Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Confused  (Read 12396 times)

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Confused
« on: February 19, 2011, 05:15:30 PM »

Assuming the theory is correct and the flight ended up on Gardner and after reading alot (not all) of the T-Tracks and updates, I'm left with a little confusion and some questions.

1. If I understood correctly, when the plane landed on the reef edge it was a rather rough landing and resulted in Noonan being badly injured and Amelia suffering some injuries (ankles? (Bettys log))

Question. How much damage could a plane like the 10E sustain and still be able to run the right engine if it landed hard enough to cause serious injury?

2. If the plane landed on the reef near the Norwich City and there are some serious injuries sustained by the crew, and assuming the "water collection device" seen at the other end of the island was indeed a 10E fuel tank,  why (and HOW) did they, A) Remove said fuel tank from the interior, and B) If they were injured, why move a 64 pound + tank to the other side of the island? Why not set it up right there? After reading about the conditions the researchers indure, it HAD to be hell on wheels to handle such a bulky item especially since we assume injury?

And finally, why move from the wreck site in the first place? The first thing I was taught was to stay with the plane in case of forced landing. So why did they hobble a couple of miles away over soft sand, slippery and sharp coral, in heat that approaches a couple of degrees this side of a fry pan?
The time frame for them to do all this just doesn't make sense to me. It had to have been months before they passed away don't you think? If Fred was out of his head who thought to do all this? AE? BUT if he was in control, he WOULD have the savvy to be able to survive, just from the fact you dont become a ships captain from a deck hand in that time period without being mechanicaly inclined.


Gums
Brad

#4327R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2963
Re: Confused
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2011, 05:30:32 PM »

1. If I understood correctly, when the plane landed on the reef edge it was a rather rough landing and resulted in Noonan being badly injured and Amelia suffering some injuries (ankles? (Bettys log))

That is a theory about what MIGHT have happened.  Please don't portray TIGHAR as saying, "We know that the plane landed on the reef, that Fred was injured, and that Betty heard their distress calls."  It is a plausible scenario, but it is not proven.

Quote
Question. How much damage could a plane like the 10E sustain and still be able to run the right engine if it landed hard enough to cause serious injury?

Who knows?  No one has run controlled experiments to find out.  IF the bulk of the plausible post-loss messages were from AE and FN, then the right landing gear, the right engine nacelle, the propeller, and the cockpit controls must have survived the landing.

Quote
2. If the plane landed on the reef near the Norwich City and there are some serious injuries sustained by the crew, and assuming the "water collection device" seen at the other end of the island was indeed a 10E fuel tank,  why (and HOW) did they, A) Remove said fuel tank from the interior, and B) If they were injured, why move a 64 pound + tank to the other side of the island? Why not set it up right there? After reading about the conditions the researchers indure, it HAD to be hell on wheels to handle such a bulky item especially since we assume injury?

TIGHAR found the water collection device.  It was a steel tank from Tarawa.  You may let go of all questions about AE and FN schlepping a fuel tank down to that end of the island.

Quote
And finally, why move from the wreck site in the first place? The first thing I was taught was to stay with the plane in case of forced landing. So why did they hobble a couple of miles away over soft sand, slippery and sharp coral, in heat that approaches a couple of degrees this side of a fry pan?

IF the plane landed near the wreck of the Norwich City and IF the Seven Site is where they died, that's what they did and why they did so doesn't matter.

The fact that you would have done something different is irrelevant.  Why should AE and FN behave like someone from 2011?

Quote
The time frame for them to do all this just doesn't make sense to me. It had to have been months before they passed away don't you think? If Fred was out of his head who thought to do all this? AE? BUT if he was in control, he WOULD have the savvy to be able to survive, just from the fact you dont become a ship's captain from a deck hand in that time period without being mechanically inclined.

You're arguing from a theory that has been abandoned in view of observations made on the ground by TIGHAR.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5804
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Confused
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2011, 08:38:39 AM »

I can't improve on Marty's clarification except to say:

Question. How much damage could a plane like the 10E sustain and still be able to run the right engine if it landed hard enough to cause serious injury?

The Electra had seat belts but no shoulder restraints.  There is some evidence that the co-pilot side control yoke had been removed, perhaps to give Fred more room to work (contrary to legend, he a good deal of his time up front).  Any sudden deceleration (such as running a wheel into a hole) might very well throw Fred head-firast into the instrument panel.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 09:54:43 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Confused
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2011, 01:54:36 PM »

Ewwww ... if the yoke was removed but the column it was mounted to was left, that could get real ... messy.
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5804
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Confused
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2011, 04:42:59 PM »

The column comes out with the yoke.
Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Confused
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2011, 09:45:18 PM »

Marty,  I'm not portraying anything to anybody, I asked IF the theory is correct... I am aware that NOTHING is proven, however, the evidence I ve read right here makes a compelling argument for some sort of happening. I am not trying to look at this with 2011 eyes, I can tell you after working with my hands and my brain for the better part of half a century I can tell you that common sense is common sense, in this century or any other. So Ill ask my question differently. Does it make sense to anyone that IF the castaway(s) WAS/WERE AE/FN they would move to the other end of the island? Especially IF they were injured? What is it about the 7 site that would make it attractive? IF the castaways landed on the reef and IF they died at the 7 site I will guarantee you that it WILL matter to someone WHY they did what they did. If TIGHAR proves the theory and tells the world about it, you can bet your bippy people WILL want to know. Its been my experience that part of understanding Anything is also understanding WHY something is done in certain ways. If questions like mine have no place, then why do we have the NTSB to look into accidents that happen today? Just so we can say "yup, it crashed"? THEY ask WHY something was done, so why shouldn't I? I asked a question that required an opinion. I am only trying to understand what it is I am reading here. ALL my questions are asked from the the premise that nothing has been proven by anyone. I don't subscribe to any theory regarding AE so I don't understand why it's bad science to ask IF something happened then WHY would you do something in reaction to that set of circumstances?

With all respect,
Gums
Brad

#4327R
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Confused
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2011, 03:10:09 AM »

Does it make sense to anyone that IF the castaway(s) WAS/WERE AE/FN they would move to the other end of the island? Especially IF they were injured? What is it about the 7 site that would make it attractive? IF the castaways landed on the reef and IF they died at the 7 site I will guarantee you that it WILL matter to someone WHY they did what they did. With all respect,
Gums

Why did they move to the 7 site? Taking your point in the previous post about staying near the aircraft, at some point in time the aircraft effectively disappears.  The Lambrecht flight has passed and no other planes or ships appear.  You now need to search for water, food and shelter.  You find none in your local so go off in search around the island. 

You come to the seven site, its relatively clear jungle with refreshing trade winds to take away some of the heat.  We don't know where else they may or may not have been but there is some discussion ref Aukaraime South having evidence of bivouacking.

For reasons unknown you return to the seven site and eke out your final days/weeks/months.

Now if time and money were no object I would care about joining up the dots that make the casterway move from the Nutiran shore to the seven site but unless lady luck uncovers an interim camp site then I feel we may never know.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2963
Re: Confused
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2011, 06:52:49 AM »

Marty,  I'm not portraying anything to anybody, I asked IF the theory is correct...

I'm glad to hear that you are not treating theory as fact. 

Quote
I am not trying to look at this with 2011 eyes, I can tell you after working with my hands and my brain for the better part of half a century I can tell you that common sense is common sense, in this century or any other.

I deny the view that by looking into our heads to see what is "common sense" for us we will find out what was "common sense" for other centuries.  Common sense varies from group to group and from time to time.

Quote
Does it make sense to anyone that IF the castaway(s) WAS/WERE AE/FN they would move to the other end of the island? Especially IF they were injured? What is it about the 7 site that would make it attractive?

The wiki article on the Seven Site has a list of possible reasons.

Quote
IF the castaways landed on the reef and IF they died at the 7 site I will guarantee you that it WILL matter to someone WHY they did what they did. If TIGHAR proves the theory and tells the world about it, you can bet your bippy people WILL want to know.

"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride."

It doesn't matter how intensely you desire an answer to a question.  In the absence of evidence, some questions are moot.

Quote
It's been my experience that part of understanding Anything is also understanding WHY something is done in certain ways. If questions like mine have no place, then why do we have the NTSB to look into accidents that happen today? Just so we can say "yup, it crashed"? THEY ask WHY something was done, so why shouldn't I?

If TIGHAR finds evidence about why the castaway made camp at the Seven Site (IF, in fact, the castaway camp was at the Seven Site), I'm sure it would be happy to share it with the world.  In the absence of evidence, the proper answer to your question is, "We don't know why the castaway camped there."

Quote
I asked a question that required an opinion. I am only trying to understand what it is I am reading here. ALL my questions are asked from the the premise that nothing has been proven by anyone. I don't subscribe to any theory regarding AE so I don't understand why it's bad science to ask IF something happened then WHY would you do something in reaction to that set of circumstances?

You've done more than ask questions.  You have made claims ("Common sense then was the same as common sense is now.  If I had landed near the Norwich City, I wouldn't have moved to the Seven Site; neither would they, especially if one were injured."). 

The goal of reasoned inquiry is to give assent when the evidence warrants it and to withhold assent when the evidence is insufficient to overcome a reasonable doubt.

In this case, my opinion is that we don't know for sure and probably will never know for sure why the castaway chose that end of the island for his or her campsite.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5804
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Confused
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2011, 07:13:39 AM »

If questions like mine have no place, then why do we have the NTSB to look into accidents that happen today?

The NTSB gathers facts and, if possible, issues an opinion as to the "probable cause" of an accident.  The NTSB didn't exist in 1937.  At that time, aviation accident investigation was the responsibility of the Accident Analysis Section of the Bureau of Air Commerce. TIGHAR is conducting the investigation of the Earhart accident that the Bureau of Air Commerce failed to conduct in 1937.  The best we can hope for is to gather facts and issue an opinion as to "probable cause."
Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Confused
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2011, 08:34:23 AM »

Thank you. And just for arguments sake, I never said what I would have done, I only said that I was taught to stay with the airplane....  :) which becomes a moot point when the plane gets washed away. In any case, spending your last days in that situation (as a castaway) must be horrible, and I can't fathom what it might have been like when the realization that no rescue was coming set in.
Brad

#4327R
 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2020 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP