Foro CatrachoWings®

[619]

Rudy01:

Welcome to the forum!! TC-48 and other FAA Arg DC-4s came before 1965 to S. California. Perhaps you captured them on film. We are interested in close-ups pictures of Arg DC-4s and the insignia on the side of the fuselage and underneath the wings!!

How did you become interested in TC-48??

[-Rudy01-]

Hello! In 1968 I met the relatives of one of the young officers that were part of the illfated flight. It was a sad circumstance that I never forgot. I'm interested in the topic since, like most of us, I would like to help bring some closure to the family members that still today don't have a true answer.

[619]

Rudy01:

Rg! What kind of data/info/photos do you have since 1968 pertaining the whereabouts of this mysterious aircraft?

Did the relatives say anything new/different other than what is already known?? qap

Are you still in touch with them in 2006??

All for now!

[-Rudy01-]

Hi there!
The photos I have for now, are the same ones available on the net, newspapers and the book (TC-48, El avion de Los Cadetes). I asked for other unseen photos (which in reality I don't know if they exist at all) in order to help in the ident. of any part of the ship. Short time ago I contacted Cap. Viberti's daughter simply to express the feelings I kept with me during the past 40 years regarding this tragedy. I will be travelling to Argentina very soon and am planning to gather as much info on this issue as possible, including visiting the family members I met in 68 if time permits.
There is still a lot of open questions and the accuracy of some of the information available is somehow dubious or not supported by solid facts. I would like to help clear all these issues and I believe that patience, observation and a critical analysis of all the circumstances around the incident will help in achieving the right outcome. I'll let you know if the close up pics you asked for exist at all. I would like to mention also, that I'm glad to see how well you guys have been managing the discussions on the TC-48. Let's keep it up and help close this dark chapter on the FAA history.

[619]

Rudy01:

"Ya estamos entrando en detalles como decimos es nuestros paises" .

I agree with you! There are lots of unanswered questions on this matter. There is also some code of silence with the crew/cadets of TC-43 in 2006!
Plz e-mail us back all the radio transcriptions that appear in the book when you get a chance. Your trip to Argentina sounds great plz pm back for good POCs during your trip.

We are looking at this matter fm another angle/impartial point of view. Like usual somewhere in betweem the true exist!

All for now!!

[-Rudy01-]

Hello again!
I've read about certain "code of silence" not only among the TC-43 crew members but other FAA officers involved in this incident as well. I do not believe in "Codes of Silence" when 69 human beings are still missing after 40 years and, most likely, their lives were lost due to the irresponsible behavior of a few that still are above ground. If any decent FAA officer knows anything about the TC-48 that could help solve this puzzle, he should step forward and stick to the only code a good soldier should live for: The Code of Honor. And Honor is achieved only by telling the Truth regardless of any personal bias, sympathy or friendship. If in 2006 there are FAA officers that knowingly hide any vital info on the case of the TC-48 disaster, I have only four words for them: Shame on you, gentlemen...
I will get you the info you requested my friend. I hope I'll be able to find new material to help us in this search. Nevertheless, I believe that the best elements of proof to determine that any wreckage found in CR could belong to the TC-48, must come from the aircraft and / or engines ident. plates. The aircraft S/N or the engines (4 pretty massive P/W R-2000's) will suffice besides, of course, any DNA test of human remains. A piece o wing or fuselage with some markings is good, but not irrefutable enough. The c-54 is a big chunk of metal and even if it exploded before hitting the ground, those engines must be there, someplace... Even, if the incident occurred over the Golfo de los Mosquitos as the FAA claims, then those 4 P/W engines are underwater and could be located. Well, lets start from the beginning once more and see if we can make a difference. I'll keep you posted.
Regards

[619]

Rudy01:

Rg! with the requested info. Plz read Theory #1 concerning the fuselage of this elusive aircraft. 2 witnesess claimed to have seen the central fuselage of poss FA Argentina plane. We are still checking the picture of the poss fuselage found in Costa Rica!

All for now!!

[-Rudy01-]

FAH619:
I'm assuming you refer to your comments made on August 1 on the forum "Aviacion Argentina". If your witnesses of such wreckage are reliable you may have a path to the solution. I still believe that rock solid evidence will be required even after finding a fuselage or other pieces of it.
As you also mentioned in one of your previous messages, we should focus on determining the real weight and balance of the airship at take-off and have an idea of the average weight of all the occupants plus the typical cargo distribution scheme (including those "misterious" boxes if they existed at all), real amount of fuel loaded, etc. Knowing the last coordinates and altitude radioed by the aircraft or determined by the airport radar and the weather conditions at the time (main winds, etc) will help determine a possible glide slope and a point of impact. But all these parameters must be factual. There is no room for "I believe", "I think", "Somebody said", "Probably". If we base the crash theories mostly in assumptions we will never achieve a positive outcome. We must gather official documentation and once we have it, then we may add all the assumptions we want. Are there any verifiable records available from Howard AFB?
Based on what I read, official records seem to have "vanished" (there has to be a copy some place, there is always a copy...). I'll find out more on this during my next trip. Anyway, I hope these witnesses you mentioned will be able to locate the wreckage once more and that such wreckage will be the one we are willing to find. Keep up the good work!

[619]

Rudy01:

Is there any possible way that you can make a stop-over in Costa Rica? If you have not seen this place.. I'd like to invite you to consider it. Write me pm for details. Tks

p.s The exact copy of the aircraft transmissions were made available to Mr. Becerra according to the book. But the book publishes sporadic traffic only not all of it!! For Instance: What do the pilot mean when he said in Spanish "tenemos fuego abordo...."

We also need to know if known the S/n of this particular aircraft. Tks

[619]

Rudy01:

p.s If you are interested in further reading plz ck this link:

http://www.electranewbritain.com

Mr. Billings has spent some 12 yrs and lots of $$$$$ trying to find out A/ Earhart Lockheed 10 in Papua New Guinea/ All based in a single piece of evidence:

"an engine ID plate" !!

[-Rudy01-]

FAH619:
Thanks for the offer but, no, for the time being I don’t think it is necessary for me to go to CR. I’m just starting to investigate the case and for what I’ve seen the overall evidence seems to be very weak still today.
I will definitively travel to CR when the state of this research calls for it. I understand there have been already several unsuccessful expeditions but I also appreciate the honest efforts of those who already attempted to find the wreckage. I think that the credibility, professionalism and good will shown by this people is out of the question. I commend all of them for their courage and passion. But I think that now is time to settle down for a while, gather the real, solid facts available, re-visit all past witnesses’ accounts and start from square one. At least this is just my point of view in the issue.
Anyway, when the time comes for me to go, I promise you’ll be the first one to know. I heard it is a beautiful place for tourism but my trip would not be one for pleasure at all.
We’ll keep it straight business only!
Regarding what is published in Mr. Becerra’s book on the wording used in part of a transmission, what you say is absolutely correct. I noticed the same thing when I saw the paragraph. This is another piece of the language puzzle that is part of this whole story.
“Tenemos fuego a bordo” means literally “we have fire on board”. And, as you see, “fire on board” is not the same as “engine three on fire”.
“Fire on board” could lead to a major disaster in the air. This could be an indication that the aircraft never reached the ground intact but exploded who knows how many feet above the surface. Now, if this was the case, debris must have been scattered around an area which size could be determined if we knew at what altitude the ship blew up. We can risk guessing some figures (7000, 6000, 5000 feet??). I think that at first it’ll be best to confirm (I should say re-confirm) that “Tenemos fuego a bordo” was the right statement used by the pilot. Then, we’ll go from there…
In regard of the S/N of the aircraft (airframe plus engines) this is something that should be made available by the FAA. In reality it must be public record. The last resort should be the manufacturer of the aircraft. I’ll let you know what I found about this when I come back.

[-Rudy01-]

FAH619:
Thanks for the link! The work of Mr. Billings is superb and extremely professional. Just the way I like to do this things…Well, the story on this website confirms my point of view completely. It is amazing that Mr. Billings was able to go all that way starting with a good report and just a Repair Tag (not an engine ID plate). It seems to be a twist of fate that the Australian officer did not look for the engine ID plate or the aircraft registration number.
All the information showed in this site is outstanding and I’m sure you understand that the TC-48 records do not come even close to what Mr. Billings already produced. And the funny thing is that he started from an actual finding of a wreckage and the corresponding report plus the Repair Tag. What do we have on the TC-48? Zero, zip, nada, zilch!! We have a lot of stories though, that range from messages engraved on trees, possible cadets taken care of by a resident teacher, to Indians wearing an officer’s hat and ring and the best of all: flying saucers abducting the whole plane!.
I hope you see the difference in your comparison my friend.
There is no doubt in my mind that money has to be spent if anything is to be achieved and I’m sure that lots of money were already spent on the TC-48 affaire. Billings knows that the Lockheed Electra wreckage has to be there today. He definitely has a case. We don’t.
He may need an airborne magnetometer as he claims. The Lockheed Electra is a small aircraft incapable of feathering its propellers so it is likely that the crash was pretty destructive.
Amelia’s Lockheed had a span of 55’ (this is about 17 m), a length of 38”7” (about 12 m) and a height of 10’1”(around 3m). Pretty small, huh?
Now lets see, our C-54 missing had a span of 117’6” (about 36 m), a length of 93’10” (around 29 m) and a height of 27’6” (about 8 m). Pretty big, huh?
Now we realize that if our TC-48 crash-landed without causing major damage to the airframe it will probably have more chances than the Lockheed Electra to be spotted from above. Besides, we know that the TC-48 pilot had a least an engine (probably two) fully feathered. As Mr. Billings correctly states, powerful engines will crush trees and branches and because of this the propellers will bend outwards. The opening on the jungle created by this penetration should be pretty large, thus increasing the visibility of the impact area. Remember that Amelia’s Lockheed engines could deliver 600 HP and each engine on the TC-48 was capable of 1450 HP (Wow!). Now, what if the TC-48 fell at a steep angle and crashed on a swamp area? Are there areas with this type of surface features in CR?
Also, and as I mentioned before, the story is definitively different if the aircraft exploded while attempting the emergency landing.
So, my friend, as you see we have a lot of unanswered questions, grayish reports, and unsupported data. What happened to some of the original witnesses that claimed to have seen a four engine aircraft going down over CR? Are they still alive? Will they recall the event with precision? Who were those resident witnesses of Vesta, Penhurst, Volio, Fortuna and Bambu?. Any records on those witnesses account?
What about Mr. Rosalio Valladares Flores who apparently had the chance to use a theodolite to figure out the bearing of the falling TC-48? Where is the data he collected? Or maybe he did not make it after all? How come Ms. Talia Rojas could not exchange a word with those possibly injured crew members? It is hard to believe that the native indians will care much about bringing the officers to her so first aid can be provided, and not let the injured express what was wrong with them. Are there any pictures of the message apparently engraved on a tree asking for medicines, etc.? Or maybe it wasn’t a message but the standard signals used for survival: II meaning Require Medical Supplies, and or I meaning Require Doctor. For trained individuals like those officers were, probably this signs would make more sense.
Well, I guess it’ll take me a long time to put all my thoughts together now and I don’t want to create chaos by throwing out to many queries at the same time. Like I told you before, let’s go slow but over solid ground.

[619]

Rudy01:

Well said!! I'm glad someone is paying attention. The term "feathering" is also mentioned but we do not know if he was able to feather both engines or just one. The radio transmissions will probably confirm this. I suspect they did... due to the distance travelled fm the beginning of the emergency.

Do we know for a fact that they threw stuff out of the back door?? to try to lighten the aircraft? ....Yes, I totally agree with you, we know very little about this case and have and immense task ahead of us!! Plz Pass this link to other aviation folks in your area and keep the ball rolling!

2 pilotos DC-4/DC-6 viejos who are also following this case suggested that if a fire was on board/aboard TC-48 they would have gone for the short runway of Pto. Limon.. & land wheels up if necessary. They also mentioned about your theory...yes and engine on fire and out of control can blow-up the whole plane in minutes!! They explained this with luxory of details.

plz ck your pm!!

[-Rudy01-]

Well, I'm not certain we know for a fact that the rear door(s) were opened in order to throw things out of the airplane. When reading the paragraphs of the book that mention this instance on board, it seems to be a sort of re-creation by the author of what could have happened inside the aircraft that would somehow justify the stuff that was found floating at sea. But it could also be part of the conversations picked by the tower during the exchange of transmissions (I seriously doubt this), but there is no way for me to know (for now). On the other hand, this version of C-54 was used by airborne troops, meaning this, that most likely it had the rows of sidewall jump seats only, where the paratroopers sit while waiting for the jump (this is a conjecture of mine, I cannot fully ascertain if this is correct but if it is "no cigar, it's pretty close". What still confuses me is that it is mentioned that the majority of the cadets were sleeping at that precise moment (How do they know???)so it could be that standard seats were added at some point). So, assuming having the cadets seating on the sides, probably their loose luggage will be with them either on the floor or under the jump seats. There should be straps to secure the soldiers during take off and landings but I don't know if at that time they're wearing these. One thing is certain though, opening the rear door on a falling aircraft without wearing the securing straps could jeopardize the lives of all those on board and also (maybe more than others) the safety of the person actually opening the door(s). I understand that desperate situations require desperate measures and maybe something like this happened. Were they flying at 190 m/h (about 300 km/h) or faster while loosing altitude? Was it raining heavily at that moment? How flyable was the aircraft at that moment? . Weight and balance was being changed abruptly and two engines may have been already off. The more I look at this, the more I found it less feasible to have somebody open the doors and take time to decide what things to throw away. This must have been a horrible instance to start thinking like Hollywood does...

[619]

Rudy01:

I totally agree with you again.

Do you have a copy of the anonymous letter sent to one of the families of TC-48 by an UNID cadet??

The reason why the ID of the other cadet surfaced plus some of his money ($$$ bills) at El Salvador was because the receiving cadet was told that TC-48 was packed like sardines. (He was afraid of losing some belongings). Yes it was a paratrooper aircraft among other things, modified to also fly in the S. Pole. The cadet also mentioned that things were a bit out of control. I do not know what kind of seats they were but I bet they were not the confy type. Some of these cadets also smoke.

After a night out in Howard... you bet these young cadets were catching some zzzz during that flight at least prior to the emergency. This is the report that is MIA in all this. Either Arg AF or Howard was involved at one time with all the details of the crew of TC-48 24 Hrs prior to the flight.

Did they follow proper/mandatory crew rest? A what time does the billeting office at Howard AB reports the crew in the building ready for the next day flight??

Ref: The comments are about the crashed of DC-4 FAH 799 over Costa Rica circa Nov -1974. This plane also took off frm Howard AB.

I'm trying to find out the comments of the crew members of TC-43/cadets in 2006!

All for now!!

[-Rudy01-]

Hello again!
No, I don't have the full text of such letter but part of it is published by the paper "La Voz del Interior" on-line. According to what is displayed on the web page these paragraphs are attibuted to the misterious cadet from TC-43 who allegedly received personal belongings from another cadet flying on the TC-48:
“De todos los padres de nuestros compañeros del TC-48, ustedes son quizá los más cruelmente engañados. Indirectamente yo colaboré con ello. Su hijo me pidió en Panamá que le llevara su cédula, los dólares y unos gemelos. Temía extraviarlos... Cuando se nos comunicó el accidente, yo entregué al entonces director de la escuela eso que no me pertenecía y en especial el dinero del que se me había hecho depositario. Después, todo ello fue utilizado mal: para evidenciar una muerte en el mar”.
Here, the cadet of the TC-43 states that he gave the personal belongings of the fallen comrade to a certain Brigadier Andrade for him to return these items to the family of the missing cadet.
If all this is correct, and the letter was not a bad hoax prepared by some sick individual (and believe me, there is always somebody with real bad taste under circumstances like this one), then the FAA should have made this event an official issue and inquire this Brigadier in regards to the accusations stated in the document. At least Mr. Andrade should have stepped forward, face the families of the missing airmen and tell them his side of the story, being this: "This is a calumny and I'm putting this in the hands of Law Enforcement to find out who is joking with the tragedy of my comrades", or "Yes, I received those personal items given to me by the cadet who wrote this letter" and face the consequences. Both decisions would make this gentleman an honest soldier after all. But this doesn't seem to have been the case at all. As usual, "chickens hide, tigers roar". There is no honor in the cadet that wrote the letter if this letter is genuine. There cannot be any honor in a person that knows that a crime has been committed and, worst of all, knows who is the criminal.
So, is it a genuine letter, is it just a hoax at the expense of 68 grieving families? Well, regardless of what this letter is, one thing is true, the items that the FAA claimed to have found floating at sea. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make the case for the FAA. Oh no, there is a lot for the FAA to explain. And I think that today, more than ever, they cannot just say: Oh please, just believe us...
The case of the allegedly floating items requires some deep thought but I'll leave that for later on.

[-Rudy01-]

Hi,
One more thing. We must find a way to determine the actual accommodation of the C-54 G under the TC-48 registration. The original specs for this transport vessel state a capacity range of 44 to 80 passengers including the flight crew. So, I believe the terms "packed like sardines" will be dependent on the actual seats the aircraft had. We know that the airplane is capable of carrying up to 80 passengers but, how? I think the question for us should be: How many paratroopers did the TC-48 carry at a given time? This will give us a preliminary idea of how the cadets were accomodated. The worries that a cadet had about losing his personal belongings in a packed ship may have some solid ground. But my concern is, would I be worring of losing my military ID, a pair of small gold cuff links and a hundred bucks (for a cadet in 1965 that was a lot of money though)?? Will they be safer in the TC-43 because it had better seats? I will probably make sure that the real good stuff don't get lost. Something like expensive photo or movie cameras, very personal jewelry like family pendants, necklaces and items that really have a strong private meaning for me. Of course cuff links could be included if they have a special meaning for the owner or they are remarkably expensive. The other thing is that you are sharing the aircraft with your buddies of 4 years or so at the Academy; they're not strangers that may take your things away. I don't know but it sure looks a little bit preposterous. Now, what was "out of control" inside the aircraft? Does this mean that the guys had no control on their behavior? So I must assume that all the higher rank officers on board could not control the brand new officers?And the TC-43 did not have any "behavioral problems" at all?mmm, it doesn't sound right. I agree with you, I'm sure they were smoking and the seats were not of the confy type and some of the guys probably were going through the past night hangover, but all this is not a sound reason to make sure an ID card, 100 dollars and a pair of cuff links fly safe. There has to be something else in this story that we are just missing. Regarding what the cadets of the TC-43 have to say today, I wouldn't have high expectations at all. The newspaper La Voz del Interior interviewed by phone a certain high rank officer of the FAA named Miguel Giampieri and when asked about the TC-48 incident he said:
"I don't know anything about this issue, I don't know what you are talking about. I understand that there was a certain TC-48 aircraft that crashed but I have nothing to do with that incident. I'm sorry, but I cannot be of any help to you..." wow, that I call a "clear" message!! And this is a "Lieutenant Commander" of the FAA that barely remembers that 69 of his fellowmen are still missing. No, my friend, don't expect too much from the guys of the TC-43. If they did not step forward after 40 years, they will never do. It must be hard to live with such guilt.

[SuperMike]

Para FAH619.
Favor de corregir el dato del FAH-799. El avión salió de TGU con rumbo a Howard AFB y el último contacto que se tuvo fue despues de las seis de la mañana. El accidente ocurrió mas o menos a las 7am.

[619]

Super Mike:

Rg! Por favor seguir el caso del FAH 799 en respectivo tema. Puedes ser mas especifico con tus datos? Fecha, itenerario, Lugar. referencias etc. Tks

[619]

Rudy01:

We have a few items in the oven in C.R at this time. Others in Argentina. Plus a few more in the U.S
From the place that we less expect a rabbit will jump! If any cadets/officers are willing to talk it will be underground/private comments never in the open.

C/w.com will focus in Costa Rica and the last sight/transmission made by TC-48. You are right, where are the so callled C.R witnesses on the ground? We don't even know if TC-48 made it to Pto Limon??

All for now!!

[619]

p.s Perhaps we should start with some simple questions and then we'll fill in the blanks as time progresses with the findings!

1. What? A DC-4/C-54 ARg AF TC-48 vanishes S. of Pto Limon. Costa
Rica. DC-4 S/N ? C/N?

2. Who/Whom? 69 Arg Cadets including the crew.

3. When? 3 Nov 1965 appx 07:06 + Hrs (Panama Time).

4. How? poss While flying with eng #3 feathered. poss #4 S. of Limon.
C.R

5. Where? We are looking for a UTC map of the poss area.

6. However/Comments..

7. Why?

Poss overloaded aircraft as theory #1. TC-48 needed longer take-off distance, meaning slower climb, exposing the engines to higher temps. They flew fine from Argentina to Chile, fm Chile to Lima Peru because they only took the amout of fuel required for the next stop. The overload factor was not in the equation of weight & balance of the C-54 at these stops. Ref DC-4/DC-6 pilotos viejos!

8. Photos/Documents/hard data available: Coming up!

We have a poss Arg AF fuselage pic taken c. 1966 poss C.R. We also have a poss witness AKA Roberto who claims to have been at the TC-48 crash site some 20 yrs ago. AKA Roberto is MIA for now while looking for some more pictures. We are waiting for him to surface or remain sumerged for awhile.


R01:

I'll let you take the 1st shots!

[-Rudy01-]

Hello guys…
Well, I hope some of the TC-43 passengers will like to talk about these issues but I still have serious doubts mainly because of the time elapse. I grant you the possibility that after so many years, a person matures, the sense of guilt may either vanish or increase to some unbearable point that the individual breaks and decides to “talk”. As I said before, no decent person can live a stable, normal life having witnessed (and therefore being part of) a blatant cover up that tries to send friends and comrades to oblivion. No, those who know what was hidden to the public and have solid proof of this, must decide if it is better to spend the rest of their careers with dubious honor all the way to the end of their lives or break the silence and work with the law on their side to bring the whole truth to light. If any of these officers is willing to start talking in a private environment only, so be it, but the info will have to be pretty consistent and we may have to see results after those testimonies. If somebody decides to talk and after this we are left empty handed, then the talk was useless. No more nonsense talk on this case. The victims’ families already had a lot of “lip work” with no outcome.
In regards to the witnesses that claimed to have seen the TC-48 falling over CR I think we should try to get the right names and locations. Maybe we can try to locate these persons through the local governments (Municipalities) in CR or else. Unfortunately some of these individuals may not be alive today.
I agree with you about your comment on the TC-48 making it to the area of Puerto Limon. The pilot of LACSA flight 616 that advised Capt. Viberti to attempt a landing at Puerto Limon gave the right advice. Just by looking at the maps you can see that it was the most reasonable option and I don’t see why the TC-48 would go further west to El Coco airport having two engines full feathered and maybe “fuego a bordo??”(remember?) Cap. Viberti was a seasoned pilot and so were the other crew members so it is unlikely that they were going to jeopardize the safety of the flight by attempting to fly an overloaded aircraft above mountains and a jungle with only two engines running and possibly a fire taking place inside the ship. One more thing to stress is that this crew was comprised of qualified personnel, they had a navigator, first and second pilots, two aircraft mechanics and the aircraft commander. So, wouldn’t you ask your navigator to look up in the chart and figure where Puerto Limon shows? Pilots and crew members are trained for emergencies. It can be said that the efficiency of their training depends on many factors that at the end will determine the quality of the results. Nobody should question the preparedness that these guys had as much as humanly possible to deal with emergencies while in flight. The weather condition of that day is an important parameter to consider. By this, I mean that we must determine the degree of visibility from the aircraft. Without the radio compass, they had to fly VFR and I’m sure the pilot was looking for the demarcation lines between sea and shore. In the worst case scenario a ditch on any shore would have been better than a crash in the jungle; the depth of the beaches around Puerto Limon start at around 50 m or so. Although the length of the runway may not have been the ideal for a C-54 in 1965, I doubt the LACSA pilot would advise a crippled aircraft to attempt to land in an inappropriate strip. And once the pilot sees a landing zone available for an emergency touch down, I don’t think he’ll have hesitations at all.
The question that lingers is: Once he decided to follow the advice, was he able to set the right course and crashed while trying that route? If so, then the wreckage must be between Bocas del Toro and Puerto Limon (what were the coordinates of the aircraft at the moment of exchanging messages with the LACSA pilot?). Those who claim that the C-54 ditched over the Golfo de Los Mosquitos base their comment on the location where the debris was found and not in an analysis of speed and altitude of the aircraft, latitude and longitude of the last transmission and eyewitnesses accounts if any.
The debris “found” is another story by itself so we’ll discuss it later on.
Yes, maybe the airplane hit the sea at some point. It is a possibility that should not be eliminated from these hypothesis even though we tend to dislike considering such alternative. But admitting this possibility does not clear the FAA attitude and does not validate the recovery of a few items that defy the basic buoyancy principles (and this is material for another post). The coordinates where this debris was found are 0854N-8056W according to an article published by Cap. Viberti’s daughter. This area falls within the Escudo de Veraguas with depths over 200 m at least.
Any modern unmanned sub equipped with the appropriate instrumentation can scan the sea floor and map the area under suspicion. Of course, this means a new and costly expedition. But we have the technology to do it today. Maybe this is an alternative that should be considered in the near future. If the aircraft is found, there will be closure for the families and other revelations that will undoubtedly affect the FAA. If it is not found, the other theories will grow stronger and there will be more reasons to go back to the CR jungles.

[619]

Rudy 01:

Just to filter some of the available data:

1. According to your info/data who is the source/sources of "the heated discussion of the TC-48 pilots at Howard AB prior to take off??

2. Who actually saw the interior of the mysterious boxes inside TC-48?

3. How is it known that TC-48 was fueled with a "full tank of gas" at Howard AB?

All for now!!

[-Rudy01-]

Hello FAH 619,
1- I believe the discussion between pilots that you mention refers to a statement made by Cap. Viberti's son to Semanario Tribuna (No 1960, December 3, 2005). In reality it may not have been a discussion between pilots because Fonseca (the officer who had the argument with Viberti) is listed as a passenger. Nevertheless he was a higher rank officer and Viberti had to carry on the order of "fly now and complain later" (unbelievable!, since only pilots on duty are the ones to decide if their aircraft is ready to fly or not!). Anyway I would like to know how Cap. Viberti's son found out about this conversation. Maybe word of mouth or is it well documented?
2- I never saw any document or article clearly stating that there was any mysterious box inside the TC-48 at the time of taking off from Howard AFB. I read about presumptions that there was some "unusual" cargo. But if you read the article on the interview to Cap. Viberti's son, he does not believe in the existance of any strange cargo like guns or ammo and much less that the aircraft was shot down by an american fighter jet. The good thing is that I agree completely with his statement.
3- If the records of weight and fueling of the TC-48 in Howard AFB at the moment of taking off are missing, I think we will have to rely only in "word of mouth" which is probably the only info available today.
This is somehow funny because yesterday I created a list of questions to be answered and these questions of yours were already placed in my list. I think we are making a good team!!
Following this message I'll post the questionaire and I also prepared a map of the flight that would like to post as a reference for all of us.
See you in a while,

[619]

Rudy01:

Just 2 more for the record:

1. Where do the navegational points of TC-48 come from??

2. What is the most convincing evidence in 2006 that TC-48 crashed over land or at sea?

3. Can any of the TC-43 cadets make a guess of their navegational points? At least those who were not taking some zzzz and perhaps looking out of the windows??

all for now