Author Topic: General Questions About The Case  (Read 339414 times)

Offline Chaucer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Thanked: 166 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3120 on: October 06, 2021, 10:53:37 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess I just don't understand.

Why would it be risky jumping with Hayden's parachute out the back of a 727 over Portland again?

Are you saying parachutes sometimes don't open properly and that's the risk?

Or is the risk landing in the Columbia  or ??

are you including some assessment of knowledge/skill in the risk assessment?

I think first you assess risk assuming someone knows what they're doing. That's base risk.
Then there's additional risk if the person doesn't know what they're doing.

What exactly is the base risk you're trying to describe?
All I'm saying is that there were variables at play that increased the difficulty of the jump. I don't think that's a particularly controversial position.

What variables?

Night
Turbulence on exit affecting ability to stabilize and pull.
Avoiding river and power lines on landing (and possible detection)
Twisting ankle on landing?
Don't think the money bag affected ability to deploy  canopy.
Don't think rain affected ability to deploy canopy.

Clothing didn't matter.

If Night jumps were inherently risky, the death rate for night jumps in the '70s would have been high ?
So, in your opinion, Cooper’s jump wasn’t any more or less dangerous than a properly equipped day time jump from a Cessna?
 

Offline snowmman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Thanked: 154 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3121 on: October 06, 2021, 11:16:53 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess I just don't understand.

Why would it be risky jumping with Hayden's parachute out the back of a 727 over Portland again?

Are you saying parachutes sometimes don't open properly and that's the risk?

Or is the risk landing in the Columbia  or ??

are you including some assessment of knowledge/skill in the risk assessment?

I think first you assess risk assuming someone knows what they're doing. That's base risk.
Then there's additional risk if the person doesn't know what they're doing.

What exactly is the base risk you're trying to describe?
All I'm saying is that there were variables at play that increased the difficulty of the jump. I don't think that's a particularly controversial position.

What variables?

Night
Turbulence on exit affecting ability to stabilize and pull.
Avoiding river and power lines on landing (and possible detection)
Twisting ankle on landing?
Don't think the money bag affected ability to deploy  canopy.
Don't think rain affected ability to deploy canopy.

Clothing didn't matter.

If Night jumps were inherently risky, the death rate for night jumps in the '70s would have been high ?
So, in your opinion, Cooper’s jump wasn’t any more or less dangerous than a properly equipped day time jump from a Cessna?


Hayden owned the chutes for bailing out of acrobatic airplanes in distress.
Compared to successfully exiting an acrobatic airplane in distress and deploying, I'd say Cooper's use of the chutes was simpler/more straightforward than anything Hayden was planning on using them for in the daytime.

so, I guess "yes".

EDIT: note that the fbi test drops and jump (by person) showed that jumping from the airstair created no extra difficulty...i.e. Cooper didn't have to worry about being decapitated or something by the airstair.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2021, 11:36:11 PM by snowmman »
 

Offline fcastle866

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
  • Thanked: 94 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3122 on: October 07, 2021, 10:12:44 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess I just don't understand.

Why would it be risky jumping with Hayden's parachute out the back of a 727 over Portland again?

Are you saying parachutes sometimes don't open properly and that's the risk?

Or is the risk landing in the Columbia  or ??

are you including some assessment of knowledge/skill in the risk assessment?

I think first you assess risk assuming someone knows what they're doing. That's base risk.
Then there's additional risk if the person doesn't know what they're doing.

What exactly is the base risk you're trying to describe?
All I'm saying is that there were variables at play that increased the difficulty of the jump. I don't think that's a particularly controversial position.

What variables?

Night
Turbulence on exit affecting ability to stabilize and pull.
Avoiding river and power lines on landing (and possible detection)
Twisting ankle on landing?
Don't think the money bag affected ability to deploy  canopy.
Don't think rain affected ability to deploy canopy.

Clothing didn't matter.

If Night jumps were inherently risky, the death rate for night jumps in the '70s would have been high ?
So, in your opinion, Cooper’s jump wasn’t any more or less dangerous than a properly equipped day time jump from a Cessna?

Chaucer: If I had to pick a daytime jump out of a Cessna or a nighttime jump out of a set up like going out the back of a 727, I'd have to think about it.  I found jumping out of a Cessna to be more difficult than going out the back or the side of a different plane.  It's been a while since I've done it, but I remember one of the planes I jumped out of was an Otter.  For a Cessna jump I was packed in like a sardine, sitting with my knees in my face, and had to climb out on the strut.  But, you're right, a daytime jump equipped correctly with a steerable chute would have been easier than his nighttime jump from a 727 with the chute he had.  My feeling is that if it was me, I would let out some of the reserve to help me off the stairs, or at a minimum walked down holding my hand on the ripcord.  If he could get the ripcord pulled, then I feel that he would have made it safely to the ground.  He might have been hurt, but death is a big step from being hurt.

This topic has been discussed a lot.  Like the Western flight path vs the FBI flight path, I don't think people will change their minds.  I could argue both sides of him living/dying, but to me without a body, more money, and a missing person who matches Cooper, I just don't see it.  Does that mean he lived? No.  But if you had to bet your life or your house, would you bet on him dying? 






 

Offline Chaucer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Thanked: 166 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3123 on: October 07, 2021, 12:21:53 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess I just don't understand.

Why would it be risky jumping with Hayden's parachute out the back of a 727 over Portland again?

Are you saying parachutes sometimes don't open properly and that's the risk?

Or is the risk landing in the Columbia  or ??

are you including some assessment of knowledge/skill in the risk assessment?

I think first you assess risk assuming someone knows what they're doing. That's base risk.
Then there's additional risk if the person doesn't know what they're doing.

What exactly is the base risk you're trying to describe?
All I'm saying is that there were variables at play that increased the difficulty of the jump. I don't think that's a particularly controversial position.

What variables?

Night
Turbulence on exit affecting ability to stabilize and pull.
Avoiding river and power lines on landing (and possible detection)
Twisting ankle on landing?
Don't think the money bag affected ability to deploy  canopy.
Don't think rain affected ability to deploy canopy.

Clothing didn't matter.

If Night jumps were inherently risky, the death rate for night jumps in the '70s would have been high ?
So, in your opinion, Cooper’s jump wasn’t any more or less dangerous than a properly equipped day time jump from a Cessna?


Hayden owned the chutes for bailing out of acrobatic airplanes in distress.
Compared to successfully exiting an acrobatic airplane in distress and deploying, I'd say Cooper's use of the chutes was simpler/more straightforward than anything Hayden was planning on using them for in the daytime.

so, I guess "yes".

EDIT: note that the fbi test drops and jump (by person) showed that jumping from the airstair created no extra difficulty...i.e. Cooper didn't have to worry about being decapitated or something by the airstair.
Well, respectfully disagree, I suppose. I believe the conditions of the Cooper jumped increased the degree of difficulty and thus the risk of a catastrophic outcome. Again, not saying it made that a certainty.

I would like to see Darren or EU put together a panel of experts who could debate this. Would be very interesting.
 

Offline snowmman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Thanked: 154 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3124 on: October 07, 2021, 12:38:47 PM »
Two choices.

Russian roulette. One bullet. 5 empty chambers.
Pick the gun up, point it at your forehead, pull the trigger.

That's actually pretty good odds.  (of living)

Other option: put on the parachute, walk down the aft stairs and jump at night over Portland

I'd take the second option, even if I had never pulled a ripcord before.

Does that mean it's less risky? It seems less risky to me.

But again: if 500 people took the first choice and 500 took the second choice, which choice would have the taller stack of dead bodies afterwards?

Your choice comparison of jumping out of a Cessna in daytime in 1971, is actually very low risk.

Even in 1961, the overall fatality rate for skydiving was only about 1 in 9000 skydives.

So you're not even presenting something with reasonable amount of risk.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
« Last Edit: October 07, 2021, 12:48:13 PM by snowmman »
 

Offline snowmman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Thanked: 154 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3125 on: October 07, 2021, 12:55:26 PM »
and if you want to say that the presence of a reserve skews the death rate...you can look at base jumping (no reserve)


lots of different papers, this paper quoted a 0.04% fatality rate per BASE jump (4 deaths in 10,000 jumps)
Obviously there are lots of variables, so generalizing to an average makes less sense for BASE jump, I think (or wingsuit)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

BASE jumpers rely on a single canopy with no reserve parachute. Estimates of injury rate are 0.2-0.4% per jump and fatality rates of 0.04% per jump or 1.7% per participant per year, suggesting that this is one of the most dangerous sporting activities.
 

Offline Chaucer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Thanked: 166 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3126 on: October 07, 2021, 02:25:37 PM »
Again, I'm not saying Cooper definitely died. I'm just saying he didn't definitely live.
 

Offline dudeman17

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Thanked: 76 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3127 on: October 07, 2021, 07:25:05 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
and if you want to say that the presence of a reserve skews the death rate...you can look at base jumping (no reserve)...  BASE jumpers rely on a single canopy with no reserve parachute.

Two things...

1)  This is often overlooked, but the pilot's emergency bailout rig that Cooper used WAS a reserve. It's design parameters, that it doesn't have the 'wear and tear' of regular usage, and that it is packed by a rigger, all adds up to a significantly lower malfunction rate than a sport main.

2)  The vast majority of fatalities in base jumping are not caused by parachute malfunctions.
 

Offline Chaucer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Thanked: 166 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3128 on: October 07, 2021, 07:43:11 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
2)  The vast majority of fatalities in base jumping are not caused by parachute malfunctions.
I'm curious. What causes most base jumping fatalities?
 

Offline snowmman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Thanked: 154 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3129 on: October 07, 2021, 09:07:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
and if you want to say that the presence of a reserve skews the death rate...you can look at base jumping (no reserve)...  BASE jumpers rely on a single canopy with no reserve parachute.

Two things...

1)  This is often overlooked, but the pilot's emergency bailout rig that Cooper used WAS a reserve. It's design parameters, that it doesn't have the 'wear and tear' of regular usage, and that it is packed by a rigger, all adds up to a significantly lower malfunction rate than a sport main.

2)  The vast majority of fatalities in base jumping are not caused by parachute malfunctions.

I have zero knowledge to add, and dudeman17 is an expert here.

But still: from the outside llooking in.

The scary case I would see, is jumping off a wall with wind (like El Cap!)

seems like it would be way easy to not realize a wind draft that might blow you back into the wall, or not enough glide in the right direction to get you away from the approaching sloped wall.

Seems like similar problems with wingsuits..misjudging lift/speed/wind/air density (like due to weather)

Arguably no parachute/wingsuit malfunction, but still, things don't give you the lift in the right direction that you expected?

« Last Edit: October 07, 2021, 09:10:09 PM by snowmman »
 

Offline Chaucer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Thanked: 166 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3130 on: October 07, 2021, 10:17:07 PM »
Found this and thought it was interesting and relevant to the topic at hand:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

While fatalities are exceedingly rare in sport parachuting, I found this quote worth mentioning:

"Decades ago, a fatality due to failing to pull was one of the more common categories."

Also, this article:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
« Last Edit: October 07, 2021, 10:20:57 PM by Chaucer »
 

Online Robert99

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1508
  • Thanked: 170 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3131 on: October 08, 2021, 12:39:28 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
2)  The vast majority of fatalities in base jumping are not caused by parachute malfunctions.
I'm curious. What causes most base jumping fatalities?

The ground contact. :(
 
The following users thanked this post: dudeman17

Offline Chaucer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Thanked: 166 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3132 on: October 08, 2021, 08:59:54 AM »
Do we know what model the reserve chutes were that were provided to Cooper?
 

Offline snowmman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Thanked: 154 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3133 on: October 08, 2021, 05:31:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do we know what model the reserve chutes were that were provided to Cooper?

I've posted before that the fbi apparently thought at some point the reserve that was taken was a T-7A (when they wanted to compare to a parachute in 2001 found near reed island). It said "Norm D" was inscribed on the container. I'll attach that fbi report in another post (attachment limits here)

But read all this info, and think about whether that would make sense? It would mean that the reserve taken probably had a manufacture date earlier than the "training" reserve left behind? I'm not sure they were manufacturing t-7A in 1959???


from info below, military-wise:
 "By the end of 1954, the T-7 was almost completely phased out and replaced by the T-10."

the citizen sleuth info says the reserve left behind was manufactured 1959, so you'd think it was a T-10 ?

(The reserve left behind had a canopy from 1959: serial # DA 58-53912. Manufactured in October 1959 by the Switlik Parachute Co, per You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

additional info from the fbi files on that reserve: The label on this canvas covering indicated it to be Pack Part number 451187GB and indicated the date of manufacture to have been October, (year illegible). The flap on this canvas exterior contained a sewn on white label with the notation SSS # 5 and COSS. This flap had also been stenciled with the name JOHNSON.)


I'll assume the training reserve was similar vintage.

Here's some pics of a 1962 t7a reserve manufactured by Pioneer

some background on the migration from t7 to t10

Between June 30, 1951, and June 30, 1952, twelve fatalities were traced directly to malfunctions of the T-7 parachute. These were largely due to the fact that the T-7 developed bugs when jumped at speeds ranging up to 150 knots. Tests showed that at 115 knots (130 MPH) or more, it was unreliable, had a dangerously severe opening shock, and caused excessive wear and tear. The slowest at which C-119 pilots flew consistently was 125 knots (145 MPH). A 1944 report indicated that even low speeds of 100 MPH could rip off holsters, canteens, and musette bags, and even snap the helmet weld. The additional speed of the postwar C-119’s meant bruises, severe riser burns, and even some broken shoulders.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



This explains why so many cheap t7's were available to skydivers in the 60s


The T-10 was standardized in October 1952, but procurement of the parachute was delayed; 107,981 T-7 parachutes, valued at approximately $25,000,000 were in the system as late as February 18, 1953, of which $12,000,000 were only recently purchased.  Despite the obvious advantages of the T-10, some in authority thought that for reasons of economy, the stocks of T-7s should be used up before the T-10 was adopted. This would take either 8-1/2 years or 100 jumps per chute. However, according to Colonel Malloy, that although this "is the same policy that applies to most of our other items of equipment… his life depends on this parachute a whole lot more. When we develop a new type of medicine, if it is proven that it will save more lives, we don’t continue to use old stocks until we use them up. We start procuring it right now."

In February 1953, regardless of cost, the immediate procurement and issue of the T-10 was ordered. Through excellent cooperation of the Air Force, all necessary procedures were completed by March 26, 1953, and the purchase directives for 53,000 T-10s were furnished and the final awards of contract were to take place before May 15. Through the combined efforts of the Quartermaster Corps and the Air Force, an accelerated delivery schedule was set up in which the first 1,000 T-10s arrived in August of 1953. By March 1954, Reliance Manufacturing Company manufactured 30,000 T-10s, Alamo Manufacturing Company 13, 124, and Sigmund Eisner Company 10,000, for a grand total of 53,124 T-10s.

In an effort to recoup part of the $190 for a T-10 assembly, stocks of T-7s were converted to T-10s by utilizing the T-7 harness and pack tray and procuring only the T-10 canopy and deployment bag at a cost of $130. Small extensions where added to the T-7 pack tray to encapsulate the larger canopy; the steel frame, suspension line retainers, and riser tabs were removed, and new snap-on harness retainers were attached. This conversion left many T-7 28’ canopies that still had a useful lifespan. In 1951, the 82nd Airborne Division conceived the idea of converting T-7 troop parachutes into cargo use in an effort to accelerate the phasing out of the T-7. Jeffersonville Depot converted 23,359 of the remaining T-7 parachutes in the system starting in June of 1952. It was predicted that cargo parachute requirements for Korean, training, and mobilization reserves would absorb the majority of T-7 canopies left over from the conversion to the T-10. These conversions saved the army a total of $12,830,510.

 By the end of 1954, the T-7 was almost completely phased out and replaced by the T-10. Between October 1953 and January 1954, 12,000 T-10 jumps were accomplished by the XVIII Airborne Corps with no fatalities and a negligible number of injuries. The T-10 soldiered on with several modifications for another 50 years, having been only recently replaced by the T-11.
 

Offline snowmman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Thanked: 154 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #3134 on: October 08, 2021, 05:33:36 PM »
reposting of the 2001 fbi file report, mentioning the taken reserve was
'24 foot, white nylon canopy, white nylon shrouds - 14' length model T-7A. Container was olive drab green, 10" x 14" x 6". "Norm D" inscribed on container'


don't know why they would say T-7A in 2001, and why this detail wasn't reported earlier in the files we have