Interesting argument about diverting to Nauru. I don't buy it.
Too much construct, too little motive for AE and FN to have done it when I look at the whole context. Why would FN drive extra complexity into the effort? As 'simple' as it is for the navigator making a pure case here, it also would drive many more opportunities into the flight for error.
Is that the sum of your point, Gary? That FN pressed an exercise into the flight which compounded opportunties for error - and that the pair finally got caught in that web somehow?
Can you describe how Noonan's taking the normal celestial sights, that were already part of the plan, only this time taking some of those sights over a brightly lit island that they could find just by ("go to the light, Luke" ) following the lights in from 150 miles out, which provided a reliable visual checkpoint, provided compounded opportunties for error ?
gl
Yes -
Just as you seem to see that it somehow adds assurance, it also distinctly adds more variables than just following the lubber and verifying along the way with celestial - more heading changes, more points for AE to process, etc. There's also the not so minor point of needing to consider if one really wants to trash their night vision over the sea by approaching that flame of light at Nauru, like a moth - not to mention what it might do to FN's ability to take clear shots for some time. I believe you helped describe the mining lights yourself earlier - or if not, think about it. Not good.
Not that I think I need to defend the idea - I think it's more logical for someone floating these variation theories to put up strong reasons, not just possibilities, if they expect them to stand.
Often 'less is more' - and in my own humble experience with navigation and flying, the simpler you can keep your approach the better off you are. I have severe doubt that FN needed the 'binky' of 'flying to the lights' - like a moth - and see no need of it. I also see no credible evidence that they did such a thing in the body of material that we have on the flight.
You also posted -
"Noonan and Earhart did exactly what any flight crew would do, make new plans that incorporated new information. Airplanes do not run on rails nor are they constrained by lines painted on pavement, they can go anywhere they please on a whim, making changes in their route "on the fly."..." We don't "know" anything about what they actually
may have done -
It
is logical that they would
adapt their plan as required given new observations, etc. Of course they could "go anywhere they please on a whim" on their magic carpet (NR16020), but that gets us close to recklessness - that's only an option if one is willing to squander surety. I think the pair
would have had to have very clear and compelling reasons to deviate from a direct path to Howland. Hypothetical after-the-fact permutations and what-ifs don't tell us much about what really compelling reasons they may have encountered that would lead to such deviations in a direct flight.
Just my views, Gary - to each his own.
LTM -