Tailspin: Behind the Korean Airliner Tragedy

This movie is accurate in all respects and is an authentic reproduction of the actual events that occurred on 1 September, 1983, over the Sea of Okhotsk just southeast of the Sachalin Peninsula, in the Soviet Far East. I was one of only 12 people who were supposed to have full knowledge of these events, as the files were marked: "Top Secret"! It is quite clear that whoever made this movie had technical direction from one of the original 12 people involved. I rented the video "Tailspin" from a local supermarket video department, because it was aviation based and looked interesting. I never would have believed what it contained until it unfolded before my eyes! I was completely shocked as this film played out on my television screen! The complete details were far too secret and previously known to so few people. Every detail in this movie is accurate and authentic in every aspect. I am also amazed that the director had the ability to reproduce the details and situations exactly as they occurred, leaving out nothing and adding nothing, right down to the call-signs of the aircraft involved! In most "docu-drama's" directors/producers have the tendency to "embellish" beyond all reason/necessity, the accuracy and details of the actual events. This did not happen here! An excellent reproduction of actual events made into a great movie!

A very interesting document, this movie deals with the accident that occurred to flight KAL007 in the 80's, during cold war between East & West.

If you like aeronautics and inquiries, you'll love this movie ! The explanations given for this crash have been gathered during year-long attempts to discover the truth, and since then, new elements have appeared (role of flight KAL013 that was flying behind 007, orthodromic theory, even JATO possibility etc.) This is why we are really looking forward to discovering the brand new version that is going to be released (I learned that on TV evening news with a man called "Gove" announcing that project for 2006)

Obviously, LarryB100 was nowhere near the action that night/morning or else he would never have said that the film was "accurate in all respects". I, however, was on duty when we told the world about what happened. I was a Senior Reporter - though not the ONLY one (there were two of us certified and on duty at the time) (the Senior Reporter is the guy portrayed by "Sgt Duffy" - the guy who says, "It's a CRITIC."). Anyway, I found the film interesting in that the basic "premise" is somewhat accurate, but there were definitely a lot of assumptions which were not accurate...and I'll spell those out here:

(1) First off, the film makes the viewer believe that we caught the activity right from the beginning (i.e. the operator starts typing away on his console and they know that there is a fighter chasing a target). That did not happen. The mid-shift had the activity, but they analyzed it as "practice" and not "real world". It wasn't until the day-shift (our team) came on duty that we began to receive queries as to whether we had any information on the Korean airliner. In going back through the intercept, we found the activity, analyzed it as a shootdown, and reported it as such (i.e. CRITIC). As the film states, we issued CRITICs, and NSA canceled them...again and again. Again, the activity was initially "missed", but was caught by us on the day-shift. (2) There are no Air Force women walking around serving coffee! (3) When Secretary Schultz was giving his speech on TV, we did NOT have TVs in the S&W (Surveillance & Warning) Center back in those days. The only media we had was a radio for FEN (Far East Network) (a radio affiliate of the AFRTS (Armed Forces Radio & Television Service)) and another radio (R-390) that we used to listen to a rock station in Saipan. (4) The Flight Commander in the film was a Captain (O-3), but the actual Flight Commander was a 2nd Lieutenant (O-1). (5) The Flight Commander is fully aware of what a CRITIC is and the ramifications of sending one with incorrect information. We certainly don't need an S&W Supervisor to explain to the Flight Commander was a CRITIC is. And, for the Senior Report ("Sgt Duffy") to speak to the Flight Commander in that tone of voice is certainly unacceptable, and did not happen!!! In short, the guy who portrayed "Sgt Duffy" went way overboard with his "dramatic" acting!!! Had a good laugh at that. (6) The tapes from Wakkanai were sheer luck! The guy up at Wakkanai was performing his routine transcriptions (taking the intercept from the tape and transcribing them to print copy), and as he was doing that, he happened to look up at the VU meter and saw it flicking back and forth, so he hit the RECORD button to catch whatever it was and continued transcribing. It wasn't until the morning when that tape was listened to and they realized they had something which strongly correlated to the activity at Misawa. That was when the tapes were deemed critical to have them immediately flown from Wakkanai to Misawa. (7) When Wakkanai calls down to the S&W Center, "Sgt Duffy" makes a comment to the S&W Supervisor, "Be careful, it's an open line." That is plain ludicrous! First off, it wasn't an open line (it was SECURE). Secondly, the phone was situated in a Hotline Booth, not on the desk. Thirdly, the Senior Reporter does NOT need to tell the S&W Supervisor that he needs to "Be careful!" when this is ingrained as second nature in the S&W Supervisor. "Sgt Duffy" makes it appear that HE is the all-knowing, and the S&W Supervisor and Flight Commander are morons. Ridiculous. But entertaining, nonetheless. Although "Sgt Duffy" was portraying MY position during the event, I had to confess to my family, "No, I wasn't that arrogant!!!"

Larry, I'm not sure where you were during this incident or what part you played during the real world activities that night - but to say that the film was "accurate" and "authentic" certainly did NOT reflect what REALLY happened in OUR Surveillance & Warning Center that night/morning. For those of us who were on-duty, this film certainly is "entertaining" in terms of what REALLY happens and what outsiders THINK happens in an intelligence unit.

This oddball flick showed up on late-nite programming fairly often in the early 90's. The demise of the Soviet Union--and it's loss as a defense industry boogie-man--has made red-scare films pretty passé. This effort by screenwriter Brian Phelan attempted to walk the line between bashing the Russkies and revealing US intelligence gathering techniques.

I found the film interesting for the latter aspect, as I once worked aboard the ferret planes depicted orbiting the Soviet coastline. Overall, I found the script in some cases surprisingly accurate in certain details about comint interception practices. Of course, there are the almost obligatory instances of scenery chewing for dramatic emphasis: notably the scene in the ops center where the resident linguistic "expert" has to interpret a communication intercept of critical importance, as if there is only one such person on station.

The actual details of what happened that night over Sakhalin Island will probably never be fully laid out in public. Wild speculation has been put forward by several authors as unvarnished truth. From my own experience, which definitely included the use of airborne surveillance aircraft to intentionally provoke Soviet air defenses, I have to think that was a major element in the affair that was never, for obvious reasons, fully examined. The political climate of Washington at that time, the eagerness of hotshot intelligence officers to boost their own careers at the cost of lives on the other side of the globe also goes a long way toward explaining the reckless decision-making portrayed in the film.

At the time when I saw this film (16 years ago) I wasn't into docudramas yet, nor did I know much about the incident depicted. As I watched it, my respect grew for its makers. The manner in which the film is done is dry, yet very inciting to watch further, much like a smart, well crafted thriller. One could see that a lot of detailed information was acquired in order to make it. The acting is great, the presentation of the facts and the incidents feels clean, accurate, objective and unemotional, yet not dulling the senses, but allowing the viewers to experience their own emotions as they watch. It was the first film that taught me the importance of restraint and sobriety when depicting a tragic story, and how much more effective that can be when those who tell it don't season it with extra emotions and don't let personal views nuance the facts. Kinda like the stuff of real journalism: true objectivity.

I gave the film a 9 because the tenth point I usually reserve for either art films or great films with social/political connotation, but in its genre this film could just as well be a 10, in spite of the fact that it's a bit outdated.