Russian rocket near-miss with Finnish airliner

This happened in 1987 but was just announced in Finland.

Question is -- who else may have seen and reported that missile?

The exact time doesn't seem to be given, except as "two hours before arrival". Does anyone know how to get that flight information from 1987, I'm baffled.

DC-10-30ER Finnair flight AY 915 December 23, 1987


yle.fi...

7.9.2014 20:18 [gmt + 3]] | updated 7.9.2014 20:19
HS: Finnair pilots report dramatic missile near-miss almost 30 years on
A passenger jet flying over the Arctic Ocean narrowly avoided being shot down by what is claimed to be a Soviet missile, according to two co-pilots on board the long-haul flight in 1987. But the incident, revealed by the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, has only come to light now because the plane’s captain refused to submit a report, the crew members claim.

A Finnair passenger jet narrowly avoided being shot down by a missile while en route to Helsinki 27 years ago, the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat claimed on Sunday.
Speaking to the paper, the DC-10 plane's two co-pilots, Esko Kaukiainen and Markku Soininen, describe how a routine flight back to Helsinki from Japan in December 1987 suddenly took a dramatic and terrifying turn.
When the plane was crossing the Arctic Ocean, two hours from its destination, a missile appeared in the distance. The crew thought it was a Russian weather rocket on its way into space, but the missile then slowed down, turned, and began heading straight towards the aircraft.
Moments later, just 20 seconds away from a collision, the missile exploded.
Despite the potential for a large-scale loss of life, a serious-incident report wasn't drawn up, the co-pilots say. They claim they informed the plane’s captain, who was resting and therefore not in the cockpit at the time of the incident, but he never reported the event. Finnair’s records contain no mention of the dramatic near-miss.
No definitive answers
The question of who fired the missile has never been definitively answered. But the pilots believe it was launched from either the Soviet Union’s Kola Peninsula or a submarine in the Barents Sea.
”There’s no doubt it came from the Soviet Union,” Soininen said.
The pair say they do not believe Soviet forces deliberately wanted to shoot down a Finnish aircraft, and say they suspect the missile was either fired in error, or that their plane was used as a training target.
Kept in the dark
Helsingin Sanomat reports that the then minister for foreign trade, Pertti Salolainen, and transport minister Pekka Vennamo, only heard of the incident on Sunday when it appeared in the paper, 27 years later.
Salolainen claimed that, even today, parliament and the cabinet are still kept in the dark about important issues. He criticised the practice of informing ministers “in a shoddy way”.

Helsingin Sanomat's report can be read here (in Finnish).
www.hs.fi... 95098937

DC-10-30ER Finnair flight AY 915 December 23, 1987

a reply to: JimOberg

DC-10-30ER on a polar route, it appears to gave originated in Narita Japan.

Sorry off topic but zap you mention polar routes, do many aircraft or airlines fly polar routes. Sorry for just throwing this question in the thread

a reply to: JimOberg

There are two ways to react on abrubt news: One is - to scream in panic, running around, waving your hands in the air (the MSM-way) and then the Finnish way, potentially beefed up with a shot of vodka, but basically, a nod, mumbling something and just keep on doing what ever you were doing, wait another 27 years and say "you remember, was that a missile we missed back then over the Arctic ocean..."

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

All the time. Saves a lot on fuel, and flight time.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I bet a polar flight offers amazing scenery thanks I'll let you guys carry on discussing the topic

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

Yeah, I've heard it's quite a flight.

Near miss, how the feck can you have a near miss? That is just doublespeak for "Don't scare the populous".


Don't you mean NEAR HIT?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought polar routes increased the exposure to radiation?

ETA: Back in the day British Air used to do a polar route from ANC to London. Made that trip as a kid once.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought polar routes increased the exposure to radiation?

Flying often and at altitude especially in an aircraft made of composites (modern aircraft) means exposure to radiation lol.

Don't forget about constant exposure risk to Tuberculosis.

a reply to: JimOberg

Doesn't sound much like a 'near miss' to me.

Says the 'missile' (IF that is what they were looking at) exploded 20 seconds from collision.

Cruising speed of a DC10 is ~600mph..without accounting for the speed of the missile at all, the distance at 20 seconds out is about 4 miles....factor in the speed of the missile on a collision vector and that distance @ 20 seconds from collision stretches out to at least 10 miles distant when it disappeared.

Not really a near miss at all.

Besides, the captain must have thought there was something extremely unusual about the vehicle they witnessed..or else he would have filed a report.

MOST commercial pilots do not report witnessing unusual vehicles in flight, or UFO's to be accurate, because they are often times grounded or otherwise have their careers negatively affected for being seen as unstable or delusional..it's not really much of a surprise this particular pilot refused to file a report until 30 years after the event considering.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

They do, but not to any significant degree.

a reply to: jajaja

Radiation exposure is similar for older aircraft or more modern aircraft.

a reply to: MysterX

Except you have to account for the missile speed, which is above mach 1. Twenty seconds when a missile is involved is most certainly a near miss.

Here are some graphics from the Finland TV news:

originally posted by: MysterX
MOST commercial pilots do not report witnessing unusual vehicles in flight, or UFO's to be accurate, because they are often times grounded or otherwise have their careers negatively affected for being seen as unstable or delusional...

It's the same for UK train drivers and big cats. I once asked a retired train driver if he'd ever seen a big cat. He quickly answered "Yes! But I never told anyone. If another train driver wants to make trouble for you they just have to say you imagined something and you're likely to be suspended."

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jajaja

Radiation exposure is similar for older aircraft or more modern aircraft.

Got any real data for that?

I don't take internet strangers word for things.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MysterX

Except you have to account for the missile speed, which is above mach 1. Twenty seconds when a missile is involved is most certainly a near miss.

It is not a near miss if it almost hits.

If I threw something at you and it almost hits you, you don't shout "THAT NEARLY MISSED ME", you yell "WTF, THAT NEARLY HIT ME".

a reply to: jajaja

Simple logic works just fine. The biggest exposure is to electrons, Alpha, and Beta particles. All those will be stopped by composite or aluminum. Alpha particles are stopped by sheets of paper, so composites will stop them easily.

The biggest danger to passengers and crew are Gamma particles, which will go through both skins just as easily.

There hasn't been a study between composites or aluminum because there isn't a purely composite airframe out there.

a reply to: jajaja

And in aviation it's a near miss. It always has been, and always will be.