Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Denny Yen

[History] KAL 707 attacked by USSR, belly landed on frozen lake

Recommended Posts

These pics first emerged in 2008 after 30 years in ex-USSR archives. Maybe the older members of MW recall this incident...pilots still managed to save the a/c even after shrapnels damaged fuselage and wings. And this happened at the height of Cold War, the Soviets could've just made everyone "dissapear" or jailed the crew.

 

8.jpg

 

3.jpg

 

4.jpg

 

5.jpg

 

6.jpg

 

7.jpg

 

9.jpg

 

2.jpg

 

On April 20, 1978 a KAL 707 flying from Paris to Seoul strayed into Soviet airspace and made an emergency landing on a frozen lake after being damaged by a Russian missile. 2 died and 14 were injured as a result.

  1. The plane was so far of course that had they not been shot down (forced down), they would have run out of fuel over the north pole far from any airports. So an even worse disaster may have been averted
  2. This crash directly led to the KAL 007 shoot down
  3. The KAL 707 was over Soviet airspace for 3-4 hours before it was noticed
  4. At least 2 people in the Soviet airforce were executed because the plane was allowed to stay over the Soviet Union for so long.
  5. Soviets sent a bill to the Govt of ROK, to pay for housing and feeding the passengers.
  6. The bill was never paid.

 

On April 20-th 1978 in the region of Kola Peninsula Soviet border was crossed by the passenger Boeing-707-321B (HL7429) Korean Air Lines (KAL) Flight 902 (Paris - Anchorage - Seoul) that was out of its normal route.

 

The plane was initially recognized by Soviet anti-aircraft defense radars as Boeing-747. Anti-aircraft missiles were prepared ready to strike and interceptor Sukhoy-15TM ("Flegon-F") led by Captain Bosov was sent to intercept the intruder.

 

According to words of liner commander Kim Chang Ky, the interceptor approached his plane from the right side (the ICAO rules demand that it such cases the interceptor should approach intruder from the left side). Kim Chang Ky declared that he lessened plane speed and switched on landing lights, that meant that he was ready to follow the interceptor for forced landing. Attempts of the Boeing commander to contact with the interceptor on 121.5 MHz were fixed by Rovaniemi (Finland) airport control tower. Soviet official statment was that the plane did not follow the demand for forced landing.

 

When the interceptor pilot reported that the intruder was boeing-707 and not 747 as it was recognized initially, Soviet command decided that it was electronic spy RC-135 (built on 707 base) and issued an order to eliminate the target.

 

According the American radio interception Flegon-F pilot for several minutes tried to convince his superiors to cancel the attack, as he had seen already KAL logo on the liner, but after additional order launched two rockets P-60. One of them missed the target but another one exploded, taking off part of the left wing and caused air pressure fall. Two passengers were killed by splinters.

 

Due to air pressure fall the plane abruptly went down and was lost by Soviet anti-aircraft defense radars. The interceptor pilot also lost it in the clouds.

 

During the next hour the shot Flight 902 crossed the whole Kola peninsula on the level height, trying to find landing place, and, after several unsuccessful attempts in the evening dusk landed on the ice of Korpijärvi lake, already on Karelian territory. During all this time Soviet anti-aircraft defense did not have any information about the destiny and position of the shot liner.

 

The USSR refused to coöperate with the international experts in the incident investigation and refused to present "Black Boxes" data. The plane was dismantled and taken away from the lake by parts.

 

Much later, when the secrecy mist was taken away, the "Black Boxes" data was analyzed and flight map was published. This map shows that on Amsterdam - Anchorage part of the route soon after reaching the Island the plane started wide smooth turn to the right. The turn was too smooth to be intentional and it could be caused only by malfunctioning of navigation equipment.

 

"Korean Boeings Killer" Sukhoy-15TM was the main actor again in the night from August 31-st to September 1-st when it shot down KAL Boeing 747 Flight 007 New-York - Anchorage - Seoul that also was out of it's course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same situation, same damage circumstances; if it happened to an Airbus, especially A320 onwards, the airplane would have gone down in flames. Similarly if it was a B777. Less so if it was a B747.

 

The Boeing 707 can take some serious damage to the airframe before it becomes uncontrollable. In fact, almost all big planes pre B707 were built the same way, and hence more robust than what we have in our skies now.

 

Then economists and accountants screwed this technical philosophy up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing this info,Denny.I only knew about the KAL 007;totally forget about this incident.

 

Don't forget the bombing of KAL 858 by two North Korean agents in 1987,where one of the bomber,Kim Hyon-hui is now living in South Korea under total protection by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Korean Boeing was shot down in Karelia, Russia in 1978, with a lot of civil passengers on-board. The pilots of the plane had mysteriously altered the route so that came deep inside Russian territory. Two and a half hours they were escorted by Russian jet fighters not responding to any radio contact or visual contact attempts. At last the Soviet military commanders ordered to shoot the plane down with as much accuracy as they could do. The jet plane of Russian army hit the Boeing with a missile cutting off the piece of its wing, so the Korean plane had to land after this. Two passengers were killed others got wounds as a result of an extremely fast landing to the frozen Russian lake in Karelia, Russia near Kem’ town. The first Russian military police group arrived in two hours to the landing site. They tell that when they entered the plane the strong smell of “blood, alcohol and human fecal masses” hit into their noses. Afterwards the passengers spent three days in the Kem’ town, Karelia, Russia and were send to Helsinki, Finland on the plane on the fourth day. The crew was taken to Moscow and was questioned there, but later they returned to Korea. The plane itself was disassembled to smallest parts and sent to Russian airplane producing factories and research centers, meanwhile the soldiers guarding the site had the first chance in their life to taste Coca-Cola or canned beer and even to read some Playboy. It was something they never met before in the country beneath the iron curtain.

 

Source: http://englishrussia.com/?p=1961#more-1961

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why did the plane go off course?

"The turn was too smooth to be intentional and it could be caused only by malfunctioning of navigation equipment"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read from somewhere that after this incident, the president of the United States gave the permisson that GPS system is available for civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read from somewhere that after this incident, the president of the United States gave the permisson that GPS system is available for civilians.

Not after this incident, but it was the next one, Flight 007, a Korean Air B747-200 that was shot down and destroyed in the same year but some months later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people on board this flight was very lucky that they managed to return back to their country. The passengers on board KAL 007 wasn't so lucky. But could there have been survivors on board KAL 007? Some said it's possible. The lack of bodies recovered is often pointed as one of the evidence of that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious Just howcome a b707 can last then a 777

 

Same situation, same damage circumstances; if it happened to an Airbus, especially A320 onwards, the airplane would have gone down in flames. Similarly if it was a B777. Less so if it was a B747.

 

The Boeing 707 can take some serious damage to the airframe before it becomes uncontrollable. In fact, almost all big planes pre B707 were built the same way, and hence more robust than what we have in our skies now.

 

Then economists and accountants screwed this technical philosophy up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometime in the 1980s, a Cessna landed near Red Square... of all places! I suppose it was the greatest breach of Soviet airspace. Lucky for the pilot he was not shot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[OT] Speaking about KAL 007, Wikipedia lists the breakdown of the nationality of the people onboard. There was a Malaysian. Any details?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[OT] Speaking about KAL 007, Wikipedia lists the breakdown of the nationality of the people onboard. There was a Malaysian. Any details?

 

He's Siow Woon Kwang, a 23 year old graduate from Muar who's returning home after completing his studies in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science in America. Of course, back then MAS didn't fly to America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious Just howcome a b707 can last then a 777

 

Sir - i dont quite understand your question? Can u elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir - i dont quite understand your question? Can u elaborate.

 

I think he was referring to Capt. Nik's statement - how can a 707 outlast a 777 in the event of an attack on the structure?

 

THanks for the information, Suhaimi. Was the victim known to you?

Edited by H Azmal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious Just howcome a b707 can last then a 777

 

i'm no expert, but I would say its down to the tolerances they built into an aircraft.

 

With computer simulation and advanced calculation techniques, modern airliners are built with precision (efficient & saves material cost) so these aircraft would only stand up to what the designers think is a worst case scenario eg:heavy storms, multiple lighting strikes etc

 

before the 80's , engineers probably over built airplanes. strengthening it beyond what was necessary to increase investor confidence. (back then, people would still hold their breath on a plane's maiden flight, wondering if it would really fly :p)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason why I quoted Capt Nik post so people can understand

 

Sir - i dont quite understand your question? Can u elaborate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason why I quoted Capt Nik post so people can understand

I think he had difficulty with the way you worded your question (most of us did, I assumed), but Azmal cleared this up. :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='H Azmal' date='24 August 2009 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1251093848' post='236519'

THanks for the information, Suhaimi. Was the victim known to you?

 

Nah, I wasn't even born yet back then, but if you google his name, you'll find documents of parliament proceedings where Lim Kit Siang called upon the banning of Aeroflot in retaliation to the KAL 007 accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same guy who produced this

 

Horror flight on board MH161

 

 

by Radhika Iyer-O’Sullivan

Jan 20, 09 3:55pm

Malaysiakini

 

I am a Malaysian currently residing and working in Dubai. On Dec 25, 2008, I flew with Malaysian Airlines flight MH161 to Kuala Lumpur to visit my parents. I was in seat 36H (an aisle seat) and the seat next to me, 36K (window seat) was vacant. The flight stopped over at Karachi for an hour.

 

In Karachi, more passengers boarded the plane. One male passenger boarded, showed his boarding pass to a stewardess and she pointed to seat beside me (36K). The man looked at me and said, ‘She’s a Hindu, I cannot sit beside her.’ The stewardess responded, ‘So what? What’s wrong with Hindu?’ The man then began to yell and shout that he would not sit next to a Hindu.

 

The crew insisted that he had to because there were no other seats available because the plane was full. Then this passenger sat down but began to verbally abuse my faith and the crew members. I sat in my seat but was physically cringing away from him. The flight supervisor was summoned and until then the man was still seated next to me. Imagine my shock, horror and fear in being next to a hostile, abusive person.

 

One steward did stand next to me but did not offer any help and I did not feel safe or reassured. I reached out and told that steward that I did not feel safe anymore. I said this to him softly in English and he told me to sit and wait. He then walked off and a female crew member took his place. All this time I was under the impression that this hostile passenger beside me was a Pakistani.

 

I then told the stewardess in Malay that this man should not be seated beside me after what he had said about me. There were other Malaysian passengers sitting in the same area and all of them heard me. She smiled and merely nodded.

Finally, the flight supervisor, ‘SB’, approached the passenger and after an angry exchange, the passenger said, ‘Move her then!’ and SB replied, ‘Yes, we will move her’. More angry words were exchanged and it was revealed that the passenger was actually a Malaysian. When this news was revealed, the passenger actually stood up with his fists up, ready to be physically violent. I was then hauled out of my seat and taken to the back of the plane. I was kept in the kitchen.

 

By this time I had gone into shock and was crying uncontrollably. I was shaking with rage because I was in a position where there was nothing I could do to defend myself. No one else seemed to be doing anything too.

 

I could not see what was happening from the rear of the plane but I did see uniformed security personnel approaching my original seat. I could not hear or make out what was happening as there was a group of people standing around my original seat. Eventually, the group left and it was announced that the plane would be taking off.

 

All this time I was in the kitchen, shaking and crying. All that was done for me was crew members taking turns to ask me if I was okay and offering me Coke and water! The plane began to taxi and I was then taken to another seat (42H). As I sat down, I asked the steward, ‘Is he off the plane?’ and the answer was, ‘No.’ I was appalled.

 

After the plane took off, the flight supervisor, SB, came and sat beside me. He explained to me that they could not put him off the plane because he was a deportee and if they had insisted on putting him off, then the plane would not have been cleared for take off. I was still crying at this point. I asked, ‘Why am I in a different seat? He should be!’ but my question was not answered.

 

The plane was not full. There were eight seats vacant in the rear, four on the right aisle and four seats on the left. Seat 42H, where I was put, was one of those vacant seats in the rear. If the MAS crew knew there was a deportee boarding, should they not have made arrangements to place him at the rear of the plane? What kind of airline policy allows a deportee to sit beside a female passenger travelling alone?

 

I spent the next five and a half hours on the flight in tears. I was not able to sleep because I knew that a hostile passenger was only six rows down from me. I was not afraid but in rage. My friends who are reading this would know the kind of person I am. I have always stood up for my rights and for the rights of people whom I love. I would not usually tolerate such abuse and I would not have hesitated in defending myself.

 

What stopped me was knowing that I was on a plane, in a confined space and that there were other passengers around me too, women and children. The abusive passenger was not removed from the plane and when we landed at KLIA, he disembarked like a normal passenger and was not escorted or arrested. I also disembarked knowing that I was now in the same terminal, on my own, as this hostile passenger.

 

I am very disappointed with the way MAS dealt with the incident. That passenger should have been taken to the rear of the plane and restrained. I was the victim of the incident yet I lost my chosen seat that I had paid for. Apart from offers of water, Coke and some verbal reassurances, the crew did not do anything else for me.

 

I have contacted other major airlines and this is how they would have dealt with the matter: I would have been moved to Business/First Class and I would have been escorted into the terminal until I safely exited the airport. MAS did not do anything for me. First of all, they jeopardised my safety and well-being by forcing the passenger to sit beside me knowing that he was hostile towards me and then they did nothing else to keep me safe.

 

I was in the same cabin as that passenger, wondering if he was going to walk by or pass me. I spent the entire five and a half hours in tears because I could not stand up for my rights and also because I had to keep my own rage pent-up.

 

Once I landed, I rang my husband in Dubai and related the events to him. He took immediate steps to contact MAS but to no avail. I stayed for one week in Malaysia and every single day, I tried to call their Customer Complaints Department. All I got was a voice mail. I left numerous messages but no one called me back. No one contacted my husband in Dubai. It is only after he put it up on the MAS blog that we have received some kind of response. Fourteen days after the incident, someone from MAS called me to offer an apology.

 

My husband also received an email from someone who has offered me 25 percent discount on a return flight from KL to Dubai and actually referred to that abusive passenger as a ‘fellow customer’! She also clearly stated that measures taken were to prevent that passenger from getting angrier. So in other words, they do admit that.

 

These are the questions I posed to MAS:

 

Why force a passenger who is racially abusive and hostile to my appearance and faith to sit beside me? There were other seats available at the rear as I discovered later.This was not a passenger who was merely fussing about his seat, this was a passenger who was potentially a threat to another passenger.

 

Why did the flight supervisor immediately give in to his demands and agree to move me? I was not the passenger causing trouble.

 

Upon retrospect, I think I was lied to. I do not think the passenger was a deportee. It was a lie told to me to keep him on the plane and keep me quiet. If a lie was told, that means that the crew took measures to protect the hostile passenger and themselves but not me, the victim. If so, then the MAS crew perpetuated the racism and discrimination initiated by the passenger.

 

If this is the case, then the entire crew participated in jeopardising my safety and appropriate action should be taken against them. If the passenger was truly a deportee or an INA (inadmissible because of visa) then the plane captain should have documents about him. If a deportee or INA caused trouble on a flight, the captain should have been informed immediately.

 

Why was the captain not informed and if he was, why did he not come to see me? I have been informed that KLIA security had been called but there was no one waiting when the plane landed. The abusive passenger disembarked like any other normal passenger. Why was he not nabbed or restrained? Why did not the crew ensure my safety in the terminal too?

 

I am demanding a formal, written apology from Malaysian Airlines. I want a truthful, reasonable explanation for all the five points I have listed above. I want some compensation for what I suffered. So far, I have only received an e-mail informing that the matter is under investigation.

 

 

Is this his website

http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2009/01/21/horror-flight-on-board-mh161/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... what's the relation between KAL707 / 007 with MH161??

apart from LKS in parliment and LKS re-produced the Sullivan guy in his blog :search:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... what's the relation between KAL707 / 007 with MH161??

apart from LKS in parliment and LKS re-produced the Sullivan guy in his blog :search:

Agreed, I failed to see the relevance of that to KAL007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious Just howcome a b707 can last then a 777

 

 

Cool Timothy....very perceptive.

 

But more than that, the B707 was cable operated, and yoke input to flight control surfaces are fairly direct with no computer interaction. The Pilot was able to do many and any maneuvers that would now be prohibited by today's aircraft such as the Airbuses and the B777.

 

The Boeing Test Pilot even barreled rolled the B707 during a flypast in view of Boeing bigwigs.

 

The Airbus and the B777 and to a larger extent almost all other jets would have bled the hydraulics dry; the computers will start to 'fly' the airplane within its 'flight envelope' and the Pilots will be reduced to a paid passenger status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...