Robert99 38
Recommended Posts
georger 199
QuoteQuote
I can imagine that someone unaccustomed to "fierce weather" might be really impressed by a minute of wind and rain, especially at night. I think that's about the extent of basis in the weather itself. But, there's plenty of other potential basis.
--------------------------------------------------------
Is the above a caveat, or what?
Almost every post you have made on this subject
has included what I am taking as 'a hedge'.
Are you saying you see no basis in the data for
severe weather in the hijack corridor, but . . . but
what?
What is it you are saying, and why?
Lets get that solved first before moving ahead ...
My guess is, you are just trying to be thorough.
And that's all this is? If there is something more
involved I wish you would say so and close the
window for guessing/conjecture.
No, the above was not a caveat. The worst weather I can imagine based on the data I've seen would be a brief period of heavy rain or wind. There are things other than the actual weather that could explain at least some anecdotal reports.
Of that data I've examined about the weather on hijack night, I have found nothing that supports the idea that there was any severe weather. I am still looking at data trying to find any clue that would indicate severe weather. Yes. I'm trying to be thorough and give the question my best shot. If I get some more data, I'll look at it too (even anecdotes).
I think we are traveling the same path having the
same thoughts. Thanks.
georger 199
QuotePreviously this ‘sandwich of undetermined contents’ was eaten with boundless relish:
"Bohan's fellow pilots were interviewed. He was
thorough and he knew the PDX glide-slope like the
back of his hand. It was his regular run. And he
flew the 727 for Continental. If he was landing at
PDX with strong winds from 160-66, he would have
been using runway 100 coming in from the west...
(another researcher)”
Just a couple, silly, stupid, ‘only I don’t know this’ questions:
A. What instrument did Bohan use to divine the measurement of 160-66? (INS, NCS, E6-B)
B. What is the max crosswind component (wet runway?) for a 727? (Runway 10 with winds at 160)
C. What happened to the FO and or FE who could better confirm this story than some of Bohan’s friends? I’m thinking a Sasquatch attack and a Roswellian Alien abduction will enter the fray.
I’m fully prepared for the ‘Cricket’s Tabernacle Choir’ as a response.
I personally do not know, Im not a pilot, but will
pass this on -
The people I work with arent here and dont read
this forum -
Crickets will sing will in any event, I think.
Hominid 0
The 80kt was about en-route headwind. I think the 66 was not intended to be spead at all. I think the author probably meant 160-166.
georger 199
Secondly, IF he was on some other part of this track (location be damned) he or the FO certainly would have filed a PIREP for those airframes less fortunate than theirs (like Convairs) so they can be forewarned about an 80 knot gust (or whatever). Did he/they?
An FAA filing has always been part of the story since
I first heard it.
Frankly, its always been my hope Robert99 would
dig the FAA filing up, somehow, given his
connections. When I learned Robert99 actually had
obtained PDX/FAA weather data I wondered if he had
also managed to find the Bohan filing, but was
holding that in reserve for a special purpose ?
Evidently not. I have always wished someone could
find that old filing ... I and others have asked a lot
of people about it.
I also wondered if Snowmman had found it, but
evidently not.
Hominid 0
Georger,
Were you thinking that the anecdotal examples you gave were about "bad" weather?
Were you thinking that the anecdotal examples you gave were about "bad" weather?
georger 199
QuoteGeorger,
Were you thinking that the anecdotal examples you gave were about "bad" weather?
I see nothing in the data presented, or anyone's
analysis of that data to date, which explains the
so-called anomolies I presented, to my satisfaction.
That is my personal dilemma in this.
ok. There are two other people working this problem
in the background - both NOAA meteorologists.
Hopfully they will find data (or something) to add
more clarity to this -
I fully understand Farflung's impatience and lack
of belief -
And one person, a pilot, who knows the Bohan story
personally (a helluva lot better than I do), refuses
to come here.
Its been 40 years. A few more weeks isnt going to
change anything? I really suggest patience, if I can!
Farflung 0
Well Robert99, I think this serves as an exemplar of just how deep the dysfunction runs on this very thread.
I intentionally selected a single point from the lore of raging winds to deconstruct, as anything more comprehensive would have been nothing more than a foil for another poorly veiled agenda.
Certain things trigger my Farf-senses when pseudo technical prose is being spewed across my computer screen. Not because I’m looking for it but because it is ‘self evident’. I asked a series of questions about the veracity of data claimed by a source referenced as ‘another researcher’. I suspected the migration from the original data point would be immediate or a crib death with no middle ground. My suspicions became realized…….. again.
Winds. Just the stupid, ignorant, silly, seen it every day for years format which is burned so deep into my subconscious that it will take advanced Alzheimer’s to erase, is painfully obvious in a Clockwork Orange way. Wind direction, like runways have always been rounded to the nearest 10 degrees…… always. Have you ever seen differently? Ahhh…… roger Bugsmasher niner charlie tuna, cleared for takeoff from 323, winds 289…. Ahhhh….. make that 288….. nope…. 289 again with winds…. dang…. now winds are 284, 283, 287…. winds are 6 knots gusting 7, 7 and a quarter. Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you kidding… me? Winds measured to a fidelity of one degree and velocity UNKNOWN??
So the format sucks, the speed too high for final and no one thinks it is worthy of telling the tower or center about this WX that is so freaking unusual. Nope, they just land and tell everyone later. Puhhhhhllllllleaseeeee. Now is a good time for those telling fibs to regroup and try again or those looking for the truth to ask a probative question (like that has ever happened).
As a recap of how it now stands….. the winds were from 160 to 166 degrees with a velocity of 80 knots (adding a secondary source) from an unknown or assumed location, measured by an unknown device with a high azimuth accuracy of one degree. Yep, anyone with flight experience would get behind this in a second. My bad.
I intentionally selected a single point from the lore of raging winds to deconstruct, as anything more comprehensive would have been nothing more than a foil for another poorly veiled agenda.
Certain things trigger my Farf-senses when pseudo technical prose is being spewed across my computer screen. Not because I’m looking for it but because it is ‘self evident’. I asked a series of questions about the veracity of data claimed by a source referenced as ‘another researcher’. I suspected the migration from the original data point would be immediate or a crib death with no middle ground. My suspicions became realized…….. again.
Winds. Just the stupid, ignorant, silly, seen it every day for years format which is burned so deep into my subconscious that it will take advanced Alzheimer’s to erase, is painfully obvious in a Clockwork Orange way. Wind direction, like runways have always been rounded to the nearest 10 degrees…… always. Have you ever seen differently? Ahhh…… roger Bugsmasher niner charlie tuna, cleared for takeoff from 323, winds 289…. Ahhhh….. make that 288….. nope…. 289 again with winds…. dang…. now winds are 284, 283, 287…. winds are 6 knots gusting 7, 7 and a quarter. Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you kidding… me? Winds measured to a fidelity of one degree and velocity UNKNOWN??
So the format sucks, the speed too high for final and no one thinks it is worthy of telling the tower or center about this WX that is so freaking unusual. Nope, they just land and tell everyone later. Puhhhhhllllllleaseeeee. Now is a good time for those telling fibs to regroup and try again or those looking for the truth to ask a probative question (like that has ever happened).
As a recap of how it now stands….. the winds were from 160 to 166 degrees with a velocity of 80 knots (adding a secondary source) from an unknown or assumed location, measured by an unknown device with a high azimuth accuracy of one degree. Yep, anyone with flight experience would get behind this in a second. My bad.
QuoteFarflung wrote
QuoteA. What instrument did Bohan use to divine the measurement of 160-66? (INS, NCS, E6-B)
He might have had one of those Duane Weber transistorized back brace back brace tactile flight directors. The inertial inputs came from home brewed ring laser gyros and accelerometers that Duane cobbed up from some old CB radios.
377
You guys keep on digging me about that - but, it was metal and because of something Duane said one time. I agree the back brace is unlikely, but it was because of a discussion Duane and I had one time. Didn't seem important until we started talking about CB's and Duane's knowledge of CB's and towers and ham radios.
He said something about a wire and transistor - and about a signal felt by someone wearing the wire. That is all I remember of what he said...I do NOT remember when he and I had this discussion, but it was after 1988 when we move to FL. There was a ham operator tower behind us in our neighbors back yard. He kept coming in on our TV - something was put on our antennae or his tower so his communication did not interfer with our reception....Duane handle this - so I didn't know what was done.
We also heard police reports which we thought came thru his tower - on our TV.
The above is the only reason I ever asked you guys about the back brace and you 377 have not let me forget it.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
georger 199
QuoteI concur with Georger on one thing: I would also like to hear from those NOAA meteorologists.
with some luck we all will - but this is of the lowest
priority for these folks - and we all have personal
lives too!
I could present some of their feedback already,
but have agreed to hold that in reserve.
Now, if someone wants to re-interview Rataczack or
somebody else in the meantime - go for it!
Quote
On pages 111-112 of his book, Ralph H. states that Bohan, who was at 14,000 feet, said "I had 80 knots of wind, from 166 degrees, right on my nose."
Himmelsbach did NOT write his book - Himmelsbach tried to catch mistakes made by the writer, but he told me himself that things slid thru. There were lots of questions I put to Ralph about things in his book - and if I pulled the book out there are notations about things I personally questioned him about seeming to conflict thing I was reading in old newpapers and other articles.
Do you believe everything that Geoffrey Gray wrote? Of course not. A writer is just that a writer.
The question you guys have is NOT something I would have thought to quiz RH. What a writer writes - take with a grain of salt. Even Himmelsbach has probably forgotten now about his differences with the writer. I know I am forgetting things.
P.S. What is all of this information about the weather going to do to prove who Cooper was? Even if there was a Storm or High Winds - Cooper did jump and Cooper did survive (nothing has ever been found other than the money on the river Duane Weber put there in late Sept of 1979). I know the FBI has NOT been able to disprove Duane was Cooper!
The story I told about the places Duane took me on the Columbia - was told in 1996 and was the only reasonable answer for that money appearing in the time frame it was found.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
Hominid 0
OK. About your "anomolies":
I don't trust your unnamed researcher. Reversal systems? With an internet search I find no reference to "reversal system" in relation to weather. I've NEVER seen anything about such. I doubt the existence of such a thing. Weather reversal would involve an opposite type front coming to an area. I suggest getting info directly from a meteorologist, especially one in or near Portland.
ANON 2nd hand account of Bohan's existence. Nothing here about weather, much less bad weather.
I would not doubt this. The 8pm forecast for Portland says broken at 2700' base and overcast at 5000' base. This means that, looking up from some position at the airport, the 5000' layer, plus the lower layers, had to be blocking over .9 of the sky. The top layer had to be blocking at least 4/10 of the sky (if the lower 2 layers were blocking .5 of it). It is possible a pilot could see down between clouds in different layers, especially if looking somewhere other than directly at the airport--the reverse of the path used by the airport observer. And the airport observation might have been a little different by 8:15pm.
I would not doubt this. I think the icing is in the data we have, and we have seen a couple of statements about minor turbulence (by Rat if I recall correctly). Neither the icing at 10K' nor the minor turbulence is "bad weather." I would question whether "had their hands full" related to the weather.
I think the term "broken" may not have been used in the same sense that a metorologist or aviator would, but I would not doubt that it was possible to see through the clouds at some times and places. Consistent with weather data we have. Again, not "bad" weather.
"Experts"? Examine what? His word was allegedly good (third hand). But, did he say anything? Nothing here about weather being bad.
Surely not talking about searching the flight path on the night of the hijacking? Rain is not terrible. Fog is not terrible. Snow is not terrible (unless it was in Portland), and it didn't occur around Vancouver that night.
Wet and rainy is "horrible"? HARD rain for an extended time might be "horrible". Cold? Winter, but not even freezing. Wind blowing constantly for a while, or strong wind? Surface weather near water bodies is almost always different than away from the water.
This was in Seattle. What's "rain-lashed"? I don't find that in meteorology stuff. An FBI agent actually said that? Appears that he had been standing out in the light rain for a while. He could have been soaked by mist. Being wet is consistent with weather data we have--not severe weather. Even solid, consistent rain isn't "bad" weather. Where's the part about the gale force winds? The hail?
Where was the flight at 4pm when it said it "was in severe turbulence and hard rain"? Over mountains, like around Toledo? This could have been some significant weather even though the description is qualitative. But where? And this was 4 hours before the time we're concerned with.
The records support the idea of lots of cloud cover on the 24th and 25th. The search and heavy snows came after. Account doesn't support the idea of strong weather on hijack date.
Quote
_ "A meteorologist has told me that the periods
between fronts in this area often produce reversal
systems for a short period. I believe that is what
Bohan was experiencing. And those reverses can
be nasty." (researcher)
I don't trust your unnamed researcher. Reversal systems? With an internet search I find no reference to "reversal system" in relation to weather. I've NEVER seen anything about such. I doubt the existence of such a thing. Weather reversal would involve an opposite type front coming to an area. I suggest getting info directly from a meteorologist, especially one in or near Portland.
Quote
_ "Bohan's fellow pilots were interviewed. He was
thorough and he knew the PDX glide-slope like the
back of his hand. It was his regular run. And he
flew the 727 for Continental. If he was landing at
PDX with strong winds from 160-66, he would have
been using runway 100 coming in from the west...
(another researcher)
ANON 2nd hand account of Bohan's existence. Nothing here about weather, much less bad weather.
Quote
_ "But Rat did see some lights from the his position
on the right, which means he could be seeing either
Portland or Vancouver coming into view. That is what
he said in his interviews with me ..." (researcher)
I would not doubt this. The 8pm forecast for Portland says broken at 2700' base and overcast at 5000' base. This means that, looking up from some position at the airport, the 5000' layer, plus the lower layers, had to be blocking over .9 of the sky. The top layer had to be blocking at least 4/10 of the sky (if the lower 2 layers were blocking .5 of it). It is possible a pilot could see down between clouds in different layers, especially if looking somewhere other than directly at the airport--the reverse of the path used by the airport observer. And the airport observation might have been a little different by 8:15pm.
Quote
_ "Rat reported icing and turbulence .... he described
the flight as 'rough at times' saying he and
Scott 'had their hands full through the Washington
part of the flight' ..." (researcher)
I would not doubt this. I think the icing is in the data we have, and we have seen a couple of statements about minor turbulence (by Rat if I recall correctly). Neither the icing at 10K' nor the minor turbulence is "bad weather." I would question whether "had their hands full" related to the weather.
Quote
_ "Rataczak told me that there was some turbulence
earlier in the flight..............and some icing. But as
the plane neared Vancouver/Portland the clouds were broken." (researcher)
I think the term "broken" may not have been used in the same sense that a metorologist or aviator would, but I would not doubt that it was possible to see through the clouds at some times and places. Consistent with weather data we have. Again, not "bad" weather.
Quote
_ " acquired weather data from NOAA, NWS, PDX
airport, Salem, OR balloon releases...........and had
experts examine all of them. Also, I inteviewed
Bohan's fellow pilots and Bohan's daughter. They
told me that you could take Bohan's word to the
bank...............everytime. What I could not obtain
were flight records into PDX from 1971. That would
have helped ... " (former researcher)
"Experts"? Examine what? His word was allegedly good (third hand). But, did he say anything? Nothing here about weather being bad.
Quote
_ "“The weather had been so terrible—rain, fog,
snow—that agents and local law enforcement could
not search the flight path on foot.” (Geoffrey Gray,
author of Skyjack: The Hunt for D. B. Cooper")
Surely not talking about searching the flight path on the night of the hijacking? Rain is not terrible. Fog is not terrible. Snow is not terrible (unless it was in Portland), and it didn't occur around Vancouver that night.
Quote
_ "The weather the night of DB Cooper's jump
was "horrible" - wet, rainy and cold, and very windy. "
(Dona Elliott, proprietress of the Ariel Tavern)
Wet and rainy is "horrible"? HARD rain for an extended time might be "horrible". Cold? Winter, but not even freezing. Wind blowing constantly for a while, or strong wind? Surface weather near water bodies is almost always different than away from the water.
Quote
_ "At one point, a rain-lashed official in a trenchcoat
walked up to the door of the plane. He was from the
Federal Aviation Administration, but he was very wet.
He requested permission to board, apparently an
attempt to reason with the skyjacker. " (FBI agent
interview & published statement)
This was in Seattle. What's "rain-lashed"? I don't find that in meteorology stuff. An FBI agent actually said that? Appears that he had been standing out in the light rain for a while. He could have been soaked by mist. Being wet is consistent with weather data we have--not severe weather. Even solid, consistent rain isn't "bad" weather. Where's the part about the gale force winds? The hail?
Quote
_ "... we had two flights come in that day, one in the
morning and one in the afternoon around 4:00pm.
The one in the AM encountered rain and a little
turbulence but the one at 4:00pm radioed and said
he was in severe turbulence and hard rain, he
almost turned around and went back, but he came
in and landed. He was very glad to be on the ground
and his face said it all .... that was at 4:00 oclock. I
dont remember any more storm that day and I
finally went home about midnight, but we did listen
to some of the hijacking chatter that evening" (small
airport manager in the corridor)
Where was the flight at 4pm when it said it "was in severe turbulence and hard rain"? Over mountains, like around Toledo? This could have been some significant weather even though the description is qualitative. But where? And this was 4 hours before the time we're concerned with.
Quote
_ “the hijacking occurred two days before the heavy
clouds cleared enough to permit a helicopter search
of the lava foothills and farmlands.” Despite their
efforts, searchers found nothing “and heavy snows
soon sealed the woods off.” (The June 16, 1972,
issue of Life magazine)
The records support the idea of lots of cloud cover on the 24th and 25th. The search and heavy snows came after. Account doesn't support the idea of strong weather on hijack date.
QuoteI think the term "broken" may not have been used in the same sense that a metorologist or aviator would, but I would not doubt that it was possible to see through the clouds at some times and places. Consistent with weather data we have. Again, not "bad" weather.
Layers and cloudy match the description of witness who CLAIM to heard the plane overhead - and CLAIMING they thought it was a plane in trouble.. slightly N.E. of Battelground and above slightly N.W. of Heission.
I find it interesting how many writers take the spoken word out of context. "Such as searching the flight path on the night of the hijacking". It was dark and there was actually noting they could do to find Cooper unless he built a fire!
Quote
_ "At one point, a rain-lashed official in a trenchcoat
walked up to the door of the plane. He was from the
Federal Aviation Administration, but he was very wet.
He requested permission to board, apparently an
attempt to reason with the skyjacker. " (FBI agent
interview & published statement)
This is all "writer wording". They want to make their story stand out and to be read. What did anyone expect the interviewer or publisher to say? For ex: At one point an officlal in a trench coat walked up to the door of the plane. BORING!
The pictures I have seen of the plane on the Tarmac in Seattle didn't look like a storm...just wet!
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
georger 199
The records support the idea of lots of cloud cover on the 24th and 25th. The search and heavy snows came after. Account doesn't support the idea of strong weather on hijack date.
I agree. Little to support a formal designation of
bad or severe weather. However, broken clouds in
the Vancouver area now a possibility vrs the 'totally
dark and impossible' scenario Robt99 has held to -
Likewise, one of the original goals in this thread was
to determine direction of drift. Some drift other than
to the NE as Larry originally thought, now possible ??
Not sure.
Likewise, no particular weather driven impediments
to a stable drop-survival scenario for Cooper, based
on actual data. Anecdotes seem to be just that ...
do not confirm life threateneing conditions for either
a jumper or person on the ground at least not at the
time of the drop.
Farflung, Prior to this discussion, I have never heard of a wind from 160 degrees at 66 knots. This is not found in any source that I am aware of related to the Cooper hijacking. It is not what Bohan was quoted as saying.
Bohan was quoted as saying that the wind at 14,000 feet was from 166 degrees magnetic at 80 knots.
At the approximate time Bohan would have been landing in Portland, the ground wind was listed as being about 10 MPH from a southerly to southwesterly direction.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites