[ARC5] Pre-ARC-5 rigs.

[don davis]

I find it incredible that the sponsors / tech experts on her flight would
have relied upon AE's knowledge (or lack of...) of the radio system to set
the frequency from a chart in a manual.  This instruction would have been
"Transmit on x.xxx MC and receive on y.yyy MC."  It's much more likely that
they had a very clear checklist that directed them to "Set receiver tuning
dial to abc.d.  Set the transmitter tuning dial to Ch 3 (or efg.h...)."  Or
something like that.  Who was the  person responsible for the overall
planning & logistics for the flight?   I'd be very interested to see the
checklists as they were issued.

Just a guess, based upon 8 years of working with B-52 flight plans & ops.
Disasters were usually caused by several errors compounded to turn into
unrecoverable events, and not one man making one mistake.  Neil's scenario
seems as reasonable as any other...

73 de don ad6pb

-----Original Message-----
From: ARC5 [mailto:arc5-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of AKLDGUY .
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 1:28 AM
To: WA5CAB at cs.com; ARC-5 List
Subject: Re: [ARC5] Pre-ARC-5 rigs.

This topic has descended into an argument over semantics and has got right
away from the purpose of my posts, which was to see if anyone could
establish what type of *receiver* Earhart carried.

I have made it clear that radio malfunction or radio misoperation by Earhart
is NOT any part of my theory on her disappearance.

I believe that both her receiver and her transmitter performed as designed.
What I have been trying to establish is what type of receiver she carried to
determine whether it was inherently prone to mis-setting of frequency due to
having a non-direct frequency readout. Meaning that if she had to look at a
chart and then she mis-set the numbers on the dial, that would explain why
she was unable to hear the "Itasca".

If this receiver identification issue had established that the readout was
direct, my theory would be a little more likely, since she would have been
less likely to have made a mistake.

As it turns out, nobody on the group has been able to conclusively identify
the receiver, which does not yet diminish my theory.

73 de Neil ZL1ANM