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 spotted a tower while flying at night. I took a screenshot of the sim, and Google street view. they are in the same location a little over a half a mile north of the Columbia on I-5 it has a blinking beacon (red)

High things all over the country have blinking lights (red, if I'm remembering right).  Example:  AM radio antennas.  It's to keep planes from crashing into them at night.  This was true in the 1970 dark ages too.

Correct, I was just answering G's question about lights in the area. you also have different intensities with different heights.

Quote

Were there any revolving beacons or lights (aviation or maritime)

Rataczak says he, they, could see the lights of Portland/Vancouver coming up - at 8:10. Some dispute this was possible due to cloud cover. Rotating beacons, like light houses, tend to be noticed from a distance due to the blinking on/off effect.  It's likely Cooper looked around from the stairs at least prior to jumping. People have said the bright lights on the Lake Merwin dam might have been visible from a distance.  Bright rotating and blinking beacons near PDX might have been visible?  It's just a thought -

Did Rataczak see lights on the ground or just the glow from Portland/Vancouver, which can be quite pronounced, through the clouds?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Rataczak says he, they, could see the lights of Portland/Vancouver coming up - at 8:10. Some dispute this was possible due to cloud cover. Rotating beacons, like light houses, tend to be noticed from a distance due to the blinking on/off effect.  It's likely Cooper looked around from the stairs at least prior to jumping. People have said the bright lights on the Lake Merwin dam might have been visible from a distance.  Bright rotating and blinking beacons near PDX might have been visible?  It's just a thought -

There are a few things that should be understood about cloud cover information as it relates to flight 305 while it approached Portland.

The first is that the information we have applies strictly to a specific place at a specific time.  That specific place was not the location of flight 305, and the specific time was not when the flight was nearing Vancouver and Portland.

The cloud cover information we have is about what portion of the sky could be seen (or not seen) from a cloud-cover observation site at PDX.  This information also says what portion of the sky around PDX an airplane could be in such that the crew would be able to clearly see back to the cloud observation point at PDX.  It's a reciprocal relationship.

The cloud coverage data doesn't apply exactly to what cloud coverage would be seen from a place other than PDX (e.g., Battle Ground).  And it doesn't apply exactly to the question of what could be seen on the ground at places other than PDX.  Applicability to places other than the PDX observation site is only approximate.

Also, the cloud coverage information we have was for 8pm and 9pm.  Clouds aren't static.  There was in fact a clearing trend.  So the information we have applies only approximately for 8:13pm.

The second important thing to understand is that cloud coverage classified as "overcast" does not (and did not then) mean complete coverage.  For some time now, the cloud coverage definitions are in terms of eighths of the sky that are covered.  In 1971 the definitions were in terms of tenths, and "overcast" meant more than 9 tenths coverage.  This could still leave a small part of the sky that would be visible from the PDX observation site.  A plane could occasionally pass through small areas where it would be able to see PDX.

Finally, it is incorrect to characterize the cloud cover as being layers of scattered and broken cover AND an overcast.  The fact is that the definitions (then and now) are in terms of cummulative cover.  A cloud layer is classified as "broken" if that layer plus the layers below it block a certain amount of sky.  An overcast in 1971 was a cloud layer that, along with all lower layers, blocked more than 9 tenths of the sky.  For example, a layer blocking half the sky could be an overcast layer if the lower layers blocked a different half of the sky.  Depending upon vertical spacing between layers, it would in such a case be possible for an airplane crew to see through a "hole" in one cloud layer, through the space between layers, then through a hole in a lower layer to see some point on the ground.

The description of a cloud layer applies only to that single cloud layer.  The description of an overcast applies only to the single cloud layer that is described as an overcast and has nothing to do with any cloud layers that are below it or above it.  An "overcast" itself would cover from 90 percent of the sky to 100 percent of the sky.  Any cloud layers below the "overcast" would further obscure vision.

doesn't seem to care that much *meh* same-ish direction, he wants to get out the aircraft,

I think you have to keep in mind that Cooper doesn't have the flight plan, it's just a direction (Mexico City,) maybe he's done the flight before, that's a maybe, he agrees to Reno, doesn't seem to care that much *meh* same-ish direction, he wants to get out the aircraft, aft stair issues, his plan is general/simple, he rolls the dice (everyone argues the difficulty of the jump but it's easy when you have no choice) and bails, BUT when he hits the broken cloud layer then he could see a general idea of the river, highway, dam, whatever.

In another post, you list NWA as having a special weather observation made at 9:17 PM (PST?).  Do you know the purpose of this observation?  This observation would be approximately one hour after the airliner passed through the area headed to Reno.