DB Cooper

[olemisscub 510]

11 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

There is a space on the patch between the # and the 5.

Yes I understand there is a space, but the way teletypes were written they generally don't have any unnecessary spaces. In teletypes they'd write "thirtyseven" instead of "thirty seven", for example. Knowing how those teletypes look, they'd have probably written it as SSS#5. 

Edited October 18, 2023 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 699]

3 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Yes I understand there is a space, but the way teletypes were written they generally don't have any unnecessary spaces. In teletypes they'd write "thirtyseven" instead of "thirty seven", for example. 

Not a teletype..

[olemisscub 510]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Not a teletype..

It IS a teletype. That's page six of a seven page teletype. 

Edited October 18, 2023 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 699]

1 minute ago, olemisscub said:

It IS a teletype. That's page six of a seven page teletype. 

There are at least three versions of this...   this is earlier.

Notice the spelling error, "twentyforu", it is not in the other version. 

 

Here "Mc Chord" has an unnecessary space. 

 

[olemisscub 510]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

There are at least three versions of this...   this is earlier.

Notice the spelling error, "twentyforu", it is not in the other version. 

 

Here "Mc Chord" has an unnecessary space. 

 

Cool, you found an exception that proves the rule, I suppose. But I DID say "generally" teletypes don't like unnecessary spaces and I'm not wrong on that and you know this. They tried to save space on those wherever they could. Perhaps it does say what you think it does, but "SSS # 5" would look weird spelled out like that on a teletype. 

I'm also not sure why they would redact that since they don't redact it elsewhere in the Vault. Then again, they don't redact Johnson sometimes in the Vault and it's redacted here. Who knows? 

 

[CooperNWO305 151]

To me knapsack means a backpack, typically for camping or maybe books.  Boy Scouts or a hiker may use the term knapsack.  I've not known military to use the term knapsack, but I guess it is possible.  I was not in in the 1940s, but a military pack was called a rucksack in the Army and still is.  A satchel is more of a shoulder bag.  I do wonder why he did not force the issue on the knapsack.  Maybe he just wanted to prove how resourceful he was.  Seems foolish.

[FLYJACK 699]

On 10/25/2011 at 12:36 AM, BruceSmith said:

I'll have more on this story in the days to come, plus pictures; they will all be posted on the Mountain News - WA.

In the meantime:

Parachutes, report on Norman Hayden meeting, October 24, 2011

This is a brief post on my trip to see Norman Hayden and his parachute that allegedly went for a ride from Sea-Tac to Reno about 40 years ago. I traveled in the company of Bruce Thun, manager of Pierce County Airport in Puyallup, WA.

Mr. Hayden was very gracious and generous with his time, and he showed us the parachute straight away.

However, in the course of the afternoon, he seemed to downplay the importance of his chute and his role in the Cooper story, although he maintains a Cooper file filled with newspaper clippings.

The rig was comparable to what is listed as Chute #1 in the FBI "parachute" document, p.227.

The container was "tan, soft cotton," although it looked more like a more rugged duck-cloth fabric. It appeared very much like worn-in Carhartt jacket material.

The canopy was identified on the rigging card as a white, 26-foot conical, rip-stop, and Norman was able to peel a couple inches of the canopy out of the container and it did look like white rip-stop nylon.

However, the container looked old, like WWII vintage, even though the manufacturing label said September 1957. I didn’t see any “wear marks,” as suggested in the FBI docs.

Although the bag looked old the harness material looked new, and I didn't see any special padding on them. There was a rectangular foam pad, covered in grayish-blue nylon that looked like a little pillow and was located in the middle part of the harness, as if it was padding to make the rig more comfortable for an acrobatic pilot to wear. The container was a Pioneer, type 226. I saw no Steinthal markings of any kind for the canopy, as FBI Cooper case agent Larry Carr has suggested.

The first signature on the rigging card was EJ Cossey, certification number 1579638, and dated May 21, 1971. The chute was re-packed twice after return from the FBI – 1982 and 1984. Norman has never used it to jump with. He is strictly a “precision acrobatic pilot.” He loves flying, and has restored many planes, apparently. Plus, his shop is filled with dozens of large scale model RC planes, which is a retirement hobby, he told us.

However, Norman was unable to provide any authenticating documents for the parachute.

In addition, I spoke with Barry Halstad of Pacific Aviation, which was located at Boeing Field in 1971.

I spoke with Mr. Halstad after my retune home from Norman, and Barry called me upon the suggestions of Norman. The two gentlemen seem to be good friends, and Barry joked quite a bit about Norman.

Barry is the guy who was the go-between Norman and NWO operations, probably the George Harrison that is identified in the FBI docs, although both Barry and Norman do not recall the name. Halstad said that NWO called him directly about 3-5 pm in the afternoon of Nov 24 because Pacific Aviation sold acrobatic aircraft and the folks at Sea-Tac knew that he would have back chutes for these planes. FAA regs require acro pilots to have a chute for themselves and one for a passenger. Both Barry and Norm stated that it was routine that the chutes used in acro planes would be identical rigs.

Barry said that he told the NWO guy that he did have chutes, but that all of them were cone-shaped seat packs, not back packs. However, he informed NWO that a recent customer of his, Norman, who had just bought a Decathlon acrobatic craft from Barry, had also recently purchased two back pack parachutes and had them at his shop in Kent.

Barry says he called Norman after the NWO guy hung up, and alerted him to prepare the back chutes for transport to NWO via taxi. Barry thinks he may have also called the taxi and made other transportation arrangements with the NWO guy, but he is unsure of this.

Barry has never heard of Earl Cossey, and had no idea that there was ever any controversy about Norman owning the two back pack parachutes that went on board 305.

Norman wasn’t 100% sure where the taxi went, nor is Barry. The FBI docs say that Norman had told the FBI that it had gone to Boeing Flight Service, Seattle, but that meant nothing to either gentleman when I asked about it.

Norman told me that all he remembers is that he put the two chutes in the taxi, gave him the address that the NWO ops guy gave him, and a receipt book for the NWO guy to sign. Norman says the cabbie retuned with the receipt book sign, but Norman says he doesn’t know where it might be at this time.

In addition, Norman says that he never spoke directly with anyone from the FBI. Further, Norman continued to claim that as far as he knows both back chutes were identical. He seemed a bit dismayed and wistful about bureaucratic in-accuracies when I read aloud the FBI description of the two back pack parachutes and their many differences.

However, Barry openly wonders if the FBI received four back pack parachutes that day – two from Norman that were identical, and two from Earl Cossey that were not. As a result, my next phone call is to find George Harrison of NWO, now Delta Airlines.

When Norman put the parachute on, a big smile broke out across his face and he said, “Hey, now that feels good.”

He is 79 years old, and when he was wearing the chute he clowned around for us.

It appears that he lives by himself in a small apartment in his shop, and Norman seems to be financially stable. He has several late-model vehicles parked in the shop, which is a sprawling 20,000 sq feet and clean-as-a-whistle.

Norman is a very interesting guy. He is a genius-engineer and machinist. His shop is filled with beautifully restored or original miniature engines, including a unique replica of a working Sterling heat engine, designed in 1820. Uncannily; it works on the pressure differentials between hot and cool air in a chamber that is heated by a little flame. Norm has built several miniatures of them that work flawlessly.

I had traveled to Norman’s shop in the company of Bruce Thun, the manager of Pierce County Airport in Puyallup, WA, also know by its original name, Thun Field, named after Bruce’s father, John. Traveling with Bruce Thun was a complete joy, and his personal knowledge of the Cooper story and its local players was fascinating.

In the 1971 era, Bruce was a jump plane pilot, and knew of Earl Cossey, who had a superb reputation as a skilled skydiver.

Further, in his duties as the manager of Thun Field, he was part of the National Geographic documentary filming in December 2008 at Thun Field, which featured local authors Ron and Pat Forman and focused on the Barb Dayton angle. During this intensive shoot, Earl Cossey was on site and Bruce met him.

In addition, Norman Hayden rented a hangar for a considerable period of time at Thun Field as well, apparently during the 1980s.

Bruce Thun told me that in 1971 there were three main skydiving field in western Washington – Issaquah Sky Sports, which is east of Seattle; a spot in Snohomish County north of Seattle; and Thun Field, which is located in central Pierce County, about 25 miles southeast of Tacoma, and about 35 miles away from Mt Rainier, which can be see in its full glory on clear days to the southeast.

"Both Barry and Norm stated that it was routine that the chutes used in acro planes would be identical rigs."

[FLYJACK 699]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Cool, you found an exception that proves the rule, I suppose. But I DID say "generally" teletypes don't like unnecessary spaces and I'm not wrong on that and you know this. They tried to save space on those wherever they could. Perhaps it does say what you think it does, but "SSS # 5" would look weird spelled out like that on a teletype. 

I'm also not sure why they would redact that since they don't redact it elsewhere in the Vault. Then again, they don't redact Johnson sometimes in the Vault and it's redacted here. Who knows? 

 

Sewn white patch and words fit,,  I'd say solved.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 510]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Sewn white patch and words fit,,  I'd say solved.

 

 

If there is some conflation going on, then sure. They are prone to conflate chutes in those early 302’s. But not every white patch on Earth says SSS # 5 COSS on it. We have no evidence that this is what it says on the dummy chute. 

[Robert99 50]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

"Both Barry and Norm stated that it was routine that the chutes used in acro planes would be identical rigs."

Eureka! 

Since Hayden's chute at the WSHM is absolutely not an NB-6, we can conclude once again that the chute Cooper jumped was not an NB-6 either.

So, we can put the bogus NB-6 claim to rest once again.  Of course, someone will start claiming NB-6 again in about a month.

If you want to make sense of the parachute problem, the first thing you need to do is simply ignore everything that Cossey said.  Having done that, everything else is logical.

 

[FLYJACK 699]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

If there is some conflation going on, then sure. They are prone to conflate chutes in those early 302’s. But not every white patch on Earth says SSS # 5 COSS on it. We have no evidence that this is what it says on the dummy chute. 

It must have been conflated and not on chute number two,, why didn't they note it for chute  number one, it is obviously there.

You know there was a word floating around that was noted for being on the Dummy but I can't remember it or find it.. I think it was a 6 to 8 letter name..

I have it somewhere in my files but can't find it..

Anybody remember..

FOUND IT...    "Norm D"  

Edited October 18, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 510]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

It must have been conflated and not on chute number two,, why didn't they note it for chute  number one, it is obviously there.

You know there was a word floating around that was noted for being on the Dummy but I can't remember it or find it.. I think it was a 6 to 8 letter name..

I have it somewhere in my files but can't find it..

Anybody remember..

FOUND IT...    "Norm D"  

Soooo much conflation in these early descriptions. You see another one in that same document. They’re saying that the Cooper backpack is the “civilian luxury type” one. 

[CooperNWO305 151]

21 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I realize it says number two container but...

Does "SSS # 5 and COSS" fit... looks like it

 

 

Any idea what the white para cord on the side two handles was for?

[FLYJACK 699]

24 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Any idea what the white para cord on the side two handles was for?

Not sure, but one on the wall at Sky Sports also has them.

[FLYJACK 699]

The missing chest training chute.. "Norm D" and red flap..

Why red flap.. here.  Suggests it is a WW2 era container.

https://www.theriggerdepot.com/qac-color-coding.html

 

[FLYJACK 699]

Can any parachute people answer this..

Flat circular/Round vs Conical military canopies..

I realize the structure and shape are different.

but are conical's 24' and 26' and rounds 28' +...

and would a round 28' have less surface area than a theoretical 28' conical..

 

So, due to the shape a 26' conical may have a similar surface area to a 28' round..

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by FLYJACK

[CooperNWO305 151]

Is there any chance that any of the parachutes could have been bright red and yellow, or any color besides pinkish or green?  Also, do we know when anyone first commented about Cooper wearing long underwear under his suit?  I believe it was just Bill Mitchell, but I'm not sure if that is in the 302s or just in one of his interviews.

[FLYJACK 699]

25 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Is there any chance that any of the parachutes could have been bright red and yellow, or any color besides pinkish or green?  Also, do we know when anyone first commented about Cooper wearing long underwear under his suit?  I believe it was just Bill Mitchell, but I'm not sure if that is in the 302s or just in one of his interviews.

Sure, only Cossey said the missing canopies were white,, 

 

yes, a few sources.... and nothing reliable or certain.

it was pushed by Jo Weber, she claimed Mitchel told her he saw thick socks or long underwear.. 

Tosaw's book cites Mitchell saying long underwear or whatever was showing over his socks.. long underwear was speculation by Tosaw.

"Mitchell ‘did wonder why the blond stewardess was paying so much attention to this “older man” when he also desired some attention and was obviously more her age. He concluded that whatever the man’s attraction, it couldn’t be his clothes; the man’s socks or long underwear or whatever it was that was showing didn’t match his shoes or trousers."

agents believed thermal long underwear..

Coffelt's story includes thermal underwear..

 

So, there is no confirmation of long underwear...

Mitchell said in the WHMS interview that he looked geeky, his shoes and socks didn't match,, but he never mentioned long underwear...

There is a conflict,, Cooper had ankle high laceless shoes, how could his socks be seen.

 

Conclusion, long underwear is unsubstantiated..

 

[CooperNWO305 151]

5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Sure, only Cossey said the missing canopies were white,, 

 

yes, a few sources.... and nothing reliable or certain.

it was pushed by Jo Weber, she claimed Mitchel told her he saw thick socks or long underwear.. 

Tosaw's book cites Mitchell saying long underwear or whatever was showing over his socks.. long underwear was speculation by Tosaw.

"Mitchell ‘did wonder why the blond stewardess was paying so much attention to this “older man” when he also desired some attention and was obviously more her age. He concluded that whatever the man’s attraction, it couldn’t be his clothes; the man’s socks or long underwear or whatever it was that was showing didn’t match his shoes or trousers."

agents believed thermal long underwear..

Coffelt's story includes thermal underwear..

 

So, there is no confirmation of long underwear...

Mitchell said in the WHMS interview that he looked geeky, his shoes and socks didn't match,, but he never mentioned long underwear...

There is a conflict,, Cooper had ankle high laceless shoes, how could his socks be seen.

 

Conclusion, long underwear is unsubstantiated..

 

History.net has this, but it may be from Toswaw.  Maybe OleMiss can ask Bill to confirm.  Bill Mitchell, a college student seated in 15A, reported seeing thermal long underwear extending into the gap between Cooper’s pant cuffs and the loafers he wore. 

I wear a lot of boots.  If I wear Chukkas, which are anke high, you can see my socks if I cross my leg, or if shorter pants ride up.  This is what it sounds like Cooper was wearing. If I had suit pant on with Chukkas and was wearing long underwear or a jump suit underneath, someone would notice for sure.

When I wear engineer or motorcylce boots it is hard to see my socks at all, and certainly in cowboy boots they are not visible.

[FLYJACK 699]

30 minutes ago, CooperNWO305 said:

History.net has this, but it may be from Toswaw.  Maybe OleMiss can ask Bill to confirm.  Bill Mitchell, a college student seated in 15A, reported seeing thermal long underwear extending into the gap between Cooper’s pant cuffs and the loafers he wore. 

I wear a lot of boots.  If I wear Chukkas, which are anke high, you can see my socks if I cross my leg, or if shorter pants ride up.  This is what it sounds like Cooper was wearing. If I had suit pant on with Chukkas and was wearing long underwear or a jump suit underneath, someone would notice for sure.

When I wear engineer or motorcylce boots it is hard to see my socks at all, and certainly in cowboy boots they are not visible.

It was started by Tosaw... or, or, or... he is speculating.

"the man’s socks OR long underwear OR whatever it was that was showing didn’t match his shoes or trousers"

If his shoes were dark brown and suit dark brown, then what wouldn't match,, blue?

Mitchell never mentioned long underwear in the WSHM interview..

He believed the socks looked odd somehow. 

Remember, this was many years later,, no mention of long underwear right after the hijacking by any witness.

unconfirmed, we just don't know.

Edited October 19, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 699]

On 10/25/2011 at 10:50 PM, 377 said:

Good job Bruce.

A few errors:

NB6 and NB8 are harness/containers. They are not canopies. They were made to contain (in Navy service) a 26 foot conical and a 28 foot round (C9) respectively.

I've never heard of a 28 foot conical.

Gawd, the Pioneer rig Coss sold to and or repacked for Norman is frigging ancient. It doesn't even have a stiffener plate which assures that the ripcord cable will pull the pins straight up. The cable housing end above the cones is just tacked with thread wrapped around it, no plate. I declined to jump a surplus rental rig that was set up like that.

Loved the Sterling Engine!!

Thanks Bruce, we owe you.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

"I've never heard of a 28 foot conical."

Edited October 19, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 50]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

"I've never heard of a 28 foot conical."

I have never heard of a 28-foot conical canopy either.

But to disagree with 377 slightly, a Navy 26-foot conical canopy, pilot chute, and container have to go with each other.  This is absolutely mandatory.

I owned a Navy NB-6 complete rig in the 1960s/1970s which had a 26-foot conical canopy.  There were several unique features in its construction that resulted in a small size overall while having the same descent rate as a flat 28-foot canopy.

The NB-6 parachute was desirable for wearing in aircraft with cramped cockpits and I spent quite a bit of time in cramped cockpits in the 1960s- and 1970s-time frame.  

Edited October 19, 2023 by Robert99

[temporary17 5]

10 hours ago, CooperNWO305 said:

Any idea what the white para cord on the side two handles was for?

That was to tie the reserve container to the harness so it didn't flop around in freefall. The main structural connection is the two metal clips that attach to the D-rings on the harness. In the original designs, there were either two more clips/rings, or a sort of thread through belt to hold the container still, but as more types of containers were built, those either didn't mix/match or disappeared altogether, so they just started tying them down as such. Again, that was NOT the structural attachment of the reserve container or canopy to the main harness, it just held the container still.

 

9 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Can any parachute people answer this..

Flat circular/Round vs Conical military canopies..

 

I'm not a rigger, so I can't really detail that out for you, but you might PM either JerryBaumchen or riggerrob on here. If you can find 'Dan Poynter's The Parachute Manual' online, that might have such info. That book is considered kind of a 'bible' for riggers.

 

dudeman17

[FLYJACK 699]

Found some info..

The 28' a round flat circular is a C-9

The 26' is a Navy conical

The 24' is a reserve conical

 

The museum chute was described as a conical... a 26'

The card found missing a chute presumed to be from the one Cooper used reflected it to be a "Conacol", if accurate that means it wasn't a 28' chute. Cooper's chute could not have been a 28' canopy and corroborates the chute being a 24'.

 

Background – A Short History of the Development of Parachute Equipment

Military Surplus Parachutes

Prior to about 1968, most pilots in civilian aircraft in the United States (and much of the rest of the world) used surplus military parachutes in their aircraft. The common harness/container models in use were the USAF B-4/B-12 and the USN NB-6/ NB-8 backpacks as well as several variants of military seatpack parachutes. The most common canopies were the 28’ person- nel canopy (the C-9) used in all Air Force and most Navy para- chutes, the 26’ Navy conical used in the NB-6, and the 24’ (T10A) canopy used as reserve for the Army troop para- chutes. The common factors in all of these various models are that they are heavy, bulky and uncomfortable. Although there are still a great number of surplus military parachute systems in use, only a small number of these items are still available as new surplus and they have largely been supplanted by newer technology products (which will be discussed below) in sales of new equipment.

 

The 28’ Military Canopy

Aside from being the only readily available canopy in the 1960’s, the C-9 really didn’t have all that much going for it when compared to the operational requirements in civil use. It is rugged and cheap but suffers from a variety of problems, mostly related to the fact that the basic design dates from the late 1920s. These problems include its relatively high weight and bulk; lack of steering capability; severe oscillations in the unmodified condition; a relatively high rate of descent that in- creases the injury rate; and tendencies for post-inflation col- lapse due to its flat circular design. It also has slow openings at low speeds such as a zero/zero ejection condition and hard openings at high speeds such as a low altitude, high-speed ejec- tion.

Over the more than 60 years since its introduction, the only sig- nificant improvements to the C-9 have been: 1) the change to nylon cloth and lines in the late 1940’s which effectively dou- bled the strength of the canopy; ; 2) the development of reefing systems for some versions which allowed the canopy to operate at somewhat higher speeds without the loads exceeding human tolerance and; 3) the addition of the 4-line release modification in the 1970’s that significantly reduces the oscillations and rate- of-descent (but only if activated by the user).

Skydiving Equipment

Not surprisingly, given the paucity of available equipment, sky- divers in the 60’s were also using the same basic equipment albeit with an amazing variety of steering modifications to the main canopies (usually the 28’). But, during the 60’s, Pioneer Parachute Company introduced the Para-Commander, which took the sport by storm and virtually owned the main canopy market until the early 70’s when the first practical ram-air can- opy appeared and sealed its fate. Skydivers in the 60’s and 70’s

 

also used military surplus canopies for their chest reserve para- chutes with the Navy 26’ Conical being the most desirable. They also used modified military harness/container systems with chest reserve parachutes. During the late 60’s and early 70’s a number of companies (primarily Pioneer Parachute Company, Security Parachute Company and Strong Enter- prises) began the introduction of a series of new products (main and reserve canopies and harness/container systems) that gradually replaced the military surplus equipment in use by skydivers. In the mid-70’s Para-Flite ram-air canopies and the Relative Workshop Wonderhog harness/container system were introduced and largely completed the transition to purpose built skydiving equipment for the great majority of jumpers. During the 80’s and 90’s many more companies entered the skydiving equipment market (and some others dropped out) with the re- sulting competition fueling the development of an amazing va- riety and range of products.

Edited October 20, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 510]

8 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

It was started by Tosaw... or, or, or... he is speculating.

"the man’s socks OR long underwear OR whatever it was that was showing didn’t match his shoes or trousers"

If his shoes were dark brown and suit dark brown, then what wouldn't match,, blue?

Mitchell never mentioned long underwear in the WSHM interview..

He believed the socks looked odd somehow. 

Remember, this was many years later,, no mention of long underwear right after the hijacking by any witness.

unconfirmed, we just don't know.

I’ve asked Bill this and he says it was a long time ago when he spoke with “Mr. Tosaw”, but he found Tosaw to be a pretty scrupulous guy. Bill said he can’t remember  that detail specifically, but said if Tosaw attributed it to him, then it’s likely accurate.