Robert99

It may not exist. As in the conversations never took place. At least not in flight. The plane was on the ground at Sea-Tac for some time. It's entirely possible the necessary conversations took place prior to takeoff on a different frequneecy than they used for normal ATC comm traffic. Purely a guess on my part, but think about it. The FBI, ATC and the airline could easily have had these discussions over a landline. Also, the options were fairly limited if they were going to follow the instructions Cooper gave. As Sluggo has made clear, V23 was the only real option. Wolf, The air traffic control people have a protocol for handing an aircraft from one enroute controller to another. By its very nature, this is done in flight and they must communicate by phone with each other to accomplish this (any exception to this would be under extraordinary circumstanes). This could not be done prior to takeoff. The FBI does not have anything to do with air traffic control (except maybe make "requests"). The ATC and airline people could talk to each other by phone. But the only way to communicate with the airliner was by radio. Note that the Oakland Center transcript includes both the "phone talk" between controllers but also much more detailed conversations with the aircraft. And this is not available in the Seattle Center transcript. Robert Nicholson

Quade, While there is some reason to believe that I don't have a conscience in the first place, you did not mention me by name. Maybe I just had a knee jerk reaction to your post? Could be. Robert Nicholson

Is that true? With the advent of INS and Doppler Nav winds aloft could be accurately measured (well, actually "derived" since the wind isnt measured directly) in real time using simple computers. GPS has made it even easier. I am not a licensed pilot so forgive me if I mess up some of the air nav stuff. 377 377, The atmosphere is almost always in motion (an exception would be close to the ground under conditions such as those that lead to fog formation). I have used these "motions" in the atmosphere to fly sailplanes to 36,500 feet above sea level. I have also averaged more than one hour per flight in flying sailplanes and that is probably twice my time per flight (or takeoff and landing) for flying powered aircraft. The winds aloft have their eddys, vertical and horizontal movements, etc. just as the winds at ground level do. The winds at any given point aloft will vary from moment to moment. While the winds aloft forecast is just that (a prediction), if an aircraft has an INS, GPS, or Doppler navigation system, then the wind information available to the pilot is much more accurate or reliable than the forecast. Robert Nicholson

Quade, Neither I nor anyone else has got the Cooper matter "all figured out". And I for one have never claimed otherwise. Robert Nicholson

Jamie, Go to Sluggo's web page and then download the Seattle Air Traffic Control Center transcripts and the Oakland Air Traffic Control Center transcripts. Then read them both very carefully. After reading them, can you determine where the airliner is and what it is doing from the Oakland Center transcripts? Can you determine where the airliner is from the Seattle Center transcripts? I think one of your answers will be "yes" and the other one will be "no". After the 17 DME mile point south of the Seattle VORTAC, there is nothing in the Seattle transcripts that gives a location until the aircraft is handed off to the Okland Center in northern California which is about two hours and 300+ nautical miles later. Between those two points, the only communication between the Seattle Center and the airliner involves passing altimeter settings, VHF radio frequency changes, directions to "ident" (which is simply pushing the "ident" button on the transponder to enhance its signal so the controller can be certain he is looking at the correct aircraft), and confirming the airliner's altitude. Things are vastly different in the Oakland Center transcripts which also include the "phone talk" between controllers as they discuss the aircraft's location, intentions, and flight path. The Oakland transcripts contain all the information that is necessary to figure out what the controllers and flight crew are doing. Where is that information for the Seattle Center? Robert Nicholson

Quade, The winds aloft are ALWAYS estimates! And the winds the aircraft actually sees changes from moment to moment, that is the nature of meterology (or fluid dynamics if you prefer). "The track made good" (your term) is history and not necessarily what is true at the present moment. But you have to use the best information available even if it does leave some things to be desired. Robert Nicholson

Quade, "True Airspeed" is the speed of the aircraft with respect to the air mass in which it is flying. Nothing more or less. It is very easy to calculate using the ambient temperature, pressure altitude, and "true indicated airspeed". And this information was available to the flight crew. True indicated airspeed is the reading on the airspeed indicator corrected for instrument and position errors. Admittedly, the instrument and position errors for the airliner are not known, or at least available. In any event, a large amount of engineering and flight test effort goes into minimizing the position error as well as the instrument error so, for all practical purposes, ignoring them in this instance is not going to produce any significant error in the calculations. If you know the winds aloft, you can calculate your ground speed using the above information. If you don't know the winds aloft, but do know you ground speed between two points (such as VORTACs) and crab angle, then you can calculate the wind speed and direction at your altitude. If you have low quality data for both ground speed and winds aloft, then you can do a series of iterations which will approximate the actual ground speed and winds aloft. Each should be accurate to within a few knots. In the case of the hijacked airliner, only two positions can be determined from the Seattle ATC transcripts following takeoff (I believe they were 14 and 17 DME on V23) from Seattle. A third position can be determined from the Oakland ATC transcripts during the handoff from Seattle Center near the Fort Jones VORTAC in northern California. The distance from the 17 DME position to the handoff position near the Fort Jones VORTAC is roughly 300 nautical miles. So even a simple assumption such as the airliner staying on the V23 centerline for that entire distance, will produce a reasonably accurate approximation of its ground speed even if a detour was made in the Portland area. Other such "massaging" of the available information can be done to provide information that is valid for all practical purposes. And this information is as accurate as you will be able to get in this matter unless someone produces the full transcripts from the Seattle Center. Robert Nicholson

Quade, Aerial navigation is neither brain surgery nor rocket science. All you have to do is use your brains and you are now on record supporting using your brains. The calculations, including assumptions and limitations, are online on Sluggo's web page and here on DZ.com. The main limitation is the lack of information in the Seattle ARTC transcripts about the aircraft's flight path. It is easy to conclude that the Seattle transcripts have been edited to remove the information about the flight path. The time hacks in the Seattle transcripts are about as accurate as they can be. The times listed in the "FBI Notes" are suspect since they did not always come directly from the airliner transmissions but, in some cases, are routed through other aircraft, the ARINC system, and the NWA teletype system. The above information was not taken from PIC debriefings. The ATC transcripts were in real time and only the FBI notes involve a time lag. As stated above, the information in the Seattle ARTC area has apparently been deliberately edited to remove information that could be used to prepare a "flight log". This editing may, or may not, have been done after the money was found at Tina Bar and some people were being heavily leaned on to explain how the money ended up so far from the originally estimated jump zone. The flight path between the Toledo area and the southern edge of Portland as shown in the FBI maps is not believable. The airliner was basically not "bracketing V23" in that area as the radar plots would lead you to believe. In plain English, those plots are not believeable since it has the airliner flying several miles off to the side of the inbound radial, and parallel to that radial, for several minutes. I can (or could) do a better job tracking that radial in my own little airplane. If you wish a further explanation of true air speed (including its calculation), ground speed, ground track, headwind component, crosswind component, and how they are all calculated and fit together, just let me know and I will be happy to comply. Also, let me know what type of flight calculator you use (I prefer Jeppesen) and I will tell you how to do the calculations on it. In the meantime, "use your brains" (your words). Robert Nicholson

Quade, Just 10 days ago (in message #20142) you basically told me that I was full of "BS" (your term) because I was claiming that the airliner's true air speed could be calculated from the available information. Now just today, you have probably posted 20 messages in which you use common sense and cite facts from various places. And I am in agreement with all those posts including the ones about hypothermia. Did you have an epiphany over the holidays that led to this change? And how are your BS true airspeed calculations coming along? Robert Nicholson

Al, I do have an agenda and that agenda is to resolve the Cooper hijacking. What's yours? Do you know how much paper money can be stuffed into a milk can? What is the volume of a milk can? You statements seem to imply that you are, or used to be, a member of a law enforcement agency. If you have any qualifications for evaluating information from your supervisor or anyone else concerning the Cooper hijacking, please list them. I do have a low tolerance for nonsense and will gladly burn down the "barn", or whatever, if it is baloney. Beer talk is cheap and readily available, but facts are harder to come by. Robert Nicholson

Al, You are leaving out some simple details. Where did Cooper get the can and the shovel to dig the hole where you claim he buried the can. Surely you cannot be claiming he had the can and shovel with him when he jumped. Your story is just another fairey tale which continues to hinder real progress in solving the Cooper matter. Robert Nicholson

Where is the "two or three bundles" documented? Not doubting it...just haven't taken the time to look it up and, since you're referencing it, I was hoping you'd know off the top of your head. Page 23 of Richard Tosaw's book has a discussion of Cooper offering Alice and Florence (the other two stews) one bundle of money each as they were departing the aircraft. Both declined to accept it. There is no indication in this book of Tina ever being offered a bundle of money. Robert Nicholson

There is NO attempted scam on my part. I might buy one bottle of wine every 2 months and as for smoking - I do not smoke in my house or my car...therefore I am NOT smoking when I am on the computer and only rarely have I treated myself to a bottle of wine. You are not infront of me so I can show you on a map and explain where Duane took me and the things he said - if you were, perhaps you might understand what I am trying to say. I believe Duane landed East of the plane route. I have never understood the wind thing and even with your attempt to get through to me - it is all gobbly gook to me. I wish you or someone you knew could sit me down with maps (plain black and white maps without all of the technical stuff on them) and show me exactly what you are talking about. Perhaps you know someone in my area that could do that for me - I would appreciate it. If you knew me you would know there is NO ATTEMPT on my part to scam anyone. If I was scaming anyone - ask yourself why at my age I have continued to do what I do (a scam artist would have already have written a book) and I would not be here on this thread submitting myself to being called names and accused of things I have not done. Please be a little more respectfuly when you talk about me. Jo, No offense intended. If your post #20208 had been written as clearly as the above, those remarks would not have been made in the first place. Robert Nicholson

Jo, I would suggest that you get a copy of Himmelsbach's book and check out what he says about Bohan. But the following is my response to your questions and I doubt if you will find them satisfactory. In 1971, there were two Victor airways between the Seattle and Portland (now Battleground) VORTACs. V-23 was a dog-leg type airway that departed the Seattle VORTAC (which is located on the Seattle airport proper) outbound on radial 175 and at the Mayfield (now Malay) intersection turned inbound to the Portland (now BTG) VORTAC on radial 329. V-23 had a total distance of 105 nautical miles between these two VORTACs. V-23 East was the other airway. It departed the Seattle VORTAC on radial 165 and flew directly to the Portland (now BTG) VORTAC with its inbound radial being 345. V-23 East has a total distance of 102 nautical miles between these two VORTACs. V-23 is the only airway mentioned in the transcripts of the flight crew discussions with the ground people in Seattle prior to their takeoff. But V-23 required only a minimum of 5000 feet altitude and V-23 East required 9000 feet. Based on my previous calculations, if NWA had chosen V-23 East they would not have been able to get to 9000 feet by the time they reached the sector that required that altitude based on their actual achieved climb performance on V-23. In Himmelsbach's book, Bohan is quoted as saying that he had "80 knots of wind, from 166 degrees, right on my nose" at 14,000 feet. This statement, by itself, requires that Bohan be on V-23 East and there are other considerations that require the same. It should also be noted that V-23 East passes closer to the Lake Merwin area than V-23 which the airliner was on. So Bohan's aircraft was closer to the initial estimated jump scene than the hijacked airliner. There is no information whatsoever to even suggest that Bohan was west of the hijacked airliner at any point or that he was ever close (say within 20 or 30 miles) of the hijacked airliner. If Bohan took off from Seattle "four minutes" behind NWA 305, he was undoubtedly on the ground in Portland long before the airliner got to the Portland area. If you want to see maps of NWA 305's flight path, take a look at the FBI maps (which I don't consider to be believable). I am not aware of any maps that describe Bohan's route (except the IFR low-altitude charts). Winds aloft are measured with respect to true north (or the ground grid lines). So if you can locate South and West, then face halfway between then and the southwest wind will be blowing in your face. I have never heard of a "Simple Map" but I can only assume that Bohan was speaking to Himmelsbach in plain English and speaking what he felt was the truth. Nevertheless, there is nothing to support Bohan's statement of 80 knot winds at 14,000 feet plus high winds on landing at the Portland airport. Due to several cloud layers and an undercast, it is very unlikely that Cooper could have identified anything in the Lake Merwin area or that NWA 305 even passed close to that area. Bohan's flight path probably fits the Lake Merwin area better. Your statement ". . . but the winds caught him [Cooper] and took him East and West" is something that I cannot comprehend. FULL DISCLOSURE: Jo, in all honesty, I do not find anything in your discussions about Duane Weber to be believable. That is, the attempted Duane Weber scam just doesn't fly. In all seriousness, I would suggest that you wait eight hours after popping a cork or having a smoke before writing e-mails about the Duane Weber matter. Robert Nicholson

Jo, Take another look at post #20139 on this thread concerning the information from Bohan that Himmelsbach included in his book. There is no discussion of Bohan's actual flight path and no support at all for his claim that there were 80 knot winds from the south at 14,000 feet and high winds at the Portland airport. Robert Nicholson

Sluggo, No apology necessary! As you know, the seventh of those posts actually made it online first and can be accessed through the link that 377 included in post #17840 on page 714 of this thread. Several of the posts just below that one also include the link. An additional post on this subject is still in limbo and will remain so for the immediate future. Sluggo, thanks again for posting ALL of the information that you have been able to find on the Cooper hijacking. Robert Nicholson

Link? Photo attachment? From the Seattle ARTTC transcript (page 3): 7:50:05 PM PST - Aircraft given Toledo altimeter setting of 29.98 inches of Mercury. 8:13:14 PM PST - Aircraft level at 10,000 feet. 8:15:52 PM PST - Aircraft given Portland altimeter setting of 30.03 inches of Mercury. Link? Ditto? Quade, You can find all of the sources that I have referenced on Sluggo's web page. As you may know, Sluggo regularly posts on this thread and you can find the link to his web page on this thread at post #20148 which is on page 806. Just click "web page" at the bottom of Sluggo Monster's post and you will be magically transferred to the site. You will need to do your own navigation to the FBI notes and the Seattle ARTCC transcript. If I can be of further assistance please let me know. How are your calculations coming along? Robert Nicholson

No. You're the one making the claim. Show me YOUR math. Show me YOUR data sources, a flight log from the PIC of both his indicated airspeed, the pressure and temperature, so I CAN do the math myself to check. I doubt they even exist. Quade, You are on! From the FBI Notes (page 004/017 in the upper right hand corner), 8:10 PM PST, in part, "Airplane now at 10,000 feet, 170K (i.e., 170 KIAS), TAT minus 7 degrees Centigrade". From the Seattle ARTTC transcript (page 3): 7:50:05 PM PST - Aircraft given Toledo altimeter setting of 29.98 inches of Mercury. 8:13:14 PM PST - Aircraft level at 10,000 feet. 8:15:52 PM PST - Aircraft given Portland altimeter setting of 30.03 inches of Mercury. The above is all the information you need, but here are some additional considerations. The crew was informed shortly after takeoff from Seattle that the speed for optimum range in their new configuration was 170 KIAS. They did flutuate a bit above and below this speed but 170 KIAS was what they were trying to maintain. What does a TAT of minus 7 degrees Centigrade mean? It is a value they got off their Mach meter instrument and includes the effects of temperature rise due to aerodynamic compression. Therefore, to be accurate, this temperature rise must be accounted for to give the ambient temperature which is what is needed to determine the true airspeed. My Jeppesen CR-3 circular calculator has scales which can account for this temperature rise. But in case your calculator doesn't have this capability, the temperature rise due to aerodynamic compression is 5 degrees Centigrade for the other conditions specified. This rise can be determined from other sources. So to put it another way, the ambient temperature is actually minus 12 degrees Centigrade for the specified flight conditions. From the above information, I calculate a true airspeed of between 194 and 195 knots. So to be conservative, I used 194 knots for most purposes. If you have any further questions on the above, please let me know. After we get this true airspeed calculation resolved, would you be interested in calculating the atmospheric density for the Portland area on the evening of the hijacking? And I mean including corrections for temperature, pressure, and humidity. In case you are wondering, the density from 10,000 feet to sea level in the Portland area that evening was about 2 percent above the density for the 1962 standard US atmosphere. Then after resolving the above, would you be interested in calculating the wind chill temperature that Cooper experienced on the stairs and immediately after seperating from the stairs? It was about 37 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. Anything else you would like to calculate? Robert Nicholson

Robert 99, Are these quotes from Himmelsbachs book (the writer got several things wrong per Himmelsbach)? All and all it is still one of the most accurate accountings we have of the actual skyjacking. Perhaps the book is quoting the scheduled time and not the time Bohan's plane actually left. It just DOES not sound reasonable that they would release a plane on the same vector 4 minutes behind a plane traveling at 200 knots with a BOMB on board. This seems UNREALISTIC to a non-pilot. Safety was more of an issue than a scheduled flight being on time. To a layman what I have just read sounds like a major disastor in the making...there is a plane in that vector going 200 Knott and it has a bomb on board....plus I had been told the other flight was not sent out until after the Skyjacked plane cleared OR or was approaching OR. What I read might have put Bohan's plane right on top of the skyjacked plance considering the altitutude...perhaps Bohans route was to the West of the vector. Well, I am talking about something I know NOTHING about. One of you guys make some sense of it so a layman can understand it ... all of you know what I am trying to say. Jo, The quotes are correct but the remarks in the parentheses are mine. Captain Bohan's route is not specifically given but it would seem logical, as you say, that he would not be on the same airway as the hijacked airliner. At the time of the hijacking, there was a V23 East airway that ran directly from the Seattle VORTAC to what is now the Battleground VORTAC. This airway was east of the V23 airway which the airliner mostly followed to northern California. Perhaps Bohan was on it. Robert Nicholson

But that's not what you've done. What you've done is taken the course and speed made good (although you didn't actually provide the math for that) and used it based on what somebody else may have said was the true airspeed of the aircraft and have tried to come up with a simplistic formula in which somebody else can attempt to infer winds aloft. I'm telling you, that's BS because there are simply too many other unknown variables including the accuracy of the times. As much as we like to think that the pilots were being super accurate in their reporting of the conditions on their flight log, the fact is, they had bigger fish to fry. I seriously doubt either of them touched a whiz wheel during the flight to figure out their true airspeed. If it was done forensically, it was a guess at best. Quade, Something seems to be getting lost in the translation here. Let me give you a couple of items in my background that, I strongly believe, gives me some reason to stand behind my statements. I began pilot training at the age of 15 and retired from flying at the age of 60. I have more than 1750 hours of flight time including a relatively large amount of night cross country navigation time. I hold FAA Advanced Pilot and Instrument Ground Instructor Ratings. One of my college degrees is in Aeronautical Engineering and I have a number of years working professionally in the area of aircraft performance and stability and control. As Sluggo and Jerry Thomas can confirm, in early 2009 I did the basic calculations for the Seattle to Reno flight. At that time I calculated the airliner's true airspeed in the Portland area as being 194 knots at 10,000 feet based on the information that the airline crew passed to the NWA performance group in Minneapolis. Any private pilot should be able to calculate the true airspeed under the conditions this airliner described. And this is not BS but is something pilots do every day including, I'm sure, the crew of NWA 305. Sluggo used to have some posts on his web page related to this subject. However, he told me that apparently no one was reading them so I assume that he took them down. However, there is another source for some calculations on this subject. I refer to the famous thread on 727 take-off performance, which I started accidentally while trying to post to this thread, and which was locked by you after several posts. If my memory is correct, that thread contains a discussion of the entire flight from Seattle to Reno. Perhaps you would like to review it. If you want to duplicate the calculations for determining the true airspeed or anything else, let me know what kind of pilot calculator you have (Jeppeson, E6B, or other) and I'll tell you how to do it. But I stand by everything I have posted on this subject as being correct. If you disagree, please post detailed critiques that can be discussed. Otherwise, we can go sailing. Robert Nicholson

If you're going to attempt to lecture about navigation, you'll have a lot more credibility if you use the right terms. This would not be the aircraft's true airspeed. If the numbers used and calculated are correct (something not in evidence), then at best this would be "course and speed made good." Quade, the True Airspeed can be calculated (that's why pilots have hand held calculators) based on the pressure altitude, the ambient temperature with a correction for temperature rise due to speed, and the True Indicated Airpseed (which is what shows on the cockpit instrument and, also in this case, we have to assume no instrument or position error). The True Airspeed is the speed of the aircraft with respect to the air mass in which it is operating. The Ground Speed is the speed of the aircraft with respect to the ground. Ground Speed can be calculated from the True Airspeed if the winds aloft direction and velocity are known. Otherwise, Ground Speed can be calculated by measuring the time between two points (such as VORTAC stations). The True Airspeed was correctly calculated at 194 knots at 10,000 feet and the term "True Airspeed" was used correctly. The term Ground Speed is analogous to your words "speed made good". However, the phrase "course and speed made good" is not an aeronautical term. It sounds more like something a sailor would use for boats or ships. Are you a sailor? In any event, nautical and aeronautical terms are not necessairly interchangeable. To repeat, the True Airspeed was correctly calculated at 194 knots. And the terms True Airspeed, Ground Speed, and any other aeronautical terms I have used above are correctly stated and so used. Robert Nicholson

The high winds at altitude saga apparently originates from the quotations from a Captain Bohan which start on page 111 of Ralph Himmelsbach's book. Captain Bohan apparently told Himmelsbach that his jet was at 14,000 feet and "four minutes behind" the hijacked airliner. Bohan reported "80 knot winds from 166 degrees (this would presumably be about 183 degrees with respect to the grid lines), right on my nose". Bohan also reported an extremely high cross wind component as he landed on runway 10 at Portland. First, Captain Bohan wouldn't not have been "four minutes behind" the hijacked airliner very long since he probably had an airspeed of about 100 knots more than the Cooper aircraft, assuming of course that Bohan had retracted his landing gear and flaps and was operating his aircraft normally. The ground winds passed to the hijacked airliner, including those at Seattle, Reno, and points in between, were all of the order of about 10 MPH (or about 9 knots). Consequently, there is no support elsewhere for Bohan's high cross wind component which would have to be about 25 MPH to be a concern for a jet airliner. There is no supporting evidence of winds of 80 knots at 14,000 feet and plenty of supporting evidence that the winds at 10,000 feet were less than 30 knots from a southwesterly direction. Overall, the winds and weather that the hijacked airliner experienced were all relativey routine and, weatherwise, it was just another night at the office. Robert Nicholson

Atmosphere doesn't seem to be your strong suit. You might want to take a class or two on weather. Seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient Quade, You need to take a basic course in aircraft navigation. For instance, take the time the airliner reported its last position just a few DME miles south of the Seattle VORTAC and then its time and position during the hand off to Okland Center near the Fort Jones VORTAC in northern California. You will have to get this last information from the Okland Center transcripts. Measure the straight line distance between the two points and then divide by the elapsed time. This will give the ground speed between those two points. The airliner's true air speed was about 194 knots at 10,000 feet. The difference between the ground speed and true air speed is the average head wind component that the airliner saw that night. The winds aloft were uniform at 10,000 feet and, after some juggling of your aircraft navigation hand-held computer, the average wind speed and direction can be estimated as not more than 30 knots from the southwest. But the airliner didn't fly a straight line between these points. It flew a more meandering route that was longer in the same time period. This means that its ground speed was greater and that the winds aloft at 10,000 feet were less than 30 knots from the southwest. This agrees well with the winds aloft information that is available for the time the airliner passed through the Portland area. Robert Nicholson

I don’t know why I am doing this, because I don’t think you are very serious. If you had taken my (and others) advice you would have found these photos posted previously. This photo from a newspaper article is in horrible condition, but it is the only one I know of. Now, if you really want to find out “the facts” of this case… do a little digging! The previous post is: HERE. while I appreciate your advice, I wasn't able to access the link you posted the first time, and 2 of them this time say they are expired. The two links Sluggo gave in the previous post worked for me less than one minute ago. Robert Nicholson

Perfectly good airplanes? Surely you jest. Here's a local one I've made a few jumps from: http://avstop.com/news_october_2010/faa_fines_the_parachute_center_for_aircraft_maintenance_failures.htm 377 Getting up to jump altitude may be the most dangerous part of the jump. Just as getting to the airport is the most dangerous part of flying. And I have a head full of stitches to support the last statement. Robert