[ATTACH=CONFIG]239911[/ATTACH]

This is the Navigator class photo from No.60 OTU ORB.

F/O Margrie is third from left , front row.

No.43 Course – Navigators

Back Row
Sgt Young, P/O Horeler, Sgt Williams, F/O Wallis, P/O Berney, F/O Wise, Sgt Reich, Sgt Brown

Front Row
P/O Koen, P/O Embley. P/O Margrie, P/O Busby, P/O Hewitt, P/O Langston, P/O Tinkess

Edit – Looking at earlier pages of the ORB P/O Margrie is listed as being posted into No.60 on 29th Dec 1944, arriving from Harrogate (this is normally the PRC holding unit where he was waiting space to open up at No.60 OTU )

Ross

This version of edge code card was for “manual drop” and was used from 31st Dec 1941 in the Form 1180 series.

To denote a condition the perforation was opened up.

When a search was to be undertaken then a stack of cards arranged in a similar manner would have long rods passed through the relevant space (one edge at a time) eg for No.4 GTS two rods would be put through the stack at 7 and 2 in the Unit Class.

The whole stack would be picked up by the rod ends and shaken – all cards for No.4 GTS would drop out because of the open perforation.

Cards that dropped could be gathered together and sorted again by using the same method until you got the ones that you wanted.

No need to replace the cards into the stack in orginal order after the sort any subsequent search will find matches regardless of stack position (it’s why some cards appear out of order in the microfilm)

This card shows one of the disadvantages of the drop as two aircraft types are listed on the same card and they could not open up the aircraft type perforations correctly. So any drops for Hector, type 53 or Hotspur, type 183 would not find this card.

Later machine readable versions were optical coincidence where the holes were filled until the info was entered then a hole punched. To find a match the card was passed over a light source – where it showed then a match was made.

Ross

Yup – that’s one of the problems with what merlindown are saying they can find

The thematic bands 1 to 5 and 7 are normally 30m but with good software you can get this down to about 15 m as you say.

Band 6 is 120 for IR resampled to 30 m to match bands 1 to 5.

For the sub-surface analysis to work to need an object several mtr in length lying on a 50 x 50 mtr bottom of constant depth/composition.

As you are using the pixel change to denote depth it comes down to not the width resolution but the absorbtion of sunlight to produce a pixel change and for the 10mtr depth of sea water this equates to about 2 mtr penetration.

Ross

The resource and software is legit. It’s the application and results that are suspect.

The satellite imaging is available for all to examine and is of much more current images that Google Earth etc.

It has been used to show locations of both buried and shallow submerged artefacts but for submerged objects it needs some fairly comprehensive comparison between the bands to produce an anomaly image from the changes.

Limited to depths where sunlight can penetrate and to objects that stand proud of the seabed by more than the resolution of the image band eg 2 to 4 mtr.

Every so often he pops up to claim a new coastal find.

Shades of Dive the World
http://www.merlindownscience.co.uk/b17-bomber/

Ross

The dishes are not part of the Chain Home but were ACE High

See this list for lat/long

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACE_High

Ross

Web Pilot your understanding is faulty in terms of “Norwegian authorities are classing the aircraft as a war grave” they will have applied the term listed in Norwegian Law and it is not “War Grave”.

Your statement “As far as the UK is concerned, there is legislation that protects or controls sites where war dead remain and this covers wrecks outside the UK / UK territorial waters.” is also incorrect in that The Protection of Military Remains act concerns

The remains of aircraft/designated vessels which have been in the military service of any country and which lie in UK territorial waters; and

The remains of all aircraft/designated vessels which have been in UK military service lying in international waters.

The Protection of Military Remains act does not apply to Norwegian (or any other) Territorial Waters.

For aircraft/designated vessels covered by the UK Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 there is an express dispensation for operations provided a defined permission is given by a defined signatory.

Ross

Hi Moggy

“A guy named Joe” – “Always”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guy_Named_Joe

Ross

This is how his death was recorded in the Operations Record Book of No.55 OTU.

http://www.rafaircraftaccidents.com/DSCF5834.JPG

Just a glance at the other entries on the page which covers a 14 period will give you an idea of the aircraft accidents of one OTU in the training scheme.

Ross