old iron wrote:
The Howland leg of the trip reeks of inadequate preparation and planning. Earhart simply did not dedicate the thoroughness characteristic of Lindbergh.
Interesting comparison. Had Lindbergh been trying to find the island and had Amelia been trying to find Europe (France), he would probably be dead, and she'd probably have found it. Don't forget she also flew the Atlantic, successfully, one of the 'many' like Lindbergh,
after the true pioneers.
I don't know enough of the details to comment on the specifics of the latter stage of the Earhart global flight, but there are a couple of observations to make.
-Most flights prior to that were at risk of mechanical failure, which often masked other competency or skill issues including navigation tools and technique shortfalls. Many pioneers - including Lindbergh on his Atlantic flight - spend a good deal of time 'lost' sometimes due to weather, sometimes other issues.
-Noonan and Earhart had already traversed most of the globe, successfully. They had found their way so far without failing. Any analysis or implications of incompetence have to weigh that in the measure, and look at why, as well as the factor of the island being a 'hard target'. They were a so-far successful team.
-Many / Most successful record flights aimed at a continent or large island, allowing for error. Some of
those also failed, because they didn't know if they were left or right of track - see Bertram and Klausmann's Northern Territory problem, and their lucky survival.
http://www.raafawa.org.au/wa/museum/junkers/default.htm-Most pioneering or record flights would be analysed today as foolhardy or with shortfalls of planning or competencies. Because the spotlight has been turned on the Earhart effort due to it's failure, it has the effect of giving it as an exception, rather than a norm. You would be able to flaw many / most other (successful) flights of the period on the same criteria.
-Air navigation was not an established science at the time, and was based on maritime navigation techniques (with obvious elapsed time / speed issues) and early other methods such as D/F. There was a lot more debate as to 'good' techniques and practices, including many that today would be regarded as fundamentally flawed. Watch out for navigation hindsight, which is just a version of "Why didn't they use GPS / Cell-phones". More absurd, certainly, but the same misunderstanding of the options and understanding of the
time.
-Earhart didn't aim to get lost and die. Anyone involved in an exploration or pioneering (or major aircraft recovery!) task knows that there has to be a compromise between best tools and techniques for the job and deciding when and where to 'go for it', often dictated by external factors. She chose what she thought the best compromise from the options she believed available, and was better funded and supported than many others of the time. Certainly she could've done better. It's sad that what she thought was adequate was not.
The 'Japanese' or 'spy' accounts make great bedtime stories, but there is no - repeat no credibility to them saying she survived / was captured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Ear ... ted_claimsRegards,