Re: Re: Amelia Earhart [Archive]

Paul Moore

December 31st 04, 12:58 PM

Fascinating article. I hope you are successful in finding suitable
sponsorship.

I once discovered aircraft remains in the jungle in Belize, Central America.
It was in 1979 and I was on a patrol moving along the line of the Belize /
Guatemala border south to north. On about the 4th or 5th day we found
wreckage very badly smashed up and corroded. We had a good look around the
site for a couple of hours but could'nt find any cockpit section just small
wing and fuselage sections and a bit of undercarraige. It had clearly been
there for many years. We could'nt ID the aircraft type or any registration.
There were no airfields within 100 miles so I can only assume it had gone
down through some serious technical trouble.

In those days there was no GPS and the maps of the Belize central highlands
were not very accurate, most being marked 'No relief data available'. We
navigated mainly off a series of air photos combined with the map and good
old bearing, pacing and timing. It was very hit and miss although we did'nt
get seriously geographically embarressed very often. We reported the approx
location of the wreckage on our return to Salamanca Camp in the standard
patrol debrief. I returned to Belize several times and often wondered if
anyone ever found the aircraft again or if anyone knows what it is.
I was a19 year old paratrooper at the time and most of my interest in planes
came from jumping out of them. I have held a PPL for several years now and
found David Billings article to be very interesting, not only from the
'mystery of the lost pilot' angle, but also from the technical navigation
and aviation aspect, as well as my own experience in Belize many years ago.
There are lessons to be learnt by all pilots in his article. Well done
David, I wish you well with the project.

"david_billings" > wrote in
message . ..
>
> If you Ladies and Gentlemen want to know what is happening in this part
> of the world regarding Amelia Earhart, then please look at:
>
> www.electranewbritain.com/
>
> This website describes evidence that the Electra is on New britain
> Island in Papua New Guinea.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Billings
>
>
> --
> david_billings
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they
> fly -
>

d&tm

December 31st 04, 09:44 PM

"david_billings" > wrote in
message . ..
>
> If you Ladies and Gentlemen want to know what is happening in this part
> of the world regarding Amelia Earhart, then please look at:
>
> www.electranewbritain.com/
>
>
fascinating stuff David. Seems to me that some local knowledge would be
handy. Did you ever try to track down the native policeman , Illip? who was
with the party who originally found the aircraft? Does New Britain have
any local newspapers that could be searched? Could the aircraft be known
about by locals that you are not aware of.?
The magnetometer stuff sounds interesting. How heavy is the equipment? just
wondered if it really needed a helicopter. If the equipment was light weight
I reckon one of those powered parachutes could be a neat low cost little
platform if the weather was good. they can carry 2 good size people or one
and maybe 100 kg of equipment. I went for a ride in one, they offer an
incredible view as the engine is behind you and can fly low and slow.( about
25-30 mph).
If this magnetometer thing is as good as they claim I wonder if it could be
used to find what I believe is the only aircraft missing on land in
Australia, a cessna 206 lost in the Barrington tops area of Queensland in
1981 with 5 people on board. This area is also extremely dense jungle and
many walking searches have failed to find a trace.
Good luck with your search and I hope you can find a sponsor.
Terry

d&tm

December 31st 04, 09:50 PM

"david_billings" > wrote in
message . ..
>
> If you Ladies and Gentlemen want to know what is happening in this part
> of the world regarding Amelia Earhart, then please look at:
>
> www.electranewbritain.com/
>
David, just a secondary thought. This search sounds just like the sought of
thing Australian aviation guru and multimillionaire Dick Smith might be
interested in . You probably know about the successful search he conducted
for the Kookaburra, an aircraft that crashed in the Northern territory of
Australia in about 1929 ( the 2 pilots died of thirst and the aircraft was
found but left in the bush for 70 years to be lost again) He found the
remains of the aircraft which are now in a museum in Alice Springs. He has
his own helicopter too.!
Have you ever tried to interest him in your search?
Terry

Robert M. Gary

January 1st 05, 05:35 AM

I was just watching a documentry on Earhart. The documentry said that
most of her fellow pilots "did not consider her to be an exceptional
airman, but she was a good showman". I'd never heard that before,
interesting.

Cecil Chapman

January 1st 05, 08:40 AM

>I was just watching a documentary on Earhart. The documentary said that
> most of her fellow pilots "did not consider her to be an exceptional
> airman, but she was a good showman". I'd never heard that before,
> interesting.
>

Next month (February or March) I'll be attending a presentation by a fellow
who flew in a 'support' plane (not sure what to call his duties?) along with
Earhart on some of her 'missions'. He's a nice local fellow at one of the
airports I frequent and I'll be interested to hear about his 'reading' of
Earhart as a pilot. I'll share any gems that I hear with the newsgroup.

In a conversation with this fellow, I do remember that he said Amelia would
get a little testy about the press mentioning the 'extra' aircraft in which
he flew since, I guess, she felt it would detract from her accomplishments -
that the press would say; "A male pilot flew in another plane along 'with'
her and that is what 'helped' her with some of her flights" or something
like that to detract from her accomplishments as a woman - who knows?

Only question I would have about the comments you saw would be separating
how much of the analysis of her flying was truly objective or simply male
chauvinism of the times towards her being a female pilot (i.e.,, to be
honest, I really don't know - I'd like to expect though that she would be
fairly 'weighed' as any other fellow male pilot, but I don't know for sure).

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

James Robinson

January 1st 05, 01:15 PM

Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
> Only question I would have about the comments you saw would be separating
> how much of the analysis of her flying was truly objective or simply male
> chauvinism of the times towards her being a female pilot ...

Much of the criticism came from Paul Mantz, who was a friend of hers,
was her technical advisor for the trip, and was rumored to have had an
affair with her. Paul Mantz went on to a distinguished career as a
Hollywood stunt pilot.

Mantz is quoted as saying that Earhart was in such a rush to start her
journey that she was inadequately trained on the new radio equipment,
routinely ignored safety procedures, had not had enough practice flying
the aircraft, (she pranged it on takeoff in Hawaii, and had to delay her
first attempt,) was only an average pilot, etc.

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 1st 05, 01:57 PM

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:15:57 GMT, James Robinson >
wrote:

>Cecil Chapman wrote:

>> Only question I would have about the comments you saw would be separating
>> how much of the analysis of her flying was truly objective or simply male
>> chauvinism of the times towards her being a female pilot ...

>Much of the criticism came from Paul Mantz, who was a friend of hers,
>was her technical advisor for the trip, and was rumored to have had an
>affair with her. Paul Mantz went on to a distinguished career as a
>Hollywood stunt pilot.

.... and died tragically in the filming of "Flight of the Phoenix.

>Mantz is quoted as saying that Earhart was in such a rush to start her
>journey that she was inadequately trained on the new radio equipment ...

1. She and Fred Noonan, her navigator, refused to learn Morse Code.
They planned to rely on voice. This became a fatal flaw when they
needed to communicate with the Coast Guard crew waiting for
them at Howland Island.

2. Amelia took out the Hooven radio compass and replaced it
with an inferior RDF system (according to Hooven, at any
rate).

3. A flight test of the RDF system failed just a few days before
the departure from Lae, New Guinea. Amelia said, "We were
too close for it to work." In fact, her inability to make the system
work on the test flight probably showed something wrong with
the hardware or with her DF technique.

4. AE seemed to have a poor grasp of how to emit a signal
to let the Coast Guard get a bearing on her. She didn't stay
on the air long enough for the radio men to get a fix on her
position.

>routinely ignored safety procedures,
> had not had enough practice flying
>the aircraft, (she pranged it on takeoff in Hawaii, and had to delay her
>first attempt,)

The crash on takeoff was the end of the first attempt.
She had three men on board with her: Fred Noonan,
Paul Mantz, and Harry Manning. On the second attempt,
only Noonan accompanied her.

> was only an average pilot, etc.

1928: First woman to fly across the Atlantic
(acted as “logkeeper”).

1931: Altitude record for autogyros (18,415').
Coast-to-coast in an autogyro.

* Broke first airframe. Finished in
a replacement.

1932: Second person to fly solo
across the Atlantic (15 hours 18 min).

* Made an off-field landing on the coast of Ireland.

1932 & 1933: Broke women’s transcontinental
speed record.

1935: First person to fly solo from
Hawaii to California.

1937: Crashed on takeoff from Hawaii.
Disappeared after takeoff from Lae.

The Lae takeoff was masterful and courageous.
The plane dropped off the end of the ridge that
the runway was on and skimmed over the waves
until it was out of sight--probably flying in ground
effect.

AE and FN were trying to go around the equator,
where earlier "round-the-world" flights flew shorter
routes:

Wiley Post and Harold Gatty:
1931: 15,474 miles; 8 days, 15 hours, 51 minutes

Wiley Post solo (one good eye, autopilot & RDF):
1933: 15,596 miles in 7 days, 18 minutes.

(1935: Wiley Post and Will Rogers died on
takeoff in Alaska.)

For more details on AE, FN, and the history of
the era, see <www.tighar.org>.

(I am a dues-paying member of TIGHAR
and I have done research in Fiji and New Zealand for
the group.)

Marty

Larry Dighera

January 1st 05, 03:04 PM

On 31 Dec 2004 21:35:55 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote in . com>::

>I was just watching a documentry on Earhart. The documentry said that
>most of her fellow pilots "did not consider her to be an exceptional
>airman, but she was a good showman". I'd never heard that before,
>interesting.

I got the feeling that her willingness to place herself at risk for
fame was exploited by many the chief of which was her husband, George
Palmer Putmum. As an airman, she appeared to be sincerely dedicated
to "air mindedness," and genuinely willing to apply all of her not
insubstantial intellectual faculties and spirit to flying. There's
little doubt that she was a champion of women's issues, and saw
herself as a torch bearer in that movement. But like many of her
fellow aviatrix' of the time, her bravado exceeded here piloting
skills.

Reading of these early aviatrix', one soon finds a common thread of
tough assertiveness, confident self-reliance, mean technical prowess
and seemingly wanton disregard for self preservation in a world
dominated by condescending men. Amy Johnson embarked on a solo flight
from England to Australia at 23 with little more than 100 hours flight
time in her log book, and regularly damaged her Gipsy Moth upon a
majority her landings, without a thought of it diminishing her stature
as an airman. Beryl Markham pointed her Percival Vega Gull westward
in her solo flight "wrong way" across the Atlantic on what amounted to
a bar-bet dare. Many of these ladies found aviation a popular vehicle
to part the tyrannical cloak of protective subservience under which
they found themselves smothered by male parochialism. None the less,
their successes captured the world's attention and undeniably
demonstrated female equality with men at a time when it was needed to
publicly advance that movement.

Larry Dighera

January 1st 05, 03:32 PM

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 08:57:12 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:15:57 GMT, James Robinson >
>wrote:
[...]
>>Mantz is quoted as saying that Earhart was in such a rush to start her
>>journey that she was inadequately trained on the new radio equipment ...
>
>1. She and Fred Noonan, her navigator, refused to learn Morse Code.
>They planned to rely on voice. This became a fatal flaw when they
>needed to communicate with the Coast Guard crew waiting for
>them at Howland Island.

Mantz also indicated, that at Putnum's instance AE left the long wire
antenna in Florida to lighten the load.*

* Hollywood pilot;: The biography of Paul Mantz
by Don Dwiggins:
http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=NDhRhVA9.MxIDblJ12o4j5A8m5I_4153678660_2:3:3

[...]
>1928: First woman to fly across the Atlantic
> (acted as “logkeeper”).

http://www.acepilots.com/earhart.html
She became the first woman to fly across the Atlantic on June
18-19, 1928. The flight was the brainchild of Amy Guest, a
wealthy, aristocratic American expatriate living in London. Aware
of the huge publicity that would accrue to the first woman to fly
the Atlantic, the 55 year old Mrs. Guest had purchased a Fokker F7
trimotor from Commander Richard Byrd, to make the flight herself.
Her family objected, and she relented, as long as the "right sort"
of woman could make the flight. The "right sort" would take a good
picture, be well-educated, and not be a publicity-seeking
gold-digger. The Guest family hired George Putnam, a New York
publicist who had promoted Lindbergh's book We, to look for a
suitable women pilot. He selected the little-known Amelia Earhart,
and introduced her as "Lady Lindy".

While the flight instantly made her world-famous, she was little
more than a passenger in the Fokker tri-motor "Friendship." They
took off from Trepassy, Newfoundland, and after a 20 hour and 40
minute flight, landed in Burry Port, Wales. When they went on to
London, another huge mob welcomed them. The pilots, Wilmer Stutz
and Louis Gordon, were all but forgotten in the media frenzy
surrounding the first woman to fly across the Atlantic.

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 7th 05, 11:31 PM

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:32:26 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>>1. She and Fred Noonan, her navigator, refused to learn Morse Code.
>>They planned to rely on voice. This became a fatal flaw when they
>>needed to communicate with the Coast Guard crew waiting for
>>them at Howland Island.

>Mantz also indicated, that at Putnum's instance AE left the long wire
>antenna in Florida to lighten the load ...

RIght. The 250' trailing antenna was exclusively for 500 Hz (aka
as "kcs" in the old sources), which, in turn, was exclusively
for Morse Code (aka as "CW", continuous wave).

Since neither AE nor FN knew CW, there was no point in
carrying an antenna dedicated to an all-CW frequency.

> ... George Putnam ... selected the little-known Amelia Earhart,
> and introduced her as "Lady Lindy".

I think both AE and Lindbergh hated that nickname.

Marty

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 7th 05, 11:35 PM

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:04:19 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

> ... like many of her
>fellow aviatrix' of the time, her bravado exceeded here piloting
>skills.

I'd nominate Jean Batten of NZ for top honors in courage,
skill, and luck:

<http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/jean_batten_bio.html>

She wasn't all there psychologically, but neither am I. ;o)

> ... their successes captured the world's attention and undeniably
>demonstrated female equality with men at a time when it was needed to
>publicly advance that movement.

It was also a way to earn a living. There's good money in
show business.

Marty

Don Tuite

January 8th 05, 01:54 AM

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:31:55 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:32:26 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>>1. She and Fred Noonan, her navigator, refused to learn Morse Code.
>>>They planned to rely on voice. This became a fatal flaw when they
>>>needed to communicate with the Coast Guard crew waiting for
>>>them at Howland Island.
>
>>Mantz also indicated, that at Putnum's instance AE left the long wire
>>antenna in Florida to lighten the load ...
>
>RIght. The 250' trailing antenna was exclusively for 500 Hz (aka
>as "kcs" in the old sources), which, in turn, was exclusively
>for Morse Code (aka as "CW", continuous wave).
>
>Since neither AE nor FN knew CW, there was no point in
>carrying an antenna dedicated to an all-CW frequency.

I'm coming in late; maybe this was already covered.

Until a few years ago, 500 kHz was the one frequency marine radio
operators were REQUIRED to monitor continually, day and night, for
emergency traffic.

Also, If I remember _North to the Orient_ CW was one of the things
Anne Morrow Lindbergh made it a point to master before that flight,
and that was six years before AE and FN disappeared.

I'm surprised they'd throw away a lifeline like that.

Don

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 8th 05, 04:07 AM

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:54:10 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>>>Mantz also indicated, that at Putnum's instance AE left the long wire
>>>antenna in Florida to lighten the load ...

>>RIght. The 250' trailing antenna was exclusively for 500 Hz (aka
>>as "kcs" in the old sources), which, in turn, was exclusively
>>for Morse Code (aka as "CW", continuous wave).

>>Since neither AE nor FN knew CW, there was no point in
>>carrying an antenna dedicated to an all-CW frequency.

>I'm coming in late; maybe this was already covered.

Nope.

>Until a few years ago, 500 kHz was the one frequency marine radio
>operators were REQUIRED to monitor continually, day and night, for
>emergency traffic.

That is correct. I think that rule came in after the Titanic sank
(1912).

Um, thanks for quietly correcting my mistake: kHz vs Hz.

>Also, If I remember _North to the Orient_ CW was one of the things
>Anne Morrow Lindbergh made it a point to master before that flight,
>and that was six years before AE and FN disappeared.

I think both she and Charles could do celestial navigation, too.
I don't know whether they checked each other's calculations,
but "two heads are better than one."

>I'm surprised they'd throw away a lifeline like that.

Yes. I think (especially in 1937) that long wave is better for
DF than shorter waves. Even if she couldn't do anything but
tap out "A" on 500 kHz, it might have helped the Coast Guard
and Navy to search more intelligently for the downed aircraft.

Marty

Cub Driver

January 8th 05, 12:22 PM

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:31:55 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote:

>Since neither AE nor FN knew CW, there was no point in
>carrying an antenna dedicated to an all-CW frequency.

Well, it doesn't take very long to learn dit-dit-dit dah-dah-dah
dit-dit-dit, and that would have been of some use in the event.

Cub Driver

January 8th 05, 12:26 PM

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:35:22 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote:

>> ... their successes captured the world's attention and undeniably
>>demonstrated female equality with men at a time when it was needed to
>>publicly advance that movement.
>
>It was also a way to earn a living. There's good money in
>show business.

There was also that gorgeous gal in the tailor-made purple jumpsuit.
Alas, she didn't have a seatbelt, and she fell out of her aircraft
during a show over Boston.

Far from giving her the Darwin award, however, the world has seen her
face on a U.S. postal stamp. Oh, what was her name? She was so pretty
too in that purple jumpsuit. I want to call her Gloria but I don't
think that's right.

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 8th 05, 02:09 PM

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 07:22:37 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>>Since neither AE nor FN knew CW, there was no point in
>>carrying an antenna dedicated to an all-CW frequency.

>Well, it doesn't take very long to learn dit-dit-dit dah-dah-dah
>dit-dit-dit, and that would have been of some use in the event.

Agreed 100%. It probably would have saved their
lives to get up to speed with CW. They could have
gotten straightened out by using CW on 7500 kHz,
the only frequency on which AE heard any transmissions
from the Itasca (a Coast Guard cutter).

AE and FN talked their way out of meeting the 15 wpm
CW requirement. Then they took the 500 kHz antenna
out of the plane. Rumor has it that they also left the
key behind in Miami--more dead weight.

Marty

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 8th 05, 02:15 PM

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 07:26:21 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>>It was also a way to earn a living. There's good money in
>>show business.

>There was also that gorgeous gal in the tailor-made purple jumpsuit.
>Alas, she didn't have a seatbelt, and she fell out of her aircraft
>during a show over Boston.

>Far from giving her the Darwin award, however, the world has seen her
>face on a U.S. postal stamp. Oh, what was her name? She was so pretty
>too in that purple jumpsuit. I want to call her Gloria but I don't
>think that's right.

Harriet Quimby. Purple satin. Her plane landed safely after
she and her passenger fell out of the cockpit.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls/peopleevents/pandeAMEX05.html>

Marty

Larry Dighera

January 8th 05, 03:00 PM

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 07:26:21 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:35:22 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote:
>
>>> ... their successes captured the world's attention and undeniably
>>>demonstrated female equality with men at a time when it was needed to
>>>publicly advance that movement.
>>
>>It was also a way to earn a living. There's good money in
>>show business.
>
>There was also that gorgeous gal in the tailor-made purple jumpsuit.
>Alas, she didn't have a seatbelt, and she fell out of her aircraft
>during a show over Boston.
>
>Far from giving her the Darwin award, however, the world has seen her
>face on a U.S. postal stamp. Oh, what was her name? She was so pretty
>too in that purple jumpsuit. I want to call her Gloria but I don't
>think that's right.
>

Her name was Harriet Quimby, the first US woman to hold an airman's
certificate in 1910, just two years after the Wrights sold their first
aircraft.

Actually, IIRC she was giving a ride to a gentleman in her Bleriot
monoplane, and they hit some turbulence, and as a result, he was
ejected from the aircraft. This caused the aircraft CG to change to
the extent that the aircraft was no longer controllable and she fell
tragically into knee deep water off the coast. Here's a cite:

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/quimby.htm
When Harriet arrived on July 1, 1912, William Willard, the event
organizer, and his son, Charles, tossed a coin to see who would
win the privilege of a flight with Harriet. Willard Senior won the
toss and climbed into the passenger seat, casually appointing
Earle Ovington as Manger of the meet in case he met with an
accident. After a routine flight out to the Boston Light, Harriet
circled over the Neponset River and Dorchester Bay as thousands of
spectators watched.

While at an altitude of approximately 1500 feet, the plane
suddenly pitched forward and Willard was thrown from his seat.
Harriet appeared to temporarily gain control of the monoplane, but
was thrown out seconds later. Both Harriet and Willard fell to
their deaths in the tidal mud flats of the Bay. Just why the plane
pitched forward continues to be analyzed and debated to this day.
The 1912 Boston Globe suggested lack of seat belts, while Earle
Ovington claimed cables from the aircraft tangled the steering
mechanisms. Others speculated that Willard, a heavy and excitable
man, suddenly leaned forward to speak with Harriet, and was tossed
out. Once he was ejected, the empty passenger seat made it
impossible for Harriet to regain balance of her machine. When
flying her two-seater aircraft alone, Harriet "balanced" the
weight with sand bags in the passenger's seat. Although her
Bleriot was now empty, it glided downward, until it was overturned
in the shallow muddy water. Reports that her plane landed unbroken
have been exaggerated through the years, and in fact it was badly
damaged.

From that account, I don't feel that she deserved a nomination for a
Darwin Award. Her last flight demonstrated the necessity for aircraft
to be equipped with seatbelts.

There's a photograph of Miss Quimby here:
http://www.womeninaviation.com/harriet.html .

Another here: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1696.htm

vincent p. norris

January 9th 05, 03:05 AM

>Well, it doesn't take very long to learn dit-dit-dit dah-dah-dah
>dit-dit-dit, and that would have been of some use in the event.

Hell, it doesn't take long to learn the whole dang alphabet, to be
able to send and receive four or five words a minute, which which
have been enough to save their hides.

Astonishing they could have been so dumb about that.

vince norris

vincent p. norris

January 9th 05, 03:07 AM

>AE and FN talked their way out of meeting the 15 wpm
>CW requirement. Then they took the 500 kHz antenna
>out of the plane. Rumor has it that they also left the
>key behind in Miami--more dead weight.

Yeah, a key must weigh, oh, two or three ounces!

vince norris

vincent p. norris

January 9th 05, 03:12 AM

>>Until a few years ago, 500 kHz was the one frequency marine radio
>>operators were REQUIRED to monitor continually, day and night, for
>>emergency traffic.
>
>That is correct. I think that rule came in after the Titanic sank
>(1912).

IIRC, the Titanic's sinking led to the creation of the International
Telecommunications Union, which was the first international attempt to
regulate and bring some sense of order to wireless transmissions. The
ITU was one of the most successful of the world's efforts at
international cooperation, which continued through war and peace.

vince norris

Martin Hotze

January 9th 05, 09:23 AM

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:12:34 -0500, vincent p. norris wrote:

>IIRC, the Titanic's sinking led to the creation of the International
>Telecommunications Union,

wrong, the ITU was founded in 1865 in Paris, France.
http://www.itu.int/aboutitu/overview/history.html

#m
--
<http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg>

Larry Dighera

January 9th 05, 11:59 PM

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:35:22 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:04:19 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>> ... like many of her
>>fellow aviatrix' of the time, her bravado exceeded here piloting
>>skills.
>
>I'd nominate Jean Batten of NZ for top honors in courage,
>skill, and luck:
>
><http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/jean_batten_bio.html>

I'm reading Alone In The Sky now.

>She wasn't all there psychologically, but neither am I. ;o)
>

I haven't found anything to support that allegation yet in her book.
She seem to have had a lot of pluck from an early age, and the skills
and courage to succeed. My hat's off to her. I wouldn't have
attempted an around the world flight at her tender young age in the
aircraft available in the '30s. In fact, I wouldn't do it now.

>> ... their successes captured the world's attention and undeniably
>>demonstrated female equality with men at a time when it was needed to
>>publicly advance that movement.
>
>It was also a way to earn a living. There's good money in
>show business.

It's pretty apparent that was what motivated Jim Millison to wed Amy
Johnson.

vincent p. norris

January 10th 05, 12:15 AM

>wrong, the ITU was founded in 1865 in Paris, France.
>http://www.itu.int/aboutitu/overview/history.html

Well, I learn something every day!

vince norris

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 10th 05, 01:51 AM

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:59:20 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>>I'd nominate Jean Batten of NZ for top honors in courage,
>>skill, and luck:

>><http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/jean_batten_bio.html>

>I'm reading Alone In The Sky now.

>>She wasn't all there psychologically, but neither am I. ;o)

>I haven't found anything to support that allegation yet in her book.

I think I read Jean Batten: The Garbo of the Skies when I was
in Auckland (where her most famous plane hangs in the airport).
I didn't bring the book home with me. It traces her peculiar
relationship with her mother from childhood to old age. She
died unknown and was buried in a pauper's grave. No one
knew of her death and burial until years after the fact.

>She seem to have had a lot of pluck from an early age, and the skills
>and courage to succeed.

Agreed.

>My hat's off to her. I wouldn't have
>attempted an around the world flight at her tender young age in the
>aircraft available in the '30s. In fact, I wouldn't do it now.

She did some amazing solo flights and survived many hardships.
Her single engine quit while she was on a long leg over water to
New Zealand. She kept at it and got the engine restarted in time
to tell the tale. Her navigation was excellent.

Marty

Cub Driver

January 10th 05, 10:21 AM

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:07:52 -0500, vincent p. norris >
wrote:

>Yeah, a key must weigh, oh, two or three ounces!

It all adds up, of course. Many serious backpackers cut the handles
off their toothbrushes.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 10th 05, 03:00 PM

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:21:51 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:07:52 -0500, vincent p. norris >
>wrote:

>>Yeah, a key must weigh, oh, two or three ounces!

>It all adds up, of course. Many serious backpackers cut the handles
>off their toothbrushes.

Here is the introduction to what TIGHAR calls "The Hooven Report":

"Before Miss Earhart took off on her Round-the-World flight she
removed from her plane a modern radio compass that had been installed
and replaced it with an older, lighter-weight model of much less
capability. I am the engineer who had invented and developed the radio
compass that was removed, and I discussed its features with Miss
Earhart before the installation was made. I have reason to believe
that it was the failure of her radio direction-finder to do what the
more modern model could have done that caused her to be lost. The
story is told herein, and it is plain to see why I have been so very
much interested in the subject.

"I met Miss Earhart for lunch at Wright Field in the summer of 1936.
She was accompanied by a younger woman flyer, quite unknown at the
time, Jacqueline Cochran. Although she moved in a man's world, and
wore men's trousers and wore a short haircut, there was nothing
masculine about Miss Earhart. Every inch a lady, she was gracious and
quiet-spoken, thoroughly feminine and attractive.

"Too much time has elapsed for me to remember when it was that I
learned that my device was not on the Earhart plane when it was lost,
or even whether it was before or after the takeoff that I learned. But
I have been possessed by the desire to know what did happen, and by
the wish that things had happened differently."

For the full article by Hooven, see
<http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html>.

The gist of his argument is that in the interest of shaving a few
pounds from her DF equipment, AE installed an inferior system
that cost her more in drag than it gained in weight reduction.
Her inability to make the old system work, in turn, made it impossible
for her to find Howland Island on the morning of July 2, 1937.

Marty

Larry Dighera

January 10th 05, 03:48 PM

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:00:01 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>Her inability to make the old system work, in turn, made it impossible
>for her to find Howland Island on the morning of July 2, 1937.

Thanks for the link to interesting Earhart information.

There is considerable speculation that the US government secretly
asked her to do reconnaissance over Japanese held Pacific islands on
her last flight. This was the conclusion reached by author Fred
Goerner in his The Search for Amelia Earhart.
http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=ijfm0LWhzpjSgpzAEoXptcrDcWQ_8109001661_2:113:28 0

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 10th 05, 06:01 PM

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:48:05 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>Thanks for the link to interesting Earhart information.

You're welcome.

>There is considerable speculation that the US government secretly
>asked her to do reconnaissance over Japanese held Pacific islands on
>her last flight. This was the conclusion reached by author Fred
>Goerner in his The Search for Amelia Earhart.
>http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=ijfm0LWhzpjSgpzAEoXptcrDcWQ_8109001661_2:113:28 0

Yes. Fred Goerner and Fred Hooven were great friends.

Those of you who are full-scale pilots can do this exercise
better than I can. We know what time AE took off from Lae,
New Guinea (10 AM local; 00:00 Zulu).

1.At what time would she arrive over islands in the Pacific
held by the Japanese in 1937?

2. How much could she
see at that time?

3. How much help would she receive
from the Japanese in homing in on their allegedly
secret military installations?

4. How many passes would she need to get
herself oriented?

5. What kind of equipment could she have
carried with her to aid her spy mission?

6. How much
fuel would she need to make such a flight and still
reach Howland Island?

These are my answers:

1. She would arrive in the middle of the night.

2. She couldn't make any observations at that time that
would be worth the danger involved.

3. The Japanese would give her much less help than
she got from the Coast Guard at Howland (which,
in the event, turned out to be not much different
from zero).

4. Flying in the dark would require extraordinary
efforts to get oriented and to find the right places
to make observations.

5. Infrared cameras, x-ray equipment, microwave
equipment, high-altitude aerial cameras, magnetometers,
gravitometers and the like were not available in
1937. What could she have seen with the old Mark I
eyeball that would be of any use? If the government
knew where to have her look, that would mean that
they already knew what the enemy-to-be had there,
and they wouldn't need a nighttime spy flight. If they
just wanted her to visually survey the islands, what could
she see at that time of night?

6. My totally amateur guess (TAG) is that she would need
much more than the 1100 gallons her plane was designed
to carry for such a mission. See the Chater Report
for details on the fuel she received in Lae:
<http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Chater_Report.html>

The theory that AE was flying a secret spy mission dates from
the 1943 war propaganda movie, Flight for Freedom, starring Rosalind
Russell and Fred MacMurray. It's so much more romantic to
think that AE and FN died serving their country than because
they willfully neglected to prepare for a very dangerous flight
undertaken to make them rich and famous.

Marty

vincent p. norris

January 11th 05, 02:05 AM

>It all adds up, of course. Many serious backpackers cut the handles
>off their toothbrushes.

Yeah, I've read that, Dan. I've done a little backpacking myself, and
always tried to keep the weight down. I've also lived out of a
carry-on bag for three weeks on half a dozen trips, but never went to
the extreme of cutting handles off toothbrushes or even scraping that
heavy paint off the toothpaste tubes! (:-))

vince norris

Cub Driver

January 11th 05, 10:32 AM

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:48:05 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>This was the conclusion reached by author Fred
>Goerner in his The Search for Amelia Earhart.

Book authors will advance any theory, however loony, in order to sell
books, or perhaps to advance a cause they believe in. This is not to
say that Earhart was not doing a bit of spying, but that nobody has
come close to proving it. The truth seems much more mundane: Earhart,
like many another pilot, screwed up. The Pacific Ocean is a large
place, and it is hardly surprising that no one has found the aircraft
or the bodies, especially given the war that soon followed.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Cub Driver

January 11th 05, 10:34 AM

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:05:14 -0500, vincent p. norris >
wrote:

>even scraping that
>heavy paint off the toothpaste tubes!

I never thought of that!

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Larry Dighera

January 11th 05, 11:49 AM

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:32:25 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:48:05 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>This was the conclusion reached by author Fred
>>Goerner in his The Search for Amelia Earhart.
>
>Book authors will advance any theory, however loony, in order to sell
>books, or perhaps to advance a cause they believe in. This is not to
>say that Earhart was not doing a bit of spying, but that nobody has
>come close to proving it.

Of course, I have no idea of where the truth lies in the case of AE
and FN. However, Mr Goerner made at least three trips to the Martial
Islands as a result of accounts from natives, that American male and
female flyers were captured and held there. Over the course of his
rather professionally conducted investigations, he received firsthand
accounts from solders who claim to have exhumed remains purported to
be those of AE and FN, was encouraged by Chester Nimitz to continue
pursuing his investigation, and unearthed considerable information
previously unknown, such as AE's Electra being equipped with larger
engines than had previously been believed resulting in its ability to
make 200 MPH cruise speed. Several times throughout his
investigations, the government withheld files only to provide them
later due to his diligence. In all, the conclusion he reached seems
plausible, and much of it is corroborated by several disparate sources
who lacked knowledge of each other.

>The truth seems much more mundane: Earhart,
>like many another pilot, screwed up. The Pacific Ocean is a large
>place, and it is hardly surprising that no one has found the aircraft
>or the bodies, especially given the war that soon followed.

Of course that is true also. But if so, how would you explain all the
firsthand accounts, the Navy's building an airfield for AE and
stationing ships for her, and all the other assistance the government
provided? Goerner says this occurred during a time when the official
government policy was not to materially support record flight
attempts.

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 11th 05, 04:16 PM

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:32:25 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:48:05 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:

>>This was the conclusion reached by author Fred
>>Goerner in his The Search for Amelia Earhart.

>Book authors will advance any theory, however loony, in order to sell
>books, or perhaps to advance a cause they believe in.

I'm quite sure Goerner was a pilot who totally believed
the theory he advanced in his book. He wasn't in it
for the money.

>This is not to
>say that Earhart was not doing a bit of spying, but that nobody has
>come close to proving it.

Right. For the die-hard conspiracy theorists, the absence of
evidence is evidence of a coverup.

>The truth seems much more mundane: Earhart,
>like many another pilot, screwed up.

That seems to me to be an accurate and concise statement
of the truth.

>The Pacific Ocean is a large
>place, and it is hardly surprising that no one has found the aircraft
>or the bodies, especially given the war that soon followed.

The Navy mounted the largest search-and-rescue mission in
its history to that date--but everyone who has read about
searches for wrecks or participated in such searches
knows how easy it is for lost aircraft to stay lost.

Marty

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 11th 05, 04:33 PM

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:49:01 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

> ... how would you explain all the
>firsthand accounts ...

Perception and memory are heavily influenced by non-rational
factors. There is a sad story in Carl Sagan's book, The
Demon Haunted World, of a man who was persuaded to
confess to crimes that he never committed.

If sincerity and conviction on the part of witnesses is the sole
standard of truth, then AE and FN were imprisoned, executed,
and buried on a dozen different islands in the Pacific.

And then AE also survived the war and took the identity of
Irene Bolam in NJ for the rest of her life.

And (to go back to the post that started this thread), the
wreck of AE's aircraft is in New Britain.

And (to take an example not widely known) a seaman saw
the wreck being retrieved from Gardner/Nikumaroro in
the 1970s while he was on the fantail of an aircraft
carrier. [This witness posted his testimony on TIGHAR's
forum. He is unshakeable in his sincere conviction about
what he saw, despite the evidence of the ship's logbooks
that show he never could have seen what he thinks he
saw.]

A simple hypothesis for the multiple sincere testimonies
about AE and FN:

1. The witnesses saw an emaciated woman prisoner.

2. The nearest emaciated male prisoner was assumed
to be her partner, FN.

3. Real atrocities were committed by the Japanese
against their male and female prisoners.

4. After the war--and after the 1943 movie with
Rosalind Russel and Fred MacMurray, people
convinced themselves that the poor woman they
saw in captivity was AE.

In TIGHAR, we call this the "helpful witness syndrome."
It's amazing how much people can decorate and improve
their memories when they think that they hold the key
to solving the mystery.

> ... the Navy's building an airfield for AE and
>stationing ships for her ...

The U.S. and Britain were engaged in a continuous
battle for control of the unclaimed Pacific islands
long before the Japanese were a factor. Placing
an airstrip on Howland strengthened the U.S. claim
that it was part of its territory. I don't know which
came first--AE's flight plan or the government's
desire to strengthen its claim.

> ... and all the other assistance the government
>provided?

AE was famous and moved in the same social
circles as high-level government officials. I doubt
that an unattractive man (Wiley Post comes to mind)
would have gotten as much cooperation.

>Goerner says this occurred during a time when the official
>government policy was not to materially support record flight
>attempts.

The official Navy and Roman Catholic policies against
burying civilians at sea were waived in JFK Jr's case
(may he and his passengers rest in peace). There
are exceptions to every rule (including this rule).

Marty

Cub Driver

January 12th 05, 08:24 AM

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:49:01 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>But if so, how would you explain all the
>firsthand accounts, the Navy's building an airfield for AE and
>stationing ships for her, and all the other assistance the government
>provided?

You can dig up a firsthand account about just about anything,
especially if you are willing to be a bit creative. (Think Dan Rather
and the bogus National Guard files.) As for the govt assistance, that
was standard for the time. Think of the support Byrd got for his
Antarctic expeditions--the whole U.S. Navy, basically.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Larry Dighera

January 12th 05, 03:55 PM

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:51:43 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:59:20 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>>I'd nominate Jean Batten of NZ for top honors in courage,
>>>skill, and luck:
>
>>><http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/jean_batten_bio.html>
>
>>I'm reading Alone In The Sky now.
>
>>>She wasn't all there psychologically, but neither am I. ;o)
>
>>I haven't found anything to support that allegation yet in her book.
>
>I think I read Jean Batten: The Garbo of the Skies when I was
>in Auckland (where her most famous plane hangs in the airport).
>I didn't bring the book home with me. It traces her peculiar
>relationship with her mother from childhood to old age.

I'll have to get a copy. Thanks for the information.

>She died unknown and was buried in a pauper's grave. No one
>knew of her death and burial until years after the fact.

That sounds something like Florence Lowe (Pancho) Barnes fate, only
not so grizzly. In the end, Beryl Markham was also pathetically alone
at the end. It must be the price of independence.

>>She seem to have had a lot of pluck from an early age, and the skills
>>and courage to succeed.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>My hat's off to her. I wouldn't have
>>attempted an around the world flight at her tender young age in the
>>aircraft available in the '30s. In fact, I wouldn't do it now.
>
>She did some amazing solo flights and survived many hardships.
>Her single engine quit while she was on a long leg over water to
>New Zealand. She kept at it and got the engine restarted in time
>to tell the tale. Her navigation was excellent.

That is the feeling I'm getting also. She seems to have been not only
courageous, but competent aeronautically too.

Cub Driver

January 13th 05, 11:51 AM

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:55:08 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>She seems to have been not only
>courageous, but competent aeronautically too.

Probably a better pilot than I am, but not in the league she was
playing in. I don't know whether it was her own ambition or her
husband's, but she shouldn't have been on that trip.

As I recall, she was basically just a passenger on her first big
flight, to Europe from North America. And, like Howard Hughes, she
crashed a suspiciously large number of airplanes in circumstances that
either weren't challenging or were of her own choosing.

Pushing the envelope is admirable, but in Earhart's case it seemed to
be mostly for publicity for herself and her husband.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 13th 05, 03:24 PM

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:51:22 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>>She seems to have been not only
>>courageous, but competent aeronautically too.

>Probably a better pilot than I am, but not in the league she was
>playing in. I don't know whether it was her own ambition or her
>husband's, but she shouldn't have been on that trip.

It isn't an either/or situation. Both she and her husband wanted
her to succeed in her round-the-world flight.

In all likelihood, the original plan would have worked perfectly,
if she hadn't crashed on takeoff from Luke Field in Hawaii
on the second leg. In the original plan, she was accompanied
by Paul Mantz, Harry Manning, and Fred Noonan. The flight
plan was from California westward around the world. Mantz
and Nooning were aboard to help find Howland Island on the
second leg of the trip. They were both highly skilled radio
operators who could have communicated with the Itasca
even if they had faced the same radio problems Amelia
and Fred did on the second attempt to reach Howland.

>As I recall, she was basically just a passenger on her first big
>flight, to Europe from North America.

True. She resented that fact, but that's how the trip was planned
by a rich lady whose family prevented her from being the
first woman flown across the Atlantic.

>And, like Howard Hughes, she
>crashed a suspiciously large number of airplanes in circumstances that
>either weren't challenging or were of her own choosing.

You may well be right. I don't have the data at my fingertips. Here
is a summary dialogue on that point:

******************* Begin quoted material *****************

From Dennis McGee:

I just finished reviewing the TIGHAR recap of AE's performance over
the last 16 years of her life, and my immediate reaction was, "Who
licensed this person to fly?"

Ye gads, man, she had 11 (ELEVEN!) accidents or "events" with the
aircraft she owned from 1921-37, and this does not include losing the
Electra 10E in July, 1937. Some of the stuff was minor, but a lot of
it wasn't. There is even a reprimand from the CAA (?) tucked into the
file! Granted, certain hazards of the era (poor airfields, fuel
contamination, lack of nav aids etc.) may have been contributing
factors, but pranging a half dozen aircraft in nine years (1928-37) is
a pretty dismal record. I know my FBO wouldn't rent to her!

Most of the events appeared to be landing mishaps (" . . .pilot in
command failed to maintain control of the aircraft after touchdown . .
.."), some of which could have been caused by poorly maintained
airfields, I assumed. Only two, apparently, were due to mechanical
failure, specifically the engine, which speaks well for the
reliability of engines even at this early point in aviation.

I noticed also a general correlation between the number of accidents
and the complexity (in this case "complexity" is near-synonymous with
engine power, as generally the more powerful the engine the more
complex [cowl flaps, constant speed propeller, retractable landing
gear, etc.] is the airplane.) of the aircraft, the more complex the
aircraft, the more accidents.

All of which raises two observations: first, it appears her flying
skills -- or at least her landing skills -- left a lot to be desired;
and last, is her record "average" for the pilots of her era or was she
just a victim of bad luck?

LTM, who always lands on concrete
Dennis O. McGee, #0149

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

From Ric Gillespie [TIGHAR's executive director]

Amelia's atrocious landings were, apparently, legendary. Scott Berg's
new (and excellent) biography of Lindbergh includes what may be the
only joke that the dour hero ever told - "I hear that Amelia Earhart
made a good landing - - once." Whether she had more wrecks than the
average 1930s pilot is a difficult question to answer. The average
pilot probably wouldn't get the chance to have that many accidents
because they wouldn't be able to afford to keep flying.

<http://www.tighar.org/forum/Highlights21_40/highlights24.html>

************ End quoted material ****************

>Pushing the envelope is admirable, but in Earhart's case it seemed to
>be mostly for publicity for herself and her husband.

Agreed. But that is how she and her husband earned a living.
Fame allowed her to keep flying.

I have lots and lots of puritan instincts, some held in check better
than others, but I am not a puritan when it comes to stunt flying.
If some folks can earn a living entertaining others, more power
to them (especially in the vertical lines).

Marty

Larry Dighera

January 13th 05, 03:25 PM

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:51:22 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:55:08 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>She seems to have been not only
>>courageous, but competent aeronautically too.
>
>Probably a better pilot than I am, but not in the league she was
>playing in. I don't know whether it was her own ambition or her
>husband's, but she shouldn't have been on that trip.
>
>As I recall, she was basically just a passenger on her first big
>flight, to Europe from North America. And, like Howard Hughes, she
>crashed a suspiciously large number of airplanes in circumstances that
>either weren't challenging or were of her own choosing.
>
>Pushing the envelope is admirable, but in Earhart's case it seemed to
>be mostly for publicity for herself and her husband.

In the message to which you are following up, Message-ID:
>, we are discussing Jean
Batton, another aviatrix of the time, not AE.

With regard to AE, I agree with your assessment from what I've read.
However, I'd guess that here motivation was not only for her own
personal publicity, but for that of the majority of the world's
population: women. Earlier in the thread, Marty also mentioned the
motivation of money as a possibility.

Cub Driver

January 14th 05, 10:42 AM

>In all likelihood, the original plan would have worked perfectly,
>if she hadn't crashed on takeoff from Luke Field in Hawaii
>on the second leg.

That's one of the Hughes-like crashes that I had in mind!

When I started skiing, I used to think that if I spent a day with
falling down, I wasn't trying hard enough. Now I'm a better skier, and
I figure that if I fall down I screwed up somehow.

I think Earhart at her death was still in the falling-down stage of
her piloting career.

Military pilots (and civilians too!) often cope with a fellow pilot's
death by saying "He ****ed up!" Sure, it's rationalization. But
sometimes it's true.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Cub Driver

January 14th 05, 10:45 AM

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:24:44 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote:

>From Dennis McGee:
>
>I just finished reviewing the TIGHAR recap of AE's performance over
>the last 16 years of her life, and my immediate reaction was, "Who
>licensed this person to fly?"

Good stuff. Thanks.

(Suspicions confirmed :)

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 14th 05, 04:27 PM

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:42:58 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>>In all likelihood, the original plan would have worked perfectly,
>>if she hadn't crashed on takeoff from Luke Field in Hawaii
>>on the second leg.

>That's one of the Hughes-like crashes that I had in mind!

Yes.

>When I started skiing, I used to think that if I spent a day with
>falling down, I wasn't trying hard enough. Now I'm a better skier, and
>I figure that if I fall down I screwed up somehow.

AE fell down a lot. Ric Gillespie says that every time she moved
up in type, she crunched an airframe or two.

To her credit (?), she got right back in the cockpit and eventually
mastered each aircraft. Her takeoff from Lae on the fatal flight
was as masterful as the takeoff from Luke Field was poor.
It took a lot of courage to sail off the bluff and let the plane
sink down into ground effect.

TIGHAR believes it wasn't her basic piloting skills that cost
her and FN their lives. It was their joint lack of communication
skills that kept them from finding Howland.

>I think Earhart at her death was still in the falling-down stage of
>her piloting career.

You've got a good prima facie ("first glance") case for your
view. She and Fred died. That wasn't in the flight plan. :o(

I think she had many falling-down stages. What killed her
was lack of skill in RDF and CW (Morse Code). She thought
she could get by with radiotelephony. That had worked on
all of her other flights. It didn't work when she needed it
most.

>Military pilots (and civilians too!) often cope with a fellow pilot's
>death by saying "He ****ed up!" Sure, it's rationalization. But
>sometimes it's true.

Yes. She and her support crew chose to put her on the
fatal flight with what proved to be inadequate equipment
and training.

If I ever get a chance not to make the same mistake,
I'll do my best not to make it. :o(

Marty

vincent p. norris

January 15th 05, 03:43 AM

>Military pilots (and civilians too!) often cope with a fellow pilot's
>death by saying "He ****ed up!" Sure, it's rationalization. But
>sometimes it's true.

I would change the "sometimes" to "usually."

vince norris

Larry Dighera

January 21st 05, 01:15 PM

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 03:24:23 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>As for the govt assistance, that was standard for the time.

That conflicts with Mr. Goerner's account.

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 21st 05, 02:44 PM

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:15:59 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 03:24:23 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::

>>As for the govt assistance, that was standard for the time.

>That conflicts with Mr. Goerner's account.

Earhart was a friend of the Roosevelts (and other highly
placed administration officials) before she decided to
attempt the around-the-world flight.

Putting in an airstrip on Howland served a number of
purposes:

1. To help AE. Good publicity is good politics.

2. To strengthen U.S. claims to the island by
developing it.

3. To provide an emergency airstrip that others
might use.

4. To provide jobs. The airstrip was a WPA
project.

5. To prepare a potential military base for use
against the Japanese.

I'm not denying Goerner's account that there was
a general policy against helping stunt pilots stretch
the envelope. I'm saying that there are exceptions to
every rule (except this one) and that we may imagine
an exception was made in this case for good and
sufficient reasons.

Marty

Larry Dighera

January 21st 05, 06:31 PM

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:44:13 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:15:59 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 03:24:23 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote in
>::
>
>>>As for the govt assistance, that was standard for the time.
>
>>That conflicts with Mr. Goerner's account.
>
>Earhart was a friend of the Roosevelts (and other highly
>placed administration officials) before she decided to
>attempt the around-the-world flight.
>
>Putting in an airstrip on Howland served a number of
>purposes:
>
>1. To help AE. Good publicity is good politics.
>
>2. To strengthen U.S. claims to the island by
>developing it.
>
>3. To provide an emergency airstrip that others
>might use.
>
>4. To provide jobs. The airstrip was a WPA
>project.
>
>5. To prepare a potential military base for use
>against the Japanese.
>
>I'm not denying Goerner's account that there was
>a general policy against helping stunt pilots stretch
>the envelope. I'm saying that there are exceptions to
>every rule (except this one) and that we may imagine
>an exception was made in this case for good and
>sufficient reasons.
>

Right. And might you not also infer that the construction of the
airfield on Howland Island, the assignment of personnel to communicate
her flight, and the use of Navy ships virtually exclusively for her
flight bolsters Mr. Goerner's conclusion that she may have been on a
secret mission for the US government?

Jay Beckman

January 21st 05, 08:05 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> Right. And might you not also infer that the construction of the
> airfield on Howland Island, the assignment of personnel to communicate
> her flight, and the use of Navy ships virtually exclusively for her
> flight bolsters Mr. Goerner's conclusion that she may have been on a
> secret mission for the US government?
>
>

Weren't "picket ships" common "back in the day" as remote comm outlets?

Sort of like light ships but for comm over long open stretches?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

January 21st 05, 09:48 PM

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:31:11 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>... And might you not also infer that the construction of the
>airfield on Howland Island, the assignment of personnel to communicate
>her flight, and the use of Navy ships virtually exclusively for her
>flight bolsters Mr. Goerner's conclusion that she may have been on a
>secret mission for the US government?

The ship assigned to stand guard awaiting her at Howland
was the Coast Guard's Itasca. No other ships were at
her "exclusive" use. When she got lost, the government
mounted the largest search and rescue operation in its
history to that date using mostly Navy ships. They were
not previously part of her flight.

Having said that, of course the commitment of resources
is consistent with Goerner's hypothesis. It is, in my view,
equally consistent with a shrewd politician meeting both
government and personal objectives that have nothing
to do with a "secret mission" for which AE's flight was
singularly ill-suited (takeoff from Lae at 10:00 AM,
arriving over Japanese territory in the dark, etc.).

Marty