Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007/Archive 1

message: Apparently they were looking for an excuse. If they were just into protecting their airspace they would have called the pilot as soon as they knew he was off course.
Ah, but such was the climate of those times. --Uncle Ed 22:33 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
:I was thinking of including a reference to Gary Moore's song "Murder in the Skies", but I was worried that it might seem trivial.... - Lee M 00:29, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. Abc30 22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The part about conspiracy theories asserts that the body count was inconsistent with other 747 crashes, however it fails to point out that KAL 007 burned in while the Air India and South African 747s both exploded mid-air! It should be immediately obvious that a mid-air explosion would result in scattered debris (and badly damaged corpses) while a flight crashing intact (as KAL 007) would result in a very different debris pattern as well as condition of the corpses.
The Izvestia series of 1991 featuring the interviews of the Russian civilian divers(from Murmansk and Svestapol) who visited the underwater site startimg 7 days after the shootdown, clearly show the amazement they fell into at the lack of bodies, body parts, amd luggage. For just a sample - 
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.”
“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.”
The fact that so little remained, and the irregular Soviet search methodology suggests to me that the Soviets had actually secretly held onto the majority of the wreckage to cover something up (maybe that they actually directed additional fire towards the aircraft when it seemed it might make an intact landing), and the trawlers were surreptitiously dumping selected debris as they trawled, with the additional function of randomly distributing the debris while providing a good cover story for the randomness, and the whole process is passed off as procedural ineptitude. 24.86.226.181 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condition of bodies recovered 

message: User:Stempy81 has added: "KAL was originally a CIA proprietary. USAF wanted to use a civilian plane as 'bait' to test the Soviet reaction to an incursion inside their borders. The flight took them over two Soviet military bases on the island of Sakhalin. 15 minutes behind KAL007 in international airspace was another civilian plane, KAL015, which relayed KAL007's messages to ground control. There are too many inconsistencies with normal procedure for this whole incident to have been accidental."  Can you cite a source for this information, and at least mention the source as being the source? (e.g., "According to foo, a well-respected Pentagon official..."  or maybe, "According to a fictionalized account of what might have happened, some people currently believe..."  Lupinelawyer 23:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA connection asserted 

message: Replying to the question concerning flight times. During Daylight Savings Time (as would have been in August/September, Anchorage, Alaska (Airport: ANC), would have been -8 hours from GMT/UTC. New York would have been -4 hours. Referring to the The Port Authority of NY & NJ China Airlines currently (as of 7/24/2005) flies every other day non-stop from JFK to ANC (flight CI 011) on its way to Taipei, China (TPE). The flight to Anchorage takes 7hrs 20min--leaving JFK at 23:45 Eastern time and arriving at ANC at 03:05 local Anchorage time. Assuming your arrival time of 3:00 am Anchorage time, the plane would have been basically on the same flight schedule as the current China Airlines departing New York ~11:45 pm Eastern Time August 31. By the way, what is your source for the arrival time in Anchorage and the layover time? The best I have found is a narrative that the passengers boarded the plane late in the night toward midnight on August 31 (in Grady's book, p. 507). The shoot-down of the flight was by various sources ~18:30 GMT Sept. 1, some 5 1/2 hours after it took off from Anchorage. For reference, Sakhalin is 14 hours ahead of Anchrorage (Anchorage is -8hr GMT, Sakhalin is +10hr GMT). 13:00 GMT September 1 = 5:00 am (-8 hours) Alaska time = 11:00pm Sakhalin time September 1. If you add 5 1/2 hours to that you get 18:30 GMT Sep 1, but indeed Sakhalin local time is 4:30 am September 2.
Summary:
5:00am ANC 9/1 = 13:00 GMT 9/1 = 11:00pm Sakhalin 9/1 - Depart Anchorage
10:30am ANC 9/1 = 18:30 GMT 9/1 = 4:30am Sakhalin 9/2 - Approximate time of crash
Crossing the International Date Line in the Bering Sea between Alaska and Russia, going west, during Daylight Savings Time, you gain 20 hours (18 between Anchorage and Sakhalin).
Kona1611
Anchorage moved from the GMT-10 zone to GMT-9 zone in the 1983 Alaska time zone consolidation, which most likely means they went to DST (GMT-9) and didn't fall back in October.  This would make Anchorage GMT-9 (not GMT-8) in August and September.06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning flight times 

message: Why is this flight KAL007, not KAL7 that would be the normal way of calling this flight? Usually after the three-letter ICAO code there are no zero prefixes. However, in the ATC conversation they used "Korean Air zero zero seven" which is confusing... KE007 is valid, in IATA codes you do see prefix zeros. 213.243.160.111 11:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight callsign

message: The template on this page says 240 passengers and 29 crew died, while the main page tidbit in "On This Day..." says there were 246 passengers and 23 crew.--Methegreat 23:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of deaths 

message: IIRC, Bruce Schneier in CRYPTOGRAM (http://schneier.com/crypto-gram.html) stated that the Russian general who gave the order to shoot down the plane was motivated by the fact that the last time something like this happened, the general on-duty did not give such an order and was executed.
I cannot find the article however.
Fear of punishment of some sort might have indeed been in the background, but the immediate impetus for the shootdown order was the fact that KAL 007 was about to exit Soviet airspace, and that for the second time. The general in question was Anatoli Kornukov and here are two of his pertinent statements, taken from the transcripts of the Soviet military communications at the time of the shootdown:
1. 
"Kornukov: (6:14) 
Comrade General, Kornukov, good morning. I am reporting the situation. Target 60- 65 (KAL 007 "intruder") is over Terpenie Bay (Terpenie Bay is on the east coast of Sakhalin Island. KAL 007 had thus successfuly traversed Kamchatka, after entering over Petropavlovsk, and crossing the Sea of Okhotsk, it was about to enter Sakhalin's airspace.) tracking 240, 30 km from the State border, the fighter from Sokol is 6 km away.  Locked on, orders were given to arm weapons.  The target is not responding, to identify, he cannot identify it visually because it is still dark, but he is still locked on. 
Kamenski: 
We must find out, maybe it is some civilian craft or God knows who. 
Kornukov: 
What civilian? [It] has flown over Kamchatka! It [came] from the ocean without identification. I am giving the order to attack if it crosses the State border. "
2. 
"Kornukov: 
Carry out the task, destroy [it]! 
Gerasimenko: 
…Comrade General… Gone to attack position. 
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." 
For full context, see - 
: Under soviet sence, he could be charged with treason and treason equals death. JAlexoid 02:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations 

message: SAFE LANDING IN THE PHILIPPINES?
I have a distinct recollection of reading a newspaper article (most likely a wire service story) in a local paper (The Reading Eagle - Reading, PA) a day or two BEFORE the shootdown, the headline of which was something like "Missing Plane with US Congressman lands safely in the Philippines."  
The gist of the article was that there was concern that a plane with the Congressman was missing (since the flight path was near Soviet space) and that there was now relief that the plane had landed safely in the Philippines.  For that reason I found it particularly curious when the plane was shot down the next day.  I remember wondering how, after the initial concern and safe landing, the plane had 'accidentally'  wandered into Soviet air space.  
There was also some mention of the Congressman's agenda having something to do with gathering information on restricted areas in Soviet territory and possibly playing a game of 'chicken' with a plane full of civilians.
Needless to say my memory does not comport with the current article which states that the plane was on it's initial flight from Alaska when shot down.  Perhaps someone with access to US wire service archives from the time period could further research the existence of such a report. 
VOICE COCKPIT RECORDING ALTERED?
I recall reading an article in "Scientific American" sometime after the cockpit voice recorders were released that analyzed the tape and clearly showed transient blips indicating that the recording, as released by the US gov't, had been edited.  The conclusions of this article would perhaps add to our understanding of this unfortunate incident.Nomdelapaix 13:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Important Points to Research 

message: BQZip01, a few days ago you tagged most of this section for citations. As the person who added most of the information on the British documentary drama Coded Hostile, I'm at a loss as to exactly what you think needs verifying in this particular case. Nick Cooper 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I am requesting is a simple reference to the claims stated. — BQZip01 — talk 21:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "claims" specifically?  Either identify precisely which part or parts of the paragraph you think need a citation/s, or I'm removing the tag. Nick Cooper 15:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No response - am removing tags. Nick Cooper 21:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture citation request tags 

message: I added geocoded coordinates to the article. I used the coordinates where the attack occurred rather than where the plane crashed because I think the former is more significant, and because this location is known with more certainty. Various sources list different locations for the wreckage. I also changed the "crashed 55 km off of Moneron Island" info that has been in the article since the very beginning, because it is wrong from every source I've seen. The missile attack occurred about 55 km off the island, and every source lists locations closer to the island where it crashed (though they vary). --GregU 19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: "Criticism of Conspiracy Theories" seems to be written as one person's rant against conpiracy theories. Any ideas on fixing it?Generalcp702 14:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I agree with the above that the section reads like a rant, but at the same time, the whole conspiracy theory section is way too long and really overshadows the factual aspects of the article. I would like to propose a split off of that material to its own separate article, say Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories. Thoughts? Akradecki 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, article will be much clearer and noone mistake theories with facts. Piotr Mikołajski 14:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but since you're quoted in the section, I smell WP:COI very strongly, especially since that section is not properly sourced. Akradecki 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: The section The condition of passengers and crew immediately after missile detonation is an almost direct cut-and-paste from the reference URL, i.e.  Nick Cooper 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this, not just for copyvio, but also as it has some serious POV and COI issues. Akradecki 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme copyright violation 

message: http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?icao/en/trivia/kal_flight_007.htm Second ICAO report summary of KAL 007 shoot down 1993. Anynobody 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done!! What I think is significant in this document is the statement:
 Akradecki 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found 2nd [[ICAO]] report summary 

message: I'm creating an image1 of KAL 007 to include, I've noticed that several other air disaster articles also don't have pictures of what the aircraft looked like so if this works out I'll probably do more. This is what I have so far. (1 I'm creating the image from a 3d model I created using AutoCAD and Paint Shop Pro, so the angle of view, and background are not necessarily going to look like this.) Anynobody 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This - " ^ a b http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?icao/en/trivia/kal_flight_007.htm Second ICAO report of KAL 007 shoot down 1993", from the References, is not the Second ICAO report, as indicated.  It is the 4 page news release about it. The ICAO report itself is 65 pages for the first part, and 208 pages for the second part (Information Paper 1., including "Transcript of Communications, USSR Air Defence Command Centres on Sakhalin Island"), 89.138.16.137 04:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the reference, it's actually a summary of the report. Anynobody 04:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to assume people remember the shoot down occurred in 1983 (since we mentioned in the article by the time the refernce is used), but I reworded to make it more clear that the 2nd report was released in 1993. Anynobody 04:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ICAO Report

message: In the article, " After the missile strike, the aircraft began to descend from 18:26 until the end of the recording at 18:27:46. At the time of the attack, the plane had been cruising at an altitude of about 35,000 feet. Capt. Chun was able to turn off the autopilot (18:26:46) and it is unknown whether he was able to regain control[4] as the aircraft spiraled toward the ocean until the cockpit voice recorder and digital flight data recorder stopped 1 minute later."
This statement gives the the wrong impression on a couple of counts.
1.  It gives the impression that post missile detonation flight lasted  one minute, from 18:26 until 18:27:46. But the flight lasted 12 minutes (at least). It also gives the impresssion that CVR and DFDR stopped because of an impact with the water. This is incorrect. They stopped at 1 minute and 44 seconds after missile detonation. The flight continued on for many more minutes. (It is more correct to say that only 1 minute and 44seconds of the tape were handed over to the U.N.)
2.  It leaves no room for the following statements from the U.S. Government and the U.N., based on radar trackings and from ICAO itself.
a. The original U.S. special intelligence raw data, as publicly reported in the U.S. statement to the United Nations Security Council on September 1, 1983 by U.S. Ambassador Charles Lichenstein - "At 1830 hours, the Korean aircraft was reported by radar at an altitude of 5,000 meters..." 
b.Also on September 1, Secretary of State George Shultz also stated more fully: "At 1826 hours the Soviet pilot reported that he fired a missile and the target was destroyed. At 1830 hours the Korean aircraft was reported by radar 5,000 meters. At 1838 hours the Korean plane disappeared from the radar screen." 
From both of these statements, we see that after KAL 007 was hit at 18:26, it had reached 5,000 meters (16, 424 ft.) four minutes later - at 18:30 ( This was later change by NSA analysis to 18:31). KAl 007 flew at this level until 18:35:
"The last plotted radar position of the target was 18:35 hours at 5,000 meters." (ICAO 1993, pg. 53, para. 2.15.8) 
This level flight is supported by the military transcripts included in the ICAO information papers of the 1993 Report:
 1993 ICAO Report Information Paper No. 1, pg. 134-135: 
"Gen. Kornukov (18:32): Tell the 23 [MiG]... afterburner. Open fire, destroy the target, then land at home base. Lt. Col. Gerasimenko (acting commander, 41st Fighter Regiment, viewing radar): Roger Kornukov: Altitude... What is the altitude of our fighter and the altitude of the target? Quickly. The altitude of the target and the altitude of the fighter! ... Why don't you say anything? Gerasimenko! ... Gerasimenko (18:33): Gerasimenko. Altitude of target is 5,000. Kornukov: 5,000 already? Gerasimenko (18:34): Affirmative, turning left, right, apparently it is descending."
It was only THEN, after the 4 minute plus level flight did KAL 007 begin its spiral descent over Moneron Island proper. This of course, brings to the fore the startling fact that KAL 007, after stopping its decent at 16,424 ft. flew for a considerable period at that level only to begin its spiral descent over the only place in the whole Tatar straits where there would be the prospect of a possibly safe water landing - 4 1/2 mile long Moneron Island.
I know that you do not yet have the ICAO '93 report. Let me know if you want me to scan these particular pages from my copy and sent to you. 89.138.16.137 11:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would indeed appreciate getting scanned/emailed copies of the relevant pages, especially all the radio transcripts and timelines. I'll contact you via email in the next day or so with a good address. Since you haven't registered as a user, I don't believe the system will allow you to use the Wikipedia email feature. Akradecki 14:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do plan to post any info before using it in the article I assume, it's not that I think what Bert says about it is wrong the problem is WP:V. Anynobody 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how I plan on handling it, but my #1 priority is to comply with WP:V with a view to the (possibly) upcoming WP:A. I'm really a stickler for doing this kind of stuff right. I also want to make sure that what we record are the facts as they are reported by the report and elsewhere, without crossing the line of WP:OR by generating speculation through our own analysis of the reported facts. If Bert wants to analyze the data and come up with his view of the outcome on his website, more power to him. That simply isn't our job at Wikipedia. Akradecki 00:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Couldn't agree more with your last assertion. My concerns have been addressed, thank you Akradecki. Anynobody 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MIsunderstanding in the flight of KAL 007 after the Attack

message: This is a sort of plea to correct a wrong impression, I think due to referring to the "short hand" summary News Release of the ICAO '93 report instead of the ICAO '93 report itself. In the Wikipedia article there is this sentence - "Chun was able to turn off the autopilot (18:26:46) and it is unknown whether he was able to regain control[4] " with the click on "4". When you get to the the clicked on summary, there in it is this sentence, which I think is being referred to - "It could not be established whether the crew could maintain limited control. The aircraft was destroyed on impact with the sea.". Decidely, the impression is that after the missile hit, there is no evidence indicating that the pilots of KAL 007 had regained  control of the aircraft up until the time that the aircraft crashed into the sea. But this is not what the ICAO report itself says. After the missile detonated, there was a regaining of a measure of control - "As a result of the attack there was substantial damage to KE 007 which affected the controllability of the aircraft and caused a loss of cabin pressure.  The flight crew of KE 007 retained limited control of the aircraft and responded correctly to the loss of cabin pressure." ICAO '93 Report, Summary of Findings and Conclusions, Page 61, 3.38. It would have been impossible to have not come to this conclusion of "limited control" as it was substantiated (and presented by ICAO) by a.the CVR and the DFDR (presented in the topic of this discussion page "In the Cockpit of KAL 007..."  transcript, and b. the military transcripts showing the upset of the  Soviet commanders viewing the radar screens and seeing (and saying what they were seeing) that KAL 007 was able to maneuver, maintain level flight, and somehow elude pursuing fighters, until it was over Moneron Island. It is only at the end of the level flight, and just for about the last 3 minutes of its after detonation of missile flight, that there is a mention of probably what  is referred to by "it is unknown whether he was able to regain control". Here is the statement - "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." ibid, 3.41. ICAO was not able to ascertain if control was being maintained or not, precisely because it no longer had available to it what it had had for the previous 9 minutes of KAL007's flight - radar trackings (KAL 007 would, after 9 minutes, drop below the threshold for radar tracking), real-time communiques from the military command, and CVR and DFDR transcripts (for the first minute and 44 seconds). This wrong impression could be corrected by indicating the 9 minute longer portion of the flight with its "limited control" and then explaining why it would be impossible to decide either way as to the pilots ability to maintain control for the remaining 3 minutes. 89.138.16.137 22:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imprecision in the Matter of KAL 007's Controllability

message: Akradecki, I think that the following transcripts of the actual shootdown in process would be an important addition to the main article, but am uncertain where it would go and if it could be included in its entirety. Therefore, I post here in the discussion hoping that you or someone else do the job. These are really quite unique documents, and there is nothing approaching it in terms of a shootdown sequence which is real. In fact, the real drawback to this is that it is too dramatic, almost like a movie script - but it all happened and it is all documented. The words of the pilot, Maj. Osipovich have been around since the incident, and are a result of (admitted) U.S. electronic intercept. The surprise has been to see the "land side" of the aerial conversation, the transmissions of Osipovich's Combat Ground Controller, Maj. Titovin - which were only revealed in the Soviet military communications released for the ICAO '93 report. As you will see the two sides of the conversations are a perfect fit - time and content wise. I have combined them both here and have only deleted extraneous transmissions - fuel remaining reports and vectoring commands and responses. I have also included identifications, which seem to me important for the viewers to know, but which I am not sure how to include. That's why I would prefer, if acceptable, for you to edit and post. Again, my commentary is easily distinguishable and separable from the transcripts themselves. Here is the shootdown:
The Soviet Military Personnel
(Some photos of the people for this section are found here - 
Kornukov—General Anatoli Kornukov, Commander Sokol Air Force Base (Sakhalin).  Kornukov was appointed Russia’s new Air Force Commander by Boris Yeltsin on January 22, 1998.  He served in this capacity until retiring in January 2002.
Gerasimenko—Lt. Colonel, Acting Commander, 41st Fighter Regiment
Osipovich—Maj. Gennadie Osipovich, pilot of Sukhoi 15 Flagon (SU-15) interceptor, call sign 805, based at Sokol on Sakhalin
Tarasov— Pilot of SU-15, call sign 121, flying in support position to Osipovich.
Titovnin—Flight controller, Fighter Division Combat Control Center
-------------------------------------------------
  
Kornukov: (18:21)
Gerasimenko, cut the horseplay at the command post, what is that noise there?  I repeat the combat task: fire the missiles, fire on target 60-65 [KAL 007] destroy target 60-65.
Gerasimenko: (18:22)
Wilco.
Kornukov:
Comply and get Tarasov here.
Take control of the MiG 23 from Smyrnykh, call sign 163, call sign 163, he is behind the target at the moment.  Destroy the target!
Gerasimenko:
Task received.  Destroy target 60-65 with missile fire, accept control of fighter from Smyrnykh.
Kornukov:
Carry out the task, destroy [it]!
(Flight 007 was to get a brief reprieve.  As the jumbo jet climbed, its speed decreased, engine power being diverted from velocity to lift, and Osipovich’s Sukhoi 15 quickly overtook and was soon abreast of the passenger plane.  Major Osipovich showed irritation as he communicated with his flight controller, Titovnin.)
Osipovich: (18:22:02)
The target is decreasing speed.
Osipovich: (18:22:17)
I am going around it.  I’m already moving in front of the target.
Titovnin:
Increase speed, 805 [call sign of Osipovich’s Sukhoi].
Osipovich: (18:22:23)
I have increased speed.
Titovnin:
Has the target increased speed, yes?
Osipovich: (18:22:29)
No, it is decreasing speed.
Titovnin:
805, open fire on target.
Osipovich: (18:22:42)
It should have been earlier.  How can I chase it?  I’m already abeam of the target. 
 
(For a look into Osipovich's state of mind at this point in his pursuit of KAL 007, click here . These were his thoughts given at an interview with "Izvestiya" newspaper eight years after the shootdown.)
Titovnin:
Roger, if possible, take up a position for attack.
Osipovich: (18:22:55)
Now I have to fall back a bit from the target.
(Osipovich’s irritation with his controller reflects the fact that, in contrast with the freedom of initiative given to an American pilot in combat, a Soviet pilot must be “vectored” and commanded for almost every move he makes.
(KAL 007 leveled off at 18:23 at 35,000 feet. Now it would have only 3 minutes of flying time before Osipovich’s “Anab” medium range air-to-air missile would come streaking toward it from the rear.  And, it was now General Kornukov’s turn to exhibit irritation and concern.  From his communication to Gerasimenko, it is clear that KAL 007 was shot down by the Soviets not because it posed a threat to them, but because it was escaping.)
Kornukov:
Oh, [obscenities] how long does it take him to get into 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.
(With back-up from the MiG 23 (call sign 163), and at a distance of eight kilometers, Major Osipovich executes what he believes will be the destruction of KAL 007 He has distanced himself from the target so that his interceptor will not be struck by fragments of the exploding passenger plane. 
(Here again we can jump into Osipovich's mind at this crucial juncture of the pursuit of flight 007. Click here  for more of his thoughts from the aforementioned 1991 "Izvestiya" interview.}
Titovnin:
805, try to destroy the target with cannons.
Osipovich: (18:22:37)
I am dropping back.  Now I will try a rocket.
Titovnin:
Roger.
MiG 23 (163): (18:23:49)
Twelve kilometers to the target.  I see both [the Soviet interceptor piloted by Osipovich and KAL 007].
Titovnin:
805, approach target and destroy target.
Osipovich: (18:24:22)
Roger, I am in lock-on.
Titovnin:
805, are you closing on the target?
Osipovich: (18:25:11)
I am closing on the target, am in lock-on.  Distance to target is eight kilometers.
Titovnin:
Afterburner.
Titovnin:
AFTERBURNER, 805!
Osipovich: (18:25:16)
I have already switched it on.
Titovnin:
Launch!
Osipovich: (18:26:20)
I have executed the launch.
Osipovich: (18:26:22)
The target is destroyed.
Titovnin:
Break off attack to the right, heading 360.
Osipovich: (18:26:27)
I am breaking off attack. 
--------------------------------------------------
89.138.16.137 06:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Actual Shootdown