Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 28   Go Down

Author Topic: After the Landing  (Read 388315 times)

Tom Bryant

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #210 on: June 14, 2012, 11:02:12 AM »

This, like a few of the other ideas exchanged in discussions is, for me, a null as evidence. It will be one of those bits of the story that will become part of the colour commentary after the actual proof is made. As in  -Tighar finds the wreck it will become the Navy searched and didn't see it OR the wreck is found somewhere else so the Navy searched the island but the wreck was not there OR the wreck is never found and we get to debate the mystery. We can argue till the rapture that they were eagle eyed or blind as bats but it proves nothing towards the final determination. It is merely something that happened.
In my opinion, it serves as part of the conjecture that motivates to seek the evidence that leads to proof and that's a good thing but, for me, it does not offer any defendable argument for on the island or not.
"Well... it seemed like a good idea at the time"
 
Logged

John M Kirk

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #211 on: June 14, 2012, 11:37:34 AM »

My two cents - 

If Amelia and Fred were near the Norwich ie... standing by the tree line, because of high tide, they would have been "MISSED".  I say this because the "Look Out" will have trained his eyes and focused in on the Norwich.  How many passes did they fly?  One, Two ..............

I tried going to Google Earth, typed in "Jones Beach NY" - A very populated place here on the Island.  I zoomed to an "Eye Alt" of 1000 ft.  Try it....  Then try and spot a person on the beach.  They are there, you just have to look for them.  Very hard to see.  I am not sure if this same type of image would be the same type viewed from the search place..

My expertise is on submarines.  I have stood many a watch as look out. From when I was a junior sailor, to a Senior Contact Coordinator...

thank you

Jk

Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #212 on: June 14, 2012, 11:43:55 AM »

In my opinion, it serves as part of the conjecture that motivates to seek the evidence that leads to proof and that's a good thing but, for me, it does not offer any defendable argument for on the island or not.

Agreed.
  • If they were on the island, then the Navy didn't see them for one conceivable reason or another.
  • If they were not on the island, then that is why the Navy didn't see them.
This is pure logic.  No research required to see the truth of these two propositions.

This is a different line of argument:
  • If they were on the island, then the Navy personnel would have seen them.
  • The Navy personnel did not see them (a fact on which I think we can agree), therefore they were not on the island.
Nobody has made this argument:
  • If the Navy personnel did not see them, then they were on the island.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Bryant

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #213 on: June 14, 2012, 12:47:50 PM »

An excellent summation of the issue Marty and also a caution to people (the media for instance) who like to grab a conjecture or postulation and use it to defend a position as if it has the strength of proof. We know the fliers did not see them therefore we know ....they didn't see them.
That should not stifle debate or conjecture or even the belief in one position or another. Its ammunition that does not fit in anybody's gun in the debate.
"Well... it seemed like a good idea at the time"
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #214 on: June 14, 2012, 01:24:26 PM »

We know the fliers did not see them therefore we know ....they didn't see them.

That's the best laugh I've had in weeks. 

That about sums it up.

Thanks, Tom!   :D
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #215 on: June 14, 2012, 01:34:58 PM »

But they should have because a manual writen in the future based on practice and procedure from the future says so  ;)

I always use a Windows 7 manual when i have to investigate a problem on a windows 2000 PC.  Makes perfect sense dosn't it? Use the latest reference.

IGMC
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #216 on: June 14, 2012, 07:17:34 PM »


...

What is peculiar is your perception that someone has made that argument.  Now in addition to your fact-free speculation about the nature of the airmen's education, you've started seeing things that aren't there in this thread.

Sorry Marty but once again your point by point dismissal is as usual not coming even close to answering my comment that "Call me difficult (go ahead, I don't mind, I have a broad back) but I find it amusing that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen. It has chutzpah I admit.  :)  "

And given the level of fruitless circular discussion on this particular issue I think that I have pretty much got that right. As for the belief in the capability of Naval observers it is I who is arguing that they were performing well within their remit while it is you who believes that they were not simply because you just see them as shell splash spotters. You claim I haven't backed my claim, which I think I have, while equally I can assert that you haven't backed your claim that they were incapable of seeing a couple of stranded people. Once again it becomes circular and such arguments are silly.

Also this failure to sight them relies as I have continued to point out on a string of unproven assertions -

1. The Electra landed on the reef then at some stage got washed off so it couldn't be seen,

2. Earhart and Noonan were on shore and possibly concealed by trees,

3. One of them, Noonan, was injured (the Betty notebook) which may have hampered mobility,

4. By the time of the Navy fly over Earhart and Noonan were rendered incapable of attracting attention by physical debilitation,

5. The Navy aviators lacked the necessary training to spot anyone on the ground,

6. The Naval air search was haphazard.

The list goes on so when I say half tongue in cheek that it would seem "that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen." I think I have pretty much summed up that component of the Nikumaroro hypothesis at present. However all the belief in the world cannot take the argument any further to resolution, only the discovery of identifiable wreckage off the island reef or some other unassailable artifact can do that.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #217 on: June 15, 2012, 01:45:45 AM »

My two cents - 



I tried going to Google Earth, typed in "Jones Beach NY" - A very populated place here on the Island. I zoomed to an "Eye Alt" of 1000 ft.  Try it....  Then try and spot a person on the beach. They are there, you just have to look for them.  Very hard to see.  I am not sure if this same type of image would be the same type viewed from the search place..


Jk
I tried the same thing and I can tell you that the "Eye altitude" is not anywhere near to being correct and shows a completely erroneous idea of visibility at various altitudes in a real airplane.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #218 on: June 15, 2012, 01:59:23 AM »




I reviewed some older posts made my Andrew before I got involved on this forum and found that Andrew had used the POD table in a more reasonable manner here, the exact same way I used it in my prior posts on this subject. He assumed a one mile search visibility (I had used a four mile search visibility, which I still think is correct) and half mile track spacing (as had I) and came up with a 10% POD for spotting a person in the thick brush for one pass using the same method with the POD tables that I had used, (my calculation resulted in 30%.) He then correctly used the cumulative POD table to show that the POD would rise to 20% after three passes. Let's use Andrew's numbers. The track spacing would actually have been less than 0.5 NM because the strip of land is much narrower than that so the POD per pass would actually have been greater than 10%. (See diagram of search tracks here.)Continuing the cumulative POD calculation, the three planes had enough time, 18 to 28 minutes according to Ric, for each of them to complete 3 to 5 complete circuits of the island. Each pass by each of the planes is an additional search for cumulative POD purposes so there were actually 9 to 15 passes, not the three that Andrew stopped his calculation at. Even using the low 10% per pass assumed by Andrew, the cumulative POD increases to 85% after 9 passes, and this is using Andrew's numbers, not mine, it should actually be higher. So even if they were not able to get to the beach when they heard the planes the POD is still quite high, much higher than Ric and Andrew estimated.

Looking at spotting Earhart and Noonan in the open, on the beach or reef, and using Andrew's one mile search visibility and 0.5 mile track spacing, the POD table shows a 35% POD for one pass. (I had computed 75% using the four mile search visibility.) This increases to 60% after the second pass,(using Andrew's numbers) 70% after the third pass (one circuit of the island by the three planes), 80% after the fourth pass, 85% after the fifth pass and 90% after the sixth pass (two circuits by the three planes). Since the track spacing was actually less than 0.5 NM the POD would actually be higher for each pass and with possibly 15 passes the cumulative POD would be above 90%.

So IF Eahart was on Gardner there was a high probability that they would have been spotted even if they were in the bush and a very high probability if they were in the open which supports my contention that they were never there.

gl

Here is what Andrew wrote:
Search visibility is defined as " the distance at which an object on the ground can be seen and recognized from a particular height" i.e. how far away can you recognize a VW as a VW, from the height you are flying at.  Rule of thumb is that you really can't tell a VW from anything else at more than a mile, so 1 mile is usually the max Search Visibility used, especially if were looking for humans instead of Electras.

So, using the chart, flying at 500ft with a track spacing of .5 miles - up the beach side of the island and down the lagoon side, with a 1 mile Search Visibility in Heavy Tree Cover, yields a 10% POD.  That would be one pass around the exterior combined with one pass around the lagoon side.

To get the cumulative POD of multiple passes, google "CAP Cumulative POD" to get the CAP Mission Pilot / Aircrew Course Slides, where you will find the Cumulative POD chart on slide 19.

Two complete circuits would raise the Cumulative POD to 15%, three complete passes to 20%, etc.  You can see that our flyers would have to remain on station for some time making some 7 to 8 passes before they could get their POD up above even 50%.

Have Fun

Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is what I had posted:
We can go through the computation looking first at the worst case example of "heavy tree cover." Since Lambrecht was flying at about 400 feet we  use the 500 foot table. We also know that the visibility was at least 4 nautical miles since Lambrecht's report said it was 30 nautical miles so we use the visibility 4 mi. column. We also know that the track spacing could not have been greater than one-half mile because the island is too narrow for a greater spacing, see attached diagram of .5 nm spacing.

Using all of these entry values and entering the POD tables (either yours or mine) we find the probability of detection is 30% for the worst case, not the 10 to 20% that you stated. Using the same information and looking at the table for "open, flat terrain," such as the beach and the reef flat, we see that the probability of spotting Earhart and Noonan standing on the beach or on the reef is 75%, again much higher than the value that you stated.

But this is not the end of the computation, your must then go on to the Cumulative POD table on page 157 (173 of the PDF) of your manual, page 8-2 of my manual. Every additional pass over the same area increases the probability of detection. For Earhart, hiding among the trees, the cumulative probability of detection increases to 45% after a second pass; 50% after a third pass; 60% after a fourth pass; 65% after a fifth pass; 75% after a sixth pass; 80% after a seventh pass and 90% after 8 passes.

Looking at the case of Earhart standing on the beach, the probability increases to 95% after only 2 passes. Each pass around the island by each of the three planes in Lambrecht's flight counts as an additional search. Page 157 (173 of the PDF) of the manual that you used states:

"If you, or another aircraft and crew, fly the same pattern a second time, the POD increases significantly."

-----------------------------------------------------

You can see that we both used the tables and the same methodology and our only differences is in choice of "search visibility" and number of passes. Using Ric's estimate of the time over Gardner the planes had time for 3 to 5 circuits of the island, constituting 9 to 15 search passes. But Ric bases his estimate of the time available for searching Gardner on the assumption that the O3U-3 search planes flew at only 90 knots for the entire time they were away from the ship, including the flights between the islands. This type of plane had a top speed of 143 knots and a normal cruising speed of 115 knots so the planes could have flown between the islands at this higher cruising speed thereby leaving significantly more search time over Gardner,so they might have made even more circuits of the island.

Here is a link to the appropriate POD tables.

I have also attached CAP form 104a used for this calculation.

gl
« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 02:22:14 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #219 on: June 15, 2012, 03:24:49 AM »

When they were sending spacecraft to Mars they included certain chemistry experiment packages to test for life. Since life needs water they included a test for water. Since life is based on carbon they included a test for signs of carbon. Then a fairly smart guy said "lets also include a camera so that even if a silicon based life form happens to come walking by we will be able to spot it."

Reading some of the responses, it makes me wonder if the O3U-3 search planes didn't have storage compartments for the white canes of the flight crews.

Its pretty easy to see people from the air, with or without special training. I have flown around in Hueys looking for soldiers on the ground and I had no trouble spotting them and I had no special training for this. And these guys were wearing camouflage and they were even visible under camouflage nets. Still pictures do not accurately show visibility from airplanes because movement of the plane makes objects that are standing upright  appear to move in relationship to the background and the human eye has evolved (assuming you believe in evolution) to spot movement, this skill kept our ancestors alive, spotting the lion sneaking up behind them or the dinner rabbit moving under the bush. In fact, movement is processed right on the retina and a signal sent to the brain to flag the movement. This is an innate human skill just like being able to catch a ball. Can an observer with a little bit of specialized training do better, sure, but even those without this additional training also do very well. According to the cumulative POD tables, there was a 95% probability of spotting Earhart and Noonan if they were in the open but this is almost certainly a conservative estimate and highly trained observers might do better and untrained observers maybe slightly worse, say 90% of 85%, certainly not a whole lot worse.

Aerial observation techniques were highly developed during the "Great War" and there is no reason to think that the Army kept these techniques secret from their brothers in the Navy. Navy aviators did not just spot shell splashes they also scouted for other ships such as "the enemy." And this was not the first search for lost airmen conducted from planes. In 1927 planes were use to search for the missing pilots of the planes competing in the Dole Derby so search and rescue techniques were already developed ten years prior to the Earhart search.

Whatever disparagement of the skills of the Navy aviators the defenders of the Gardner hypothesis feel compelled to make, the commanders of the Colorado and the Lexington felt otherwise and they had current knowledge of the skill and training that the aviators possessed. If the commanders did not believe that the aviators had the necessary skill to spot Earhart then there would have been no reason to launch the search planes.

It's interesting to watch these kerfluffles. Any time a piece of evidence points away from the TIGHAR hypothesis, the defenders of the faith jump up to disparage it. I have never claimed that the failure to spot them on the island proved that they were not on the island. Even with a high probability of detection, it is just that, a probability, and it is never a certainty. But it does provide one more piece of evidence on the not TIGHAR end of the scale, it doesn't prove it. The TIGHAR enthusiasts pile everything they can find on the island (unless it has a clear date on it of 1938 or later) on their end of the scale as additional evidence of Earhart being on the island so it is certainly fair for me to bring up evidence pointing in the other direction.

gl

« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 03:40:33 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #220 on: June 15, 2012, 04:26:00 AM »

Gary loves to make this seem like a simple math problem, but it really isn't.  These charts are a guide that was developed to help manage a search, they do not in themselves constitute the search.  The kind of searches they were developed for was missing aircraft such as the example given, as the USAF figured out that they really did not have anything in their inventory that could do a good job searching, so they gave the job to the CAP.  I do not think the POD chart was developed for looking for missing persons, although it can be a tool used to do so.

The thing about missing airplanes is that they generally leave some sort of trace, fire, smoke, smoking hole, broken trees, aluminum debris field, disturbed snow, vultures gathering - something that can be seen from farther away than a single person can be seen.  That's why the search visibility in the POD Chart starts at 1 mile, it was developed for missing airplanes and the signs they leave.  Gary likes to quote my sample that uses the 1mi visibility, which is probably reasonable if we're looking for the Electra or perhaps a VW.  However, in this case we're talking about looking for a person who is not necessarily out in the open, and I don't think a 4 mile, or even 1 mile search visibility is reasonable.  I would not use those values if I were managing an actual search for a missing person in heavy cover.

Instead, I would use a less than 1mi search visibility and extrapolate the values of the POD chart to accommodate.  Why?  Because I don't believe that it is reasonable to say that anyone can see and recognize a person on the ground in heavy tree cover from a height of 500 ft from a mile away.  The trees in the way would prevent you from seeing the person, all you end up seeing is the canopy.  In effect, you have to be right on top of them to see them. 

Gary on the other hand, believes he and our Navy fliers (apparently untrained in any SAR technique) can see and recognize a person on the ground under the tree cover from 4 miles away.  He apparently has very good eyes.

A good case in point is found in the aerial tour http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL9FGsvB3E8&feature=youtu.be where if you freeze frame the flight at 5:30 you will find that it is extremely difficult to see the three persons in the video, even though you are flying at less than 200 ft, and within about .2 of a mile from them.  Note that the single person who is subsequently visible, only becomes so when the camera (who knows where they are) zooms in on them.  And even then, only one out of three can be found.

As each of you evaluate this, what is your search visibility at this point, when you cannot see and recognize three persons on the ground?  Is it appropriate for you, as search manager, to be using a 4 mile search visibility, or even a 1 mile search visibility for this search?  I think not.

Gary prefers to go in that direction as it suits his argument that AE was never on Nikumaroro, and if she had been, the Navy would have seen her in their few passes over the island with their 2 man untrained in SAR crews flying open cockpit biplanes.  If the Electra was lying on the beach, I would agree with him.

If Gary was hired to argue the case of CAP pilot sued by the grieving spouse of a pilot who wasn't found during a search, he'd be arguing the other way and describing how difficult such searches can be.  He likes to portray things as black and white simple, because that makes it easy for juries to make a decision.  Apparently, he's pretty good at it.

But, as usual, things are rarely black and white simple.  You can judge this for yourselves.  Look at Bill Carter in the aerial tour video, the guy in the white shirt.  I can almost guarantee you that he, along with everyone else on the ground that day, has scrambled as best he can to get to a place "out in the open" where he can see the helicopter, he's between trees, and as far as he is concerned, he thinks he's easily visible.  Bill is not hidden away under a tree, but he is in the shadow of the tree, so even though there are areas that are clear, that doesn't mean that a person in the clear area is easy to see.

If you look at the fly by the 7 site, even with the camera lens zoomed in, you cannot see the 3 to 4 persons who are ashore - not the three guys headed out into the lagoon - but several additional folks back in the bush.  You have to ask yourself if there is really 30% probability of seeing persons on the ground in a single pass?

If you stop the video at 11:55, before the camera zooms in, the helicopter is approximately .75 nm from the 7 site, yet the three people who are out in the lagoon, wading in the open, are not recognizable, nor for that matter is the 21 ft red color rubber Naiad boat they are wading to, and they are all as out in the open as they can possibly be.

For the CAP, I've sat a target consisting of the major parts of a Cessna 152, set in a small clearing in the tall pine trees of Colorado, with a practice ELT beacon going.  Several trained SAR crews failed to visually spot me even when they pretty much knew the target was localized to one ridge.  Again, they had to be right on top of me to see me from the right angle.

You'd think that something that looks like the photo below (if I can get it inserted) would be easy to find, but it wasn't.

So we can go on arguing about what the probability was, or the search visibility to use, but in the end it really won't solve anything.  My experience in SAR tells me that the probability, given the scenario, was pretty low, and I don't think that the POD tables are going to somehow mathematically get us there.

Andrew
« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 05:06:21 AM by Andrew M McKenna »
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #221 on: June 15, 2012, 05:09:40 AM »

Gary, I think Andrew has done a great job of summarizing  some of his experiences in SAR work, but let me, as an old Army pilot who spent more than 700 hours flying at low levels, usually less than 100 feet, in support of ground troops in Viet Nam put in my 2 cents worth. I also disagree with your pronouncements about how easily people on the ground can be detected. I have over flown friendly troops on the ground for hours at a time and we, my crew and I plus a second ship that was part of our team, frequently only got fleeting glimpses of them when they were in moderate cover and we basically knew where they were.

I have also looked at your POD charts and while I can find no indication of just what object (objects) was used to compute the POD the examples used in the instructions/examples were a red and white Cessna 172 and a red and white Cessna 182. I would agree the the POD for these items might be consistant with the charts but they are not people on the ground.

I also remember reading somewhere in one of the reports of a previous trip to Niku, maybe someone can help me out here because I can't remember which one, that the noise from the surf was so loud it was difficult to hear sounds from other than the immediate area. Could this help mask the sound of search aircraft and reduce the time someone would have to try to attract their attention?

Just my thoughts.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #222 on: June 15, 2012, 05:32:02 AM »

Woody,

not sure if it was in the book "shoes" or on the main site (will look later) but during one expedition the ground crew were in the bush when they heard as it passed over them a prop engineed plane.  By the time they were out of the bush it was gone.

The interesting thing is they didn't hear it approach due to noise, surf, wind in trees etc..
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #223 on: June 15, 2012, 05:36:19 AM »

Thanks for the verification Chris. I was hoping it wasn't just me, but us old guys sometimes have memory problems.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #224 on: June 15, 2012, 06:31:18 AM »

I find the SAR aspect of sighting 'possible' survivors on Gardner Island intriguing. The theory and maths involved has been explained brilliantly. The personnel who carry out these tasks, superb. The equipment and techniques, outstanding.
That's the theory and, I'm sure it works in practice, sometimes.
And that's the point I would like to add, 'it works in practice, sometimes'.
I say that because during my research into other aircraft lost in the vicinity of Gardner island and, surrounding area. I have noticed that survivors of ditching aircraft who end up adrift on the Pacific ocean have all reported their difficulty in attracting the attention of SAR aircraft that have been sent to find them.
Now, the SAR aircraft and crews are actively looking for the ditched aviators.
The ditched aviators are actively trying to get the attention of the SAR aircraft.
There is no 'cover' to prevent sighting of downed aviators.
life rafts are a bright colour, to stand out from the background, to be seen.
And yet, they were not seen.
I'm sure there could be other factors that prevented sighting, weather? light? but, it would be foolish and, has been shown, that trained SAR teams actively looking and, ditched aircrews actively trying to get noticed, don't always end up meeting each other even in open water conditions.

This must be the place
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 28   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP