"China blamed in '01 air collision"

[Mike Yared]

China blamed in '01 air collision
A Navy report says a Chinese F-8 jet pilot was to blame for the midair
collision over the South China Sea that nearly killed the crew of a U.S.
reconnaissance aircraft two years ago.
at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030912-110434-9850r.htm

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Mike Yared" > wrote:

>China blamed in '01 air collision
>A Navy report says a Chinese F-8 jet pilot was to blame for the midair
>collision over the South China Sea that nearly killed the crew of a U.S.
>reconnaissance aircraft two years ago.
>at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030912-110434-9850r.htm

Juliet Foxtrot Charlie, Mike!. You think *that* was news? The crew,
Navy, and US Government has *always* maintained that the F-8 pilot
crashed into the EP-3.

The key part of that report, whether missed by you or the Washington
Times deponent won't even try to guess, was that the crew didn't
manage to destroy all of the classified material and/or equipment
aboard the plane, so some compromise of classified material and/or
equipment to the PRC certainly occurred.

OJ III
[Of course the report didn't identify anything that might have been
compromised; and, as reported in the press, did not blame the crew for
their failure to destroy everything classified, apparently recognizing
that they might have been a tad overtasked by the situation they found
themselves in.]

[Luca Morandini]

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
> "Mike Yared" > wrote:
> The key part of that report, whether missed by you or the Washington
> Times deponent won't even try to guess, was that the crew didn't
> manage to destroy all of the classified material and/or equipment
> aboard the plane, so some compromise of classified material and/or
> equipment to the PRC certainly occurred.
>
> OJ III
> [Of course the report didn't identify anything that might have been
> compromised; and, as reported in the press, did not blame the crew for
> their failure to destroy everything classified, apparently recognizing
> that they might have been a tad overtasked by the situation they found
> themselves in.]

I know this controversy is old, and, to some extent, irrelevant, but...
was the pilot bound by regulations to ditch the aircraft ?

I mean, when he realized all the sensitive material couldn't be
destroyed, shouldn't he set the autopilot on and bail out himself (after
allowing for the rest of the crew to bail out safely, of course) ?

Please, don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing the crew of cowardice...
just asking whether they were bound to follow this course of action or not.

Regards,

------------------------------------------
Luca Morandini
GIS Consultant

http://space.virgilio.it/kumora/index.html
------------------------------------------

[Yofuri]

No, probable suicide for the pilot and crew is not a requirement. P-3
ditchings have a very poor survival record. The EP-3, known as "Skypig" for
the projections on it's belly resembling the mammary glands of a sow pig, is
an especially poor candidate. Here's some background on P-3 ditchings.
Note the link to the totally successful VP-47 ditching at the bottom of the
page.

--
My real e-mail address is:




"Luca Morandini" > wrote in message
...
> Ogden Johnson III wrote:
> > "Mike Yared" > wrote:
> > The key part of that report, whether missed by you or the Washington
> > Times deponent won't even try to guess, was that the crew didn't
> > manage to destroy all of the classified material and/or equipment
> > aboard the plane, so some compromise of classified material and/or
> > equipment to the PRC certainly occurred.
> >
> > OJ III
> > [Of course the report didn't identify anything that might have been
> > compromised; and, as reported in the press, did not blame the crew for
> > their failure to destroy everything classified, apparently recognizing
> > that they might have been a tad overtasked by the situation they found
> > themselves in.]
>
> I know this controversy is old, and, to some extent, irrelevant, but...
> was the pilot bound by regulations to ditch the aircraft ?
>
> I mean, when he realized all the sensitive material couldn't be
> destroyed, shouldn't he set the autopilot on and bail out himself (after
> allowing for the rest of the crew to bail out safely, of course) ?
>
> Please, don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing the crew of cowardice...
> just asking whether they were bound to follow this course of action or
not.
>
> Regards,
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Luca Morandini
> GIS Consultant
>
> http://space.virgilio.it/kumora/index.html
> ------------------------------------------
>

[Ogden Johnson III]

Luca Morandini > wrote:

>Ogden Johnson III wrote:

>> "Mike Yared" > wrote:

>> The key part of that report, whether missed by you or the Washington
>> Times deponent won't even try to guess, was that the crew didn't
>> manage to destroy all of the classified material and/or equipment
>> aboard the plane, so some compromise of classified material and/or
>> equipment to the PRC certainly occurred.
>>
>> OJ III
>> [Of course the report didn't identify anything that might have been
>> compromised; and, as reported in the press, did not blame the crew for
>> their failure to destroy everything classified, apparently recognizing
>> that they might have been a tad overtasked by the situation they found
>> themselves in.]

>I know this controversy is old, and, to some extent, irrelevant, but...
>was the pilot bound by regulations to ditch the aircraft ?

No. Ditching aircraft, particularly airliner-sized ones, is an
in-extremis, "We're all gonna die anyway", action. However well it
plays in the movies. In this particular situation, no guarantee that
the aircraft - or more correctly, its contents - would be
unrecoverable.

>I mean, when he realized all the sensitive material couldn't be
>destroyed,

The report, AFAIK, did not go into detail on how much undestroyed
material was involved, or when it became apparent to the aircrew that
some material would not be destroyed.

>shouldn't he set the autopilot on and bail out himself (after
>allowing for the rest of the crew to bail out safely, of course) ?

Same reason as with the ditching; whatever the aircrew did, there was
no guarantee that the aircraft, wherever it crashed, would be
unrecoverable.

OJ III

[Luca Morandini]

Yofuri wrote:
> No, probable suicide for the pilot and crew is not a requirement. P-3
> ditchings have a very poor survival record. The EP-3, known as "Skypig" for
> the projections on it's belly resembling the mammary glands of a sow pig, is
> an especially poor candidate. Here's some background on P-3 ditchings.
> Note the link to the totally successful VP-47 ditching at the bottom of the
> page.
>

actually, in my post I supposed that the crew could bailout before
ditching the plane.

I understand this is a dangerous practice, but not suicidical as a ditching.

Best regards,

------------------------------------------
Luca Morandini
GIS Consultant

http://space.virgilio.it/kumora/index.html
------------------------------------------

[Jeff Franks]

My father was in VQ-2 in the 60's (this plane was part of -1). He tells a
story of some of his squad mates being court-martialed for gutting some of
their equipment out of the A-3's aboard the U.S.S. Forrestol while it was
burning.

Apparently, they thought that the ship was going down and had been trained
to not let the sensitive equipment go down as part of the ship (too easy to
find that way I guess). So while the ship burned, these guys gutted the
planes and tossed the equipment overboard.

then had to face a court for it. I don't know how far it went, but my
understanding is that they were dishonorably discharged. Dunno that part
for sure though.

military justice I guess.




"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Yared" > wrote:
>
> >China blamed in '01 air collision
> >A Navy report says a Chinese F-8 jet pilot was to blame for the midair
> >collision over the South China Sea that nearly killed the crew of a U.S.
> >reconnaissance aircraft two years ago.
> >at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030912-110434-9850r.htm
>
> Juliet Foxtrot Charlie, Mike!. You think *that* was news? The crew,
> Navy, and US Government has *always* maintained that the F-8 pilot
> crashed into the EP-3.
>
> The key part of that report, whether missed by you or the Washington
> Times deponent won't even try to guess, was that the crew didn't
> manage to destroy all of the classified material and/or equipment
> aboard the plane, so some compromise of classified material and/or
> equipment to the PRC certainly occurred.
>
> OJ III
> [Of course the report didn't identify anything that might have been
> compromised; and, as reported in the press, did not blame the crew for
> their failure to destroy everything classified, apparently recognizing
> that they might have been a tad overtasked by the situation they found
> themselves in.]

[Luca Morandini]

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
> Luca Morandini > wrote:
>
>>shouldn't he set the autopilot on and bail out himself (after
>>allowing for the rest of the crew to bail out safely, of course) ?
>
>
> Same reason as with the ditching; whatever the aircrew did, there was
> no guarantee that the aircraft, wherever it crashed, would be
> unrecoverable.

Hmmm... I beg to differ, it would have been MUCH easier for the US Navy
to recover/destroy sensitive material than for the Chinese one to do so.

Anyway, may I conclude that regulations prescribe sensitive material to
be destroyed but NOT at the cost of destroying the entire aircraft or
putting the crew in danger ?

Regards,

------------------------------------------
Luca Morandini
GIS Consultant

http://space.virgilio.it/kumora/index.html
------------------------------------------

[Ogden Johnson III]

Luca Morandini > wrote:

>Ogden Johnson III wrote:

>> Luca Morandini > wrote:

>>>shouldn't he set the autopilot on and bail out himself (after
>>>allowing for the rest of the crew to bail out safely, of course) ?

>> Same reason as with the ditching; whatever the aircrew did, there was
>> no guarantee that the aircraft, wherever it crashed, would be
>> unrecoverable.

>Hmmm... I beg to differ, it would have been MUCH easier for the US Navy
>to recover/destroy sensitive material than for the Chinese one to do so.

Wouldn't that depend on exactly where the ditched/autopiloted EP-3E
ended up? [Wondering at Luca's assumption in the previous post that
the EP-3E's autopilot would have been any better in handling a
severely damaged aircraft than the pilot himself did.] It could very
well have ended up deep inside PRC territorial waters, or even on land
within the PRC. Kinda hard for the USN to beat the PLA to the wreck
in that case. ;->

>Anyway, may I conclude that regulations prescribe sensitive material to
>be destroyed but NOT at the cost of destroying the entire aircraft or
>putting the crew in danger ?

Feel free. I wouldn't, but you certainly can. Regulations will
prescribe different things *for* different things. I trust the US
learned its lesson from the Pueblo, and that the EP-3E did not carry
anything onboard that required destruction of the aircraft, even at
the cost of the death of the entire crew, to prevent it from falling
into "hostile" hands. There may be secrets that require such extreme
protection, but one doesn't put them on an unarmed or under-armed ship
or aircraft that you send to snoop around exactly the place you want
to protect the secret from.

OJ III