The Cincinnati Division.

There are a few myths about Fred's departure from Pan American.

Myth 1. He was fired for drinking.

Myth 2. That he has been portayed as being responsible in some way for the Earhart Disappearance.

Myth 1 is true and Myth 2 is not as true as commonly held.


Fred Noonan was 'let go' at the end of 1936 for drinking. He was in the words of a fellow crew member sent to the Cincinnati Division. I am assured by a former PAA navigator that that was the euphemism for 'getting the boot.' What is my evidence for this and how credible it that evidence.?
In the archives of PAA, in Miami, there exists a series of transcribed interviews between John Leslie, a former PAA executive and several crew from the pioneering days of the Clippers. Two of those crew flew with Fred. They are Victor Wright and Harry Canaday. Both, but particularly Wright tell in no uncertain terms what happened. Fred developed a severe drink problem after Acapulco where the Clipper stopped during its transfer across country from Miami to Alameda. He suddenly found fame according to Wright and it went to his head. Before this he had been 'rock steady' with no sign of a 'crackup'. He 'did a beautiful piece of work'. Then in Acapulco everyone was shaking his hand. Overnight he became a celebrity, invited to all the parties where he regaled the company with sea faring tales. He was very much in demand and the partying habit continued in Honolulu, Wake, Guam and Manila. One day he had to be sought out by Wright who had to get into some 'interesting situations' and proceeded to sober him up before his flight This resulted in a fall in the bathtub which knocked out his front teeth.Canaday navigated on the way back. One might say that this was 'normal behaviour' for the aviators of the time. Maybe for some but not for PAA. Andre Priester another executive of the era instantly dismissed anyone under the influence of alcohol. It is a measure of the esteem in which Fred was held that he was tolerated for almost two years. Wright says that the 'Old Man' covered up for Fred. Was that Musick? or Priester? or Trippe? They knew he did a faultless job and he was indispensable for the proving flights. But by the time regular passenger carrying service was set up and other navigators were trained his value waned and he became a liability. The company carried very high class personages from heads of state to movie stars. It simply would not do for them to see the plane's navigator carried aboard comatose. He had to go. But according to Wright, PAA could not lose face by admitting they had employed Fred when he was in this state. They had too much to lose so he simply disappeared from the payroll. That is why there is no official record of him having been dismissed. To date, this transcribed interview is the strongest evidence that he was fired. I believe in the truth of it because (1) It is corroborated by two contemporaries who were close to Fred and by numerous others who followed him in the few years after his departure. (2) It was not refuted by John Leslie who was a very senior and respected PAA executive who was collecting these taped interviews for his History of PAA. This transcription was not just a little chat with an old colleague. (3) At about this time Fred was almost suicidal, according to his friend Marius Lodeesen. There are others who say that 'something had gone wrong in his life'. His marriage was finished and his career effectively ended.

Of course there are those who defended him when asked in later life if it was true that he drank himself out of a job. Harry Canaday and John Leslie in particular. When Horace Brock wrote about his own career with PAA and although he signed on a few years after Fred's departure the stories were still fresh . He sent his manuscript to John Leslie who wrote a very scathing reply in defense of Fred. But who was he protecting? Fred or PAA? Or both? Brock went ahead and published anyway. He also went on to an illustrious career with the Company.

Often I have asked myself why should I bother to post this and who cares? One answer is that I see a tendency now to minimise this issue. Let the dead rest in peace. Sure. But what about the living? I dont like to see people effectively being called liars and gagged or dismissed. I started out like many who felt sympathetic towards Fred. Either way he calls for our sympathy. He had a drink problem and needed help or he was being held responsible for the demise of the Earhart Flight. I started out wanting to vaguely clear his name over the drink issue but have ended up on the other side. And after ten years he is still the 'good guy'. But I also feel that if he had lived he would have been the first to hold up his hand and would have deplored the glossing over and covering up that has gone on over this issue. He would have taken full responsibility for his actions. He would not have stood for being whitewashed. He was most likely, in a way, rather proud of his drinking and his womanizing and his Irish lineage.

If anything ,he mythologised himself.

I shall deal with Myth 2. next.

Introduction

This blog is intended to discuss the life and career of Fred J Noonan. I've amassed some materials over the course of ten years and have decided to put these onto the blog for anyone interested. I was going to write a book but I'm too busy and dont want to wait until I retire! I enjoy talking about him and want to share what I have found with those interested and perhaps someone else will write the book he deserves.

There are some questions I am undecided on and hopefully the blog will attract some experts who can help me unravel these.
JF.