Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!karn
From: karn@eagle.UUCP (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: net.aviation,net.followup
Subject: Re: KAL 747 Airline saga
Message-ID: <1093@eagle.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Sep-83 19:03:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: eagle.1093
Posted: Mon Sep 12 19:03:53 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Sep-83 01:22:31 EDT
References: <134@denelcor.UUCP>, <2211@utcsrgv.UUCP> utcsstat.1048
Lines: 78

I am VERY surprised that so many people seem to be seriously considering
the Soviet's assertion that the 747 was spying.

One of the characteristics of human nature is that people tend to
ascribe their own characteristics to others. Because the Soviets know
that they regularly use Aeroflot flights for spying, they believe that
we must do the same thing. To believe otherwise would be to admit to
themselves that only THEY do nasty things to other people, and the
rationalization for their behavior would be harder to maintain. Even
though the USSR is a totalitarian state, they still seem to have a
strong fetish for "justifying" their actions to the world and
particularly to their people.

I think it VERY unlikely that the flight was really spying.  First of
all, it should be apparent that optical spying would not be very
productive, given that it was night and the reports of low cloud cover. 
For UHF or microwave spying, I'd think that there would be little need
to fly inside Soviet airspace; as I previously calculated, the horizon
distance at an altitude of 10 km would be on the order of 350 km; you
could get a good look at the island from the international air routes.

For either microwave or optical spying, modifications to the plane (such
as cutting windows in the bottom of the fuselage) would almost certainly
be necessary. This would be very hard to do on a commercial airliner
without being noticed by SOMEBODY on the ground.  Consider all the
people who come near commercial airliners: passengers (some of which
must eventually be Aviation Week reporters), fueling and maintenance
personnel, baggage handlers, etc.  Keeping this kind of thing secret in
such an open environment would be impossible.  I'm sure that if there
had been something "funny" going on, by now we'd have all kinds of
stories and rumors in the paper to this effect.

No, it's completely obvious to me that even the Politburo realizes that
they made a big, big mistake, but that their options are so limited that
they have no alternative but to defend their action to the hilt.  The
worst possible sin of a Soviet leader is to admit a mistake.  A careful
comparison of just the TASS statements shows all kinds of internal
inconsistencies, certainly far more than in the US statements so far.

Which brings us to the question of why the plane was off course.  There
are several possibilities:

1. Intentional.  One of the first things I noticed about the flight path
is that it very closely matched the great circle route from Anchorage to
Seoul.  It is possible that the pilot and/or airline took a bad gamble
in order to save on fuel and/or flying time.

2. Combined equipment malfunction/pilot error. One idea that struck me
the other day was a burned out segment on one of the INS displays; I
could visualize a situation in which the pilot entered the wrong data or
changed correct data based on an erroneous readout.  A clue here is his
last position report relative to Hokkaido: he had the distance right but
the direction wrong.

3. Pure pilot error.  Entering the wrong coordinates, setting the time
reference in the INS incorrectly, all kinds of possibilities.

4. Pure equipment error.  I think this one unlikely because of the
redundancy involved.  Very few of the off-course incidents that have
been reported were due solely to equipment error.

As to the Soviet claims that they didn't know they were shooting at a
civilian airlier, I suggest that you try the following experiment. A 747
is 70.51 meters long. At a distance of 2km this subtends an angle of
about 2 degrees. This is about four times the diameter of the moon or
sun. Take a look at the moon and compare its size to the width of your
thumb at arms-length. Then, if you live near a major airport (as I do),
go out and watch a few planes fly by and also compare their apparent
sizes to your thumb to get an idea of how large the 747 appeared to the
Soviet pilot. My eyesight isn't fantastic, but I'm convinced that I
would have been able to recognize a 747 under such conditions (remember
the pilot flew all around the plane first.)  At 10 km altitude,
the air is much clearer than down on the ground in NE New Jersey.

Maybe we should all send complimentary copies of Jane's Commercial Aircraft
(along with bottles of Windex) to Moscow.

Phil