D. B. Cooper and IFR

dfs346

dfs346

Pre-Flight
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
41
Location
Bedford, England
Display Name
Display name:
DFS346
On 12.30.2022, the FBI released its latest batch of declassified files on the hijacking of Flight 305 on 11.24.1971: "D.B.Cooper Part 78". On pages 85-86 we read: "“... during the hijacking the comment was made by the hijacker concerning IFR clearance, "you can pick it up in the air."”

The hijacker was apparently aware of FAA AIM para. 4.4.9, or its equivalent in 1971 (if an equivalent existed then). In 2023, 4.4.9 states: "VFR/IFR Flights: A pilot departing VFR, either intending to or needing to obtain an IFR clearance en route, must be aware of the position of the aircraft and the relative terrain/obstructions."

Could any pilot say what level of aeronautical knowledge and/or experience (as of the year 1971) is implied by the hijacker's statement?
 
Guessing:

Even today, a US request for a pop-up requires knowing where you are. Back then, with significantly less radar coverage and continuous enroute position report requirements, it would be knowledge of position based on existing navaids.
 
dfs346 said:
"“... during the hijacking the comment was made by the hijacker concerning IFR clearance, "you can pick it up in the air."”

…

Could any pilot say what level of aeronautical knowledge and/or experience (as of the year 1971) is implied by the hijacker's statement?
Click to expand...

Sounds like hijacker was a pilot, or controller, or had spent time around one of them.
 
Such a coincidence this popped up today. Not being familiar with the story other than passing references over the years, I downloaded "DB Cooper and the FBI: A Case Study" by Bruce Smith on Kindle and read it over the holidays. (edited as I had the wrong title and author originally. I'm hoping to read "D.B. Cooper and Flight 305" by Robert Edwards next). The book gets a thumbs up from me. Quite an interesting deep dive, with a focus on the FBI's investigative fumbling. Didn't realize there were documents being released literally as I was reading about the need for them! Will have to look for updates now.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read the book, but I thought the movie was entertaining. The movie, "The Pursuit of D.B. Cooper", is available on Blu ray and stars Robert Duvall, Treat Williams and Kathryn Harrold.
 
Dan Gryder recently posted a 2 part video series on DB Cooper. Basically, he figured out who he was and confirmed with his children and relatives the whole fascinating story. Say what you want about Gryder, but he did something no one else had done. He also got the FBI agent working the case to admit the truth. Also, raises some interesting questions about the killing of DB Cooper. The very complete story is told in the videos.
 
Gryder's theatrics aside, his case is very solid. The second hijacking (who here knew there was one?) using the same MO, which lead to the arrest and recovery of the money is very convincing.

When you see the guy walk out of the courthouse and compare it to the composite sketch all you can say is "well, there it is"
 
midlifeflyer said:
Back then, with significantly less radar coverage and continuous enroute position report requirements,
Click to expand...
Two comments, if I may:
1. Between Seattle and Reno, the hijacked Flight 305 was tracked continuously by radar from Seattle Center and Oakland Center. Does the hijacker's reference to IFR clearance imply that he knew this?
2. Between Seattle and Reno, the hijacked Flight 305 made only four position reports: 14nm from SEA; 19nm from SEA; 23nm south of PDX (now BTG); 58nm north of RBL. Is that unusually few, for a sector of that length?
 
@dfs346 my apologies and of course you're correct. The book I was reading is "DB Cooper and the FBI: A Case Study" by Bruce Smith. If yours had a kindle version that's what I'd have been reading! I'll order up a hard copy and read it next. Thanks!
 
Adventure said:
@dfs346 The book I was reading is "DB Cooper and the FBI: A Case Study" by Bruce Smith. If yours had a kindle version that's what I'd have been reading!
Click to expand...

No worries! My publishers, as I understand, could not do an e-book because our book is profusely illustrated and the layout is complex (maybe referring to the extensive end-notes). Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
dfs346 said:
Two comments, if I may:
1. Between Seattle and Reno, the hijacked Flight 305 was tracked continuously by radar from Seattle Center and Oakland Center. Does the hijacker's reference to IFR clearance imply that he knew this?
2. Between Seattle and Reno, the hijacked Flight 305 made only four position reports: 14nm from SEA; 19nm from SEA; 23nm south of PDX (now BTG); 58nm north of RBL. Is that unusually few, for a sector of that length?
Click to expand...

Well, I answered only what you asked. Didn't really catch the full context. Neither did you ;) The AIM section you cited is really not about that. Let's go to the full paragraph. It's only three sentences.

VFR/IFR Flights A pilot departing VFR, either intending to or needing to obtain an IFR clearance en route, must be aware of the position of the aircraft and the relative terrain/obstructions. When accepting a clearance below the MEA/MIA/MVA/OROCA, pilots are responsible for their own terrain/obstruction clearance until reaching the MEA/MIA/MVA/OROCA. If pilots are unable to maintain terrain/obstruction clearance, the controller should be advised and pilots should state their intentions.
​
When a VFR pilot requests an in-air clearance (refer to as a "pop-up") while still below the minimum instrument altitude (MEA/MIA/MVA/OROCA), radar coverage or not, existing flight plan or not, ATC is directed to ask the pilot whether they can maintain terrain and obstacle clearance until the minimum IFR altitude, Basically, "are you sure you won't run into anything on the way up." If the pilot can't, ATC will refuse the clearance and ask the pilot what they want to do. It's about pilot life preservation, not aircraft location for the purpose of receiving services or making position reports. The question wouldn't be asked if the airplane was already at an enroute altitude.

So I don't think "you can pick it up in the air" implies anything other than the general knowledge that one can pick up an IFR clearance in the air.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don't think "you can pick it up in the air" implies anything other than the general knowledge that one can pick up an IFR clearance in the air.
Click to expand...

Many thanks. I was thinking the same, but not being instrument-rated myself, I wondered whether the statement had any other implications. This is one of the very few crumbs of information about the hijacker's knowledge of aviation.

I had conjectured, for example, that if the hijacker knew that Flight 305 would be under continuous radar coverage, he would expect that an enroute IFR clearance would be granted promptly. Whether that would matter to him, I don't know. But if he knew that, we might be permitted to imagine that he had worked in or been exposed to an air traffic control environment.

One aspect that seems to me unresolved is that, in the transcripts of communications between Flight 305 and Seattle Ground, and later between Flight 305 and Seattle Center, there is no reference to an IFR clearance. One transcript is missing: between take-off at 1936 PST and handover to Seattle Center at 1937:11 PST. During this brief interval, I assume that Flight 305 must have talked to Seattle Tower and then Seattle Departure; and might have obtained a pop-up clearance.
 
NoHeat said:
Sounds like hijacker was a pilot, or controller, or had spent time around one of them.
Click to expand...
There was quite of a bit of evidence that the hijacker had a military background that included flight training. Richard McCoy, who was (and quite honestly was probably DB Cooper) framed as a suspect, had all of the evidence for such.
 
727db.gif


What is the statute of limitations on holding up a bank.??

Oh.... uh.... askin' fer a friend....yeah, that's it...
 
You forgot your flaps and slats. I see someone leaving. Is that the way the cabin crew dealt with unruly passengers "back in the day"?
 
While the statute of limitations for hijacking an aircraft is either 5 or 7 years (I've forgotten which), such an offense would probably lead to charges of kidnapping, for which there is no statute of limitation. I had to look this up fer a friend, who had to keep on the move and had no computer (googol) access. Honest. Really. Did you see that guy?! "They" were also tracking his phone. "True" fer a fact!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top