Robert99

Farflung, Thanks for your reply. The Seattle transcripts are dated on November 25th, 1971 which was Thanksgiving Day, a national holiday. Nevertheless, the controllers still had to work but probably ever senior administrator in the front office took the day off. Hence, the transcripts were probably prepared by one of the most junior clerical staff members at the Seattle Center. Your suggestion about making an effort to "guide everyone to the same conclusion" was done about a year ago and can be viewed on Sluggo's web page. As I understand your remarks, you have not read those specific calculations. Sluggo lists them as "Robert's Calculations". In preparing those calculations, I did everything humanly possible to explain in the simplest language (even to the extent of "dumbing down" things) what was wrong with the Seattle transcripts, how the true airspeed could be determined, how the ground speed could be determined, how the winds aloft could be determined, and what is wrong with the times on the FBI maps. To my own surprise, things such as the ground speed and winds aloft that I derived were reasonably consistent and accurate for the entire flight from Seattle to Reno. I am not interested in such things as posting resumes but some knowledge of who you are writing to (or for) helps to focus the writing in the most meaningful manner. As for the "Robert's Calculations" on Sluggo's web page, feel free to read them if you want to. They have been there for quite a while. But the world won't come to an end if you don't read them. If you do read them and have some comments, please post those comments to this thread on DZ.com. You are free to take exception to what I have written. I am not going to fall over if you have critical comments. On the matter of the flight crew. The airliner had one captain, one co-pilot, and for all practical purposes a second co-pilot. Anderson has three stripes on his sleeve in the pictures that were taken within a couple of days of the hijacking. This means that he was rated as a co-pilot on some NWA aircraft and that could even have been a 727. However, he was acting as a flight engineer on the hi-jacked airliner. The memories of these three pilots should confirm a number of things that can be found in the transcripts. However, if there are disagreements with what Rataczak (the only living member of the flight crew) says and what appears in the transcripts and other sources, I would expect additional questions to be asked to help resolve the matter. I have no use for "one upmanship" type of behavior, but when all is said and done, there should be close agreement on the major points between the flight crew statements and the other information sources. Robert Nicholson

Farflung, You are absolutely correct! While the airliner was told prior to take-off in Seattle to "do whatever you need to do and we will keep people out of your way", the air traffic control tapes for the Seattle Center's sector controllers have an absolute minimum of information. The airliner was cleared for take-off on the ground control frequency and told to go straight to a frequency that bypassed both the tower and departure controllers. The sector controller had some difficulty figuring out where the airliner was but once that was cleared up there was (if you believe the transcripts) little further communication between the airliner and the Seattle Center's sector controllers all the way down to the Fort Jones VORTAC in northern California. Again if you believe the transcripts, basically the only information passed between the airliner and the controllers was altimeter settings and instructions to switch to another sector controller. There is even an 18 minute no transmissions whatsoever gap as the airliner passed through the Portland area (from 8:15PM to 8:33PM). Essentially, everything that would help establish the airliner's position between about the present day Malay intersection (near Toledo) and the Fort Jones VORTAC has been removed from the Seattle Center's transcripts. If you don't believe this, take a look at the Oakland Center's transcripts which includes the hand off from Seattle Center near the Fort Jones VORTAC until the landing in Reno. The Oakland transcripts are real life as it was lived in 1971 and includes the phone conversations between controllers. The Seattle transcripts are not the way it was done in that day and age. The Seattle Center's Chief gave a sworn statement, dated the day after the hijacking, that he was including the complete transcripts in his transmittal to the FBI and nobody had any reason to hide anything at that date. Consequently, it seems obvious that the Seattle transcripts were "sanitized" at a later date and you know who had them at that time. You can read these transcripts for yourself on Sluggo's web page. Robert Nicholson

Sailshaw, Something is definitely getting lost in the translation here. I have NEVER supported a flight path east of Portland. And for that matter, I also don't believe the flight path shown on the FBI charts between approximately the present day Malay intersection (near Toledo) and a point about 23 nautical miles south of the present day Battleground VORTAC is correct either. Since you don't want to reveal your experience as a pilot, I will assume that you are a certificated private pilot with an ASEL rating. If you in fact have that rating, then presumably you had to demonstrate some knowledge of a pilot's computer (Jeppesen or A6B). You presumably know how to calculate true air speed, work wind triangles, determine wind components, determine heading corrections to make good a given ground track, and to determine ground speed among other things. Don't try to blame those charts on Sluggo. They are FBI work products and they should get the "credit" for them. You say that you buy into the time marks on those charts. Why don't you measure the distance between those time marks? If taken literally, the distance between some of those marks means that the airliner flew three nautical miles in one minute and then six nautical miles the next minute. To put it another way, the airliner's ground speed increased from 180 knots one minute to 360 knots during the next minute. Since the airliner was in steady cruising flight, that is not a realistic situation. Also, one minute appears to be missing in that time sequence. Is it really? If so, where did it go? You can calculate the true airspeed of the airliner from information in the radio transcripts. Why don't you do so and then determine the ground speed and wind direction and see how they all fit together. Do you really understand what you are looking at, and what it means, when you read something on a clock or a cockpit instrument? Can an aircraft be two places at once? It's time for you to get your pilot's calculator out and start work. Robert Nicholson

BUT, the change was MADE AFTER the map was done for the 1971 incident. How did you verified what the intentions of the man who did the map? Conjecture and suppositions? How do you know exactly what he was mapping. I tried to read that map on the computer - but I have to have something I can HOLD in my hands. If that map was given to Sluggo - why can't the FBI provide me a hard paper copy of it? It has now become FBI released information so I want to see it and have someone else beside you and Sluggo tell me what that map means. Why did the media report per the map everyone used until 1980? Even after 1980 2 books where published using the OLD flight path the public was aware of and not this NEW one. By the way WHY don't you PICK up the phone and call Ratazak himself? Why use a 3rd party whose interpretation will be to benefit his subject. Now who does NOT do their own research. Yea, you bet I have a hair where it shouldn't be - because I got a lot to do in a short period of time and do not know how I am going to get it done. Sure don't want to die in jail in Seattle if the FBI has me arrested. Remember Carr's threat about my coming to Seattle? Jo, If you had been been paying attention for the past year or two, you would already know that I don't believe the flight paths that are depicted on those FBI charts are accurate in the first place (especially in the Portland area). As far as Blevins e-mail to Rataczak about the flight path in the Portland area, if Rataczak says "east of Portland" I would like to know his basis for making that statement. In the meantime, just take your medications and get a good night's sleep. Things will probably look better tomorrow. Further, add me to you list of critics objecting to your continual reference to a "dumb blonde syndrome". I have a number of relatives that have blonde hair, as well as blue eyes, and they are certainly not dumb. Maybe there is such a syndrome in your family, but there isn't one in mine. Robert Nicholson

Jo, Farflung is pointing out his post #17427, page 698, above. You should take a look at that post and your subsequent comments to it. Also Jo, why can't you view the maps on Sluggo's web page? You have previously stated that you got your first computer about 10 years ago. Unless you bought a used personal computer that uses punched cards, you should be able to view everything on Slugg's site. If you do have a personal computer that uses punched cards, get in touch with some museum. They will probably pay you enough money for it to finance another trip to Portland. Robert Nicholson

ANYONE - Remember this post? Who decided at that time the map should be read this way or that way. A thread decides what the man who did the map was referring to? Was that the same map done in 1971 or a later version after 1980? The FBI just does NOT give out information like that. Jo, Your persecution complex is out in full force today. Neither the FBI, CIA, Bob Knoss, Elvis, Sluggo, or I had anything to do with changing the name of the 1971 era PDX VORTAC to the present day BTG VORTAC. The FAA is the responsible party for making such changes. And based on my decades of experience with the FAA, I haven't seen anything to indicate that it is a sinister organization. And frankly my dear, I doubt if the FAA gives a hoot to hell whether Duane Weber was Cooper or not. But that is your problem. In reality, the name was probably changed to prevent confusion with changes the FAA wanted to make with the nav-aids on the Portland (or PDX) airport. There is now a low powered VOR on the Portland airport that has the "PDX" identifier that used to be used by the one that is now the "BTG" VORTAC. Robert Nicholson

Blevins, Has Rataczak responded to you recent e-mail asking about the flight path through the Portland area? Robert Nicholson

Jo, Sorry to disappoint you but we have been through this before. The airliner always reported it altitude as being 10,000 feet as it passed through the Portland area. The airliner was above several cloud layers and an overcast at that time. Neither Janet or anyone else on the ground saw the airliner. And no one on the airliner saw the ground in the Portland area. In addition, there is absolutely no support for a flight path over or east of the Portland airport. Why bother going east of Portland when the airliner could go west over relatively unsettled ground and take a short cut on its trip to Reno? Anyone who claims a flight path east of Portland needs to review the facts and then explain how everything fits together for such a route. In reality, it doesn't. Perhaps Sailshaw, the pilot, will get out his flight calculator and do some serious number crunching. If he does, then he might change his own mind about an eastern route around Portland. Robert Nicholson Robert: Even the official maps about the Flight put it EAST of Portland (I suppose that depends on what YOU call East of Portland). You must be Mole trying to sway the public and to declare the route made available to the public for 40 yrs is NOT correct. The plane made an Eastward turn up around Battleground - perhaps only slight but enough to put the plan EAST of PDX. Have you actually talked to the co-pilot? If so WHEN? When I spoke with him many yrs ago about the route - it was as I have stated. We spoke less than half dozen times in the last 15 yrs but, I could only ask questions according to landmarks. We only discussed the flight path - twice.....but, I never forgot one word. The flight path was in our 1st conversation and then another conversation within the last 2 yrs. So did YOU actually speak to the Co-Pilot about 10 yrs ago and then again in the last 2 yrs. So Robert you are saying that every newpaper report and tv station reported the flight incorrectly andyou can say 40 yrs later that NOT one of these individual heard or saw what they claimed...40 yrs ago. It was NOT until the money find that anyone suggested a Westwardly route...the FBI wanted to bury Cooper and get all of it behind them. The FBI basically did just that until 1996 when I reported what Duane told me and then because I caught the FBI in lies - I went public in 2000. Since then there have been multiple Cooper Wannabes to crawl out of the closet - fueled by the media and the internet. If you aren't a MOLE for the FBI just who and what is your interest in all of this? Yes, when one categorically states what you stated - then I suspect you of being something other than what you appear to be. Jo, darling. If the "official maps" you refer to are the maps given to Sluggo by the FBI, then you need to take another look at them. They have the airliner going to the PDX VORTAC (which is now the Battleground VORTAC) and then turning to the southwest and passing west of the Portland Airport. In your conversations with the co-pilot, did he specificially state that the flight path was east of Portland? Yes or no! What or who was the source of the stories you mentioned? Could there have been one single source for all those "official" stories? Me an FBI mole? I don't know whether to laugh or cry about that silly suggestion. If you had been paying attention for the past year or two, you would know who I am. If you want to find out more about the FBI's version of the flight path, or other topics mentioned in your post above, you might benefit from a visit to Sluggo's web page. All you have to do is click the "Web Page" link in one of Sluggo's recent posts. Robert Nicholson

Note to Robert 99 There were sitings of that plane below 10K. I live between several bases - and I have been shown by pilots - just how high the planes are that pass over. North and East of the Lewis - the plane did drop in altitude and continued to do so until they approached East of the PDX swinging over toward Cames - they were trying to stay out of populated areas and they had to be clear of the PDX air traffic. ,,which took them right over Troudale Industrial and the airstrip there. (Don't forget the sitings in that area). Maybe it was other aircraft going in and out of PDX...but the 727 had to say above then and out of the way. The siting in the Heisson area definitely were low - 5K to 6K. The clouds where there, but the plane sounded like a plane in trouble it was so low. - thru the layers of clouds they they could see lights above. I told the man the plane was probably higher because the layered cloud coverage - might give one the allusion of the plane being lower. He wouldn't bite on that and said swore it was NOT over 5K (sound and lights) - this is North East of Battleground. Sitings in Hiesson also claim the plane was lower. The sound was NOT that of the chase planes like Himmelsbach tried to tell one of the witnesses - she knew the sound of the small fast crafts versus a 727. I know the difference in the sound coming thru my area. 5 bases and 2 airports not counting all of the small private strips. Jo, Sorry to disappoint you but we have been through this before. The airliner always reported it altitude as being 10,000 feet as it passed through the Portland area. The airliner was above several cloud layers and an overcast at that time. Neither Janet or anyone else on the ground saw the airliner. And no one on the airliner saw the ground in the Portland area. In addition, there is absolutely no support for a flight path over or east of the Portland airport. Why bother going east of Portland when the airliner could go west over relatively unsettled ground and take a short cut on its trip to Reno? Anyone who claims a flight path east of Portland needs to review the facts and then explain how everything fits together for such a route. In reality, it doesn't. Perhaps Sailshaw, the pilot, will get out his flight calculator and do some serious number crunching. If he does, then he might change his own mind about an eastern route around Portland. Robert Nicholson

Sailshaw, You are getting weirder and weirder. The question the crew responded to was not if they could see light bulbs in Portland. It was to the effect if they could see any illumination on the ground or in the clouds that indicated they were in the vicinity of Portland. Several sources report that the crew stated they could not see any lights whatsoever that would indicate they were in the Portland area. They simply did not have a visual indication of Portland when they passed through that area. You state that you are a pilot with night flying experience. Welcome to the club. And since you have made your experience an issue, why don't you elaborate on it for everyone. How much night flying time do you have? Is it in an aircraft with you as pilot in command or is it as a passenger on either a general aviation aircraft or an airliner? Robert Nicholson

Sailshaw, Contrary to your statement, the flight crew of the hijacked airliner have been quoted in several places as saying that the cloud cover over Portland was so thick that they could not see any lights from Portland. You claim to be a pilot. If that is in fact correct, you should be aware from reading the transcripts on Sluggo's web page that Cooper did not even discuss the flight path with the crew or anyone else. And in case you are not aware, there was more than one Victor airway connecting the Seattle and Portland (now known as Battleground) VORTACS. The airliner could have been on either airway or even 50 miles out over the Pacific. To repeat, Cooper did not have any way to determine the aircraft's position. Basically, you are suggesting that Sheridan had an inborn inertial navigation system as well as x-ray eyes. Perhaps you have Sheridan confused with Buckaroo Banzai. You need to get real. Robert Nicholson

Sailshaw, It's a relief to know that you have all the answers. Unfortunately, I don't think you understand the questions and problems. Robert Nicholson

Sailshaw, It is nice to know that you have many knowledgeable friends. Now let's discuss some numbers. I was unable to find any information on the Internet from the 1960s about the original Paracommander. I should note that I didn't go to Ask.com. However, in "The Complete Book of Sky Sports", 1970 edition, by Linn Emrich, page 4, it states that the Paracommander was introduced in 1964 and with "a 170 pound jumper will sink at about 15 feet per second, and glide forward at about 10 miles per hour". In addition, in "The Skydiver's Handbook", 2007 edition, by Dan Poynter and Mike Turoff, pages 270-271, states that a "PC Class Canopy" has a forward speed of 14 miles per hour. This statement apparently applies to equipment manufactured today. Also, the book states that "The Mark I PC, the first to be marketed in 1964, was far more popular than any of its successors or competitors". As a peace loving individual as I am sure you are, would you be willing to agree that a 1960s era commerically developed "sports parachute" (not a modified military surplus one) would have a forward speed of "about 10 miles per hour"? If not, where is your proof that Cooper even had access to a "sports parachute" during the hijacking? He certainly didn't jump with one so arguing about it is meaningless in any event. For your information, my parachuting experience in the early 1960s was limited to military surplus equipment with a 5-TU modification. I have never jumped a modern design, a square canopy, or even a lo-po canopy. So my parachuting experience used about the same technology as Cooper had access to. While the equipment I used had a slight forward speed, the vertical speed was considerably faster. Why don't you make a tandem jump to see what it is all about? Perhaps one of your skydiving friends could arrange it. Robert Nicholson

Sailshaw, As Jo has already pointed out, I am not attacking you or anyone else. While Jo and I are not related, we both seem to have inherited or otherwise acquired a low tolerance for BS. And as Georger has already pointed out, you need to answer some questions with facts. You have previously stated that you were a retired "Boring" Airplane Company engineer. Assuming you were referring to Boeing, what speciality is your engineering degree in? Do you have any experience with aircraft flight mechanics and dynamics? Do you have any experience with parachuting? Are you pushing a specific Cooper suspect or a book? Just some facts please. Robert Nicholson

Sailshaw, When Cooper hijacked the airplane, it was almost exactly 3:00 PM PST and he demanded that the money be ready by 5:00 PM PST. Unfortunately for your theory, sunset in Seattle that evening was about 4:45 PM. So Cooper had to know it would be after sunset before he could possibly be airborne again with the money. You apparently don't seem to understand that the weather in the Portland area at the time of the jump consisted of several cloud layers plus a complete overcast. Cooper could not see even the lights of Portland when he jumped. Regardless of the parachute's color, it would not be overly visible to anyone who happened to be on the ground and looking up. The forward speed of a 1971 era "sports parachute" was only on the order of 5 MPH. But that wouldn't be of any particular help to Cooper since he couldn't see where he would be landing in the first place. As far as landing in trees, the only thing Cooper could do is keep his feet and knees together and put his arms up to protect his face and head. Robert Nicholson

Sailshaw, Where are you coming from? What difference does the color of the parachute make on a dark night with several cloud layers and a total overcast? And where did you get the idea that a 1970 era sports chute had a forward speed of 14 MPH? Coming down fast and coming down slow? I think most parachutists in the early 1970s would vote for the parachute that came down "slow" or at least "slower". Have you made any jumps yourself? Only Cooper knows why he selected the NB6. Robert Nicholson

Even Lake Mead is expected to gain about 20 to 30 feet of water from this spring's snow melt. If that proves to be correct, it will probably move Lake Mead's predicted "bone dry" date from 2020 to 2021. In my area in Baja Arizona, I have recorded exactly 0.25 inches of rain since January 1st. Robert Nicholson

Georger, Sluggo has pictures of these notes on his web page. It looks like all of them were written on 2x3 or 4x6 plain paper. It also looks like someone in the cockpit did all the writing since such remarks as "Tina called" indicate that Tina did not do the writing. Could one of the other flight attendants have been in the cockpit doing the writing and talking to Tina on the intercom? Otherwise, one of the flight crew would have to do the writing. Robert Nicholson

What is "FAA Flight Plan Stationary"? Have Farflung or Robert ever seen such stationary, or anyone else, whatever Bruce is talking about? In case you forget we already had testimony on the paper Cooper used for his notes. Smith's allegation is brand new. Georger, You can Goggle "FAA Flight Plan Form" and download a copy of FAA Form 7233-1 (8-82) where the "8-82" means that the form was approved for FAA use in August 1982. For general aviation purposes, this form only has to be filed for IFR flight operations and as otherwise required. I am not aware of any reason why this form would be on a commercial airliner. The commercial airliners were formally dispatched using other forms. If you flew the airlines in the 1970s, you probably noticed that at the end of the passenger loading the gate agent or someone else would walk on board, hand a flight attendant some paperwork which she promptly took to the cockpit, then step out of the airplane and help close the cabin door. At that point, your flight was on its merry way. Robert Nicholson

As 377 asks in a post above, where did the FAA flight plan forms come from? A commerical airliner in revenue service is "dispatched" by an individual authorized by the airline to do so. A dispatcher must be FAA rated. These "small airplane FAA flight plan forms", as you call them, would have no use in normal airline service. So why were they on NWA 305 in the first place? You are right about the current flooding around Portland and Vancouver. The Columbia River's water level gage in that area is on the Vancouver side of the river and just a few hundred feet east of the Interstate 5 bridge. Yesterday afternoon, the water level was 17.2 feet (above sea level) with the flood stage being 16.0 feet. This means that the Fazio's probably have water at their doorstep. The highest elevation on the Fazio property is probably only about 20 feet. In addition, water is currently being released by the Grand Coulee dam in order to make room in their reservoir for the spring mountain snow melt. This means that the Columbia River is going to have flood conditions along its entire length. Robert Nicholson

Airtwardo, Manly Butler was the individual I talked to. This was probably in the early 1980s and the Butler Parachute Company was located at California City, CA. It has since moved to some place in Virginia. Butler did not, to my knowledge, make sports parachutes in the 1980s and apparently still doesn't. They have made emergency parachutes for specific individuals, including me, that I am aware of. They appear to have some government contracts for parachutes with military applications and these may, or may not, include emergency pilot parachutes. In any event, I was highly pleased with the parachute they made for me, and so was my rigger. On the matter of this ex-military reserve, I can't remember for sure if it had butterfly type fasteners. To many decades have gone by for me to remember all the details accurately, but you may be right on that point. On the quick release fasteners on my NB-6, they were installed with the opening facing the wearer's body which is the opposite of the installation shown in your photograph. While I have never jumped an NB-6, I don't remember any problems with the fasteners coming open during any ground, flight, or just squirming around situation in very cramped cockpits. Robert Nicholson

YIKES!!!! I never once experienced this in well over 100 jumps with reserves of that type. When I had to do a cutaway of a C9 main my belly reserve (26 ft Navy conical in an Army container) worked just fine. My D ring connectors had a very robust spring loaded clip. Hard to see how it would become disconnected accidentally, but I know you had it happen. If they were so unsafe why did the Army keep using them for decades? Usually if parachute gear was found to be unreliable, newer improved gear replaced it. Witness the evolution of Rocket Jet types to better and better canopy releases culminating in the latest Capewell types. The military doesn't seem complacent about parachute gear safety. They move slowly but they do move. Riggers, your opinion? I am not an expert on attachment hardware. 377 377, We were using WW2 surplus paratrooper reserves (where the jumper went out on a static line jump while clutching the reserve to his chest). In retrospect, the reserve fasteners did seem to have some differences with the fasteners that the manufacturer that I mentioned earlier insisted that I use. The newer hardware, which is probably the same thing that is still being used, seems to be very slightly larger, have a stronger spring as you mentioned, and there may be some differences in the "hook" part of the fastener and the tip of the gismo that the spring is attached to. I agree with you that the military services are very careful about their emergency equipment, as well as the equipment used by the standard paratroopers and the special forces types. The emergency military parachute equipment improved as fast as the speed of jet aircraft did following WW2. Robert Nicholson

I made lots of jumps with surplus belly reserves and wasn't aware of this potentially fatal problem. Which reserve fastener came loose and how? Lots of jumpers would unhook one of the chest fasteners and droop the reserve to get a better view of the target. 377 377, In my limited parachuting experience, everyone I was personally acquainted with used a 24-foot ex-military reserve that had two fasteners that connected to D rings on the harness. In addition, we always used tie down straps to keep the reserve from flapping around. These straps went through some loops on the reserve container (I think the loops were actually for hand holds while putting on the reserve) and then through the lower part of the main harness in some manner to provide a secure means to prevent the reserve from jumping around. Nevertheless, all of us (and that includes me) had numerous experiences of one of the fasteners that was connected to a D ring coming unfastened during a jump. One fellow, an experienced jumper and rigger, decided he wanted to come down on his reserve to see what it was like. So when time came to pull, he pulled the reserve ripcord instead of the main chute ripcord. As fate would have it, one of his reserve fasteners had come undone. However, there is a heavy duty strap connection in the reserve container between the two fasteners. So he proved in actual practice, that only one reserve fastener had to stay fastened for a safe descent. In any event, he was unable to fasten the other one during his descent. Robert Nicholson

Your request was probably denied because the manufacturer thought you would be better off with a harness you didn't have to be knowledgeable about to wear. Airtwardo, Thanks for the "compliment". Actually, I was talking to the owner and president of the company in question and he has plenty of parachute jumping and manufacturing experience. We discussed all the components of the specific parachute that I was interested in him working up for me. When we got to the hardware he told me up front what leg and chest fasteners he would recommend and the ones that he would not permit on his parachutes. End of fastener hardware discussion. The fasteners he insisted on are still in use today on military equipment. With the introduction of the integrated torso harnesses, the Navy's version of quick fasteners went out the window and the Navy equipment now also uses Capewell fasteners as does the equipment used by other services. If you have any experience jumping with ex-military chest reserves, you are well aware that the probability of one of the reserve's fasteners coming un-fastened is quite high in even a routine jump where the reserve is not deployed. Apparently, the fastener technology had improved enough by the time I was talking to the manufacturer so that he had a very high degree of confidence in the new fasteners and non in the older "quick release" types. Robert Nicholson

377, You are mistaken about the 1970 era NB6 parachutes having Capewell hardware. I owned an NB6 in early November 1971, the same month Cooper made his jump, and it absolutely did not have Capewell releases. I have never seen an NB8 to my knowledge but doubt if they had Capewells either. I have been told by personnel in the Portland, OR area who are experienced parachutists and riggers, that the NB6 Cooper used did not have Capewells and that the shroud lines were sewn into the risers. This means that the only connections between the canopy and the harness consisted of seperable link hardware components along the line of those shown in the lower right hand corner of page 245 of Para-Gears 2011-2012 Catalog No. 76. Basically, the only unusual hardware on the harness of NB6 parachutes in the 1970 era was "quick release" fasterners for the leg and chest straps. That type hardware is no longer used since it can be opened accidentally. Somewhere in the 1980s, I was told by a parachute manufacturer who was working up a special rig for me that he would not put such fasterners on any of his products. Robert Nicholson