TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Irvine John Donald on December 10, 2011, 10:11:43 AM
-
There have been numerous suggestions that the Electra landed on Gardner in good enough shape to run the right engine for the radio and did not crash land.
I pose the question. Could the Electra have been in good enough shape that AE and FN were able to take off from Gardner?
Consider. There was no sign of the aircraft when 3 navy aircraft flew over the island mere days after the last post loss radio message. The plane was in good enough shape to run the right engine at least.
The castaways realized quickly, due to water shortage and lack of response to their radio messages that help, if coming, would arrive too late. They left their few belongings on the island and took off knowing it was their last chance. (Presumably into the sunset).
She could have used the 100 octane fuel to "boost" her take off. Wink wink Gary
Wow. How's that for assumptions?
-
Okay. The Colorado planes come and go. They must have come from a ship. Let's take off and go find the ship. They can't find the ship. They run out of gas and go down at sea. What's the debris in the Bevington photo? Who was the castaway whose bones and campsite were found in 1940?
-
If it were me, and I thought I could take off again from the reef, I'd climb as high as possible while transmitting the whole time and generally trying to make myself as noticable as possible, while staying within gliding/landing distance of the reef.
Then again, from what I've read, a landing on the reef is likely to cause flat tires at a minimum. That would rule out a takeoff, but then again, we're just fantasizing here.
-
I was suggesting they took off before the Colorado search. Desperate move by desperate people. Last post loss transmission on Thursday night, July 8 means plane was upright and they could transmit. Next day, July 9 around noon is Colorado search of Gardner. No sign of plane.
I also have no idea where they would think to go. Another island? Look for search ships? Try for Howland? Just speculation for sure.
Castaway skeleton? Ladies shoes in AE size? Glass containers for toiletries? Sure seems like it was AE but no smoking gun. The island has had natives and north Americans visit on and off. Perhaps the castaway was a visiting native who died as a result of wrestling a medium sized coconut crab out of a tree? (Official Gardner island sport?).
It's all speculation. John says fantasizing but I save that word for other subjects.
-
I would like to correct information from my earlier post. The last "credible" post loss radio signal was on Wednesday, July 7th at 2018 Gardner time see http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html) Item #175
The search by the US Navys Grummans from the Colorado were on Friday, July 9th around mid morning local Gardner time See http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html)
This means the Electra disappeared sometime within that approximately just under 40 hour window. The TIGHAR hypothesis is that the aircraft was pulled from the shore into the deeper water just off the reef where it landed. See http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/15_1/hypothesis.html (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/15_1/hypothesis.html) This same reference only says that the seas got rougher that week but do not mention a storm.
Is it likely that the castaways would simple land and leave the aircraft right where it stopped? Remember this is on a flat reef at low tide around noon on July 2nd. As the castaways would have observed the tide coming in and evidence of a high tide line on the beach, would they have just left the plane where it landed or move it closer to safety?
In the flight over Niko video the simulated landing by the helicopter first shows the proximity to the Norwich City and then shows the simulated landing on the reef flats. This isn't close to the beach. Its quite exposed. Ric has commented that the plane could not be taken onto the beach due to the jagged and pitted geology between the reef flat and the beach itself. However we do have post loss radio messages meaning the Electra was upright and able to run the right engine. At least up to within 40 hours of the aerial search.
The aerial search was done by three aircraft with two crew in each. They saw the Norwich City and from the height they were flying (minimum 400 feet to avoid birds) they would have had a good view of the reef flat where its presumed the Electra landed. No report of a big silver airplane. Where did it go?
Is it possible the castawys recognized that the Electra was their best piece of survival gear and moved it away from high tide's harm? She did have the engine running for the radio. She probably had an idea of how much fuel she had left. Why not just inch the plane higher up the beach to avoid the high tide damage. If there was any because we know the transmitter didnt get wet or it would not likely have worked. See Wet Radio under the Radio section of the forum. Ric's reply # 6 says "She seems to have sent radio calls for several days (nights actually). She can only do that from the airplane. The airplane has to be somewhere where the water does not reach the transmitter at high tide and where the water is low enough at low tide for her to run the engine to recharge the batteries. The place where the debris is seen in the Bevington photo does not meet those criteria. Where the airplane was "parked" while sending radio messages does not necessarily have to be where it stopped at the end of its landing roll - unless the landing ended in a gear collapse. She can land wherever the reef looks smoothest and then taxi to a higher spot that may not be as smooth but gives her a few more inches - anything to stay above water. She can't taxi to anywhere near the beach. Way too pitted and jagged.
This, of course, is all theorizing. We start with what we believe to be fact and then say, "If this is true then this must also be true.""
So did the castaways then abandon their best survival gear (the Electra) to the high tides that had NOT taken the aircraft into the depths all week. Did the high tides then, within the 40 hour window, when we would have had cycles of high and low tides, destroy the aircraft such that it went over the edge of the reef and left nothing substantial for the aerial searchers to identify as possible aircraft wreckage. All within a 40 hour window?
Could the castaways have decided to use the aircraft as one last, or best, chance to get away? Facing ever growing physical weakness as food and water ran out would they do the one thing they knew how to do and that was to fly the Electra out?
But they were never found. They likely then crashed at sea, leaving their few possessions including some Electra parts they had taken on shore to act as tools for cutting open crabs or coconuts. But NR16020 hasn't been found, signals lasted until July 7th Gardner time then stop, No severe weather like a tropical storm reported in the 40 hour window (would have to have started and stopped between last message and good flying weather of Friday July 9th).
It is only speculation. But isn't this testing the hypothesis? Or am I advancing a theory? I look forward to the responses and corrections.
-
Why not just inch the plane higher up the beach to avoid the high tide damage?
Because there is no smooth taxiway from the reef flat to the beach.
The water is impossibly deep close to the shore in the so-called "boat channel." (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_boat_channel)
-
Thanks Marty. So there was no "safe" spot on the beach hence my point that the aircraft was exposed. No way for the aircraft to be off the reef flat when the aerial search was done? So within the 40 hour window the seas had to have become rough enough to pull the Electra off the reef. And since it hadn't been pulled off the reef by 8.18pm local Gardner time on July 7th then the seas had to have gotten much rougher after that time and before the aerial search of Friday morning.
Is the "boat channel" still deep at low tide Marty?
-
Is the "boat channel" still deep at low tide Marty?
I haven't seen the channels myself.
Howard Alldred (RIP) said "no."
"Location and Geology of Nikumaroro": (http://tighar.org/smf/../wiki/Location_and_Geology_of_Nikumaroro) "Either in association with the beachrock outcrops, or as a result of its absence, a 'boat channel' runs along the inboard edge of the reef flat. Where it is actually present, the boat channel is often no more than a series of discontinuous channels, troughs and pools. The walls of these pools are usually steep-sided, and they are commonly less than 1 metre deep. ... On Nikumaroro, where it is actually present, it is a non-navigable series of discontinuous channels, troughs and pools, not usually more than 1-metre deep. They form temporary sediment traps."
-
Why would you take off from an island with next to nothing fuel to fly to a watery grave? At least on dry land you have a chance (however slim) of survival/being found.
-
I wouldn't think they expected to land in a watery grave any more than they thought flying around the world would end up on a desert island as a castaway with no water. Rather as a last desperate chance to spot a better (inhabited or at least with water) island or a rescue ship. As John points out in an earlier reply you could stay within landing distance of Gardner.
It's speculation on that 40 hour window where the Electra "disappeared". It didn't go on the beach, it wasn't spotted by aerial search, no definitive evidence of its wreckage has been found. Where is it? If it was a boat we might think it was aside away. If a car we might think it was driven away. If it's a plane we might think...
-
The "Flew Away" hypothesis requires that we attribute the evidence discovered at the Seven Site both in 1940, 1996, 2001, 2007 and 2010 suggesting that the pilot of the aircraft died there to some other person. In other words, we must postulate that that TWO American women of the 1930s managed to get themselves marooned on Gardner Island. It also requires us to disregard numerous anecdotes, photographic evidence, and artifacts that strongly suggest that wreckage from the Electra was present on the island.
-
Yes. It does require us to re think that evidence. So it's not likely they flew away because that evidence is pretty compelling. But apparently not compelling enough to convince the world at large that the mystery is solved.
Take Gary Lapook for instance. Seems like a good, decent, intelligent man with a serious technical background in the aeronautical world. He isn't convinced the TIGHAR hypothesis is true. He tests a lot of the evidence on a regular basis.
My "fly away" idea is primarily for me to question that 40 hour window that personally troubles me. Presenting it in this forum and reading others opinions on it is my way of testing the hypothesis. Active debate is healthy. Evidence is compelling. Finding the Electra is the smoking gun. Since a physical search is so expensive to mount on a large scale (Search until its found) shouldn't we hypothesize about where it is as much as we can? The DNA evidence would have done the trick too.
-
Yes. It does require us to re think that evidence. So it's not likely they flew away because that evidence is pretty compelling. But apparently not compelling enough to convince the world at large that the mystery is solved.
I don't think we've asked the world at large to accept that the mystery is solved. I tried that once in 1992 and found out that people have to decide for themselves.
Take Gary Lapook for instance. Seems like a good, decent, intelligent man with a serious technical background in the aeronautical world. He isn't convinced the TIGHAR hypothesis is true. He tests a lot of the evidence on a regular basis.
Hypotheses are tested by experimentation. If I formulate a hypothesis that the reef surface north of Norwich City is smooth, the only way I can test that hypothesis is to go there and see if it's smooth. I can't test it by citing an official government report on reefs or by citing my own experience walking on reefs in the Caribbean. Gary does not test hypotheses. What Gary does on a regular basis is the same thing he does for a living - he tries to convince a jury (the members of this forum) that the plaintiff (TIGHAR) is not entitled to the award it seeks (contributions toward further research). He cites reports, manuals, and his own experience to challenge TIGHARs assumptions and allegations, while trying to denigrate the credibility of TIGHAR's expert witnesses. Standard lawyer stuff but it's kinda fun to play Perry Mason with him. We need to be able to defend our case against all comers. Gary, of course, scrupulously avoids stating any hypothesis of his own. That would put HIM on the stand.
My "fly away" idea is primarily for me to question that 40 hour window that personally troubles me. Presenting it in this forum and reading others opinions on it is my way of testing the hypothesis.
You're not testing the hypothesis either. You're trying to assess the likelihood that your hypothesis is correct. Your hypothesis is essentially untestable. Most of the hypotheses we argue about on this forum are untestable. We'll never know where the Electra was on the LOP when Itasca heard AE say "We must be on you...", if she was ever on the LOP. All we can do is try to assess the likelihood of various possible scenarios. That helps us decide which testable hypotheses to actually test. If it is more likely that she crashed & sank near Howland then maybe it's worth searching for the plane on the ocean bottom in that area. If it is more likely that she landed at Gardner and then flew away then maybe it's worth searching for the plane on the ocean bottom some distance from Gardner. If it is more likely that she landed at Gardner and the plane went over the reef edge then maybe it's worth searching for the plane there.
Active debate is healthy. Evidence is compelling. Finding the Electra is the smoking gun. Since a physical search is so expensive to mount on a large scale (Search until its found) shouldn't we hypothesize about where it is as much as we can?
We should consider every scenario we can think of to account for the evidence. If we formulate a hypothesis that requires us to disregard evidence we have to also formulate hypotheses for why the disregarded evidence can be disregarded. For example, the Flew Away hypothesis requires that we disregard the evidence that the pilot of the aircraft was the castaway whose bones were found in 1940. We must then come up with a hypothesis to explain who that castaway was.
The DNA evidence would have done the trick too.
And may yet, but I think the plane is a better bet.
-
Thanks Ric. A thoughtful, helpful, and polite response.
-
How about a variation of a take-off attempt during the 40 hour window.
The attempt ends in a crash landing and possible overturn into the surf. One survivor gets out and goes on to the 7 site where they eventually expire; could it explain "Nessie" too?
-
How about a variation of a take-off attempt during the 40 hour window.
The attempt ends in a crash landing and possible overturn into the surf. One survivor gets out and goes on to the 7 site where they eventually expire; could it explain "Nessie" too?
I can't think of reason that couldn't have happened. How would we ever know? I suppose wreckage from an attempted takeoff crash might look different than wreckage from a plane getting beat up against the reef edge.
-
Short answer - Yes.
Damn, I'm good. ;D
LTM,
Monty Fowler,
TIGHAR No. 2189CER, who tries to keep it short and sweet but usually ends up blathering on ...
-
I wonder if any data has been collected on how long a person who is stranded/deserted/lost will wait before striking out on their own or taking action to do so. For that matter, is there a difference on how long one person might wait compared to a couple of folks or a small group? I recall most recently that fellow who was pinned by the arm under a boulder in Utah who eventually knew that it was time, that help wasn't coming. He took drastic measures to free himself and began to walk in search of being rescued. Perhaps AE and FN (if he hadn't expired from injuries it is felt he might have sustained during or soon after landing) decided it was time but never made it back off the reef. A seaward pile-up during a take-off attempt could possibly explain the absence of wreckage visible to searchers overhead. It might even explain only one set of bones at the Seven Site. If evidence was found to support such an event, what an interesting turn of events that would be but as Ric sez: "How would we ever know?"
LTM,
Friend
-
"...wreckage from an attempted takeoff crash might look different than wreckage from a plane getting beat up against the reef edge."
Bent prop tips? Maybe throttles in WOT, full-rich, etc. It may not be difficult to tell, once the aircraft is found and examined :'(
-
u know the post loss radio messages run between gardner an mckean island is it poss they landed by norwich city an then attemted to take off plane bounced by lagoon passage broke the wheel strut but managed to get into air to head for mckean but went down not far from seven site an were able to get out an get back to sure ?
-
u know the post loss radio messages run between gardner an mckean island is it poss they landed by norwich city an then attemted to take off plane bounced by lagoon passage broke the wheel strut but managed to get into air to head for mckean but went down not far from seven site an were able to get out an get back to sure ?
The Seven Site is not on the way to McKean. Opposite direction.
-
I wonder if any data has been collected on how long a person who is stranded/deserted/lost will wait before striking out on their own or taking action to do so. For that matter, is there a difference on how long one person might wait compared to a couple of folks or a small group? I recall most recently that fellow who was pinned by the arm under a boulder in Utah who eventually knew that it was time, that help wasn't coming. He took drastic measures to free himself and began to walk in search of being rescued. Perhaps AE and FN (if he hadn't expired from injuries it is felt he might have sustained during or soon after landing) decided it was time but never made it back off the reef. A seaward pile-up during a take-off attempt could possibly explain the absence of wreckage visible to searchers overhead. It might even explain only one set of bones at the Seven Site. If evidence was found to support such an event, what an interesting turn of events that would be but as Ric sez: "How would we ever know?"
This whole idea of Noonan being injured is intriguing as well. If the Electra landed in relatively good enough shape to stay upright on its gear and able to start its engines for several days then what kind of injury would FN have received? Betty's notes don't suggest he is physically impaired as it sounds like he is able to move around. It sounds more like he is delirious. Rambling as though it's a head injury. What if it was lack of water? Do we know anything about the physical toll on a person who goes without water for a period of time? What about the effects of drinking sea water or polluted or stagnant water? Could FN have let AE have the little water they had and be suffering for it? Could AE see that FN needed help and decided to fly away while she still could? Lots of "possible" scenarios but all are pure speculation. Only if some castaway diary was found would you have an idea of what happened.
-
How about a variation of a take-off attempt during the 40 hour window.
The attempt ends in a crash landing and possible overturn into the surf. One survivor gets out and goes on to the 7 site where they eventually expire; could it explain "Nessie" too?
I can't think of reason that couldn't have happened. How would we ever know? I suppose wreckage from an attempted takeoff crash might look different than wreckage from a plane getting beat up against the reef edge.
But was the Electra being "beat up against the reef edge"? It landed on the reef flat around noon on the 2nd. Stayed upright on its gear and able to run the right engine for 5 days of high and low tide action, while allowing AE and FN to enter the plane to transmit. It stays in this shape until at least the night of the 7th when the last credible transmission is heard. Then within 40 hours it breaks up and disappears. And since the aerial searchers don't see anything resembling a wrecked aircraft or large pieces of wreckage then where did it go? Over the edge of the reef flat? What weather came up during that 40 hour window that could have done that? Could it really be that all through the 5 days of transmitting the aircraft was being beat up? Sure it could. But would it be sustaining only "light" damage for 5 days (allowing cabin entry, engine running and still upright on its gear) and then on the last day it gets so beat up it disappears? It's possible but is it likely?
When watching the video of the Niku overflight by the helicopter you get some idea of the surf action. Those who have visited the island can tell us more but anyone who has been to an ocean beach for swimming has felt the pressure on their legs and body. Surf action has destroyed the wreck of the Norwich City over its time on the reef flat. Many years of storms and day in day out surf action. Many years. The Electra by comparison is a very delicate fragile piece of equipment. Never designed to be in water like a ship. It wouldn't stand much punishment. I wonder if there is a maritime organization who regularly tests wave action on ship design, breakwater designs, rates of shoreline erosion, etc, could be persuaded to use their mechanical wave tanks to simulate the 7 days of surf action on a model of an Electra on a reef flat. Has this ever been attempted?
-
What did the natives see when they recalled there was an aircraft wreck north of the Norwich City? What is the object in the "Nessie" photo? Could the surf action destroy an aircraft in one week so it couldnt be identified as an airplane wreck by 6 people in three aircraft who are searching for it just 7 days after it landed? But yet that same surf action leaves the wreckage intact enough that natives identified it as an airplane wreck months later?
Sorry for all the questions. Please comment as there are no wrong answers until the truth comes out, and hopefully it does.
-
The last credible post-loss message was heard at 8:18 PM Gardner time on July 7. The Colorado planes were over the island roughly 36 hours later. The Electra's ability to remain intact on the reef depended upon the height of high tide, the amount of wave action on the reef, and the direction of the wave action on the reef. Those factors were not constant. During the week July 2 to July 9 each high tide was getting successively higher. On July 2 the maximum water depth on the reef in the area where we think the plane was parked (assuming a calm sea) was just under half a meter. At high tide the evening of July 7 (about two hours before the last credible transmission was heard) the water level was a bit over .7 meter - again assuming a calm sea. At the next high tide, the water level was nearly .9 meter. We don't know what the sea conditions were but the combination of significantly higher high tide water levels and rougher seas could mean a far more hazardous situation for the plane. We also know that, at times, ocean waves refract around the northwest tip of the island resulting in a southwesterly flow of water over the reef in the area where we think the plane was parked. Surf coming from that direction would drive an object on the reef toward the edge. In short, it doesn't take anything more than normal events for the airplane to have survived relativlkey undisturbed for the first several days and then, quite rapidly, be driven over the reef edge.
A wreck hung up in relatively shallow water in the surf zone could easily be hidden from view on a day like the one pictured in the photo taken during the Colorado overflight but easily visible to someone fishing on the reef edge at low tide on a calm day.
-
The last credible post-loss message was heard at 8:18 PM Gardner time on July 7. The Colorado planes were over the island roughly 36 hours later. The Electra's ability to remain intact on the reef depended upon the height of high tide, the amount of wave action on the reef, and the direction of the wave action on the reef. Those factors were not constant. During the week July 2 to July 9 each high tide was getting successively higher. On July 2 the maximum water depth on the reef in the area where we think the plane was parked (assuming a calm sea) was just under half a meter. At high tide the evening of July 7 (about two hours before the last credible transmission was heard) the water level was a bit over .7 meter - again assuming a calm sea. At the next high tide, the water level was nearly .9 meter. We don't know what the sea conditions were but the combination of significantly higher high tide water levels and rougher seas could mean a far more hazardous situation for the plane. We also know that, at times, ocean waves refract around the northwest tip of the island resulting in a southwesterly flow of water over the reef in the area where we think the plane was parked. Surf coming from that direction would drive an object on the reef toward the edge. In short, it doesn't take anything more than normal events for the airplane to have survived relativlkey undisturbed for the first several days and then, quite rapidly, be driven over the reef edge.
A wreck hung up in relatively shallow water in the surf zone could easily be hidden from view on a day like the one pictured in the photo taken during the Colorado overflight but easily visible to someone fishing on the reef edge at low tide on a calm day.
Now that's something you can only know from having visited the island. So a slow gradual push to the edge. That may also be what was being referred to in Betty's notes where it was said the water was getting higher.
Wouldn't a wreck be more identifiable as an airplane from a top down view into the clear waters of the ocean rather than from shore or a boat?
-
Now that's something you can only know from having visited the island.
You can see the southwesterly flow in some satellite imagery (but not the image used by Google Earth).
So a slow gradual push to the edge.
The push to the edge could have been quite abrupt. Conditions might be fine one day and the next the day the sea kicks up and you suddenly have a big problem.
That may also be what was being referred to in Betty's notes where it was said the water was getting higher.
At the time Betty heard what she heard the tide was coming in and the water level on the reef was getting deeper. It's as simple as that.
Wouldn't a wreck be more identifiable as an airplane from a top down view into the clear waters of the ocean rather than from shore or a boat?
Clear water? Yes. Surf? You wouldn't see anything. There is almost always surf on the reef edge. There certainly was on the day the Colorado planes flew over.
-
u know the post loss radio messages run between gardner an mckean island is it poss they landed by norwich city an then attemted to take off plane bounced by lagoon passage broke the wheel strut but managed to get into air to head for mckean but went down not far from seven site an were able to get out an get back to sure ?
The Seven Site is not on the way to McKean. Opposite direction.
McKean is north-northeast, directly off shore from presumed landing spot on Gardner. See chart ONC M-17 (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/trial/onc-m-17-4.JPG?attredirects=0).
gl
-
The Seven Site is not on the way to McKean. Opposite direction.
McKean is north-northeast, directly off shore from presumed landing spot on Gardner.
I know where McKean is. I've been there. If you take off from where we think the plane landed and fly toward McKean as Richie suggested, you don't go anywhere near the Seven Site. Do you just do this to harass?
-
The Seven Site is not on the way to McKean. Opposite direction.
McKean is north-northeast, directly off shore from presumed landing spot on Gardner.
I know where McKean is. I've been there. If you take off from where we think the plane landed and fly toward McKean as Richie suggested, you don't go anywhere near the Seven Site. Do you just do this to harass?
Of course not, Ric. I know that you know where Mckean is but apparently Richie (and probably others who read this forum) doesn't so I thought it would be helpful to them to have access to this chart, what's wrong with that?
I also pointed out to Richie the same thing you just did, that flying straight off shore to get to McKean obviously doesn't take you near the 7 site.
gl
gl
-
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/MapsandPhotos/maps/Phoenixmap.html
this explains better what i meant by going over lagoon passage an then turning left goin over seven site heading to mckean as its probably closest island to gardner :)
-
also what i was trying to say is, on the poss loss images, the lines run thru the 2 islands is there any way, to find out if first post loss message was line nearest to gardner, an the last one nearest to mckean
-
right 1 is first post loss on gardner 2 3 4 are moveing round island heading for mckean
-
this explains better what i meant by going over lagoon passage an then turning left goin over seven site heading to mckean as its probably closest island to gardner
By them not physically identifying (at least in the captured credible messages) Gardner one could surmise that they/she was not sure exactly were they were, that being said, if they didn't know where they were, how could they know that they were close to any other islands and if they were what direction they'd have to go to find them.
LTM,
Don
-
Hi Don,
I have been thinking that it was a last desperate action by desperate people and not supposed to mean it was a well thought out and planned action. If AE and FN were any good at planning they would have likely made Howland.
You're comment dovetails into the thread about why wasn't Gardner mentioned in the post loss radio messages. I have made some comments as to why I think it wasn't mentioned there. But I too believe they did not know the name of the island. I believe they were aware of there being a group of islands to the south of Howland. They landed on one. Uninhabited, no regular supply of fresh water, no "european" food, no news media. And no sign of help. They have a plane with some fuel, at least one serviceable engine, likely two, a sick FN and a pilot with an ego. Why not fly it away and look for a better island? Or for any sign of rescue ships? Just some speculative thoughts.
-
Thanks Jeff
A very reasonable observation. Like I have said previously if it did happen it would have been an act of desperation. I believe AE's nonchalant attitude in her planning and perhaps a bit of a "Super hero" attitude may have led her to believe that rescue was inevitable. She may even have spent her daytime hours thinking about giving speeches about her time as a castaway.
And yes, it's possible she flew away, but not likely due to the other evidence.
-
I've watched this thread for a bit, and have come to the same conclusion as Jeff. IF the Electra were capabile of flying, and IF there was enough fuel, McKean is about 70 nm, and Canton is about 200 nm away. So, thinking that Fred was injured, but able to get a star sight to fix their location, he "may' have been able to plot a course to Mckean or even Canton. Fuel? who knows. McKean would be 1/2 hour +-, and Canton would be 1.3 +- @150 mph. They would have to have known that if they DID get airbourne, and ran out of fuel, they would be no better off than they were on Niku. If they made it to McKean or Canton, were they going to be any better off? Who's to say.
We know that there were radio signals from the plane within 36 hours previous to the search flights over Niku by the Colorado planes. So, within that 36 hour window, this pretty large aluminum airplane went missing. As Ric has said, the tide heights were increasing, and probably too, the wave heights. So, I'm guessing the question is, Did AE and FN fly off the reef to ---whereever?, Or, did the increasing tides and wave action take the Electra off the reef?
For what its worth, I think that they didnt fly off the reef. I'm thinking that during the original landing, there was some damage to the Electra to prevent it from flying. Possibly a bent port side prop ( because they landed facing north (?), and the water was deeper than on the starboard side), and possibly the port side landing gear strut/and or wheel assembly, caught in a trench in the reef (Nessie?). IF so, running the port engine with a bent prop woud be a disaster worse than they already had. So even if the landing gear were ok and the plane would roll freely, it wasnt going to take off on one engine. There just wasnt enough room. Secondly, IF Nessie was the port landing gear strut, then the Electra wasnt taking off anyway.
The other evidence of artifacts at the 7 site indicate that AE was there. So, how long did it take her to get from the reef landing site, or the original base camp, to the 7 site? My bet is more than 36 hours, considering she would be searching for food, water, and anything else to be able to survive with. With all of this in mind, I still think that the Electra is on the bottom, near the reef ledge.
-
I got to this place with scant fuel for more flight but maybe enough for some radio efforts, had enough trouble finding this 'blue lagoon' as it is and missed my little grey-brown target elsewhere, odds of flying far / long enough on what's left sloshing in the tanks to randomly spot something else as good are not great considering what I did NOT see on way here...
Nah, this bird's gonna cling to the wire it found and try to get some attention from there.
NOT that it's impossible at all. An airplane that made a reasonable landing and is intact enough can fly again, given even a bit of fuel. And it's interesting to think of a fly-away - and it could explain some things (like 'where's NR16020).
But it's just inconsistent with too many things IMHO, and I might also not want to have to risk another landing attempt on the coral, either. I'd really want to know where I was, and where I could get to that held better advantage, before I'd risk it.
Ditto!
They would have to have known that if they DID get airbourne, and ran out of fuel, they would be no better off than they were on Niku.
How could that be? They were on dry ground with at least hopes for rescue, I would consider that far better off than running out of fuel and the resulting ocean landing.
LTM,
Don
-
Tha t was my point Don, if they got airbourne and ran out of fuel, they were in reaaly bad shape. so staying on Niku would have been better.
Jeff-----if the electra were able to be moved inland from the landing point, I agree that it would have been better off for using the radio, and possibly refuge. I'm thinking that the further inland it (may have been) moved, then it would also give it some relief to the rising tides and wave action. But, we know that somehow in the time the last radio call was made, until the search over-flight, the Electra disappeared. I would think that being further inland towards the shoreline would have bought some time before the waves could have washed it over the reef. At the same, it would have extended the time that the Electra would have been visible on the reef/beach for the overflight to see. Maybe I'm wrong---probably!
Tom
-
I have said many times that the inshore part of the reef is jagged and pock-marked with holes that are waist-deep at low tide. Moving the airplane more than a few meters from the area near the reef edge that is smooth enough for landing was not an option.
-
Besides the reef being jagged and pock-marked as ric tells us, we have to follow our clues and account for all of them. If we are to believe the photo of Nessie is the landing gear than the plane isn't going (or wasn't) anywhere. No matter if they wanted it or not, they had to know that the Electra was done for and it was only a matter of time before the sea claimed her. Think about it, the force that must of been at play to rip the Electra from the gear strut and it didn't move! There was no way that plane was moving inland, let alone take off for who knows where.
-
I have said many times that the inshore part of the reef is jagged and pock-marked with holes that are waist-deep at low tide. Moving the airplane more than a few meters from the area near the reef edge that is smooth enough for landing was not an option.
Yes Marty has mentioned that the waterbetween the reef and the beach is also very deep. Coupled with your comments Ric it's pretty clear that the Electra may have been moved a little or it may have been turned to take the surf action better but it wasn't going up onto the beach. Question Ric, was the simulated landing in the overflight video accurate as to how far out from the beach you think the plane actually landed? I know we wont know for sure but you have been on that reef flat and, as a pilot, you would have gone through looking at the geology and making an educated "guess". The video narrative says the tuna boat captain permitted TIGHAR's cameraman to go on the overflight, but did you get a chance to ride on the helicopter too? If yes then is your overhead observation the same as your observation from the ground? I ask because it seems like the simulated landing is further out from shore than may be necessary.
Based on the description of the reef flat and the channel and geology between the flat and the beach, I dont see much room to protect the Electra from the high, rising tides and the surf action. It would have been sitting out in the open like a giant silver beacon for the aerial searchers if it wasn't gone.
-
Besides the reef being jagged and pock-marked as ric tells us, we have to follow our clues and account for all of them. If we are to believe the photo of Nessie is the landing gear than the plane isn't going (or wasn't) anywhere. No matter if they wanted it or not, they had to know that the Electra was done for and it was only a matter of time before the sea claimed her. Think about it, the force that must of been at play to rip the Electra from the gear strut and it didn't move! There was no way that plane was moving inland, let alone take off for who knows where.
However, if the plane was being subjected to all of these pressures, then it stayed intact long enough for AE and FN to enter the cockpit, start the right engine, transmit messages and then, presumably, get back out up until the Wednesday night at 8.18pm local Gardner time (last credible post loss message). Then within 36 hours its gone so completely that aerial searchers saw no sign of it. Thats a 36 hour window where the surf did the most damage. Ric has stated before in this thread that he speculates it may have been getting pushed slowly towards the edge of the reef flat and then finally went over during the 36 hour window. Since there were no credible post loss radio signals on the Thursday night then the suggestion may be that it went over sometime during the high tide on Thursday.
-
True but where is "nessie"? Something sticking up out of the water when the Nowix City was also breaking up could have been a railing for all we know. Look at the Niku overflight and note Ric's narrative pointing out the huge steel plates on the beach. If the surf could move those then how do we know the "nessie" isn't a piece of the Shipwreck. In fact if you were just looking at that picture and weren't looking for a plane wreck would you not "assume" that "nessie" was more than likely a piece of the shipwreck?
-
The wreckage from the Norwich City moves SE of the wreck in the direction that the currents move. Also the wreck was mostly intact when the photo was taken.
-
Good points Chris. You're making me think harder.
-
Perhaps the location of "nessie" is actually the 2nd landing attempt that was made by the Electra! Everyone assumes just one landing was made. But, perhaps an original landing was made on a reef location that was more hospitable to takeoffs. Even near the seven site for wishful thinkers. Then, like was suggested (for whatever reason) they tookoff again, landing again where we now know as "nessie". Like the saying goes, stranger things have happened.
Perhaps after making radio calls, they decided a hail-mary attempt at gaining altitude to get a better view, additional celestial observations, gain better radio transmission, or whatever, purposefully circling overhead, then landing safe again when fuel ran out? We've all done that trick (except the fuel exhaustion part) during our flight training - correct ;). At that point anything was worth a try.
The other thought I had was maybe they did try to reposition the airplane closer to the beach and that's when they got stuck in the crevice and ripped the landing gear - as opposed to getting stuck during the initial landing, never able to take off again.
I know... I know... you're gonna tell me..... "we'll never know", but this is all just an exercise in thinking outside the box and stimulating creative thinking - right?
-
Perhaps the location of "nessie" is actually the 2nd landing attempt that was made by the Electra! Everyone assumes just one landing was made. But, perhaps an original landing was made on a reef location that was more hospitable to takeoffs. Even near the seven site for wishful thinkers. Then, like was suggested (for whatever reason) they tookoff again, landing again where we now know as "nessie". Like the saying goes, stranger things have happened.
Perhaps after making radio calls, they decided a hail-mary attempt at gaining altitude to get a better view, additional celestial observations, gain better radio transmission, or whatever, purposefully circling overhead, then landing safe again when fuel ran out? We've all done that trick (except the fuel exhaustion part) during our flight training - correct ;). At that point anything was worth a try.
The other thought I had was maybe they did try to reposition the airplane closer to the beach and that's when they got stuck in the crevice and rippedN the landing gear - as opposed to getting stuck during the initial landing, never able to take off again.
I know... I know... you're gonna tell me..... "we'll never know", but this is all just an exercise in thinking outside the box and stimulating creative thinking - right?
If any record of the castaways was maintained as in a diary, castaways log or even a message in a bottle, is ever found then we may know something more factual. Time for a new thread. Good thinking guys. Keep the creative juices flowing.