Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Betty and Bob  (Read 120107 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #90 on: April 15, 2013, 07:39:54 AM »

Now, I’m not saying that this timeline is more plausible than the one you suggested, Ric, but it seems as plausible as the one you suggested.

I must say that your interpretation of the time notations in Betty's Notebook strikes me as odd. It's based entirely on a "three hours" statement I made in 2000 that I've said was an error.  I don't know where I got it - certainly not from the notebook, maybe from John Hathaway.  If I got it from Betty (which I don't think was the case) it was, as we've said, an anecdotal recollection that is, by definition, unreliable. Ask yourself this.  If I had not written "three hours" would you now be speculating that the receptions started at 3 PM? 

The notebook has to stand on its own. According to the Oxford English Dictionary,"since" means "From that time till now. In positive clauses implying continuity of action. ...".   To interpret "since 4:30" to mean the continuity of action applies to only that page when all of the other time notations do not use the word "since" seems to me to be linguistically unsupported.
Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #91 on: April 15, 2013, 10:50:44 PM »

Now, I’m not saying that this timeline is more plausible than the one you suggested, Ric, but it seems as plausible as the one you suggested.

I must say that your interpretation of the time notations in Betty's Notebook strikes me as odd. It's based entirely on a "three hours" statement I made in 2000 that I've said was an error.  I don't know where I got it - certainly not from the notebook, maybe from John Hathaway.  If I got it from Betty (which I don't think was the case) it was, as we've said, an anecdotal recollection that is, by definition, unreliable. Ask yourself this.  If I had not written "three hours" would you now be speculating that the receptions started at 3 PM? 

The notebook has to stand on its own. According to the Oxford English Dictionary,"since" means "From that time till now. In positive clauses implying continuity of action. ...".   To interpret "since 4:30" to mean the continuity of action applies to only that page when all of the other time notations do not use the word "since" seems to me to be linguistically unsupported.

Ric,

I think you may have misunderstood my last post. My interpretation is not based on your “three hours” statement, it’s based on an alternate interpretation of Betty’s notes.

I explained this above, but let me try explaining it again a little differently. The difference between your interpretation and the alternate interpretation comes down to the matter of what place in the notebook Betty’s “since 4:30” notation is referring to.

Your interpretation is this:

- while Betty is making notes on page 3, she realizes that the time is a significant piece of information to record, so she writes “since 4:30” at the top of page 3 to indicate that she started hearing stuff at 4:30 PM. Page 3, however, in your interpretation, corresponds to the 5:10 to 5:30 time period.

The alternate interpretation is:

-while Betty is making notes on page 3 she realizes that the time is a significant piece of information to record, so she writes “since 4:30” at the top of page 3 to indicate that page 3 corresponds to stuff she has heard since 4:30, as opposed to the previous two pages, which record stuff that she heard before 4:30.

Page 3: Stuff Betty has heard since 4:30; Pages 1 and 2: stuff that Betty heard before 4:30. I don’t see an OED problem.

Now, in the alternate interpretation, pages 1 and 2 were recorded before 4:30. Assuming that Betty was recording lines pages 1 and 2 at the average rate that she recorded lines on pages 3 to 5, we get 3:30 PM as the time she started page 1, as calculated in my previous post. My previous post also gives the time periods for pages 3, 4, and 5.

Unfortunately, we don’t have the Teacher’s Answer Key to Betty’s notebook. All we can do is interpret the somewhat ambiguous time notations Betty made. If 4:30 was the time Betty started on page 1, I find it odd that she didn’t simply flip back two pages from where she was in her notebook and mark the top of page 1 with “4:30”. You perhaps still don’t like the alternate interpretation. I guess we're even.

Bob Brandenburg calculated probabilities for more than one day in July (see attached) because we don't know what day Betty’s notes were recorded. I think that since it’s unclear what time Betty began listening – 3:30 or 4:30 -- reception probabilities for  3:30 to 4:30 are worth knowing, for the same reasons that reception probabilities a number of days in July are worth knowing.

So, I’m still wondering about the question I asked in my previous post. Has Bob calculated radio reception probabilities prior to 4:30 PM on the days in the attached chart? If so, what were his results?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #92 on: April 16, 2013, 08:23:10 AM »

I think you may have misunderstood my last post. My interpretation is not based on your “three hours” statement, it’s based on an alternate interpretation of Betty’s notes.

Oaky, thanks.  I see where your'e coming from but I still think it's linguistically shaky.

Bob Brandenburg calculated probabilities for more than one day in July (see attached) because we don't know what day Betty’s notes were recorded. I think that since it’s unclear what time Betty began listening – 3:30 or 4:30 -- reception probabilities for  3:30 to 4:30 are worth knowing, for the same reasons that reception probabilities a number of days in July are worth knowing.
 

As you see, Bob's calculations for each day start at 2100GMT - 1600 (4 pm) in St. Pete.  If you're curious about the propagation probabilities from 3:30 to 4:30 you're only missing the first half-hour.

So, I’m still wondering about the question I asked in my previous post. Has Bob calculated radio reception probabilities prior to 4:30 PM on the days in the attached chart? If so, what were his results?

I'd be surprised if that half hour changed our mind about anything. I'd rather not disturb Bob right now.  He's finishing up a detailed buoyancy analysis of the airplane to help answer the rather important question of how and for how long the plane would float.  Once that project is finished he may be willing to run the numbers for 3 pm to 3:30 pm.

Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #93 on: April 16, 2013, 05:35:59 PM »

There's one other thing about focusing only on the long probabilities of a Betty's Notebook-type reception that bugs me.  Besides what I said earlier about the fact that people do indeed win the lottery, that in a world full of a people tuned (at that time) to short-wave radios and the number of transmissions, it really isn't all THAT unlikely somebody somewhere would pick some of them up...

The other thing to keep in mind is that what Bob B. has shown is that such a reception, while theoretically unlikely, IS possible.  So when considering Betty's Notebook, it's not as if TIGHAR has not met the threshhold of possibility or conceivability.  It would not surprise me if at some later date some previously overlooked data point about radio reception, weather conditions, antenna conductivity or some other factor would arise and we'd discover that the odds of reception in that particular case were not so long after all...it's another one of those things where, if conditions are right, they're right and things will happen.  And science and our understanding of such things advances all the time in any area.  We function based on the knowledge we have at the moment.

You simply can't reject Betty's Notebook on propogation probability alone.  It IS shown to be possible, based on the information and knowledge we have, that it is authentic.  That burden being met,it has to be evaluated, not just in light of the theoretical probability of reception, but all other factors, including the (I think greater) unlikelihood of an alternate radio broadcast (which has such magical propogation properties that, indeed, only one person in the world seems to have heard it!) that could account for what Betty says she heard.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2013, 05:37:34 PM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #94 on: April 16, 2013, 07:05:49 PM »

BobBrandenburg explains:
Propagation conditions are constantly changing, due to multiple factors, including the daily sunspot number.  For a given propagation path and day, ICEPAC computes the signal strength statistics for computing reception probability -- at hourly intervals centered on GMT, 0000, 0100, 0200, etc.  The user enters, inter alia, the daily sunspot number (available from the National Geodetic Center database) -- which affects the degree of ionization in the ionosphere -- and ICEPAC does the rest, using built-in statistical distributions developed from decades of empirical data.   Since signal strength is computed at hourly intervals, the reception probability is assumed to remain constant throughout each one-hour period.  For example, the reception probability at any time between 1530Z and 1630Z, on a given path, for a given date, is assumed to be the same as at 1600Z.  Since there can be a significant difference from hour to hour, one might be tempted to interpolate, but there's no data as to how the signal strength varies versus time within a one-hour period.  It could be linear, or complexly non-linear, so any interpolation would be a wild guess.

The time boundaries in the table were chosen to match the period during which we think Betty heard signals.  Each probability applies for a one-hour period, centered on the GMT hour, so the probability during the 30-minute period before each hour is the same as the probability during the 30-minute period immediately following the hour. 
Logged

Joshua Doremire

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #95 on: April 17, 2013, 01:08:19 PM »

What would be the effect on the aircraft if the propeller was rotating and big solid swell raised the water level momentarily to substantially impede the propeller?

Nothing good.  Depending on how fast the prop was turning it could bend the prop tips causing a severe out-of-balance condition and extreme vibration.  If the water was enough to cause a sudden stoppage it could bend the crankshaft.  In any case, a water strike would probably mean game-over for running the engine.

For the layperson can you go into more detail of prop to water contact? At minimum RPM to light the generator the wind from the prop will affect the water, spray making impact less severe by the spray already breaking surface tension... I can't find any references to prop strikes and water except it 'is like throwing rocks through the prop'. So to me the 'damage' from the prop contacting a wave is not clear or easy to find info on.

How would Amelia know it is time to shut down from water being too high? Vibration from the engine, water spray suddenly covering everything? 

...
You don't really  want me want me to go through this point by point...And I don't want to!
...

I would love to see point by point by someone who has life experience with this. It would be interesting to read your point of view even if you think it is boring and common knowledge to you - I would find it very interesting. I don't think Amelia would have experience with this plane near water like this, but, adapting to it appears to have been done by them.

How well are aircraft engines, especially the generator, able to handle a conductive salt water spray? I assume they handle non-conductive rain in flight.

As far as the comments about surge in the water levels on a wave. The surge is not going to instantly flood the transmitter because the water would have to 'leak' into the airplane. The transmitter isn't sitting exposed on a table on the beach rather it is in a leaky 'boat'. It would take steady high water to flood things out. During the low water part of the wave the water could be leaking back out.

Could the engines be hand propped to start or did they have to conserve enough battery power to start the engine? Could they transmit until the battery went dead then 'push start' the engine so to speak? With the amp draw of this old radio I doubt transmit time would be very long. (I think transmit battery life was covered in the radio report.) In short did the transmit durations exceed battery life to where an engine had to be running?     
TIGHAR # 4274R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #96 on: April 17, 2013, 06:12:43 PM »

I'll let Bill deCreeft address your questions about the effect of salt water on props and engine components.

Could the engines be hand propped to start or did they have to conserve enough battery power to start the engine? Could they transmit until the battery went dead then 'push start' the engine so to speak? With the amp draw of this old radio I doubt transmit time would be very long. (I think transmit battery life was covered in the radio report.) In short did the transmit durations exceed battery life to where an engine had to be running?   

Yes. The transmit durations far exceeded batter life and I think it's safe to say that hand propping an R-1340, especially while standing on a slippery reef, would be out of the question.  Aside from the compression, just the height of the prop blades would be a problem.
Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #97 on: April 17, 2013, 10:41:27 PM »

I don't see much about post-loss receptions from Australia or New Zealand. The post-loss catalog has only one fairly vague example. The population of Australia and New Zealand in 1937 was maybe about 5 to 10 percent of North America's, so fewer radios down there to pick anything up. But perhaps radio transmissions from Niku would propagate better to Australia and NZ than to the USA or Canada. Not a sure thing -- perhaps another thing for Bob Brandenburg to do is to calculate transmission probabilities to a one or two cities in the two countries to see what the probabilities are. Anyway, my question is: has Tighar searched through Australian newspaper archives for stories of post-loss receptions? I know I've seen a link to a digital archive of Australian newspapers; that might be a place to start, if this has not already been done.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 11:31:35 PM by Al Leonard »
Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #98 on: April 17, 2013, 11:29:49 PM »

BobBrandenburg explains:
Propagation conditions are constantly changing, due to multiple factors, including the daily sunspot number.  For a given propagation path and day, ICEPAC computes the signal strength statistics for computing reception probability -- at hourly intervals centered on GMT, 0000, 0100, 0200, etc.  The user enters, inter alia, the daily sunspot number (available from the National Geodetic Center database) -- which affects the degree of ionization in the ionosphere -- and ICEPAC does the rest, using built-in statistical distributions developed from decades of empirical data.   Since signal strength is computed at hourly intervals, the reception probability is assumed to remain constant throughout each one-hour period.  For example, the reception probability at any time between 1530Z and 1630Z, on a given path, for a given date, is assumed to be the same as at 1600Z.  Since there can be a significant difference from hour to hour, one might be tempted to interpolate, but there's no data as to how the signal strength varies versus time within a one-hour period.  It could be linear, or complexly non-linear, so any interpolation would be a wild guess.

The time boundaries in the table were chosen to match the period during which we think Betty heard signals.  Each probability applies for a one-hour period, centered on the GMT hour, so the probability during the 30-minute period before each hour is the same as the probability during the 30-minute period immediately following the hour.

Thanks Ric, I think I understand Bob’s calculation method a little better now. It’ll be interesting to see what Bob comes up with for the pre-4:30 period.

I’m confused about one thing, though. If understand it correctly from Bob's explanation, signal strength was computed at hourly intervals, with a constant reception probability throughout each one-hour period. But Bob’s chart doesn’t show one-hour intervals starting on the hour (e.g. 2100-2200, 2200-2300, 2300-2400 GMT); instead, the intervals in Bob’s chart are 2100-2130, 2130-2230, and 2230-2315 GMT.  I am guessing then that the probability Bob lists in his table for 2130-2230 is a time-weighted average of the calculated probabilities for 2100-2200 and 2200-2300, and the probability for the 2230-2315 interval is the time-weighted average of the calculated probabilities for 2200-2300 and the 2300-2400 intervals. I see a potential problem with this: if the calculated probabilities for 2200-2300 are much lower than for the one hour intervals before and after, the way the Bob’s table combines the probabilities would de-emphasize that fact. 

Let me try to clarify what I mean with a simple example:
 
Let’s say Bob has calculated a 99% reception probability for both the 2100-2200 and 2300-2400 GMT intervals, and he has calculated a 1% reception probability for the 2200-2300 GMT interval. If we chart the probabilities for 2100-2130, 2130-2230, and 2230-2400 GMT using time-weighted averages based on the above probabilities, the results would be:
 
2100-2130            99%
2130-2230            50%
2230 -2300           50%
 
The chart makes it look like Betty’s probability for reception never got worse than 50% over the full 2100 to 2300 period, even though the reception probability was 1% for a whole hour between 2200 and 2300 GMT.

In the actual case of Bob’s table, I don’t know how much it matters, but my hypothetical example shows that to properly understand the probabilities over Betty’s reception period, the whole-hour probabilities need to be displayed, i.e. probabilities for 2000-2100, 2100-2200, 2200-2300, and 2300-2400 GMT. Or am I misunderstanding something?
Logged

Dave McDaniel

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 55
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #99 on: April 18, 2013, 12:47:56 AM »

 HI! I'm not Bill but I'll give it a shot! The proper term for this is called "Sudden Stoppage". When a prop/rotor is suddenly slowed or stopped physics take place, sometimes very dramatically, and sometimes it is more subtle. Think pieces of shrapnel flying verses the engine losing RPM momentarily. I think the high Power/RPM=shrapnel picture is pretty much self-explanatory! However at low RPM, (revolutions per minute) the effects are much more subtle. But the physics still prevail.
 First, if you're a smoker, grab a cigarette, If not, a empty paper towel roll will work.This would represent the crankshaft or propeller shaft of the engine. Next, hold one end steady and twist the other end. You will notice, your tube or cigarette has wrinkles in it. The end that you twisted would represent the engine crankshaft under load. The stationary end would represent the propeller where it attaches to the crankshaft. This wrinkling is call plastic deformation. It is normal and lends itself in a very practical way in everyday applications  and is used in various formats in todays turboshaft aircraft to give the flightcrew indications of engine performance. This is all very well thought out by the engineers and is designed into the operational limitations of normal and emergency operations as it applies to aircraft powerplants and drivetrains. Now, Twist the tube to the point that the tube splits open and you have gross plastic deformation. This would be an example of sudden stoppage in the extreme, catastrophic Failure. Not good.
 In the case of a radial engine, attached to that shaft are rods, pistons, and valve train components, throughout 360 degrees, all dependent on doing their thing in correlation to the crankshaft, in degrees of rotation. So twisting the crankshaft, beyond design limits, even just a few degrees in a millisecond throws this wonderful, orchestrated event into chaos. Kind'a like the mixing a beautiful waltz and slam dancing! With the expected results! And none of it good!
  OK. Back to the less spectacular stuff. This crankshaft also drives "accessory" items that are driven by gears and shafts, Mounted on "Pads" or Common mounting points . All very critical to the various system that they support. This would include the starter/generator, engine oil pump,hydraulic pump and magneto. The latter required for ignition. These accessory items, back in the day, and still in some cases today, were designed with an intentional design flaw! The shafts that drive them were designed to shear or fail if they should seize (bearing/mechanical failure) or remain engaged when they shouldn't(starter) so they wouldn't cause a fire due to overheating or to prevent them from taking out another system. It is very possible that a "sudden stoppage" or abrupt deceleration in engine RPM could cause failure to anyone of these systems. The exception being the engine oil pump which is usually direct drive and does not have a "necked" or shear shaft.
 So what would happen to the prop if a six or twelve inch wave hit the prop at idle? in my opinion, not a lot at flat pitch and idle. But, it would surely have got their attention! No doubt it would have resulted in a torque moment throughout the air frame. Would it cause a catastrophic failure in and of itself? In my opinion, No. Why? Propellers are designed to flex under load to a point and would have had the only damping effect besides gear lash on the engine/gearbox assembly.  But the momentary shock may have caused secondary failure of some of the other systems as mentioned above due to the abrupt shock in the gear train.
 Would this effect the starter? probably not, unless they were starting the engine when the wave hit. Could they hand prop the engine for a start? Sure.
 Would it start? Most likely it would. But remember, one of those accessories was the magnetos. The sole source of ignition. Each engine had two independent mags for this reason.
 Would there be abnormal vibrations? probably, but to what extent? That depends. The wave (only one! doubtful. I've never heard of a 12" rouge wave. I figure it would take a minimum of 20 seconds from cutting the fuel mixture to engine stoppage (rotation) . Not including reaction time.) striking the prop would have been only momentary, but the impact to the engine mounts could have been significant. They are ruggedly built but are not designed for that kind of abuse. Think about what happens when you throw a wet towel into a ceiling fan!(on a personal note: It's only funny when you do it the first time!) Also on the bulkhead that the engine mounts pass thru are where the cannon plugs connecting these various systems and there controls could in someway have been effected by movement of the engine mounts and torsional wrinkling of the sheet metal they mounted to or that they were grounded to.  Accumulative effects.
 As to your question of personal experience as to the effect of sea spray in close proximity to a prop would have, I'd have to say minimal effect. I've done a lot of low-level overwater flight, Military(<10') with nothing other than leaving streaks on the blades.
 I do know, as one of the last accidents that I investigated be for leaving the US Army, a tail rotor strike on a 2 foot tall bush resulted in 2 serious injures and the loss of a aircraft. Sudden stoppage of anything important that rotates is not good!
 I hope this has answered some of your questions. Hopefully it will provoke more. I just can't believe I got it done on one page!
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #100 on: April 18, 2013, 06:49:04 AM »

Thanks Ric, I think I understand Bob’s calculation method a little better now. It’ll be interesting to see what Bob comes up with for the pre-4:30 period.

I don't think you're quite there yet.  Bob wrote:
"Since signal strength is computed at hourly intervals, the reception probability is assumed to remain constant throughout each one-hour period.  For example, the reception probability at any time between 1530Z and 1630Z, on a given path, for a given date, is assumed to be the same as at 1600Z."

Bob did his calculations for the top of each hour, starting with 2100 GMT (4 pm) - so the probabilities of 2030 GMT (3:30 pm) are assumed to be the same as those shown for 2100 to 2130. To get that last half hour you're looking for (2000 to 2030 - 3 pm to 3:30 pm) he's need to run the numbers for 2000. 

The chart makes it look like Betty’s probability for reception never got worse than 50% over the full 2100 to 2300 period, even though the reception probability was 1% for a whole hour between 2200 and 2300 GMT.

I don't think you're reading the chart correctly. The probability of reception was never better than 0.0021. 

In the actual case of Bob’s table, I don’t know how much it matters, but my hypothetical example shows that to properly understand the probabilities over Betty’s reception period, the whole-hour probabilities need to be displayed, i.e. probabilities for 2000-2100, 2100-2200, 2200-2300, and 2300-2400 GMT. Or am I misunderstanding something?

The whole hour probabilities are displayed. For example, the numbers for 2130-2230 are the numbers for the hour spanning 30 minutes on each side of 2200. For 2030 GMT use the "2100-2130" numbers. 
Logged

Bill de Creeft

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #101 on: April 18, 2013, 12:56:09 PM »

Hi Gang & Ric
I got to this machine at 12 midnight last night so left it until morning and now can't find the "I'm not Bill " reply!
(I have a grand-daughter that I dearly love who is applying to colleges for her first year and I just can't get to this set when she drops by !?!)
I have already pointed out that the radial engines on a Grumman Goose, for instance, are immersed in salt water on take-off, you are just about blind for a few seconds if you are taking off where there are swells (Catalina Is.)...so the engine (R985's) won't quit and the props won't break...I have seen propellors so eroded by water spray that the leading edges are split down the length and curling back...and being filed by a mechanic to a blunt edge and sent out the door !...but not on an airplane I owned or even was flying !?!
So that's not the point.
I just was pointing out that calculations of possible transmit times on an airplane marooned on a reef and subject to tides and swells can't be calculated down to fractions of an inch based on calm water and and the prop clearing the water for purposes of charging the battery...if you are taxiing and moving forward along the surface you will move past the little whirlpool of water under the prop, and normally you would be around 900 to 1000 rpm.
Most of the prop spray  comes with a careless turn downwind with poor technique...it's all in any good book on water operations...and a sign of a good hand is a smooth propellor!
I doubt if that was a factor to Amelia where she ended up...
With the old generators, the engine speed has to get up to the point where the charge builds up, the reverse current relay kicks in, and the old carbon pile regulator kicks in and you can slow down and idle along.
I'm ready to make a point here but one more anecdote:
The radios we had in the airplanes were 'short wave' just like AE's, and I'm very familiar with the 'magic' involved in using those radios...a good "Static Chaser" was worth whatever it cost to get him to come around and tune everything up !!

I was dropping off Stream Guards...college kids with a folding kayak and a rifle, and we sneaked around and dropped them off in different bays where they watched for illegal fishing boats..."Cops and Robbers" stuff and more like a game to us pilots...
I was dropping them off so even though I was only a few bays away from where the fleet was, I had come from a different direction so no one knew I was there.
Skipping all the details of a good story, I dropped the guys off and they paddled away around the corner and the Cessna didn't like the hot engins so wouldn't start (my fault, of course...I wasn't "gentle enough') I ran the battery down, the tide started in and I ended up standing behind the airplane on a rock holding the airplane by the tail aimed at each incoming wave and wet up above my waist for hours...
Couldnt let go of the tail to climb in and use the radio and couldn't even take more than a few seconds to climb in and grind the battery down again to save myself and the airplane...cold wet hungry and more worried than mad by then.
Finally the kids came paddling back after hours to see why they never heard me take off so we trailed the kayak and with one of us on each float we paddled the plane around the corner where there was a beach.
With a dead battery I tried to reach my wife at our office but no answer anywhere call ing "anybody that can hear me"
Tried 2512 (the boats right around the corner and my office about 70 miles away) tried 3411( 'aircraft', and the FAA in Anchorage)...nothing.
Caught a spawning salmon and found out I had no matches and 'the kids ' had gone off to set up camp back in the bay in the bushes..so now I was going to be hungry.

I tried all this, the tide came back in, I lost my beach and since the plane was floating again and I was going to start paddling again I tried the radio again...and got a station in Bethel...hundreds of miles away and my battery was really about cold!!
Couldn't believe it !!
He said he would call my wife in Homer , my battery/radio died again...and a couple of hours later here came my Competion with a spare battery and a grin !
"I hear you're up the Creek without a paddle."
I had the short wave next to my bed for 20 years even after we all went side band...I told you before; lying in bed in the middle of the night...so loud and clear it woke me up, I heard a sailboat going into Darwin, Australia talking to the harbormaster...for several hours...and never again.

So you get the point and ...even though I have plenty more stories... and here's what i want to stay.

I don't need proof or explanations that Betty heard AE...on a reef with FN with a head wound beside her(or near enough that you could hear them taking to each other) and with the tide coming in and she asked for help and the people who held her life in their hands had lots of reasons why it could not be her...they didn't think a young girl was saying anything of value so Amelia died.
I have found people on a beach freezing to death after 13 days, hours after a coast guard flew past them "And he looked out the window at us and he didn't care..."
Because I saw footprints and flew around until they could get out of the bushes they were huddled in and wave a branch at me...I called the CG copter back and had him pick them up because it was dark by then and there were rocks and i was in a Widgeon amphib...I had to call them twice because the said they had already "done ' that bay...etc etc.

She called, someone heard her...they found a place to land, and they died there, you will find the pieces of the plane you need to "prove it (I think I have already seen picture of those pieces) if I had any money I would pay for the whole expedition...but it's too late to save AE.
It's a mystery to be solved and I have been in it's grip since I saw the Lexington 75 years ago... but I'm a pilot...if you say it will fly I'll fly it; you dont need to tell me why...and if Betty says she heard AE I believe it...you don't need to tell my why!
I'm 80, I've had a valve replaced in my heart, my memory is shot and I can't put words together..I won't be flying again.
She is there, and you will find where she was, and in a sense, ...Where she is !
That's all the help I can give you.
Bill
Bill de Creeft

Tighar Member #4131
 
Logged

Will Hatchell

  • inactive
  • *
  • Posts: 56
  • "Down to the nitty-gritty"
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #102 on: April 18, 2013, 01:52:02 PM »

Bill:

I thank you for your take on this. I respect your logic and sound judgment on this topic. It's so refreshing to have someone who has personal knowledge and is direct and doesn't beat around the bush! You're a valuable resource here on this forum!

Hatch

TIGHAR #3975S
 
Logged

John B. Shattuck

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #103 on: April 18, 2013, 01:54:22 PM »

I do so love his posts...
Logged

Bill de Creeft

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #104 on: April 18, 2013, 02:38:16 PM »

I must be getting old and soft...but you guys made me feel good !!

(isn't this whole deal really neat !?!)

Thank you.
Bill
www 'dot' alaskaseaplanes 'dot' com
Bill de Creeft

Tighar Member #4131
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP