Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007/Archive 4

Pilot regaining control

This section is original research, and contradicts the 1993 ICAO report that says: "It could not be established whether the crew was able to maintain limited control". Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I AM ON THE MOVE NOW AND THE ICAO REPORTS OF 83 AND 93 NOT AVAILABLE TO ME (EXCEPT FOR THE MILITARY COMMUNIQUES) BUT AT LEAST I CAN POINT OUT TO YOU THAT WHAT YOU QUOTE AS FROM THE REPORT IN NOT FROM THE REPORT BUT FROM THE AUGUST NEWS RELEASE WHICH HAS BEEN NOTED TO BE DIVERGENT AT POINTS FROM THE REPORT ITSELF. IT IS THE REPORT WHICH IS AUTHORITATIVE. I KNOW THAT THIS WILL NOT SATISFY AS I CANNOT PRODUCE THE STATEMENTS NOW FROM THE REPORT TO DIRECTLY SHOW YOU. BUT IF YOU WILL TELL US WHICH SECTION YOU ARE REFERRING TO THAT IS CONTRADICTED, I WELL GIVE THE REFERENCES AND SOMEONE ELSE THAT DOES HAVE THE REPORT CAN GIVE THE WORDING IN VARIOUS PLACES THAT DOES SHOW THAT ICAO CONCLUDED THAT KAL 007 DID MAINTAIN A MEASURE OF CONTROL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. your quote was indeed not from the Report but was in the list of conclusions from the report. But I will be providing when I can the statements showing the measure of control that KAL 007 did exercise for the post detonation flight entailing its pull up, and subsequent flight at 5,000 meters, and then spiral descent over Moneron. Original research. If I come to these conclusions from an analysis of material within the Report, it is original research. If there are summarizing statements, then it is not, as I see itBert Schlossberg (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Got the report! the main question we are pursuing I think was the measure of control that ICAO posits for KAL 007 and whether KAL 007 was able to maintain limited control or more. Socrates quotes the ICAO News release that states that it can not be determined if KAL 007 was able to maintain minimum control. I indicated that the ICAO report itself does conclude that but retracted the statement that the news release was in contradiction to the report itself. Well here is what can be said from the report itself. After a section describing the abilities with both difficulty and sufficiencies for sections of the aircraft to function (which I think come out on the strong side for ability and which I can specify if requested), there comes two summarizing statements both found in the conclusions and both using the phrase "limited control".

3.38 page 61. "As a result of the attack there was substantial damage to KE007which affected the controlability of the aircraft. and caused a loss of cabin pressure. The flight crew of KE007 retained limited control of the aircraft and responded correctly to the loss of cabin pressure." AND

3.41 pg.61 "The aircraft descended in a spiral and and radar contact was lost at 5,000 meters at 18:35 hoiurs. It could not be established whether the crew was able to maintain limited crew."

These two statements, which appear contradictory, may well be not, but only in view of what the military communications show. From what these show, after the black box, authentication of a pull up after the dive, and gradual leveling out at 5,000, the Soviet commanders were horrified to see KAL 007 pull up, maneuver turning north (they say all this), fly at altitiude 5,000 for almost 5 minutes, and then begin a spiral descent over Moneron. Until Moneron, "limited control" is very evident, as the first summarizing statement has it. But when KAL 007 dropped below 5,000 over Moneron, having dropped below, as the report has it, radar tracking, there was no way to know if KAL 007 continued its maintaining of control. What can be said, and I think that Socrates must have been referring to the section of the graph showing KAL 007's controlability after missile detonation, which he believes to be in contradiction to the statement from the news release, this section of the article deals with KAL 007's regaining of control, and that is the period consonant with ICAO's conclusion of limited controlabilit, rather than dealing with the last phase in which KAL 007 dropped under radar coverage.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that this unreferenced section is original research/editorialising. We are not at liberty to interpret or draw conclusions from primary data - reliable secondary sources that make these conclusions directly must be cited instead. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed "dubious/discuss next to Capt.Chun capability to control section

That discussion is actually being undertaken in the above discussionBert Schlossberg (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this issue has been closed yet. Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbers for search area

The section on the search for human remains uses a search area of 225 square nautical miles as well as 225 square miles. One of these units is wrong... Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

225 is correct. will changeBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nautical miles or miles? Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

225 square Nautical Miles is correctBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Osipovich–Air Controller mis-communication

This section is not working for me - in particular its unreferenced conclusion ("It is clear that attack was made on the intruder plane not because it was considered a continuing threat, but because it would soon escape into neutral waters.") looks like original research. Off the top of my head, there are a number of military aircraft that look like a Boeing, because, err, they are Boeings too (e.g. KC-135 Stratotanker, Boeing NC-135, WC-135 Constant Phoenix) so the train of logic here is flawed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Kornukov: (6:24) Oh, [obscenities], how long [does it take him] to go to attack position, he is already getting out into neutral waters. Engage afterburner immediately. Bring in the MiG 23 as well... While you are wasting time, it will fly right out.

2. Co-ordinantes most recently handed over by Russian Federation support the conclusion that KAL 007 was attacked just outside of Soviet territorial waters (12 NM). I will get the co-ordinantes and ref. and add as citation. Just a note, I have not edited in anything, to my knowledge, that is a product of original research. There is much pertinent information that has been excluded for that reason. I believe that all I have used has come from published material. Having said that, I should add that there is definitely an appearance of Original Research. That is because I have taken a number of the facts presented in published work and laid them side by side to show a different angle. I am more of a collator than an original researcher.

Osipovich admitted int the N.Y. Times interview that he knew that he was shooting down a civilian passenger plane by the 2 rows of windows (jumbo Jet)

"I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing. I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use." (New York Times interview, September 9, 19. He also said that he did not report this assuming that ground control would have inferred that it was a passenger plane by the blinking navigational lights, which he did reportBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Soory Bert, there is too much synthesis going on here. Please see original research, which specifically excludes unpublished analysis. If an analysis of facts is made to reach a particular conclusion or argument, it must be attributed to a secondary source with a reference, even where you or I might think it's obvious. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think it is a distortion to say Osipovich admitted he knew it was a civilian plane: as you quote above, he is actually saying he believes it to be a converted military plane.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On the road

Dear folks, it looks like I am one of the ones most involved in commenting so I need to say that I am on the road now so will not be able to respond as quickly as previous. I will try to check in once a day, and comment as needed. I do hope that the article gets GA status this round.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

With regards to KAL 007, people have used the word "conspiracy" to do with the deviation and/or the shootdown itself. A plot to get Larry McDonald, an intentional deviation for an intelligence bonus. a deviation gone bad. a joint Soviet/U.S. deception etc. I do not hold to this nor does the Committee for the rescue. I and we do hold to a safe enough water landing to have afforded the rescue and subsequent retention of passengers and crew. But that is neither here nor there. If evidence in any particular section leaves open for an interpretation or understanding of survivors, surely that is no reason for rejecting it, just as if any section leaving out the possiblility of survivors is thereby found wanting. Each section and its elements need be dealt with according to the inner evidence, in this case, the published evidence. Nothing new here. That is all I ask. And that is why I ask what is it exactly that Socartes is dubious of.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing "appears to contradict itself" tag to "Flight Data Recorder Chart showing the regaining of control of KAL 007" section

Have removed the contradiction by reverting to previous editing by Bert Schlossberg

Socrates has quoted from a press release rather than the ICAO '93 report which he believed he was quoting. The press release indeed stated that ""It could not be established whether the crew was able to maintain limited control" quoting from the ICAO report itself. But the ICAO report specifies which part of the post detonation flight it applies to. It is from the spiral descent of KAL 007 over Monereon Island, the last 3 minutes of KAL 007's post detonation 12 minute flight after radar contact was lost, and for this period there is no way indeed, for establishing whether the crew was able to maintain limited control.

3.41 pg.61 "The aircraft descended in a spiral and radar contact was lost at 5,000 meters at 18:35 hours. It could not be established whether the crew was able to maintain limited control."

But the section in question does not deal with this period, It deals with the period from missile detonation at 18:26: 02 until the beginning spiral descent at 18:35 and for this period, there is clearly, according to the ICAO Report, limited control.

3.38 page 61. "As a result of the attack there was substantial damage to KE007 which affected the controlability of the aircraft. and caused a loss of cabin pressure. The flight crew of KE007 retained limited control of the aircraft and responded correctly to the loss of cabin pressure."

This analysis of limited control for the period of time of this section is based on (according to ICAO analysis) on Black Box tapes, radar trackings and Soviet military communications. Bert Schlossberg (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Socrates, what is it that you are dubious about? Do you doubt that the pilots lost control of KAL 007 at missile detonation, or that they regained control, or that they retained minumum control despite the ICAO report that says they did, or that initial media and public reactions were as catastrophic as this section points out?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The ICAO press release was very clear about the pilots not gaining control of the aircraft, so I'm firstly flagging the obvious conflicting facts. I am also concerned about a thread of conspiracy theory being woven in the story here - particularly the subsequent unreferenced part about a "water landing", which this section appears to leave the door open for. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you follow through on the above, you will see that the press release is quoting from the ICAO report and the ICAO report makes it very clear that there is limited control of the aircraft during the period that this section deals with and the there is no way of determining control during the spiral descent - which this section does not deal with.

3.38 page 61. "As a result of the attack there was substantial damage to KE007 which affected the controlability of the aircraft. and caused a loss of cabin pressure. The flight crew of KE007 retained limited control of the aircraft and responded correctly to the loss of cabin pressure."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear people, the request for references has just been fulfilled. Don't you think that this sign should be removed? Just asking! "This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details "Bert Schlossberg (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What attaining "limited control" looked like in the Cockpit

I have just posted the ICAO statements that explicate the graph supporting the regaining of control for the 1 minute and 44 seconds returned by the Soviets in Cockpit Voice Recorder tapes. If there is interest, I can supply the rest of the "linited control" flight lasting the rest of the 9 minutes until KAL 007 started its spiral descent under radar coverage over Moneron, where it was no longer possible to affirm or deny contralability. But here is the combined Cockpit Voice Recorder and Digital Flight Data Recorder tape transcripts (with my comments readily distiguishable from the pertinent material) showing what it must have been like in the Cockpit during that 1 minute 44 seconds immediately after missile detonation [1]Bert Schlossberg (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the significance of this section that you are placing so much emphasis on? I feel like there's a point trying to be made, but I'm missing it. Yes, we know after the black boxes were released in '93 that the plane did not explode in mid-air, however why all the words and effort to try to convey the pilots regaining control of the doomed aircraft? Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

With regards to KAL 007, people have used the word "conspiracy" to do with the deviation and/or the shootdown itself. A plot to get Larry McDonald, an intentional deviation for an intelligence bonus. a deviation gone bad. a joint Soviet/U.S. deception etc. I do not hold to this nor does the Committee for the rescue. I and we do hold to a safe enough water landing to have afforded the rescue and subsequent retention of passengers and crew. But that is neither here nor there. If evidence in any particular section leaves open for an interpretation or understanding of survivors, surely that is no reason for rejecting it, just as if any section leaving out the possiblility of survivors is thereby found wanting. Each section and its elements need be dealt with according to the inner evidence, in this case, the published evidence. Nothing new here. That is all I ask. And that is why I ask what is it exactly that Socartes is dubious of.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs)

My primary concern is that a water landing is not a mainstream view of the incident, and as stated before, that you have a conflict of interest due your association with rescue007.org, which shares the same "alternate" view on the matter. Whether consciously or not, this bias towards the rescue007.org point of view is evident in the edits you've made, in particular where emphasis has been placed on non-mainstream thinking about some details. My suggestion at this point therefore is to lay off the article for a while - you've already contributed a great deal to it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I must also add that Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight also states that we cannot give too much weight to minority viewpoints, so if the "rescue" theory is still somewhat significant we will have to set the amount of material accordingly. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion from "Controversy"

I am deleting this portion which I had edited in from the Controversy section

"Another controversy is concerned with the flight of the RC-135 reconnaissance plane which the U.S. has acknowledged had been about 75 miles (121 km) from KAL 007 as it was about to enter Soviet airspace. The RC-135 was tasked with capturing the telemetry of the SS-25 missile[citation needed], which was being tested in contravention of SALT ll agreements.[citation needed] The Soviets were to launch it that night from Plesetsk in north west Russia to come down in the Klyuchi target range on Kamchatka.[citation needed] Whether the RC-135, configured as a Cobra Ball, was able to pick up the "chatter" from Soviet command posts and capture the radar stations "lighting up" one after another tracking the "intruder" aircraft, as an RC-135 configured as a Rivet Joint could,[citation needed] has been contested.[who?]"

It source is reliable and governmental but unpublishedBert Schlossberg (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the RC-135 mentioned in a number of places, including the NASA paper on the autopilot. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RC-135 discussion is common but not so the SS-25 launch that nightBert Schlossberg (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"It source is reliable and governmental but unpublished": The Wikipedia requirement is for verifiability, so an unpublished source unfortunately does not help here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tape break citation

you are asking for a citation for the citation itself. That is the citation!

Interesting website

I've spent 3 hours hunting down the source of some of the photos of Russian officials so I can determine copyright status. While I've not succeeded there, I found this article. While this version contains nothing new, it may be useful for sourcing the russian perspective of this event. Dave (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Chain of Command citation requests

With respect to these citation requests -

"As this was an emergency, the Commander in Chief of Soviet Air Forces (VVS), Chief Marshal of Aviation Pavel Kutakhov would have been informed.[citation needed]

"As the test of the (SALT II) SS-25 had been planned for that night with the missile coming down on the Klyuchi Test Range of Kamchatka[citation needed] — where KAL 007 was to traverse in its first intrusion of Soviet territory — the head of the First Directorate of Strategic Concealment (Maskirovka), First Deputy Chief of Staff Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev would have been present for any decision.[citation needed] Further, Chief of the Soviet General Staff and First Deputy Minister of Defense Nikolai Ogarkov would have been in on any decision and would have informed his superior and link with the Political echelon, Minister of Defense Dmitri Ustinov.[citation needed] It is then that Yuri Andropov would have been informed and in position for decision for shootdown.[citation needed]",

Are the requests for citations verifying the persons of the various positions, or for verification of the jurisdictional reporting hierarchical positions? If the latter, I think it is obvious from the nature of the jurisdiction to whom or which jurisdiction report would be made. For example, the First Deputy Minister of Defense would obviously be reporting to his boss the Minister of Defense. Are you requesting for a citation that the Deputy Minister of Defense is to report to the Minister of Defense? Or the Minister of Defense is to report to his boss Yuri Andropov? I have the same questions about the other citations as, from the nature of the emergency and the jurisdictions involved, reporting direction is obvious. The actual persons then commanding the jurisdictions not so. Perhaps the citation requests are more for verification that these persons at the time of the shootdown were in command of the particular jurisdictions.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not replace all this with an organisational hierarchy chart? In any event, there are several aspects that are unreferenced here: the names of the people in the various positions, the fact these positions exist, and lastly, the fact that the would have contacted their superior during the incident. From what I've read, responsibility stopped somewhere in Moscow, although they initially tried to stitch up the local air defense commander. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ship images

I think there may too many in there - we don't need a picture of EVERY ship to make the point. Suggest that this is dropped to 2 images. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The article as a whole is not overburdened with images. However, that section is. My preference would be to move the excessive images to another section, or to Commons, assuming they are public domain images. If you can hold on a bit, I'll volunteer to setup a KAL 007 image gallery on commons and move the images to commons that can be moved. Dave (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

HELP BERT =-) Two of those images imply they taken by an employee of the US government (i.e. US Navy) while in the course of their official duties? Can you specifically confirm or correct this statement? If the preceding statement is true, these images are in the Public Domain. If so, this is good, as they will be accepted by commons and can be used by Wikipedia without any copyright issues. However, that also means the image tags are incorrect. Please clarify, I can fix the license tags, but need to know specifically where the images came from. Dave (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks, Dave, for the offer to help. Yes, both photographers, Paul Soutar and Filemon Barbante, were on duty Naval photographers assigned to Task Force 71. They photographed all four of the pictures currently posted to the section. You can see Paul Soutar's full grade and rank as part of his credit on the photographBert Schlossberg (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Dave, I thought the info was part of one of the photos. Paul Soutar was a PH2. Here is part of a letter from him, "...I was one of two Navy photojournalists providing photos for release and other use during the KAL007 ops. Several are included below. You are free to use them with attribution if you're interested. During the ops I spent time aboard Sterrett, Conserver, Narragansett, Munro, Kidd and made numerous helo flights over Soviet, U.S., Japanese and Korean ships...Bert Schlossberg (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, images have been moved to Commons:Category: Korean Air Lines Flight 007. I think all image issues are now resolved. Dave (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be clear - I was referring to the number of images in the S&R section only. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unwarrented changes and deletions

Socrates,

1. "50 meters" is correct not "vicintiy of". Have restored.

1.16.2.2 "The radar guided missile fuse that detonated the warhead by a non-contact radio detonator at a range of 50 meters."

2. Why do you doubt that Capt. Chun was able to take it down after disengaging the auto pilot., and why do you say that he tried to take manuel control? 1.14.3.10. 8. speaking of KAL 007 ascent after missile strike, says "the aircraft continued to climb"

1.14.3. 10.9 says that "the DFDR then indicated that the autopilot A was selected to the Manuel mode" and that this selection was "accompanied by a sound of a second autopilot disconnect warning."

1.14.3.10.10. says "the aircraft reached a maximum altitude of 38,250 ft....As the aircraft started to descend..." I think that my "was able to bring it down" fairly well means the same thing as "descend". You do not seem to want to aknowledge that Captain Chun really was able to take it down. There is no indication that the aircraft went into Manual control by itself. It was put there by the pilots and then KAL 007 started going down.

Well the above is not my analysis but the words of the ICAO report. The following is the combined DFDR and CVR for the sequence we are talking about. I have some of my words in it but you will be able to see what was going on recorded on the tapes:

Son (18:26:33): I am not able to drop altitude -- now unable.

Chun (18:26:38): Altitude is going up.

Chun (18:26:40): This is not working. This is not working.

At 18:26:41, Capt. Chun apparently orders First Officer Son to again disengage the autopilot "manually." Son appears to do so at the same time he despairingly says, "cannot do manually" (18:26:42) and a second later reiterates, "not working manually also." But, at that moment two things happen. The sound of the autopilot disconnect warning is heard once again and the autopilot kicks in to the desired manual mode (Plot 2, line 9). At 18:26:45, First Officer Son again reports, "Engines are normal, sir." Once again, there is confirmation that the heat-seeking missile failed to hit its mark.

Though Capt. Chun does not move the control column any more forward than it already is (Plot 1, line 3), the altitude (Plot 1, line 1) begins to come down and is now in line with the pitch (Plot 1, line 2). Both airspeed (Plot 1, line 4) and acceleration (Plot 1, line 5) increase rapidly as KAL 007 begins a quick descent.

I think that you are intent to show bias in my edits and so do not acknowledge the points that I am making having the ICAO in my hands. Yet you do this not having read the report yourself. How can you do that with no basis but suspicion? Have you read anything since 1983 when ICAO '93 came out that suggested that Captain Chun did not succeed to put KAL 007 into Manual and did not bring it down to its pre missile altitude? I am sorry that I have to be so direct, but the truth of the issue requires it.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who are following this discussion here is the whole of which the part that is pertinent (above) is taken. The Russian Federation handed over to ICAO only 1 minute and 44 seconds of the 12 minute plus after detonation of KAL 007. Russian military communications would tell the rest. 2.16.12. pg. 55 has this statement concerning the lack of the remainder of the tape " It could not be establisshed why both flight recorders simultaneously ceased to operate 104 seconds after the attack. The power supply cables were fed to the rear of the aircraft in raceways in opposite sides of the fuselage until they came together behind the two recorders." For this discussion, refer to the two graphs, Plot 1 - [2] and Plot 2 - [3] prepared by Laboratoire BEA). The times appear in four-second intervals at the bottom of each chart.

At 18:26:02 (06:26:02 Sakhalin time), Maj. Osipovich's ANAB radar-guided air-to-air missile explodes 50 meters behind and slightly to the right of KAL 007's tail.

The nose begins to pitch up immediately (Plot 1, line 2) to be followed by a more gradual increase in altitude (Plot 1, line 1). These changes appear on the crew's instruments. They may also have sensed them. Immediately upon missile detonation, the jumbo jet begins to experience buffeting (yawing) as the dual channel yaw damper is damaged (Plot 2, line 6). Yawing would not have occurred if either No. 1 or No. 2 hydraulic systems were fully operational. What does not happen that should have happened is that the control column (Plot 1, line 3) does not thrust forward upon impact (it should have done so, as the plane was on autopilot -- plot 2, line 8 -- to bring down the plane to its former altitude of 35,000 feet). This failure of the autopilot to correct the rise in altitude indicates that hydraulic system No. 3, which operates the autopilot actuator, a system controlling the plane's elevators, was damaged or out. KAL 007's airspeed (Plot 1, line 4) and acceleration rate (Plot 1, line 5) both begin to decrease as the plane begins to climb.

At 18:26:06, Capt. Chun calls out, "What happened?" First Officer Son responds, "What?" Two seconds later, Chun yells, "Retard throttles." Son responds, "Engines normal, sir." (This indicates that Maj. Osipovich's heat seeking missile has missed its mark.) KAL 007 continues its climb (it will do so until it reaches 38,250 ft. in altitude -- Plot 1, line 1) when at twenty seconds after missile detonation a click is heard in the cabin -- which is identified as the "automatic pilot disconnect warning" sound. Pilot or co-pilot has disconnected the autopilot and is now manually thrusting the control column forward (Plot 1, line 3) in order to bring down the plane. But we see that though the autopilot has been turned "off" (Plot 2, line 8), manual mode will not kick in for another twenty seconds (Plot 2, line 9). This failure of manual to engage upon being commanded indicates again, failure in hydraulic systems No. 1 and No. 2. But there is progress, of sorts! Though still rising in altitude, with the thrusting forward of the control column, KAL 007's nose begins to come down. That is, pitch is being corrected (Plot 1, line 2). Nevertheless, Capt. Chun absorbed with the danger of the rising altitude, calls out, "Altitude is going up!... Altitude is going up!" (18:26:22 and 18:26:24) But immediately another problem presents itself.

Chun (18:26:25): Speed brake is coming out!

Son (18:26:26): What? What?

Chun (18:26:29): Check it out!

But, according to the DFDR, the speed brake was not coming out. The pilots immediately return to the main problem.

Son (18:26:33): I am not able to drop altitude -- now unable.

Chun (18:26:38): Altitude is going up.

Chun (18:26:40): This is not working. This is not working.

At 18:26:41, Capt. Chun apparently orders First Officer Son to again disengage the autopilot "manually." Son appears to do so at the same time he despairingly says, "cannot do manually" (18:26:42) and a second later reiterates, "not working manually also." But, at that moment two things happen. The sound of the autopilot disconnect warning is heard once again and the autopilot kicks in to the desired manual mode (Plot 2, line 9).

At 18:26:45, First Officer Son again reports, "Engines are normal, sir." Once again, there is confirmation that the heat-seeking missile failed to hit its mark.

Though Capt. Chun does not move the control column any more forward than it already is (Plot 1, line 3), the altitude (Plot 1, line 1) begins to come down and is now in line with the pitch (Plot 1, line 2). Both airspeed (Plot 1, line 4) and acceleration (Plot 1, line 5) increase rapidly as KAL 007 begins a quick descent.

Still in descent, Capt. Chun and Flight Engineer, Kim Eui-Dong call out (one second apart):

Kim (18:36:50): Is it power compression?

Chun (18:36:51): Is that right?

Kim (18:36:52): All or both.

Chun (18:36:53): Is that right?

For the next nine seconds there is silence, but Capt. Chun will be at the height of activity. As KAL 007 reaches its peak of acceleration and descends to slightly under pre-missile altitude, Capt. Chun brings the nose up for about 10 seconds (Plot 1, line 2), acceleration decreases markedly and then levels out at pre-missile rate.

Prior to the eight-second pull-up, First Officer Son is on the High Frequency Radio No. 1 calling Tokyo Air Traffic Control Center (Plot 2, line 7):

Son (18:26:57): Tokyo Radio, Korean Air Zero Zero Seven

Tokyo (18:27:02): Korean Air Zero Zero Seven, Tokyo

Son (18:27:04): Roger, Korean Air Zero Zero Seven... (unreadable) Ah, we (are experiencing)...

Chun, interjecting (18:27:09): ALL COMPRESSION

Son (18:27:10): Rapid compressions. Descend to one zero thousand.

As First Officer Son's call to Tokyo concludes, Capt. Chun begins his gradual descent.

Though yawing has continued through to the end of the tape and, presumably, to the end of the flight, all the other major parameters indicate that KAL 007 exhibits a good measure of airworthiness and control. The dive has been stopped and the jumbo jet is in a slight descent. Pitch is in line with the angle of descent. "Indicated Air Speed" (IAS, Plot 1, line 4) has returned almost exactly to what it was prior to missile detonation (310 knots), after rapid acceleration in dive, and rapid deceleration at the end of the ten-second pull-up, KAL 007 is now at steady, normal acceleration -- as it was prior to missile detonation -- and the autopilot, now in the command position off, is operating as it should with Capt. Chun in manual control. But there is work to do at hand. From the flight deck (the transcript does not identify the voices):

18:27:20: Now... We have to set this

18:27:23: speed

18:27:26: Stand by, stand by, stand by, stand by, set!

End of tape portion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1) The fact that THIS particular missile detonated at 50m behind the aircraft, does not mean that ALL proximity fused missiles will detonate exactly 50m behind an aircraft. That sentence was talking about a type of missile, not a specific missile.

2) It's controversial as to whether he actually gained control or not after turning off the autopilot. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be an acceptable compromise to say, "The ICAO report states it is unknown if the captain was able to regain control over the aircraft. The CVR and FDR recorded a conversation between the pilot and co-pilot attempting to disable the autopilots. Later tones were recorded consistent with the tones of the autopilots changing to manual mode"? Dave (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I don't think there's any issue over whether the autopilot was turned off - the tricky part, the bit the ICAO could not determine for sure, is if he actually had any control of the aircraft when he tried to fly it manually. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the ICAO conclusion in "Conclusions" prescisely for the part of the post detonation flight (9 minutes) up until the beginning of spiral descent over Moneron:

3.38 page 61. "As a result of the attack there was substantial damage to KE007 which affected the controlability of the aircraft. and caused a loss of cabin pressure. The flight crew of KE007 retained limited control of the aircraft and responded correctly to the loss of cabin pressure" Retained limited control! The aircraft went up, the auto pilot failing to keep it at 35,000ft, the pilots disengage autopilot, the aircraftbegins to descent, Chun lifts nose of aircraft for ten seconds, aircraft levels out at pre missile altitude, nose lighty down for the seconds until end of tape. No, Dave, the compromise doesn't do it. Contrary to what Socrates is saying, the report does determine for sure that the pilots had control of the aircraft -"limited control" to do all that. That's what it says.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yip, limited control, not (full) control. I edited the controversial sentence out, as it's irrelevant to the description of missile damage. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Russian version of this story

...makes an interesting read, especially the POV. Although it's shorter, and lacks some references, I found it to the point and easy to follow. I think illustrates quite well that the English article is still too disjointed with sub arguments, timelines and details.The incident with the South Korean Boeing (1983) Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the goal of everybody involved should be to tell the story of KAL 007 in non-inflammatory way so that anybody (Russian or American or whatever) can read and say, "we must never allow this to happen again", without feeling like they are being called a evil person. From what I've seen all sides of this dispute are firm, but amicable, and this is possible.

I would like to tell a story, to perhaps give this dispute some perspective. When I first joined Wikipedia I was involved with the article on Mountain Meadows massacre, there were a handful of editors that wanted to get the article to Featured Article status so it could appear on the main page. I'm now convinced it's a futile effort, and now I only revert blatant vandalism on that article. At one time it was so bad that blatant insults of other editors were common with at least one editor banned from wikipedia. While the editors working on the article now are more mature than the ones a few years ago, the article still suffers from tangents being injected into the article to prove one side is right and the other is wrong.

That article is similarly about where tensions in an undeclared war reached a breaking point and innocent people paid the price. It's a story that needs to be told, with a lesson to humanity on where blind patriotism and escalating rhetoric (rather than negotiating with "the other side") can lead to. It's gruesome and there is a lot of shame to the present day on the descendants of the perpetrators. Most of the descendants of the victims have decided to get over the hate and work with the perpetrators to investigate and preserve the story, however it took 150 years for that alliance to be formed. Several groups, most with no connection other than sharing the same religious beliefs as one side, insist on using unprovable details in the story to show their side's actions are justified and/or "the other guys" are monsters.

So I would advise all to be very careful with accusations, keep all content disputes at a "I respectfully disagree" type of conversation. I am seeing the rhetoric between Bert and Socrates, while amicable, escalate, and this concerns me. Let's not push anybody into the fringes. But my advice is the same, stick with what is known, and link to other sites where more information is available, for those that want to read about one side's version of the disputed events. Let's do what the people who wanted to get Mountain Meadows massacre a featured article failed to to. Put aside differences and work towards a common goal.Dave (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this Dave. While there are some differences of opinion, I don't think we have an issue amongst editors of this article. Bert has made a significant contribution here, and I understand that it must be frustrating to see your hard work being scrutinised, changed and challenged. However this article was submitted for GA, which has specific requirements for verifiability, coverage, OR etc, and that is where everyone's efforts should lie. I don't personally fall into any one camp or another with regard to whom is to blame, however as you've seen from my edits, I feel that this article should primarily represent mainstream (Russian and US/ICAO) views of the incident rather than those of a minority. So let's stick to the material and get the job done as we're nearly there now. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I'll try my best. I think that I know the limits of the format. I'll follow along but will restrict my input. I'll still be there, though. I can best serve as reference if there are particular questions. The various editors probably know when that could best be employed. I extend an electronic handshake to you, Socrates.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Crew numbers

We have multiple sources that disagree about the number of crew on board. Also the table with passenger nationalities has more than 269 people listed in it (i.e. the total is wrong). I've looked at the ICAO press releases, but have not found anything useful there. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ICAO 93, Sect. 1.3, pg. 6 - 3 Flight crew, 20 cabin atendanants, 6 positioning crew , 240 passengers - S.Korea 105, U.S. 62, Japan 28, Taiwan 23, Philippines 16, Hong Kong 12, Canada 8, Thailand 5, Austalia 2, U.K. 2, and 1 each for Dominican Rep., India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Malasia, Sweden, Viet Nam. Here is pertinent info passenger list, crew names, photos, stories [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bert. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious discuss notice on "Soviet civilian diver reports" section

What is dubious about the section? Do you doubt that the divers reported this? or doubted that what they reported was true? Here are the statements from Izvestia. They seem pretty clear to me. If you like, I will supply all references.

Viyacheslav Popov: “I will confess that we felt great relief when we found out that there were no bodies at the bottom. Not only no bodies; there were also no suitcases or large bags. Sometimes the thought even occurred: Was it really a passenger plane, or is that a deception?

Captain Mikhail Igorevich Girs: “From Captain Girs’ diary: ‘Submergence 10 October. Aircraft pieces, wing spars, pieces of aircraft skin, wiring, and clothing. But—no people. The impression is that all of this has been dragged here by a trawl rather than falling down from the sky...’”

“So we were ready to encounter a virtual cemetery. But one submergence went by, then the second, and then the third... During the entire rather lengthy period of our work near Moneron, I and my people had maybe ten encounters with the remains of Boeing passengers. No more than that.”

“Something else was inexplicable to us—zipped up clothes. For instance, a coat, slacks, shorts, a sweater with zippers—the items were different, but— zipped up and nothing inside. We came to this conclusion then: Most likely, the passengers had been pulled out of the plane by decompression and they fell in a completely different place from where we found the debris. They had been spread out over a much larger area. The current also did its work.”

“I did not miss a single dive. I have quite a clear impression: The aircraft was filled with garbage, but there were really no people there. Why? Usually when an aircraft crashes, even a small one... As a rule there are suitcases and bags, or at least the handles of the suitcases.”

V. Zakharchenko: “But the main thing was not what we had seen there but what we had not seen—the divers had found practically no human bodies or remains...” Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read several reports now, including the Izvestia one, of the Soviets finding human remains and luggage (and handing these over later in September). Also, the experience of the civilian divers is being highlighted, apparently to support the rescue007 theory that there were no human remains, when the very same source talks of military divers finding many small pieces of aircraft, body parts, luggage. Furthermore there are reports of human parts being washed up in Japan. Lastly, I'm not seeing any secondary sources supporting this theory about no human remains - i.e. it looks like the argument is being made here Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make some correction and additions to the Divers reports section but I would like to not do so until I lay out the direction here and receive some possible responses. The changes are not many and not earth shattering and I am pretty much content with what is there now. But I need to give the fuller picture. I think also that I have gotten to the souirce of confusion. I would develop this If inteneded to make this an entre to "rescue007" But I don't. But I do think that the reports of the first ones "on the scene". ie. the divers, are surely important and should be in this article - survivors or not. So for the picture (this time without references which I will give if wanted) There were 3 groups of divers, we have already the 2 civilian and there was a group that was strictly military from Soviet Gavan across from Sakhalin, and who operated from the Georgi Kosmin. There are no reports from this group at all in the interviews, but there are for sure reports about them. The civilian divers say that they, the military, operated before them, that is before Sept. 15th amd take them to task for moving the wreck by trawl to the place that they the civilian divers were asked to go down. The can't make sense of the military operation. trawls first and then send in the divers?. They also say that the wreck doesn't semm to have fallen from the sky, but to have been dragged there. It is a civilian diver that is the one that suggest that the military divers had removed the bodies before they the civilian had gotten there and that they the civilians were brought in as a smoke screen. All this highlights the shock they felt to have entered the wreck and seen so few human remains (there were some!) They tried to account for it by crabs eating the bodies, by decomporession leaving the cloths behind after sucking out the bodies and by the military divers removing the bodies before they got there.

Nowhere have I seen that the Soviets returned human remains to US or South Korean authorities even from down below let alone from the surface. I may be wrong so, may I see the actual quote from the Andre Illesh source?

Were there human remains? Of course! But not at the supposed crash site in international waters and for 225 square miles around and not in Soviet territorial waters, but 8 days later on the the shores of Hokkaida (13 body parts and tissues, all unidentifiable). And also from the wreck at the bottom itself, according to the civilian divers. But the divers, and I think that it is fair to say, are in amazement, and even shock, as you read the reports, at the at the most 10 body parts and tissues and no luggage out of 269 passengers. They are giving their report 8 years after the downing and know well that there were 269 people aboard. This is all notable no matter what theory you do or don't hold on to. So there are confusions that I think can shortly be cleared up. The divers finished their work before the 15th of Sept., according to the civilian divers the 15th being the day the first civilian group (Svestapol) went down, and they wonder about the reports they hear from military divers. They also wonder at the description of the plane given by the military - obviously structurally sound enough to "enter" and even clamber on top of while they the civilian divers see tiny pieces before them. What happened to the plane while underwater and before the civilians got there? I just want to note here, all this is not my wondering and my conjecture. That would be Original Research me putting all these things together. It is they who wonder, who note, who try to explain, why no bodies, why no luggage. And of course, the authors of the Izvestia series as well as the divers, do not hold to passenger survival, and yet they wonder and they note. The same, I feel, should be our right and obligation to do.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the long reply. Perhaps this is all easily resolved if we find a reliable secondary source that is highlighting this whole issue explicitly, rather than us trying to work it out here? (Specifically, one that is assigning the same weighting to this issue.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The divers' reports came in 1991. ICA0 interviewed a number of the divers for the second report. Here is the section re: human remains found.

Sect. 1.12.4 " ...In addition to the scraps of metal, they observed personal effects, suching as clothing, documents and wallets. Although some evidence of human remains was noticed by the divers, they found no bodies..."

This lack of bodies were a cause of various explanations by the divers such as this - "“Something else was inexplicable to us—zipped up clothes. For instance, a coat, slacks, shorts, a sweater with zippers—the items were different, but— zipped up and nothing inside. We came to this conclusion then: Most likely, the passengers had been pulled out of the plane by decompression and they fell in a completely different place from where we found the debris. They had been spread out over a much larger area. The current also did its work.”

Can anyone supply the quote from the Andre Illesh source (or from anywhere else) referred to above, that, as our article says, the Soviets returned human remains to US and South Korean authorities?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bert - yes, it's in the www.aviastar.org/air/747/kale_1.html Izvestia article (in the sumary on page one, as well as the subsequent detail).

“ Several weeks after this tragedy, the USSR gave American and South Korean authorities some remains that had been found floating on the surface of the water, but the Soviet officials did not report that parts of the aircraft itself had been found. ”

I've read elsewhere how and when it was handed over, but can't remember which article that wsa in. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that the Soviets turned over many articles of clothing which they said they fished out of the waters and shores between Moneron and Sakhalin, including many shoes and other footware [5], but no hodies, body parts or tissues. It is human remains that is the question. Is there a reference for this that you found?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

When Andrey Illesh in his article says "Several weeks after this tragedy, the USSR gave American and South Korean authorities some remains that had been found floating on the surface of the water", I understand this to be (human) remains. Elsewhere, when Illesh again talks about "remains" he says: "No, no one asked us to recover any remains, only equipment, tapes, documents, and the black box". Again, I interpret this as (human) remains. This article says the Russians found the remains of no more than 13 people (as quoted in the Helms letter) - should that not be the key point to focus on here, rather than getting stuck in details about whether these were found on the surface or not, or if/when they were handed over?

I can see that the Illesh article is the original source of all the diver quotes and questions about few human remains However Illesh himself qualifies his own quotes as follows: "First of all I will say that the divers themselves are unsure and try to avoid conclusive answers....the uncertainty of the divers is understandable. They really expected to see a huge quantity of bodies, an entire graveyard. And they feared this. Therefore the little they stumbled upon in no way corresponded with their expectations. This is the source of their inevitable uncertainty. But the 'cockpit' was empty as well or, more accurately, the location of cockpit wreckage. There was not a trace of pilots, navigators, or flight attendants, and the aircraft could not operate without them." (See www.aviastar.org/air/747/kale_8.html) Lastly, remains washed up in Shiretoko only 7 days later - before any divers went down, indicating significant dispersion. So I feel the quotes from the Illesh article are being selectively presented here in a way that changes their original meaning, especially as they don't have any of the qualifications of the original author. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of concerns here that are pertinent. First of all, there is no question that there were human remains seen by the divers. They were startled that there were so few. I had objected to the edit that said that the Soviets handed over human remains to US and S Korean authorities, in that I had not seen that in the Izvestia series and that was specifically denied (reference and quote above) by ICAO '93 who had interviewed some of the divers of the Izvestia interviews. No human remains were handed over. Secondly, the divers' interviews in Izvestia is not the source, of all the concern about the lack of bodies, and I might add luggage. The diver Vadim Kondrabaev comments in our article about the removal of the remains by the military divers who had preceded them as explanation, or possibly their absence explained by the remains being eaten by crabs, come from an Itogi interview of Oct. 1, 2000. I can understand the confusion as I had failed to give reference. I will do so now. Further, it is not only the divers who express suprise and/or amazement at the lack of bodies. So does Gennadie Osipovich himself, who opts, with reservation, for the crab theory, and, of course, in the latest of comments (also in our article) on the subject, the "strategic" commander of the shootdown, Gen Valeri Kamensky (March 15, 2001, in the Ukrainian weekly, “Facti I Kommentari”)[6] who concludes, "It is still a mystery what happened to the bodies of the crew and passengers on the plane." . These people are certainly not "weighted" in favor of survivors, but they express their puzzlement precisely because it an inherent and notable problem in the incident itself.

If I can refer to your above statement, "...the Soviets finding human remains and luggage (and handing these over later in September). Also, the experience of the civilian divers is being highlighted, apparently to support the rescue007 theory that there were no human remains", did you find a statement either in the divers' reports in Izvestia, or from the interviewer Illesh himself, that human remains (as distinct from clothing etc.) where handed over by the Soviets to the U.S. and South Korean authorities? There might be, in contradiction to ICAO '93. I just want to know. Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get stuck on if any remains were handed over - as above, it was probably my interpretation of Illesh's article (which I stand by, but anyway). How about we focus instead on the dearth of remains - that as per Jesse Helms, the Russians at the end of the day could account for only 13/269 people (handed over or not)? That way, we don't have to rely on first hand diver accounts or ambiguous sources. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I guess this is what I feel about the whole matter. However we got to it, we have 2 pretty good and distinct sections that correspond to reality, that have differing content though both having to do with the human remains finds, as well as other things. These are the section of the divers finds which center in the Moneron area and the section on the finds washed ashore on Hokkaido. For the first section, the reports from the "Izvestia" divers as well as the non Izvestia others mentioned above are clear - suprise and puzzlement at the dearth of human remains, at the most 10 pieces, not even from 10 individuals, possibly less, thus the attempt to explain this dearth by the theories. Its important to remember that just as the dearth of human remains startled so did the absence of luggage. This stands as a startling and vexing question in and of itself, to these varied people none of whom believed in, or expressed a belief in, survivors. I think, therefore, that what we have in the first section the events and the actual divers' expressions, have a just and important place in our article. The second section deals with the human finds, numbering just 13, intermingled with articles mentioned in the article. Much can be said which I have not said about the Hokkaido finds, as much has been written about it, some of which finds expression in ICAO. It may be that others can add beneficially to this section, and if so, I do not think it would be overweighted. I think that as the article itself has grown, more has been put into the varying sections without throwing off balance. What I sense now, is that we may have reached the end point for both sections on human remains.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"flight deviation" edit

"(However a subsequent court case in which the FAA was sued for negligence for not warning the aircraft that it was off track was summarily dismissed on the grounds that the deviation while still under FAA air traffic control was minimal.[12])"

I think that the above edit is out of place but I hesitate to remove it myself. This is the sentence of which the above is added "Where it should have been was a location “fixed” by the nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) of Cairne Mountain."

There is no question that KAL 007 should have passed at a location fixed by the NDB of Cairne Mountain. The parenthentical statement speaks about blame or failure in reporting the deviation and , as noted, there is no grounds for that as it was "minimal". But there is no need to note that exceptively as there is no doubt that KAL 007 should, indeed, have passed over the location in question.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to illustrate how the FAA got itself out of trouble legally. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete references

There are a number of references that are incomplete (no title, accessdate, author etc) - these will need to be sorted before the next GA review. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Another dubious- discuss request

"Soviet ships head for anticipated site that KAL 007 would reach the water while the aircraft was in the air. Izvestia testimony of a Soviet naval specialist, "When we learned that the aircraft had been attacked, and that weapons had been used, we began to analyse when it might possibly come down. Ships were ordered to the anticipated area. Several ships headed there at once at full speed..."[dubious – discuss]"

Well, for starters, I will discuss but I do not know what aspect you are dubious about. I will supply sources and references as you request after I am able to focus in to the request. This naval specialist interviewed by Izvestia provides the earliest account of the Soviet SAR mission. The ones documented in the Russian military communication transcripts of ICAO '93 (and in our article with references) are of missions after KAL 007 had come done. This Soviet seaman, speaks of the tracking of KAL 007 while in the air after it had been attacked. There is nothing that should awaken doubts in this testimony as KAL 007 had been multibly tracked while in the air prior to being attacked, during the attack, and after the attack. We have the Japanese tracking prior to tha attack (at 18:26) until 18:29, as well as the tracking known from the start that specifies 18:38 as the time the aircraft disappeared from the screens (referred to in the original UN procedings}, and we have testimony from radar station 1845 at Konsomolsk-na-Amure ln the Soviet Maritime opposite Sakhalin and elsewhere (notably Yedinka on the Aritime coast) This report provided by the Izvestia interview informs us that Soviet ships were being provided with radar tracking coordinates or were tracking on their own radar and proceding to the estimated point of contact with the sea of KAL 007 according to the radar position they were then in real time receiving. When the tracking of this ship and the others with it mentioned, and speeding to the estimated site for KAL 007 to come down took place we do not know. It had to be some time between 18:26 and 18:38 plus.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The dubious part is the timestamp of the ships heading to the crash site - the exact same minute as the crash. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Corrected.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

King Salmon radar tracking

Though King Salman military radar tracked KAL 007 12.6 nm off route at Bethel, Alaska, it was not certified, according to FAA, for civilian use. It is true that civilian air traffic controllers used King Salmon at times for specific purposes, but it was not required and it may not have been a necessity for Judy Nichols, the air traffic controller for the sector at the time, to have resorted to King Salmon. She may not have been in the position at the time to warn KAL 007 of its deviation. "but did not question or notify the aircraft" might imply that she was. The real question is whether the output from KIng Salmon which was sent to the Elmendorf airforce base in Alaska was noted in real time. At present, I don't know the answer to that Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've reworded this - let me know what you think. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"but was not required to question or notify the aircraft" probably should be changed to "but it is not certain that either civil air traffic controllers or military radar personnel at Elmendorf, Alaska air base (which would have received the King Salmon output), had been aware in real time of KAL 007's deviation"

World Wide Issues ref

Bert, what is "World Wide Issues" - is this a book, newspaper, magazine? Who publishes it? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

World Wide Issues periodical is a digest of international news according to areas. The area number for the Soviet Unions on all the related news items is FBIS-Sov-91 and then the particular date (it looks like the Soviet area news was a daily compilation.) If you can give me the particular item referenced, I can try to look up the date and give the complete info. I don't know who publishes World Wide Issues or whether it is still being published. These items from World Wide issues are all from the Izvestia series.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We might need to find another ref if this one has been cited indirectly via another source, and we don't have access to check the ref and don't know the journal publisher to check if it's a reliable source. There are two references (#57 in the article).

While on the subject, is Itogi meant to be Itogi Nauki i Techniki? Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Socrates and others, starting today, I will be away 11 days. I may have occasional use of computer but will not have reference material available. Could we hold off on any reference deletions until I am back? I feel that I will be able to turn up all complete referencing left even the World Wide Issues. Itogi Magazine [7] is published in Moscow. The article contains the Oct. 1, 2000 interview by Stepan Kribosheev of diver Vadim Kondrabaev. It is found in Roy's Russian Aircraft Resources [8] Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do?

I think that there are one or two photos (definitely "Moneron") which is in danger of deletion because I either don't know the info or do but don't know how to incorporate. I can't find the photographer/author, or where it was first published, yet I don't think its inclusion in wikipedia infringes on copyrights. I have made no changes to photo. Can anybody do anything?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP needs to know the source to determine if copyright is being violated. Where did you get them from? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I googled "Moneron" images and the photo came up but I didn't pay attention as to the source. Now, when I google it, the photo comes up but from my own postings only!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Moneron photo File:Moneron Island 2.jpg has been deleted. Is there anyone who can get it up properly? It's photographer is unknown. Perhaps it is because I do not provide information about it accurately that it gets deleted.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to suceed if you don't have the permission of the copyright holder. Flickr has some good photos of Moneron, but none of them are royalty free - however maybe you could contact the photographer and ask permission to use one of them here...? Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

wrong Wakkanai info

I think that this from the Timeline of attack "18:12 Radar at Wakkanai picked up KAL 007 for the first time." is wrong info. The Wakkanai tracking was for less than 3 minutes ending at 18:29. Perhaps some one has info about a previous Wakk. tracking. Will not correct just yet. Bert67.186.182.174 (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Pearson says it was tracked for 17mins - I'll see if I can dig up the source that says tracking started at 18:12 Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo Gallery

Socrates, you have taken down the photo gallery and map posting [9] from the external links on the grounds that we already have the rescue007 reference, but what i am drawing attention to is not the website but the real time photos of the naval confrontation. web site is just the location. this follows immediately upon the USS Sterett photos and I think that both sets of photos in the External links make a great portrayal for any reader or researcher. Don't you think?Bert141.155.142.135 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding an external link to your own site consitutes a conflict of interest - you should let other people do this. Secondly, the site is already listed in both the external links and the references - usually an external link is not included where a site has already been used as a reference. See external links for more info. Hope that helps. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Usually" implies not always. That leaves room for inclusion. There is just nowhere else I know of that the assemblage of these real time photos of the naval confrontation and the ships involved (and Task Force 71 search map) are found but on the International Committee site (not my site). Would not this justify its inclusion?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your potential conflict of interest is the overriding factor here - essentially you're promoting your own website by adding the link yourself. If the link is really that relevant, the view at WP is that someone other than you will add it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

misplaced boxes

There seem to be boxes belonging to one section found in another and wrong section. A box found in Soviet Memoranda section should be in the section on Senator Helms and the one found in the Revised ICAO report should be in the Soviet Memoranda section.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this with either Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox 3. What browser are you using? Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think thqt all is probably ok if all seems good to you. I am using someone else's computer and am told that it is an old unupdatd opton line browser. Pretty sure all is ok. Thnks!Bert68.198.92.105 (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction - changing "military" divers to "civilian" divers

Will correct fully when home. No military divers were interviewed, just civilian. Civilian saw wreckage in small pieces, as quoted in our article. But civilian divers report that military divers who preceded them saw wreckage, more integral, more whole, so much so that it was was hard for them to believe- in contrast to what was before their eyes. Soviet airbase people conveying reports of military divers saying the same thing to Izvestia reporters. BertBert Schlossberg (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Can we possibly shorten this section a little - I don't think it needs to be this long to make the point clearly. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

color coding Time Table of Attack

color coding seems more confusing than leaving it as isBert Schlossberg (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I toned the colours down a bit - I think it helps to show who was saying what. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

lOOKS MUCH BETTERBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Bert, I can't find references for the remaining points that are tagged as needing citations, or where the citations are incomplete - please can you take a look at these as they need to be sorted before GA. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Will begin tomorrowBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also in pink

I think that this "18:55 Any civilian ships near Moneron sent to Moneron itself on order of Deputy Commander of Far East Military District, Gen. Strogov.[117]" should also be in pink, like the one above. The info (although there is no direct quote included) also from same source.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Flaps

I would think also that "flaps" on the leading edge is wrong, but this is from a part quote from an aviation book and it might just be used rightly in a technical sense:

G. Norris and M. Wagner in Boeing (MBT Publishing, Osceolo, WI 1998)

"The hydraulics provided actuation for all the primary flight controls; all secondary flight controls (except leading edge flaps); and landing gear retraction..."Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I've put a note in. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There are "leading edge flaps"

Types of flap systems include:

• Krueger flap: hinged flap on the leading edge.Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've updated that article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias

If the article is peer-reviewed I would like the issue of bias addressed. The Soviet position, which I believe happens to be correct, is denied oxygen and denigrated while an ultra-right, Ramboesque conspiracy theory about the survivors being secretly held in gulags dominates. American history is littered with false casus belli (the Maine, the Tonkin Incident, the Weapons of Mass Destruction etc) and Here's another. This is not a request for a debate but a request for better article. Unfortunately I have not been able to get a copy of the Airways article or I would include its contents. Hopefully someone can.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You have raised your concerns of bias under one of the previous GA reviews. My response is the same as then: this article is extensively referenced, drawing from a wide range of source across the political spectrum, most notably from two independent ICAO reports and an Izvestia report (neither "ultra-right" by any stretch of the imagination). This topic is a controversial and emotional one is for many people; consequently extensive efforts have been made (and are still being made) during this review to meet Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability and reliability in published sources and to ensure that it represents a mainstream rather than a conspiratorial view of the subject. So it's not sufficent simply to say that you (or a particular article) disagree on a personal level with some aspect of the content, because there will always be differing opinions on controversial material. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Two sections removed

I have removed two sections (Soviet theories about lack of human remains and Sentator Jesse Helms) as I feel that their presence was giving undue weighting to the Rescue007.org arguments about the passengers surviving and being imprisoned, especially as they were lifted verbatim from the rescue007 arguments in support this theory. The Soviet theories section, identified by the peer reviewer as needing major work, presented a collection of personal anecdotes rather than a reliable or official point of view. Most importantly, I can't find published reliable sources that concur with the points of view or prominence of either these two sections (other than those sources that have cited this WP article or Rescue007.org). Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Senate Comm.on Foreign Relations investigation

The 1991 investigation, report, and letter to Yeltsin of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Minority Staff) is surely worthy of inclusion under InvestigationsBert Schlossberg (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bert, as above, I have concerns about the weighting of this section, as well as the fact that it's referenced exclusively via links to your site, Rescue007.org - i.e. the same site whose theory is being promoted in this section. Also, I have been unable to find independent references for this section, or refs that give Sen Helms prominence in getting Yeltsin to hand over the black boxes. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if prominence in getting Yeltsin to hand over the black boxes could not be assured, that is irrelevent. The topic has to do with investigations undertaken not successful investigations accomplished - and I have not maintained, what I do believe, mainly that Sen. Helms appeal to Yeltsin was indeed successful (this is not to assert that there were no other influencing factors)Bert Schlossberg (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Investigation by Senate Committee on For. Relations improperly tagged

I see that the section is tagged. I am not referring in my edits to the Committee for the Rescue website or to my book. I am using book to present, not my words, but the letter, in its entirety, of Sen. Helms to Yeltsin, just as it was sent on official Committee for Foreign Relations letterhead. Further, the tag's wording is "Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately." Even if the letter or the book in which it is found should be considered an unreliable source, the tag speaks about removing references to unreliable sources "where they are used inappropriately". There has not been any determination that the source is being used inappropriately and therefore this section ought stand as is. This is a letter from a U.S. senator to the President of the Russian Federation concerning KAL 007. The Senator is the ranking member of the Minority staff. That would be noteworthy even if the letter was a personal one. But it is not a personal one. It is a letter on the official stationary of one of the most powerful committees of Congress. And the content and information is indeed pertinent to the section topic of the article - Investigations into KAL 007 - as the letter is a direct result of an investigation involving CIA, NSA, DIA, as well as two delegations to Israel involving top staffers of the Foreign Relations Committee. Further, that the letter was sent to Yeltsin as a result of Intelligence agency investigation and verification is attested by the Chief of Staff to the Ranking Minority Senator of one of the most powerful and pertinent to the incident committee - Rear Admiral Bud Nance. This source is, indeed, being used most "appropriately" and pertinently.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bert, the problem is that all the sources you're using in this section, including this letter, are published via your own website. So the fact that the stationary looks authentic is not sufficient for the purposes of verifiability. i.e. While I'm not saying it's the case here, it's quite possible for someone who is handy with Photoshop to create an authentic looking document. Secondly, as I keep mentioning, if this section represents a mainstream view, we'd have no trouble finding other published sources that could be used as references here instead.Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought - why not merge this section with the Rescue007 info under the Alternate theories section? There's no problem citing rescue007 when mentioning what rescue007 believes. Socrates2008 (Talk)

Socrates, thinking it over, seeing how it cam be done under Alternative theories. See if and what I can come withBert Schlossberg (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Took the suggestionBert Schlossberg (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pearson quote

"but only in respect to uncovering the legal duty of the military to warn or advise civilian aircraft". I'm not able to find this quote in the Pearson book. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The page I have given was for the presence of the RC-135 off the coast of Kamchatka. The correct page that references the quote is page 305Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but a full text search of that book is not turning up the quote on any page in the book. Please could you confirm that you have the same edition as this one that has been digitised. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Socrates, another mystery! your digitized book url does not come up. Can not be found. The information I gave to you is exactly as I have in the book before me. The book ISBN number is 0-671-55716-5. The page (305) is found in the chapter entiteled "In Court". Context - Sentence before quote: "In response to protests, he decided on April 18. 1984 to allow questions to the military, 'but only with respect to...'" Following the quote, is the new paragraph beginning, "In the final analysis, however, the civil case was not intended..."Bert Schlossberg (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't comparison of the ISBN numbers tell us if the edition of the book that I have is different from the digitized version that you have?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

New links to airliners.net

Bert, all the inline external links you have added pointing to your post on airliners.net is considered as soapboxing. Suggest that if there are any additional images worth addding here that they are rather submitted to Wikipedia. This article will not pass GA with these links in place. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Socrates, these images could well be construed as soapboxing and thus shoot down the article for GA status, but it may not. So, I would like to plead my case. Almost, or all, of the images are ones that I tried to put up before and failed. The most recent was the image of Moneron Island. They all are pertinent to the article and none of them "push" survivors. They are pictures of the people involved in the shootdown itself, Moneron Island, and Task Force 71 map of the search operations. I have had difficulty on the copyright angle, but also told, or imagine to be told, that what comes from the International Committee's website, except in the Alternative Theory section, is verbotten. So, I turned to the Airliner.com articles, which admittedly I have written except one, in the hopes that technically it would be accepted - since the pictures there are not from the Committee's website. I think that the articles within which the images are imbedded, do not provide a whole lot more than what we have in our website now (at least, that could be understood as pointing to survivors!). In any case, my intent has been to get those pictures into our article. There you have itBert Schlossberg (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You've linked the article, not the images. Also, it's not just any article, but one you wrote. Would you like another opinion? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, take it off. Can you link the image for me?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did these images (e.g. shoes) come from? Is it not worth trying again to get them uploaded to WP? Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The shoes came from the Life Magazine of 25 years ago. That is a picture of only a small portion of the shoes. Life has another page of shoes. I corresponded with the picture editor of that time, John Loengard, the famous photographer. He could not help, but advised me to contact the archives, which are now handled by an independant company. I did so but they did not respond. This is the case with all the pictures appearing in the Magazine. The magazine itself gives not photo credits for the article on KAL 007. I had tried to trace the passengers families through the pictures in the hopes of contacting them, but none of the pictures, according to Loengard, were probably never taken into actual possession of Life and no records were kept. If they had not been returned to the families, they would be in archives - which has yet to respond to me. The picture of Tretyak was given for my use by the photographer. I just have to find the permission. I am not hopeful about it's acceptability, because when I did indicate on the image uploading of the Soviet ships that they were given me with permission from the naval photographer after release (which I have in writing), they were continually rejected. The two that remain up, are two that I had up previously and were taken down. I don't know why the difference. Moneron I got by googling. When I got it, it did have source, but I didn't note it down as I was not atuned to those requirements then. Now when I google it, I see the picture that has as its source, the website of the Committee for the Rescue! So, I'm afraid, no matter how pertinent these pictures are, my efforts have been a bust. I still don't know why the After Action Map of Task Force 71 is not accepted. It is Unclassified, governmental, open to the public, whoever is interested. I resorted to linking to the airliners article directly (that is, through our reference section instead of on-line inner link) to avoid refusals by wikipedia - according to the rules, as explained by you. I am now going to upload the shoes to wikipedia and edit it into the article with fair use rationale and we shall seeBert Schlossberg (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may, this tells about the shoes - [10] Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You been using the wrong license for all the images you've uploaded as you didn't create them. e.g. Task force image is public domain, as it was creaed by the US Navy. I've tried to fix them for you, but some still need fair use rationales. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. Which is the right license?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends on where the image comes from. Generally US federal government sources are public domain, but each image is different. Since you don't know the source of the Moneron image, it will be deleted again. Where you don't have the copyright holder's permission, fair use can sometimes be claimed, but you have to provide a justification for each time you use the image, stating why you must use it and how it will not be to the detriment fo the copyright holder. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly U.S. Government images can be used since it is public domain. What about other Governments or UN images? If you know who copyright holder is you need to get his permission, except in those cases that you can justly claim "fair use". Does "fair use" entail no commercial profit, no harm done to copyright holder, and no other picture available, these elements? What if the source, the copyright holder is not known, as in the case of Moneron Island? Fair Use cannot be claimed because the copyright owner is not known? What about a picture such as Osipovich, which I understand will be deleted again, where it is from a newspaper, which is unknown, and is 25 years old? Can fair use be claimed? It is surely the only picture available showing Osipovich as he was when he shot down KAL 007.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a read here Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese electronic intercepts?

Under Timeline of Attack, there is now "The following transcript is compiled from Japanese electronic intercepts of Soviet Su-15 transmissions". Can we have the reference that it was Japanese intercepts rather than U.S. National Security Agency intercepts?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This note "These intercepts did not include Soviet ground transmissions, only those of the pilots." This note to the "Japanese electronic intercept" edit is wrong. The intercept, whether Japanese, or, as I was led to believe, U.S. NSA, was only of the "cockpit side" of the Titovnin (on the ground) and Osipovich (in the air) transmissions. This was only the second time that the intelligence capability to listen in on a fighter plane was publcally revealed via the actual transcript. The other pilots involved that we have in our Timeline come to us via the land side communications of the event handed over by the Russian Federation and not via U.S. or Japnanese electronic intercept. I will not change until I hear possible other understandingBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It comes from here Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Socrates, I think that this under the Timeline intro has to be corrected - "Soviet fighter pilots 1983 US-Japanese radio intercept/1993 Russian transcript" . The Soviet fighter pilot remarks did not come via electronic intercept, only Osipovich's in his Su-15 came through intercept. All other Soviet pilot transmissions were picked up in the various command posts on Sakhalin, and along with the commanders and subordinatants by the radar screens, talking over telephone, etc. came to us via the military communication transcripts handed over in 1992 by the Russian Federation. The electronic intercepts of Osipovich in his Sukhoi were known to us from Day One. The other Soviet pilots' reports were known to us only in 1992. The same with the words of the Air Combat Controller Titovnin. They were known to us only in 1992. They fit in perfectly with what we knew from the electronic intercepts of OsipovichBert Schlossberg (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In the color scheme, I suppose that if you want to lump together for attention all the pilots' remarks, then the color scheme (salmon) is correct for all. But if you want use the color to indicate sources, then the Soviet pilots other than Osipovich shoulc be pinkBert Schlossberg (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A further note how this all makes sense - this is not commented on in the ICAO report, I think, but here is how the pilots reports, other than Osipovich, came to be in the transcript of radio commuications. Either the reports were picked up by a mike in the various command posts, which I doubt very much, and they find their proper time designated place in the compilation of the communications that were handed over by the Russian Federation, or there were separate transcripts of the fighter pilots reports that were "spliced in" to the running time-stamped communications in the preparatory work, problably by the Russian Federation rather than by the Soviets. And so we have their reports in the final document of transcripts. I use the plural transcripts because what was turned over (and how they appear in the Information Papers of the ICAO '93 report) by the Federation were transcripts of separate reels. It is similar to what "Higher Critics" of the Old Testament call "redaction" in the formation of the text of the Pentateuch. That is, various sources (J,E,D,P) edited in to a final single document (of which, in the case of the Old Testament, I am very doubtful) In any case, the "source" of the Soviet pilots, other than Osipovich, was not electronic "intercept".Bert Schlossberg (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aviator, I think the reason the PIREPs (pilot reports) are in the record is that all communications are recorded at the centers/towers. A PIREP is generally a broadcast message from an aircraft, but can be filed also shortly after landing. The recording capability/requirement is certainly true of all American, European, and Asian public centers/towers of which I am aware. The basic recording of such information at that time was likely at the basic "tape recorder" level and not digital. The rationale for these recordings is to help ascertain what went wrong in case of a mishap. I concur that this information was possibly not an intercept, but, then again, it could have been depending on the location and context of the report. `— BQZip01 — ^talk 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the listening posts in northern Japan picked up the Soviet aircraft tranmissions only, because they were closer to Japan and higher than the ground station they were communicating with. Let me do some more digging... Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's and here are the refs. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Estimated deviation at Cairn mt.?

Socrates, there is a contradiction involved in the Timeline entry "13:03:30 Estimated point that the pilot selected INS mode.[4]". "Estimated" is right as Inertial Navigation System selection is not one of the parameters of the Digital Flight Data Recorder* There was no required time of selection for KAL pilots (according to Capt. Park, pilot of KAL 015 and others) to select INS in a flight from Anchorage to Bethel and actual time varied with the pilot - as long as INS was selected prior to Bethel and departure of the mainland. It is estimated in this entry, based on the Asaf Degani mapping, that the INS was selected just 3 minutes after take off (take off being at 13:00). But that would have meant that it was selected well within the "Desired Track Capture Envelope" of 7 1/2 Nautical Miles, and if so, the INS would have been successfully engaged. The flight from Anchorage to Cairn Mt. (the Degani image calls in Carin Mt. instead of Cairn) is 30 minutes. The flight was 5.6 miles deviated at Cairn Mt. according to civil radar at Kenai (south of Anchorage). Thus even at Cairn Mt., after 30 minutes, if INS had been selected, it was still within the 7 1/2 NM permitted range deviation for successful engagement of the INS. If the INS had been selected, it must have been shortly after KAL 007 had passed Cairn Mt. Thus,the estimated time of INS emgagement at 13:03 is wrong. The 5.6 deviation at Cairn Mt. after 30 minutes flying time, based on the Kenai tracking, has never been in doubt, being attested to in both ICAO '83 and ICAO '93 reports.

• Here are the parameters of DFDR for KAL 007: acceleration (lateral, longitudinal and vertical), altitude (coarse and fine), calibrated airspeed, control column position in pitch, control wheel position in roll, engine pressure ratio for engines no. 2 and 3, flap configuration, Very High Frequency (3) and High Frequency (2) radios' key positions, magnetic heading, pitch and roll attitude, rudder pedal position, thrust reverser state for each engine, radio altimeter, autopilot (in and out of manual control), autopilot (in and out of command) and marker beacon.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Could the error in entry into the Timeline be a typo? Could you have intended 13:30 instead of 13:03? I see that the mapping of Degani has it almost correct. (He still has it slightly before Cairn Mt., which at 5.6 deviation, put it within the range for successful engagement)Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see two problems. Cairn Mtn is about 280km from Anchorage - certainly not 2.5mins flying time, as you point out. Also, his text says "...it first passed five miles noth of Carin Mountain..."(pg50), however his own diagram (pg63) clearly shows a deviation greater than 7.5mi at Cairn Mtn. So clearly he's not got his facts straight over some important details. Well spotted. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, two questions of my own: If the INS never activated, what made the crew believe they were at each of the waypoints of R-20 that they reported to ATC during the flight - or did they just guess using their elapsed flying time? Why is there no mention of Russian radar picking up the aircraft's transponder? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

two questions of my own: If the INS never activated, what made the crew believe they were at each of the waypoints of R-20 that they reported to ATC during the flight - or did they just guess using their elapsed flying time? Why is there no mention of Russian radar picking up the aircraft's transponder? two questions of my own: If the INS never activated, what made the crew believe they were at each of the waypoints of R-20 that they reported to ATC during the flight - or did they just guess using their elapsed flying time? Why is there no mention of Russian radar picking up the aircraft's transponder?

Socrates, this is a strange one. My not so definitive answers, excerpted from my book -

Your questions: "two questions of my own: If the INS never activated, what made the crew believe they were at each of the waypoints of R-20 that they reported to ATC during the flight - or did they just guess using their elapsed flying time? Why is there no mention of Russian radar picking up the aircraft's transponder? "

Re: the Russian radar/transponder "At 15:51 GMT, according to Soviet sources, KAL 007 “bumped” the Soviet buffer zone of Kamchatka Peninsula.14 The buffer zone was generally considered to extend 200 km. from Kamchatka’s coast and is technically known as a Flight Information Region (FIR). Within that region, aircraft would be queried by Soviet interceptors emitting a signal to the unidentified aircraft. An apparatus called a transponder would squawk back, among other things, the aircraft’s four-digit code, identifying the plane—if it were a Soviet plane. A non-Soviet block plane would not respond, but this in itself registered a negative identification. The pilots of the intruding aircraft would be unaware of the Soviet query. This system is similar to the U. S. military’s Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)."

Re: What made the crew believe...?My understanding from reading - the INS would indicate the continual distance to the waypoint being reduced but it would not indicate lateral displacement. Thus, they could be miles laterally deviated but think that a they were actually at waypoint (See HSI note below). Basic to the above - INS had been selected but not engaged because the aircraft had been outside the 7 1/2 mile Desired Track Capture Envelope. Maybe someone knowledgeable could check this out.

Here is my take (Mainly from Pearson, I think) on what is still astounding to me. The pilots must have had the height of situational unawareness.

"What could the pilots of KAL 007 have known of their course deviation? FromBethel and on, alert pilots could have known much—starting with the Horizonal Situation Indicator. The Horizontal Situation Indicator’s needle would have alerted the pilots of their course deviation. This is because the cockpit HSI console needle, capable of showing deviation only up to eight miles, would be “pegged” all the way to the side. The pilots, thus, should have known that they were at least eight miles off course!11

"Despite this, strangely enough, at 13:49, the pilots were reporting that they were on course! “007, Bethel at forty niner.” And so, fifty minutes after takeoff, military radar at King Salmon, Alaska acquired KAL 007 at more than 12.6 miles off course. It had exceeded its permissible leeway of deviation by six times! (Two nautical miles an hour error is the permissible drift from course set by INS.)

"Furthermore, pilot and copilot should also have been aware of the aircraft’sserious deviation because now, much more than 12 miles off course, KAL 007 was too far off course for the pilots to make their required Very High Frequency (VHF) radio reports, and had to relay these reports via KAL Flight 015, just minutes behind it and on course (KAL 007,increasingly off course, would have to rely on KAL 015 three times to transmit its reports to Anchorage Air Traffic Control). That too should have alerted them.

"At one point in this section of its flight, (14:43 GMT) KAL 007 put a call through a navigational “hookup,” the International Flight Service Station on High Frequency. Flight 007, now too distant to speak directly with Anchorage Controller through Very High Frequency, was transmitting its message indirectly using High Frequency.12 The message was a change in the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) for the next waypoint called NEEVA—delaying by four minutes the ETA that KAL 015 had previously relayed on behalf of KAL 007. Since a revised ETA could only be calculated by means of readout information presented by KAL 007’s Inertial Navigation Systems Control Display unit, pilot and copilot were once again presented with the opportunity of verifying their position and becoming aware of their enormous deviation. THIS MAY BE WRONG IF THE INS DOES NOT INDICATE LATERAL DEVIATIONBert Schlossberg (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Halfway between waypoint NABIE and the next required reporting waypoint, NEEVA, KAL 007 passed through the southern portion of the United States Air Force NORAD (North American Air Defense) buffer zone. This zone, monitored intensively by U. S. Intelligence assets, lies north of Romeo 20, KAL 007’s designated air route, and is off-limits to civilian aircraft. KAL was apparently undetected—or, if detected, unreported."

11 An aircraft HSI generally has an image of a plane directly above the Horizontal Situation Indicator’s needle when the aircraft is on course. A needle pointing to the left or to the right of the image would indicate that the plane is deviated left or right of the course. KAL 007’s HSI’s needle would have been pegged all the way to the right (North). ICAO expanded on the Horizontal Situation Indicator’s capability of showing course deviation. The pilots could have known that they were off course by looking at the Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) in front of each of them. Though the HSI was primarily designed to show the aircraft’s situation with regard to the horizon, the 747’s HSI contained an indicator to register deviation from plotted course. “Indications [of being on course] available to the crew would have been a reducing or zero track bar displacement with the HSI display set to INS and a similar reducing or zero cross track error on the CDUs [consoles]. There would have been a similar effect with the VOR track displacement…”—ICAO report 1993, p. 42, sect. 2.4.4.

12 At waypoint NABIE, KAL 007 was too far north to make radar contact with the Very HighFrequency Air Traffic Control relay station on St. Paul’s Island. KAL 015 relayed for KAL 007.

Bert Schlossberg (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the long reply. I've asked the author of the above article to clarify - he's getting back to me in a week or so. I understand how IFF works (it uses a form of public key crytography so that not any aircraft can produce the required answer when queried). However civilian airliners transponders work differently - there's no encryption, so any ATC radar should be able to see the code that the aircraft is "squawking". Perhaps the Russian military radar operated on a different frequency to civilian ATC, or was not equipped to read the aircraft's transponder, or it was turned off. I don't want to get distracted by starting an original research section - I'm looking for reliable sources that might explain. I might also ping this question at the article author, who is a specialist in this area. Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)