I think Georger is explaining the controversy where he bailed along the flight path. below Lake Merwin, Ochards etc.

I think the point is clear once again looking at the totality of events surrounding the jump time. a progression can be seen based on new evidence coming to light while plotting the LZ. first it appears to be above Ariel and then possibly as far as the Columbia river. this could only conclude they never really had a positive location vs an educated guess based on pilot statements, radar data, FDR, Air Force and operator's at Portland PDX, according to Tom Kaye. even ham operator's had input. we still don't have all the data. I think the challenge was more of where and when he jumped vs finding the general location of the plane.

Radar operator's (ATC) are far from stupid human beings. to believe Seattle seen a plane 10 miles west of where Portland seen the plane leads one to believe all planes were in extreme danger under these conditions and control. we do read about collisions near airports but those typically have multiple planes in one area.

We ever going to get to see that Farrell manuscript?

I believe it's rather simple to handoff from one controller to another. don't they all see the same and just change frequencies. they were in the same room.  wasn't "radar contact" already established. would a "point out" be required? some cases a "physical point out" can be made. that's if the controllers are sitting next to each other. also, a landline approach can be used as well. they could of called PDX for radar identification but I doubt it was needed.

The point here is I'm sure Portland along with Oakland were monitoring the flight all the way to the end. just as NWO was.

Correct, that still doesn't mean the plane was invisible. that's why physically pointing the target works as well. as the Seattle ARTCC operator pointed out to me that the plane could be identified if it was aware it was entering it's airspace. I fail to see where they allow UFO's to surface on radar screens and ignored them, especially for long periods? it still reports as a target.

"If the flight was in their radar range and they were expecting it, they would see it and know who it was"

I believe a lot of radar and people in the same circle with commercial flight was monitoring 305. lets not forget Norad as well. to believe they were looking at the wrong return is a huge reach.

I'm not sure how much more you can downplay this? it doesn't matter who was controlling the flight. I'm guessing and the 302's backup statements saying they were monitoring the flight. radar range, is not control or they would have to be contacted. 305 without a doubt was in there radar range. I fail to see any reasoning in not believing this as a matter of fact? this was a threat to Portland that you always seem to point out but feel they ignored the plane while on radar? that doesn't make much sense either.....

I've contacted someone else surrounding this issue..

A Former Marine Corps KC-130 Loadmaster and retired Navy carrier based jet pilot, LSO and instructor, (EA-6B Prowler). ATP MEL, and Commercial SEL pilot license. Currently Aerospace Program Manager, part time commercial Cessna 208 Caravan pilot.

I asked him about radar idents/handoff's and the ability of Portland seeing 305 on radar....

It is very easy for the radar operator to know exactly where an aircraft is when it enters their airspace. The plane position tracks live on their scope, and control sectors are depicted on the screen. The only unknown factors in this case are when/where he actually jumped.

Then I told him Portland had nothing to do with controlling the plane but did give information surrounding the plane..

ATC radar sees all aircraft within its coverage area, annotated to indicate who they're talking to, among other things. Handing them off changes that annotation but nothing else.
ATC's job is to keep aircraft safely separated, and they need to see all traffic in their sector, not just the folks they're talking to, to do that effectively. It is somewhat common for one controller to manage aircraft in another's sector, e.g. to avoid two handoffs in a row when clipping the corner of a sector.

At low altitudes, many aircraft won't be talking to anyone at all. ATC still needs to see them so they can vector the folks they are talking to around them.

I'm not sure how much more you can downplay this? it doesn't matter who was controlling the flight. I'm guessing and the 302's backup statements saying they were monitoring the flight. radar range, is not control or they would have to be contacted. 305 without a doubt was in there radar range. I fail to see any reasoning in not believing this as a matter of fact? this was a threat to Portland that you always seem to point out but feel they ignored the plane while on radar? that doesn't make much sense either.....

I've contacted someone else surrounding this issue..

A Former Marine Corps KC-130 Loadmaster and retired Navy carrier based jet pilot, LSO and instructor, (EA-6B Prowler). ATP MEL, and Commercial SEL pilot license. Currently Aerospace Program Manager, part time commercial Cessna 208 Caravan pilot.

I asked him about radar idents/handoff's and the ability of Portland seeing 305 on radar....

It is very easy for the radar operator to know exactly where an aircraft is when it enters their airspace. The plane position tracks live on their scope, and control sectors are depicted on the screen. The only unknown factors in this case are when/where he actually jumped.

Then I told him Portland had nothing to do with controlling the plane but did give information surrounding the plane..

ATC radar sees all aircraft within its coverage area, annotated to indicate who they're talking to, among other things. Handing them off changes that annotation but nothing else.
ATC's job is to keep aircraft safely separated, and they need to see all traffic in their sector, not just the folks they're talking to, to do that effectively. It is somewhat common for one controller to manage aircraft in another's sector, e.g. to avoid two handoffs in a row when clipping the corner of a sector.

At low altitudes, many aircraft won't be talking to anyone at all. ATC still needs to see them so they can vector the folks they are talking to around them.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm not sure how much more you can downplay this? it doesn't matter who was controlling the flight. I'm guessing and the 302's backup statements saying they were monitoring the flight. radar range, is not control or they would have to be contacted. 305 without a doubt was in there radar range. I fail to see any reasoning in not believing this as a matter of fact? this was a threat to Portland that you always seem to point out but feel they ignored the plane while on radar? that doesn't make much sense either.....

I've contacted someone else surrounding this issue..

A Former Marine Corps KC-130 Loadmaster and retired Navy carrier based jet pilot, LSO and instructor, (EA-6B Prowler). ATP MEL, and Commercial SEL pilot license. Currently Aerospace Program Manager, part time commercial Cessna 208 Caravan pilot.

I asked him about radar idents/handoff's and the ability of Portland seeing 305 on radar....

It is very easy for the radar operator to know exactly where an aircraft is when it enters their airspace. The plane position tracks live on their scope, and control sectors are depicted on the screen. The only unknown factors in this case are when/where he actually jumped.

Then I told him Portland had nothing to do with controlling the plane but did give information surrounding the plane..

ATC radar sees all aircraft within its coverage area, annotated to indicate who they're talking to, among other things. Handing them off changes that annotation but nothing else.
ATC's job is to keep aircraft safely separated, and they need to see all traffic in their sector, not just the folks they're talking to, to do that effectively. It is somewhat common for one controller to manage aircraft in another's sector, e.g. to avoid two handoffs in a row when clipping the corner of a sector.

At low altitudes, many aircraft won't be talking to anyone at all. ATC still needs to see them so they can vector the folks they are talking to around them.

In the case of 305 there are even three in tow! Hard to miss on any radar.

Good call on getting military input.    

Items of interest:

threat assessment - assign a mission/ protocols. Chase planes dispatched and given orders. Comms and transcripts throughout the mission then debriefing . . . 
Identity assessment of hijacker. Skills. Intent. Was he going to take over the cockpit personally and fly the plane? Had he named a target . . . reason . . .
Reluctance to give 305 too much fuel. Nobody wants a flying bomb! Who made that call. Stall . . .
Notification of threat targets ......... keeping them informed as event unfolds to conclusion.

etc.

Georger, which planet are you on?

Has he named a target?  Do you actually think Cooper is going to have a "target" after getting the money that he wanted?  Was he just wanting the $200,000 and parachutes so that he could crash them into a building with himself?

Reluctance to give 305 too much fuel?  They essentially got a full load of fuel.

I believe the Harrison files show the billing from the fuel trucks along with the problems. I think Rat was upset thinking the FBI was stalling..have to read again but that's what I recall....