All,

Been going over all the 302, radio transcripts and this forum trying to find out who was talking to whom on the flight from Portland to Seattle then to Reno. Need clarification on a few things:

1. How were comms with MSP ops conducted: radio or ARINC or both? I read here Flo did some comms with them as well while in the cockpit.
2. Who did most of the talking to SEATAC, both area approach and later tower? I'm assuming Scott as Captain but did Rataczak also?
3. Was flight 305 ever in contact with the chase plane (C-130) or Darts? I'm assuming no but could be wrong.

Thank you in advance for any info.

Most of the above items are covered in detail in the flight path thread with my name on it.  Here is a brief review specifically for your questions.

1.  The airliner was only equipped with VHF (line of sight) radios for communications.  It only had the radio capability to communicate with FAA facilities and ARINC ground stations.  However, the ARINC ground stations could do telephone patches to land line telephones.  As these radio/telephone conversations were going on, the ARINC ground stations were sending teletype messages as usual.  Consequently, the teletype message would needed to be processed and arrived at the destination about 2 to 4 minutes after the voice radio/telephone conversations took place.  Flo did talk to the FBI and NWA people at various locations over the ARINC radio/telephone patch.

2.  It was customary for one pilot to fly the airplane and the other pilot to handle the communications.  So both Scott and Rataczak probably handled the air traffic control communications at different times.  The airliner was under sequential control of several different controllers at the Seattle Air Traffic Control Center from take off until it was handed off to the Oakland ATC Center in Northern California.  After that, it was Oakland and Reno Tower controllers that were involved.  SEATAC tower was not involved with the airliner after it took off.

3.  Immediately after the airliner was handed off to an Oakland controller, that controller told the C-130 not to transmit on the VHF channel but to listen in if he wanted to do so.  He also told the C-130 to contact him on the appropriate UHF channel if he needed to.  So if the C-130 contacted the airliner directly, it would have been while under control of the Seattle ATC and those communications, if any, were redacted from the Seattle ATC transcripts.   

Good info R 99.

I have seen some military aircraft that didn't have VHF comm radios, just UHF. For example early T 38s had UHF only. FAA ATC has both VHF and UHF so even a UHF only military plane could communicate with ATC.

I still love the story of the McChord Herc intercepting the NWA NORJACK 727 when two SAGE guided F 106 advanced tech interceptors were unable to do so. Bet those Herc pilots gave the fighter jocks a hard time.

377

Typically, UHF is the standard for military aircraft and I have known military pilots who preferred UHF over VHF.  The C-130 was a search and rescue aircraft from somewhere in northern California (I think).  So it would be logical for it to have a VHF transceiver, in addition to the UHF, so that it could talk directly to civilian aircraft and law enforcement officials.

The C-130 stayed with the airliner all the way to Reno and is last mentioned in the radio transcripts as being at 12,000 feet above the Reno airport while the airliner was landing.

Bill Rataczak discussed communications at length in my conversation with him in 2009. What I heard him say was that he was in charge of most of the communications from 305 to NWO and Seattle Control on the inbound flight, as Scotty was flying the plane.

Andy Anderson also assisted in some comm, both inbound to Seattle and out.

When Rataczak took over the flight controls at Sea-Tac, he inferred that Scotty was in charge of comm on the way to Reno. Again, I assume that Anderson had lots of input on comm.

From GG and other sources I understand that the primary form of communication was the telex. There was also a lot of radio chatter, according to Marianne Lincoln, who told me she listened to the whole affair on her father's VHF radio. She says that she heard a lot of FBI commentary. Her biggest memory is that the hijacker asked for $400,000 and the FBI talked him down to $200K. I know that information is not supported by anyone else, but it is what one individual told me of what she recalls when she was 14-years old.

Bruce, your highly unreliable witness didn't hear anything on the radio except what was in the immediate area of SEATAC airport.  After the ARINC radio/telephone link was established, it was the primary form of communication between the airliner and NWA/FBI.  There was no "FBI commentary" on the radio as the communications were handled by the flight crew and FAA and NWA personnel.  The hijacker was never close to any radio.  Also, Cooper asked for $200,000 in his original ransom note, so there is no basis for the $400,000 number.

Your posting myths such as the above only adds another layer of nonsense to the Cooper commentary.

A person's remembrances may be incorrect, but they are still part of the story. Regardless of the overall truth of Marianne's memory, she may also be sharing some small details that could be useful in better understanding what really happened.

If we are not to believe what a person states (regardless of the overall truth) how could these statements help the case?

kind of like a cop chasing a car and losing sight, bad guy turns left at the intersection. the cop arrives and a guy says "I think he turned right"....how useful will this be to the cop?

Blevins goes by a statement made by a Sheriff..he said the dynamite had plastic coating on it..according to the witness statements it was the wires that had coating, and not the dynamite. do you take the word of the actual witness, or someone who wasn't really part of the case, only the search? he also stated the plane was at 7,000 which was true, but very early in the flight.

you need facts to move forward with..

A person's remembrances may be incorrect, but they are still part of the story. Regardless of the overall truth of Marianne's memory, she may also be sharing some small details that could be useful in better understanding what really happened.

As for dealing with layers of myth and the difficulty they may be present, the task I think is to mentally hold them in abeyance until more info is gathered. Holding widely differing pieces of information is not easy to do for most people, I suppose. I certainly see that in LE. The TV show, The Blacklist, illustrates that dynamic splendidly, where the "bad Guy" Ray Reddington makes regular comments on the FBI's rigidity in thinking and advises his associates to "stop thinking like an FBI agent and more like a criminal."

Bruce, the Cooper case is not a TV program.  Once something is shown to be a myth it should be immediately thrown out with the trash.  Only facts should be retained.  You seem to have some difficulty distinguishing real life from what you see in TV entertainment programs.

The actions of the FBI are confusing...take LD for example. they went through all sorts of hoops with Marla, and once the DNA didn't match they ruled him out...why not cut to the chase and just check prints, and DNA...why waste the manpower with the story? this opened the door for her to take advantage of the case itself..lots of people believe her and her story.

Marla Cooper believes her father was DB Cooper
Jo Weber believes her husband was DB Cooper
Robert Blevins believes Kenny was DB Cooper
Tom Colbert believes Rackstraw was DB Cooper
Sailshaw believed Peterson was DB Cooper

outside of Tom Colbert a pattern appears..it mostly surrounds one person stating who Cooper is/was. some will take harsh action if you disagree with them. Jo is basically by herself. she has convinced a few, but not many. Blevins keeps everything locked up and speaks for all..that's a huge red flag. Marla changed her story several times and wasn't consistent with much at all. I believe she read the DZ and adjusted where it was needed when it didn't make sense. she also had super memory.

Tom had an army of people with him, but I still don't agree with the conclusions.

If some of these people were in charge of a homicide on my street..I would be terrified of them accusing me of the crime.

Bruce could try and locate the woman..it is part of investigating, but you need to find out if any facts can be used in what she knows...a lot of time has passed so memories start playing tricks.

stating $400 grand vs 200 is a stretch..the FBI chased hundreds of leads, or stories like these...

My mouth dropped wide open when Marianne told me that she heard the radio chatter on the $400,000. I tried to argue with her, but she was adamant. Her passion, her belief in her memory is extraordinary.

Do I believe her? Not really. But I do file it away on a back burner in case it might be true. Especially since the radio traffic she is referencing is only known to us by a transcript with 19 redactions.

BTW: My paths cross with Marianne from time-to-time. She is a former school board member, active in the community, and a very involved political blogger. She told me her DB Cooper story while I was interviewing Democrats at the county fair. She was one of the party's organizers.

...  Once something is shown to be a myth it should be immediately thrown out with the trash.  Only facts should be retained....

Ah, but what exactly is a fact?

From my point of view, "facts" are the goal. Before then we have "reports." HARD evidence tends to be accepted as factual more readily than soft evidence, like personal testimony. The latter requires a preponderance of confirming data, but sometimes that evidence is hard to get, skimpy, or confusing. Teasing it all out is the trick, I say.