Mr.Nuke

Haven't checked in for awhile, but even this "younger" pilot knows what a FIR (and frequency protection) is. In its simplest forum a Flight Information Region is a defined space where alerting and information services are provided. Frequency Protection refers to terminal or "T-VORs." T-VOR's have a substandard area protected from interference compared to regular VOR stations. Your average VOR may provide accurate information for say 100 nm, while a T-VOR as the key shows is only accurate for 25 nm at 12,000 feet.

Yes. It is the current configuration with an additional runway that I'm guessing was designated 14/32. The end of Runway 14 is still visible near the Northeast side of the airport.

Snow, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was just commenting that I agreed with Orange's assessment. I'll elaborate a little building off of what Sluggo posted in the interim. The language doesn't sound like anything ATC would say at all. The whole he can't go anywhere type language A) doesn't sound like I would expect ATC or a pilot to talk and B) it simply doesn't jive with what we have in the transcript. This is part of the reason the Norjack passage just doesn't sound legitimate. If we want to say there is a 10,000 ft altitude restriction on 305, one would have to call it a very soft restriction. The transcripts we have, basically say alright the hijacker requested 10,000, if you want/need to go above that just let us know due to other traffic. Also there is no evidence of lateral restrictions in the transcripts that seem inplicit in the Norjack wording.

Indeed...

Orange said: Orange, it is exactly as you have assumed. The Flight Ops is with Northwest's Flight Operations department.

snowmman: What is your point? Normal IFR operations require clearance before departure. This clearance will include route information (either confirmation or alterations of the filed route) departure heading, speed, and altitude restrictions. Most of the groundwork for what the cockpit is expected to do is precisely that groundwork. Altitude is only mentioned, because it is the only relevant parameter to mention. You see on page 191, 305 is given discretion on the routing. However, this discretion applies only below 10,000 feet for the time being, due to 10,000 being the assumed cruise altitude based off of the given parameters. Anything above 10,000 could cause conflicts with other traffic. Note the controller isn't saying 305 can't go above 10,000, merely they are suggesting any intention to do so be stated. This isn't about confirming anyone's theory about the flight path. It is about answering specific questions you and others have posed. In this case you questioned the statement about latitude. Two posters came back with well thought out replies citing specific examples of broad latitude given to 305. It isn't an opinion or information seeking to confirm a theory. This is also precisely the reason that other contributors have left the board. It is rather frustrating when specific questions are asked, and knowledgably answers are given, but completely disreguarded.

Sluggo beat me to this, but I am going to try and provide a little more detail. snomman said: Under normal operating conditions you are exactly right. This is also why you have standardized "roads in the sky" in the form of V and J routes. . It significantly reduces the workload for ATC. ATC's job is to guarantee safe travel by insuring separation between aircraft. With standardized routes ATC will vector aircraft from the airport to the route and off of the route to the destination airport. During the flight ATC monitors the aircraft in their sector to ensure adequate separation is maintained. However, as we are all aware this wasn't a normal flight. The most obvious way of explaining how the rules can change is a pilot declaring an emergency. In a declared emergency, the rules of the road go out the window. ATC will give the plane declaring the emergency significant leeway. Controllers will not only do their best to guide the plane with the problem down, but they will also reroute other aircraft as needed to keep everyone safe. With 305, we see a somewhat similar situation. On page 188 there is an extended conversation where V-23 to Sacramento is decided upon by all parties. On Page 189 305, indicates that they have concerns about getting up to altitude in an expedited manner and asks about any possible restrictions. Normally departing busier airports you will be given heading/altitude restrictions that you are expected to comply with to ensure optimal traffic flow and safety. This is significant "latitude." Page 190 provides further clarification of how broad said latitude is. This statement goes to what has been asked in the previous couple of pages about other traffic. ATC basically says you are free to do whatever you want below 10,000. If for some reason you need to go above 10,000 advise us, because there will be not only chase aircraft, but other commercial traffic being routed above you. On page 191 again the range of the discretion given to the pilots is illustrated. The ground controller is talking to the tower/departure controller Under normal operations this would likely be a fair assumption. Once a commercial flight departs the airport, and especially when they get above 18,000 required communication levels drop significantly. Above 18,000 the altimeter gets set to the standard 29.92, and the airplane is likely already on the "J" route. Thus the only communication that is typically necessary is to alert to traffic conflicts. Again in this case, normal is obviously no longer in play. 305 was given significant leeway by ATC, and other traffic was kept out of the way. In this situation the only communication I would expect is if A) there was an plane somewhere where it shouldn't have been or B) if 305 was heading towards say Mt. St. Helens. What happens if you're flying and you start diverging? Does ATC say anything to you usually? If you are on ATC flight following on a VFR flight you dictate your own route. For commercial operations, flights in inclement weather, anything above 18,000, or pilots choice that necessitates IFR flight rules and an IFR flight plan, You bet ATC will tell you if you were deviating. However, as Sluggo and I have been saying and I think you realize this was not a normal flight. In this case ATC is essentially becoming a support service for 305. They are going to clear the airspace below 10,000 for 305. They are also standing by to act as a communication intermediary, and provide any support services that they can at the behest of 305's crew.

Georger said: Yes, but I'm almost certain they were operating under instrument flight rules (IFR). We have been looking at sectional charts and particularly the sectional that had the estimated flight path traced on it. Under IFR they would have used the IFR inroute low altitude chart (In this case L-1). You can see sectionals, low altitude (victor), and high altitude (jet) at: http://skyvector.com/ As you will see the enroute IFR charts provide you a lot less information about the ground. They do give you the necessary information to maintain instrument navigation.

snowmman said: We do know of Captain Bohan who reported that he was a few miles behind and above 305. And as for the ATC, remember 305 is well below what a commercial aircraft would normally be flying the route at. Traffic at 10,000 on a night with marginal weather would have been minimal at best. Plus, given the situation aboard the plane, 305 would likely have been given significant latitude by ATC.

Agreed to me that means they are 10 miles off of the VOR/DME. I'll preface this by saying I'm not sure how northwest's pilot rotations worked in the 1970's, but if it is anything like today it is possible that crew A) had never worked with each other and B) had never flown that route. Like you said, none of the crew would have ever had any reason to be on V-23.

Yes, but certain scenarios are more "possible" or likely than others. You are also taking Sluggo's reply slightly out of context. Georger specifically asked if they would have ever flown V-23. We can say with a fairly high degree of certainty the answer to that question is no. They were given the low altitude victor airway charts when the plane was on the ground at SEATAC. As Sluggo mentioned, they would likely be more familiar with the jet or "j" high altitude routes assuming they had done that route before, which is a fairly big assumption in itself. And as for your comment, I wouldn't assume any previous takeoffs or landings would have given them much familiarity with the area. A pilot doesn't gain anything or do their job better by knowing the difference between Seattle and Vancouver. As has been mentioned, there really isn't a distinction between the two on the 71 charts. This is compounded by the fact that the cockpit crew's workload increases significantly during the takeoff and landing phases of flight. There often isn't a lot of time to do sight seeing. Sluggo is giving you insight into how a generic pilot would think and act in the situation, not how you would.

It certainly would seem to make some sense if this were the case. That being said, I don't get that impression at all. If it were something along these lines I think Ckret would have been giving more focus and direction to the way the discussion was going.

Agreed, and if Cooper was "smart enough" to be looking for a VOR site, specifically BTG, then he wouldn't need any device other than something to keep the time.

Snowmman said: Aviation calculations are pretty simple. Google E6B emulators.

Thanks for the mild insult...

It should be reading zero. And yes I am thinking what you are thinking as well.

I guess that is my thought on the Bohan incident as well, I also throw in any "eyewitnesses" on the ground in Washington into this category as well. His statement doesn't seem into fit in with any of the other information we have. 80 knot winds at 14,000 are not impossible, but they don't exactly happen every day either. I realize there is the potential for a significant degree of error associated with the FBI map, but judging what we know from the transcripts the wind direction/speed from Bohan doesn't seem to jive with the map. Bohan also mention's being near his fudge factor... Data from Crket, a Farmer's almanac, and even the map posted by Georger or Snowmman earlier don't have wind speeds that high. Lastly, if the weather was as significant as Bohan seems to indicate, I'd expect to hear something on the 305 transcripts somewhere be it a weather report or a comment from the pilots. I don't doubt that Tom Bohan was a Continental Captain. I also think it is probable that he could've been flying V-23 from SEA to PDX that night, but I do discount his statement. Ckret I'd still like you to release what you have on the winds/weather when you get the chance.

I'm obviously not Ckret, but I have talked about Bohan with him and didn't get the impression he was ever interviewed. Rather curiously no mention of a flight number. I also can't find a timetable online from that time period. Continental did run flights from SEA to PDX at that time period though. I don't think you need to spend to much time trying to understand this one either, but I'm ready to discuss when you are.

I'm still around. The discussion just drifted away from aviation for a while.

Yep. Despite the fact they had only one passenger they were actually fairly heavy. You and I talked about this about a month ago, but you get similar numbers if you even start looking at 5 or 10 minute intervals. Nuke, I'm confused.... If each point is accurate to .5NM, then if you look at pairs that are 5 or more legs apart, the percentage error effect should go way down?.. i.e. compute using pts 1 and 6, then 2 and 7 then 3 and 8. etc. That's what you did? and it still didn't make sense in terms of plane capabilities? Can you post the calcs you did (can use the NM for each leg and sum them up, from sluggo's leg jpg???) Sorry I worded that post terribly. I meant that you get similar numbers to the entire average if you start looking at 5 or 10 or 15, etc. min. intervals. Again sorry for wording that terribly. I will go back and try and find the data here at some point. I also have a table of what ground speeds would be at varying indicated airspeeds based on the wind data from Orchard.

is a weird thing Tosaw mentions. after telling them that everything must be delivered to Sea-Tac by 5 o'clock, Cooper adds: ' ..."also tell them not to be sending any other kind of messages because my bomb is electronic and certain signals might set it off." Tina reported all this to the cockpit on the interphone. The crew was somewhat puzzled by the hijacker's statement but assumed he meant that the standard hijack distress signal would set off the bomb. After discussing the matter, they figured it had to be a bluff because if a radio signal to headquarters would not affect the bomb, then neither would a hijack signal. They decided, however not to send the signal and instead let the company handle the entire matter.' Either Cooper is taking out of his you know what or he is trying to intimidate the crew. Not "intimidating them into not sending them a squawk signal" just plain intimidating them. If someone gave me a message like that I would assume, just like the crew, they meant don't go to 7500, which is the code for Unlawful Interference aka hijacking. To answer your questions though... Squawking the signal has little to do with tracking. For Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) in the U.S. (IFR is what all commercial flights operated under), a plane is generally assigned a transponder code at the clearance delivery stage on the ground and it stays with that aircraft the entire flight. So tracking isn't an issue. It is more a backup way of letting ATC know you have a situation on board. If you have a guy in the cockpit with you demanding you don't tell air traffic control you are being hijacked you may be able to get away with changing your transponder to the code. As for explaining why no squawk was sent... If you are referring to the code the crew was supposed to send when Cooper jumped it doesn't. That code wasn't the hijack code, it was a code given by ATC that Cooper would not have any knowledge of. If you are referring to the hijack code, they obviously were able to communicate the message over the radio.

I still have my doubts. That aside, the question then becomes if all of this stuff Tosaw i saying is an accurate representation of what Cooper actually said and did... How did The FBI drop the ball so bad in the interviews (no offense to Ckret who obviously wasn't involved).

Yep. Despite the fact they had only one passenger they were actually fairly heavy. You and I talked about this about a month ago, but you get similar numbers if you even start looking at 5 or 10 minute intervals.

In this case... it means; "Not yet to Portland, but definitely in the suburbs." REPLY>>> across south of the Columbia? Portland goes right up to the river so any suburbs are basically Portland itself. Is there an automatic proximity to such messages going out ? Nope. See my reply above. The main times this information would be given out is that: A) you just switched controllers and the new one has a different altimeter setting B) the controller realizes you don't have the correct setting C) the weather has changed and thus a new setting is necessary for traffic in that sector. The message itself does not tell us anything about the exact position of the plane. Only that it was close enough to Portland to be given the PDX altimeter setting.

I have a request in with the Special Agent who makes nicknames. In this context Sluggo can use "very near" because if they are giving 305 a PDX altimeter setting it generally means that the plane is very close to the airport. The altimeter settings are derived from the closest weather observation station in the vicinity of the plane's path. And if we take the radar data and assume it is accurate, the plane is very close to PDX at 8:15. REPLY> ... and VERY CLOSE is ? 1 mile. 5 miles. Im trying to connect this to Rataczack's statement. Sorry georger, I can't really give you a definitive answer. It isn't something where everyone 5 miles away from the airport gets an altimeter setting. It commonly happens after a frequency change, or if a controller sees that you are at an altitude like 10,100 on their radar when you should be at 10,000. They will give you the setting in situations like that. I have no idea how advanced AWOS was then or how many stations there were in that area in the early 70's. Again though it does let is know they were close. Sorry we can't definitively say how close. But to get to your point it does fit in with Rataczak's statement as well as the '71 radar derived map as evidence that at 8:15 the plane was very near Portland.