DB Cooper

[Sluggo_Monster 0]

Quote

I agree with you and I agree with Sluggo, given the parameter's Cooper set in place, V 23 was the most obvious. In fact they would have had to work to make the other V's fit.

Now we have to determine why Cooper would have not declared a flight path. What would he gain by assuming, given the parameters he gave, they would take V 23. It may seem like a well beaten horse but it is important because it clears the way in making a strong statement about who Cooper might have been as a person.

I am sure all will be revealed soon.

Ckret,

In my opinion it’s “all about” the two turns. A 27º Left-Turn (at MALAY Fix) and a 24º Right-Turn (at the BTG VOR). Turns easily measured with (even a cheap) compass.

In actuality (the actual route flown, that I just posted) they were a 50º Left-Turn at Toledo and a 48º Right-Turn at the 20:15 location on the map (which actually occurred at 20:14 because of the lost minute). That means he jumped at 20:14 Right over Scholl Airport (historical) which was an FAA ID’ed DZ. (See the parachute on the chart?).

I think the Orchards-Hokinson area would have been a much more productive search area than Merwin Dam (in 1972).

More, when I finish my project. I just couldn’t “not respond” to your post.

Sluggo_Monster

Web Page
Blog
NORJAK Forum

[BigSky 2]

I agree with you and I agree with Sluggo, given the parameter's Cooper set in place, V 23 was the most obvious. In fact they would have had to work to make the other V's fit.

Now we have to determine why Cooper would have not declared a flight path. What would he gain by assuming, given the parameters he gave, they would take V 23. It may seem like a well beaten horse but it is important because it clears the way in making a strong statement about who Cooper might have been as a person.

I am sure all will be revealed soon.


I don’t think we will ever know what he intended by his request. I’m mean sure we can find out that by his request V23 was the only possible flight path but we still don’t know if he planed it or if it was dumb luck. For the record I tend to think he planed it

This is the same with the selection of the chute. There are arguments for and against taking either rig. We will never know for sure if he took one or the other because he knew or thought he knew what he was doing.

“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, th

[snowmman 3]

Very nice job.
Question: It looks like you're labeling the time still with the 20:04 time missing, so times after that are wrong by 1 minute

Wouldn't it make sense to fix that? otherwise when you reference a time after 20:03, it's not clear if you're talking real time, or the error time?

Is there general agreement on the 20:04 mistake now? or no?

Quote

All,

As a by-product of the project I’m working on, I produced a route (track) of the flight path of NWA 305 from when it left SEA to when it landed at RNO.

You will recognize some of the points in this route, the others were gleaned from various reporting points in the transcripts.

To view these you will need Google Earth Ver. 4.xx or greater and the two files attached (Aero_Charts_nl.kml and Actual Route.kmz).

The file Aero_Charts_nl.kml contains Aeronautical Charts for the US. All you have to do is double click on the file and it will load into Google earth. Open Google Earth and open Actual Route.kmz.


Step By Step Instructions:
1. Ensure you have the most up-to-date version of Google Earth by selecting Check for Updates Online in the Help menu. You MUST be using Google Earth Version 4.
2. Open your updated Google Earth.
3. Download the sectional data (see the External Links below).
4. Open the download file, which will automatically load it into Google Earth.
5. When Google Earth begins, you should see a bunch of blue outlines covering the entire US. These are the outlines of each map.
6. Zoom in until you see the name of the map that you want to view.
7. Check the box next to the map name listed under the Places menu on the left side of the screen. That will load the map. You can open one map at a time.

Hints:
• You can also view all of the Terminal Area Charts and 3D airspace polygons. Check under the Places Menu to enable these options.
• The maps don't show up until you zoom in to about 500 miles or less in altitude.
• The maps will load increasingly higher resolution as you zoom in. Give it a few seconds to download the higher resolution tiles when you stop moving the view. There are 1,000s of tiles altogether that make up the maps.
• The 3D airspace polygons are a big file and might take a minute or so to load when you first enable them.
• You can overlay the Terminal Area Charts right on top of the Sectional Charts.

Enjoy,

Sluggo_Monster

If you need additional help, just ask.

[snowmman 3]

I think there's too much theorizing about the flight path, because the theorizing may not include all variables..subtle tells and knobs that might not be predictable by everyone.

The best way to determine if the flight path would be predictable by Cooper, based on the interactions between Cooper and crew, would be to create a script and enact it with a number of different flight crews, and see what flight path they take.

Cooper might have known things about how flight crews think in certain situations.

If they all take the same flight path, then the flight path was predictable. But if different flight paths are chosen, we're not done...

Cooper may have responded if he detected a cue that would lead to other than V23. If the cues told him V23 was likely, he did nothing, so no extra information. We don't know if a non-V23 flight path would have been detected and corrected, with more interaction, by Cooper.

I think people are posing a question that can't be answered. It can be guessed at, with some confidence level.

(edit) Don't understand the focus on wanting to know "dumb luck" vs "planned". I tihnk those two phrases mean nothing for the question, for the reasons outlined above.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I don’t think we will ever know what he intended by his request. I’m mean sure we can find out that by his request V23 was the only possible flight path but we still don’t know if he planed it or if it was dumb luck. For the record I tend to think he planed it

A person with minimal knowledge of the O2 content would make that request.

A skydiver would know that the air thins at 15K.
A private Cessna pilot would know the same.

The request to fly at 10K would allow him to stay in a depressurized cabin and exit at will.

It is most likely accidental that only one particular route would allow that.

Quote

This is the same with the selection of the chute. There are arguments for and against taking either rig. We will never know for sure if he took one or the other because he knew or thought he knew what he was doing.

A person with military-airborne background may not know a lot about their gear, just how to use it.
I can say the same about many skydivers.
So, selection may have been just familiarity.

[snowmman 3]

Quote

A person with military-airborne background may not know a lot about their gear, just how to use it.

Complete knowledge never exists for any technology humans use. Example: do you know everything that happens when you hit "Post Reply" ?

Does it matter?

[Ckret 0]

Bigsky,

I think we have found the answer about the chutes. From everything posted here about the chutes we know the sport chute offered better performance and would have been the better choice. So why did he choose the NB6 if the sport rig was a better choice for the jump he was making.

The answer, I believe, is it was a better choice for Cooper the individual. Cooper chose it with no regard to the type of jump he was making, he chose it based on what he knew. So from this we know he had limited experience jumping. If he had experience, logic dictates he would have chose the sport chute.

To support this theory we can use Cooper's very words, "I want two front and two back chutes." Cooper said this because it was what his experience told him to say, it is what he knew. Based on the experts here, we know that an experienced jumper would not have made the request in this manner.

The actions and words stand as the evidence on Coopers jump experience. To counter that you have to have something that points in the other direction. This is where our DZ experts come in.

Can someone make a logical argument that because Cooper made no specific demands for equipment and he chose the poorer performing chute, that this actually makes him experienced and knowledgeable? From the totality of whats been posted, no. There is no evidence to support this. So the answer then is that Cooepr was not an experienced jumper.

Here's the real problem with all of this as it relates to this forum, indeterminacy. Of course this is good and bad; good because I get to fully vet theories, bad because it goes on forever. In the end though I get to take the good and take the bad, I take them both and there you have the facts...... As I see them.

In regards to V 23, we will see?

[skyjack71 0]

Quote

Quote

The track plotted on the 1971 Chart shows the plane East of V23 until he reached the BTG VOR. Then he turned more westerly and crossed the river just East of Pearson Air Park. This put him back on V-23. He crossed the river essentially on V23, which put him 2.3 miles NW of PDX Where the runways cross). He remained mostly on V-23 (as far as I can tell from the low-resolution image I have), but continued with a very erratic flight-path on into Northern California. That is, if we can believe the plotted track.

Somehow I must have miss this post...but with the maps I have in my possession - the old maps I had that were nothing but black and white copies someone sent me yrs ago.

By using my old maps and realizing where this BTG VOR per more recent maps - This is the area that Duane took me too - the tracks and towers are in this same area. I got goose bumps so bad right now. I had a rush of other thinks he said - it was like going back to that time.

PLEASE CKRET - you have to find out more about DUANE WEBER - because if he is not COOPER then he sure as hell knew who was.

Now, I am crying - no one can understand what I have been trying to tell the FBI and it is all here - there is no Dang way he could take me to that area - there was no way he could know about where Cooper landed, no way unless - he was there.

I missed that post as I do not usually read the technical stuff (I skim it) because I don't grasp a lot of it. Or it could have been on a day I wasn't feeling well and what I was reading didn't hit me...until it was reposted today.

Have to go - I can't see what I am typing. Crying too hard.

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[Ckret 0]

Quote

I think there's too much theorizing about the flight path, because the theorizing may not include all variables..subtle tells and knobs that might not be predictable by everyone.

The best way to determine if the flight path would be predictable by Cooper, based on the interactions between Cooper and crew, would be to create a script and enact it with a number of different flight crews, and see what flight path they take.

Cooper might have known things about how flight crews think in certain situations.

If they all take the same flight path, then the flight path was predictable. But if different flight paths are chosen, we're not done...

Cooper may have responded if he detected a cue that would lead to other than V23. If the cues told him V23 was likely, he did nothing, so no extra information. We don't know if a non-V23 flight path would have been detected and corrected, with more interaction, by Cooper.

I think people are posing a question that can't be answered. It can be guessed at, with some confidence level.

(edit) Don't understand the focus on wanting to know "dumb luck" vs "planned". I tihnk those two phrases mean nothing for the question, for the reasons outlined above.

We know the answer to this, the flight crew was going to take Cooper out over the coast, the crew made no reference to V23 until they were directed to that flight path.

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Quote

I think there's too much theorizing about the flight path, because the theorizing may not include all variables..subtle tells and knobs that might not be predictable by everyone.

The best way to determine if the flight path would be predictable by Cooper, based on the interactions between Cooper and crew, would be to create a script and enact it with a number of different flight crews, and see what flight path they take.

Cooper might have known things about how flight crews think in certain situations.

If they all take the same flight path, then the flight path was predictable. But if different flight paths are chosen, we're not done...

Cooper may have responded if he detected a cue that would lead to other than V23. If the cues told him V23 was likely, he did nothing, so no extra information. We don't know if a non-V23 flight path would have been detected and corrected, with more interaction, by Cooper.

I think people are posing a question that can't be answered. It can be guessed at, with some confidence level.

(edit) Don't understand the focus on wanting to know "dumb luck" vs "planned". I think those two phrases mean nothing for the question, for the reasons outlined above.

We know the answer to this, the flight crew was going to take Cooper out over the coast, the crew made no reference to V23 until they were directed to that flight path.

Could Cooper have known they would be directed to that flight path? Why were they directed to that flight path?

[georger 194]

Need a favour.

I need to know the approximate area within the
flight path V23 from SEA to PDX.

I am assuming 8 miles wide path (4 miles each side
of the center line V23). I am assuming 145 miles
distance from SEA to PDX.

Can someone please confirm these numbers.

(Using the above numbers total area would be 1160 sq mile area.)

Thanks -

[BigSky 2]

"Can someone make a logical argument that because Cooper made no specific demands for equipment and he chose the poorer performing chute, that this actually makes him experienced and knowledgeable? From the totality of whats been posted, no. There is no evidence to support this. So the answer then is that Cooepr was not an experienced jumper. "

Well there is the argument that has been made by several old school jumpers here that he took the bail out rig because it is reliable. That is what that type of rig is for. He didn’t need performance he needed it to work and get him down alive.

“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, th

[georger 194]

Quote

My theory involves the briefcase that he brought on.
Cooper was nervous and brought his neighbors cat to relax and comfort him.

In fact, he had Schrodingers Cat.

The cat may have survived the opening shock or not.
The briefcase holding the cat may have broken loose and the cat fell to its death inside, or perhaps lived.

Of course, it is only a theory because no one observed the cat. It may actually be extraneous and implausible.


REPLY: I should have taken this seriously, but didnt at the time and I apologise for that. Your point is very
well taken. The central issue at stake you point out is Uncertainty.

Schroedinger's example was a direct response to the
issue of uncertainty inherent at the time in the world
of physics, following a paper where Einstein discussed the uncertainties involved in observing and measuring
subatomic particles. (The Einstein-Poldosky-Rosen Effect.)

At the time historically, there was a 1 in 2.35x10(19) chance (theoretically) of targeting an electron within the normal field of a hydrogen nucleus. That number was brand new and had never been calculated before and it staggered people trying to imagine how such a small probability could exist while Nature and the world
continued to exist, and if there might be something
fundamentally wrong with physics itself! (The Einstein-
Poldosky-Rosen Effect, ie superpositioning of elementary particles)

The Schroedinger's Paradox turned out not real.
Ironically, the Schroedinger model of the atom is
still used in many classrooms today. It is long out
of date.

The uncertainties implicit in the Cooper case are
huge orders of magnitude less than those involved
in quantum physics, which Schroedinger and others were dealing with at the time, and for different reasons. The whole platform for uncertainty is
different between the two examples.


But, Iam glad you brought this up because this puts the whole Cooper matter in perspective, compared to
other things in our world.

I hope you find this a satisfactory answer.

George (physicist, Eastern Iowa Observatory and Learning Center)

Here is one of my pet projects:
http://www.cedar-astronomers.org/paldows.htm

[377 20]

Quote

"Can someone make a logical argument that because Cooper made no specific demands for equipment and he chose the poorer performing chute, that this actually makes him experienced and knowledgeable? From the totality of whats been posted, no. There is no evidence to support this. So the answer then is that Cooepr was not an experienced jumper. "

Well there is the argument that has been made by several old school jumpers here that he took the bail out rig because it is reliable. That is what that type of rig is for. He didn’t need performance he needed it to work and get him down alive.

I used to think Cooper was an experienced skydiver (sport jumper) but Ckret has convinced me otherwise. The sport rig would have been my choice for several reasons:

1. steerable canopy, a very big deal if you are jumping into unknown ground hazards. A sport rig canopy sleeve means less opening shock too, which is something to think about if you have to pull at a speed above terminal velocity.

2. you could hook a reserve canopy/container to it, a second chance if the main failed and (importantly), a way down from a tree.

I'd much rather have a steerable sleeved main and a reserve than a military pilot main rig, even if the military rig was more reliable.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[Sluggo_Monster 0]

All,

As I continue, I have looked closely at fuel burn rate and how it might have affected the route decision making process. While doing this, some puzzling issues have surfaced.

I welcome help from any and all people who can find something wrong with my calculations. I have a fair amount of confidence, but it just doesn’t seem right.

The data and calculations:

Weight of Fuel 3.01825 kg/gal (6.700lb/gal)

Fuel Flt 305 had onboard on ground in Seattle = ??? gal

Useable Fuel Capacity for 727-100 (51) = 7,680 gal

Took on in SEA 50,000 lbs or 7,462 gal

Must have had only 218 useable gal at SEA

So, Flt 305 left SEA with 7,680 gal (51,460 lbs) of fuel

On the ground at RNO Flt 305 stated they would needed 35,000 to 40,000 lbs of fuel.

So, they must have burned 40,000 lbs or 5,970 gal.

Flt 305 reported a burn rate at 7,000 ft MSL and 160 KIAS as 4,500 gal/hr.

Flt 305 reported a burn rate at 10,000 ft MSL and 160 KIAS as 4,000 gal/hr.

The flight took 3:29 (3.483 hours)

Their fuel burn rate from SEA to RNO was 5,970 gal/3.483 hrs = 1,714 gal/hr.

The big mystery #1:
Why the big difference between the reported burn rate and the actual? I could see a small difference just due to flow gauge reading fluctuation (maybe as much as 20%), but this is a difference of 42%. In fact, They wouldn't have made RNO at the reported burn rate.

The big mystery #2:
Did they really have only approximately 218 useable gal. when they stopped on the taxiway at Seattle? I know they were in the air a lot longer than planned (Circling out near LOFAL Fix), but at normal burn rate 1,356 gal/hr. that’s about 10 min of fuel left.

There may have been a version with 8,186 US gal useable fuel capacity, which doesn’t change the SEA to RNO burn rate but would allow for 724 gal onboard at SEA. That would be about 32 min worth. There is no evidence in the transcripts that they were panicking about low fuel. I would have been.



Let me know,

Sluggo_Monster

Web Page
Blog
NORJAK Forum

[BigSky 2]

Quote

Quote

"Can someone make a logical argument that because Cooper made no specific demands for equipment and he chose the poorer performing chute, that this actually makes him experienced and knowledgeable? From the totality of whats been posted, no. There is no evidence to support this. So the answer then is that Cooepr was not an experienced jumper. "

Well there is the argument that has been made by several old school jumpers here that he took the bail out rig because it is reliable. That is what that type of rig is for. He didn’t need performance he needed it to work and get him down alive.

I used to think Cooper was an experienced skydiver (sport jumper) but Ckret has convinced me otherwise. The sport rig would have been my choice for several reasons:

1. steerable canopy, a very big deal if you are jumping into unknown ground hazards. A sport rig canopy sleeve means less opening shock too, which is something to think about if you have to pull at a speed above terminal velocity.

2. you could hook a reserve canopy/container to it, a second chance if the main failed and (importantly), a way down from a tree.

I'd much rather have a steerable sleeved main and a reserve than a military pilot main rig, even if the military rig was more reliable.

377

Although I don’t totally disagree with you, a steerable canopy is not necessarily a better choice for landing in the woods. There is a reason smoke jumpers still use rounds today.

“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, th

[skyjack71 0]

Happy Birthday, Duane.
Born June 18, 1924.

The brother has told me that the family records show him as having been born in 1925. The mother changed is birth certificate so he could go into the service.

Died March 28, 1995.

If spirits have bodies and emotions I know you would be smiling like a Cheshire Cat.
Cat's have nine lives - don't they?

I didn't know it was your birthday until a few moments ago - so I guess that is why I have felt you close today.

You chose to give me reconciliation when I read that post I replied to earlier - things you told me and places you took me - the memories flooded my mind.

My heart is heavy and I have done all I can do - now the rest is up the powers that be. I have to let go of the burden you left with me as it has destroyed my health and my life.

Your Wife,
Jo

Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber

[Sluggo_Monster 0]

Quote

Very nice job.

Question: It looks like you're labeling the time still with the 20:04 time missing, so times after that are wrong by 1 minute

Wouldn't it make sense to fix that? otherwise when you reference a time after 20:03, it's not clear if you're talking real time, or the error time?

snowmman,

Thank you.

Yes I am. I firmly believe that the chart got mislabeled. But, as of now that’s just my opinion. I am not willing to start changing the point-times until I have actually contacted someone who knows something about how those red tic-marks were placed on the chart.

When you line up this track with the tracks from the FBI LZ map, the A-B line is about 1 NM North of the 20:11 labeled point. So, I’m just not sure what I’m “thinking I’m seeing” is what the person who prepared the plot “wanted me to see.”

More info, from Ckret, USAF, NWA, Boeing, someone, and I’ll change it.

Quote

Is there general agreement on the 20:04 mistake now? or no?

Doesn’t matter, consensus doesn’t make fact.

Sluggo_Monster

Web Page
Blog
NORJAK Forum

[snowmman 3]

Sluggo: I thought there was some discussion in the transcripts of changing the flap/wheel configuration after Cooper had jumped. (which would be a prediction)

Do we know that the flap/wheel configuration was consistent thru the flight, so that the fuel burns mentioned were consistent thru the flight?

I don't think we do?

Quote

All,

As I continue, I have looked closely at fuel burn rate and how it might have affected the route decision making process. While doing this, some puzzling issues have surfaced.

I welcome help from any and all people who can find something wrong with my calculations. I have a fair amount of confidence, but it just doesn’t seem right.

The data and calculations:

Weight of Fuel 3.01825 kg/gal (6.700lb/gal)

Fuel Flt 305 had onboard on ground in Seattle = ??? gal

Useable Fuel Capacity for 727-100 (51) = 7,680 gal

Took on in SEA 50,000 lbs or 7,462 gal

Must have had only 218 useable gal at SEA

So, Flt 305 left SEA with 7,680 gal (51,460 lbs) of fuel

On the ground at RNO Flt 305 stated they would needed 35,000 to 40,000 lbs of fuel.

So, they must have burned 40,000 lbs or 5,970 gal.

Flt 305 reported a burn rate at 7,000 ft MSL and 160 KIAS as 4,500 gal/hr.

Flt 305 reported a burn rate at 10,000 ft MSL and 160 KIAS as 4,000 gal/hr.

The flight took 3:29 (3.483 hours)

Their fuel burn rate from SEA to RNO was 5,970 gal/3.483 hrs = 1,714 gal/hr.

The big mystery #1:
Why the big difference between the reported burn rate and the actual? I could see a small difference just due to flow gauge reading fluctuation (maybe as much as 20%), but this is a difference of 42%. In fact, They wouldn't have made RNO at the reported burn rate.

The big mystery #2:
Did they really have only approximately 218 useable gal. when they stopped on the taxiway at Seattle? I know they were in the air a lot longer than planned (Circling out near LOFAL Fix), but at normal burn rate 1,356 gal/hr. that’s about 10 min of fuel left.

There may have been a version with 8,186 US gal useable fuel capacity, which doesn’t change the SEA to RNO burn rate but would allow for 724 gal onboard at SEA. That would be about 32 min worth. There is no evidence in the transcripts that they were panicking about low fuel. I would have been.



Let me know,

Sluggo_Monster

[Ckret 0]

Bigsky,

Don't mean to take you to task, but I think these are the closing arguments to the long debated subject of Cooper's jump experience.

Are sport chutes not reliable? If Cooper chose the NB6 because it is reliable and the sport chute is not, you people have choosen one hell of a sport to participate in.

Lastly, why do smoke jumpers use chutes today that they cannot effectivly control, as was the case in Coopers jump? Or, do they use rounds they can control, which then comparison to Cooper's jump has no merit. If smoke jumpers do use rounds that cannot effectivly be controled, why? That makes no sense to me.

[Ckret 0]

"Doesn’t matter, consensus doesn’t make fact.

Sluggo_Monster"


Goes along the lines of, "perception is reality"..... to the sheep. Thats why you, Sluggo Monster, howl at the moon. Don't wolves eat sheep?

[snowmman 3]

Quote

I think the Orchards-Hokinson area would have been a much more productive search area than Merwin Dam (in 1972).
Sluggo_Monster

1) I don't see why you mention Orchards-Hockinson, given SE(?) winds? Seems to be the wrong side of the flight path. Assuming you meant Hockinson?
2) As a corollary to this theorem, are you saying the money bag didn't fall into the Columbia then? It's almost 6 miles from Orchards to the Columbia. I don't see any hydrology I'd fall in love with that would transport it to the Ingram site.

Basically I don't understand your predicted search area.
Can you explain why you picked that area?

(edit) Ah, did you leave yourself an out: in 1972? If that was on purpose. it's still odd because of wind direction. Also what would be your 1980 search site?

[Mr.Nuke 0]

Quote

Now we have to determine why Cooper would have not declared a flight path. What would he gain by assuming, given the parameters he gave, they would take V 23. It may seem like a well beaten horse but it is important because it clears the way in making a strong statement about who Cooper might have been as a person.

I still say the more important question is what did he have to lose. If Cooper had said "fly below 10,000, with gear and flaps down, oh and hey I see my previous two requirements dictate you should take V-23 so please fly V-23... Then it becomes very difficult to say that he did not have aviation experience or at the minimum spent significantly more effort planning things than what people thought. I guess my thought is if you planned the route knowing that there is a 99% chance your demands will lead to V-23, why blow the ambiguity it and say fly V-23. I understand demanding V-23 guarantees the route, which seems like an important step for someone planning a specific jump, but I am still of the opinion that he basically did demand V-23. Whether he knew he did or not is a different story.

[snowmman 3]

a line of thought along Nuke's lines:
If Cooper demands V-23, then they know he wants/needs V-23, and the possibility exists that they make up a reason why they can't take V-23...then it becomes a battle of wits with Cooper arguing he knows more than them and they can take V-23. Look at the stupid arguments about the stair deployment, refuel time etc.

If you tell people what you want, they they have leverage. Don't give people leverage and you're more in control. If they didn't give him V-23, he might give up.

Quote

Quote

Now we have to determine why Cooper would have not declared a flight path. What would he gain by assuming, given the parameters he gave, they would take V 23. It may seem like a well beaten horse but it is important because it clears the way in making a strong statement about who Cooper might have been as a person.

I still say the more important question is what did he have to lose. If Cooper had said "fly below 10,000, with gear and flaps down, oh and hey I see my previous two requirements dictate you should take V-23 so please fly V-23... Then it becomes very difficult to say that he did not have aviation experience or at the minimum spent significantly more effort planning things than what people thought. I guess my thought is if you planned the route knowing that there is a 99% chance your demands will lead to V-23, why blow the ambiguity it and say fly V-23. I understand demanding V-23 guarantees the route, which seems like an important step for someone planning a specific jump, but I am still of the opinion that he basically did demand V-23. Whether he knew he did or not is a different story.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Lastly, why do smoke jumpers use chutes today that they cannot effectively control, as was the case in Coopers jump? Or, do they use rounds they can control, which then comparison to Cooper's jump has no merit. If smoke jumpers do use rounds that cannot effectively be controlled, why? That makes no sense to me.

Just because its a round, it doesn't mean that the canopy is not controllable. If comparing a 26ft lopo to a Velocity, then sure, its not as "steerable;" however, that does not mean that the round can not steer at all.

Sport canopies of the time had more maneuverability then the military versions. Many times it was the same canopy, but with panels removed to increase the forward speed and to add to the steer-ability of the canopy. Even today with the T-10s that the US military still jumps, there is a bit of steer-ability to them. It has to do with dumping air and deflecting the canopy using the risers, its not like jumping a ParaCommander, but it still works ok and steers to a degree.

Smoke jumpers jump round gear for a number of reasons which include the following: stability in extreme thermal conditions, survivability during tree landings, low cost of disposable gear and ease of training. That doesn't mean their gear is any less then modern sport gear, just that their gear is suited and tailored to their task at hand.

In terms of Cooper, I think that the rig and canopy choice was made out of ignorance and familiarity. The choice wasn't an educated choice of function or dependability.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."