Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Landing near the Norwich  (Read 84753 times)

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2012, 07:02:03 PM »


I seem to recall a previous discussion on this .........


There was quite a bit of discussion.  I started it by making the claim that an experienced, rational pilot would not have landed any place on the reef.  Especially one who has a history of ground loops.  As an experienced pilot, I would have put her down, gear up, in the lagoon.  There was some discussion with a few non-pilots dissenting by stating that Earhart would have wanted to save her airplane first.

To me and  few other experienced pilots this didn't make much sense simply because survival comes first.  Ensuring rescue comes second.  A good pilot would not consider saving the airplane - if the airplane could be flown out, why land in the first place?

A gear up lagoon landing would provide the best chance for survival.  Having the airplane in the lagoon would provide the best chance for rescue. 

Heh heh - as an experienced combat pilot flying my A-1 under the same circumstances, I'd have bailed out before landing on the reef or lagoon.  Now that's the best chance for survival.  LOL

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6059
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2012, 07:55:55 PM »

As an experienced pilot, I would have put her down, gear up, in the lagoon.  There was some discussion with a few non-pilots dissenting by stating that Earhart would have wanted to save her airplane first.
As an experienced pilot, I wouldn't - not if I had a relatively dry, hard surface of adequate length to land on - wheels down.  No doubt about it.  And the main reason would be survival.  Ditching - even if done perfectly on calm water - characteristically results in a skip followed by a sudden and brutally violent stop.  The Electra had only lap belts.  No shoulder harness. Bump your head and you drown. I'd take a possible ground loop over a ditching any day.  The crew of the Croydon made the same choice.
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2012, 10:40:49 PM »

 And secondly, even if one survives the ditching, there is the problem of sharks, even in the lagoon.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2012, 12:00:04 AM »

And secondly, even if one survives the ditching, there is the problem of sharks, even in the lagoon.

Ohmygodyes - sharks.  and, don't forget, potrizeebees.

Heh heh nice touch, Tim.  But, again, this has been hashed over back in July with most experienced pilots in agreement that a gear up lagoon landing would provide the best chance of survival.
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2012, 03:35:09 AM »

 What, me worry?
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 651
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2012, 05:21:28 AM »

And secondly, even if one survives the ditching, there is the problem of sharks, even in the lagoon.

Ohmygodyes - sharks.  and, don't forget, potrizeebees.


As a member of the Spelling Police, I must caution you about using the correct spelling of important words such as "potrzebie." Young and impressionable readers of the TIGHAR Earhart Forum entries may not recognize this important alternate unit of measure that is being written about in the above posting if its spelling is so corrupted with superfluous vowels.

For instance, in the Ameliapedia article about Nikumaroro's lagoon, the dimensions of the lagoon are given as "approximately 3 miles long and a mile wide at it's widest point."  Not only is there an unnecessary apostrophe in that description, but the quaint system with its so-called "English units" that the author of this entry has used would be better understood by the forum's general readership if those distances were restated in more precise terms:  "approximately 2.13318252 furshlugginer potrzebie long and 0.71106084 furshlugginer potrzebie wide at its widest point."  (Skeptical readers of this post are referred to Google and its built-in calculator capabilities; simply type:  1 mile in potrzebie.  Wikipedia has a full explanation of the highly practical potrzebie together with useful modifiers such as furshlugginer that were added to the system in 1957 by the now-retired world-renowned Stanford University computer scientist Donald Knuth.)     
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 02:21:59 PM by Bruce Thomas »
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2012, 06:29:22 AM »

"Although the Moon is one-sixth the size of the Earth, it is still farther away."  Alfred E. Neuman
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6059
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2012, 07:02:55 AM »

But, again, this has been hashed over back in July with most experienced pilots in agreement that a gear up lagoon landing would provide the best chance of survival.

I was otherwise engaged in July.  Yes, there was a regrettable period of several months earlier this year when a handful of individuals promoting invalid methodologies such as;  we-can-figure-out-what-Amelia-did-by-imagining-what-we-would-have-done  dominated the forum.  A little house-cleaning has returned the forum to rational discussion based on sound investigative practice.
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2012, 08:12:17 AM »

But, again, this has been hashed over back in July with most experienced pilots in agreement that a gear up lagoon landing would provide the best chance of survival.

I was otherwise engaged in July.  Yes, there was a regrettable period of several months earlier this year when a handful of individuals promoting invalid methodologies such as;  we-can-figure-out-what-Amelia-did-by-imagining-what-we-would-have-done  dominated the forum.  A little house-cleaning has returned the forum to rational discussion based on sound investigative practice.

Ric, in no way have I indicated that Earhart landed in the lagoon.  If you received that impression, then I apologize for the mis-communication. 

However, I did promote the fact that - she was not on the island during the search by the Navy Aircraft.  Now that is sound based on the fact that the Navy fliers found "signs of habitation" but could not find people.  A paradox had she or Noonan been there.  Also the fact that this pilot has extensive SAR hours and extensive experience flying on the deck. 
I'm rather certain that both Earhart and Noonan did not deliberately hide in the jungle in order to avoid being rescued.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6059
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2012, 08:58:19 AM »

However, I did promote the fact that - she was not on the island during the search by the Navy Aircraft.

That is not a fact.  It is merely your supposition based on your own opinion.  Calling it a "fact" is an example of invalid methodology.


 Now that is sound based on the fact that the Navy fliers found "signs of habitation" but could not find people.  A paradox had she or Noonan been there.

By that reasoning a TIGHAR team was not on the island in 1989 when an NZAF P-3 Orion came in low (est. 500 feet), circled the island, buzzed our ship, but never saw the 12 people standing out in the open on the island, wearing bright colored clothing, and waving like mad.  I was one of the 12.  We have the whole thing on video so I'm pretty sure we were really there.


Also the fact that this pilot has extensive SAR hours and extensive experience flying on the deck.

So does this pilot.  We seem to have conflicting expert opinions. 


I'm rather certain that both Earhart and Noonan did not deliberately hide in the jungle in order to avoid being rescued.

So am I.  It's great when experts agree.
[/quote]
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2012, 10:00:11 AM »



Also the fact that this pilot has extensive SAR hours and extensive experience flying on the deck.

So does this pilot.  We seem to have conflicting expert opinions. 



Ric, I had no idea you were a combat pilot.  Thank you for your service. 

Are you a River Rat?  Your airplane?

Bill
Logged

tom howard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2012, 10:54:58 AM »

Ric when you were on the beach with the 12 people waving to the p3 orion were you conducting an experiment to see how high up pilots could see humans? Were the pilots instructed to look for you at different heights? Were they not told your location and had to find you, or did they know where you were at and it was simply a visual accuity test at different heights?

That was a great idea either way to actually test how high people can be seen on a beach. Of course the unknown variable is whether the light conditions were the same. Regardless, a real world test like that points out tighar is not speculating when stating that Earhart could be missed by Navy, you are out testing your hypothesis.
If they did not see you at 500 feet at what height were the pilots finally able to find /see you?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 10:57:02 AM by tom howard »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6059
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #27 on: October 27, 2012, 04:02:36 PM »

Ric, I had no idea you were a combat pilot.  Thank you for your service. 

I wasn't.  All my time is civilian (although I got a lot of unofficial stick time as an Army communications officer for a 1st Cavalry aviation battalion. All of my combat was with the battalion commander.
Logged

Tim Mellon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Blast off!
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2012, 04:41:50 AM »

 


I wasn't.  All my time is civilian (although I got a lot of unofficial stick time as an Army communications officer for a 1st Cavalry aviation battalion. All of my combat was with the battalion commander.
.

General George Putnam, by any chance?
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6059
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Landing near the Norwich
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2012, 09:31:25 AM »

General George Putnam, by any chance?

A light colonel from Utah named Young.  I could tell ya stories - but they're off topic.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up
 

Copyright 2023 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP