TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Chris Johnson on January 21, 2011, 03:38:25 PM
-
AE/FN looking for a place to land fly down the LOP and pass close to Gardner. On the reef is a ships hulk, close by is a flat peice of reef flat. On the north end of the island are apparent dwelling from the Arundel era.
Could AE/FN have thought that the island was populated?
A populated island could indicate food, water, shelter and maybe a radio?
-
My guess is that their mindset at the time was "any land is good land". I can't imagine watching an open expanse of water go by hour after hour, while at the same time watching the fuel gauges get lower and lower....
If the Niku hypothesis is correct, FN got them close enough to Howland for RDF and when AE wasn't able to do her end of the job, he got them onto one of the few places of dry land within hundreds of miles. The more I've learned about the last flight from our Amelia Oracle (Ric), the sorrier I feel for Noonan. Imagine doing your end of the job, and doing it well, only to have things fall apart because of negligence from another... reminds me of a company that I once worked for.. ;D
-
Could AE/FN have thought that the island was populated?
That is certainly possible. The ship was recognizably a rusted, burned out hulk (see Lambrecht) so it's not likely that they took that as anything but a wrecked ship. If Lambrecht saw the Arundel ruins he didn't mention them - which seems a bit odd because he did mention ruins on McKean and huts on Hull and Sydney - which may say something about the thoroughness of their aerial inspection of the island.
Checking Bevington's diary, he doesn't mention the Arundel ruins either. Neither do the accounts of the Norwich City disaster. We know that Arundel built shelters for his workers in the 1890s (we have his notes on providing building materials) but now I'm wondering why we've been assuming that the ruins of those structures were still standing in 1937 - or 1929 for that matter. I've probably forgotten some mention by somebody of seeing ruins. That's the trouble with a project that has been going on for 22+ years. We'll need to look into this.
-
First Officer of SS Norwich City, J. Thomas, had this (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity5.html) to say about the Arundel huts:
"Near the palms we found two disused galvanised roofed huts and a large water tank, all of which were in a state of collapse, but which indicated to us that the island had at one time been inhabited, most probably with a view of growing coconuts, but that this had not proved to be very profitable and had been abandoned."
-
Good work guys. So the structures were there in 1929.
-
and early survey teams about ten years later.
Is there mention of the Arundel ruins by the New Zealand survey party? I didn't see anything in a quick run-through.
-
Go to the new Index by Subject (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archivessubject.html) and scroll down to the Nikumaroro/Gardner Island section. All the links to the New Zealand Survey documents work.
-
Yeah, interesting.
-
If Lambrecht saw the Arundel ruins he didn't mention them
As they were collapsed perhaps jungle overgrowth had hidden them from aerial view.
LTM,
Don
-
I don't know, but I think we might be getting away from the facts as they stood at the time.
All of these things we are speaking of are great fodder for discussion in retrospect. But, if one looks at all of this in AE's frame of mind at that time...I imagine that precious little of it was given much, if any, consideration.
First of all, she HAD run out of options. There was no other Plan B. Gardner WAS Plan B. It was Gardner....or swim.
And as for where on Niku she was going to put it down, speaking as someone who has spent a number of working flight hours in deserted areas ...what you're going to do after you land really has very little bearing on where you choose to land. It makes no sense to roll your airplane into a ball and wrap yourself around a coconut palm only because it got you closer to a pool of water.
No doubt she did what anyone in that situation has ever done: she found what appeared to be the longest, widest, smoothest, and dryest. Everything else...be damned. You worry about that later.
Besides, I would say that it is a pretty safe bet that she didn't even consider such things for quite awhile after the landing anyway. I suspect that she felt that they'd be on the island less than 3 days at the most. My guess is that she honestly expected to see a flotilla of USN ships anchored offshore within 72 hours. I mean.....I AM Amelia Earhart after all, aren't I? It's cold to say now, but I really do think she had begun believing her own press long before this project began.
Which is not to say that, when she finally came upon the knowledge that nobody WAS coming soon (or at all), that perhaps the recollection of a possible pool of fresh water on one side or end of the island might have had some indirect affect on how they ultimately ended up at the Seven Site. But, as it seems they most likely arrived over Niku at or near Low Tide, I can't imagine any other place on the island looking better for landing than that section of reef adjacent to the Norwich City. I doubt any other spot was even given consideration.
Although I acknowledge I'm making such a brash statement based solely upon photographs taken decades after the event. So perhaps I am as guilty of faulty hindsight as is anyone else.
LTM,
....TB
-
Well put Thom. Having been in a few situations where I've had to contemplate an emergency landing, I have to agree. When you're left with no option other than an ending the flight right now, the first and only consideration is safety. Where can I put this thing down and stand the best chance of being able to walk away from it? If there is any place where it looks like I can land wheels-down, roll to a stop and maybe take off again after my problem (fuel, mechanical, weather, whatever) is solved that's where I'll put it. No brainer.
-
My point precisely, Ric.
Only I fear she may have even failed at that. Based upon what I know of the circumstantial evidence, my own guess at the course of events are as follows....
They missed Howland....not only was there no DF signal where she expected it to be, there was no voice either. When you reach your destination and instead all you can see in any direction is a whole lot of wet, that is a pretty scary proposition. It can shake your confidence not only in yourself...but in your navigation (or in this case...in Fred.)
After a certain amount of prodding and coaxing (and pointing at fuel gauges), she gives up on Howland and turns outbound for Gardner. That they indeed found Gardner I believe says more good about FN than AE. Only this doesn't really look like Gardner as it is depicted on the charts, does it? Nevertheless, it's here and it's reasonably dry. (At this point.....even if we'd seen 40 foot tall dragons wandering about the interior, this is still where we are going to terminate.)
And at least someone has been here before, look at that big honking shipwreck. Someone someplace knows where and what this island is...so if it's not Gardner, at least it probably has been charted. Things are finally looking up.
They make one pass lengthwise up the middle of the lagoon. No place to put it down there.
Then they fly one...no more than two...circuits around the outer shoreline. Nothing looks better than that big wide long bit of beach next to the shipwreck. MAYBE a low pass along the beach to check how smooth it might be.....but I doubt it. This beach really is the only game in town, so why waste gas on looking for something that isn't going to change your mind anyway?
So....we line up inbound over the shipwreck, BUT...we're a little high. An understandable error.....we've been awake very nearly 24 hours by this time, and most of that was spent flying. Exhausted is exhausted, no matter how you slice it. No doubt the fear of swimming home to California had only added to that exhaustion.
We land long, but we are down and rolling. And here is where our small amount of luck leaves us: on rollout, we drop the left main mount into a huge crevasse in the reef that we'd not seen. Fred, whether he was sitting up front or at his station in the back, was on the right side of the plane. So my guess is that, when we rolled out into the hole, everything came to a sudden stop. And it is at this point that FN is thrown against the starboard bulkhead sustaining a significant head injury. How significant depends on how fast they were rolling when they fell into Nessie. AE, being on the left side is forced away from the bulkhead rather than toward it....hence, no injury beyond possibly some seatbelt bruising and maybe a stiff neck.
Either way, here we are. We are down and stopped with one landing gear lodged irretrievably in the reef. The bad news is that Fred (not to mention the Electra) is injured.
The good news is that it's the left wheel in the hole and not the right. That leaves the starboard prop clear enough from the surf to run the engine and use the radio.
All of this would explain how Fred could be injured to the point of dementia and yet AE and the Electra still being well enough to run an engine to make the broadcasts which would be heard and transcribed by Betty Klenck. And it would explain the wreckage which would later be observed (and possibly photographed) still sticking out of the water years later.
It's all conjecture, I admit. But, being the simplest theory which explains most if not all of the circumstantial evidence, it satisfies both myself and Occam. Feel free to poke holes in as much of it as possible.
LTM,
.....TB
-
The question is,
Did the wheel go into the groove during the landing, resulting in the scenario you describe?
Or did the plane land safely higher up on the reef and later get washed into the groove?
Occam would prefer Door Number One but it complicates the post-loss radio situation. It would make the most sense for Earhart to transmit only at times when the water level on the reef is low enough for her to run the engine and keep the battery charged. Transmitting on battery alone runs the risk of depleting the battery to the point where you can't get the engine started - in which case you would be really screwed. The Nessie location is quite close to the reef edge and the water level there is low enough to run the engine less often than if the plane were a few meters closer to shore. We have good survey data for the reef surface closer to shore where the reef surface is most attractive for landing but not for the Nessie location, so we don't have the water level numbers we wish we had - but it does look like we have otherwise credible post-loss signals transmitted at times when it would not be possible to run the engine. If the plane ended its landing roll stuck in the Nessie location we have to say either:
- Signals we have judged to be credible are from some source other than Earhart
or
- Earhart was not acting in a prudent manner and taking some extraordinary risks to send distress calls.
-
There's also a split possibility involving water level and radio usage. If the best time to charge the battery isn't the best time to transmit or listen, you can separate the actions. Crank up the starboard engine to charge the battery at low tide, maybe during daylight (to avoid walking the reef in the dark if you're staying on the beach) and use the radio during the best times for Tx/Rx or when you have fresh info ("I see a ship!"). Just watch your voltage and keep enough battery reserve to restart.
Personally, if I'm trying to contact someone to save my life on a radio in the middle of nowhere, I'd prefer to do it without a radial running a few feet away (especially one of those big Wasp Seniors they slapped on at the last minute).
I know it's not the simplest solution, but as someone who's had to juggle starting diesels and charging batteries offshore, there's sometimes more than one way to skin a cat.
It also makes you wonder if they discovered the (presumed) antenna damage and tried to do anything about it.
-
There's also a split possibility involving water level and radio usage. If the best time to charge the battery isn't the best time to transmit or listen, you can separate the actions. Crank up the starboard engine to charge the battery at low tide, maybe during daylight (to avoid walking the reef in the dark if you're staying on the beach) and use the radio during the best times for Tx/Rx or when you have fresh info ("I see a ship!"). Just watch your voltage and keep enough battery reserve to restart.
Good thought.
Personally, if I'm trying to contact someone to save my life on a radio in the middle of nowhere, I'd prefer to do it without a radial running a few feet away (especially one of those big Wasp Seniors they slapped on at the last minute).
You've been reading Fred Goerner's book. There's no such thing as a "Wasp Senior." The P&W R1430 was known as the "Wasp." The Model 10A Electra carried the smaller R985 which was dubbed the "Wasp Junior" but nobody ever referred to the big engine as a "Wasp Senior." All Model 10Es were built with P&W R1430 S3H1 Wasp engines and NR16020 was wearing the same engines it was built with when it disappeared.
-
You've been reading Fred Goerner's book. There's no such thing as a "Wasp Senior." The P&W R1430 was known as the "Wasp." The Model 10A Electra carried the smaller R985 which was dubbed the "Wasp Junior" but nobody ever referred to the big engine as a "Wasp Senior." All Model 10Es were built with P&W R1430 S3H1 Wasp engines and NR16020 was wearing the same engines it was built with when it disappeared.
Guilty as charged. Read it, enjoyed the background and travelogue, but came away unconvinced. I get tickled by kooks that won't accept a simple, non-conspiritorial explanation for something and just can't resist tweaking them on occasion. I should learn how to use the little smiley faces so they know when I'm putting tongue in cheek. >:( ::) :P OK, I tried. The middle one is supposed to be an eye-roller, but that one doesn't seem to work. Maybe a wink instead ;). There, that's better.
Next up, the Longs' book. Since they put their conclusion up front, has anyone checked the bottom of the Pacific Ocean for the Electra? Oughtta be right there! ;)
-
The question is,
Did the wheel go into the groove during the landing, resulting in the scenario you describe?
Or did the plane land safely higher up on the reef and later get washed into the groove?
The question indeed! Alas, in either case we have here a wonderful illustration of the fallacies of Armchair Hypothesy (or more precisely it's latter-day cousin Keyboard Hypothesy).
You see, I was of the notion that Nessie was closer in to the beach. Yes, I have seen the B&W of Nessie, but I am also aware that perspective in older photographs can be quite misleading. I guess it was the footage in the Discovery Special of the area which fooled me. I would have thought the water level even at low tide would be much deeper if very far from the high-water line.
Obviously, my attempt was to tie all of the (probably) known facts into one nice neat bundle and bow. But perhaps I make the same mistake as others in attempting to attribute FN's injuries to the actual act of Arrival while leaving AE et. al. relatively unscathed (still think my ground loop scenario yet takes the day on that, though probably by some different unknown mechanism. Multi-engine taildraggers are twitchy animals even under the best of conditions.)
Although, as terribly bad luck seems to have been the order of that day, it could just as easily have been that we landed safe and sound and rolled to a stop. But when we dropped out of the doorway we landed on slippery reef and fell whilst hitting our head on the doorway going down.
...or something even sillier.
Oh well....I guess Occam now stands alone. Was a nice story if nothing else, I guess.
You've been reading Fred Goerner's book. There's no such thing as a "Wasp Senior." The P&W R1430 was known as the "Wasp." The Model 10A Electra carried the smaller R985 which was dubbed the "Wasp Junior" but nobody ever referred to the big engine as a "Wasp Senior." All Model 10Es were built with P&W R1430 S3H1 Wasp engines and NR16020 was wearing the same engines it was built with when it disappeared.
Wasp Anythings are terribly noisy beasts, though. I guess I had always just assumed the acts of recharging batteries and making transmissions necessarily had to be separate in order to get the clearest possible transmission. Yet another of several arguments that we were relatively high on the beach, at least for awhile.
....TB
-
Next up, the Longs' book. Since they put their conclusion up front, has anyone checked the bottom of the Pacific Ocean for the Electra? Oughtta be right there! ;)
The Waitt Institute for Discovery (http://tighar.org/wiki/Waitt_Institute_for_Discovery) has.
-
Personally, if I'm trying to contact someone to save my life on a radio in the middle of nowhere, I'd prefer to do it without a radial running a few feet away
From the AE Hypothesis:
"On the evening of July 2nd, the radio station on the island of Nauru (which had heard Earhart’s inflight transmissions the night before) hears “Fairly strong signals, speech not intelligible, no hum of plane in background, but voice similar to that emitted from plane in flight last night.” (Telegram dated 3 July 1937 addressed to Secratary of State, Washington reporting transmission heard on Nauru.)"
Inconclusive, but it seems like trying to coordinate tides and transmission times, while it might be supportive, would also be inconclusive.
On another thought, if the Electra wasn't stuck at the end of the landing runout, is the terrain such that they would have been able to taxi up to the beach? If yes, it seems odd they would have left it out in the sea. If no, the choice would have been to try a takeoff or leave it out there and wait.
-
On another thought, if the Electra wasn't stuck at the end of the landing runout, is the terrain such that they would have been able to taxi up to the beach? If yes, it seems odd they would have left it out in the sea. If no, the choice would have been to try a takeoff or leave it out there and wait.
Taxiing any closer to the beach was out of the question. The reef surface beginning about 150 feet shoreward from the reef edge is jagged and deeply pitted. No point in taking off without more fuel even if you've figured out where you are. No choice but to call for help and hope that somebody hears you.
-
I think Occam would however approve of Ric's approach - 'door number 1' is always preferable, if it's the right door.
Well, the scenario described above was my own concoction based upon what we (think) we know. It was meant as a means of tying all such factors into one nice neat bundle. However, it was also predicated on 'Nessie' being moderately close to the beach....which, apparently, it's not. A bad assumption on my part.
Therefore, as such, the lot of it is crap.
I still submit that it's a sucker bet they landed someplace on that section of reef (Nessie to Norwich). From the photographs it is by far the best, if not only, game in town. But the rest is crap.
Even so, there clearly is only a narrow band of reef upon which the Electra could have come to a stop. Too far out (as Nessie seems to be) and it doesn't last long enough to make all of the post-loss radio transmissions before being swept away (which indeed disproves my little story). Too close in....and it stays there almost forever (possibly even until today) and thereby would have been observed by Lambrecht & Co. during their flyover six days hence. But, as we all know, it had been swept away by that time.
All of which is not to say that it couldn't have happened the way I described. It's all still quite plausible...only occuring at some position closer to the beach. However, without any wreckage sightings other than 'Nessie'.....the story moves from being conjecture to mere pie-in-the-sky fantasy.
So, although Occam favours simplicity in theory above all else....he also tends to favour known facts. SWAGs need not apply.
As before, an interesting mental exercise....but worth little else.
Oh well!
....TB
-
But, as we all know, it had been swept away by that time.
Claiming that we all "know" this may be a little strong.
IF the Niku hypothesis is true, THEN the airplane must have gone into deep water sooner or later--otherwise, it would have been found by someone in the years since 1937.
To put it in other words, a corollary of the Niku hypothesis is that the plane must have ended up in the deep.
-
But, as we all know, it had been swept away by that time.
Claiming that we all "know" this may be a little strong.
This is true. And perhaps an expedient (if not precise) choice of words.
However, I should think that one must at some point decide which items they believe compleatly...and which they do not. For if you don't believe in anything, then you might as well stay home and look for the Electra at Disneyworld. The art is to not over-step in what you believe unquestionably.
As I have said elsewhere in the past, I have come late to this party. For a very long time I was a fence-sitter on the matter of the Niku theory....and for quite some time (x being equal to years) prior to that I even scoffed at the notion in total. I have never even been particularly enamoured with AE herself, what keeps me in the game is the mystery and the puzzle.
Although I admit to being quick to toss about possible scenarios (such as this last one), none are meant as 'this is definitely what happened.' (would hope I wouldn't be so silly as to say that, anyway) More the intent is to throw out ideas in hopes that others might add or subtract from them. In either event, I do so based on experience gathered from an entire career spent with the FAA and a number of years of professional flying prior (including a certain amount of formal training in celestial nav).
What is my personal baseline at present? After spending a great amount of time thinking it was all just fanciful at best, the more I examine the bits and pieces of other supporting evidence (period navigational charts, post-loss transmissions, island-found items, etc)....I have crossed the line, fell off the fence, however you wish to say it. I personally believe the Niku Theory in one form or other to be almost necessarily correct. And as you've said....in for a penny in for a pound. Once you subscribe to that general theory, there is no getting away from the swept away phase which would come at some later point.
Furthermore, based only upon available more recent photographs (which admittedly may therefore be misleading), unless there has been a radical change in the island shorelines I would be TERRIBLY surprised if they landed on any other location on the island. If I was over that island near low tide and looking for long, wide, smooth, and dry....that section of beach Norwich-to-Nessie (excepting the lagoon inlet) just screams at you. While other sections do not appear impossible, neither do they appear as good. And I certainly would not pick any other section just to lessen my walk to an observed pond of unknown drinkability. No...if I'm overhead looking to get down with the least amount of fuel spent and injury sustained, I would do exactly as I describe above for all the same reasons ...hopefully forgoing the ground loop of course. ;D
....TB