Is this the Earhart Electra?
May 30, 2013 6:14 AM Subscribe
The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) has found something in the sonar data from their 2012 summer expedition to Nikumaroro atol.
AMELIA EARHART DISAPPEARED IN THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE
CAME BACK AS BRAINWASHED TOKYO ROSE
ASK THE JAPANESE!!!
posted by Foci for Analysis at 6:29 AM on May 30, 2013
CAME BACK AS BRAINWASHED TOKYO ROSE
ASK THE JAPANESE!!!
posted by Foci for Analysis at 6:29 AM on May 30, 2013
What's remarkable to me is that these kinds of "disappeared airplane" accidents basically don't happen anymore. Technology has advanced so far in the century since the first powered flight that we can track and find essentially every aircraft, simultaneously, across the entire globe. Even in the remotest parts of civilization or in the middle of the ocean!
To compare to the lost Earhart flight, take a look at Air France Flight 447 which crashed in the ocean a few years ago. The plane went down on 1 June, and the very next day the first pieces of wreckage were found. It took another two years to find the rest of the airplane, but it was located - and recovered! - in 13,000 feet of water. The Alvin can reach deeper than that, but just barely.
So if you're nervous about flying, you can be reassured that your body will be recovered, one way or another.
posted by backseatpilot at 6:43 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
To compare to the lost Earhart flight, take a look at Air France Flight 447 which crashed in the ocean a few years ago. The plane went down on 1 June, and the very next day the first pieces of wreckage were found. It took another two years to find the rest of the airplane, but it was located - and recovered! - in 13,000 feet of water. The Alvin can reach deeper than that, but just barely.
So if you're nervous about flying, you can be reassured that your body will be recovered, one way or another.
posted by backseatpilot at 6:43 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
I love projects like this. That said, Earhart doesn't seem that mysterious. Flying around the world in 1937 technology and population amounts? Yes, a crash that nobody sees/reports is not that unlikely.
Judge Crater, now, that's a mystery. Or that dead spy guy in Australia.
posted by DU at 6:43 AM on May 30, 2013
Judge Crater, now, that's a mystery. Or that dead spy guy in Australia.
posted by DU at 6:43 AM on May 30, 2013
No idea whether that is 'it' or not but that update is very engagingly written and takes the reader through all the basic questions of scientific field investigation. I'm pulling for them.
posted by jmccw at 6:46 AM on May 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by jmccw at 6:46 AM on May 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
What's remarkable to me is that these kinds of "disappeared airplane" accidents basically don't happen anymore. Technology has advanced so far in the century since the first powered flight that we can track and find essentially every aircraft, simultaneously, across the entire globe. Even in the remotest parts of civilization or in the middle of the ocean!
It is possible to track these things, but it doesn't always work. Granted, this is a boat and not a plane, but:
posted by DU at 6:59 AM on May 30, 2013
It is possible to track these things, but it doesn't always work. Granted, this is a boat and not a plane, but:
Jim Gray (63), database pioneer, Microsoft Research scientist, and Turing Award winner, left San Francisco Bay in his 12 m (39 ft) sailboat Tenacious to scatter his mother's ashes at the Farallon Islands, a wildlife refuge 43 km (27 mi) away, and was reported missing when he failed to return later the same day. No Mayday call was heard, his distress radiobeacon was not activated, and, despite one of the most ambitious search and rescue missions of all time, no trace of Gray or his yacht has ever been found.[110] In 2012 he was declared legally dead. - WikipediaHuge effort and only 27 miles. Lost.
posted by DU at 6:59 AM on May 30, 2013
What's remarkable to me is that these kinds of "disappeared airplane" accidents basically don't happen anymore.
Except for things like this.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 7:07 AM on May 30, 2013
Except for things like this.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 7:07 AM on May 30, 2013
Huge effort and only 27 miles. Lost.
Or gone.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:13 AM on May 30, 2013
Or gone.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:13 AM on May 30, 2013
What's remarkable to me is that these kinds of "disappeared airplane" accidents basically don't happen anymore.
Would that be true of, say, a Cessna? Obviously you can't fly across the Pacific in one (or can you?) but if one went down without an ELB in the ocean and someone as prominent as JFK Jr. wasn't the pilot (so the Navy wouldn't be used to find it) what are the odds it would be located?
I remember a few years ago a Learjet (or similar) approaching Lebanon, NH went down and it was a few years before some hunters or hikers stumbled upon it.
posted by bondcliff at 7:14 AM on May 30, 2013
Would that be true of, say, a Cessna? Obviously you can't fly across the Pacific in one (or can you?) but if one went down without an ELB in the ocean and someone as prominent as JFK Jr. wasn't the pilot (so the Navy wouldn't be used to find it) what are the odds it would be located?
I remember a few years ago a Learjet (or similar) approaching Lebanon, NH went down and it was a few years before some hunters or hikers stumbled upon it.
posted by bondcliff at 7:14 AM on May 30, 2013
Aircraft are a little different than boats because of mandates by the FAA and other aviation authorities, I think. I'm not hugely familiar with the nautical world, but we have friends that are currently living on a boat (and sailing it down to Florida) and they were telling me that a lot of the equipment that is required on all airliners and a good chunk of general aviation - things like transponders and emergency locators - are completely optional on the water (at least for a boat of their size and capabilities).
If you really wanted to take an airplane get lost without being found it's certainly possible; just turn off the avionics and take it out somewhere without strong radar coverage. It would be slightly harder to do something like sneak out of the United States over ocean due to the ADIZ but the Canadian border is long and undefended, and at least on the US side there's a lot of uncontrolled airspace.
posted by backseatpilot at 7:14 AM on May 30, 2013
If you really wanted to take an airplane get lost without being found it's certainly possible; just turn off the avionics and take it out somewhere without strong radar coverage. It would be slightly harder to do something like sneak out of the United States over ocean due to the ADIZ but the Canadian border is long and undefended, and at least on the US side there's a lot of uncontrolled airspace.
posted by backseatpilot at 7:14 AM on May 30, 2013
If I saw a pixelated photo of what appeared to be a long-stringed tampon, my first assumption would be that it's an airplane, too.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:15 AM on May 30, 2013
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:15 AM on May 30, 2013
But people go missing all the time.
The only thing that separates someone who is found from someone who is not is generally a beacon of some sort. And beacons only save your ass when you have them with you, their batteries aren't dead, they are strong enough to be heard, someone is listening, someone mounts a rescue op, they find the beacon because it's still working, you're with the beacon, and you are alive.
That's a long chain of not 100% guaranteed prospects to be found.
Really that people ARE regularly found is pretty awesome. It's a huge planet, we tend to forget that, and people are quite small, and really fragile.
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:18 AM on May 30, 2013
The only thing that separates someone who is found from someone who is not is generally a beacon of some sort. And beacons only save your ass when you have them with you, their batteries aren't dead, they are strong enough to be heard, someone is listening, someone mounts a rescue op, they find the beacon because it's still working, you're with the beacon, and you are alive.
That's a long chain of not 100% guaranteed prospects to be found.
Really that people ARE regularly found is pretty awesome. It's a huge planet, we tend to forget that, and people are quite small, and really fragile.
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:18 AM on May 30, 2013
Would that be true of, say, a Cessna?
There aren't a whole lot of aircraft that size that try to cross large bodies of water, but mostly what I've seen from NTSB reports is that they often know vaguely where the plane is (something along the lines of "it's in Lake Superior") but it's decided that recovering it is too costly and they don't bother. Usually if there are no fatalities no attempt is made by the government to retrieve the plane (sometimes insurance agencies will try), but of course if there aren't fatalities then the pilot is usually able to tell you where it's ditched.
Crossing the ADIZ has certain requirements (filing a flight plan, having a transponder on board, etc.) so nowadays the only people who are going to go over the ocean in a small plane without those are generally drug smugglers. It certainly is possible to get a Cessna-sized plane across the ocean, though - I knew a guy back home who would take his Skylane to central Africa to do charitable work, something like delivering medicine to small villages or the like. He had the plane modified with an extra removable fuel tank to make the trip; even without it, though, the Skylane's max endurance range is ridiculous for a plane that size (1,100 nm) so you could easily leave from Maine, make a few stops along the islands in the north Atlantic and wend your way south through Europe.
posted by backseatpilot at 7:22 AM on May 30, 2013
There aren't a whole lot of aircraft that size that try to cross large bodies of water, but mostly what I've seen from NTSB reports is that they often know vaguely where the plane is (something along the lines of "it's in Lake Superior") but it's decided that recovering it is too costly and they don't bother. Usually if there are no fatalities no attempt is made by the government to retrieve the plane (sometimes insurance agencies will try), but of course if there aren't fatalities then the pilot is usually able to tell you where it's ditched.
Crossing the ADIZ has certain requirements (filing a flight plan, having a transponder on board, etc.) so nowadays the only people who are going to go over the ocean in a small plane without those are generally drug smugglers. It certainly is possible to get a Cessna-sized plane across the ocean, though - I knew a guy back home who would take his Skylane to central Africa to do charitable work, something like delivering medicine to small villages or the like. He had the plane modified with an extra removable fuel tank to make the trip; even without it, though, the Skylane's max endurance range is ridiculous for a plane that size (1,100 nm) so you could easily leave from Maine, make a few stops along the islands in the north Atlantic and wend your way south through Europe.
posted by backseatpilot at 7:22 AM on May 30, 2013
So if you're nervous about flying, you can be reassured that your body will be recovered, one way or another.
I don't think body recovery or not is what makes people nervous; it's NEEDING to be recovered that makes them nervous.
posted by stonedcoldsober at 7:24 AM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't think body recovery or not is what makes people nervous; it's NEEDING to be recovered that makes them nervous.
posted by stonedcoldsober at 7:24 AM on May 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't think body recovery or not is what makes people nervous; it's NEEDING to be recovered that makes them nervous.
In fact, it's not the flying part people are scared of in the first place!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:25 AM on May 30, 2013
In fact, it's not the flying part people are scared of in the first place!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:25 AM on May 30, 2013
Sooo.... That's the right shape, is it?
(Of course I realize that experts see things (and see them in a way) that non-experts can't... But to the non-expert, it's pretty funny.)
posted by Fists O'Fury at 7:40 AM on May 30, 2013
(Of course I realize that experts see things (and see them in a way) that non-experts can't... But to the non-expert, it's pretty funny.)
posted by Fists O'Fury at 7:40 AM on May 30, 2013
That said, Earhart doesn't seem that mysterious.
I have no doubt that she crashed into the ocean. That's not the mystery. Where she crashed and how she crashed is and those things will remain a mystery if these meddling wreck hunters don't ruin it with their "science."
But still it would be pretty exciting if it is Earhart's Electra.
posted by three blind mice at 7:41 AM on May 30, 2013
I have no doubt that she crashed into the ocean. That's not the mystery. Where she crashed and how she crashed is and those things will remain a mystery if these meddling wreck hunters don't ruin it with their "science."
But still it would be pretty exciting if it is Earhart's Electra.
posted by three blind mice at 7:41 AM on May 30, 2013
To expound further (because I obviously have not done enough typing yet), most modern aircraft are required to have an Emergency Locator Transmitter installed. New ones operate at 406 MHz and 121.5 MHz; older ones only work on 121.5 MHz. These are permanently installed, have a battery backup, and can be triggered automatically or manually. They're designed to turn on in the event of an impact, but hard landings will often trigger them erroneously. Airplanes that require cockpit voice recorders and data recorders (so, all airliners and some smaller planes) also are required to have underwater locator beacons installed.
The ELT sends out a signal that includes the aircraft registration information and GPS location if that capability is installed. The 406 MHz signal is received by satellites and relayed back to the ground where reporting agencies can pick it up (in the US, NOAA is the responsible agency). The registration information is hard coded into the unit, and the first thing the agency will do is look up the phone number associated with the registration and attempt to call the person. If that fails, they send out search and rescue. The 121.5 MHz signal can be tracked using direction finding equipment. In the US, Civil Air Patrol usually goes out to find downed aircraft.
The disconnect that is present in the system right now is that a few years ago the satellites that monitor the ELT signals stopped listening to 121.5 MHz. The FAA hasn't yet mandated an upgrade of ELTs to the new 406 MHz standard for older planes; anything built since 1995 has to have the new-style ELT. There are a lot of older small planes flying around without the new technology, but new NextGen standards may cover the gap (such as upcoming requirements to have ADS-B out capability, which will continuously transmit GPS location).
And that's how search and rescue finds your mangled wreckage!
posted by backseatpilot at 7:44 AM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]
The ELT sends out a signal that includes the aircraft registration information and GPS location if that capability is installed. The 406 MHz signal is received by satellites and relayed back to the ground where reporting agencies can pick it up (in the US, NOAA is the responsible agency). The registration information is hard coded into the unit, and the first thing the agency will do is look up the phone number associated with the registration and attempt to call the person. If that fails, they send out search and rescue. The 121.5 MHz signal can be tracked using direction finding equipment. In the US, Civil Air Patrol usually goes out to find downed aircraft.
The disconnect that is present in the system right now is that a few years ago the satellites that monitor the ELT signals stopped listening to 121.5 MHz. The FAA hasn't yet mandated an upgrade of ELTs to the new 406 MHz standard for older planes; anything built since 1995 has to have the new-style ELT. There are a lot of older small planes flying around without the new technology, but new NextGen standards may cover the gap (such as upcoming requirements to have ADS-B out capability, which will continuously transmit GPS location).
And that's how search and rescue finds your mangled wreckage!
posted by backseatpilot at 7:44 AM on May 30, 2013 [3 favorites]
Steve Fossett's ID was stumbled on by hikers over a year later, long after the scavenging fauna had reduced his bodily essence substantially.
On October 29, search teams recovered two large human bones that they suspected might belong to Fossett. These bones were found 0.5 miles (0.8 km) east of the crash site.[85] Tennis shoes with animal bite marks on them were also recovered. On November 3, California police coroners said that DNA testing of the two bones by a California Department of Justice forensics laboratory confirmed a match to Fossett's DNA.
posted by bukvich at 7:59 AM on May 30, 2013
On October 29, search teams recovered two large human bones that they suspected might belong to Fossett. These bones were found 0.5 miles (0.8 km) east of the crash site.[85] Tennis shoes with animal bite marks on them were also recovered. On November 3, California police coroners said that DNA testing of the two bones by a California Department of Justice forensics laboratory confirmed a match to Fossett's DNA.
posted by bukvich at 7:59 AM on May 30, 2013
Another year, another tiny, pathetic scrap of evidence for "we found Amelia Earhart!". TIGHAR must be raising more money. Previously, on Metafilter. Hopefully Quietgal will turn up in this thread, she's had interesting things to say from her experience on a TIGHAR mission.
posted by Nelson at 8:06 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Nelson at 8:06 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Hi, my job entails looking at lots of sidescan sonar data.
I think this is bullshit. I highly doubt a 131 foot long drag trail through coral -- if the fuselage or whatever went sliding through it and leaving broken coral in its path -- would generate that strong a sonar return (especially after years and years of re-growth). If it's a debris trail, then to me that looks like some suspiciously consistently sized and shaped debris for 131 feet that hasn't been at all disturbed by the environment in many decades.
Could be something man-made, sure, but I certainly see no smoking gun (or fuselage) here.
I also think it's worth remembering the Discovery channel special on this, during which they went to go look at an "object of interest" that was Definitely Not A Rock and one of the people operating the equipment said he'd eat his hat if it wasn't manmade and hey, it was a rock! (no idea whether hats were indeed eaten)
I also think, given that all the articles on this I've read today end with the mention of "Oh, and Gillespie needs to raise another $3M to go have another look" is not coincidental.
posted by olinerd at 8:10 AM on May 30, 2013 [5 favorites]
I think this is bullshit. I highly doubt a 131 foot long drag trail through coral -- if the fuselage or whatever went sliding through it and leaving broken coral in its path -- would generate that strong a sonar return (especially after years and years of re-growth). If it's a debris trail, then to me that looks like some suspiciously consistently sized and shaped debris for 131 feet that hasn't been at all disturbed by the environment in many decades.
Could be something man-made, sure, but I certainly see no smoking gun (or fuselage) here.
I also think it's worth remembering the Discovery channel special on this, during which they went to go look at an "object of interest" that was Definitely Not A Rock and one of the people operating the equipment said he'd eat his hat if it wasn't manmade and hey, it was a rock! (no idea whether hats were indeed eaten)
I also think, given that all the articles on this I've read today end with the mention of "Oh, and Gillespie needs to raise another $3M to go have another look" is not coincidental.
posted by olinerd at 8:10 AM on May 30, 2013 [5 favorites]
(no idea whether hats were indeed eaten)
Sounds like a good premise for the next Discovery Channel special:
Gastrointestinal Explorers: The Search for the Cocky Amelia Earhart Guy's Hat
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:03 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sounds like a good premise for the next Discovery Channel special:
Gastrointestinal Explorers: The Search for the Cocky Amelia Earhart Guy's Hat
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:03 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Madamina: "SO GO LOOK AT IT ALREADY."
I believe they covered that part in the article. They claim to need $3 million to do that. After reading that part, I think I now know why this "evidence" is so damn enticing.
Is this "non-profit" being run by Mr. Moller?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 11:44 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
I believe they covered that part in the article. They claim to need $3 million to do that. After reading that part, I think I now know why this "evidence" is so damn enticing.
Is this "non-profit" being run by Mr. Moller?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 11:44 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
TIGHAR is being sued, by a man claiming that they withheld a 2010 discovery so that they could continue to solicit money for future searches.
posted by azpenguin at 1:58 PM on June 12, 2013
posted by azpenguin at 1:58 PM on June 12, 2013
« Older Do I ever get to go back to my life? Or have they... | RIP Mulgrew Miller Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by three blind mice at 6:26 AM on May 30, 2013 [1 favorite]