I feel it was probably arrogance, going without a radio operator, not testing and making all sorts of radio operation errors was a sure way to die in a place where there was no other option but to land using radio signals
"In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal." -Benjamin Franklin
My introverted friend Emily was invited to our Halloween party. She dressed up as Amelia Earhart, sent us all a photo and said she’s on her way, and then never showed up. Truly iconic.
In Apollo 11 there were 3 Astronauts and 1 of them is always left out even though he had the most important job of waiting for the 2 that went to the surface all alone. If you don't know who I'm talking about I rest my case. It's Michael Collins by the way.
One word: preparedness. If you want a fantastic example of preparedness, look at how Amundsen organized his South Pole expedition. Leftover fuel cans were found over 50 years later and were completely full. He marked his supply depots with rows of red flags for 1200 m in _each_ direction (E and W as he was travelling S and then N on the way back). He got to the 1200 m by taking the largest possible error on navigation, and then doubling it. They had enough food to miss a depot and still make it to the next one. His entire team were expert skiers and dog-sledders, so everyone could do everyone else's job. All this in 1911.
I believe that he didn't bother with (converging)latitude measurements when he got close to the pole - kept it simple. Opposed to Scott calculated both, time and complexity.
@@jurgenpeters1373 The runway is what made the expedition physically possible, the strategy by Amundsen outlined in the comment above seems to take it from physically possible to a slam dunk. Having two navy ships assisting your journey is very useful, but not that much considering the size of the pacific. The nature of the endeavour makes it a more difficult thing to be prepared for
@@herrk.2339 I haven't looked into it, but at the point where she found a mistake, sent a telegram to one of the ships before the departure but never waited for an acknowledgement (and the correction did indeed not reach the ship in time), wasn't there an element of haste in this? It might be harder to prepare for, but I do think she rushed too quickly into this.
This was the absolute best documentary on Amelia Earhart's final flight that I've ever seen. Despite seeing dozens of depictions of the flight over the years, none of the radio mistakes/malfunctions were ever explained. Most of the documentaries wanted to focus on the conspiracy theories instead of the science. The science is infinitely more interesting. Thank you for this!
@@Machoman50ta Doesn’t stand up to analysis, financier and organizer was Palmer Putnam, navigator and radio operator was Fred Noonan. Incomplete preparation was the culprit.
@@jotrutchhahaha well if you consider flying a plane was relatively new still And being a female pilot she definitely would have backed into after the First strike
right? i remember when i was young watching documentary about here. from what i watched i thought she got missing because she didn't have enough fuel. i was thinking to myself why would anyone do that? it was bad and stupid documentary it only focusd on that she is a woman pilot
I have a bone to pick with public education. They way Amelia's story was told essentially boiled down to: "she disappeared mysteriously over the Pacific ocean and nobody know what happened". The full story is so much more interesting.
My public education included a filmed dramatization of the actual communications between Itasca and Earhart. It was clear to everyone in the classroom there were radio issues. It was also understood her amateur understanding of radio technology - that there was literally a communication breakdown somewhere. It did not attempt to lay 'blame" or make conclusions - just that during the attempt great effort was put into guiding her flight but through accident or bad luck or the enormity of the challenge with the technology of the era, that it failed. And that she likely had to make a water landing and was probably killed or dead from exposure not long after. Public education typically sucks when it comes to history - I learned far more reading in the library than was ever presented in class - but in the case of Earhart and her disappearance, it got a pretty fair and unusually intesnive treatment for elementary school in the mid 1970's.
The absolute minutia of every significant historical event is really hard to cover. How detailed you get into what topics also depends on your teacher, school, state, textbook supplier, and other factors.
All thanks to AI, I think he probably outsources everything to a Chinese and Indian video editing sweatshop and he usually stands in a studio and the entire environment in the back is cgi including the grass lands he is standing on cuz all those places he gets to access is insane cuz no one can enter those places but how him lol something to think. He's fooling a lot of people. Thankfully an old head like me who is 45 yrs old can spot these classic tactics 😊
I flew on USAF cargo planes for 9 years as a loadmaster. We learned basics of radio physics and tips and tricks. I mostly forgot about them until we were flying over the Indian Ocean one night and were making position calls in the blind on HF. When we finally got a response somewhere between Diego Garcia and Thailand, it was from Boston Center who kindly relayed our message to the appropriate controllers in our hemisphere.
IMHO, the larger factor in this: "Get there itis", a mental issue that has killed many pilots, as evidenced by: A. Leaving when conditions were less than ideal. B. Sending VITAL communications to ships about radios frequencies & etc. and not ensuring said communications were received, understood, AND that they made sense. C. Not turning back when she had a chance, and things were already going wrong. In other words, she was SO focused on getting there, she just kept blowing of potentially huge issues.
The fact that she appears to not have been receiving voice communication and did not turn back on such a radio dependent flight is quite remarkable. It's always good to exercise vital equipment before your life depends on it and part of her radio array had from out point of view shown no capacity to work. Perhaps she didn't expect to receive the weather updates and so didn't know that she was missing them, but the absence of a handshake communication protocol was a clear failure in the plan.
@@cidiousblack2136 Dude, it was 1937. People hadn't worked this stuff out yet. It's flights like this which are the reason we have these procedures today. We learn from others mistakes.
@@qarnos I'm sorry, what? We hadnt figured out the basic logic of "this entire project depends on the radio, we should make sure it works?" Even before ships went terribly wrong, I think we could figure out "the sailboat trip I set up needs a sail."
@@qarnos Nah mate. You know what you don't know and plan for it. In this instance, she did not know what she did not know and went ahead anyway. Her hubris or arrogance was astounding.
I'm amazed at how ill-prepared the expedition to cross the Pacific was. Amelia Earhart certainly had ambition and bravery, but it seems she was seriously lacking in her understanding of risk and how to mitigate that risk with redundancies. Instead of resolving uncertainties and potential issues before takeoff, she just hoped for the best.
She was brave and everything, but her behaviour seems incredibly stupid. It blows my mind how you can go on a journey like that and be lacking this amount of certanity and understanding...
It's common when you make mistakes but get away with them. You start to belive that it always be that way or even that you are special. It's even worse if other people praise you for your acheivments and bravery.
@@cyrkielnetwork The problem with complacency is that it DOESN'T get you every time. Also it's crazy that she didn't check her equipmet once in the air after takeoff.
We must remember that aviation in the 1930s was an ENTIRELY different beast than what we know today. Obviously in equiment and knowledge, but even more important in mentality. Today it is the best regulated, best trained and best controlled sector short of nuclear technology. There is an in depth investigation into ANY relevant accident or almost accident with recommendations published to reach everyone. Every failure has been analysed, chewed through by multiple experts. And even then, we have tragic accidents like Air France 447. A situation where a minor malfunction combined with misinterpretation leads to a desaster and the death of hundreds of people. That was just 15 years ago. In an era where communication was a challenge under the best conditions, technology often unreliable and understood by very few, training scarce and daring counted for much it is perfectly understandable how Earhart ended up with her plan. Nobody of her peers would have acted much differently.
I sailed in the US Navy as a Radioman/IT for 25 years and then 5 years on commercial ships. An old hand on my first commercial ship told me "You get careless out here, danger will find you". He was correct about sailing and life in general.
I never considered how complex radio communication was back then, having multiple antennas tuned to different frequencies. I grew up on video games that have a map marker to the destination. I've always wondered if modern planes have something similar to that because they use GPS. Is flying today as simple as portrayed in the video games? Just point your nose to the map marker?
That is true in many fields. If you are surrounded by danger, you will eventually stop seeing it. I am a chemistry teacher and handling dangerous chemicals on a daily bases makes you careless. You need to constantly remind yourself that the safety measures are necessary, because if something goes wrong, even if it is unlikely, the results could be devastating.
Yes. She was an overly confident ambitious archetypal type of person. She did not take proper precautions and ensure they were in place and understood. I wouldn’t say she was like the titanic submersible guy but she’s in the same ball park for sure. I have to have multiple contingencies in place in IT where the stakes aren’t life and death but simply money lost. You would think someone doing a life and death task would take more care than that but her overconfidence got in the way and she was surrounded by people treating her like she was more than human and could just figure out everything.
Yeah, as I was watching I kept thinking about the OceanGate guy and how he was so overly confident about his junk submarine, just like Amelia and her previous damaged plane @@mindhackz
Am I the only one who is thinking: No, several comments made days before yours state the same thoughts. Instead of narcissistically rushing to add more useless redundant noise to the world, if you had made an effort to read first you might've joined the conversation.
This story is a chilling reminder of how small errors can cascade into tragedy, especially in high-stakes situations. It makes you think about all the "what ifs" and how important clear communication and shared responsibility are. RIP Amelia Earhart.
We call it the "swiss cheese effect" in aviation (and probably lots of other places). Sometimes the mistake makes it through all the holes and doesn't get stopped by the cheese, and that's when there's an accident.
SMALL errors? And she stacked up a whole slew of large risks on top. The possibility of the outcome realized was predictable, at some fairly high percentage.
@dannymaxx510 I have only heard the Swiss cheese effect in discussions about aviation safety, but I bet it is a common engineering term too. I just started to think about the Therac-25 incident
As a wildland firefighter I was taught that the cause of almost every single fatality could be traced to a breakdown in communication. The most recent ones all occurred because their radio signals stopped working. The technology has improved but the same risks and challenges still exist and still cause deaths.
I think it’s true in almost every fatality, when it comes right down to it. Clear and concise communication saves lives, failure to communicate often leads to catastrophic outcomes and for more than just yourself.
It's not just one factor that causes a plane crash. it's a chain of errors that ultimately leads to the accident. Amelia Earhart is not the only example of this pattern.
As a pilot who's been lost before as well as one who's flown over large bodies of water in single engine aircraft, I have at least a basic understanding of just how challenging what she attempted was and how your mind can start to run away with incorrect or fatalistic assumptions if not trained or rested properly. My heart sank for her as the story progressed. She had a lot of odds stacked against her and she has my deepest sympathy and respect.
Agree, the Pacific is vast, the understanding of radio waves before WW 2 was limited as was the equipment. Much was learned during WW 2. Dad spent his adult life flying in the Canadian Arctic he was a very good navigator he could find the trappers cabin at night on the vast tundra, lake shore, or where it was.
As a student pilot, I kept getting both amazed and mortified more and more about what early aviators had to do to find their way. In a more amusing note, while VORs are going out of fashion in lieu of GPS, they're not THAT different than what they had finding the dips in signal with their loop antenna.
About 20 years ago in my country, a 737-300 lost their navigation and communication (according to national transportation safety board, both device was malfunctioned) in the middle of sea. The pilot decided to turn to the right which according to map, land should be somewhere to the right. But they could only guessed since they had no devices to measure how much degree they were turning. Their only hope was they could spot a land then try to figure from the land features to guess where they were at. They ended up landing on small airport around 800 kilometer away from their origin and destination.
"When attempting any challenging endeavor, you need someone with the right knowledge who will also take responsibility for getting things right." This is so true. Too many projects fail due to unknowledgeable people in charge or knowledgeable people not taking enough responsibilities.
Yah the knowledgeable people are walked over by unknowledgeable people because of nepotism,wokeism and the sort. So guess what, the knowledgeable people give up and watch the disaster happen.
One can only speculate why the navel officer didn’t take responsibility for her, but one can imagine her personality and connections made it impossible
Well Done! You got this 100% correct! Even at medium wave, you get both ground wave and sky wave propagation, and it gets VERY tricky at dusk and dawn. You can try this at home with a portable AM radio. It helps to set the radio on a "lazy Susan" with the bearings on a piece of paper sitting under the lazy Susan, so you can "steer" it and take bearings. This is a fun "kitchen table activity" to do with kids by the way. I must add here, that each time the HF signal "bounces," it changes its polarity. "Sense" antennas quite frankly just don't work very well. In my experience, I have never trusted them and instead find it best to take SEVERAL bearings from several known locations to get the best fix. LF has its problems, too. But nothing like HF. I agree that if she would have just stuck with the trailing antenna, she would have had a much better chance. I did not know that they weren't using GMT universally at the time as we certainly do now (actually, it's UCT and not GMT these days, but the point is well...on point! We STILL throw around meters and frequency these days. Generally, when we speak in terms of meters, we just mean a general BAND of frequencies, and not a SPECIFIC frequency. 6 MHz range still carries a bit better at night as opposed to day. The 7 MHz is really the best for 24 hour coverage, but still reaching much greater distances at night. You might further expand on the radio amateurs that heard her transmissions which were called "hoaxes" but were likely not. (This also happened to an Irish Ham who certainly did intercept TITANIC'S signal in 1912 by the way.) FINALLY, you might also do a video on the B-24 "Lady be Good" found in the Libyan Desert, a "classic" case of "reading the back of the loop." Artifacts, even including the navigators sheet and tactical call signs (for if damaged but CAN make it back to base as opposed to "CANNOT" make it back to base, etc.) are on display at the Air Force Museum in Dayton, along with recovered artifacts. I also hate to say this, but she represents the dividing line from barnstormer to avaitor. She was a little of both. And the public was still at the "wow" stage on both aviation AND radio. It was all still "magic." And propagation was way less understood. It's also IMPORTANT to know that propagation is STILL not completely understood even today. All the Best! 73 DE W8LV Bill
9:18 - God could you imagine discovering you think will be absolutely pointless, only for it to essentially redefine the course of humanity. To think, radio waves were literally the impetus for Radio, Television, eventually Wifi and Cellphone signals. It potentially altered the course of WW2. Hertz was so incredibly humble for how monumental this discovery was.
@@otterlyso As with almost everything we discover, they're always standing on the shoulders of giants. I'll never discount how important the discoveries of those that come before us were and still are.
Amazing, isn't it? Although you can see where he was coming from. Tiny sparks you could only see under a microscope? And with the emitter super close by? Yeah, what do you do with that? It's mind-boggling to think that despite the square-cube law we can use these same waves to communicate with spacecraft outside our solar system and even see the very beginning of the universe!
I mean, light and sound were always available as wireless communication methods, so... I'm assuming he didn't know about the atmosphere being a mirror to radio waves. How could he have predicted any usecase?
I wonder what Manning's private thoughts may have been after the flight went missing? "Whew, glad I didn't go I thought this might have happened." Or, "Had I gone, this never would have happened." I suppose he was interviewed, and someone here may have read something about what he may have said, if any thing.
IMO, it seems like he left the mission because he knew there were flaws in the plan, and perhaps Earhardt wasn't willing to listen to him about it? Either way, after the previous crash which he'd been in, he was probably thinking "I'm not surprised"... Edit to clarify this is my opinion not something I've read.
@@deehaws4334 It's a fairly well educated guess. If I were in a car wreck with someone I would certainly never let them drive me anywhere again. Doubly so for an airplane. Airplane problems may occur less frequently, but when problems do occur it's fairly rare that one simply walks away from the incident unharmed.
Her preparation was clearly lacking and she was taking unnecessary risks with her and her crew's life, he clearly cottoned on to her recklessness and bailed before she got him killed.
The last message of the video was truly a powerful one. As an engineer, it resonated with me. You have to have proper knowledge to take on the responsibility.
Amen from another engineer. Knowledge seems to be in good supply. Responsibility seems to have fallen off. But to be fair, it seems that taking a stand for engineers is a greater risk than in days gone by. Just seems so to me.
Noonan the Navigator was not sitting beside her in the cockpit. He was actually sitting behind her with a large fuel tank between them...they used a fishing line with pulleys to send notes with navigation numbers and fuel burn rates between each other
I still have a lot of respect for Earhart and what she accomplished. But it is shocking how sloppy she was about such critical communication issues. Maybe she was just used to either being over land or flying over oceans but knowing that a huge continent would eventually appear even if she was off course. But trying that over the largest expanse of water on Earth was downright crazy.
@@MrJdseniorI feel like you have to be to try something like that. People at the frontier are a little nuts. Imagine being the first person to strap themselves to an ICBM and orbit the earth? Imagine being the first person to make it to mars? There’s always the risk of death. There’s a reason the first astronauts were fighter pilots and test pilots
@@berengerchristy6256Of course, you need to have a certain level of risk taking in order to try this, but the smart ones do everything they can to reduce the inherent risk, control for the variables that they can to give the best possible chance of success.
@@berengerchristy6256 there's always risks for any great historical achievement. However, sometimes there's completely UNNECESSARY risks, and completely stupid decision making (even based on the limitations of the time); that Amelia demonstrated on the most dangerous leg of her journey.
Hitting a tiny island in the middle of he biggest ocean in the world would seem to be daunting enough for her to take a few extra precautions. I think she was always going to push the envelope until it pushed back.
Fun fact: The Electra originally had a very different tail, until a young guy told the chief designer the plane would be unstable like that. The young guy turned out to be right, and got to running the extra wind-tunnel tests to re-design the tail. His name? Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, and he'd go on to heading development on the first US jet-fighter (P-80), the U-2, and the SR-71, and his division of Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin) would create the idea of a Skunkworks division and the first stealth-plane - the F-117. The hypersonic test-plane "SR-72 Darkstar" in Top Gun: Maverick was designed with the support of Skunkworks, and if you look close you see on the tail the traditional skunk logo.
@@dumbahhpersonI was also skeptical but I just went a searchin in the internets and can confirm the parts about the “Model 10 Electra”. Didn’t care to confirm anything about the Mavrick movie but the career part was true and very impressive
That sounds very Kelly Johnson: later in life someone else at Lockheed was known to say of him "that damn Swede can see air." He was a proper legend of aircraft design.
@@musafirgauravv AI must have been gotten really good to umm... what did the AI do again, can you elaborate?? If it's done the whole thing it certainly wouldn't look this good at the current level of AI; if they just did the animation well I've got bad news for you buddy, 3Blue1Brown did a video on how to make these style of animations using Manib(m). Nevertheless, I still wanna know what you meant when you said it was made by AI
This video made me appreciate even more having a device that fits in my pocket and can tell me precisely where on Earth I am. Not knowing about radio waves nor stars.
Failing to fix her position with the USS Ontario was her BINGO fuel moment. The fact that she did not return to her departure point but instead proceeded on is proof enough of Manning's doubt about her airmanship and decision making.
the mirage of global fame must be so powerful... few of us can really comprehend its impact on one's actions and decisions... history is full of examples of 'silly' decisions by powerful and skillful individuals who got 'blinded' by this mirage. i imagine the feeling to be intoxicating, a form of inebriation capable of twisting realities. as expected some comments refer to her abilities as a woman but some great worriers led entire armies on futile paths (against the pleads of other experienced worriers) just to 'prove a point' or 'make history'.
@@mosubekore78 no, it was mistakes of many peopel involved. she even asked wether her suggested frequency was good for transmission, and noone bothered to correct her. she certainly wasnt the only technician/engineer working on the craft, such issues should have been brought up beforehand. if not, then theres another mistake of not involving enough engineers.
Industry I worked in for many years, we always trained, "Okay, but what do you do if THAT doesn't work.... and if THAT doesn't work? What if..." Seems like she relied on things working just right and didn't really have any backup plan.
Not entirely true. The video mentions they had dead reckoning, celestial navigation, and multiple radio systems. They had backup plans, but they didn't do the due diligence to ensure each plan was fully baked and operable, that all parties involved were well informed and prepared.
@@error.418 I think celestial navigation is a bit overrated in aircraft. At the start of WW2, the RAF bombers could barely find the right city to bomb using celestial and dead reckoning, in fact they often found the wrong city. In fact Switzerland was bombed several times, and that's not even the right country.
@@dougerrohmer Oh I'm making no comment as to what is viable, just that they did have multiple methods. I also have no clue if it's reasonable to compare Noonan's abilities with those of WW2 bomber pilots.
I think it's very much a sign of the times. Just look at workplace death rates throughout the last century. Today, we do what you say, having backups for backups. Back then, "try not to die" was sort of the equivalent of current OSHA standards. And @error.418, having a backup plan that isn't tested and confirmed is virtually the same as not having a backup plan. It's the difference between going on a summer camping trip and bringing jackets vs. saying "ah, it shouldn't rain I think"
Look up Prof Reason Swiss Cheese model of accident prevention. At every event of the story, I hear how she slipped thru another hole in the Swiss Cheese. But this was in the early days of aviation and radio. Accident investigators note all the mistakes they can find and try to write regulations to avoid other accidents. As they say, the regulation rules are written in blood. Lookup Mentour channel, Gimli Glider episode.
amount of miscommunication and small errors is mindboggling, but understandable for the times and how difficult it was to properly communicate across distances.
I wouldn't call it mind boggling. Communication wasn't everywhere, and was "primitive" today. The margin for error was small, and this was a VERY risky trip from start. Just over confident and adrenaline fueled.
Another perfect example of the Swiss Cheese Model: how a number of individual mistakes could never have a significant impact, a multitude combined end in a catastrophe.
Wrong frequency, wrong wind speed, wrong antenna. This is what regular people are really like when there's no SOP in place, with chaos instead of order. For harder projects like Apollo, it wouldn't have been remotely plausible with this level of inaccuracy.
Well Apollo had hundreds of people with extremely specialized knowledge for every little component of the mission. So yeah, no lol rocket science/astrophysics is definitely not something where you can "just wing it" and expect success.
Even today, with the most precise and highly calibrated sextants, a position error of two miles is considered extremely good, and 10 miles is more common. So you are not at an intersection of two lines, unless you drew the lines with sidewalk chalk. Navigators always draw a position circle, called a circle of error. The important question is not "where are we" but rather, "how large is the circle of error?"
Navigators? Is it just not safe to rely on GPS? GPS truly is a marvel that we all take for granted, myself included. Is it a bad idea to rely on it in at sea?
GPS is more than adequate. Even integrated conditions in the south Indian Ocean the maximum sort of error you might experience would be a range of about 100 m. Typically GPS has you within 1 to 3 m. OP is talking about navigation without GPS
@@Tyler-z8rGNSS (of which GPS is one such system) uses trilateration to calculate your location - which is not much different to what is discussed in the video but in 3 dimensions instead of 2. Think of it as plotting multiple spheres, your location is most likely within the area they all overlap. As such, the accuracy and precision (please note, they're not the same thing) is still within a certain radius. Both will likely improve with more satellites visible to the receiver but there is still a "circle of error" as the OP of this comment said.
Well actually, you typically do not (in my experience) navigate on a chart by using a "circle of error." You navigate on a chart using either a "fix" or a running fix or estimated and assumed position. Which are all single points. An estimated/assumed position incorporates your idea of vagueness and uncertainty but is nevertheless represented as a single point. I've never seen or used a navigational chart by advancing a series of circles. If you draw a circle on a chart (which navigators do not usually do) then you cannot thereafter advance your position, you are just advancing ever widening circles which is not common and probably does not work. I'm nitpicking here, but since your circle of error is essentially unknowable while underway, navigators do not go around questioning how large their circle of error is, either. Today's sextants give better positions primarily due to better timekeeping devices and better optics. Large sextant position errors -say over two or three miles- is primarily due to being bounced around by waves, or lousy viewing conditions. I'm sure you'd agree. Not that anyone still uses celestial navigation much these days, although you still master it (somewhat) to earn your Coast Guard licenses.
It also helps if you use 3 stars per fix--as that "circle of error" can be more precisely known by the triangle it forms. Of course for Fred, that morning, he was using only the Sun, which didn't tell him if he was north or south of Howland--unless he had a super-precise compass, and precise magnetic variation charts. Performing a "landfall procedure" at 1,000' made it impossible to see the island unless they got within a few miles of it. Sextant errors on aircraft can usually range as a high as a dozen miles. Celestial navigation from an airplane is much more difficult than from a ship.
That face after saying Hertz couldn't see what radio waves could be used for was priceless (as I'm watching this over wifi with wireless headphones sitting next to a cell phone and a handheld 2-way).
Taking responsibility is a risk-taking behaviour. I remember when on a summer job at a power supply manufacturer, I found out an issue with the product that had to be corrected - when boxes were already about to be loaded into the shipping truck. So I said wait, we have to fix this. Later that day, my boss said, it's great that you stopped the shipment, it was a responsible decision. But you should have gone straight to my office, because you did not have the right to stop the shipment. And he was right - I had no such right. I just had the responsibility to pretend I did, because the alternative would be a recall. Some people are primarily mission-oriented: they want to accomplish the end-goal. Others are more process-oriented, they are motivated to follow the procedures. Aviation is an interesting combination of the two, because following procedures is critical to safety. That means it is very risky to start improvising, and there is a strong requirement to avoid doing it. There were two key elements that were missing in Earhart's flight: understanding of radio propagation on her part, and a strict, mutually-agreed to, detailed communication plan. Given that there was no possibility to divert, disaster was a distinct possibility. And yet, everyone seemed to have thought "we'll make it - somehow." Of course, hindsight is 20-20.
As a retired broadcast engineer after 40 years in the industry and an Amateur Radio Operator for over 45 years, in a short explanation he did not too bad. One must take into account the year which determines what technology was available. The differences between night and day propagation on the different frequencies. The level of experience of the operators. It is truly complicated.
Extremely well researched! I've seen several documentaries and have read articles on their flight. This documentary added a lot of information I was not aware of. Thank you
The amount of budgeting and resources they were willing to spend to aid her on the trip really shows just how different the world was in terms of aviation. Imagine asking three US naval ships to just wait for you and help with navigation nowadays.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson described the difference between JFK's "we will put a man on the moon before the end of the decade" (i.e. USA will land on the moon under MY watch), and Obama's "we will reach Mars in 20 years" (aka a Mars mission under a future, unnamed president and a largely imaginary budget to be decided later) He then said political will is as necessary as scientific knowledge when it comes to making large scale progress
It's more a reflection of someone with the right connections able to amass more resources then their abilities should otherwise allow. For more modern day examples see Elizabeth Holmes or Richard Stockton.
@@DavidKiviat That is very true as well. It’s certainly a component to it here; likely more than was explained in the video. I’d assume it has to take more than just aviation interest to organise this, but I’m not exactly familiar with who Earhart was socially. I assume she wasn’t a multi millionaire but she was clearly a celebrity of some significant calibre, since it doesn’t exactly immediately appear directly similar to the Oceangate fiasco.
That was a fun afternoon. The receiver is one I built about 8 years ago using a design by Nick Roethe DF1FO. This video only includes audio from one ear - the other ear has a "whoopee" tone that makes it much easier to DF, but Earhart didn't have that
Hey thank you guys. I did my first ever Research paper on this exact topic in the late 90's. at the time No one really knew what happend and the military didnt share information. thanks for completing something i been tring to look in to for 30 years
That’s because it would make her fallible, or responsible. That isn’t the prescribed narrative. Same reason we aren’t taught Noonan’s name when we “learn” about Amelia. Same reason nobody ever told you that Marie Curie shares her first Nobel Prize with two men whom she owes her second Prize to. We are meant to believe these are rogue, superior women, out there sticking it to the man and making the real advancements.
I was underwhelmed when I heard neither Noonan nor Earhart was fluent in Morse code. Depending on voice only, in those conditions, in that era, for two way communication? That was ill prepared.
41 here, been hearing about this for years. never has it ben explained so clear and concise. Its amazing what the entire story and truth can do. Absolutely awesome video of this story. Side note, I'm a utility pipe line locator, your examples helped me finish understanding visually what I am doing. I use the pipehorn HL800.
I knew I would be sad, but I didn't think I would get this angry at the lack of preparation on Earhart's part. I always figured it was just adventurism hitting the limit of the technology. But I can't understand not having complete understanding of vital equipment and complete synchrony with the people you relied on for such a bold journey.
I work with radios a lot for my job (HF, VHF, UHF), and I didn't know much about using radio waves to find your direction. Probably because we have GPS now. Everything was well researched and accurate about HF, antenna theory, the ionosphere and it scattering. Well done.
So, my Father worked at Lockheed, from the 60's until he retired (his first project was the L-1011). The lore around the Company was that she wasn't known as a great pilot. Apparently, she was bringing her Electra's back for repair a lot.
My grandpa was a radio operator in WWII and a passionate aviation fan, and I took my geeking about those topics from him. I'm sure he would have loved this video as much as I did. Thank you Veritasium.
Wow, learned a lot of interesting things from this video. 1. More details about Earheart's disappearance than just "she vanished without a trace." And 2. A whole lot more about old radio communication and equipment. I never understood what that loop antenna was for or the field with the 5 large antennas in it. Didn't know those were primarily for navigation. Very interesting. Thank you.
It is still commonly believed that Earhart was an excellent pilot. However, other pilots who had watched her fly were quite critical of her for her lack of skill and knowledge. Other women pilots who had flown in races against her described her sloppy flying to include problems taking off and landing. At the end of one cross country race, she bounced so far down the runway that spectators thought she was going to crash at the end of the field. The crash in Hawaii was another example of these shortcomings. Her and Noonan's deaths were a direct result of her believing her own publicity and her hubris.
She had 400 hours of flight time. The average pilot needs about 1500 to be considered experienced enough to start flying for airlines. She fancied herself a veteran but she had the same experience as a student. You need 250 hours to graduate from commercial pilot school and 40 to be given a private pilot license.
@@blackkennedy3966 After extensive training program and certification that is. At at the time both were pretty much nonexistent, or at least nowhere near as good as modern ones. The best you could get was education in military schools, and even that was extremely lackluster AT ITS TIME, the only real way to get to know the aircraft at any decent level was practise and common sense combined.
If she had only 400 hours that sort of tells me she could fly but not deal with emergencies or less than perfect scenarios. The Hawaii incident could have been the result of a crosswind and not having good aileron correction. Flying is so much more than simply straight and level flight. All those skills for non ideal conditions are learned over thousands of hours
It's stunning that neither person on the airplane had enough of an understanding of radio to either properly plan for the use of the equipment prior to the flight or to troubleshoot the issues that developed in-flight. That should have been priority one of the flight crew, as they had a snowball's chance of finding their landing site without radio direction finding.
There was radio operator on the first attempt which ended with a crash. He did not join the second attempt, it is unclear if this was due to other commitments or self-preservation.
I'm a pilot. I've been flying for 8 years. I've studied sense and loop antennas. I've taught other pilots about sense and loop antennas. And I've never understood them as well as I do now! Your videos are great, thank you for your dedication and effort.
@@clinch4402 No, he didn't say he didn't understand or know how to USE these systems; he simply said that he never understood them BETTER than after watching this. That doesn't make him unqualified to fly, or use them. There is always more to know about the technology we use every day, whether or not the knowledge we gain is theoretical or practical. This is how we become better at what we do. No one starts out - or uses technology effectively for many years - knowing EVERYTHING about the many forms of technology used in aviation, or any other technical endeavor. Are you an unqualified driver because you don't understand every intricacy of how and why the hydraulic braking system in the car you drive works? If you don't (or pick any other critical system you have used/are using), does this make you 'unqualified' to operate it? If this were so, we would have NO astronauts, drivers, pilots, or any other people to operate any machine or system in the world. By your metric, how many things are YOU unqualified to operate, that you DO operate?
Not sure why UA-cam determined I needed to see your content, but here I am. Because you told me there’s an ad *but it’s at the **_end_** of the epi?* well that gets you a sub.
This video goes miles, and I mean it MILES above the quality of any documentary and/or science video. 37 minutes ago I had never heard about Amelia Earhart's story and I was all the time on the edge of my chair watching. As if this were an S-tier rated thriller. 10/10 storytelling, 10/10 animations 10/10 science inputs. And what touched me the most, was 32:10 - although without a shadow of a doubt Derek had practiced his script and knew the story by heart, telling what the most propbable demise of the plane was, made him grieve and I could feel tears in both my and his eyes. This has to be my favourite Veritasium video so far and would be insanely hard to outclass it. Props to everyone involved in it and may A. Earhart rest in peace. If you made it this far in my comment, have a nice day and like the video, it truly deserves it!
"When attempting any challenging endeavor, you need someone with the right knowledge, who will also take responsibility for getting things right." - so true.
This is the same effect that allows for polarized light. It’s just operating at much higher frequencies. The elegant parallels among EM phenomena were a big reason I got hooked into electronics engineering.
YES ! You said "elegant parallels"........ I think it is really spooky that very different forms of stored energy eg Kinetic, Magnetic, Electric all seem to follow the same rules......... Energy of a moving body is = 1/2MassVel(sqd) Magnetic Energy around an inductor is = 1/2LI(sqd) Electric Energy in a capacitor is = 1/2CV(sqd)
I genuinely do not understand how the Veritasium team has managed to keep up even a small fraction of their editorial quality while pumping out so many of these videos. It's incredible.
I will be sending this to my friends who are getting into ham radio. This is one of the clearest demonstrations of the basic principles of radio waves and equipment I think I've ever seen. Makes it very accessible. Thank you for this.
This radio direction finding demonstration is a BEAUTIFUL explanation and demonstation of one of the simplest, most basic, and most comon methods of radio direction finding in existance. Most now days are higher tech, but use exactly the same ultimate method. As a licenced ham for 30 years, I've built and used several antennas of this type, though now days I prefer to use doppler based methods.
I’ve been getting into learning about ham radio and I heard that they have field days and contests in order to test their equipment and make sure they know how to communicate effectively, because you can’t just assume everything will work the first time in an emergency if you don’t test yourself often.
@@drivers99 There are two big activities hams do for this reason, one is the anual "Field Day" contest which you mentioned, and the other, relevant to the demonstration in the video, is hidden transmitter hunting, commonly known as "Fox Hunting" in which someone hides a radio transmitter, and others attempt to find it with whatever direction finding equipment they have. The hunt might cover a small city park, or an entire large city, depending on the teams, and the gear to be used. The hidden transmitter could range from someone in their car transmitting with 50 watts, to a tiny microcontroller based transmitter powered by a hearing aid battery and hidden in a camera film can under a log in a city park.
Have you heard what really happened? That she flew into the Bermuda triangle and flew through a portal into the land of Gielinor where she died attempting to get a firecape?
@@Tyler-z8r 1) A.E.'s messages got ignored by men in power (US Navy) because they were jealous 2) A.E.'s ignored advices from experts and made mistakes, but in mechanical - not navigational ones.
@@Tyler-z8r She was abducted by aliens who took her to another quadrant and populated a planet with human slaves. Those slaves had a rebellion and took over. Then later on, Captain Janeway met Amelia on that planet.
I once launched a jet from the deck of a US Navy aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean, and flew away at high altitude for about 90 minutes before we had to turn around to find the ship and land on it. We never saw any sign of land for all that time. I was left with an awesome feeling of how vast the oceans are, and how tiny we are in comparison. I can easily imagine the desperation of Amelia Earhart flying low and slow over the ocean with such primitive radio and navigation equipment.
Dang. The detail in this video is absolutely wild. Having wheel in the Electra 10-E is incredible. I dont think anyone else would put that much detail in.
A tragic and remarkable video, so well made and researched and brilliantly delivered. It is true that all great challenges are fraught with danger and obstacles, so you need leadership and guidance. Amelia needed that, especially in the infancy of radio and location, as it was back then. She had true courage and bravery and is a beacon to all women who fought to smash the glass ceiling that they had lived under for so long. Well done on a superb piece of educational video.
The "guy" was a grown man a professional who took his own decisions in life I'm sure. His job in that plane was as important as the pilots. Not every adventure has a good ending . He knew the possible outcomes for his life.They trusted each other but things didn't work out .
@@jhoughjr1 it's still taught that there's a guy, but he wasn't the famous one, so he's kind of a foot note, and the story of Amelia Earhart just isn't that important historically, so it's kinda just mentioned once and forgotte in school.
@@Grumpy1174 It's kinda important, as she was one of those taking the technology and attempting extreme feats with it, she wasn't the only one who died attempting this stuff.
Hubris was what ultimately got her killed. Had she tried to replace Capt. Manning with someone else who could assists with radios and navigation, she could have safely finished her journey. Even today in highly automated commercial airplane cockpits with all modern guidance systems, for long journeys there will be a 3 person crew. That she attempted to circumnavigate the world as a two person crew is beyond reckless.
The 750m v 750kh is so much like the cm v inches errors that are still reported today for intercontinental projects. And it seems very much a case of people not feeling able to challenge her - for goodness sake she told Roosevelt to get an airstrip ready for her, not for any other purpose.
Aviation was basically hotshots taking incredible risks and losing back then too, the calm collected and methodical pilots of today is totally different
Well, the thing is, we don't know why Captain Manning left, you're buying that she "kicked him off", but it could very well mean that he didn't trust the inverse route (leaving the harder and most challenging part last with full pressure of success) or any other reason (like not wanting to risk his life after a near death experience). There was no such thing as 3 person cockpit in the 1930s though, you're being anachronistic in your judgment.
Well they did have less weight this way. Wasn't one pilot one navigator rather common then? Even smaller to mid sized WW2 planes only had two seats, even for Night and Naval flight.
I never would've guessed that Amelia Earheart could have saved herself by simply switching to her loop antenna for all communications. I'm not a pilot by any means, so it wouldn't be as obvious for me, lol. Nonetheless, may she rest in peace.
Idk if it would be obvious to most pilots at the time. Clearly her biggest mistake was attempting this without having someone with deep knowledge on radio technology on board. She had that one guy, but he either left or was "fired" as Derek mentioned in the video.
@@KendraAndTheLaw You think? 3 of last 4 recent comments are all negative comments no? Who knows how much more of your 52 are also hate comments. At least be truthful to yourself when insulting a whole group, you said it with hate. ( Thanks for adding words to my vocab btw, real sleek using wimmen instead of women aren’t ya? Good thing I have google )
These type of stories always humble me and help me realise what amazing communication capabilities we have nowadays. There is so much we take for granted, and besides basic concepts I have no idea how they really work and how small changes or mistakes in interpretation can have a big impact. I will think about this the next time I complain the WiFi on the plane doesn’t work.
Yeah, there are like 4 different technologies today, any of them making this navigational task trivially easy (VOR beacons, GPS, radar, and ADS-B or even it's more primitive transponder predecessors).
Simply failing to obtain confirmation the ship received her telegram instructions and would be broadcasting at those intervals. Any one of those things, if ensured, would have provided what was needed to navigate. Failing to obtain ANY verification for any of these various technologies was incompetence.
21:58 I may have missed it, but I believe you failed to mention that during the repair process, Lockheed replaced her Western Electric 20B receiver with an early experimental version of the Bendex RA-1, at the time no one had ever used that receiver before and it would be years before the commercial version was available.
@@cadenbiglerMost likely. As part of the new reciever and transmitter, Joseph Gurr had modified the new system to transmit and recieve at 500 KHz. Derek is incorrect at 27:07 in that she was told she still had the capability to send and recieve at 500 KHz even without the trailing wire, but the modifications were made on an already experimental system and had never been fully tested.
yes we came across this in our research. We thought about mentioning her limited training with the new loop - I don't even think they had a user's manual. But we left this detail out of the script. Another interesting note - the loop on the Itasca may have been very similar (or in fact identical) to Earhart's.
I was just thinking that a lot of the errors here sound like exactly the sort of things in Mentor Pilot videos that get pilots killed. Improper and insufficient preparation and "flying by the seat of the pants" until something goes wrong and not enough redundancy to recover.
5:20 So she had the President build an entire airfield just for her, in a totally remote place, and she didn't even wind up using it? That'd be hilarious if it weren't, you know, SAD
@jadegecko - We don't know for sure that that is the story. Even the telegram could have been part of cover. FDR says to Earhart "It'd behoove the U.S.A. to have runways on Howland Island, just in case. The world is uncomfortable just now, and I'm worried. The best way for the U.S. to get those runways built is if a nice girl sends a telegram to the President and asks for them so she can land her plane while on a peaceful publicity-stunt. Then Congress will green-light this without fear of international reaction or provocation". That MIGHT be what happened.
She was arigant and a female chauvinist. She was a horrible navigator. She had the best navigator in the in the industry and fired him just before the trip because he would push back when she was wrong, which was often. Then she hired a yes man for her new navigator.
The sadder thing is that it was supposed to be the first part of the trip, but due to the accident in the first take off attempt she had to go the opposite way, ended up leaving the most challenging part for last and pretty much what could go wrong went wrong. But technically they didn't build an airfield, they just cleaned three runaways for her to land in, it was a rudimentary runaway, there was no pavement, it was a refueling stop to get to the US.
There is an old grainy video of her takeoff on that leg of the trip that shows a puff of smoke coming from underneath the plane, apparently corresponding to damage to the receiving antenna. That would explain why she apparently could not receive subsequent voice transmissions.
Yeah, this is the one 'easy' mistake that had me shaking my head. Radio check after take-off given the stakes seems vital. I am surprised no one suggested it.
Doesn't matter. What matters is their refusal to abort the mission and return to the airfield once they figured out nobody was responding to them. This was very easy to confirm simply by talking to the departure airport over their chosen frequency before leaving the area. Failing to obtain a radio fix at 51% fuel remaining was a serious point of no return, where they could easily have turned back and landed safely.
@@mrfahrenheit677 That was my assumption but I figured anyone really familiar with radios would be familiar with how easy it is for them to not be working properly -- maybe radios were just built way better back then?
This video brilliantly explains how small errors and miscommunications led to tragedy. Focusing on science over conspiracy makes Earhart's story even more powerful. A sobering reminder of how preparation, collaboration, and responsibility are crucial for success in high-stakes endeavors.
She had a truly bad bad record of flying. she was a celebrity 1st, "Pilot" close second. Just glad she didn't let her ego kill more than 2 people. credit for having the balls to do all this, sure, but some people just cannot get the hang of whatever profession they want to master. its the ones that recognize they are likely much better at something else that get way ahead.
Amelia Earhart believed that dead reckoning navigation was a pseudoscience. She thought of it like it was astrology. She simply did not believe that it was possible to accurately compute a course using maps and math. She was a highly unintelligent glory hound. Which of course made her an awful pilot.
@@powderslinger5968 haha didn't know that. makes sense though. couldn't be bothered to study how here radios worked is bad enough. this sheds some light.
@@powderslinger5968 You have no idea what you are talking about. If dead reckoning were so great why was GPS invented? Dead reckoning is crap over the distance Earhart wanted to go, combine that with unknown/changing wind speeds and disaster is programmed. Celestial navigation requires the absence of clouds, and radio navigation requires a working radio.
Of his own skills he once remarked, "Navigation in bad weather was my specialty. One passenger remarked, "You don’t always get a glad hand when you sail with Manning, but you feel damned safe." He retired to a quiet and private life of lecturing and consultant work. He died at his home in Saddle River, NJ on August 1, 1974. Manning was smart to call it quits. Survival of the smartest.
I was an Ame working on a DHC 6 Caribou. Flying from Inuvik to Melvin Island the RH engine started to wander betwee max and min RPM 2hoursovertheBeaufortSea. As this was before GPS we were usung Loran VLF which was affected by static build up on the Imron paint. We turned back intentionally heading east of Inuvik with the same strategy. Too far north for reliable magnetic compas and the VLF flitting between dead reckoning and actual heading depending on airframe static charge. We flew VLF dead reckoning,the course corrected when the VLF worked until we hit the coast then turned right until we found Tuktoyuk. A few of the scariest hours of my life.
I've been in that region of the world (Norad work) and also flew single engine monoplanes but never that far north. It is one of the scariest part of the world to start having mechanical problems. People have no idea how desolate and isolated it is.
I've been in that region of the world (Norad work) and also flew single engine monoplanes but never that far north. It is one of the scariest part of the world to start having mechanical problems. People have no idea how desolate and isolated it is.
Perhaps I'm too timid, but I'm often surprised at the unnecessary risks she took on the most dangerous and difficult leg of her entire journey. I believe she even ditched her life-raft at Lae. Howland Island is also pretty unique among other Pacific islands, as it isn't part of a large atoll, (which are numerous) nor has any terrain that rises more than a few feet above sea level (like many other volcanic islands)--so spotting it from 1,000' MSL was also nearly impossible, without flying within just a few miles from it. The Itasca itself would have been more easily spotted in a way. Plus the typical weather there consists of numerous low-level cumulus clouds, (typical of oceanic low-pressure equatorial areas) that cast shadows that resemble the size and shape of the island itself.
And on top of that she timed it, so she would be looking to land at Howland at night, making visually spotting the island even more impossible. It was a worthy endeavor, but it was incredibly badly planned and executed, she made so many bad decision and assumption, she pretty much set herself up for failure.
@@dfuher968 Yes, very poorly planned and executed... didn't turn around when not receiving any radio responses halfway there, while also encountering overcast clouds most of the way. I believe they planned to use the rising sun and sextant as part of their "landfall procedure". In any case her last transmission was around 10:30am local time, which meant the sun was at too high an angle to provide a very accurate Line of Position. In one of my videos, I demonstrate a Landfall procedure to Howland Island using a setting sun--albeit a little too low an angle due to incalculable atmospheric refraction.
Wow, after listening to you two I would say I'm surprised nobody called the whole thing off, but life experience has taught me someone (or multiple someones) almost certainly tried. Or at least tried to get her to stop tossing vital gear overboard.
Which of course we know now, 90 years later with satellites, air recon and google earth. Not something very many people would have known or let alone even connected back then. I mean dude a decade later, during ww2 the major powers couldnt even figure out why their pilots would dive bomb and some of the pilots wouldnt pull out of the dive at the bottom and just slam into the ground. They had such rudimentary understandings of these things, she was straight up WILD to attempt what she did so early on in airplane tech. But she was the explorer pioneer type and those people drive our society forward
@@dfuher968 No it's well documented that the arrival/landing was due to occur well after sunrise. Slightly alarming that your comment has had 17 up-votes
I disagree that Earhart's poor radio skills and knowledge were somehow Thompson's "responsibility". If they'd sat down in a meeting and discussed the details together then sure, he would be at fault for not pointing out the obvious faults. But he simply followed the plan that she made in her letters, likely because he figured she would've actually spent the time needed to figure out what her plan actually was before trying to fly around the world and therefore saw no reason to question it.
34:15 Um, the only person with the responsibility of getting things right for your safety when you’re attempting such a dangerous stunt is YOU. She made 100 errors and there is nobody to blame but her.
i feel like this is one of the reasons people now are told to confirm they have received the message through the radio. If that was a standard thing before, she might have realized she wasn't getting a response and turned around after the first checkup before she even got too far, but I'm guessing since radio was pretty new at the time people were probably more okay with people not responding on the other end. kind of like how you don't expect someone to tell you they received your sentence every time you share a thought in a phone call.
No, she was just an idiot. Doing radio checks was common practice back then BECAUSE radio was relatively new. Since it was going to be a major part of her navigation to a tiny FLAT island in the middle of the Pacific, checking her radio reception should have been top priority. However, she also ditched her life raft in Lae (before her most dangerous leg of her journey); so she wasn't the most rational "hero".
@@SkyborneVisions I'm guessing the other end didn't acknowledge her messages either. Her acknowledging messages wouldn't help if she was the one who can't receive messages.
@@michawhite7613 If she couldn't receive messages, then it doesn't matter if the other side was acknowledging her messages or not. Her messages weren't being acknowledged period so she should have turned back after realizing that she wasn't getting the messages. She also obviously didn't know how to switch her receiver to her locating antenna either so even if she could've received the messages through it instead of her normal receiver, she wasn't going to. And the safest thing she could've done was turn back. Even with all that went wrong on the mission.. it still could've been successful if the frequency she told them to broadcast was correct. But being unable to receive communications is just an insane handicap that was just unnecessary for the journey. It was already dangerous enough as it was, no need to accept that sort of handicap. And it was basically that handicap that killed both her and her companion. It wasn't just her life in her hands, it was also her partner's.
@@michawhite7613 The other end wouldve acknowledged her messages but she couldnt hear them and she couldnt use her better morsecode antenna because she didnt bring her morse code guy thats the whole point of this video
@@michawhite7613 If both ends had agreed to acknowledge radio messages, then she would've known that either she wasn't being heard, or that she wasn't receiving. In either case, she would've known before it was too late that she had a problem and to turn back.
Yeah I thought the same. Listening through wireless headphones, with 5 devices within arm's reach that are capable of wireless communication, and at bandwidths unimaginable to Hertz.
Gonna add here that to be fair, he's not alone at doubting their discoveries/inventions. One of the Wright brothers once said "No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris"
@@patkundesuinventors and discoverers underestimate their inventions and discoveries all the time. It makes you wonder what seems outlandish now that will be commonplace in a few decades.
If you enjoyed this video and want to go deeper, you'll find an exclusive bonus video on our Patreon: www.patreon.com/posts/amelia-earhart-116754675
I feel it was probably arrogance, going without a radio operator, not testing and making all sorts of radio operation errors was a sure way to die in a place where there was no other option but to land using radio signals
Thumbnail no.1 ✅
Thumbnail no.2 ✅
Thumbnail no.3
Thumbnail no.4
Thumbnail no.5
What actually happened to Amelia Earhart?
Good thing America voted for Trump. Because Kamala is disaster incarnate.
"In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal." -Benjamin Franklin
My introverted friend Emily was invited to our Halloween party. She dressed up as Amelia Earhart, sent us all a photo and said she’s on her way, and then never showed up. Truly iconic.
Lol that sounds like a great idea 😂
😭
i should not laugh on this😭
this never happened
Amazing 😂
If you ever feel forgotten, just remember there was another person in the plane when Amelia Earhart went missing (Fred Noonan).
Right!? I didn't even realize he was with! I used to think she was alone.
In Apollo 11 there were 3 Astronauts and 1 of them is always left out even though he had the most important job of waiting for the 2 that went to the surface all alone. If you don't know who I'm talking about I rest my case.
It's Michael Collins by the way.
He was an experienced airline pilot and expert navigator... but you do see his elbow in some of the animated shots.
Yeah, and he had an amazing career and history of his own.
🤣🤣
One word: preparedness. If you want a fantastic example of preparedness, look at how Amundsen organized his South Pole expedition. Leftover fuel cans were found over 50 years later and were completely full. He marked his supply depots with rows of red flags for 1200 m in _each_ direction (E and W as he was travelling S and then N on the way back). He got to the 1200 m by taking the largest possible error on navigation, and then doubling it. They had enough food to miss a depot and still make it to the next one. His entire team were expert skiers and dog-sledders, so everyone could do everyone else's job. All this in 1911.
I believe that he didn't bother with (converging)latitude measurements when he got close to the pole - kept it simple. Opposed to Scott calculated both, time and complexity.
Another word: Money
@@herrk.2339 I mean she got the contacts to let runways build on remote islands and move 3 navy warships into position. I doubt money was an issue.
@@jurgenpeters1373 The runway is what made the expedition physically possible, the strategy by Amundsen outlined in the comment above seems to take it from physically possible to a slam dunk. Having two navy ships assisting your journey is very useful, but not that much considering the size of the pacific. The nature of the endeavour makes it a more difficult thing to be prepared for
@@herrk.2339 I haven't looked into it, but at the point where she found a mistake, sent a telegram to one of the ships before the departure but never waited for an acknowledgement (and the correction did indeed not reach the ship in time), wasn't there an element of haste in this? It might be harder to prepare for, but I do think she rushed too quickly into this.
This was the absolute best documentary on Amelia Earhart's final flight that I've ever seen. Despite seeing dozens of depictions of the flight over the years, none of the radio mistakes/malfunctions were ever explained. Most of the documentaries wanted to focus on the conspiracy theories instead of the science. The science is infinitely more interesting. Thank you for this!
Only now years later do we realize what a waste of time discovery channel was :)
@@PRH123everyone seems to forget the number one reason for emilias crash was because shes a woman 😅
@@Machoman50ta Doesn’t stand up to analysis, financier and organizer was Palmer Putnam, navigator and radio operator was Fred Noonan. Incomplete preparation was the culprit.
@@PRH123 aka being a woman thank you for agreeing my goy
@@PRH123 Behind every successful man is a woman. Behind every unsuccessful woman is a man.
I have seen SO MANY Earhart documentaries over the years. I have never seen one that painted so clear a picture of what went wrong. Fantastic job.
Well yea, they were there.
If the Pacific Ocean had a world trade centre, Amelia woulda found a way to crash into it
@@jotrutchhahaha well if you consider flying a plane was relatively new still
And being a female pilot she definitely would have backed into after the First strike
right? i remember when i was young watching documentary about here. from what i watched i thought she got missing because she didn't have enough fuel. i was thinking to myself why would anyone do that? it was bad and stupid documentary it only focusd on that she is a woman pilot
great one !!
I have a bone to pick with public education. They way Amelia's story was told essentially boiled down to: "she disappeared mysteriously over the Pacific ocean and nobody know what happened". The full story is so much more interesting.
My public education included a filmed dramatization of the actual communications between Itasca and Earhart. It was clear to everyone in the classroom there were radio issues. It was also understood her amateur understanding of radio technology - that there was literally a communication breakdown somewhere. It did not attempt to lay 'blame" or make conclusions - just that during the attempt great effort was put into guiding her flight but through accident or bad luck or the enormity of the challenge with the technology of the era, that it failed. And that she likely had to make a water landing and was probably killed or dead from exposure not long after. Public education typically sucks when it comes to history - I learned far more reading in the library than was ever presented in class - but in the case of Earhart and her disappearance, it got a pretty fair and unusually intesnive treatment for elementary school in the mid 1970's.
We have worked out a lot more of the details since I was in school. And schools are slow to get updates on ALL the things they have to educate upon.
The absolute minutia of every significant historical event is really hard to cover. How detailed you get into what topics also depends on your teacher, school, state, textbook supplier, and other factors.
@@PaulNechifor That's the wrong lesson to take away from this, mate
The curriculum probably doesn't have much room for stories like this, what with all the wars and stuff
The sheer amount of veritasium content released recently is a true blessing
They are freaky 😲
All thanks to AI, I think he probably outsources everything to a Chinese and Indian video editing sweatshop and he usually stands in a studio and the entire environment in the back is cgi including the grass lands he is standing on cuz all those places he gets to access is insane cuz no one can enter those places but how him lol something to think.
He's fooling a lot of people.
Thankfully an old head like me who is 45 yrs old can spot these classic tactics 😊
@@muazunais2378 Take your meds
yeah less than a week since last upload
@@muazunais2378 1/10 trolling attempt. You made it WAY too obvious.
I flew on USAF cargo planes for 9 years as a loadmaster. We learned basics of radio physics and tips and tricks. I mostly forgot about them until we were flying over the Indian Ocean one night and were making position calls in the blind on HF. When we finally got a response somewhere between Diego Garcia and Thailand, it was from Boston Center who kindly relayed our message to the appropriate controllers in our hemisphere.
I’m confused. Can you explain this in more detail 😅
@@RicardoelsupremoGood try china. 🙄
Loadmasters lead the way!! C130 for 10 years here!
IMHO, the larger factor in this: "Get there itis", a mental issue that has killed many pilots, as evidenced by:
A. Leaving when conditions were less than ideal.
B. Sending VITAL communications to ships about radios frequencies & etc. and not ensuring said communications were received, understood, AND that they made sense.
C. Not turning back when she had a chance, and things were already going wrong.
In other words, she was SO focused on getting there, she just kept blowing of potentially huge issues.
Closely related to "Go Fever" in rocketry.
The fact that she appears to not have been receiving voice communication and did not turn back on such a radio dependent flight is quite remarkable.
It's always good to exercise vital equipment before your life depends on it and part of her radio array had from out point of view shown no capacity to work. Perhaps she didn't expect to receive the weather updates and so didn't know that she was missing them, but the absence of a handshake communication protocol was a clear failure in the plan.
@@cidiousblack2136 Dude, it was 1937. People hadn't worked this stuff out yet. It's flights like this which are the reason we have these procedures today. We learn from others mistakes.
@@qarnos I'm sorry, what? We hadnt figured out the basic logic of "this entire project depends on the radio, we should make sure it works?" Even before ships went terribly wrong, I think we could figure out "the sailboat trip I set up needs a sail."
@@qarnos Nah mate. You know what you don't know and plan for it. In this instance, she did not know what she did not know and went ahead anyway. Her hubris or arrogance was astounding.
I'm amazed at how ill-prepared the expedition to cross the Pacific was. Amelia Earhart certainly had ambition and bravery, but it seems she was seriously lacking in her understanding of risk and how to mitigate that risk with redundancies. Instead of resolving uncertainties and potential issues before takeoff, she just hoped for the best.
It had worked out before, so she thought shes doing good enough.
She was brave and everything, but her behaviour seems incredibly stupid. It blows my mind how you can go on a journey like that and be lacking this amount of certanity and understanding...
It's common when you make mistakes but get away with them. You start to belive that it always be that way or even that you are special. It's even worse if other people praise you for your acheivments and bravery.
@@cyrkielnetwork The problem with complacency is that it DOESN'T get you every time. Also it's crazy that she didn't check her equipmet once in the air after takeoff.
We must remember that aviation in the 1930s was an ENTIRELY different beast than what we know today. Obviously in equiment and knowledge, but even more important in mentality. Today it is the best regulated, best trained and best controlled sector short of nuclear technology. There is an in depth investigation into ANY relevant accident or almost accident with recommendations published to reach everyone. Every failure has been analysed, chewed through by multiple experts.
And even then, we have tragic accidents like Air France 447. A situation where a minor malfunction combined with misinterpretation leads to a desaster and the death of hundreds of people. That was just 15 years ago.
In an era where communication was a challenge under the best conditions, technology often unreliable and understood by very few, training scarce and daring counted for much it is perfectly understandable how Earhart ended up with her plan. Nobody of her peers would have acted much differently.
I sailed in the US Navy as a Radioman/IT for 25 years and then 5 years on commercial ships. An old hand on my first commercial ship told me "You get careless out here, danger will find you". He was correct about sailing and life in general.
Complacency. It’s so so easy to relax when you didn’t die last time.
"Luck favors the prepared" - Edna Mode
Yep, that's why mostly highly experienced professionals are KIA...
I never considered how complex radio communication was back then, having multiple antennas tuned to different frequencies. I grew up on video games that have a map marker to the destination. I've always wondered if modern planes have something similar to that because they use GPS. Is flying today as simple as portrayed in the video games? Just point your nose to the map marker?
That is true in many fields. If you are surrounded by danger, you will eventually stop seeing it. I am a chemistry teacher and handling dangerous chemicals on a daily bases makes you careless. You need to constantly remind yourself that the safety measures are necessary, because if something goes wrong, even if it is unlikely, the results could be devastating.
Am I the only one who thinks she was unprepared for that mission and that she herself was the responsible for her and that poor guy’s demise?
Yes. She was an overly confident ambitious archetypal type of person. She did not take proper precautions and ensure they were in place and understood. I wouldn’t say she was like the titanic submersible guy but she’s in the same ball park for sure.
I have to have multiple contingencies in place in IT where the stakes aren’t life and death but simply money lost. You would think someone doing a life and death task would take more care than that but her overconfidence got in the way and she was surrounded by people treating her like she was more than human and could just figure out everything.
She was drunk on power and connections. This is a case of recklessness and a poor understanding of the tools she had
I genuinely thought she was some sort of heroical figure the way everyone talked about her 😂
Yeah, as I was watching I kept thinking about the OceanGate guy and how he was so overly confident about his junk submarine, just like Amelia and her previous damaged plane @@mindhackz
Am I the only one who is thinking:
No, several comments made days before yours state the same thoughts. Instead of narcissistically rushing to add more useless redundant noise to the world, if you had made an effort to read first you might've joined the conversation.
This story is a chilling reminder of how small errors can cascade into tragedy, especially in high-stakes situations. It makes you think about all the "what ifs" and how important clear communication and shared responsibility are. RIP Amelia Earhart.
We call it the "swiss cheese effect" in aviation (and probably lots of other places). Sometimes the mistake makes it through all the holes and doesn't get stopped by the cheese, and that's when there's an accident.
SMALL errors? And she stacked up a whole slew of large risks on top. The possibility of the outcome realized was predictable, at some fairly high percentage.
@dannymaxx510 I have only heard the Swiss cheese effect in discussions about aviation safety, but I bet it is a common engineering term too. I just started to think about the Therac-25 incident
@@savagesarethebest7251 Only on over lightened components.
Yeah, like, what if she'd gotten another radio operator to fill in.
As a wildland firefighter I was taught that the cause of almost every single fatality could be traced to a breakdown in communication. The most recent ones all occurred because their radio signals stopped working. The technology has improved but the same risks and challenges still exist and still cause deaths.
Quick, another burning bush meeds saving!
I think it’s true in almost every fatality, when it comes right down to it. Clear and concise communication saves lives, failure to communicate often leads to catastrophic outcomes and for more than just yourself.
The hands on radio demonstration really helped me understand what all the documentaries on this subject have always described. Thank you!
+
I wondered how direction trackers worked, and that demonstration was great.
what part of the video do you refer to with your comment?
@@Xevo234like 16:00 - 20:00
We still use these systems in modern aircraft today
It's not just one factor that causes a plane crash. it's a chain of errors that ultimately leads to the accident. Amelia Earhart is not the only example of this pattern.
As a pilot who's been lost before as well as one who's flown over large bodies of water in single engine aircraft, I have at least a basic understanding of just how challenging what she attempted was and how your mind can start to run away with incorrect or fatalistic assumptions if not trained or rested properly. My heart sank for her as the story progressed. She had a lot of odds stacked against her and she has my deepest sympathy and respect.
Agree, the Pacific is vast, the understanding of radio waves before WW 2 was limited as was the equipment. Much was learned during WW 2. Dad spent his adult life flying in the Canadian Arctic he was a very good navigator he could find the trappers cabin at night on the vast tundra, lake shore, or where it was.
As a student pilot, I kept getting both amazed and mortified more and more about what early aviators had to do to find their way.
In a more amusing note, while VORs are going out of fashion in lieu of GPS, they're not THAT different than what they had finding the dips in signal with their loop antenna.
About 20 years ago in my country, a 737-300 lost their navigation and communication (according to national transportation safety board, both device was malfunctioned) in the middle of sea. The pilot decided to turn to the right which according to map, land should be somewhere to the right. But they could only guessed since they had no devices to measure how much degree they were turning. Their only hope was they could spot a land then try to figure from the land features to guess where they were at. They ended up landing on small airport around 800 kilometer away from their origin and destination.
She put this odds in place herself
@@noisycarlos VORs are much more advanced than what they were using. That is the difference--a very significant difference.
"When attempting any challenging endeavor, you need someone with the right knowledge who will also take responsibility for getting things right." This is so true. Too many projects fail due to unknowledgeable people in charge or knowledgeable people not taking enough responsibilities.
@@ben-z similarly her grandson Dale didn't know not to hit the wall at Daytona in his NASCAR
FSD
Simple, people with the right knowledge don't want to get blamed, they think it's not their problem, better someone else to take the responsibility.
Yah the knowledgeable people are walked over by unknowledgeable people because of nepotism,wokeism and the sort. So guess what, the knowledgeable people give up and watch the disaster happen.
One can only speculate why the navel officer didn’t take responsibility for her, but one can imagine her personality and connections made it impossible
Being an ex airline pilot, who flew across the Pacific regularly, I found the presentation utterly fascinating, thank you! 🙏🏻
You're not an ex airline pilot.
@@cx3622 How can you be so sure? I’ve seen rarer circumstances
I read this in a very sophisticated British accent. Like a Butler accent
@@cx3622I agree, once a pilot, always a pilot.
"Joe Bullwinkle" sounds like the name of a dominant gay man in adult entertainment.
Well Done! You got this 100% correct! Even at medium wave, you get both ground wave and sky wave propagation, and it gets VERY tricky at dusk and dawn. You can try this at home with a portable AM radio. It helps to set the radio on a "lazy Susan" with the bearings on a piece of paper sitting under the lazy Susan, so you can "steer" it and take bearings. This is a fun "kitchen table activity" to do with kids by the way. I must add here, that each time the HF signal "bounces," it changes its polarity. "Sense" antennas quite frankly just don't work very well. In my experience, I have never trusted them and instead find it best to take SEVERAL bearings from several known locations to get the best fix. LF has its problems, too. But nothing like HF. I agree that if she would have just stuck with the trailing antenna, she would have had a much better chance. I did not know that they weren't using GMT universally at the time as we certainly do now (actually, it's UCT and not GMT these days, but the point is well...on point! We STILL throw around meters and frequency these days. Generally, when we speak in terms of meters, we just mean a general BAND of frequencies, and not a SPECIFIC frequency. 6 MHz range still carries a bit better at night as opposed to day. The 7 MHz is really the best for 24 hour coverage, but still reaching much greater distances at night. You might further expand on the radio amateurs that heard her transmissions which were called "hoaxes" but were likely not. (This also happened to an Irish Ham who certainly did intercept TITANIC'S signal in 1912 by the way.) FINALLY, you might also do a video on the B-24 "Lady be Good" found in the Libyan Desert, a "classic" case of "reading the back of the loop." Artifacts, even including the navigators sheet and tactical call signs (for if damaged but CAN make it back to base as opposed to "CANNOT" make it back to base, etc.) are on display at the Air Force Museum in Dayton, along with recovered artifacts. I also hate to say this, but she represents the dividing line from barnstormer to avaitor. She was a little of both. And the public was still at the "wow" stage on both aviation AND radio. It was all still "magic." And propagation was way less understood. It's also IMPORTANT to know that propagation is STILL not completely understood even today. All the Best! 73 DE W8LV Bill
9:18 - God could you imagine discovering you think will be absolutely pointless, only for it to essentially redefine the course of humanity. To think, radio waves were literally the impetus for Radio, Television, eventually Wifi and Cellphone signals. It potentially altered the course of WW2. Hertz was so incredibly humble for how monumental this discovery was.
He was looking for radio waves because Maxwell had predicted a world of electromagnetic waves beyond those already known
@@otterlyso As with almost everything we discover, they're always standing on the shoulders of giants. I'll never discount how important the discoveries of those that come before us were and still are.
At least he got a car rental business out of the deal! 🙃😇🤣
Amazing, isn't it? Although you can see where he was coming from. Tiny sparks you could only see under a microscope? And with the emitter super close by? Yeah, what do you do with that? It's mind-boggling to think that despite the square-cube law we can use these same waves to communicate with spacecraft outside our solar system and even see the very beginning of the universe!
I mean, light and sound were always available as wireless communication methods, so...
I'm assuming he didn't know about the atmosphere being a mirror to radio waves. How could he have predicted any usecase?
I wonder what Manning's private thoughts may have been after the flight went missing? "Whew, glad I didn't go I thought this might have happened." Or, "Had I gone, this never would have happened." I suppose he was interviewed, and someone here may have read something about what he may have said, if any thing.
IMO, it seems like he left the mission because he knew there were flaws in the plan, and perhaps Earhardt wasn't willing to listen to him about it? Either way, after the previous crash which he'd been in, he was probably thinking "I'm not surprised"...
Edit to clarify this is my opinion not something I've read.
She probably got rid of the one antenna that does Morse code against his wishes and he decided it ain’t worth it
@@ExhaustedOwl it is your guess
@@deehaws4334 It's a fairly well educated guess. If I were in a car wreck with someone I would certainly never let them drive me anywhere again. Doubly so for an airplane. Airplane problems may occur less frequently, but when problems do occur it's fairly rare that one simply walks away from the incident unharmed.
Her preparation was clearly lacking and she was taking unnecessary risks with her and her crew's life, he clearly cottoned on to her recklessness and bailed before she got him killed.
The last message of the video was truly a powerful one. As an engineer, it resonated with me. You have to have proper knowledge to take on the responsibility.
Get it. Resonated.
Amen from another engineer. Knowledge seems to be in good supply. Responsibility seems to have fallen off. But to be fair, it seems that taking a stand for engineers is a greater risk than in days gone by. Just seems so to me.
@@mrcat5508😊
@@mrcat5508As an amateur radio operator, it resonated with me too.
Clearly you were on the same wavelength as the message
I love watching the evolution of the thumbnail and the title.
A nice reminder why redundancy is the number one rule for NASA.
Not just NASA, but yup.
And number 2. 😁
@@robthaham3408 😂
Thats why they have killed more crews than anu other space agency
@@Semystic wait till we bring out the triple redundancy systems
Noonan the Navigator was not sitting beside her in the cockpit.
He was actually sitting behind her with a large fuel tank between them...they used a fishing line with pulleys to send notes with navigation numbers and fuel burn rates between each other
Typical backseat driver trying to man-splain a map to her.
Imagine the last note Noonan must've passed to Earhart...
"Empty"
@@ccengineer5902i bet you it's going to be a harsher word if i knew i was going to die
Sometimes he was back there and sometimes he was right beside her. Either way, they had to pass notes.
@@noahway13Please say this is satire
I still have a lot of respect for Earhart and what she accomplished. But it is shocking how sloppy she was about such critical communication issues. Maybe she was just used to either being over land or flying over oceans but knowing that a huge continent would eventually appear even if she was off course. But trying that over the largest expanse of water on Earth was downright crazy.
And a LOT of other things. Yes, she was a bit sporty.
@@MrJdseniorI feel like you have to be to try something like that. People at the frontier are a little nuts. Imagine being the first person to strap themselves to an ICBM and orbit the earth? Imagine being the first person to make it to mars? There’s always the risk of death. There’s a reason the first astronauts were fighter pilots and test pilots
@@berengerchristy6256Of course, you need to have a certain level of risk taking in order to try this, but the smart ones do everything they can to reduce the inherent risk, control for the variables that they can to give the best possible chance of success.
@@berengerchristy6256 there's always risks for any great historical achievement. However, sometimes there's completely UNNECESSARY risks, and completely stupid decision making (even based on the limitations of the time); that Amelia demonstrated on the most dangerous leg of her journey.
Hitting a tiny island in the middle of he biggest ocean in the world would seem to be daunting enough for her to take a few extra precautions. I think she was always going to push the envelope until it pushed back.
Thank you for saying that the radio waves are “effectively” reflected off the ionosphere. That attention to detail is appreciated.
More "chewed up and spat back" ?
@@rinzler9775 I mean, I understand it to be closer to refraction than reflection... it's complicated.
Man, veritasium has become one of the best youtube channels on youtube period. The quality and length of these documentaries are just top tier.
It's ok. Calm down.
Lemmino
@@ZackScriven Lemmino when he was on his prime
One of the best youtube chanels on youtube eh?
@@Carguylogan Yo what does the comment say?
Fun fact: The Electra originally had a very different tail, until a young guy told the chief designer the plane would be unstable like that. The young guy turned out to be right, and got to running the extra wind-tunnel tests to re-design the tail. His name? Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, and he'd go on to heading development on the first US jet-fighter (P-80), the U-2, and the SR-71, and his division of Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin) would create the idea of a Skunkworks division and the first stealth-plane - the F-117. The hypersonic test-plane "SR-72 Darkstar" in Top Gun: Maverick was designed with the support of Skunkworks, and if you look close you see on the tail the traditional skunk logo.
how do u know this man
@@dumbahhpersonI was also skeptical but I just went a searchin in the internets and can confirm the parts about the “Model 10 Electra”. Didn’t care to confirm anything about the Mavrick movie but the career part was true and very impressive
His name? Albert Einstein
That sounds very Kelly Johnson: later in life someone else at Lockheed was known to say of him "that damn Swede can see air." He was a proper legend of aircraft design.
@@dumbahhperson What can I say, I'm a big nerd, and I like seeing connections
Vertitasium must have hired so much (many) more people recently, the amount of videos recently at this production quality is astonishing
there's an open job listing for Veritasium for a writer/researcher that's been up for a few months now
I don't like correcting people's grammar online but it's *many, not much.
*many more people
AI bro
@@musafirgauravv AI must have been gotten really good to umm... what did the AI do again, can you elaborate?? If it's done the whole thing it certainly wouldn't look this good at the current level of AI; if they just did the animation well I've got bad news for you buddy, 3Blue1Brown did a video on how to make these style of animations using Manib(m). Nevertheless, I still wanna know what you meant when you said it was made by AI
@@matercan5649 Empty vessels make the most noise, hence why they can't back up their statement.
This video made me appreciate even more having a device that fits in my pocket and can tell me precisely where on Earth I am. Not knowing about radio waves nor stars.
We do tend to forget about it!
So, if that device malfuntion you’re in big trouble hah. At least have backup, like packing 3 of those 😂
So what you are saying is that, if we lose all electricity, we are completely screwed.
Failing to fix her position with the USS Ontario was her BINGO fuel moment. The fact that she did not return to her departure point but instead proceeded on is proof enough of Manning's doubt about her airmanship and decision making.
Woman driver.
Right. And no: gender doesn't have anything to do with that.
Doubt of her could have led to that decision, if the people around you expect you to fail then you're going to be determined not to
the mirage of global fame must be so powerful... few of us can really comprehend its impact on one's actions and decisions... history is full of examples of 'silly' decisions by powerful and skillful individuals who got 'blinded' by this mirage. i imagine the feeling to be intoxicating, a form of inebriation capable of twisting realities.
as expected some comments refer to her abilities as a woman but some great worriers led entire armies on futile paths (against the pleads of other experienced worriers) just to 'prove a point' or 'make history'.
She didn't take the right equipment and had the chance to notice.
It's clearly not physics that doomed her but lack of preparation and communication with the people that were leading her to her destination.
No, it was her hubris
@@mosubekore78 no, it was mistakes of many peopel involved. she even asked wether her suggested frequency was good for transmission, and noone bothered to correct her. she certainly wasnt the only technician/engineer working on the craft, such issues should have been brought up beforehand. if not, then theres another mistake of not involving enough engineers.
@@dankrigby5621It wasn't THEIR adventure. It was hers.
@@dankrigby5621 No, it was her incompetence. Nobody is responsible except herself for her pursuit (and failure) of excitement.
Thompson didn't want to mansplain a strong independent woman. Can't blame him.
Industry I worked in for many years, we always trained, "Okay, but what do you do if THAT doesn't work.... and if THAT doesn't work? What if..." Seems like she relied on things working just right and didn't really have any backup plan.
Not entirely true. The video mentions they had dead reckoning, celestial navigation, and multiple radio systems. They had backup plans, but they didn't do the due diligence to ensure each plan was fully baked and operable, that all parties involved were well informed and prepared.
@@error.418 I think celestial navigation is a bit overrated in aircraft. At the start of WW2, the RAF bombers could barely find the right city to bomb using celestial and dead reckoning, in fact they often found the wrong city. In fact Switzerland was bombed several times, and that's not even the right country.
@@dougerrohmer Oh I'm making no comment as to what is viable, just that they did have multiple methods. I also have no clue if it's reasonable to compare Noonan's abilities with those of WW2 bomber pilots.
I think it's very much a sign of the times. Just look at workplace death rates throughout the last century. Today, we do what you say, having backups for backups. Back then, "try not to die" was sort of the equivalent of current OSHA standards.
And @error.418, having a backup plan that isn't tested and confirmed is virtually the same as not having a backup plan. It's the difference between going on a summer camping trip and bringing jackets vs. saying "ah, it shouldn't rain I think"
Look up Prof Reason Swiss Cheese model of accident prevention. At every event of the story, I hear how she slipped thru another hole in the Swiss Cheese. But this was in the early days of aviation and radio. Accident investigators note all the mistakes they can find and try to write regulations to avoid other accidents. As they say, the regulation rules are written in blood. Lookup Mentour channel, Gimli Glider episode.
Student pilot here...Thanks a ton man..covered the Navigation part wonderfully..good job.
amount of miscommunication and small errors is mindboggling, but understandable for the times and how difficult it was to properly communicate across distances.
Especially given it was relatively new technology for the time.
I wouldn't call it mind boggling.
Communication wasn't everywhere, and was "primitive" today.
The margin for error was small, and this was a VERY risky trip from start.
Just over confident and adrenaline fueled.
Especially with poor planning and recklessness. She was an accident waiting to happen
@@volvo09golden age of radio
Just goes to show, wimmen shouldn't fly. I say that with love.
Another perfect example of the Swiss Cheese Model: how a number of individual mistakes could never have a significant impact, a multitude combined end in a catastrophe.
This crash really was a “perfect storm” of various small systems going wrong
Absolutely. It’s never one single thing.
Some of the swiss cheese holes were about as big as the cheese itself though...
I can smell the Mentour Pilot on you ;)
@@SkyborneVisionsexactly
7:54 dude uses math and star charts to navigate the globe, meanwhile i cant make it to walmart across town without my gps
I think you’d manage to use the stars to map your way to Walmart if that were the only possible way to reach it. Necessity brings out the best of us.
@@ninadgadre3934 you may be right!
@@ninadgadre3934 Hmm... 🤔 But how about using the star chart on a cloudy night... 😂
Yeah he failed though
Neither could he apparently.
When they were explaining that I was like hell no bro.. just sounds like so much could go wrong.
This was clear, highly informative with high production values. You sir are a standout on the internet.
All my life I had no clue how radio signals work. Your instruction has explained it in a way I can follow. Bravo to you and thank you.
Wrong frequency, wrong wind speed, wrong antenna. This is what regular people are really like when there's no SOP in place, with chaos instead of order. For harder projects like Apollo, it wouldn't have been remotely plausible with this level of inaccuracy.
Well Apollo had hundreds of people with extremely specialized knowledge for every little component of the mission.
So yeah, no lol rocket science/astrophysics is definitely not something where you can "just wing it" and expect success.
Swiss cheese model in full effect
Well space program wasnt ran by a broad with something to prove
@@Tyler-z8r Buncha young White guys.
@@badcornflakes6374Enlighten me on this, what’s this Swiss cheese model?
Even today, with the most precise and highly calibrated sextants, a position error of two miles is considered extremely good, and 10 miles is more common.
So you are not at an intersection of two lines, unless you drew the lines with sidewalk chalk. Navigators always draw a position circle, called a circle of error. The important question is not "where are we" but rather, "how large is the circle of error?"
Navigators? Is it just not safe to rely on GPS?
GPS truly is a marvel that we all take for granted, myself included. Is it a bad idea to rely on it in at sea?
GPS is more than adequate. Even integrated conditions in the south Indian Ocean the maximum sort of error you might experience would be a range of about 100 m. Typically GPS has you within 1 to 3 m.
OP is talking about navigation without GPS
@@Tyler-z8rGNSS (of which GPS is one such system) uses trilateration to calculate your location - which is not much different to what is discussed in the video but in 3 dimensions instead of 2. Think of it as plotting multiple spheres, your location is most likely within the area they all overlap.
As such, the accuracy and precision (please note, they're not the same thing) is still within a certain radius. Both will likely improve with more satellites visible to the receiver but there is still a "circle of error" as the OP of this comment said.
Well actually, you typically do not (in my experience) navigate on a chart by using a "circle of error." You navigate on a chart using either a "fix" or a running fix or estimated and assumed position. Which are all single points. An estimated/assumed position incorporates your idea of vagueness and uncertainty but is nevertheless represented as a single point. I've never seen or used a navigational chart by advancing a series of circles. If you draw a circle on a chart (which navigators do not usually do) then you cannot thereafter advance your position, you are just advancing ever widening circles which is not common and probably does not work. I'm nitpicking here, but since your circle of error is essentially unknowable while underway, navigators do not go around questioning how large their circle of error is, either. Today's sextants give better positions primarily due to better timekeeping devices and better optics. Large sextant position errors -say over two or three miles- is primarily due to being bounced around by waves, or lousy viewing conditions. I'm sure you'd agree. Not that anyone still uses celestial navigation much these days, although you still master it (somewhat) to earn your Coast Guard licenses.
It also helps if you use 3 stars per fix--as that "circle of error" can be more precisely known by the triangle it forms. Of course for Fred, that morning, he was using only the Sun, which didn't tell him if he was north or south of Howland--unless he had a super-precise compass, and precise magnetic variation charts. Performing a "landfall procedure" at 1,000' made it impossible to see the island unless they got within a few miles of it. Sextant errors on aircraft can usually range as a high as a dozen miles. Celestial navigation from an airplane is much more difficult than from a ship.
That face after saying Hertz couldn't see what radio waves could be used for was priceless (as I'm watching this over wifi with wireless headphones sitting next to a cell phone and a handheld 2-way).
Lol - one of the biggest things that changed the world.
This is legitimately one of your best videos yet. Such a good balance of science and stakes with a story that is so infamous.
I just started watching this channel about a day or two ago and it’s already been off to a good start
Taking responsibility is a risk-taking behaviour. I remember when on a summer job at a power supply manufacturer, I found out an issue with the product that had to be corrected - when boxes were already about to be loaded into the shipping truck. So I said wait, we have to fix this. Later that day, my boss said, it's great that you stopped the shipment, it was a responsible decision. But you should have gone straight to my office, because you did not have the right to stop the shipment. And he was right - I had no such right. I just had the responsibility to pretend I did, because the alternative would be a recall.
Some people are primarily mission-oriented: they want to accomplish the end-goal. Others are more process-oriented, they are motivated to follow the procedures. Aviation is an interesting combination of the two, because following procedures is critical to safety. That means it is very risky to start improvising, and there is a strong requirement to avoid doing it.
There were two key elements that were missing in Earhart's flight: understanding of radio propagation on her part, and a strict, mutually-agreed to, detailed communication plan. Given that there was no possibility to divert, disaster was a distinct possibility. And yet, everyone seemed to have thought "we'll make it - somehow."
Of course, hindsight is 20-20.
As a retired broadcast engineer after 40 years in the industry and an Amateur Radio Operator for over 45 years, in a short explanation he did not too bad. One must take into account the year which determines what technology was available. The differences between night and day propagation on the different frequencies. The level of experience of the operators. It is truly complicated.
I mean doing all such calculation needed a genius person beside his domain knowledge.
It's hard to imagine any commercial radio operator in 1937 not understanding Morse code. I'm sure the nuances of radio propagation was beyond them.
Extremely well researched! I've seen several documentaries and have read articles on their flight. This documentary added a lot of information I was not aware of.
Thank you
The amount of budgeting and resources they were willing to spend to aid her on the trip really shows just how different the world was in terms of aviation.
Imagine asking three US naval ships to just wait for you and help with navigation nowadays.
There was much interest in these accomplishments at that time. For military purposes. This was also a unique training situation for the crew.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson described the difference between JFK's "we will put a man on the moon before the end of the decade" (i.e. USA will land on the moon under MY watch), and Obama's "we will reach Mars in 20 years" (aka a Mars mission under a future, unnamed president and a largely imaginary budget to be decided later)
He then said political will is as necessary as scientific knowledge when it comes to making large scale progress
It's more a reflection of someone with the right connections able to amass more resources then their abilities should otherwise allow. For more modern day examples see Elizabeth Holmes or Richard Stockton.
@@DavidKiviat Billionaire class gonna billionaire. We've seen the submarine crush itself and Bezos reaching into space.
@@DavidKiviat That is very true as well. It’s certainly a component to it here; likely more than was explained in the video.
I’d assume it has to take more than just aviation interest to organise this, but I’m not exactly familiar with who Earhart was socially. I assume she wasn’t a multi millionaire but she was clearly a celebrity of some significant calibre, since it doesn’t exactly immediately appear directly similar to the Oceangate fiasco.
That was a fun afternoon. The receiver is one I built about 8 years ago using a design by Nick Roethe DF1FO. This video only includes audio from one ear - the other ear has a "whoopee" tone that makes it much easier to DF, but Earhart didn't have that
Thanks for your help Clifford!
When the SDR was turned on I was thinking huh, didn't know Derek was a ham! Then you popped up. It was a really good demo!
Hey thank you guys. I did my first ever Research paper on this exact topic in the late 90's. at the time No one really knew what happend and the military didnt share information. thanks for completing something i been tring to look in to for 30 years
so much respect for putting the sponsor at the end
I cant believe I never learned of the specifics of the radio issues. Heartbreaking. Thank you.
That’s because it would make her fallible, or responsible.
That isn’t the prescribed narrative. Same reason we aren’t taught Noonan’s name when we “learn” about Amelia. Same reason nobody ever told you that Marie Curie shares her first Nobel Prize with two men whom she owes her second Prize to.
We are meant to believe these are rogue, superior women, out there sticking it to the man and making the real advancements.
I was underwhelmed when I heard neither Noonan nor Earhart was fluent in Morse code.
Depending on voice only, in those conditions, in that era, for two way communication? That was ill prepared.
41 here, been hearing about this for years. never has it ben explained so clear and concise. Its amazing what the entire story and truth can do. Absolutely awesome video of this story.
Side note, I'm a utility pipe line locator, your examples helped me finish understanding visually what I am doing. I use the pipehorn HL800.
I knew I would be sad, but I didn't think I would get this angry at the lack of preparation on Earhart's part. I always figured it was just adventurism hitting the limit of the technology. But I can't understand not having complete understanding of vital equipment and complete synchrony with the people you relied on for such a bold journey.
I work with radios a lot for my job (HF, VHF, UHF), and I didn't know much about using radio waves to find your direction. Probably because we have GPS now. Everything was well researched and accurate about HF, antenna theory, the ionosphere and it scattering. Well done.
So, my Father worked at Lockheed, from the 60's until he retired (his first project was the L-1011). The lore around the Company was that she wasn't known as a great pilot. Apparently, she was bringing her Electra's back for repair a lot.
Why the other navigator bailed out on going after she could not take off from Hawaii and crashed
Taking off is fairly easy part of flying
Much of the world loves reinforcing women's beliefs in themselves, no matter how true or delusional
@craigdk586, probably over compensation for generations of men believing women are inferior and projecting that mentality. Guilt perhaps.
Independent woman don't need no communicator.
Casual sexism is still alive I see
My grandpa was a radio operator in WWII and a passionate aviation fan, and I took my geeking about those topics from him. I'm sure he would have loved this video as much as I did. Thank you Veritasium.
Wow, learned a lot of interesting things from this video. 1. More details about Earheart's disappearance than just "she vanished without a trace." And 2. A whole lot more about old radio communication and equipment. I never understood what that loop antenna was for or the field with the 5 large antennas in it. Didn't know those were primarily for navigation. Very interesting. Thank you.
This was super-well produced! Really enjoyed it!
It is still commonly believed that Earhart was an excellent pilot. However, other pilots who had watched her fly were quite critical of her for her lack of skill and knowledge. Other women pilots who had flown in races against her described her sloppy flying to include problems taking off and landing. At the end of one cross country race, she bounced so far down the runway that spectators thought she was going to crash at the end of the field. The crash in Hawaii was another example of these shortcomings. Her and Noonan's deaths were a direct result of her believing her own publicity and her hubris.
She had 400 hours of flight time. The average pilot needs about 1500 to be considered experienced enough to start flying for airlines. She fancied herself a veteran but she had the same experience as a student. You need 250 hours to graduate from commercial pilot school and 40 to be given a private pilot license.
@@blackkennedy3966 After extensive training program and certification that is. At at the time both were pretty much nonexistent, or at least nowhere near as good as modern ones. The best you could get was education in military schools, and even that was extremely lackluster AT ITS TIME, the only real way to get to know the aircraft at any decent level was practise and common sense combined.
Exactly for all that I gathered from this video was that she was a shitty pilot but saying this only get's you hate because feminism
Other people who worked with her described her as "incompetent" so I doubt flight hours would have made much difference.
If she had only 400 hours that sort of tells me she could fly but not deal with emergencies or less than perfect scenarios. The Hawaii incident could have been the result of a crosswind and not having good aileron correction. Flying is so much more than simply straight and level flight. All those skills for non ideal conditions are learned over thousands of hours
It's stunning that neither person on the airplane had enough of an understanding of radio to either properly plan for the use of the equipment prior to the flight or to troubleshoot the issues that developed in-flight. That should have been priority one of the flight crew, as they had a snowball's chance of finding their landing site without radio direction finding.
There was radio operator on the first attempt which ended with a crash. He did not join the second attempt, it is unclear if this was due to other commitments or self-preservation.
Seems incredibly irresponsible.
@@tarnvedra9952he figure out she was a crap pilot
@@tarnvedra9952 yeah he saw her woman driving skills and bailed
@@tarnvedra9952 I'll take a guess that it was the later. One of the crucial skills a sailor has is choosing who to sail with.
I'm a pilot. I've been flying for 8 years. I've studied sense and loop antennas. I've taught other pilots about sense and loop antennas. And I've never understood them as well as I do now! Your videos are great, thank you for your dedication and effort.
Sounds like you were unqualified for 8 years.
@@clinch4402
No, he didn't say he didn't understand or know how to USE these systems; he simply said that he never understood them BETTER than after watching this. That doesn't make him unqualified to fly, or use them. There is always more to know about the technology we use every day, whether or not the knowledge we gain is theoretical or practical.
This is how we become better at what we do. No one starts out - or uses technology effectively for many years - knowing EVERYTHING about the many forms of technology used in aviation, or any other technical endeavor.
Are you an unqualified driver because you don't understand every intricacy of how and why the hydraulic braking system in the car you drive works?
If you don't (or pick any other critical system you have used/are using), does this make you 'unqualified' to operate it?
If this were so, we would have NO astronauts, drivers, pilots, or any other people to operate any machine or system in the world.
By your metric, how many things are YOU unqualified to operate, that you DO operate?
Not sure why UA-cam determined I needed to see your content, but here I am. Because you told me there’s an ad *but it’s at the **_end_** of the epi?* well that gets you a sub.
It's feels good when Derek says more about them at the end of the "show" and not "video"
I thought so too..but then an advert still comes on in another minute
What difference does it make?
@@paulelderson934 self respect, feelings of grandeur and self importance
Except he did say "video".
"This video is sponsored by KiwiCo. More about them at the end of the show".
@@paulelderson934 'video' is something less descriptive while 'show' means something broad and continuous
This video goes miles, and I mean it MILES above the quality of any documentary and/or science video. 37 minutes ago I had never heard about Amelia Earhart's story and I was all the time on the edge of my chair watching. As if this were an S-tier rated thriller. 10/10 storytelling, 10/10 animations 10/10 science inputs. And what touched me the most, was 32:10 - although without a shadow of a doubt Derek had practiced his script and knew the story by heart, telling what the most propbable demise of the plane was, made him grieve and I could feel tears in both my and his eyes. This has to be my favourite Veritasium video so far and would be insanely hard to outclass it. Props to everyone involved in it and may A. Earhart rest in peace.
If you made it this far in my comment, have a nice day and like the video, it truly deserves it!
Bro is so invested
😂@@minadimova1932
Omg, 37 again!
"When attempting any challenging endeavor, you need someone with the right knowledge, who will also take responsibility for getting things right." - so true.
Thanks for outting your ad at the end. If i end up watching the video to the end im happy to listen to the ads!
This is the same effect that allows for polarized light. It’s just operating at much higher frequencies. The elegant parallels among EM phenomena were a big reason I got hooked into electronics engineering.
Im an EE too. The EM field makes everything tick
YES ! You said "elegant parallels"........ I think it is really spooky that very different forms of stored energy eg Kinetic, Magnetic, Electric all seem to follow the same rules.........
Energy of a moving body is = 1/2MassVel(sqd)
Magnetic Energy around an inductor is = 1/2LI(sqd)
Electric Energy in a capacitor is = 1/2CV(sqd)
I genuinely do not understand how the Veritasium team has managed to keep up even a small fraction of their editorial quality while pumping out so many of these videos. It's incredible.
Money. It's a company at this point.
Its a guy who made lots of money and spends them to hire competent workers. Nothing unusual. Why people think its weird???
@@neutronshiva2498 I don't need you to whiteknight for me, don't worry.
@@neutronshiva2498 I don't need you to whiteknight for me, don't worry.
I will be sending this to my friends who are getting into ham radio. This is one of the clearest demonstrations of the basic principles of radio waves and equipment I think I've ever seen. Makes it very accessible. Thank you for this.
This radio direction finding demonstration is a BEAUTIFUL explanation and demonstation of one of the simplest, most basic, and most comon methods of radio direction finding in existance. Most now days are higher tech, but use exactly the same ultimate method. As a licenced ham for 30 years, I've built and used several antennas of this type, though now days I prefer to use doppler based methods.
I’ve been getting into learning about ham radio and I heard that they have field days and contests in order to test their equipment and make sure they know how to communicate effectively, because you can’t just assume everything will work the first time in an emergency if you don’t test yourself often.
@@drivers99 There are two big activities hams do for this reason, one is the anual "Field Day" contest which you mentioned, and the other, relevant to the demonstration in the video, is hidden transmitter hunting, commonly known as "Fox Hunting" in which someone hides a radio transmitter, and others attempt to find it with whatever direction finding equipment they have. The hunt might cover a small city park, or an entire large city, depending on the teams, and the gear to be used. The hidden transmitter could range from someone in their car transmitting with 50 watts, to a tiny microcontroller based transmitter powered by a hearing aid battery and hidden in a camera film can under a log in a city park.
Send them the video of the man who contacted the ISS with his homemade antenna. That's impressive.
I've seen tens of stories about Amelia, but never one like this. Thanks ❤❤❤
I've heard so many conflicting stories about Amelia Earhart. I needed this video.
Have you heard what really happened? That she flew into the Bermuda triangle and flew through a portal into the land of Gielinor where she died attempting to get a firecape?
@@Tyler-z8r
1) A.E.'s messages got ignored by men in power (US Navy) because they were jealous
2) A.E.'s ignored advices from experts and made mistakes, but in mechanical - not navigational ones.
@@Tyler-z8r She was abducted by aliens who took her to another quadrant and populated a planet with human slaves. Those slaves had a rebellion and took over. Then later on, Captain Janeway met Amelia on that planet.
@@morganmcallister2001 Are those the same aliens that took Elvis or are those separate groups?
I once launched a jet from the deck of a US Navy aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean, and flew away at high altitude for about 90 minutes before we had to turn around to find the ship and land on it. We never saw any sign of land for all that time. I was left with an awesome feeling of how vast the oceans are, and how tiny we are in comparison. I can easily imagine the desperation of Amelia Earhart flying low and slow over the ocean with such primitive radio and navigation equipment.
Dang. The detail in this video is absolutely wild. Having wheel in the Electra 10-E is incredible. I dont think anyone else would put that much detail in.
That's because nobody has the financial budget this channel has.
@@mr.shannon6137 🤣
A tragic and remarkable video, so well made and researched and brilliantly delivered. It is true that all great challenges are fraught with danger and obstacles, so you need leadership and guidance. Amelia needed that, especially in the infancy of radio and location, as it was back then. She had true courage and bravery and is a beacon to all women who fought to smash the glass ceiling that they had lived under for so long. Well done on a superb piece of educational video.
Until now
I thought she died alone
Thank you for share this story
My thoughts to that guy who trusted her with his life on this adventure
Wow ive know her and grege noonan since the 80s when i was a kid.
Guess she dont need no man these days
The "guy" was a grown man a professional who took his own decisions in life I'm sure. His job in that plane was as important as the pilots. Not every adventure has a good ending . He knew the possible outcomes for his life.They trusted each other but things didn't work out .
@@jhoughjr1 it's still taught that there's a guy, but he wasn't the famous one, so he's kind of a foot note, and the story of Amelia Earhart just isn't that important historically, so it's kinda just mentioned once and forgotte in school.
@@Grumpy1174 It's kinda important, as she was one of those taking the technology and attempting extreme feats with it, she wasn't the only one who died attempting this stuff.
@ i can say the story was more poular in the 80s it seems. Heard a lot about it back then
Hubris was what ultimately got her killed. Had she tried to replace Capt. Manning with someone else who could assists with radios and navigation, she could have safely finished her journey. Even today in highly automated commercial airplane cockpits with all modern guidance systems, for long journeys there will be a 3 person crew. That she attempted to circumnavigate the world as a two person crew is beyond reckless.
The 750m v 750kh is so much like the cm v inches errors that are still reported today for intercontinental projects. And it seems very much a case of people not feeling able to challenge her - for goodness sake she told Roosevelt to get an airstrip ready for her, not for any other purpose.
@@stevieandthebarbies It wasn't even 750 kHz - she asked for 7.50 MHz!
Aviation was basically hotshots taking incredible risks and losing back then too, the calm collected and methodical pilots of today is totally different
Well, the thing is, we don't know why Captain Manning left, you're buying that she "kicked him off", but it could very well mean that he didn't trust the inverse route (leaving the harder and most challenging part last with full pressure of success) or any other reason (like not wanting to risk his life after a near death experience). There was no such thing as 3 person cockpit in the 1930s though, you're being anachronistic in your judgment.
Well they did have less weight this way. Wasn't one pilot one navigator rather common then? Even smaller to mid sized WW2 planes only had two seats, even for Night and Naval flight.
I never would've guessed that Amelia Earheart could have saved herself by simply switching to her loop antenna for all communications. I'm not a pilot by any means, so it wouldn't be as obvious for me, lol. Nonetheless, may she rest in peace.
Idk if it would be obvious to most pilots at the time. Clearly her biggest mistake was attempting this without having someone with deep knowledge on radio technology on board.
She had that one guy, but he either left or was "fired" as Derek mentioned in the video.
@@Tyler-z8r Ooh, I didn't put the time frame into consideration, so your explanation does add sense into the situation. Thanks!
Wimmen should not fly. I say this with love.
@@KendraAndTheLaw You think? 3 of last 4 recent comments are all negative comments no? Who knows how much more of your 52 are also hate comments. At least be truthful to yourself when insulting a whole group, you said it with hate. ( Thanks for adding words to my vocab btw, real sleek using wimmen instead of women aren’t ya? Good thing I have google )
or just turning back at the first mismessage she got
The concluding takeaways - knowledge and responsibility - is chefs kiss
These type of stories always humble me and help me realise what amazing communication capabilities we have nowadays. There is so much we take for granted, and besides basic concepts I have no idea how they really work and how small changes or mistakes in interpretation can have a big impact. I will think about this the next time I complain the WiFi on the plane doesn’t work.
Yeah, there are like 4 different technologies today, any of them making this navigational task trivially easy (VOR beacons, GPS, radar, and ADS-B or even it's more primitive transponder predecessors).
The list of assumptions leading up to the disaster is anxiety inducing.
Simply failing to obtain confirmation the ship received her telegram instructions and would be broadcasting at those intervals.
Any one of those things, if ensured, would have provided what was needed to navigate.
Failing to obtain ANY verification for any of these various technologies was incompetence.
@@Triple_J.1 It is incompetence, but it's still sad. It just sucks it was totally preventable.
21:58 I may have missed it, but I believe you failed to mention that during the repair process, Lockheed replaced her Western Electric 20B receiver with an early experimental version of the Bendex RA-1, at the time no one had ever used that receiver before and it would be years before the commercial version was available.
Did that have any impact?
@@cadenbiglerMost likely. As part of the new reciever and transmitter, Joseph Gurr had modified the new system to transmit and recieve at 500 KHz. Derek is incorrect at 27:07 in that she was told she still had the capability to send and recieve at 500 KHz even without the trailing wire, but the modifications were made on an already experimental system and had never been fully tested.
Lockheed only merged with Martin in 1994. It was pure Lockheed back then. And Martin Marietta was created in 1961.
@@freeculture Thank you, I updated this.
yes we came across this in our research. We thought about mentioning her limited training with the new loop - I don't even think they had a user's manual. But we left this detail out of the script. Another interesting note - the loop on the Itasca may have been very similar (or in fact identical) to Earhart's.
Well presented video, I was aware of her difficulties with the radios but not the details.
Didn't expect a new mentour pilot video on a Wednesday
😂
Lol
okay
I was just thinking that a lot of the errors here sound like exactly the sort of things in Mentor Pilot videos that get pilots killed. Improper and insufficient preparation and "flying by the seat of the pants" until something goes wrong and not enough redundancy to recover.
I would love to hear Peter do his show on this. I suggest we all get these two great commentators together to produce a show.
5:20 So she had the President build an entire airfield just for her, in a totally remote place, and she didn't even wind up using it? That'd be hilarious if it weren't, you know, SAD
@jadegecko - We don't know for sure that that is the story. Even the telegram could have been part of cover. FDR says to Earhart "It'd behoove the U.S.A. to have runways on Howland Island, just in case. The world is uncomfortable just now, and I'm worried. The best way for the U.S. to get those runways built is if a nice girl sends a telegram to the President and asks for them so she can land her plane while on a peaceful publicity-stunt. Then Congress will green-light this without fear of international reaction or provocation". That MIGHT be what happened.
Yeah practically she was a failure. She just had a good deal of popularity.
She was arigant and a female chauvinist. She was a horrible navigator. She had the best navigator in the in the industry and fired him just before the trip because he would push back when she was wrong, which was often. Then she hired a yes man for her new navigator.
The sadder thing is that it was supposed to be the first part of the trip, but due to the accident in the first take off attempt she had to go the opposite way, ended up leaving the most challenging part for last and pretty much what could go wrong went wrong. But technically they didn't build an airfield, they just cleaned three runaways for her to land in, it was a rudimentary runaway, there was no pavement, it was a refueling stop to get to the US.
@@keshavchauhan6290 She did succesful cross atlantic. And if it wasn't for major miscommunication on multiple parts, she may have made it.
There is an old grainy video of her takeoff on that leg of the trip that shows a puff of smoke coming from underneath the plane, apparently corresponding to damage to the receiving antenna. That would explain why she apparently could not receive subsequent voice transmissions.
Yeah, this is the one 'easy' mistake that had me shaking my head. Radio check after take-off given the stakes seems vital. I am surprised no one suggested it.
Doesn't matter.
What matters is their refusal to abort the mission and return to the airfield once they figured out nobody was responding to them.
This was very easy to confirm simply by talking to the departure airport over their chosen frequency before leaving the area.
Failing to obtain a radio fix at 51% fuel remaining was a serious point of no return, where they could easily have turned back and landed safely.
@@x--. It may not have been the norm for the time. It was a totally different world for aviation and radio back then
@@mrfahrenheit677 That was my assumption but I figured anyone really familiar with radios would be familiar with how easy it is for them to not be working properly -- maybe radios were just built way better back then?
This video brilliantly explains how small errors and miscommunications led to tragedy. Focusing on science over conspiracy makes Earhart's story even more powerful. A sobering reminder of how preparation, collaboration, and responsibility are crucial for success in high-stakes endeavors.
The ring antenna and the association with it and the origin of the radio is mind-blowing, and sooo cool!
Honestly did not understand frequencies when we studied them in physics before. This demonstration with the graphics is amazing!
She had a truly bad bad record of flying. she was a celebrity 1st, "Pilot" close second. Just glad she didn't let her ego kill more than 2 people. credit for having the balls to do all this, sure, but some people just cannot get the hang of whatever profession they want to master. its the ones that recognize they are likely much better at something else that get way ahead.
Amelia Earhart believed that dead reckoning navigation was a pseudoscience. She thought of it like it was astrology. She simply did not believe that it was possible to accurately compute a course using maps and math. She was a highly unintelligent glory hound. Which of course made her an awful pilot.
@@powderslinger5968 haha didn't know that. makes sense though. couldn't be bothered to study how here radios worked is bad enough. this sheds some light.
@@powderslinger5968 You have no idea what you are talking about.
If dead reckoning were so great why was GPS invented?
Dead reckoning is crap over the distance Earhart wanted to go, combine that
with unknown/changing wind speeds and disaster is programmed.
Celestial navigation requires the absence of clouds, and radio navigation
requires a working radio.
Of his own skills he once remarked, "Navigation in bad weather was my specialty. One passenger remarked, "You don’t always get a glad hand when you sail with Manning, but you feel damned safe."
He retired to a quiet and private life of lecturing and consultant work. He died at his home in Saddle River, NJ on August 1, 1974.
Manning was smart to call it quits. Survival of the smartest.
I was an Ame working on a DHC 6 Caribou. Flying from Inuvik to Melvin Island the RH engine started to wander betwee max and min RPM 2hoursovertheBeaufortSea. As this was before GPS we were usung Loran VLF which was affected by static build up on the Imron paint. We turned back intentionally heading east of Inuvik with the same strategy. Too far north for reliable magnetic compas and the VLF flitting between dead reckoning and actual heading depending on airframe static charge. We flew VLF dead reckoning,the course corrected when the VLF worked until we hit the coast then turned right until we found Tuktoyuk. A few of the scariest hours of my life.
I've been in that region of the world (Norad work) and also flew single engine monoplanes but never that far north. It is one of the scariest part of the world to start having mechanical problems. People have no idea how desolate and isolated it is.
I've been in that region of the world (Norad work) and also flew single engine monoplanes but never that far north. It is one of the scariest part of the world to start having mechanical problems. People have no idea how desolate and isolated it is.
Perhaps I'm too timid, but I'm often surprised at the unnecessary risks she took on the most dangerous and difficult leg of her entire journey. I believe she even ditched her life-raft at Lae. Howland Island is also pretty unique among other Pacific islands, as it isn't part of a large atoll, (which are numerous) nor has any terrain that rises more than a few feet above sea level (like many other volcanic islands)--so spotting it from 1,000' MSL was also nearly impossible, without flying within just a few miles from it. The Itasca itself would have been more easily spotted in a way. Plus the typical weather there consists of numerous low-level cumulus clouds, (typical of oceanic low-pressure equatorial areas) that cast shadows that resemble the size and shape of the island itself.
And on top of that she timed it, so she would be looking to land at Howland at night, making visually spotting the island even more impossible. It was a worthy endeavor, but it was incredibly badly planned and executed, she made so many bad decision and assumption, she pretty much set herself up for failure.
@@dfuher968 Yes, very poorly planned and executed... didn't turn around when not receiving any radio responses halfway there, while also encountering overcast clouds most of the way. I believe they planned to use the rising sun and sextant as part of their "landfall procedure". In any case her last transmission was around 10:30am local time, which meant the sun was at too high an angle to provide a very accurate Line of Position. In one of my videos, I demonstrate a Landfall procedure to Howland Island using a setting sun--albeit a little too low an angle due to incalculable atmospheric refraction.
Wow, after listening to you two I would say I'm surprised nobody called the whole thing off, but life experience has taught me someone (or multiple someones) almost certainly tried. Or at least tried to get her to stop tossing vital gear overboard.
Which of course we know now, 90 years later with satellites, air recon and google earth. Not something very many people would have known or let alone even connected back then. I mean dude a decade later, during ww2 the major powers couldnt even figure out why their pilots would dive bomb and some of the pilots wouldnt pull out of the dive at the bottom and just slam into the ground. They had such rudimentary understandings of these things, she was straight up WILD to attempt what she did so early on in airplane tech. But she was the explorer pioneer type and those people drive our society forward
@@dfuher968 No it's well documented that the arrival/landing was due to occur well after sunrise. Slightly alarming that your comment has had 17 up-votes
19:43 *shakes hands* "I'm a male."
😂😂
Fr wtf did he say? Amamayo?
"On the nail"
“That’s awesome.”
I disagree that Earhart's poor radio skills and knowledge were somehow Thompson's "responsibility".
If they'd sat down in a meeting and discussed the details together then sure, he would be at fault for not pointing out the obvious faults. But he simply followed the plan that she made in her letters, likely because he figured she would've actually spent the time needed to figure out what her plan actually was before trying to fly around the world and therefore saw no reason to question it.
34:15 Um, the only person with the responsibility of getting things right for your safety when you’re attempting such a dangerous stunt is YOU. She made 100 errors and there is nobody to blame but her.
i feel like this is one of the reasons people now are told to confirm they have received the message through the radio. If that was a standard thing before, she might have realized she wasn't getting a response and turned around after the first checkup before she even got too far, but I'm guessing since radio was pretty new at the time people were probably more okay with people not responding on the other end. kind of like how you don't expect someone to tell you they received your sentence every time you share a thought in a phone call.
No, she was just an idiot. Doing radio checks was common practice back then BECAUSE radio was relatively new. Since it was going to be a major part of her navigation to a tiny FLAT island in the middle of the Pacific, checking her radio reception should have been top priority. However, she also ditched her life raft in Lae (before her most dangerous leg of her journey); so she wasn't the most rational "hero".
@@SkyborneVisions I'm guessing the other end didn't acknowledge her messages either. Her acknowledging messages wouldn't help if she was the one who can't receive messages.
@@michawhite7613 If she couldn't receive messages, then it doesn't matter if the other side was acknowledging her messages or not. Her messages weren't being acknowledged period so she should have turned back after realizing that she wasn't getting the messages. She also obviously didn't know how to switch her receiver to her locating antenna either so even if she could've received the messages through it instead of her normal receiver, she wasn't going to. And the safest thing she could've done was turn back.
Even with all that went wrong on the mission.. it still could've been successful if the frequency she told them to broadcast was correct. But being unable to receive communications is just an insane handicap that was just unnecessary for the journey. It was already dangerous enough as it was, no need to accept that sort of handicap. And it was basically that handicap that killed both her and her companion. It wasn't just her life in her hands, it was also her partner's.
@@michawhite7613 The other end wouldve acknowledged her messages but she couldnt hear them and she couldnt use her better morsecode antenna because she didnt bring her morse code guy thats the whole point of this video
@@michawhite7613 If both ends had agreed to acknowledge radio messages, then she would've known that either she wasn't being heard, or that she wasn't receiving. In either case, she would've known before it was too late that she had a problem and to turn back.
10:28 I love how Derek makes that face as thinking of the irony of watching this video wirelessly as he discusses how Hertz doubted his technology
Yeah I thought the same. Listening through wireless headphones, with 5 devices within arm's reach that are capable of wireless communication, and at bandwidths unimaginable to Hertz.
Gonna add here that to be fair, he's not alone at doubting their discoveries/inventions.
One of the Wright brothers once said "No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris"
@@patkundesuinventors and discoverers underestimate their inventions and discoveries all the time. It makes you wonder what seems outlandish now that will be commonplace in a few decades.