TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Celestial choir => Topic started by: Alex Fox on June 10, 2011, 02:06:19 PM
-
Try this in the "Fly To" field for the remains of the Norwich City:
-4.660635372778139 -174.5451192981475
Got it, thanks! That was where I'd figured.
It would be great to have some sort of comprehensive list of coordinates related to the search, whether or not on Nikumaroro. Is this already on a database or thread somewhere? I'd start a thread but I don't want to be redundant if this has already been done.
-
It would be great to have some sort of comprehensive list of coordinates related to the search, whether or not on Nikumaroro. Is this already on a database or thread somewhere? ...
We have a Geographic information system (GIS) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_information_system) expert on the Earhart Project Advisory Committee who has a GIS database for Nikumaroro. Much of the information is proprietary and is intended solely for the use of TIGHAR teams. At one time I did start exploring how to set up a GIS server on tighar.org so that some of the information could be shared with the general public, but I got sidetracked before making any progress on the project.
Feel free to ask for and to provide coordinates in this thread. We may be able to build up a .kmz file that can easily be updated and shared--I'm not too good at that, but I think it is what .kmz files are meant for.
I've attached a "Niku Placenames.kmz" file to this post. You need to have Google Earth installed on your own computer to use it, I believe. Download the file, then in Google earth, File / Open / Niku placenames.kmz
Or browse to the .kmz file's location and double-click on it.
-
Wonderful! For me, using Google Earth is less about finding a fuzzy picture of the Electra or even really referring to definitive facts, than it is about avoiding asking stupid questions and wasting people's time. If I can find a place on Google Earth people are talking about, or if it's already marked, it's a lot more impressionable on my memory than just vaguely talking about that place or linking to its Wikipedia notation.
Seven Site: 4°41'10.36"S 174°29'46.51"W
Village & Govt Stn.: 4°40'14.47"S 174°32'13.96"W
Norwich City: 4°39'36.52"S 174°32'42.36"W
Lae (obviously): 6°43'51.62"S 147° 0'16.81"E
Howland: 0°48'30.66"N 176°37'2.72"W
Nauru: 0°31'43.14"S 166°56'5.39"E
I think this is the channel they dynamited to evacuate the island? 4°40'36.98"S 174°32'20.25"W
I don't know where these are, or I can't find them:
-Underwater search areas by other searchers, I think NW of Howland.
-Plane found in a lagoon on some island other than Gardner. May not be a plane.
-Plane found by David Alan Atchason on Noumatong Islet. May not be a plane.
-In-flight positions reported by Noonan. Do we have any? I think Van Asten listed coordinates east of Lae at some point but I don't know if he used his math to make those up, or actual reports, or where they're from.
-Place Putnam thought the Electra was, NW of Howland, based I think mostly on clairvoyants' reports.
-Colorado's position from which search planes were launched.
-
Seven Site: 4°41'10.36"S 174°29'46.51"W
Village & Govt Stn.: 4°40'14.47"S 174°32'13.96"W
Norwich City: 4°39'36.52"S 174°32'42.36"W
The channel they dynamited to evacuate the island? 4°40'36.98"S 174°32'20.25"W
Those are all in the .kmz file attached to my previous message (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,391.msg4452.html#msg4452).
Lae (obviously): 6°43'51.62"S 147° 0'16.81"E
Howland: 0°48'30.66"N 176°37'2.72"W
Nauru: 0°31'43.14"S 166°56'5.39"E
I don't know where these are, or I can't find them:
-Underwater search areas by other searchers, I think NW of Howland.
-Plane found in a lagoon on some island other than Gardner. May not be a plane.
-Plane found by David Alan Atchason on Noumatong Islet. May not be a plane.
-In-flight positions reported by Noonan. Do we have any? I think Van Asten listed coordinates east of Lae at some point but I don't know if he used his math to make those up, or actual reports, or where they're from.
-Place Putnam thought the Electra was, NW of Howland, based I think mostly on clairvoyants' reports.
-Colorado's position from which search planes were launched.
I'm done for tonight. Time for me to get away from the keyboard ...
-
Thanks, yeah that's great already having Niku labeled. You don't have to find any of these other ones, I'm sure I'll locate them in time. But sharing .kmz files is a nice option when people find something new on GE or as the search progresses. And it's nice to have actual coordinates and maps to work with.
-
Marty/Alex. Try clicking this MAP (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=211710321002671065029.00048c03956e5734193e9&ll=-4.675493,-174.515076&spn=0.084347,0.15398&t=h&z=13) - or on the image below.
Once there, then click on the location icons for popup balloons, and hot links to Ameliapedia. Doesn't require Google Earth.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/5820865640_e6b5545055_m.jpg) (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=211710321002671065029.00048c03956e5734193e9&ll=-4.675493,-174.515076&spn=0.084347,0.15398&t=h&z=13)
-
Marty/Alex. Try clicking this MAP (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=211710321002671065029.00048c03956e5734193e9&ll=-4.675493,-174.515076&spn=0.084347,0.15398&t=h&z=13) - or on the image below.
Once there, then click on the location icons for popup balloons, and hot links to Ameliapedia. Doesn't require Google Earth.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/5820865640_e6b5545055_m.jpg) (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=211710321002671065029.00048c03956e5734193e9&ll=-4.675493,-174.515076&spn=0.084347,0.15398&t=h&z=13)
Very nice!
Here is a .kmz file for the Gallagher Highway and Government Station (http://tighar.org/aw/kmz/govt_village.shp.kmz) from Jim Thompson, our GIS guru.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/8/8b/Village_kmz.png)
-
Thanks! Share and share alike.
The government station = Now and Then!
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4135/4826642919_5216387c73.jpg)
-
Wonderful! For me, using Google Earth is less about finding a fuzzy picture of the Electra or even really referring to definitive facts, than it is about avoiding asking stupid questions and wasting people's time. If I can find a place on Google Earth people are talking about, or if it's already marked, it's a lot more impressionable on my memory than just vaguely talking about that place or linking to its Wikipedia notation.
Seven Site: 4°41'10.36"S 174°29'46.51"W
Village & Govt Stn.: 4°40'14.47"S 174°32'13.96"W
Norwich City: 4°39'36.52"S 174°32'42.36"W
Lae (obviously): 6°43'51.62"S 147° 0'16.81"E
Howland: 0°48'30.66"N 176°37'2.72"W
Nauru: 0°31'43.14"S 166°56'5.39"E
I think this is the channel they dynamited to evacuate the island? 4°40'36.98"S 174°32'20.25"W
I don't know where these are, or I can't find them:
-Underwater search areas by other searchers, I think NW of Howland.
-Plane found in a lagoon on some island other than Gardner. May not be a plane.
-Plane found by David Alan Atchason on Noumatong Islet. May not be a plane.
-In-flight positions reported by Noonan. Do we have any? I think Van Asten listed coordinates east of Lae at some point but I don't know if he used his math to make those up, or actual reports, or where they're from.
-Place Putnam thought the Electra was, NW of Howland, based I think mostly on clairvoyants' reports.
-Colorado's position from which search planes were launched.
1. In flight position 159-07-E ; 04-33.5-S was transmitted from aboard A/c @ 0720 GMT , based on sunset fix @ 071930 GMT , see recomputation EJN-2011 , not my math but mr.Noonan´s precalculation by H.O.no.208 .
2. mr.Putnam expected A/c NW of Howland , possibly since he heard of a northward offset landfall operation was in flight plan however , there have been "clairvoyants´" predictions in the play. Also , Putnam may have been supported by the commander of Itasca , who thought A/c to be NW since from there the distance to the 157 LOP was shortest. In 3rd instance Ameia reported 0843 (Navy) LZT "..flying north and south.."
-
Great stuff, thank you Martin, Erik, and H.A.C.
-
1. In flight position 159-07-E ; 04-33.5-S was transmitted from aboard A/c @ 0720 GMT , based on sunset fix @ 071930 GMT , see recomputation EJN-2011 , not my math but mr.Noonan´s precalculation by H.O.no.208 .
2. mr.Putnam expected A/c NW of Howland , possibly since he heard of a northward offset landfall operation was in flight plan however , there have been "clairvoyants´" predictions in the play. Also , Putnam may have been supported by the commander of Itasca , who thought A/c to be NW since from there the distance to the 157 LOP was shortest. In 3rd instance Ameia reported 0843 (Navy) LZT "..flying north and south.."
Except for the fact that the position report was received in Lae at 0718 GMT, one and a half minutes prior to 0719:30 GMT, the time of the observation that Mr. van Asten claims was used to provide the position so Mr. van Asten's theory is obviously incorrect. Most likely Noonan just looked out the window and saw the island of Nukumanu located near the stated coordinates at some time prior to 0718 GMT.
gl
-
kmz file for seven site (using kap overlay):
http://tighar.org/aw/kmz/2007_7_site.kmz (http://tighar.org/aw/kmz/2007_7_site.kmz)
from:
http://tighar.org/wiki/The_Seven_Site (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_Seven_Site)
-
kmz file for seven site (using kap overlay):
http://tighar.org/aw/kmz/2007_7_site.kmz (http://tighar.org/aw/kmz/2007_7_site.kmz)
Very nice!
I didn't realize the relative size of the clearing that the team made. Impressive.
-
1. In flight position 159-07-E ; 04-33.5-S was transmitted from aboard A/c @ 0720 GMT , based on sunset fix @ 071930 GMT , see recomputation EJN-2011 , not my math but mr.Noonan´s precalculation by H.O.no.208 .
2. mr.Putnam expected A/c NW of Howland , possibly since he heard of a northward offset landfall operation was in flight plan however , there have been "clairvoyants´" predictions in the play. Also , Putnam may have been supported by the commander of Itasca , who thought A/c to be NW since from there the distance to the 157 LOP was shortest. In 3rd instance Ameia reported 0843 (Navy) LZT "..flying north and south.."
Except for the fact that the position report was received in Lae at 0718 GMT, one and a half minutes prior to 0719:30 GMT, the time of the observation that Mr. van Asten claims was used to provide the position so Mr. van Asten's theory is obviously incorrect. Most likely Noonan just looked out the window and saw the island of Nukumanu located near the stated coordinates at some time prior to 0718 GMT.
gl
0718 GMT had nothing to do with appointments of Earhart , it conserned time points @ which weather updates to A/c would be sent from Lae airport by Balfour : 18 min past hour. In the Chater report this time indication is repeated several times (0418 , 0718 , 0918) . How , btw , would Noonan see 27 mls ahead to Nukumanu ? What other body than the sun was in sight before 071930 GMT ? EJN-2011 shows exactly how the sunset fix was established , by H.O.208 & facultative other available algorithms . If I got a new theory before me , I would first try to study it an possibly find a better one , before continuously advertising that the theory is wrong .
-
Here's a GE model of the USCG Loran station w/ 7 site in background. File too big (+128KB) to post here. If you want an email, PM me.
Marty, how to post large files? Can you put this KMZ on TIGHAR's Ameliapedia?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3601/5836843867_46320190bd.jpg)
-
Marty, how to post large files? Can you put this KMZ on TIGHAR's Ameliapedia?
I've raised the limit on attachments for now.
If people act responsibly, we should be OK.
-
Attached is KMZ file of Colorado search including flight paths of scout planes. Points are ship's track positions, lines are the plane's flight paths. Popup balloons of the ship's points include time and course. The "L" is the aircraft launch point, and the "R" is the recovery point.
See attachment at bottom of this post.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2750/5837393178_debda23842.jpg)
-
Marty, how to post large files? Can you put this KMZ on TIGHAR's Ameliapedia?
I've raised the limit on attachments for now.
If people act responsibly, we should be OK.
Sweet! Thanks. Here it is again. This is the Loran station. See attachment below....
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3601/5836843867_46320190bd_m.jpg)
-
1. In flight position 159-07-E ; 04-33.5-S was transmitted from aboard A/c @ 0720 GMT , based on sunset fix @ 071930 GMT , see recomputation EJN-2011 , not my math but mr.Noonan´s precalculation by H.O.no.208 .
2. mr.Putnam expected A/c NW of Howland , possibly since he heard of a northward offset landfall operation was in flight plan however , there have been "clairvoyants´" predictions in the play. Also , Putnam may have been supported by the commander of Itasca , who thought A/c to be NW since from there the distance to the 157 LOP was shortest. In 3rd instance Ameia reported 0843 (Navy) LZT "..flying north and south.."
Except for the fact that the position report was received in Lae at 0718 GMT, one and a half minutes prior to 0719:30 GMT, the time of the observation that Mr. van Asten claims was used to provide the position so Mr. van Asten's theory is obviously incorrect. Most likely Noonan just looked out the window and saw the island of Nukumanu located near the stated coordinates at some time prior to 0718 GMT.
gl
0718 GMT had nothing to do with appointments of Earhart , it conserned time points @ which weather updates to A/c would be sent from Lae airport by Balfour : 18 min past hour. In the Chater report this time indication is repeated several times (0418 , 0718 , 0918) . How , btw , would Noonan see 27 mls ahead to Nukumanu ? What other body than the sun was in sight before 071930 GMT ? EJN-2011 shows exactly how the sunset fix was established , by H.O.208 & facultative other available algorithms . If I got a new theory before me , I would first try to study it an possibly find a better one , before continuously advertising that the theory is wrong .
Excse , it concerns
-
Attached is KMZ file of Colorado search including flight paths of scout planes. Points are ship's track positions, lines are the plane's flight paths. Popup balloons of the ship's points include time and course. The "L" is the aircraft launch point, and the "R" is the recovery point.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2750/5837393178_debda23842.jpg)
Beautiful! That really tells the story. You do nice work!
-
Very impressive! I went to 2000 feet and "flew" the route to Niku for a whole new perspective of the flyover. Being able to look at the loran station from different directions and altitudes is also awesome.
Rick J
-
Appointments with Earhart were for 15 min before and past the hour as from radiograms traffic . Also all KHAQQ from 1415 GMT to Itasca vice versa messages hold for those time points ; 18 min past the hour is nowhere documented .
-
Appointments with Earhart were for 15 min before and past the hour as from radiograms traffic . Also all KHAQQ from 1415 GMT to Itasca vice versa messages hold for those time points ; 18 min past the hour is nowhere documented .
The Transmission Timeline (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmission_timeline) begins with a message at 0418 GMT.
To see the Transmission Timeline (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Transmission_timeline), place your cursor over the words Transmission Timeline (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Transmission_timeline) and click with your mouse. This will cause your browser to go to the article in question. When you see words in a funny shade of blue in a post, such as Transmission Timeline (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Transmission_timeline), this means that they are "links." In the Transmission Timeline (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Transmission_timeline), you will find other "links" that lead to further documentation from which the Transmission Timeline (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Transmission_timeline) was created.
-
Has anyone created a .kmz for the whereabouts of the Itasca during its initial searches?
I found this in the Thompson Transcripts but would like to know if someone has already typed this in to GE.
Can anyone tell me what the meaning of "bounded by the lats 003500 30 North" is?
Thanks.
-
Has anyone created a .kmz for the whereabouts of the Itasca during its initial searches?
Hi Heath,
Attached at the bottom of the post is a .kmz file of the Itasca search you can download. It is from the deck logs for July 1 - July 12.
It sounds like you already have the Colorado .kmz file. If you don't it is in post #16 in this thread. Click here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,391.msg4584.html#msg4584) to download the Colorado .kmz file.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7067/6959625041_f189c57bb4.jpg)
-
Erik,
Thank you very much for the file!
Did you create these GE files?
-
Did you create these GE files?
Thanks. Yeah. With a little help from some charcter recognition and mapping conversion software.
-
Interesting... Can you tell me what the source data was?
If that is an accurate log of the Itasca movements I am a bit bothered by that Itasca radio message that stated that they had search from 320 degree to 45 degrees true from Howland out to 120 miles.
They also left the large area that described the most likely position on the water from 337 to 45 degrees true from Howland out to 250 miles largely un-searched. Am I missing something here?
-
Interesting... Can you tell me what the source data was?
The source data was the Itasca deck logs July 2-12. I took the 8am, 12noon, 8pm latitude and longitude observations and converted those to the point locations. The linear tracks in between the points are crude connect-the-dots. Here is a snippet of the Itasca deck log coordinates that were used in the conversion. One of these exists for each day.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7201/6827137376_c4dee1ed22.jpg)
If that is an accurate log of the Itasca movements I am a bit bothered by that Itasca radio message that stated that they had search from 320 degree to 45 degrees true from Howland out to 120 miles.
They also left the large area that described the most likely position on the water from 337 to 45 degrees true from Howland out to 250 miles largely un-searched. Am I missing something here?
Nope. Doesn't look like your missing anything. Unless, I'm missing the same thing! ???
I've revised the .kml file a bit. You'll notice two cones of probability 250nm and 120nm. Like you said, the 250nm cone is pretty void of any search tracks. The 120nm cone contains a reasonable amount though. I don't know what to make of that.
-
Attached is a revised .kmz file. This one includes the probabilty search cones, the 157/337 LOP, and "smoothed" the ship's course lines in between the coordinate observations. I fixed a small glitch with the three of the points lying just over the 180 degree dateline.
-
Erik,
Thanks for the update I appreciate it. This is very interesting as it does not appear that the Itasca spend a great deal of effort where they said that the Electra went down.
I have attached the area where Itasca told the Navy where they thought AE and FN might be found some 14 days after the event. On a side note I recently watched a documentary that suggest that the currents were not well understood back then and they were 5 times faster than thought during the original search. According to the documentary they were searching in all the wrong areas after the initial search on the 2nd of July.
Have you been looking at any Sonar data around Howland? Do you happen to have any GE files for where Nauticos (http://www.nauticos.com/)has been searching? I have looked over the Waitt Institute Sonar data (http://searchforamelia.org/sonar-data) which is interesting if you want to look over their sonar data. Even with that resolution it would probably be very difficult to spot the Electra. They felt confident that if it were there they would have spotted it in the data.
Looking within GE around Howland there appears to be several large swaths of sonar data around Howland but I cannot find the source? This must have been given to the public domain but I cannot find the source data. I checked in Geomap but did not find the data there.
-
Heath,
Thanks for those links. The GeoMap application is quite interesting. I saw that area where they were talking about 14 days later too. Was just about ready to create it myself. Thanks.
Have you been looking at any Sonar data around Howland? Do you happen to have any GE files for where Nauticos (http://www.nauticos.com/)has been searching? I have looked over the Waitt Institute Sonar data (http://searchforamelia.org/sonar-data) which is interesting if you want to look over their sonar data. Even with that resolution it would probably be very difficult to spot the Electra. They felt confident that if it were there they would have spotted it in the data.
Attached is .kmz for the Nauticos search area. I agree, it would be hard to spot a plane. Even if the plane went down nearyby, there are arguments that the fuel tanks would have been enough to allow the plane to remain buoyant even submerged. So, even then the plane may have 'floated' (even under water) quite a ways from where it hit water, if Waitt is correct.
Looking within GE around Howland there appears to be several large swaths of sonar data around Howland but I cannot find the source? This must have been given to the public domain but I cannot find the source data. I checked in Geomap but did not find the data there.
I saw those swaths too. The first thing that came to mind was organizations who maintain trans-oceanic communication cables may have done the swaths of sonar. Some of them go thousands of miles!
Attached is the .kmz for the Nauticos search area.
-
Erik,
Thanks for the info. Please let me know when you have more GE files to share and I will do the same.
Yes, that is exactly the swath that I was looking at. I spent some time searching but could not find the source of the data. While it is a slim swath and the probability would be quite low that they just happened to pass over the Electra it might be fun to scan the data anyway if it can be obtained for free. If I find anything more about it I will pass it on.
Here is something interesting regarding Howland and perhaps Baker:
The Pacific Islands Benthic Habitat Mapping Center (PIBHMC), Howland Island (http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pibhmc/pibhmc_pria_how.htm)
While the image resolution is too low to be useful for finding a plane perhaps they have higher resolution data that could be displayed in GeoApp or a similar application. It is too bad they did not scan the area around Gardner Island.
-
While it is a slim swath and the probability would be quite low that they just happened to pass over the Electra it might be fun to scan the data anyway if it can be obtained for free.
Ah - I gotcha now.... I missed the whole point of the swaths and bottom sonar imagery. Heck yeah, we could even start our own "ROV thread" searching for the electra. he.. he.. :)
Here is something interesting regarding Howland and perhaps Baker:
The Pacific Islands Benthic Habitat Mapping Center (PIBHMC), Howland Island (http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pibhmc/pibhmc_pria_how.htm)
More good stuff! Thanks.
Please let me know when you have more GE files to share and I will do the same.
Sure thing. Do you know about GE 'underwater mode'?
Tools -> Options -> Show Terrain
View -> Water Surface
-
Eric,
Thanks for the files. I did not know there was a way to turn off the water surface but I did accidentally fly under the water once and looked around Howland and Gardner. You have to love GE. Now if we could just get a hold of some interesting data and sift through it.
Side scan sonar is definitely interesting. If it were me, I would go for the side scan before bothering with remote submersibles and cameras around Gardner. If there is a plane, boat, or anything else, you would be able to find it.
Check out this side scan sonar of a B-17 that crashed off of Corsica, an Island off the West Coast of Italy.
Attached are a few interesting side-scan sonar images of various ship and plane wrecks. Click the radio button for each scan and it will download the image from the net. I would really like to get my hands on a side-scan for use in the lakes here in and around Michigan.
-
That's some cool stuff. I would imagine the argument against the sonar is that the location (and water depth) need to be with certain tolerances. Too deep water and too uncertain location could be cost prohibitive. Then again Nauticos did it, over a much larger area. Any estimate on $$$ for a Nauticos type operation "just" to encircle Gardner once or twice?
-
As you say, the depth is a concern. For 200-300' you could probably find a unit off the shelf for a reasonable price. You could probably do some decent maps on the shelves with one of those. Beyond that depth you would need something more sophisticated. I am not sure how deep the tow behinds can operate but Nauticos is probably using those sophisticated autonomous subs that would be very expensive.
Maybe if Nauticos does end up back at Howland they could be contracted to make a pass around Gardner while they are out in that vicinity in the Pacific.
Here is a nice one that can operate to 6000M depth (http://www.seafloorsystems.com/c3d2007.pdf).
They even offer rentals for that unit here (http://www.seafloorsystems.com/benthoscd3lp.html).
-
Erik,
I was thinking a bit more about the search area covered by the Itasca. If we consider that the crows nest on the Itasca was say about 120ft (just a guess), they observers up there could see about 15.3SM to the horizon. Looking at the search area out to 120NM, they probably did have a fair coverage assuming about a 30SM swath where they did travel. I thought that I could perhaps just increase the line thickness to accurately reflect this but there is a maximum allowed value of 100 or so, not nearly enough. Do you know of any way to turn the lines to in to polygons? It would be interesting to see in GE that maximum possible area that was searched. Thanks in advance.
-
Heath,
Funny you mention that. I too noticed a pattern to the search distance. If you compare the search areas where they tracked back-and-forth on a zig-zag pattern, its roughly a 25-30 mile swath between the lines. So, yes a 15 mile offset seems about right. And just as importantly, that they were aware of that distance during the operation.
I would have to say though that spotting a floating airplane, raft, or person floating in the water is going to exponentialy decrease the further away you get. So a polygon would give us a rough estimate, a better model would be a "heat map" showing infinte ranges of decreasing values the further away.
I am working on that now. Small glitch with GE exporting polygons on the 180 degree dateline. I've got a fix (i think). Hang tight.
-
Erik,
I am looking forward to what you come up with. Another factor we might want to consider is whether the given areas were searched during daylight or nighttime hours. If they did not have flares for example, how would Itasca expect to see them at night? Perhaps there would be a way to code that in to your color scheme somehow.
-
Heath & Erik,
In Reply #31 of this thread, the graphic you show depicting the Nauticos search area is actually the search area from the Waitt search.
There have been to date four deep-water searches for the Electra, conducted in the general vicinity of Howland Island: (1) Dana Timmer in 1998 (or it might have been 1999), (2) Nauticos in 2002, (3) Nauticos + Waitt in 2006, and (4) Waitt in 2009. The first three of those searches used towed systems. Only Waitt 2009 used autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV's), 2 REMUS-6000 vehicles ("6000" refers to the maximum operating depth of the vehicles, 6000 meters), built by Hydroid, a commercial spin-off from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) which has developed over many years the very successful family of REMUS AUV's. Hydroid was purchased by Kongsberg Marine several years ago. Waitt owns the two REMUS-6000 AUV's but has WHOI/Hydroid operate them; Waitt does not have the in-house expertise or experience to operate these vehicles.
Only Waitt has made public any of its data, including the area searched. Nauticos has not made is data public and presumably will not do so unless and until it finds the Electra.
The waters around Howland Island approach 18,000 feet deep. In the deep-ocean search business, 20,000 feet -- which is approximately 6000 m -- is called "full-ocean depth". Twenty-thousand feet to the deepest point in the oceans (approximately 36,000 feet at the bottom of the Marianas Trench) is called "ultimate ocean depth". For comparison, the TITANIC lies at about 12,000 feet deep.
Getting to 12,000 feet or 18,000 feet is no easy feat. There are literally only a handful of systems in the world, towed and AUV, which can reach full-ocean depth. And there is an even smaller handful of companies in the world which own and operate these complex systems. A significant part of the cost of hiring one of these companies and one of these systems (again, towed or AUV) is the cost of the group of technicians which operates and maintains the system. A key part of this group is own or more individuals with expertise in analyzing and interpreting side-scan sonar data. Side-scan imagery sometimes looks a lot like a photograph, and there are some similar principles involved in the two different imaging schemes; but side-scan is really a different beast which requires specialized training, skills, and experience to accurately interprete it. "Reading" a side-scan image often is not easy, it's not like looking at a photograph.
Towed systems are the older technology, but they are not that much less complex overall compared to a full-ocean depth AUV. The cost for "hiring" a towed system is probably about the same as the cost for an AUV system with similar capabilities. Towed or AUV, each has its own set of unique advantages and disadvantages compared to the other system. The deep-ocean search business is slowly moving toward AUV's, but towed systems will likely be around for quite some time yet. The number of full-ocean depth AUV's available to the "private" or commercial sector (i.e AUV's outside of the navies of the world and outside of basically government-owned/operated oceanographic institutions) is tiny. Basically there are the two Waitt REMUS-6000 vehicles, there is one REMUS-6000 which I think is owned and operated by a French oceanographic institute, and there is one or two Hugin AUV's built, owned, and operated by Kongsberg Marine. That's it as far as I know for full-ocean depth AUV's in the private sector.
The deep-water oil and natural gas industry drives the demand for AUV's. So far this industry has had no need to operate much below 12,000 or 15,000 feet. This is why there are so few full-ocean depth AUV's available in the commercial world.
Any of these full-ocean depth systems, towed or AUV, has a side-scan sonar very much capable of detecting Earhart's Electra (again, assuming the side-scan data the system collects is analyzed and interpreted by a side-scan expert), if it does happen to lie on the ocean floor somewhere near Howland Island.
Traditionally, side-scan sonar systems have been very expensive (even systems which don't have to operate anywhere near full-ocean depth). This is because underwater search has always been a niche industry with a small number of users, and because the equipment has been high-tech. The large research and development costs associated with these systems, coupled with relatively few commercial customers interested in buying them, has made the per unit cost of a side-scan system very high.
The situation has been changing in the last few years. Sport and commercial fisherman (as well as small government interests such as underwater search and rescue teams, have always been interested in having a side-scan sonar capability but couldn't afford it. With the advances electronics and the general decreasing costs of electronic components, the manufacturers of marine electronics have started making side-scan sonars units which are within the price range of the recreational boater/fisherman. I know Humminbird and Lowrance now are selling such systems. These are hull-mounted systems designed to be used in very shallow water. I don't know what these units cost, but I would guess they sell for around $5000 per unit. If you're interested, you might want to check out the Humminbird 1198c SI or the Lowrance HDS 10.
-
Erik & Heath,
Your guess about the height of eye provided by ITASCA's crow's nest is a good one, but a little high. I used to have access to a set of drawings of the ITASCA. I scaled dimensions on these drawings to get an estimates of various heights (bridge wings, main deck, "crows nest", etc.) on the ship. I don't have easy access to those drawings any more, but I did keep some notes on some of the dimensions I measured. I came up with 86 feet for the height of the base of the "crows nest" above the waterline. Assuming a sailor of average height standing on this platform, I think you could reasonably at 5 feet to this for a height of eye of about 94 feet.
Using the standard formula for distance to the horizon (Distance to horizon, in nautical miles, = 1.144 *sqrt(height of eye, in feet)), height of eye of 94 feet gives a distance to the horizon of 11.1 nm.
However, I think the actual distance one could see two heads bobbing in the ocean, or even two people in a life raft, would be a lot less than 11 nm. I used to be a U.S. Navy submarine officer, spent lots of time looking out a periscope, more limited time looking at objects from the bridge of a submarine. (Modern nuclear submarines don't spend much time on the surface.) Several years ago I asked a current professional mariner for his estimate on how far away you could see a life raft. His estimate was 3 nm under "average" conditions. Obviously, the answer is going to depend on the specific conditions. If the occupants of the life raft had a mirror or some other shiny object, and if it were sunny, sun glint off the shiny object could significantly increase this "average" detection distance.
My own guess based on all of this is that 5 nm is probably a generous estimate for the maximum detection distance under typical sea and sky conditions.
-
Jeff,
Thank you for all that detailed information.
Are your estimates for spotting a raft based on the use of binoculars or the naked eye? Do we know if they had binoculars or spotting scopes up in the crow's nest?
Thanks!
-
Heath,
My 5 nm estimate assumed use of standard 7 X 50 binoculars (i.e., 7X magnification), which is what I think I used on the bridge back in my Navy days. (They might have been slightly higher magnification now that I think of it, whatever the next standard size up from 7X is.)
After posting my 5 nm estimate, I have had some 2nd thoughts about it for the case of looking for a life raft using binoculars. I'm going to seek another opinion from one ex-navy officer friend, will let you know if this changes my estimate. I may also try to back some time to do a simple visual simulation of the life raft case.
I think an ITASCA lookout placed in the crow's nest would definitely have been given a pair of binoculars to use. Again, my experience on Navy surface warships was very limited (essentially to a couple of midshipman training cruises), but what I recall is that a Navy surface warship stationed at least three lookouts during normal underway steaming -- one lookout on each bridge wing (port and starboard) and one lookout at the stern looking astern of the ship. Each of these lookouts had a pair of binoculars. The Officer of the Deck (OOD) on the bridge also had a pair of binoculars available for his use. And I'm pretty sure there was another pair of binoculars on the bridge reserved for the captain's use. The ship probably had a few extra pairs of binoculars on board to cover contingencies. I don't know for sure that the ITASCA used the same watch organization of lookouts back in 1937, but I assume what I've described was a standard set of lookouts that had been used by Navy ships for many years before I saw it.
My point with the number of binoculars on board is that there should have been extra binoculars available to use in the crow's nest during ITASCA's search for Earhart. Who knows, there may also have been some pairs of personally-owned binoculars on board. If there were, I imagine these would have been pressed into service as well.
My opinion is that Warner Thompson, CO of ITASCA, was a very competent seaman and no fool. He was fully aware of the gravity of the situation he was in when Earhart failed to arrive at Howland. Most importantly, he knew there were two lives at stake. And he knew one of those two was a public celebrity, and he was the guy "on watch" when she went missing. I think Thompson did the very best he could, with the information he had at the time, to find Earhart and Noonan. He would have taken whatever actions he felt would increase the chances of finding them. This almost certainly would have included putting a lookout, with binoculars, in the crow's nest.
-
Erik & Heath,
Your guess about the height of eye provided by ITASCA's crow's nest is a good one, but a little high. I used to have access to a set of drawings of the ITASCA. I scaled dimensions on these drawings to get an estimates of various heights (bridge wings, main deck, "crows nest", etc.) on the ship. I don't have easy access to those drawings any more, but I did keep some notes on some of the dimensions I measured. I came up with 86 feet for the height of the base of the "crows nest" above the waterline. Assuming a sailor of average height standing on this platform, I think you could reasonably at 5 feet to this for a height of eye of about 94 feet.
Using the standard formula for distance to the horizon (Distance to horizon, in nautical miles, = 1.144 *sqrt(height of eye, in feet)), height of eye of 94 feet gives a distance to the horizon of 11.1 nm.
However, I think the actual distance one could see two heads bobbing in the ocean, or even two people in a life raft, would be a lot less than 11 nm. I used to be a U.S. Navy submarine officer, spent lots of time looking out a periscope, more limited time looking at objects from the bridge of a submarine. (Modern nuclear submarines don't spend much time on the surface.) Several years ago I asked a current professional mariner for his estimate on how far away you could see a life raft. His estimate was 3 nm under "average" conditions. Obviously, the answer is going to depend on the specific conditions. If the occupants of the life raft had a mirror or some other shiny object, and if it were sunny, sun glint off the shiny object could significantly increase this "average" detection distance.
My own guess based on all of this is that 5 nm is probably a generous estimate for the maximum detection distance under typical sea and sky conditions.
The three mile estimate comes close, but rather than guessing at it why not use the data developed by the professionals. I have attached excerpts from the National Search And Rescue Manual with the data you need.
The important concept is sweep width (W) which is the width of the patch of ocean covered as the ship moves along. The table shows that with 20 NM visibility for a one man raft the W is 3.7 NM and for a 4 man life raft it is 5.0 NM. What this means is that you have an 80% probability of detection (POD) for anything within 1.85 NM or 2.5 NM on each side of the vessel. If you cover the same path a second time then the POD goes up to 97%. This is not the maximum detection range which is something slightly greater, see diagram. If you space (S) the search pattern legs to be separated by 1 W then the coverage factor (C) will also be 1 which produces the POD I just mentioned. If you space the legs at half of W then the coverage factor becomes 2 and the POD for one pass goes up to 99%. If you space the legs twice as far apart as the W then the coverage factor goes down to 0.5 and the POD for one pass goes down to 48%, 2 passes 71%, 3 passes 85%, etc.
With a mirror the W is 5.0 NM and at night for a Very flare it is 8.0 NM.
gl
-
How are POD (Probalities of Detection) determined? Were tests performed using large sample sets, or by real-world stories?
-
How are POD (Probalities of Detection) determined? Were tests performed using large sample sets, or by real-world stories?
I have no idea, you will have to ask the professionals who were charged with the responsibility for drafting this manual, that is relied upon by the Coast Guard, the Navy, the Air Force, the Army and the Civil Air Patrol. I'm sure they didn't just make up the numbers so unless you have something more authoritative, I'll just trust this manual.
gl
-
Heath & Erik,
In Reply #31 of this thread, the graphic you show depicting the Nauticos search area is actually the search area from the Waitt search.
Thanks Jeff. I didn't know that. The website made it appear as though Waitt and Nauticos were perhaps a joint venture. Your explanation clears it up.
Only Waitt has made public any of its data, including the area searched. Nauticos has not made is data public and presumably will not do so unless and until it finds the Electra.
Ha..ha... maybe they secretly searched Niku? :)
The waters around Howland Island approach 18,000 feet deep. In the deep-ocean search business, 20,000 feet -- which is approximately 6000 m -- is called "full-ocean depth". Twenty-thousand feet to the deepest point in the oceans (approximately 36,000 feet at the bottom of the Marianas Trench) is called "ultimate ocean depth". For comparison, the TITANIC lies at about 12,000 feet deep.
Puts a whole new meaning to 20,000 leagues under the sea! By the way, what ever happened to that term? ")
PS = Still working on the visibility 'heat map'. Stay tuned...
-
How are POD (Probalities of Detection) determined? Were tests performed using large sample sets, or by real-world stories?
I have no idea, you will have to ask the professionals who were charged with the responsibility for drafting this manual, that is relied upon by the Coast Guard, the Navy, the Air Force, the Army and the Civil Air Patrol. I'm sure they didn't just make up the numbers so unless you have something more authoritative, I'll just trust this manual.
gl
Like Marty says... Using these POD variables YMMV. Caveat Emptor.
-
The deep-water oil and natural gas industry drives the demand for AUV's. So far this industry has had no need to operate much below 12,000 or 15,000 feet. This is why there are so few full-ocean depth AUV's available in the commercial world.
Any clue to what the large 'swaths' are that Heath and I were talking about? See the second image in post #31 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,391.msg11040.html#msg11040).
-
Like Marty says... Using these POD variables YMMV. Caveat Emptor.
Only if you are purposefully trying to avoid the inconvenient truth that these tables tend to disprove the Niku hypothesis.
gl
-
Heath & Erik,
No, sorry, I don't have any good idea what the swaths you indicated in the previous post might be. My guess would be they indicate the locations of bathymetry swaths. Surveyed by whom, and for what purpose, I have no idea.
Twenty thousand leagues under the sea (from the Jules Verne novel of the same name) ... A league is the old seafaring term distance. One league equals about three (nautical?) miles. In Jules Verne's novel, 20,000 leagues referred to the total distance Captain Nemo's submarine "Nautilus" had sailed underwater. It did not refer to a depth under the sea surface.
-
Today I was playing with the photo of the Norwich City in Google Earth, importing the image as an overlay. With a bit of work you can get a fairly close perspective of where the photo was taken although it does take some practice (still working on that).
Once you place the photo as best that you can you then perform a snapshot to view. This locks in the coordinates, altitude, and viewing angle. An interesting feature of the image overlay is that you can then pull up the properties for the image and play with the opacity control. This allows you to see things where they used to be (like the Norwich City in this example) and what it looks like today.
What would be interesting is to gather up these old photos around Gardner and Howland and put them in a single Google Earth .kmz file and perhaps create a guided tour of the photos. While this would a lot of work for any individual perhaps several people could help with the effort.
Attached is an example .kmz file.
-
This turns out to a be a difficult problem. After working on a different photo for sometime I give up.
-
This turns out to a be a difficult problem. After working on a different photo for sometime I give up.
I've moved your post into this thread, where you can see some of the kinds of work others have done with Google Earth.