![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ------------------------------------------ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CAAC in China had approved below 116kg aircraft sold in China without airworthiness cetificate | Luo Zheng | Home Built | 0 | June 27th 04 03:50 AM |
"Boeing sale to China skirts ban on technology transfer" | Mike | Military Aviation | 1 | February 6th 04 04:57 AM |
China to buy Eurofighters? | phil hunt | Military Aviation | 90 | December 29th 03 05:16 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
"China blamed in '01 air collision" | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 2 | September 14th 03 06:08 PM |