TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Monte Chalmers on July 19, 2012, 07:04:12 PM
-
There is so much written material here about this scenario and that scenario, that I felt there must be one about getting the Electra out of the water. But I’m not finding it. I’ve read Betty’s notes about more than one day of radio transmissions, the concern about rising water, and that it was too hot to spend a lot of time in the plane. So on occasions they must have been commuting to the shore. I think I would have been considering spending some of the gas when the tide was low , turning 90 degrees and running to the beach. Somewhere here at TIGHAR there is a color recreation photo of the Amelia Electra standing in a few inches of water off the coast of Nikumaroro. In that picture, beaching looks possible - but maybe the actual conditions just don’t support it. It certainly would have saved the plane from washing away. A few days later it would have been visible to the that air crew that said they saw signs of life on the island .
-
Interesting concept, Monte....I too believe that one of the most important things to consider at the time would have been the preservation of the aircraft for as long as possible. But now we get into the "woulda coulda shoulda" aspect of the discussion (See this Thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,803.0.html)).
Besides, we have no way of knowing what condition the Electra was in post-landing. Maybe the port landing gear had broken off in the landing (the Nessie object), in which case that plane was going nowhere except for over the edge.
-
Monte, my memory of the many times the idea of taxiing to the beach has been raised is that the answer from those who have been on the island (Ric, et al.), is this. The putative "landing strip" is the stretch of reef north of the Norwich City out near the ocean edge of the reef. One of those TIGHARS visiting Niku is a very experienced airline pilot of large jets, and he has said positive things about the suitability of that area of the reef for landing the Electra, with its large balloon tires (that were intended, after all, for non-paved landing areas). For example, read what Skeet Gifford said (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights141_160/highlights154.html#4) after Niku IV in 2001.
Notwithstanding that the current way of thinking tends toward there having been some kind of mishap with the left landing gear upon landing, those who've been there say that the portion of the reef surface from there to the beach is very rough and treacherous, marked with crevices and pools -- so many, in fact, that it's hard to make one's way on foot from the beach to the smooth reef-edge and back. As Ric wrote in the Forum back in 1999, between this "runway" and the beach several hundred yards away, the coral is very jagged and pitted with large depressions.
Sounding a mite testy, Ric answered someone on the Forum in 2003 who also advanced the idea of simply pointing the plane at the beach and gunning it:
> What you're missing are the umpteen previous postings that have explained
> that the nature of the reef surface prohibits any taxiing to the shore.
> Only the first couple hundred feet of reef near the ocean is smooth enough to
> land or taxi on. Move any closer to shore and the reef becomes deeply pitted
> and jagged.
Then, the final impediment to "beaching" the Electra is that there is a river-like ditch that has been scoured out where the reef meets the sandy beach. It runs southward from the Northwest corner down into the lagoon via the Tatiman entrance. That further precludes maneuvering a plane up to the beach. This river-like ditch has a name and is described in Ameliapedia under "boat channel" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Boat_channel).
Those reef and reef-beach-boundary conditions can be visualized by looking at the 2001 satellite photo that is used on Google Earth.
-
Sea level was about 6" lower in 1937 so maybe there was more dry reef at times back then. I did read what Bruce mentioned about the unlikely possibility of getting to the beach.
One thing that could be done to save the plane, for a while, if they could not beach it was to anchor it. Possibly driving stakes into cracks in the reef.
It could explain why the landing gear and/or a chunk of the plane got ripped off and was still there 3 months later even after high tides. If the Bevington object is a piece of the plane, it may have been still tied down, only flipped over.
See item 40. Mooring rods in the Luke field inventory
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html
Even if they did not bring the mooring rods, something similar could be salvaged from the N.C.
What are the Mooring points on the Electra?
-
it may have been still tied down, only flipped over.
See item 40. Mooring rods in the Luke field inventory
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html
Even if they did not bring the mooring rods, something similar could be salvaged from the N.C.
What are the Mooring points on the Electra?
Ancedotal statements are she was shedding things from one end of the trip to the other. If she was willing to jettison the flare pistol http://tighar.org/wiki/Flare_gun (http://tighar.org/wiki/Flare_gun) to save weight I wouldn't think that mooring rods would be high on list of "keep" items.
Also, Not being familiar with Gardner, nor tidal data, and your landing gear is stuck in a reef crevice then would YOU think, if it were you, that additional tiedowns would be required? Hindsight is 20/20...
LTM,
Don
-
it may have been still tied down, only flipped over.
See item 40. Mooring rods in the Luke field inventory
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html
Even if they did not bring the mooring rods, something similar could be salvaged from the N.C.
What are the Mooring points on the Electra?
Ancedotal statements are she was shedding things from one end of the trip to the other. If she was willing to jettison the flare pistol http://tighar.org/wiki/Flare_gun (http://tighar.org/wiki/Flare_gun) to save weight I wouldn't think that mooring rods would be high on list of "keep" items.
Also, Not being familiar with Gardner, nor tidal data, and your landing gear is stuck in a reef crevice then would YOU think, if it were you, that additional tiedowns would be required? Hindsight is 20/20...
LTM,
Don
Don, I do think the mooring rods might be something they left behind to save weight. Thats why I said "Even if they did not bring the mooring rods, something similar could be salvaged from the N.C".
I think the belief that the landing gear was stuck in a crevice was a theory that came about when it was believed the Bevington picture showed what looked like a gear stuck upright. The latest work from Jeff Glickmen seemed to show a something consistant with a gear in an upside-down position.
It would be nice to have a salvaged plane to determine what, if any, tie downs may have been applied or rigged to the plane, and if they contributed to the break up.
-
All the responses are appreciated and were interesting. I KNEW there had to be other people comiing forth with getting the plane out of the water - sorry for not being better at finding my own answers. But the suggestion that the plane was anchored helps me in seeing how a ripped-off wing could be caused by a mooring strap. An inverted wing would cause exactly the exposed wheel assembly in the picture. Wouldn't it be likely in that case (secured by the mooring) that it would have been there longer and seen by someone else?
I started this thread by mentioning Betty.
Last month I added a question in one of my comment if anybody knew if Betty is still living (since she has to be about 89 years old based upon TIGHAR information. I never got an answer. Out of curiosity I did some research. I knew we had to have gone to the same high school because St Petersburg didn’t have but one until 1954. I went to the SPHS web site and looked in alumni - yes, she’s listed - class of 1941. She was one of three listed names (maybe all that’s left) for a planned class reunion . The list included email addresses, and since I’m sort-of like an old neighbor - I sent off a brief email. She’s not in Florida anymore. I included that TIGHAR would be conducting an expedition in July that we expected (I did anyway) would prove her notes valid. The message was apparently delivered - as it didn't come back. But so far I haven't received a reply - maybe she passed. I was thinking of sending another note had the news been good from Niku.
-
it may have been still tied down, only flipped over.
See item 40. Mooring rods in the Luke field inventory
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html
Even if they did not bring the mooring rods, something similar could be salvaged from the N.C.
What are the Mooring points on the Electra?
Ancedotal statements are she was shedding things from one end of the trip to the other. If she was willing to jettison the flare pistol http://tighar.org/wiki/Flare_gun (http://tighar.org/wiki/Flare_gun) to save weight I wouldn't think that mooring rods would be high on list of "keep" items.
Also, Not being familiar with Gardner, nor tidal data, and your landing gear is stuck in a reef crevice then would YOU think, if it were you, that additional tiedowns would be required? Hindsight is 20/20...
LTM,
Don
There is a lot of misinformation out there. see:
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,689.msg13757.html#msg13757
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10365.html#msg10365
Read that thread to reply 227
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10561.html#msg10561
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,592.msg10648.html#msg10648
gl
-
From what I've read here and elsewhere, to attempt to drive an aircraft onto the beach from the reef would have driven it into fairly deep water in the "boat channel". If someone tried that with an Electra, the main gear would have dropped into the boat channel and the props would have hit either the water, or the beach. In either case it would have stopped the engines. Worse yet, such an aircraft could not be further moved by its own power.
If this scenario is what happened to Amelia, then what moved the Electra out of sight? A big shiny Electra stuck in the boat channel would have been obvious to any searchers.
-
I would have been very surprised if the Electra LE10 didn't have tie down points on each wing and the tail. That would have been standard on all Electras. A picture of a TWA L10 (http://www.sedonalegendhelenfrye.com/files/RobinsonColorFryePlaneAZB2.jpg) shows that there were tie downs on the wings and tail.
To be specific linked photo is Model 12 Electra Jr. However, tie down config appears the same as Model 10 - attached NR16020 image clip (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=283&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=4004&DMY=1904&DMTEXT=%2520lockheed%2520electra&DMTHUMB=1&REC=12&DMROTATE=0&x=294&y=310) courtesy of Purdue archive. Cheers, John
-
I have just recently seen photos of the reef when the tide is out. It appears to be a lot smoother than the roads around here. The question I have is how extenssively has that flat portion been surveyed (i.e. walked) during these various expeditions? If so, were crack and crevases seem that could have conceiveably snagged a tire? Another question: Is the possible location of the Nessie object on this flat portion that is exposed at low tide?
-
One more thought. If the reef is as flat as it look in the photos it would not take too much a rise int he tide to cover it completely. What is the tidal variation (low tide to high tide) on the island? If the Electra was sitting on its gear, on the flat portion of the reef with the tide out, does the water rise enough to float it off its gear? This would, of course, exclude waves and storm tides/surges. For example, I am located in Mobile, Alabama. The tidal variation in Mobile Bay is only about 18". Such a small change would not be enough to float the aircraft. I know that there are some places in the world where the tidal variation acan be in the tens of feet (think Anchorage, Alaska). What I am getting at is would the normal tides be enough to float the aircraft or would a storm tide be required?
-
Even assuming the aircraft was on the mains (i.e. not its belly), and was intact, a 4.2 ft rise probably would not be enough to float the Electra even with all of the buoyancy afforded by the empty wing tanks and the fuel tanks in the fuselage.
If the aircraft was landed wheels up there would be a better argument for floating it once the tide came in. It would not explain a main gear jammed in a crevasse.
Jamming one of the mains, which resulted in a ground loop and the collapse of one, or both mains, would leave the aircraft on its belly and a candidate for being floated on a rising tide much sooner than if the aircraft had been successfully landed on the mains. It would also leave a main gear sticking up to be photographed.
I'm sure all of this has been hashed out dozens of times here. Seeing those reef photos with the tide out just jump started a thought process ...
-
Even assuming the aircraft was on the mains (i.e. not its belly), and was intact, a 4.2 ft rise probably would not be enough to float the Electra even with all of the buoyancy afforded by the empty wing tanks and the fuel tanks in the fuselage.
If the aircraft was landed wheels up there would be a better argument for floating it once the tide came in. It would not explain a main gear jammed in a crevasse.
Jamming one of the mains, which resulted in a ground loop and the collapse of one, or both mains, would leave the aircraft on its belly and a candidate for being floated on a rising tide much sooner than if the aircraft had been successfully landed on the mains. It would also leave a main gear sticking up to be photographed.
I'm sure all of this has been hashed out dozens of times here. Seeing those reef photos with the tide out just jump started a thought process ...
Jay, don't forget these things:
1. If both main landing gear collapsed the right engine could not be run to keep the batteries charged for the radios.
2. The electrical circuits, many low in the aircraft, would short out when the water reached them.
3. No electrical, no radios, no post loss radio signals.
4. The fuel tanks in the fuselage would not provide any buoyancy until the cabin started to flood, and then only the part of the tank(s) actually in the water.
5. The wings and fuselage would lose their buoyancy as they filled with water.
6. Because of items 4 & 5 the aircraft would probably float nose low and fairly low in the water.
7. Wave action at high tide could have had a huge effect on the aircraft whether it was on its landing gear or its "belly".
-
Even assuming the aircraft was on the mains (i.e. not its belly), and was intact, a 4.2 ft rise probably would not be enough to float the Electra even with all of the buoyancy afforded by the empty wing tanks and the fuel tanks in the fuselage.
If the aircraft was landed wheels up there would be a better argument for floating it once the tide came in. It would not explain a main gear jammed in a crevasse.
Jamming one of the mains, which resulted in a ground loop and the collapse of one, or both mains, would leave the aircraft on its belly and a candidate for being floated on a rising tide much sooner than if the aircraft had been successfully landed on the mains. It would also leave a main gear sticking up to be photographed.
I'm sure all of this has been hashed out dozens of times here. Seeing those reef photos with the tide out just jump started a thought process ...
However the tidal rise is not a smooth process with the aircraft gently submerging etc. It is accompanied by waves and the ever present wind. The problem with all the scenarios which see the Electra landing on the reef and ultimately being washed off is not that it couldn't have landed and been washed off, but that that scenario is required to explain the unproven post-loss radio messages. I keep saying that this is a circular argument and I am right.
The pilots I have spoken to regarding the possibility of a landing on the outer reef and the post-loss radio messages just regard that whole thing with incredulity. All suggest that the only move for even a halfway competent pilot in the circumstances, like low fuel, that required a life saving landing on the island is that you would put the aircraft down as close to the beach as possible. Your first thought would be to save your own life not the aircraft. Even Earhart, who we know had a lot of money tied up in the aircraft would not put it down on the outer reef at low tide, when she and Noonan would know that once the tide and waves got up the aircraft would be lost immediately - and if Earhart didn't know Noonan being an old Pacific hand would know. It defies logic to propose that both of them thought they could just park the aircraft there and wait until help showed up then have it recovered or flown off.
So if the post-loss radio messages are still regarded by some people as being genuine then I would suggest that you need to find another uninhabited island and look along the shoreline.
-
If it floated slightly nose down. And if it is hit by breaking waves at the reef edge it could get smashed into the coral in a nose down position. Cockpit debris falling out on the slope. Wings, engines, tail also getting smashed
The center section with its empty tanks may have been protected long enough to clear the surf until it sank far away.
If moored, some of the sections could have been prevented from washing away due to being tied down or the stakes or mooring lines snagging on the reef edge. A piece with a line attached could get hung up so some days it is hanging off the reef, underwater and other days it is washed up on the reef. Eventually it gets free and washes ashore or off the reef.
Could explain some of the aircraft debris being seen by some and not others, and also explain washed up debris found years later by Tighar.
And why no big pieces were seen and why little pieces may still be found.
-
So if the post-loss radio messages are still regarded by some people as being genuine then I would suggest that you need to find another uninhabited island and look along the shoreline.
any suggestions?
-
Gregory,
A couple of thoughts:
1. I do believe they may have had tie-down ropes onboard. I have never been on a light aircraft that didn't. This aircraft was more like the airliner of its day. It was pretty large. Given the likely places they would have landed on their trip it would have been better to have them on board rather than taking a chaince. The question would be what the aircraft would be tied down to on the reef. Even if they had stakes or screw in type tie downs I doubt they could have been used on the coral reef. The war stories from my grandfather. He told me he tried to dig a fox hole the first night he had arrived on the island (Morotai) and being woken by nightly raid by the Japanese. He said that he was not able to make much of a headway with a full size pick. He said that he coral was a lot like concrete or rock.
2. Have you ever been to a plane wreck? How about trying to liberate a "souvenir" from a light aircraft wreck or aircraft scrap yard? I have. It is not as easy as it sounds. I have been trying to com up with a likely scenario that would result in the aluminum parts that have been found if they had been liberated from a wrecked aircraft. The parts I have ended up getting have not been as pristine (with respect to the original shape) as the parts tha have beenrecovered on Niku. Likewise, these parts don't necessarily look like they were deformed due to a hard landing, impact or crash. The piece-parts that have been recovered don't look like what I would think that they should look like if the aircraft had been torn apart by wave action. The are too clean and too much like their probable original shape.
-
Monte----the other locations were searched, to no avail. The Gilberts, were going to be at the very end of the fuel range. I think Gary did some of those calculations. I doubt what she could have made it there.
-
Jay,
1. See post 3 of this thread. I posted a picture of the reef and noted the stakes would be driven into the cracks in the reef because I agree it would be too hard to drive them directly ito the coral
2. There are multiple reports of the condition of the debris found on the Tighar web site. They vary in the description and where found and when found. Wave action or explosion is listed as possible for one piece. Also some reports describe bending back and forth like someone salvaged them, some pieces are cut. Note that some debris was found in the abandoned village like the villagers salvaged the pieces, some from other islands and wrecks, and in later Tighar visits, some debris was found washed up on the beach.
Also you can see some pictures of the debris taken at D.C in this post.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,878.0.html
-
So if the post-loss radio messages are still regarded by some people as being genuine then I would suggest that you need to find another uninhabited island and look along the shoreline.
any suggestions?
I would suggest the Gilberts - they were an option.
-
Gilberts, well populated so where's the plane?
-
Gilberts, well populated so where's the plane?
Waiting to be found? No different to Nikumaroro, East New Britain or the bottom of the Pacific.
-
Just getting out of holiday mode so a little rusty but the Gilberts when compared to Niku are well populated and explored. Yes it could be in the bush and hidden from prying eys but by stint of there being more people then there is a higher chance of discovery.
Dosn't mean that the bird got washed away just as the Niku Hypo and something in my grey cells remembers a theory of the plane being off one of the Gilberts (think there may bee a psychic involved as well)
-
Chris, I recall that too. BUt----if the underwater reef landscape is similiar to Niku, then it would be a pretty big task.
-
Just getting out of holiday mode so a little rusty but the Gilberts when compared to Niku are well populated and explored. Yes it could be in the bush and hidden from prying eys but by stint of there being more people then there is a higher chance of discovery.
Dosn't mean that the bird got washed away just as the Niku Hypo and something in my grey cells remembers a theory of the plane being off one of the Gilberts (think there may bee a psychic involved as well)
It is the mystery isn't it - until it is found it could be anywhere in those places people propose, as Jeff notes. Personally given the fact that's a cold winter here I could do with some of those places. ;)
-
Tom,
been off on my hols and can't remember how to search the old forum. 99.9% sure it was some psychic who had remote senssed (sp) the electra as being off one of the gilberts. Think its more thread drift but if I find it can add it to alternative theories, just need to get back into TIGHAR mode :)
-
Several psychics several answers: Ed Dames 1998 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDIvvjorRHc Claims Micronesia.
Joe McMoneagle 2010 claims Niku but posits a fatal crash on landing.
http://www.monroeinstitute.org/thehub/remote-viewer-joe-mcmoneagle-zeroes-in-on-amelia-earhart-crash-site
http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/2010/08/book-review-remote-viewers-take-on.html Review by Tom King.
Both were part of the Military Remote Viewing Program.
-
Here is picture i had saved, From Purdue showing tie down on Earhart's
-
Even Earhart, who we know had a lot of money tied up in the aircraft would not put it down on the outer reef at low tide, when she and Noonan would know that once the tide and waves got up the aircraft would be lost immediately - and if Earhart didn't know Noonan being an old Pacific hand would know.
You describe a circular argument and then try to disguise alot of assumptions as fact. We have no idea of knowing what Earhart did, nor what they knew concerning the tides at Gardner. We can garner a guess and you are right back at your OWN circular argument; woulda, coulda, shoulda...
LTM,
Don
-
Even Earhart, who we know had a lot of money tied up in the aircraft would not put it down on the outer reef at low tide, when she and Noonan would know that once the tide and waves got up the aircraft would be lost immediately - and if Earhart didn't know Noonan being an old Pacific hand would know.
You describe a circular argument and then try to disguise alot of assumptions as fact. We have no idea of knowing what Earhart did, nor what they knew concerning the tides at Gardner. We can garner a guess and you are right back at your OWN circular argument; woulda, coulda, shoulda...
LTM,
Don
I discovered after much searching that you were quoting me - I stick with what I said. A landing on the outer reef where either the tide or even a moderate swell getting up would wash the aircraft off does not seem logical or something an experienced pilot would do. Various theories have been advanced by TIGHAR since 1989 as to where the Electra might have been landed. The outer reef landing is the last - and is proposed to explain why the plane, if it had landed on Nikumaroro, was not sighted by the Navy fliers.
So the argument goes - "Navy doesn't see the Electra, so let's have it land somewhere where it will disappear, therefore outer reef". That isn't an argument, it is just an easy explanation.
-
So the argument goes - "Navy doesn't see the Electra, so let's have it land somewhere where it will disappear, therefore outer reef". That isn't an argument, it is just an easy explanation.
I agree. And it would be interesting to have a thread, a poll per se, that would poll just the experienced pilots on the forum - asking the question: Where would you put down under the same conditions? It could very well be - the lagoon. Well, that's easy to say, not having been there or flown over the area. The logic, to me, of the lagoon - better chance of survival.
-
I think the pilots who have actually seen the reef in real life would know better. It doesn't make sense to me to take a poll of pilots who didn't see the choice Amelia may have had or even the reef in real life today. Also, it is kind of hard to know what the condition of the reef was since sea level was about 6" lower in 1937. It could have been even more dry than the picture below.
Also, how are you going to ask the question?
Would you prefer to land on a "jagged reef" or ditch?
or
Would you prefer to land on a dry flat reef and unload the plane safely or ditch and risk drowning?
Or
Would you prefer to land on a beach with a significant slope or on a flat dry reef?
See how what I mean. If you just ask "Would you prefer to land on a reef or beach?" then how do you know what that persons idea of a reef is? How does this pilot you are going to poll know what the reef or beach looked like?
Pilots who actually saw the reef recently said it was landable.
-
So the argument goes - "Navy doesn't see the Electra, so let's have it land somewhere where it will disappear, therefore outer reef". That isn't an argument, it is just an easy explanation.
Malcolm’
Isn’t the rational that is used to explain why 6 naval flyers, ‘buzzing and circling’ for approx 28 minutes and coming to the conclusion that Amelia was not there fall into this ‘easy explanation’ category ?
-
So the argument goes - "Navy doesn't see the Electra, so let's have it land somewhere where it will disappear, therefore outer reef". That isn't an argument, it is just an easy explanation.
Malcolm’
Isn’t the rational that is used to explain why 6 naval flyers, ‘buzzing and circling’ for approx 28 minutes and coming to the conclusion that Amelia was not there fall into this ‘easy explanation’ category ?
Well I have made quite plain my assessment of the arguments for why the Navy searchers failed to spot the pair or evidence of the aircraft on another thread. In fact I have gone so far as to say that it has almost become proof that Earhart and Noonan were actually there because the Navy pilots didn't see them.
How does the rhyme go?
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away...
When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn’t see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door... (slam!)
Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away ;D
And I am also left less than convinced by the arguments of some forum members that the Navy searchers were not up to the task. So I would say that I agree with you.
-
Ok . The item about what experienced pilots would do is interesting to me. If I may say this----Lets say AE and FN were approaching Niku. They see the lagoon, but dont know its depth, or if there are any submerged objects. They see the NC, high and dry. They see a 'landable' area ( they think), but again, not knowing whats there, or any submerged objects, crevasses, etc.
Lets say they make a low pass over both locations to sum up there options. They dont KNOW whats there. They can only see what they can from whatever altitude their pass is at. 300 feet, 400 feet, 50 feet----who knows, and things look differnet from altitude. Could she have flown low enough AND slow enough to make a 'good' decision?. Or----for the sake of argument, she saw the NC, and decided to try and land there?
In light of the recent discoveries (or lack of them), I've been thinking about other 'what if' scenarios that AE may have used to get to Niku.
-
Ok . The item about what experienced pilots would do is interesting to me. If I may say this----Lets say AE and FN were approaching Niku. They see the lagoon, but dont know its depth, or if there are any submerged objects. .............
..................Could she have flown low enough AND slow enough to make a 'good' decision?. Or----for the sake of argument, she saw the NC, and decided to try and land there?
I think, Tom, that you're catching on to what I was trying to say. Even though I haven't flown over the island, based on what I do know about the island and my experience as a survival trained military pilot, I would choose the lagoon. And try to end up (gear up) along the edge (lagoon shore). Tough to do once you're in the water - no telling where it will take you.
At the same time, there's a whole lot better chance of having your airplane spotted from the air. At least that's what you assume in the air while coming in. I've already noted the Norwich City which I'd use to attract surface vessels. I'd find a way to build a smoky fire as high up on the deck as possible. Get the fire going and throw some green stuff on it once I detected surface activity.
I'd be interested in the opinion of other experienced pilots on this forum - what they would be thinking, where'd they put down. Based on what little info is available on this forum.
And, G.L.D. - survival and rescue doesn't really offer druthers. An experienced pilot, about ready to ditch, isn't about to consider preferences. He'll take what's available based on, again, survival and rescue.
Heh heh - Amelia may have believed there were cannibals on the island and decided to ditch in the deep water. ;) ;D
-
Bill--we are thinking alike. Having flown quite a bit around the waters of Beaufort County, SC (Hilton Head, Parris Island, ETC), there are alot of ways to bust your butt around here. Unlike Niku, we have alot of marsh, and rivers, emptying into the Atlantic. Jeff Nevill is very familiar.
As far a what AE 'might' have done, I think she had the right idea. not necessarily putting th Electra down close to the reef edge, but putting it in a position so it 'could' have been spotted from the air. On the shoreline in th elagoon would have been good to, but another thought came to mind.
'What if", she did set it down on the beach, and the plane was spotted in the search overflight. She is able to get word to them by radio that she needs fuel, so they make arrangements to get it to her by boat. She refuels, then takes off for Howland along with the carrier planes, so the plane can be serviced more effectively. Once airworthy, its on its way to Hawaii, and the around the world flight continues.
Landing gear up eliminates all of that. By landing gear down, she has a 'possibility' of taking off again, as long as the gear isnt damaged by taxiing towards the beach. (which is what I'm thinking). Rescue for her might have meant , "get me some fuel and show me where Howland is".
Ok ---Crazy idea, but a gear up at the lagoon shoreline eliminated any chance of flying the electra out, and possibly in her mind, was more dangerous than the reef landing, gear down.
just thinking--
-
If i recall correctly, The reason Tighar speculate the area by the surf line is because there is a smooth patch which is so many feet long and so many feet wide.
while the rest of the reef would be unforgiving to an aircraft specially with a tail wheel
-
What if they did miss them though ?
In the image below
Pic A, Is Tighar's Lambrecht photo
Pic B, Is CNN slightly enhanced Lambrecht photo
Pic C, Is zoomed in area of, Pic B
This is my OPINION only, But it look's like 2 people in white top's up tree's... I have looked at other 7 site photo's an there is no other one with these light colored objects that high up
-
Even Earhart, who we know had a lot of money tied up in the aircraft would not put it down on the outer reef at low tide, when she and Noonan would know that once the tide and waves got up the aircraft would be lost immediately - and if Earhart didn't know Noonan being an old Pacific hand would know.
You describe a circular argument and then try to disguise alot of assumptions as fact. We have no idea of knowing what Earhart did, nor what they knew concerning the tides at Gardner. We can garner a guess and you are right back at your OWN circular argument; woulda, coulda, shoulda...
LTM,
Don
I discovered after much searching that you were quoting me - I stick with what I said. A landing on the outer reef where either the tide or even a moderate swell getting up would wash the aircraft off does not seem logical or something an experienced pilot would do. Various theories have been advanced by TIGHAR since 1989 as to where the Electra might have been landed. The outer reef landing is the last - and is proposed to explain why the plane, if it had landed on Nikumaroro, was not sighted by the Navy fliers.
I am really not trying to bust your chops; I fell into the same trap "assuming" that they would do the logical thing. It is obvious that was probably not the case. Just looking at this http://tighar.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=flare+gun&fulltext=Search (http://tighar.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=flare+gun&fulltext=Search) and you can see it begans to get illogical real quick. Probably your best means of signaling and it is left in Lae. If you look at the mindset, one would think that IF they in fact made Niku that she would think that rescue would not be far off as she had the Itasca specifically assigned to her in a manner of speaking. If you have that mindset you would not go automatically into survival mode as in building a shelter, looking for food and water (there were some provisions on the Electra) perhaps by the time it dawns on her/them it is already too late.
The last thing is, I really don't believe that either of them expected an aerial search. There were no planes in the area; logically thinking do you think that she actually thought that they would send an Aircraft Carrier from Pearl to search for them? I'm thinking that they would be thinking sea search and the best signaling device you left in Lae! Granted, the Electra on the reef would be a shining beacon that they were there but by ship you would need to be a whole lot closer and on the right side of the atoll to see it.
LTM,
Don
-
Landing gear up eliminates all of that. By landing gear down, she has a 'possibility' of taking off again, as long as the gear isnt damaged by taxiing towards the beach. (which is what I'm thinking). Rescue for her might have meant , "get me some fuel and show me where Howland is".
Interesting thought. For me - personally, I'm in the air thinking gear up means I have a better chance of survival and rescue. And I doubt very much if I would have cared to get the airplane out. Yet, she was a she with little or no survival skills that I'm aware of. And she had another person in the airplane to put up with.
-
... there are alot of ways to bust your butt ...
No pilot on our our Forum would say that pilots should try to turn back to the runway when their engine quits on takeoff below the critical altitude for that particular aircraft to safely make the turn--but pilots die trying to do just that every year.
No pilot on our Forum would say that pilots should take off or continue flying without know for certain that they have all that they need to reach their destination, along with a prudent reserve in case they can't land there, but pilots die of fuel exhaustion every year.
Just because some pilots on our Forum would not want to land on the reef, it does not follow that AE would have done what they say they would have done. Nor does the fact that some pilots from TIGHAR think they would have landed on the reef mean that AE would have landed on the reef.
From what one person would or would not have done, it is impossible to predict what another person would or would not have done.
... a gear up at the lagoon shoreline eliminated any chance of flying the Electra out ...
My own uncertified opinion about AE, for what it's worth, is that she would have tried to save the plane for a later takeoff. It would make a wonderful story. I agree with you that a wheels-up landing in the lagoon or on the reef seems unlikely--but I understand that this is something about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree.
-
I also don't know about specific claims that the navy fliers 'weren't up to the task' although yes, some reasons have been no doubt been proffered as to how good, otherwise well-qualified people might not have been able to spot the pair - or even as to how preparation and experience may have had some effect.
There was a very spirited argument put up by one of our moderators to support the conclusion that the Navy searchers weren't up to it. In the end I gave up on the argument, despite having hung out of aircraft looking for things myself and seeing them, because the person involved refused to accept any informed views. I might also add that my training for the task was even less than what he claimed the Navy fliers were supposed to have had.
-
From what one person would or would not have done, it is impossible to predict what another person would or would not have done.
Actually, as a result of education, training and experience it is possible that person to predict what another person would or would not have done. Whether or not they did as predicted is the conjecture. A meteorologist can predict a fair day tomorrow yet it will rain.
And, to me and others I have conferred with, a wheels-up landing is the likely scenario. I doubt that Noonan, with his experience, would have been too happy with Amelia if her goal was to save the airplane first. That scenario isn't a logical option.
-
I am really not trying to bust your chops; I fell into the same trap "assuming" that they would do the logical thing. It is obvious that was probably not the case. ...
G'day Don - another point worth considering is where was Noonan seated if the aircraft did land on the reef. As far as I can make out the navigator's position aft is not a very secure place for anyone to sit in the circumstances of a rough landing on the outer reef, or for a hypothetical landing on the beach or a wheels up ditching. He'd be bounced around worse than a rodeo rider. Would he have been able to crawl over the tanks and get into the co-pilot's seat next to Earhart.
-
Bill--we are thinking alike. Having flown quite a bit around the waters of Beaufort County, SC (Hilton Head, Parris Island, ETC), there are alot of ways to bust your butt around here. Unlike Niku, we have alot of marsh, and rivers, emptying into the Atlantic. Jeff Nevill is very familiar.
As far a what AE 'might' have done, I think she had the right idea. not necessarily putting th Electra down close to the reef edge, but putting it in a position so it 'could' have been spotted from the air. On the shoreline in th elagoon would have been good to, but another thought came to mind.
'What if", she did set it down on the beach, and the plane was spotted in the search overflight. She is able to get word to them by radio that she needs fuel, so they make arrangements to get it to her by boat. She refuels, then takes off for Howland along with the carrier planes, so the plane can be serviced more effectively. Once airworthy, its on its way to Hawaii, and the around the world flight continues.
Landing gear up eliminates all of that. By landing gear down, she has a 'possibility' of taking off again, as long as the gear isnt damaged by taxiing towards the beach. (which is what I'm thinking). Rescue for her might have meant , "get me some fuel and show me where Howland is".
Ok ---Crazy idea, but a gear up at the lagoon shoreline eliminated any chance of flying the electra out, and possibly in her mind, was more dangerous than the reef landing, gear down.
just thinking--
Tom,
I made countless flights into Frogmore, Hampton-Varnville and Hilton Head over the past thirty years or so. :) My professional pilot experience includes about 12,000 hours of Cabin-Class Twin Prop (Chancellor & Conquest) and 7,000 hours of Single Engine 'Bush' Plane (off-airport operations in Super Cub & Maule).
I would agree with Bill on what he said and other pilots he has conferred with would have chosen. My choice would depend upon the aircraft type and conditions observed and the Electra on that reef at low tide looks like a much better choice than into the lagoon.
I think your scenario is probably closer to what Amelia might have chosen if she were fortunate enough to spot Gardner Island on that fateful flight.
Of course a lot of what points to the flight ending on an island would be all those post-loss radio calls, they pretty much require the Electra to have ended upright on those big tundra tires.
Of course if she had just called for the Itaska to bring some fuel down to that beautiful island that has the Norwich City parked up on a smooth reef so I can take off....
-
G'day Don - another point worth considering is where was Noonan seated if the aircraft did land on the reef. As far as I can make out the navigator's position aft is not a very secure place for anyone to sit in the circumstances of a rough landing on the outer reef, or for a hypothetical landing on the beach or a wheels up ditching. He'd be bounced around worse than a rodeo rider. Would he have been able to crawl over the tanks and get into the co-pilot's seat next to Earhart.
Noonan did crawl over the tanks and sit in the co-pilot's seat to take celestial observations on the Atlantic flight and on the flight to Hawaii. See attached note passed from Noonan to Earhart while flying from Natal to Dakar.
gl
-
Noonan did crawl over the tanks and sit in the do-pilot's seat to take celestial observations on the Atlantic flight and on the flight to Hawaii. See attached note passed from Noonan to Earhart while flying from Natal to Dakar.
gl
Thanks Gary - it was something I sort of assumed he would do. Makes one wonder then if he was in the cockpit and was injured (according to Betty's notebook, which really isn't the most reliable source) what condition Earhart would have been in if indeed they had come down on the outer reef. I would assume that as an experienced pilot he would have braced himself as best he could.
So as a hypothetical (and I mean that ;D) - maybe they would never have made it out of the aircraft. Injured, stuck on the reef, then the tide comes in and the Electra is washed off and they go with it. Just hypothetical you understand.
-
I also don't know about specific claims that the navy fliers 'weren't up to the task' although yes, some reasons have been no doubt been proffered as to how good, otherwise well-qualified people might not have been able to spot the pair - or even as to how preparation and experience may have had some effect.
There was a very spirited argument put up by one of our moderators to support the conclusion that the Navy searchers weren't up to it. In the end I gave up on the argument, despite having hung out of aircraft looking for things myself and seeing them, because the person involved refused to accept any informed views. I might also add that my training for the task was even less than what he claimed the Navy fliers were supposed to have had.
Now we're getting into my baliwick - SAR. Sandy Missions. My Skyraider and I flew at treetop and below to locate downed pilots. We performed over very difficult terrain - mountains (karsts) and jungle. I was by myself in the airplane. And that's why I've made the claim that, if the Navy could find no trace of them, it's doubtful that they were ever there.
-
Bill, I would hazard a guess that you were usually able to talk via radio to whomever you were trying to locate or at least had a good idea where they were.
-
Bill, I would hazard a guess that you were usually able to talk via radio to whomever you were trying to locate or at least had a good idea where they were.
Yupper. But here's what would happen -
Birddog (O-2 FAC) would locate the general vicinity. And be in communication with the downed pilot by radio. More often than not the pilot would have to lay low with no sound(s) due to those other guys wanting a piece of his hide.
By the time we got there and had command of the SAR turned over to us, he would have moved to a more advantageous position for both hiding and being picked up by Woody in his Huey. It was up to the Sandy's to pinpoint his location for the Huey pickup. And the Sandy's would make several passes over his position to provide cover.
We were searching for this pilot, quite often without communication. What little communication may occur - the pilot would radio - "I see you {in this direction and so many distance to the......}; or hear you........" More low level passes until we spotted him. Yeah, a lot of experience with aerial searching.
I'll say it again - if the Navy were looking for a needle in a haystack, that's all they'd find. They'd miss all the hay around it. I believe that, if Earhart and Noonan and the Electra were in the Navy's search area, they'd have been seen.
-
Now we're getting into my baliwick - SAR. Sandy Missions. My Skyraider and I flew at treetop and below to locate downed pilots. We performed over very difficult terrain - mountains (karsts) and jungle. I was by myself in the airplane. And that's why I've made the claim that, if the Navy could find no trace of them, it's doubtful that they were ever there.
I was there from 1965-67 as a medic and saw a lot of Skyraiders, but had never heard of "Sandy Missions".
Here is some illustrated information about the Skyraider:
(The last painting depicts a rescue without a 'Huey'.)
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/skyart.htm#stanstokes (http://skyraider.org/skyassn/skyart.htm#stanstokes)
More here:
http://skyraider.org/hook/journalset/journalsec7.htm (http://skyraider.org/hook/journalset/journalsec7.htm)
All I can say is WOW that was hazardous duty!
Thank you Bill for your service and glad that you returned.
-
Thank you sooooooo much Art -
Let's get back to the prevailing subject. What would a forum member, experienced pilot, have done in the same circumstance as we know it? Save your airplane? -or- save your life first then look for rescue? And land in the lagoon gear up or the reef gear down?
And Art - 20,000 hours! When will you come back down to Earth? ;D
-
I'll say it again - if the Navy were looking for a needle in a haystack, that's all they'd find. They'd miss all the hay around it. I believe that, if Earhart and Noonan and the Electra were in the Navy's search area, they'd have been seen.
Bill,
I believe that Gary LaPook came up with a over 90% probability of the navy sighting them,,,, if they were there ( or not dead ) and Gary has a very good record ( in my opinion ) of being pretty ‘right on’ in his posts. I also agree.
-
I'll say it again - if the Navy were looking for a needle in a haystack, that's all they'd find. They'd miss all the hay around it. I believe that, if Earhart and Noonan and the Electra were in the Navy's search area, they'd have been seen.
Bill,
I believe that Gary LaPook came up with a over 90% probability of the navy sighting them,,,, if they were there ( or not dead ) and Gary has a very good record ( in my opinion ) of being pretty ‘right on’ in his posts. I also agree.
If Fred was piloting the plane i would support Gary's hypothesis all day, However due to Amelia being in control, were the flight ended is so unpredictably ???
-
I'll say it again - if the Navy were looking for a needle in a haystack, that's all they'd find. They'd miss all the hay around it. I believe that, if Earhart and Noonan and the Electra were in the Navy's search area, they'd have been seen.
Bill,
I believe that Gary LaPook came up with a over 90% probability of the navy sighting them,,,, if they were there ( or not dead ) and Gary has a very good record ( in my opinion ) of being pretty ‘right on’ in his posts. I also agree.
If Fred was piloting the plane i would support Gary's hypothesis all day, However due to Amelia being in control, were the flight ended is so unpredictably ???
Ah, but was she really in control? Noonan was also a licensed commercial pilot, he was bigger than Earhart and he was not suicidal. Do you really think he would just sit back there at the navigation station calmly waiting to die while Earhart refused to fly the headings he gave her that HE KNEW would give them the best chance for survival?
Would you?
gl
-
As far as comparing Amelia and Fred's Pilot Qualifications: Fred held a "Limited Commercial" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Noonan.html#t15) (required 50 hours Flight Time and was limited to carrying passengers for hire within 10 miles of the airport). Amelia had a "Transport Pilot's License" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Earhart.html) (required 250 hours Flight Time).
The Electra represented Amelia's very first experience with a retractable gear aircraft.
Based on their experience with fixed gear aircraft, they may not have even considered the advantage a retractable gear aircraft would have in a water landing. With a fixed gear, it would usually be wise to avoid a water landing if possible, unlike the retract; you are just about guaranteed an instant 'flip' to inverted accompanied by a very quick stop.
As far as Fred's Navigation expertise: He may have been one of the worlds leading Celestial Navigators, but he had previously always relied on Radio Direction Finding (http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate#Apparent_ignorance_of_the_limitations_of_her_equipment) as the final approach for finding islands.
I seriously doubt that he had Gary LaPook's ability to plot a "Search Pattern" to locate Howland Island. His "Weems Bible" recommends RDF and as an alternative, using "The Precomputed Curve" which involves turning 90 degrees and watching for increasing or decreasing plotted LOP's to determine if landfall is ahead or behind. Sounds like "flying the 337/157 North and South Line" (http://tighar.org/wiki/%22We_are_on_the_line_157_337%22) to me.
I don't have a scanner, but I have seen where Gary has posted pages from "Weems Air Navigation" I have the 1943 edition and it is on pages 336-339 and is credited to Lt. W. C. Bentley, Jr. US Army Air Corps. The example given (Fig. 229) takes three hours of flying time, but if done properly; it should have taken them to Howland Airport and we know that did not happen.
-
As far as comparing Amelia and Fred's Pilot Qualifications: Fred held a "Limited Commercial" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Noonan.html#t15) (required 50 hours Flight Time and was limited to carrying passengers for hire within 10 miles of the airport). Amelia had a "Transport Pilot's License" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Earhart.html) (required 250 hours Flight Time).
Are you saying that Noonan was not capable of keeping the plane right side up? He had at least 50 hours in 1930 when he got his license and we know that most pilots have a lot more than the minimum required flying hours when they get their licenses. How many more hours did he log in the following seven years? BTW, your source said he got his license in 1930 from the Airman Certification Branch of the FAA but the FAA was created by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 so there was no FAA in 1930.
The Electra represented Amelia's very first experience with a retractable gear aircraft.
Based on their experience with fixed gear aircraft, they may not have even considered the advantage a retractable gear aircraft would have in a water landing. With a fixed gear, it would usually be wise to avoid a water landing if possible, unlike the retract; you are just about guaranteed an instant 'flip' to inverted accompanied by a very quick stop.
As far as Fred's Navigation expertise: He may have been one of the worlds leading Celestial Navigators, but he had previously always relied on Radio Direction Finding (http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate#Apparent_ignorance_of_the_limitations_of_her_equipment) as the final approach for finding islands.
You've been flying long enough so I'm sure you were taught during your instrument rating training how to do an NDB approach with the use of an ADF and that you flew a number of NDB approaches during this training. Let's say that after you got your instrument rating that it just happened to work out that every airport you flew into had an ILS approach so you never had to fly another NDB approach so there was no record of you having done an NDB approach, only ILS approaches, for a number of years. Then, several years later, you have your Jepps out and turned to the page for the anticipated ILS 31 Left approach at MDW that you have always flown in the past and you then hear on the ATIS, "THREE ONE LEFT I-L-S OUT OF SERVICE, THREE ONE LEFT N-D-B APPROACH NOW IN PROGRESS, INFORM CONTROLLER ON INITIAL CONTACT THAT YOU HAVE MIDWAY INFORMATION DELTA." So, do you die now or do you still remember how to use the ADF, when it becomes necessary, and fly the NDB approach to a safe landing? In real life I have never flown a back course localizer approach, I have trained many pilots how to do them and I have no doubt that I would have no trouble flying a BC LOC APP if the situation presented itself.
(For the non-pilots, ILS is Instrument Landing System which has the "localizer beam" and the "glideslope beam" to guide the plane to the runway down through the clouds. NDB is Non Directional Beacon which is a homing beacon that a pilot can navigate to using the ADF, Automatic Direction Finder, like the Hooven radio, and also used with an RDF, Radio Direction Finder, like Amelia's. Both the ILS and the NDB approaches will get the plane to the runway but the ILS is more precise so can allow landings in worse weather than the NDB and many pilots find it more difficult to fly the NDB approach than the "just keep the needles in the center" ILS approach. Using the NDB requires more thinking. A Back Course Localizer approach uses the localizer "beam" to line you up with the runway but you are landing in the opposite direction so the needle moves the wrong way so you have to think about it more and "fly away from the needle" takes some training.)
The use of the the single line of position approach was taught to PAN AM navigators by Noonan and to all the flight navigators in WW2 and since, it is still required on the FAA Flight Navigator test, see FAR part 63. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/federal-aviation-regulation-navigator-flight-test-requirements) Pan Am did establish radio stations on their island stations but the landfall approach was always available if needed. Of course Noonan did not go out of his way and did not fly the extra miles necessary to fly the landfall approach when he could fly straight in by using the radio just like you do not do a full instrument approach if you are in VMC (visual meteorological conditions) and have the airport in sight, you request a visual or a contact approach so that you can take the shortcut direct to the airport. This does not mean that you could not do a full approach if necessary just as Noonan could do a landfall approach if that proved to be necessary. Our WW2 navigators used the landfall approach to find islands because they had to find them the first time without the use of radio because they had to bomb them first before our guys could go ashore and set up radio beacons for future flights, not the benign environment that Pan Am had when setting up its bases prior to the war.
I seriously doubt that he had Gary LaPook's ability to plot a "Search Pattern" to locate Howland Island. His "Weems Bible" recommends RDF and as an alternative, using "The Precomputed Curve" which involves turning 90 degrees and watching for increasing or decreasing plotted LOP's to determine if landfall is ahead or behind. Sounds like "flying the 337/157 North and South Line" (http://tighar.org/wiki/%22We_are_on_the_line_157_337%22) to me.
Not really, the use of a precomputed curve is the easiest way to compute the landfall approach but is not the only way, see the texts available on my website. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/precomputed-altitude-curves) Here is a sample of the precomputed altitude curve (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=383.0;attach=133)for Noonan's arrival at Howland. The method that you mention is useful if you headed straight in to the destination so that when the LOP is intercepted you don't know which way to turn so that method will help you determine if you turned the wrong way. This whole issue is avoided by doing the standard landfall procedure and aiming off to the side so that there is no ambiguity. Mantz quoted Noonan describing this exact procedure to him. Here is a recent example of how this is done. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/other-flight-navigation-information/recent-landfall-approach) Also see this description of an approach to Howland (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-howland-island)using the standard method.
I don't have a scanner, but I have seen where Gary has posted pages from "Weems Air Navigation" I have the 1943 edition and it is on pages 336-339 and is credited to Lt. W. C. Bentley, Jr. US Army Air Corps. The example given (Fig. 229) takes three hours of flying time, but if done properly; it should have taken them to Howland Airport and we know that did not happen.
The same information is on pages 395 and 396 of the 1938 edition of Weems available on my website (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/landfall-procedure). You find the same basic information in Weems, 1931 edition which I didn't have when I put up the website. Weems and Noonan were friends and Noonan contributed to the techniques found in the Weems manuals so there is no doubt that Noonan knew these techniques. Chichester used this procedure in 1931 crossing the Tasman sea in a Gypsy Moth biplane and he is given credit in the English speaking world for developing this technique but Portguese Admiral Coutinho used the same technique making the first flight across the South Atlantic in 1922. AFM 51-40 (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/air-navigation-afm-51-40-1951/afm51-40-1951-304.JPG?attredirects=0)lays out the long history of this type of navigation so it was not something brand new in 1937.
You may just want to browse the other reference documents (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/home)available on my website.
gl
-
Gary does bring up an interesting point of who 'might' have been in controll during the last minutes of the flight. only 2 people know, and neither can tell us. ( Julia?)
After all the theories and speculations, we still dont know what happened for sure. I respect Gary for his insight, and all of you pilots for your experience. For me-----i thinksurvival would be foremost.
-
My thread sure has taken a lot of turns since beaching the Electra. :D Since we're talking about navigation from Howland now - I saw this:
The Curse of Howland Island
On December 8, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese attacked Howland Island and reduced its facilities into rubble.
It didn't say wheather by sea or air - I assume by air. There wouldn't be any radio signals or black smoke for guidance. And I would think navigation equipment in 1941 would be about the same. So were the Japanese better navigators.... or better luck?
-
I'll say it again - if the Navy were looking for a needle in a haystack, that's all they'd find. They'd miss all the hay around it. I believe that, if Earhart and Noonan and the Electra were in the Navy's search area, they'd have been seen.
Bill,
I believe that Gary LaPook came up with a over 90% probability of the navy sighting them,,,, if they were there ( or not dead ) and Gary has a very good record ( in my opinion ) of being pretty ‘right on’ in his posts. I also agree.
If Fred was piloting the plane i would support Gary's hypothesis all day, However due to Amelia being in control, were the flight ended is so unpredictably ???
Ah, but was she really in control? Noonan was also a licensed commercial pilot, he was bigger than Earhart and he was not suicidal. Do you really think he would just sit back there at the navigation station calmly waiting to die while Earhart refused to fly the headings he gave her that HE KNEW would give them the best chance for survival?
Would you?
gl
What i meant was while Fred was at navigator's table and Amelia piloting, How much could they have drifted of course during night, Also if Amelia was suffering with her stomach was she activating the auto pilot so she could go the toilet, or would Fred have took over ?
-
As far as comparing Amelia and Fred's Pilot Qualifications: Fred held a "Limited Commercial" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Noonan.html#t15) (required 50 hours Flight Time and was limited to carrying passengers for hire within 10 miles of the airport). Amelia had a "Transport Pilot's License" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Earhart.html) (required 250 hours Flight Time).
Are you saying that Noonan was not capable of keeping the plane right side up?
No, not at all, I was only responding to your statement "...also a licensed commercial pilot," which by no means was equal to Amelia's Certifications. Non-Pilots may not be aware that the Commercial Certificate is very much an 'entry-level' and it was a long, long way up to the Transport Pilot Certificate with an Instrument Rating.
He had at least 50 hours in 1930 when he got his license and we know that most pilots have a lot more than the minimum required flying hours when they get their licenses.
I by no means meant to imply that FN had only 50 hours or that AE had only 250 hours, those were just the 'minimum requirements' back then to get the Certificates they held and I agree that most pilots do get far more hours. I received my Commercial at 340 hours which was then minimum +90 hours, (but as a Private Pilot, I had owned a Luscombe for a year before the test and hours were inexpensive for me) and my Airline Transport Pilot Certificate at 4,500 hours which was then minimum +2,000 hours and in between I needed to get an Instrument Rating, Multi Engine Rating, Gold-Seal Flight Instructor Certificate for Airplane Single/Multi/Instrument and an Advanced & Instrument Ground Instructor Certificate.
How many more hours did he log in the following seven years? BTW, your source said he got his license in 1930 from the Airman Certification Branch of the FAA but the FAA was created by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 so there was no FAA in 1930.
I would expect that most of his Logged Hours would have been as a Non-Pilot Flight Navigator while employed by Pan Am. The Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce was created in 1926 and was renamed the Bureau of Air Commerce in 1934 and in 1938 a new independent agency, the Civil Aeronautics Authority was created....
The Electra represented Amelia's very first experience with a retractable gear aircraft.
Based on their experience with fixed gear aircraft, they may not have even considered the advantage a retractable gear aircraft would have in a water landing. With a fixed gear, it would usually be wise to avoid a water landing if possible, unlike the retract; you are just about guaranteed an instant 'flip' to inverted accompanied by a very quick stop.
As far as Fred's Navigation expertise: He may have been one of the worlds leading Celestial Navigators, but he had previously always relied on Radio Direction Finding (http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate#Apparent_ignorance_of_the_limitations_of_her_equipment) as the final approach for finding islands.
My main point above had to do with the question on this thread about AE & FN's likely choosing to put that Electra into the Lagoon or Landing it on the Reef by the Norwich City.
You've been flying long enough so I'm sure you were taught during your instrument rating training how to do an NDB approach with the use of an ADF and that you flew a number of NDB approaches during this training. Let's say that after you got your instrument rating that it just happened to work out that every airport you flew into had an ILS approach so you never had to fly another NDB approach so there was no record of you having done an NDB approach, only ILS approaches, for a number of years. Then, several years later, you have your Jepps out and turned to the page for the anticipated ILS 31L approach at MDW that you have always flown in the past and you then hear on the ATIS, "THREE ONE LEFT I-L-S OUT OF SERVICE, THREE ONE LEFT N-D-B APPROACH NOW IN PROGRESS, INFORM CONTROLLER ON INITIAL CONTACT THAT YOU HAVE MIDWAY INFORMATION DELTA." So, do you die now or do you still remember how to use the ADF, when it becomes necessary, and fly the NDB approach to a safe landing?
It's true that except for an ICT in an Aircraft with ADF installed, you never need to 'Log' NDB Approaches. As long as the Beacon was on the field and the cross-wind was not strong, you might be able to 'fake' it successfully and if it was to Navigate from a Beacon 5 miles out towards the Runway, you might stand a good chance of death. To put this in FN's perspective; he had always depended upon Radio Operators to get the RDF Bearings for him, now he has flown all this way with Amelia and has had no success with RDF on any attempt TIKO, so when it became critical to use it, they failed and did die, the big mystery is how, where and when they died.
In real life I have never flown a back course localizer approach, I have trained many pilots how to do them and I have no doubt that I would have no trouble flying a BC LOC APP if the situation presented itself.
It would still be very wise to do some of them in nice weather first. There are some airports (KORL, KPIE and KPNE for three) which will often assign BC's whenever the wind favors it.
(For the non-pilots, ILS is Instrument Landing System which has the "localizer beam" and the "glideslope beam" to guide the plane to the runway down through the clouds. NDB is Non Directional Beacon which is a homing beacon that a pilot can navigate to using the ADF, Automatic Direction Finder, like the Hooven radio, and also used with an RDF, Radio Direction Finder, like Amelia's. Both the ILS and the NDB approaches will get the plane to the runway but the ILS is more precise so can allow landings in worse weather than the NDB and many pilots find it more difficult to fly the NDB approach than the "just keep the needles in the center" ILS approach. Using the NDB requires more thinking.)
Yes, this is why NDB Navigation was one of the best tools used in training for the Instrument Rating "Homing" to a Beacon is easy, it's "Tracking" Accurately away from the Beacon that gets complicated (and the Weems Book only mentions "Homing"). And, Up until the advent of GPS there were a great many airports with an NDB Approach as the only available option whenever the weather was below VFR. Today, you need not even demonstrate NDB Proficiency if your Aircraft is not equipped with an ADF. If you have a current Approach Approved GPS, you can now fly any 'NDB' Procedure in the US with the GPS providing sole guidance.
The use of the the single line of position approach was taught to PAN AM navigators by Noonan and to all the flight navigators in WW2 and since, it is still required on the FAA Flight Navigator test, see FAR part 63. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/federal-aviation-regulation-navigator-flight-test-requirements) Pan Am did establish radio stations on their island stations but the landfall approach was always available if needed. Of course Noonan did not go out of his way and did not fly the extra miles necessary to fly the landfall approach when he could fly straight in by using the radio just like you do not do a full instrument approach if you are in VMC and have the airport in sight, you request a visual or a contact approach so that you can take the shortcut direct to the airport. This does not mean that you could not do a full approach if necessary just as Noonan could do a landfall approach if that proved to be necessary. Our WW2 navigators used the landfall approach to find islands because they had to find them the first time without the use of radio because they had to bomb them first before our guys could go ashore and set up RDFs for future flights, not the benign environment that Pan Am had when setting up its bases prior to the war.
I seriously doubt that he had Gary LaPook's ability to plot a "Search Pattern" to locate Howland Island. His "Weems Bible" recommends RDF and as an alternative, using "The Precomputed Curve" which involves turning 90 degrees and watching for increasing or decreasing plotted LOP's to determine if landfall is ahead or behind. Sounds like "flying the 337/157 North and South Line" (http://tighar.org/wiki/%22We_are_on_the_line_157_337%22) to me.
Not really, the use of a precomputed curve is the easiest way to compute the landfall approach but is not the only way, see the texts available on my website. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/precomputed-altitude-curves) Here is a sample of the precomputed altitude curve (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=383.0;attach=133)for Noonan's arrival at Howland. The method that you mention is useful if you headed straight in to the destination so that when the LOP is intercepted you don't know which way to turn so that method will help you determine if you turned the wrong way. This whole issue is avoided by doing the standard landfall procedure and aiming off to the side so that there is no ambiguity. Mantz quoted Noonan describing this exact procedure to him. Here is a recent example of how this is done. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/other-flight-navigation-information/recent-landfall-approach) Also see this description of an approach to Howland (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-howland-island)using the standard method.
I don't have a scanner, but I have seen where Gary has posted pages from "Weems Air Navigation" I have the 1943 edition and it is on pages 336-339 and is credited to Lt. W. C. Bentley, Jr. US Army Air Corps. The example given (Fig. 229) takes three hours of flying time, but if done properly; it should have taken them to Howland Airport and we know that did not happen.
The same information is on pages 395 and 396 of the 1938 edition of Weems available on my website (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/landfall-procedure). You find the same basic information in Weems, 1931 edition which I didn't have when I put up the website. Weems and Noonan were friends and Noonan contributed to the techniques found in the Weems manuals so there is no doubt that Noonan knew these techniques. Chichester used this procedure in 1931 crossing the Tasman sea in a Gypsy Moth biplane and he is given credit in the English speaking world for developing this technique but Portguese Admiral Coutinho used the same technique making the first flight across the South Atlantic in 1922. AFM 51-40 (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/air-navigation-afm-51-40-1951/afm51-40-1951-304.JPG?attredirects=0)lays out the long history of this type of navigation so it was not something brand new in 1937.
You may just want to browse the other reference documents (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/home)available on my website.
gl
Yes, thank you for your website and all its information, it was this page from your site that I was referring to above from the Weems 'Bible'. (https://b98f4441-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/weems/weems-396-397.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cpyHMe-FBg8IlWXjK3u9FkARSojvCVk0O8rYjAJqA8vRhQwPAPBCqFI0UyqMwIauYPKWHK-YAmdngWerEVRpFmBrSnPcAHb7NwSOPw23GNzlSCjMJdP_VAZqR5uNNevk9_ae0zVu6a_-RVPxmzYiELNjBQh-Ar6TWQ6G0dDbJ2qwjqfnmIBWSR9Hhz2tDhAivK89zF6Db6g8nijRcptFjPMF6jjSjbN1qf_1Nvz21rh0L0NZePP2ryMFLucYUQF0qw2YYhD&attredirects=0) It was Fig. 253 on your edition and it is good to know that it was also in the 1930 edition.
Had FN forseen what a Problem they were going to have with their RDF, I'm sure he would have done the "offset" method, but if he did not, then that method of using Precomputed Altitude Curves was his logical next step.
I thought I had recently seen where you have posted on this forum a different 'Search Pattern' involving visually covering areas according to estimated flight visibility and then running out of gas while doing it. :-[
-
What i meant was while Fred was at navigator's table and Amelia piloting, How much could they have drifted of course during night, Also if Amelia was suffering with her stomach was she activating the auto pilot so she could go the toilet, or would Fred have took over ?
Fred had an accurate compass installed back at his Navigation Station.
Whenever Amelia would have needed a break, she would have set the Autopilot, but she would also have called Fred to a Pilot's seat to at least monitor the AutoFlight while she was gone for sure.
He could hand-fly the Electra without problem, as long as he used lots of 'trim' as Amelia moved all the way back to the can. The Autopilot would have automatically trimmed the elevator to compensate for the CG changes. edit:- I would have assumed it would need auto trim...
edit:- Since AFAIK Fred had received no training in control of an aircraft by reference to the instruments on the panel, he could have possibly gotten into an 'upset' out over the water in the dark, so the Autopilot may have been critical. Remember the Kennedy Tragedy on his night flight out to Martha's Vineyard and since the sixty's all Private Pilots receive enough 'Instrument' training to get out of trouble of they lose an outside horizon. Since they were obviously still in the air after dawn, Fred would only had that problem if he flew into a cloud...
-
The Autopilot would have automatically trimmed the elevator to compensate for the CG changes.
Are you sure that her autopilot had auto-trim?
gl
-
I by no means meant to imply that FN had only 50 hours or that AE had only 250 hours, those were just the 'minimum requirements' back then to get the Certificates they held and I agree that most pilots do get far more hours. I received my Commercial at 340 hours which was then minimum +90 hours, (but as a Private Pilot, I had owned a Luscombe for a year before the test and hours were inexpensive for me) and my Airline Transport Pilot Certificate at 4,500 hours which was then minimum +2,000 hours and in between I needed to get an Instrument Rating, Multi Engine Rating, Gold-Seal Flight Instructor Certificate for Airplane Single/Multi/Instrument and an Advanced & Instrument Ground Instructor Certificate.
Cool, now you have gotten me to get out my logbooks. I got my private with 43 hours, the minimum was 40 hours. I got the commercial with 230 hours, the minimum then was 200 hours. I got the ATP at 2279 hours, the minimum was 1500 hours. And along the way, the glider rating, the CE-500 type rating, the instrument rating, the multi-engine rating, the Gold Seal flight instructor certificate, single and multi-engine land and instrument; Ground Instructor- Advanced and Instrument. Looks like we have done the same kinds of flying.
gl
-
Had FN forseen what a Problem they were going to have with their RDF, I'm sure he would have done the "offset" method, but if he did not, then that method of using Precomputed Altitude Curves was his logical next step.
I posted this more than a year ago: (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,169.msg4404.html#msg4404)
"Except that the two methods to use to find the island are not mutually exclusive. The RDF should have picked up the Itasca's signals several hundred miles out. They used radio bearings that were more than 600 NM on the flight to Hawii. So there is no problem aiming directly towards Howland expecting to be able to get radio bearings when within 200 NM. When they didn't get a signal there is no problem with turning off to start the landfall since that procedure is accurate enough to get them to Howland in case they never do get the radio signal. If, on the way to the offset point they do start receiving the signals then they would not have to continue all the way to the sun line LOP but would turn to head directly toward Howland as soon as they got the signals."
The problem with the particular method that you are referring to (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/landfall-procedure) is that for it to work the azimuth of the sun must change rapidly and substantially but in the vicinity of Howland on July 2, 1937 the azimuth didn't change even one degree for more than an hour. The azimuth had only changed four degrees by the last radio transmission at 2013 Z and such a slight change in azimuth would not provide a large enough change in the measured height of the sun to provide them information that they were north or south of Howland, and would be lost in the normal uncertainty of celestial observation.
gl
-
edit:- Since AFAIK Fred had received no training in control of an aircraft by reference to the instruments on the panel, he could have possibly gotten into an 'upset' out over the water in the dark, so the Autopilot may have been critical. Remember the Kennedy Tragedy on his night flight out to Martha's Vineyard and since the sixty's all Private Pilots receive enough 'Instrument' training to get out of trouble of they lose an outside horizon. Since they were obviously still in the air after dawn, Fred would only had that problem if he flew into a cloud...
How do you know that Noonan never received any instrument training? It may not have been required for his 1930 license but he may still have received such training then and also in the subsequent seven years. Do your have his logbook?
gl
-
Yes, this is why NDB Navigation was one of the best tools used in training for the Instrument Rating "Homing" to a Beacon is easy, it's "Tracking" Accurately away from the Beacon that gets complicated (and the Weems Book only mentions "Homing"). And, Up until the advent of GPS there were a great many airports with an NDB Approach as the only available option whenever the weather was below VFR. Today, you need not even demonstrate NDB Proficiency if your Aircraft is not equipped with an ADF. If you have a current Approach Approved GPS, you can now fly any 'NDB' Procedure in the US with the GPS providing sole guidance.
Come on, it's easy tracking outbound, I've trained many pilots in this technique. If you are due for an Instrument Proficiency Check then "come on down" and I will reacquaint you with how easy it is to do. Plus we know that Noonan understood the difference between "homing to" and "tracking to" a beacon since he told Earhart to "Keep Makapuu beacon ten degrees on the starboard bow" on the approach to Hawaii showing that he was using a ten degree wind correction angle to compensate for a cross wind from the left.
gl
-
Tom S wrote:
Gary does bring up an interesting point of who 'might' have been in controll during the last minutes of the flight. only 2 people know, and neither can tell us. ( Julia?)
Tom S, Who is Julia?
Gloria
-
Who is Julia?
Gloria, you had to be at the Earhart75 Symposium in June to get the full effect. Julia was there. Here's a link to the website for Julia's book Your Eternal Hologram (http://ameliareborn.com/).
-
Bruce wrote:
Gloria, you had to be at the Earhart75 Symposium in June to get the full effect. Julia was there. Here's a link to the website for Julia's book Your Eternal Hologram.
Thanks Bruce!
Gloria
-
The problem with the particular method that you are referring to (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/landfall-procedure) is that for it to work the azimuth of the sun must change rapidly and substantially but in the vicinity of Howland on July 2, 1937 the azimuth didn't change even one degree for more than an hour. The azimuth had only changed four degrees by the last radio transmission at 2013 Z and such a slight change in azimuth would not provide a large enough change in the measured height of the sun to provide them information that they were north or south of Howland, and would be lost in the normal uncertainty of celestial observation.
gl
This method might work at other places and times but not at Howland on that day.
As to doing the precomputation and graphing of the results, that was the normal procedure, and would have taken Noonan only one hour to do all the computations needed for the approach to Howland. He could have done these early in the flight or even the day before in his hotel room. So, on the approach, Noonan did not have to divert his attention away from taking additional sun shots or from looking for the island. See how this precomputation is done here (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/other-flight-navigation-information/recent-landfall-approach). And read the flight navigation manuals showing how do do this here. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/precomputed-altitude-curves)
And, as everybody assiduously and conspicuously ignores ("whistling past the graveyard"), Noonan only had to take one shot of the Moon which would tell him instantly if he was proceeding too far to the south of Howland.
See how a standard landfall procedure would work at Howland here.
(https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-howland-island)
gl
-
Gary,
Thank you for explaining the problem with the "Precomputed Altitude Curves" method of determining 'ahead or behind' near Howland on that morning.
As for why FN did not 'shoot the moon' to obtain a crossing LOP goes along with a lot of other 'why didn't...'s' on that fateful morning.
There is no doubt that the logical course would have been to follow your advice (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/landfall-procedure) to use the off-set method (https://b98f4441-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/celestial-air-navigation-tm-1-206/tm1-206-176.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7crzQibXitR62uQrI5T3XE1uCgepA-BTOndNURXAf_kHxwA1s0qhqwt4ob1r1jMjIFYGILLlQF2kdz2GssOigJly1V-v1bxDv97KWS-dIhDpI7dxJuh1tbM-QBCfxGm4rAkGVClFKFQtuz4If5bBKUrmH32kSbtIS8732WXezJ5xNHNblkIo9dG_EcjGaVitLf4qBJX7NhqbhjOIegwnfSpvv8NqL8kTacpI2j9ek0-_1EPnDnFAOHeoMMcB0ssdgO77XO7h99a-6LjEU3MEBDWcjGdP_Q%3D%3D&attredirects=0) and turn left to DR to that point up to 60 miles NW of Howland (or Baker) and then follow the LOP home.
As far as their noticing that their Radio Direction Finder had problems at 1742 GMT when she said they were 200 miles out, she did not mention a RDF problem (http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate) until:
1928 GMT: "KHAQQ calling Itasca we are circling [?] but cannot hear you go ahead on 7500 with a long count either now or on the schedule time on 1/2 hour"
(Was speculated by TIGHAR that "circling" was actually spoken as "Listening".)
1930 GMT: "KHAQQ calling Itasca we received your signals but unable to get a minimum. Please take bearing on us and answer 3105 with voice." Another radioman reports this message as: "Amelia on again at 0800 [local time] says hears us on 7.5 megs go ahead on 7500 again."
(For non RDF'ers; "minimum" is what she needed in order to get a direction (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/53_MiamiPhoto/53_MiamiPhoto.htm) {to the Itasca} as she turned that round circle loop antenna (http://tighar.org/wiki/Loop_antenna) on top of the cabin.)
If they had done that an hour and three-quarters earlier ("200 miles out"), they might have even figured out the problem in time and at least established voice on lower frequency or even direction on lower still (Itasca should have also been sending 'A's on her 400 kHz Transmitter and that would have provided Amelia a Null or "minimum")...
Do you think she had tried earlier and just did not report her problem?
Her message at 1912 GMT (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmissions_heard_from_NR16020) was "KHAQQ clng Itasca we must on you" do you think that might have been while they were following the LOP in from that DR'd 60 mile NW turning point?
The final message (http://tighar.org/wiki/Last_words) at 2013 GMT was "We are on the line 157 337 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/navigation.html)...We are running [on] line [north and south]."
If they had used an off-set (https://b98f4441-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/air-navigation-afm-51-40-1951/afm51-40-1951-304.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7coypTtXu9MIzmDL9Ta7amMeqcxpYJFUuazz7RoYSrJvgs-4xxoqnNCRRs14ZtNRJRiPDY9H_JmLwx2mljjyNzD-IwNk916zeojEmh8Ju149qOEBs-t7QChX7Ss5OQPioAVin-5LNMXcGCuzFf0inZ_XWomOobhPwFh34619WS5kdziR7jR1pqoTuGkDNMIZMUZAG3HeAXIKrpKgxvb82vWm9bpoqttbfLYMCm6RnmNgRC-JyiVF1nCeiylQ6bOgzXXw5BuFizyWdD3zeYVuCIgmqgq6hQ%3D%3D&attredirects=0), they should have been following the LOP only south and not north.
As far as Fred taking over the Flight Controls of the Electra, I doubt that that would have happened unless Amelia came completely apart in the air. We don't know how much 'Stick-Time' he would have had in the Electra and more importantly, would have certainly taken away from his Primary Responsibility of Navigating... Such as it was.
-
Gary,
As far as their noticing that their Radio Direction Finder had problems at 1742 GMT when she said they were 200 miles out, she did not mention a RDF problem (http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate) until:
1928 GMT: "KHAQQ calling Itasca we are circling [?] but cannot hear you go ahead on 7500 with a long count either now or on the schedule time on 1/2 hour"
(Was speculated by TIGHAR that "circling" was actually spoken as "Listening".)
1930 GMT: "KHAQQ calling Itasca we received your signals but unable to get a minimum. Please take bearing on us and answer 3105 with voice." Another radioman reports this message as: "Amelia on again at 0800 [local time] says hears us on 7.5 megs go ahead on 7500 again."
(For non RDF'ers; "minimum" is what she needed in order to get a direction (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/53_MiamiPhoto/53_MiamiPhoto.htm) {to the Itasca} as she turned that round circle loop antenna (http://tighar.org/wiki/Loop_antenna) on top of the cabin.)
If they had done that an hour and three-quarters earlier ("200 miles out"), they might have even figured out the problem in time and at least established voice on lower frequency or even direction on lower still (Itasca should have also been sending 'A's on her 400 kHz Transmitter and that would have provided Amelia a Null or "minimum")...
Do you think she had tried earlier and just did not report her problem?
You don't think "WANTS BEARING ON 3105 KCS ON HOUR WILL WHISTLE IN MIC
ABOUT 200 MILES APPX WHISTLING NW"
at 0614 to 0615 Itasca time (1744 to 1745 Z) indicated that she was having a problem with her RDF? This transmission shows that she had not been able to get a bearing with her own RDF, I call this a problem. This was a complete change in the planned procedure, Earhart was supposed to take bearings on the Itasca, not the other way around.
And the same thing again just a half hour later at 0645~0646 Itasca time, 1815 to 1816 Z, see attached radio log.
Her message at 1912 GMT (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmissions_heard_from_NR16020) was "KHAQQ clng Itasca we must on you" do you think that might have been while they were following the LOP in from that DR'd 60 mile NW turning point?
Yes.
The final message (http://tighar.org/wiki/Last_words) at 2013 GMT was "We are on the line 157 337 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/navigation.html)...We are running [on] line [north and south]."
If they had used an off-set (https://b98f4441-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/air-navigation-afm-51-40-1951/afm51-40-1951-304.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7coypTtXu9MIzmDL9Ta7amMeqcxpYJFUuazz7RoYSrJvgs-4xxoqnNCRRs14ZtNRJRiPDY9H_JmLwx2mljjyNzD-IwNk916zeojEmh8Ju149qOEBs-t7QChX7Ss5OQPioAVin-5LNMXcGCuzFf0inZ_XWomOobhPwFh34619WS5kdziR7jR1pqoTuGkDNMIZMUZAG3HeAXIKrpKgxvb82vWm9bpoqttbfLYMCm6RnmNgRC-JyiVF1nCeiylQ6bOgzXXw5BuFizyWdD3zeYVuCIgmqgq6hQ%3D%3D&attredirects=0), they should have been following the LOP only south and not north.
Using my example of a 60 NM offset when intercepting the LOP NNW of Howland, they would only fly SSE for 120 NM from the point of interception, twice the offset, at which point they would know that they had flown past Howland and that it was time to turn around and go back and look for the island.
This is from my website: (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-howland-island)
"During this process you do not abandon your DR. By aiming off to one side
by the amount of the estimated maximum error in the DR at the point of
interception (60 NM in this example) you have converted a 120 NM
uncertainty along the LOP, 60 NM left and 60 NM right, into a 120 NM
uncertainty extending 120 NM left and zero right. This ensures that you
do not end up to the right of the destination. This allows for the maximum
possible error but, in fact, you are more likely to be nearer to your DR
position than to the extreme edges of the maximum possible error. When
you intercept your aiming point, 60 NM to the left, you are not surprised
that you don't see the island since it is most likely to be about 60 NM
to your right. As you fly along the LOP your DR also moves along the LOP
getting closer to where the island should be and you expect to see it
as you approach that point. Even if you don't see it when you arrive there
you are not yet worried because it can still be ahead of you. But as you
continue further and further along the LOP after the DR put you over
the island you start getting worried. But you must still proceed out the
whole 60 NM past where the island should be to be certain that you do
not miss the island. At the end of that leg you would know that you have
missed the island and would have to deal with that problem
most likely planning a standard expanding square search pattern centered
on the most likely point for the island."
As far as Fred taking over the Flight Controls of the Electra, I doubt that that would have happened unless Amelia came completely apart in the air. We don't know how much 'Stick-Time' he would have had in the Electra and more importantly, would have certainly taken away from his Primary Responsibility of Navigating... Such as it was.
You know as well as I do, since you are a flight instructor, that a reasonably smart chimpanzee can keep a plane right side up after it is established in cruise flight so Fred's lack of stick time in the Electra is immaterial. He might not want to try landing it but he would have no problem keeping it on heading and altitude. Once Earhart started to refuse to fly the headings that Noonan gave her, then his job as a navigator was over since the end result of his navigator's work is determining the headings to fly. What good would it do at that point to take additional sextant shots if Earhart is going to ignore the headings he computes from the sextant observations. At that point he moves into survival mode and does whatever it takes to save his own life.
gl
-
In the frequently asked questions (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/Forumfaq.html) section there is a question regarding what the tides were like when Earhart may have arrived at Gardner. It directs you to the tidal study (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf). However the tidal study appears to start on Day 2 and appears to be data for post loss radio messages and not arrival?
Can someone clarify on the chart where to look for tidal information during the possible landing period? (the 4 hours after last "on a line" message heard from Itasca)
Also the tidal study appears to have data only during radio messages. What was the highest tide during the period of radio messages? Not just during one of the messages but the in between time as well
-
Gary,
The reference I was commenting on in this thread was the speculation (reply #47) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,866.msg17899.html#msg17899) that Fred would have taken the controls if Amelia had wanted to land on the reef so he could ditch the Electra 'Wheels-Up' in the Lagoon, as well as the postulation that Fred's Piloting Experience (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,866.msg17950.html#msg17950) was comparable to Amelia's. I do not think that would have occurred.
Your statement about Amelia not following his commanded headings is another matter and our discussion of Fred's Navigation does not pertain to the question posted in this thread about "Forum pilot's opinions on best place to put the Electra on Gardner Island" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,866.msg17851.html#msg17851).
I do not believe she would have refused to follow Fred's 'Headings' but if that were the case, then I could see his attempting to take flight control. I don't even want to think about how he would have accomplished that.
As far as Your Hypotheses for Fred's Navigation actions, if he had followed that method, they would more likely have ended up at Howland than Gardner. From the Radio Logs it appears that they started with wanting a 'Vector' from the Itasca and did not even try their Loop (the only reported successful reception) until 1930 GMT. If any (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/PLSigStatsandTide.pdf) of those Post-Loss Radio Receptions were genuine, than the Electra could not have splashed down (Ocean or Lagoon).
*******************************************
Gregory,
The only statement I could find on TIGHAR Website about Tide Level at expected arrival time was this:
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Overview/AEhypothesis.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Overview/AEhypothesis.html)
You are correct that the Radio Log tides deal with low tides which seem to occur about 0600-1100 GMT and 1800-2300 GMT (starting on second day and getting a little later each day).
Speculating from the TIGHAR Hypothesis might place an arrival at Gardner around 2100-2300 GMT which might be just a little past slack low tide and still shown that particular smooth portion of reef to be dry (others have stated that sea levels were 6" lower in 1937 compared to today.)
***********************************************
Monte,
I apologize for contributing so much to the drift of your thread, this will be my last post in this thread.
As far as the Japanese Attacks (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,866.msg17960.html#msg17960) on Howland Island on December 8, 1941; since it was considered an airfield, I'm sure that was planned well ahead of time. As I recall it was first a fleet of Bombers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howland_Island#Japanese_attacks_during_World_War_II).
I would expect that their Navigation would be superior to the four year previous flight from Lae, considering that they would have had less distance to deal with, for one thing... Their Submarine (which also attacked later) could have been in the area to provide a Radio Signal to guide the Bombers to the area as well.
-
No apology needed, Art :) In fact, I enjoyed the reading....and the education. ;D With so many avenues of interest in the forum, it's hard not to drift away from an original subject. I would venture to say a good percentage of the threads do.