Amelia Earhart

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

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.

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

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

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. (

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. (

Marty

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

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.

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

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?

"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