5 ms·
Air Force pays goooood[0]. But seriously: >> but then we're thinking: 'How do we lift the plane? How do we salvage it?'" Don't. Just leave it. Be happy it
by HumblyTossed 3y ago
Air Force pays goooood[0].
But seriously:
>> but then we're thinking: 'How do we lift the plane? How do we salvage it?'"
Don't. Just leave it. Be happy it was found, but just be respectful and leave it.
[0] Yes, I RTFA.
- deadbabe 3y agoIt can be raised respectfully.
- yardstick 3y agoProbably can. Should it though? Like the Titanic, maybe we just let it rest in peace? Send a sub down to confirm what it is. Then maybe update a few of the monuments to her to indicate her final resting place has been found… My only concern would be looters. If it is quite feasible to access “easily” then yeah maybe we should recover it just to protect against looters and pillagers.
- not-my-account 3y agoThe titanic is massssive, making raising it a much more difficult challenge compared to raising a single aircraft.
- notbeuller 3y agoThere was a rather silly 1976 thriller “Raise the Titanic!” predating it’s actual discovery by about 10 years. They made a movie from it too in 1980. Based on a premise that there was something valuable the government wanted on board)
- RegBarclay 3y agoThen Arthur Clarke wrote "The Ghost from the Grand Banks" in 1990 (after Ballard discovered it was in pieces) with a slightly more plausible approach to raising the bow. The wreck has deteriorated now to the point where raising it would probably destroy more than what would be recovered.
- Kon-Peki 3y agoIt appears that there would be significant questions about ownership and whether maritime salvage laws apply [1]. Remember that Earhart was a faculty member at Purdue University, the aircraft was owned by the university, and it was filled with student experiments. They're going to claim that it still belongs to them. You're going to spend millions to recover it and then immediately get hit with a lawsuit demanding you turn it over to them. By an entity that will have no problem collecting enough donations to fund the best lawyers for as long as it takes. [1] https://www.perthilj.com/blog/2019/2/19/aircraft-salvage-in-admiralty-law https://www.perthilj.com/blog/2019/2/19/aircraft-salvage-in-...
- reaperman 3y agoSeems like a situation where it would be best to get all parties with any claim that wouldn’t be summarily dismissed to agree on details of what should happen with the salvage before committing to recovering it.
- deadbabe 3y agoYes absolutely, there’s no reason for the plane to rest at the bottom of an ocean forever. The bottom of the ocean is the opposite of rest, it’s hell.
- Beldin 3y agoTo you, there's no reason. To others, there is. That by itself shows the need for discussion (where either side ought to listen to the other). With respect to the argument of putting the plane rests in a museum: I do not see how that would be better than being able to visit the actual place where the crash occurred, with the plane still somewhere below the waves.
- stronglikedan 3y ago> Should it though? Yes, it's a plane not a person. We can learn from it, and Earhart won't care.
- yardstick 3y agoWhat could we learn from taking it out of the water vs leaving it in its grave? There will be no FAA safety notices (or whatever they are called) based on the findings.
- paulddraper 3y agoIf it were a feasible to raise the Titanic as a small aircraft, it would have been done.
- MeImCounting 3y agoAside from the practicality of the two, the Earheart wreck seems much more like something our society would want to honor. An explorer and adventurer who's legacy and life pushed equality forward for women across the west vs a failed engineering project which was mostly a status symbol for rich people.
- dclowd9901 3y agoLooters are exactly why we should raise it. Protect it from unscrupulous people.
- cozzyd 3y agoYeah, but then amateur submariners can't offer expensive tours in their homebuilt craft.
- jdawg777 3y agoSalvaging the plane could give interesting clues about what led to the crash.
- HumblyTossed 3y agoThat's just morbid curiosity...
- quatrefoil 3y agoI find it odd to see geeks, on a site essentially devoted to idle curiosity, speaking out against idle curiosity. There is value in showing respect for the dead, mostly for the benefit of those near death and the grieving families, but the arguments made here seem weird to me. Do we seal homes and turn them into tombs when a person dies inside? Do we leave car wrecks on the side of the road?
- alpaca128 3y agoCuriosity is great but that doesn't mean it should always take priority. Would it be nice to know how that plane crashed? Sure, but we also figured out how the Titanic sank without lifting it out of the water. > Do we leave car wrecks on the side of the road? No, but we also don't need 80 years to find car wrecks on the side of the road, and there are various reasons to remove them. This comparison is ridiculous.
- lp0_on_fire 3y agoI think the "risks" of disturbing a grave site are greater than any "rewards" for doing it. A home in which someone died can be used again by another person after proper cleaning and what not. Wrecks on the side of the road are usually removed because they are a danger to other motorists. In the case of Earhart's plane the air frame and navigation systems are 75ish years out of date so it's not like there is a pressing need to solve a potential safety issue. IMO there is nothing of value to be gained besides "solving the mystery" and perhaps gathering a few personal artifacts that could be displayed in a museum or returned to the families.
- not-my-account 3y agoIf we raise it, it will almost certainly end up in a museum where many many people will see it and connect with Earhart and her story. Earhart would near deification, I’d guess. Plus the inspiration of many young boys and girls to adventure. I don’t quite see where the lack of respect would come from. Or, if it is disrespectful to raise the crash, that disrespect would be repaid many times over with honour in a museum, no?
- digging 3y ago> Earhart would near deification, I’d guess. Let's not get hyperbolic. She's already well known. Agreed though that displaying her plane in a museum would seem respectful to me.
- VBprogrammer 3y agoI can't imagine what would be recovered of a crash of a light aluminium aircraft after a century at the bottom of the ocean would bear much resemblance to an aircraft. I think it's a great thing to locate and document the discovery but I don't see much to be gained from raising it.
- GolfPopper 3y agoPlus, it would be a violation of the Benthic Treaty with the Deep Ones.
- jncfhnb 3y agoFrankly I think her story is a bit less inspiring without the mystery
- s_dev 3y ago>Don't. Just leave it. Be happy it was found, but just be respectful and leave it. I don't see anything inherently disrespectful about rasing the plane from the seabed. I recall people telling James Cameron that he should leave the Titanic alone but he made a great movie and brought the ship back in to the public imagination and didn't disrespect the fact many souls were lost tragically. The ship was deemed not economically viable to salvage but this plane is much much smaller and it may be worth putting in a museum. I'm presuming you are offended on behalf of other people but if not can you elaborate why you find the idea so offensive or disrespectful?
- TylerE 3y agoThe big problem with Titanic is how deep it is. Very, even by ocean standards.
- tomjakubowski 3y agoTitanic (12,500ft) is pretty close to average ocean depth (12,080ft).
- TylerE 3y agoThe Pacific is several thousand feet deeper on average than the Atlantic, though. Especially the parts of the Atlantic near the US mainland are quite shallow, with the continental shelf extending outwards well offshore. I guess it would have been more accurate to say that for a ship in the major Atlantic shipping lanes, Titanic is quite deep. Even looking for Titanic was a cover story in the first place. They were actually looking for a sunken Russian sub that was sorta in the area. It was only when they had a bit of left over time at the end of the mission that they ACTUALLY found Titanic, almost accidentally.
- HumblyTossed 3y agoBecause there's little to be gained save morbid curiosity. She did amazing things alive, celebrate that. Putting a wreck in a museum will emphasize her death. Enjoy disagreeing...
- whycome 3y agoGood use case for Apple Vision Pro, etc. Capture the plane in situ and then have it available to view as an AR model (at home, or in a 'museum' space). Let users 'walk' or 'swim' around the wreck.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoIt looks like there's something similar for the Titanic already, so, not a weird suggestion to make.
- TylerE 3y agoNo so sure. Titanic is essentially unique, her two sisters not lasting much longer, the last going to the scrappers in 1935. There were quite a few model 10 Electras built. Over a dozen survive, with several still flying. The Earhart museum already has a 10E, even.
- paulddraper 3y ago> just be respectful IDK if littering wrecks is more respectful than putting them in a museum.
- whartung 3y agoIndeed. Just leave it. Document it, photograph it, leave it. There's no reason to lift it, to "restore it", etc. It's a wreck. Leave it alone. Go find a "modern" Electra, and make that as "close to Earharts" plane for your display. But there's no reason to drag this thing up. If this plane were shot down, it would be considered a war grave and left untouched. No reason to not treat this the same. Rejoice if she has, indeed, been found. Peace for the families, finally.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]