuel consumption in such cases - worked for Lindbergh, and NR16020 had much more going for it than the little Ryan.
"24 hours" is what it's about.
LTM -
-
A site glass gage can be seen on the tall tank just aft of the cockpit doorway. There are no other "gages" I've found in any pictures of any of the big interior tanks. The wing tanks were the only ones with electric gages on the instrument panel.
Perhaps Gary or anyone else with experience using ferry tanks can tell us what the established procedure for switching tanks might be? Do you run the large reserve tank until the engine sputters, or use some method of estimation that it's "about empty"? Is there any account by AE of how she managed fuel in the tanks? Is there any account of how someone trained her to use the tanks, such as a Lockheed letter?
-
So AE's 'low on gas' was based on the readings from the Electra cockpit gauges? or did FN take a look at the sight gauge on the one extra fuel tank that had one. How would they know the other fuel tanks that didn't have sight gauges were empty? Did they have to wait for the engines to splutter from fuel starvation?
-
As to how the aux (added) tanks were managed in the Electra, I'm not sure. Sometimes aux tanks like that are allowed to run down to point of 'sputter' - with a watchful pilot watching the time, from good altitude. Gary LaPook has hands-on experience with that over the ocean in single-engine airplanes (and maybe others) - I'm sure he can share some insight.
I always took off on the main tanks because I figured those tanks might be a little bit more reliable than the ferry system. At a safe altitude I would switch to the ferry tank and use it completely, saving the mains for the final part of the flight and landing. Here is a link to a story showing that this is a good method. (http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=108647&y=200906) (http://www.fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=108647&y=200906)If I had saved that ferry tank til the end it would have been THE END!Often such extra tanks are also used to supply normal tanks periodically, until dry: fuel is moved from the big tank out into a 'normal' permanent tank, as needed, thence consumed by the engine(s) from the normal source. I do not know how the arrangement worked on the Electra, however.
LTM -
The Electra did not have fuel gauges for the cabin ferry tanks so, in order to avoid that embarrassing silence since both engines would quit at the same time because they were both drawing fuel from the same tank, Earhart would burn each ferry tank to a conservative point, based on her clock, and then switch to another tank. This left some fuel in the tank she had just finished using which is why a "stripping system" was included in the fuel system. After switching tanks, by manipulating the "stripping valve" and then using the hand operated "wobble pump," she would pump that remaining fuel into one of the main tanks to be used latter. This is another reason that you have to use the mains first, to make room for the fuel that will eventually be "stripped" from the ferry tanks.
I believe there is a diagram of the fuel system somewhere on the TIGHAR website. If not then you can find it at Purdue.
gl
-
Here's what Ballarts had to say about it in his 1973 interview with Elgen Long:
"Well, don’t go on O’Hare’s log, because I say—I wasn’t even aware that O’Hare was putting that stuff down. . . . No, I mean that. . . .
O’Hare shouldn’t have been putting that down because it was not his responsibility. It was actually mine and Galten, you know. [Laughs] . . . That stinkin’ O’Hare. . . . It’s in error . . . it should never have been in O’Hare’s log. He’s just adding confusion to it and that’s not correct. Possibly O’Hare might have had something in his little punkin’ head that he might have, you know, thought he was going to make a bundle of jack on that or something."
I realized that I made a mistake earlier in crediting the notation of ""BUT GAS IS RUNNING LOW" to Bellarts, it was actually Galten that was maintaining that log and who typed that entry. This makes Bellarts' 36 year later criticism of the log maintained by O'Hare, which is where we find the words from Earhart "SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT," even more irrelevant. Galten was also interviewed and he also confirmed the "1/2 hour left" notation. And if you read Bellarts' words carefully, he did not deny that the "1/2 hour left" words were actually heard, he only criticized O'Hare for monitoring the Earhart frequency and entering that in his log because O'Hare was supposed to be monitoring a different frequency. "Actions speak louder than words," Thompson got underway almost immediately so everyone believed the plane had ditched. Thompson was taking a big risk by leaving his station because, if the plane was still flying, it could still arrive at Howland and the Itasca and the shore party would have been gone at that critical moment. This would not have been good for Thompson so he must have STRONGLY believed that she had ditched already.
gl
-
Gary. Lt Cooper on page 5 of his report says that all hands except a radio operator and several colonists were called back to the ship. This leaves a handful of people on Howland in the event AE found Howland.
See http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Cooper_Report/Cooper_Report.pdf
I think this is also reported by others who were on the scene. Thompson didn't abandon Howland.
-
So if no one, and that includes themselves, new where the Electra was then, the debate about having half an hour or x amount of hours of fuel remaining is only debatable if we knew the exact position of the Electra when she made that transmission?
Example:
1. If they were twenty minutes from the nearest landfall then half an hours fuel would suffice.
2. If they were one hour from the nearest landfall then seventy minutes fuel would be enough.
And so on...
Do you see the logic behind this line of thought?
They might have got lucky, Land Ho! or ended up ditching. It all depends on where they were and, how much gas was left when they knew the game was up.
Jeff H. -
Don't get 'range' and 'endurance' confused - what counts for 'time remaining' is "when she made that transmission", not "where the Electra was".
If the Electra started with 24 hours of fuel aboard and had flown 20 hours, then 4 hours would remain, nominally, as an example.
It can be agreed that what land the Electra might reach would be dependent on 'where' it was at a given time.
LTM -
-
Jeff
Don't get 'range' and 'endurance' confused - what counts for 'time remaining' is "when she made that transmission", not "where the Electra was".
Would the time remaining be the location where the Electra was when she made that transmission?
I'm trying to get my head around the fuel system onboard her Electra at the moment which, by neccessity is rather Heath Robinson and, the possibility that 'low on gas' may not have been as definate as it first appears. Note: having seen the schematics for the fuel system the last thing I would want onboard would be anything that even had the remotest chance of igniting fuel vapour i.e lighters/matches/pistols/very pistol etc... In fact, I wonder? :-\
-
I don't think that we can, or should, attempt to connect AE's actual position with her reported position at the time of a radio transmission. They, AE and Itasca, had established that she would report at 15 minutes and 45 minutes past the hour and would listen on the hour and half past the hour. (Let's remember that the agreement with Lae was that she would transmit at 18 minutes past the hour). The 0614 (Itasca time) 0544 (Howland time) 1744 (GCT) transmission "About 200 miles out..." could have been her regularly scheduled report and she could have reached 200 miles out at some time before the radio call and waited until the scheduled time to report it.
We'll never know unless/until the plane is recovered and a log of some knid is in it, or some sort of log is uncovered on Gardner or elsewhere. Baffling.
Same for the other calls which seem to occur at or near the 15 and 45 minutes past the hour time frame.