Hominid

Blevins, Please, just for me, stop saying it was at Monmouth Lake. It was at Mammoth Lakes, CA. There is no Monmouth Lake, CA.

I don't think I've ever seen a cover letter on the transcripts. If there is one, it's not on the copy Sluggo has up.

No sorry nec. Interference welcome. Just had the look of someone posting at the first line of a post.

Yes they are. I don't think there are redactions, but look and see for yourself. Takes an acrobat viewer. I think the reference to redactions is about time periods when suddenly there is no communication. The key one is right around the time when Cooper supposedly jumped. I think the comms just all switched over to the patched "company" circuit. Are you able to keep up with the youngun? http://n467us.com/Data%20Files/dbcooper_transcripts.pdf

You mean the one discussed in the rest of the post you replied to? As follows: The transcript has about 19.5 pages about [edit: the first taped hour of] communications between flight 305 and ground control. All the fiasco about refuelling and getting the passengers away from the plane. About a quarter of the way through is the first reference to any closure. It was that the south 3500' (apx 20 percent) of the "other" 16 was closed. Another quarter of the way through the transcript there was more definite about closure. "The airport's closed at this time." Then, "305 the airport's closed and we have planes holding and we need to get a few off." Ground control wanted "to put an unlighted vehicle on each side of one six left" to make sure the runway was kept clear. There must have been a bit of backup. Shortly then, probably "Al" Lee said "I'm standing here now looking straight across towards our hangar and Alaska's. They're pumping out here right now."

no. you should know that.

I checked and it was weather radar info that NWA fast-tracked. Aircraft weather radar wasn't as good as it is now. Part of the advantage was being able to go way around weather and plan for it early. Here's that interview. Back to what I think was your original question: Did NWA have any weather info other than what came from FAA and NWS? I tried to explain that NWA at that time was already getting weather info of some kind directly from stations that fed that info to the weather bureau. The significance is that NWA got at least some wx info that was not a standard weather bureau product. I find that the wx info they are known to have acquired this way was radar info.

The crux of it was that NWA had already arranged with the weather bureau by '71 to get data directly from some kind(s) of weather stations rather than waiting for it to be processed by the bureau. This means they had access to some kind of weather bureau info before the bureau put it out using their normal process. Soderlind said in an interview that this was the key feature of NWAs system and that it allowed them to broadcast warning info significantly earlier so their liners were able to avoid bad weather areas better than other airlines. I think it was about an hour he said they gained.

I think that's part of the ambiguity. I think the statement could have been about when the two flights got to Portland, or anywhere between Seattle and Portland.

I don't know about the speed. Seems he'd barely get up to some altitude before starting back down. I think the speed-altitude-time relationship would be about the same as 305 had on the way up to Seattle. They took about 28 minutes to get up to Lofall a bit N. of Seattle with a bit of tailwind. So the mystery flight should have been able to get down to PDX in about 30 minutes with a bit of headwind? Flt 305 passed there about 8:17. Subtract 30 min. gives Seattle takeoff about 7:47, where 305 took off at 7:36. Something like 11 minutes after 305 took off. Seems plausible to me even if the winds had a greater impact.

I have seen none. Is this about your post I replied to? If so, I don't see the link.

Is that based on the "4 minutes behind"? And the 7pm was just a guess based on what info I could find in the transcripts about when the airport closure ended. It could easily have taken another half hour for that closure to have actually been lifted.

A key part of the turbulence plot system NWA had already developed (and fielded) was the acquisition of info regarding at least the more extreme weather directly from weather stations. Sowa arranged this to get info earlier so it could be more useful for hazard warnings. I haven't seen any specifics about what this advance info was. Point is, it came from weather bureau and FAA stations, but not via the "normal" disemination system.

Good find Mr. Farflung. I don't see that flight 307 arriving at Seattle, so it must have originated there. The plane could have been setting there for hours before scheduled takeoff (6:10pm). I can't imagine that the airport would have been shut down much (if any) before 305 landed, like during all that time it was circling around before landing. It landed a bit before 6pm. A flight that had planned to leave at 6:10 could easily have gotten caught by the airport being closed. The transcript has about 19.5 pages about [edit: the first taped hour of] communications between flight 305 and ground control. All the fiasco about refuelling and getting the passengers away from the plane. About a quarter of the way through is the first reference to any closure. It was that the south 3500' (apx 20 percent) of the "other" 16 was closed. Another quarter of the way through the transcript there was more definite about closure. "The airport's closed at this time." Then, "305 the airport's closed and we have planes holding and we need to get a few off." Ground control wanted "to put an unlighted vehicle on each side of one six left" to make sure the runway was kept clear. There must have been a bit of backup. Shortly then, probably "Al" Lee said "I'm standing here now looking straight across towards our hangar and Alaska's. They're pumping out here right now." I think this means that planes were starting to leave. Just estimating from the portion of the transcript, it appears that there was closure up until around 6:30pm. It's likely that Continental would not have started boarding passengers until the closure was lifted since they would have no idea how long the closure could last. I'd guess that it would be likely that the flight 307 would have gotten off around 7pm.

Thanks Bruce (and Snowmman). Please ask her to watch for specifics about the "horrible" weather, and about where it was that he was "x" minutes behind. He couldn't have been the same time behind for the entire distance because the flight would not have been going as slowly as 305. And a copy of the report he filed?

There is some relationship between the forecast info from Carr (that Georger recently posted) and information Carr had posted a couple of times about winds (for estimating drift under canopy). The most significant fact here is that the altitudes for which Carr posted wind info are not among the altitudes shown in the weather bureau winds aloft forecast. This means Carr did not get his info from a winds aloft forecast. Carr stated winds at surface, 2K', 5K' and 7K'. The winds aloft forecasts have entries for 3K', 6K' and 9K'. Hopefully his info was from actual observations rather than forecast. In one of his posts, Carr related his numbers to Orchard, WA. So there is potential for a little difference between his numbers and the weather service reports because of spacial separation. And there is the 15 minutes or so of time difference, which we can account for approximately. The weather service info from the reports Georger posted, plus that from Weather Underground, indicate that PDX wind speed rose steeply between 7pm and 8pm. The 9pm report indicates even a bit more increase. So the wind speed at the surface at 8:15 would have been a bit more than 10kt. Carr said 15kt at the surface. Is this a reasonable difference considering the spacial separation and associated geography? Would the wind speed at PDX be a bit lower than out on the plain because of PDX being down in the river bed? The weather service info indicates that wind direction changed from 270° (W) at 8pm to 190° (almost S) at 9pm. Interpolating between the two would give 250° at 8:15. Carr said 235°. Again, not quite the same, but in the same ball park. Is this reasonable considering the spacial separation and associated geography? Finally, the winds aloft forecast for 3K', 6K' and 9K' all indicate wind direction of 260° while Carr's post said 235°, 230° and 225° for 2K', 5K' and 7K' (around 230° at all levels) and about the same at the surface. This is a bit of difference but remember that there was spacial separation, time separation, and the weather bureau data is only a forecast, not actuals. But the data Carr posted was basically constant at all altitudes, and so was the data for the forecasts. The comparison for wind speed is a bit different. The weather bureau forecast wind speeds progressed steadily with increasing altitude. 10kt, 18kt and 26kt at 3K', 6K' and 9K'. I've thought it odd that Carr's data had the speed rise from 20 to 25 and then drop back to 20 at 7K'. Is such a pattern reasonable? Oh, yeah: The kinder, gentler, Hominid

I'm sorry Georger. I saw the point and agree. It was just my sick sense of humor. I had just mentioned seeing stars and the moon. You showed back some pictures of some stars and the moon. I was thinking, "OK. What kind of response does this call for? Oh! Yeah. I'll just say, yes, those were the stars and moon I was talkin 'bout!" When I don't make any sense, there's a good chance it's some kind of joke.

Yes, but......now Georger, pretend that you had not added this little ps. After looking at the images, I was just about to respond, "Yeah! Those are the ones." I just didn't want that thought to be wasted. You didn't expect me to identify stars did you?

Not sure what you mean by the "various places." Part of the image 1b you posted describes weather across some areas. I'm sure it had to be based on weather radar. That message was released 8:45pm by a weather bureau central that was (still is) in Kansas City, MO. The last area described in the msg extended from just north of Seattle down to the California-Oregon border, and from the ocean to about the crest of the Cascades. This weather was described as scattered light showers and snow showers. The tops of the radar echos (cells) were stated as being at 8000'. Clouds should not have extended much higher. I think 305 was flying above the clouds. The moon was close to half a disc. I haven't checked on when it rose and set. Except for directly overhead and directly forward, he should have seen a lot of stars if the moon wasn't out yet or had already set. If the moon was out, he should have seen stars aft (north) and to the sides, and the moon forward and to the sides. While over clouds he should have seen white cloud tops if looking out toward the moon. When they had the icing near Medford, they were probably in cloud.

Guys, There is no doubt about whether or not there was icing. It would not be out of the ordinary. No need for the conspirators to fake the info. It would have nothing to do with getting the stairs down, or with Coop jumping, because the icing occured near Medford (southern) Oregon--long after the stairs were deployed and presubably long after Coop jumped. PLEASE don't get the world thinking Coop musta jumped in icing conditions just 'cause there was some somewhere along the route. Robert99, Don't feel bad about mentioning icing. It's not your fault what some people will make of something. Who woulda believed that mere mention of icing far away and much later would have morphed into deploying the stairs and jumping into an ice storm? L'Homme

Thanks Robert. Of the station codes in the winds aloft report I haven't been able to read any that is for a place close to O'Neill. (There are some that seem legible although I haven't found identification of the locations.) Other than MSP, Aberdeen is the only place remotely "near." Interpolating to 37K' for Aberdeen gives 89kt from 280°. Both this and what I got for MSP are "in the ballpark" except for temp. For both stations the forecast wind would be basically a tailwind from O'Neill to MSP, and about 90kt. I don't think you can find the source. I've found nothing about it while the plane was at SEA. The message I mentioned about fog and haze was while the flight was still at 7K', and it was about alternate landing sites (not 10K'). I agree that what you call the "FBI notes" does refer to the icing in the Medford area.

There are a few relationships between the weather data Georger posted and the communication transcripts. Nothing earthshaking, but do confirm somewhat the mutual agreement of the information from the two sources. First, something really insignificant. Each little logged string of communications begins with the date in Greenwich, England. Immediately after this, on the same line, are two symbols of the types used in the weather messages. The first is the circle with the line down through its center. The "scattered" cloud coverage symbol. The next is the down-pointing arrow that was supposedly used for approximate wind direction info. Next, a message that has seemed totally unrelated to the hijacking case gives some high altitude weather info. This 7:34 message: 22 ONEILL 32/370 ETA MSP 0420 -60 WINDS 305 SLASH 85. I assume the 370 is the flight level. What would the "32" be? The flight thought it was 46 minutes out of Minneapolis-St.Paul. Anyway, -60°C, wind from 305° at 85kt. The first winds aloft forecast of those Georger posted gives, for MSP at 39K', 82kt from 290°, -55°C. For 34K' it gives 108kt from 290°, -53°C. Interpolating between 82kt and 108kt would give about 92kt for 37K'. The winds aloft forecast is close to the message report as far a wind direction, but only in the general "ballpark" where speed and temperature are concerned. At 7:46 the comm transcript had an exchange about possible alternate landing points. PDX, Red Bluff, and Medford. Seattle traffic control replied to NWA flight ops "It's fog and haze." But the transcript didn't state which of the airports this applied to. The 8pm report Georger posted indicates fog and haze only for Red Bluff (ground fog, haze and smoke; .4 covered by fog). Apparently, the decision that they were talking about Red Bluff didn't get into the comm transcript. At 8:10 the transcript has flight ops saying Reno has 25T, overcast, 12mi visibility, north wind of 15kt, gusty. The 8pm message report says 12mi visibility, 13kt wind from 310° (apx NW). Nothing about "gusty." The cloud coverage info is illegible. But, overall, pretty close to agreement. The 7pm METAR from Weather Underground indicates north wind like the transcript says.

Jo, Does this mean you'd like to talk about weather?

QuoteI took a copy of surface chart .... Then estimated isobars for 8pm on jump night. Quote I fixed the bottom part of the 8pm chart a bit. Then made one for 9pm using the data from the 9pm page Georger posted, plus a little from Weather Underground. Both have estimated isobars, but based on actual atmospheric pressure observations at the respective times (just like meteorologists do). Then I made an estimate chart for 8:30 by interpolating isobar positions shown on the other two charts. This would not be quite as accurate as the 8pm and 9pm charts. So the condition at 8:15 would be midway between the 8pm chart and the estimated 8:30 chart. I put some arrows on some places of the 8:30 chart to indicate trend direction. Basically indicate that the 1016 isobar was straightening out and the 1017 isobar was moving northward around Pendleton (east of Portland).

Mildly interesting article. One of the things about it that is interesting to me is that it illustrates how even an "expert" can screw up by making snap judgements. And, of course, it becomes part of the authoratative record. He said the low was beginning to move onshore on the morning of the 24th. Truth is the low was in virtually the identical position the next morning. The condition creating the low there still existed there. He said the outside air temperature was -7°C. As Robert99 has said (and I have verified) it was close to -12°C. He basically found info about the weather rather than doing an analysis of it. I think it very likely. It would be easy for a person even just a few weeks after the fact to remember the weather a day or two after and think he/she was remembering the weather on that night. This is why some kind of documentation produced quickly after the event is important to support a claim of when the event occured. And, the weather did get a bit cooler on the 25th. She would only have to be off by one day.