Print

[Ric Gillespie]

I agree with most of what you say, Jeff, about wider-deeper and probably longer searches, the likes of which TIGHAR has never seen. Spend more, discover more, of course will probably come along with this theory.

If we could guarantee that spending more would discover more, raising the money would be easy.  It's actually "spend more, risk more."  It's easy to recommend that somebody else should spend more.  Bear in mind that Jeff, by his own admission, now favors Crashed & Sank while he counsels TIGHAR to spend more on searching at Niku.

[Ric Gillespie]

We're looking for a Plane Here, aren't we??

No.  We're testing the hypothesis that the Earhart/Noonan flight ended at Gardner Island/Nikumaroro.  Searching for whatever may remain of the plane is one of several a reasonable ways to test the hypothesis. 

[Bob Smith]

You're right, Ric. And I may be oversimplifying by saying we are looking for an airplane! But something bigger than what has been found would be nice. Some things don't blow in the wind or move by wave action quite so easily. And bits found on land may eventually lead to the bigger prize. Actually the "Crashed and Sank" theory isn't so far off from "hit the deck and sank" or"Ran out of gas and dropped to the beach, then sank" theory. If we expand on any one theory, and include possibilities from other theories, the envelope of possible solutions becomes larger. The expense is larger of course, but in some ways the hunt becomes easier. Think "multi-tasking" . Move around; gather info from multiple areas and all together may lead to the ultimate end. Site 7 may have items from survival needs; the  shallow beach may have items from the landing and washing ashore; items found 1000 ft down may be from higher up and from being washed down. Highly unlikely that items were washed upward, and to the land areas from underwater, but could have been blown there from anywhere. (flight MH370 hollow flaperon) We all know these things, but get hung up on one location or theory or type of device or ease of investigation,etc. (My favorite is the pile of ruble in the early debri field!) Meanwhile, the environment is changing. I don't think we can afford to wait to finish this mystery while it is sure to just get more expensive to complete. We should get more info from more places and maybe use different techniques and machines to get it done!

[Ric Gillespie]

Actually the "Crashed and Sank" theory isn't so far off from "hit the deck and sank" or"Ran out of gas and dropped to the beach, then sank" theory.

I'm not familiar with those theories.

[Bob Smith]

Sorry, I meant the "Landed on the beach with low fuel, and washed over the reef leaving a landing gear" theory..

[Ric Gillespie]

Sorry, I meant the "Landed on the beach with low fuel, and washed over the reef leaving a landing gear" theory..

What photographic evidence supports Crashed & Sank?  What evidence - period - supports Crashed & Sank.  How does Crashed & Sank explain the post-loss radio signals?

[Bob Smith]

I'm not arguing with you, Ric. There is no evidence to support the "crashed and sank" theory that I know of. It's just a theory that some resort to when they get frustrated with other theories, in my mind. If you look at these two theories, however, they both end up in the water. Why doesn't anybody want to go in the water? I mean DEEP in the water, to find evidence?

[Ric Gillespie]

Why doesn't anybody want to go in the water? I mean DEEP in the water, to find evidence?

I don't know where you get that idea.  Four multi-million dollar expeditions have gone deep in the water (up to about 5,000 meters)  around Howland looking for the plane.  The side-scan sonar survey TIGHAR commissioned in 2012 went down 1,500 meters.  That's pretty deep.  We'd like to go deeper.  It's just real, real expensive.

[Bob Smith]

IF there was money enough (I'm not serious) , where would TIGHAR go and how deep would be realistic, do you think, to do a one - time, all out search near Nikumaroro? (Sorry I'm not in the right thread)

[Greg Daspit]

What kind of “wider-deeper” search? ROV’s or Sonar?
Is Sonar a good method for searching for small pieces in the area around Nikumaroro? If one wants to do a “one time” search with sonar, how can you expect there would be a big piece of airplane to stand out?  If ROV’s are used to look for small pieces then how deep can they go?
Would the search for a “wider deeper search” area include calculating how long it would take an intact airplane with undamaged fuel tanks to sink, along with the worst case current speed? Would you factor in non-typical current direction based on finding NC debris north of the wreck? Where do you draw the limits of the search area? Where would you say, “we searched everything within these limits and there is no need to expand it”? If you start to think of it in those terms doesn’t it make sense to start with the prime areas and work out from there.

IMHO, Starting with the prime area, which to me means the area closest to the Bevington object and working out from there makes the most sense to me, eliminating them area by area. The shallow areas have been searched by divers. For areas and holes in the snail trails below this area that were not searched in 2012, I consider prime area to be searched first, and searched by ROV. The logic being an ROV is good for finding smaller objects and smaller objects are likely at the less deep unsearched areas closer to where wave action might break up a plane. (Some areas that the snail trail crossed, need to be searched in more detail like the Debris Field. )I think there is a limit of search area for the ROV. Then there is a deeper area around these limits that a Sonar search makes more sense. The logic being the plane got out deeper because the tanks kept a bigger piece afloat and a sonar might be able to spot it.

[Bob Smith]

I don't know Greg. I'm not an expert on ROVs and sonar nor do I pretend to know  what devices would work best or what their limits are. I'm asking the question, I don't have the answer. It would seem, however, that the ROVs would be useless after a certain depth and I think that limit has already been reached in previous dives. And I presume that is one reason the cost tends to skyrocket. Besides tedious calculations and research into the depths that may be encountered, and the conditions at those depths, such as pressure, the equipment is certainly expensive and scarce. There is probably very little known about the extremes in that area. Data would have to be taken from similar areas with similar conditions, I suppose, and starting points or areas of best chances for results would be determined by the western and southern beaches and their relation to the ocean current and prevailing wind direction at the time. Specifics won't be known until they do some test dives anyway, which makes it even more urgent.

[Ric Gillespie]

What kind of “wider-deeper” search? ROV’s or Sonar?

Wider deeper is a wonderful concept.  The devil is in the details.

Is Sonar a good method for searching for small pieces in the area around Nikumaroro?

No.  Sonar is a poor method of searching for small pieces - period.

If one wants to do a “one time” search with sonar, how can you expect there would be a big piece of airplane to stand out?

You can't.  You can say, "Airplanes that have been found underwater are in big pieces" but you can't conclude from that that all or even most airplanes underwater are in big pieces. The ones in little pieces are just much harder to find.

  If ROV’s are used to look for small pieces then how deep can they go?

Very deep, but the deeper they go the bigger they are and the more tether they require and the bigger the ship it takes to support them. Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.

Would the search for a “wider deeper search” area include calculating how long it would take an intact airplane with undamaged fuel tanks to sink, along with the worst case current speed?

What are the chances that an aircraft that left a main landing gear assembly behind would be otherwise undamaged?  How do you calculate how much damage?

Would you factor in non-typical current direction based on finding NC debris north of the wreck? Where do you draw the limits of the search area? Where would you say, “we searched everything within these limits and there is no need to expand it”?

All good questions.
 

[Jeff Palshook]

....TIGHAR is a board-driven organization.  The general membership does not vote and does not elect board members.  Board members are nominated, elected, re-elected (or not) by the other board members.
 

Are Mr. Berwind and Mr. Carty no longer members of the TIGHAR board of directors?  Both of them are listed as board members on TIGHAR's IRS Forms 990 submitted for at least the last several years.  However, neither Mr. Carty or Mr. Berwind is listed as a board member on the "About TIGHAR" page on the TIGHAR website:

http://tighar.org/about.htm


This "About TIGHAR" page still shows Ric and Pat's home address as Wilmington, DE.  Also, the page has a link to the "most recent TIGHAR IRS Form 990".  This link points to the IRS Form for the time period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012, which is definitely not the most recent Form 990 submitted by TIGHAR.

So perhaps the "About TIGHAR" webpage has not been updated in a while as to the names and locations of the current members of the board of directors?

Mr. Carty made a handful of posts to the TIGHAR forum several years ago.  His first post, to the "New Member Introduction" section of the forum, said he had been a member of the TIGHAR board of directors since "about 2007":

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,222.msg23932.html

Is the "About TIGHAR" webpage this seriously out of date?

If Mr. Berwind and Mr. Carty really are no longer TIGHAR board members, what happened to them?

Jeff P.

[Ric Gillespie]

Are Mr. Berwind and Mr. Carty no longer members of the TIGHAR board of directors?

They are not.

Both of them are listed as board members on TIGHAR's IRS Forms 990 submitted for at least the last several years.

The 990s are correct.

  However, neither Mr. Carty or Mr. Berwind is listed as a board member on the "About TIGHAR" page on the TIGHAR website

Mr. Berwind resigned his position on the board on July 8, 2015 saying that he no longer felt that he had the level of enthusiasm and commitment TIGHAR deserves.  He wrote,
 "I truly believe in what TIGHAR is trying to accomplish, and greatly value the time I have spent working along with all of you.  I look forward to following TIGHAR's progress going forward, and hope that the friendships I have formed with many of you will continue."

Mr. Carty resigned on July 28 citing the same reason.  He wrote, "Janis [his wife] and I will continue our memberships with TIGHAR and I will begin participating on the Forum in areas in which I am interested.
It’s been fun."

Graham and Art are still very much "on board" but are no longer "on the board/"
Being a member of a nonprofit board is a pretty intense experience and it's not uncommon for board members to burn out after several years.  Turnover is healthy.

The same day Mr. Carty resigned Lee Paynter was elected to the TIGHAR board.  Lee was on the Niku VIII dive team and also served as the expedition communications officer. He's a skilled businessman and the Chief Operating Officer of a large corporation. He's also a highly experienced pilot and diver and licensed amateur radio operator.  He'll be a great asset to TIGHAR.

We expect to add more new board members in the near future.

This "About TIGHAR" page still shows Ric and Pat's home address as Wilmington, DE.  Also, the page has a link to the "most recent TIGHAR IRS Form 990".  This link points to the IRS Form for the time period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012, which is definitely not the most recent Form 990 submitted by TIGHAR.

Yes, the page needs updating.  We've been just a tad busy lately.  We'll get it updated asap. 

[Jeff Palshook]

Thanks for the reply and the info, Ric.  Relieved to here that at least Mr. Carty's and Mr. Berwind's departures from the board were not due to any sort of health problems.

Jeff P.