DB Cooper

[snowmman 3]

He's walking down the street now doing some Christmas shopping, 37 years later.
Everything's cool.

Then some yahoo runs up to him and says

"You're Duane Weber, aren't you?"


If that happens, then Jo will have done her duty.

(edit)
The surest sign of lunacy, is the belief that there is any magic "truth" in any FBI files. There is no truth anywhere, why would you expect a taste of it in FBI files? There's more "truth" in gravity and that's in no FBI file.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

he and Duane were in WA and OR and ID together...JUMPING.

Oh really? I'm sure Ckret - and everyone else here - would love to see proof of what you originally came onto this site to prove.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

I think one of the "feels" I get about skydiving from DZ.com, right or wrong, is that somehow longetivity in the sport is coupled to something. I don't know what. .

Yes, it's coupled to the chances of you surviving the next time you make a jump.

Quote

It'd be nice to have annual numbers for PCA/USPA from '62-70. I just randomly found that one '62 number. Looking at current USPA memberships numbers, I've always wondered if there was a straight linear increase or did it peak at some points, like '71 and decrease etc. I don't know.

Judging by now, I'd guess it ebbs when oil prices rise. But as the Cooper hijacking happened very soon after Nixon lost the gold standard - i.e. just after an era of stable/fixed commodity prices - that probably would not have been a factor in 62-71. Other things might have of course . You got thos quotes from a Poynter book right - maybe you can try emailing him to see if he has annual data, or mailing USPA itself?

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Right. But if you're a hijacker, currency requirements are only interesting if there are rapid changes in available gear. At the period we're interested in, Cooper got gear that was not much different since the prior 12 years or so, right?

Hope I am not missing your point again. IF you are looking at a hijacker with night jump experience, then currency requirements are important to allow you to advance in your jumping to be able to do a night jump. If he had done all this 12 years prior to the hijack, or you don't care about night jumps, then sure currency in 71 isn't an issue.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Night jumps are required for C-license, and if USPA follows same rules as my association you are not allowed to do night jumps without a B-license. iow if you are looking for USPA/PCA member he would have had to have B-lic to (legally) have done night jumps before. Not sure how many jumps were required for C-license in those days (jump # requirements for licenses have increased over the years)?

Not sure how the rules used to work, but currently night jumps are required for a D licence not a C and you don't have to have a B license to make night jumps, you just have to have logged all the requirements for a B license.

Owned by Remi #?

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Not sure how the rules used to work, but currently night jumps are required for a D licence not a C and you don't have to have a B license to make night jumps, you just have to have logged all the requirements for a B license.

Thanks for the clarification - PASA requires solo night jumps for the C (FS ones for D), I assumed USPA was the same...my bad!

logging requirements for a B or actually having the B doesn't really matter in this context - the point being re the jumps that have to be done.

Do any of you oldtimers have a copy of what the rules were in the 60s?

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Thanks for the clarification - PASA requires solo night jumps for the C (FS ones for D), I assumed USPA was the same...my bad!

USPA is a little different, but not much. 1 solo and 1 FS for the D.

Quote

logging requirements for a B or actually having the B doesn't really matter in this context - the point being re the jumps that have to be done.

Agreed unless you're looking for a paper trail.

Quote

Do any of you oldtimers have a copy of what the rules were in the 60s?

Not me, sorry. I don't know where to get one other than perhaps USPA archives.

Owned by Remi #?

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Quote

I think one of the "feels" I get about skydiving from DZ.com, right or wrong, is that somehow longetivity in the sport is coupled to something. I don't know what. .

Yes, it's coupled to the chances of you surviving the next time you make a jump..

I'm just a whuffo, so I can say this.

But I think that belief that experience directly couples to survival, is just something you guys all believe in, otherwise you wouldn't keep doing it. I'm not sure if you guys keep a database with a consensus "cause" of every injury, that goes back a ways.

I'd like to see the data on experience vs injury. My guess is that inexperience doesn't couple as closely as you'd like.

Usually it's because the "thing" that gets done doesn't stay static..i.e. as you get more experience, you have to change the "thing" so the buzz stays the same. Maybe I'm generalizing only for some. There's a little bit of the drug addict idea of chasing the same initial high. It takes discipline I guess to not go too far.

It's possible the risk gets dialed in so it's constant for an entire career? Dunno.

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Quote

Right. But if you're a hijacker, currency requirements are only interesting if there are rapid changes in available gear. At the period we're interested in, Cooper got gear that was not much different since the prior 12 years or so, right?

Hope I am not missing your point again. IF you are looking at a hijacker with night jump experience, then currency requirements are important to allow you to advance in your jumping to be able to do a night jump. If he had done all this 12 years prior to the hijack, or you don't care about night jumps, then sure currency in 71 isn't an issue.

right. If we agree some skills were necessary, the skills could have been acquired a while back and still be usable, because the gear hadn't changed enough such that the skills learned were unusable.

I have a couple of guesses
-Because of Cooper's age, he learned the skills up to 10 years earlier. Can't go back much further than that, because civilian jumping was just taking off around '60 say?
-He didn't need to stay current in jumping in the US. Could he have stayed current some other way? Dunno.
-He was non-military
-There were a lot of non-military US citizens in Southeast Asia as part of the Vietnam war
-He didn't necessarily stay in the US before or after the hijack.
-The "mediterranean" skin color makes me think of a tan, as do the sunglasses.
-I have no idea how the FBI conducted their search, so I'm just going to assume they weren't able to accurately search PCA/USPA membership from '62-'70. I have no idea.

[snowmman 3]

It's also a mistake to believe that "breakthroughs" in a sport are only done by those at the currently perceived "top end" of the sport.

Sports are always defined by rules, perceptions, cultural attitudes.

There are precedents for "newcomers" who would be labelled "unskilled" for the times, doing something that is considered unprecedented but then turns out to be doable...i.e. the limit was mental, not physical.

Newcomers are not burdened by the same mental things, or are crazily motivated to "prove" themselves quickly in a sport, and so can more easily achieve the breakthrough. Now sometimes obviously that's a false belief and they die or whatever.

Yes, it's dangerous etc. But the reality is, that sometimes newcomers do break boundaries. It's just a fact. And yes sometimes they die trying.

[snowmman 3]

(I accidently overwrote this post. repost)
I think all that matters is whether you could have gotten on a plane to do at least one night jump?

from the Archway DZ:
http://archwaysafety.blogspot.com/2007/05/night-jump.html

"B. Qualifications

1. Skydivers participating in night jumping should meet all the requirements for a USPA B or higher license.
2. Participants should complete a comprehensive briefing and drill within 60 days before the intended night jump.

a. The training should be conducted by a USPA Safety & Training Advisor
(S&TA), Instructor Examiner, or Instructor, who holds a USPA D license.
b. The training (including the date and location) should be documented in the jumper's logbook and signed by the USPA S&TA, I/E, or Instructor."

(edit) confirmed at USPA site
U.S. Parachute Association > About Skydiving > Glossary
Persons holding a USPA B License are authorized to participate in the USPA collegiate 4-way formation skydiving event, perform night jumps, ...

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Hope I am not missing your point again. IF you are looking at a hijacker with night jump experience, then currency requirements are important to allow you to advance in your jumping to be able to do a night jump. If he had done all this 12 years prior to the hijack, or you don't care about night jumps, then sure currency in 71 isn't an issue.

I should have added : OR he could have got night jump experience in the military...

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think one of the "feels" I get about skydiving from DZ.com, right or wrong, is that somehow longetivity in the sport is coupled to something. I don't know what. .

Yes, it's coupled to the chances of you surviving the next time you make a jump..

I'm just a whuffo, so I can say this.

But I think that belief that experience directly couples to survival, is just something you guys all believe in, otherwise you wouldn't keep doing it. I'm not sure if you guys keep a database with a consensus "cause" of every injury, that goes back a ways.

I'd like to see the data on experience vs injury. My guess is that inexperience doesn't couple as closely as you'd like.

Usually it's because the "thing" that gets done doesn't stay static..i.e. as you get more experience, you have to change the "thing" so the buzz stays the same. Maybe I'm generalizing only for some. There's a little bit of the drug addict idea of chasing the same initial high. It takes discipline I guess to not go too far.

It's possible the risk gets dialed in so it's constant for an entire career? Dunno.

Well, you may be able to get some stats if you care to sift through all the fatality reports in the incidents forum (which include jump numbers and often comments on currency). There seem to be 2 main types of injury/death in incidents. One is a positive correlation with experience, where highly experienced jumpers perhaps push the envelope or get complacent (or are just flying gear and doing maneouvers that are completely unforgiving of any mistake). The other is inexperience - either low jump numbers (less than a few hundred) OR inexperience in a particular discipline eg swooping, wingsuiting, because inexperience means you cannot always react as fast or as correctly as you need to in a given situation. Other skydivers feel free to correct me, but this is my impression - the 500-1000 jump jumper hurting himself on a "normal" skydive does happen, but it's fairly rare.

Your "drug addict" (adrenalin addict?) analogy probably only deals with about 10% of the people in the sport. Yes there is research on this, somewhere... most skydivers do it for the challenge/feel of flying/whatever not to to try keep on with adrenalin rushes.

Lots of experience would presuppose (at least at some stage) decent currency. Currency rules didn't just happen because someone once thought it was a good idea. They became part of the Basic Safety Requirements (BSRs) for a reason. As is mentioned a number of times in other forums, particularly S&T and Incidents - the BSRs were written in blood.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[Orange1 0]

Quote

It's also a mistake to believe that "breakthroughs" in a sport are only done by those at the currently perceived "top end" of the sport.

Sports are always defined by rules, perceptions, cultural attitudes.

There are precedents for "newcomers" who would be labelled "unskilled" for the times, doing something that is considered unprecedented but then turns out to be doable...i.e. the limit was mental, not physical.

Newcomers are not burdened by the same mental things, or are crazily motivated to "prove" themselves quickly in a sport, and so can more easily achieve the breakthrough. Now sometimes obviously that's a false belief and they die or whatever.

Yes, it's dangerous etc. But the reality is, that sometimes newcomers do break boundaries. It's just a fact. And yes sometimes they die trying.

I agree and yes of course it happens in jumping too, just perhaps not as easily as some other risk sports -this is because skydivers need a plane to take them up and DZOs generally don't like fatalities at their DZs. People get turned away from DZs or grounded, i'm not sure how many other risk sports you would get similar sorts of restraints/constraints imposed.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[snowmman 3]

Quote

Your "drug addict" (adrenalin addict?) analogy probably only deals with about 10% of the people in the sport. Yes there is research on this, somewhere... most skydivers do it for the challenge/feel of flying/whatever not to to try keep on with adrenalin rushes.

You may be right Orange1, or in denial, or just representing the people you come in contact with. Don't know. Remember I'm thinking about the full range of A to D licensees.
(edit) OH: and we only care about the '62-'71 period. You may be describing "today" better?

Interesting blog summarizing some academic/psych stuff that you guys will piss on, but that's fair enough.

http://shut-up-and-jump.blogspot.com/2008/01/reversal-theory-skydiving.html

"The reversal theory literature uncovers a number of clues as to what drives risk sport participants. The most relevant factor appears to be arousal/excitement-seeking.

The study described in [1], analyzing expert (as opposed to recreational) performers in skydiving and motorcycle racing, showed higher arousal-seeking scores compared to marathon runners. Thatcher et al. reached the same conclusion in [4], associating individuals involved in risk sports with paratelic (excitement-seeking) dominance."

[snowmman 3]

The most galling thing to skydivers must be the thought that a beancounter would analyze their behavior and just bin it the same way as any other human behavior. It's cold because it's just about making or losing money.

Here's a nice paper from insurance folks, covering risk activities, in South Africa. (2004)
Has some graphs
https://www.genre.com/sharedfile/pdf/RiskInsightsNovember2004.pdf#page=15

It covered 6 main activities:
Aviation
Scuba Diving
Auto Racing
Mountain Climbing
Commercial Fisherman
Skydiving

I thought the last two were interesting. Is it just coincidence that 377 has commercial fishing background??

On page 17, analyzing skydiving, it has this sentence:

"The most experienced group of jumpers hold D license and this group accounts for 72% of deaths, following by student licensees at 12%"

sure there's some statistics twisting there, but if true, I suspect some of the thoughts I stated before are not far off.

(edit) HEY! I just saw that B license only requires 50 jumps? And I can get on a load for a night jump with just a B license? (not sure yet what B license was in '62-'71)

(edit) Nice paper written by a military guy for thesis in '93..includes history of Military Free Fall (MFF).
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA272720&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
On page 20 of the pdf, it says that MFF students make an average of 28 freefall jumps? and then they're qualified for "night high-altitude jumps with combat equipment"

Prior posts have gone on about how much "skill" is needed for a night jump because of disorientation etc. Has this skill requirement been overstated?

[Orange1 0]

Quote

The most galling thing to skydivers must be the thought that a beancounter would analyze their behavior and just bin it the same way as any other human behavior. It's cold because it's just about making or losing money.

Here's a nice paper from insurance folks, covering risk activities, in South Africa. (2004)
Has some graphs
https://www.genre.com/sharedfile/pdf/RiskInsightsNovember2004.pdf#page=15

It covered 6 main activities:
Aviation
Scuba Diving
Auto Racing
Mountain Climbing
Commercial Fisherman
Skydiving

I thought the last two were interesting. Is it just coincidence that 377 has commercial fishing background??

On page 17, analyzing skydiving, it has this sentence:

"The most experienced group of jumpers hold D license and this group accounts for 72% of deaths, following by student licensees at 12%"

sure there's some statistics twisting there, but if true, I suspect some of the thoughts I stated before are not far off.

(edit) HEY! I just saw that B license only requires 50 jumps? And I can get on a load for a night jump with just a B license? (not sure yet what B license was in '62-'71)

B-license in SA requires 75 jumps, but all licencses are not just jump numbers but various requirements (certain ability tests basically) as well as written tests. You don't get a b-license just by doing 50 or 75 solo jumps.
fwiw i don't need special medical insurance to cover skydiving here, it is included in my normal one - they specify risk sports- #1 on their list of those is mountain biking.

re experienced fatalities, did you read what i wrote earlier? bear in mind student gear is much safer (eg you can't stall a student canopy). yet you still have fatalities...

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[snowmman 3]

Quote

re experienced fatalities, did you read what i wrote earlier? bear in mind student gear is much safer (eg you can't stall a student canopy). yet you still have fatalities...

Yes. We're not in disagreement. We just don't have numbers.

For instance, it would be interesting to know if the fatality rate per # jumps, is constant regardless of years in the sport.

by "# jumps" I mean a total of all jumps done in a year, by everyone within a certain bin of skill level...D license holders do more jumps per year? (guess) so even if they have a higher representation in fatalities (from that SA paper), it doesn't mean that risk is skewed towards D jumpers.

My guess is that the whole "thing" is adjusted so that risk is constant across skill levels. I think the adjustment happens to a water level of acceptable risk..i.e. how many deaths before people say "that's nuts...no one should do that any more"

It's like driving cars. What's an acceptable # of deaths for the benefit/cost tradeoff?

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Quote

re experienced fatalities, did you read what i wrote earlier? bear in mind student gear is much safer (eg you can't stall a student canopy). yet you still have fatalities...

Yes. We're not in disagreement. We just don't have numbers.

For instance, it would be interesting to know if the fatality rate per # jumps, is constant regardless of years in the sport.

by "jumps" I mean a total of all jumps done in a year, by everyone within a certain bin of skill level...D license holders do more jumps per year? (guess) so even if they have a higher representation in fatalities (from that SA paper), it doesn't mean that risk is skewed towards D jumpers.

My guess is that the whole "thing" is adjusted so that risk is constant across skill levels. I think the adjustment happens to a water level of acceptable risk..i.e. how many deaths before people say "that's nuts...no one should do that any more"

It's like driving cars. What's an acceptable # of deaths for the benefit/cost tradeoff?

you should get some idea if you look at the fatality database, as I suggested..if you have the inclination to put all the data in excel.

the 10% (adrenalin jinky)I referred to earlier came from a paper referenced here and elsewhere on risk behaviour, finding in sports such as skydiving and mountain climbing that most people do the sports in spite of, rather than because of, the risks. I tried to find it but evidently haven't come up with the right search term yet Anwyay, none of this probably has any bearing on Cooper.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[snowmman 3]

reading that MFF paper...
page 30 of the pdf

"The U.S. Army did not initially support the freefall parachuting idea. Not until 1959, when the Strategic Army Corps Parachuting Team was formed at Fort Bragg, did the Army take a serious interest in freefall parachuting."

So while the use of parachutes for flight crew emergencies has a longer history, I'm still comfortable with the idea of '62-'71 being a possible experience window...leaning towards civilian but who knows, maybe somehow military was involved. I'm also biased to the lower skill levels. Like PCA/USPA B level (or above)

[Orange1 0]

not what i was looking for but same conclusion:

(on adrenalin junky mode:)
There have been many studies on what kind of people take risks. Scientists generally agree that the genetic makeup of the typical risk-taking person is exhibited in certain characteristics. For instance, there seems to be strong evidence that men are more likely to enjoy taking risks than women. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, since men have almost always been thehunters and explorers and women have usually stayed close to the children andcared for them and the men in less adventurous, but no less important, ways.However, there are many women today who enjoy taking risks as well--among them many distinguished aerobatic pilots, rock climbers, skiers, hang gliders,and others. (It may be that cultural conditioning and lack of opportunity account for the large gender difference in such activities.) In addition, risk takers seem to have in common an enhanced ability for dopamine reuptake, i.e.,their brains respond more strongly to the chemicals released during stress.One Israeli study claimed in 1996 to have found what it called the "risk gene," labeling it D4DR, for "fourth dopamine receptor gene." They even located it on the 11th chromosome and pinpointed its function in the limbic portion ofthe brain. However, the study also said the gene would be responsible for only 10 percent of human risk-taking behavior. (http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/15/Risk-taking-behaviors.html)

A quick search sees a number of authors talking about "risk normalization" - i.e. that skydivers quicly accept the "risk" as a normal thing and once they do that the sport is basically regarded as "just another sport". Most jumpers I know would agree with this I think.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Interesting blog summarizing some academic/psych stuff that you guys will piss on, but that's fair enough.

http://shut-up-and-jump.blogspot.com/2008/01/reversal-theory-skydiving.html

If you're into studying the psychology of skydiving and skydivers, you may find this book an interesting read. By all your researching and posting here it appears you are into this aspect fairly deep.

Mental Training for Skydiving and Life

Taken from an original 'whuffo' view and written by our pro team's sports psychologist.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

A quick search sees a number of authors talking about "risk normalization" - i.e. that skydivers quicly accept the "risk" as a normal thing and once they do that the sport is basically regarded as "just another sport". Most jumpers I know would agree with this I think.

Word.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[snowmman 3]

Quote

A quick search sees a number of authors talking about "risk normalization" - i.e. that skydivers quicly accept the "risk" as a normal thing and once they do that the sport is basically regarded as "just another sport". Most jumpers I know would agree with this I think.

Right!
so it's fair to theorize that longetivity has more to do with enjoyment of the sport, whether it's social aspects, the actual events or whatever.

People keep doing it cause it's fun.

It might also explain why Cooper wouldn't have kept doing it. He might not have been about "fun" in the same way.

I think we have to remind ourselves that Cooper is likely not about "mean" behavior, or 10% behavior. It's probably about 1% behavior. And not "bragging about being 1% behavior" like the Hells Angels do. But real 1% behavior/motivations. Kind of the sicker stuff where you turn your head away and say "that's not real life"...but it is.

[georger 197]

Quote

He's walking down the street now doing some Christmas shopping, 37 years later.
Everything's cool.

Then some yahoo runs up to him and says

"You're Duane Weber, aren't you?"


If that happens, then Jo will have done her duty.

(edit)
The surest sign of lunacy, is the belief that there is any magic "truth" in any FBI files. There is no truth anywhere, why would you expect a taste of it in FBI files? There's more "truth" in gravity and that's in no FBI file.

I have sat patiently still while you and 377 throw
'gravity waves' around. Reconsider your metaphor.
Its a bit out of date by decades. Its no biggie but
thought I should mention this, just in case Jo's
next reincarnation is as a physicist-hotel clerk!
Then my gluons would unhinge.

The book I want to read is the book where each FBI agent on Sluggo's list writes a chapter. Dont know
if such a thing would even be possible but it might make good reading. (There you go Ckret. A retirement
project of merit!).

G.