EP-3 in China Discussion

[Ryoukai]

I feel odd being the only one not in the military to post here, but I have a question for senor Bunk. Why would you volunteer yourself to become a prisoner somewhere? I mean, it's not a guts and glory thing but more a, "how do I avoid becoming the official b*tch of some guy in a country that doesn't like me?" I mean, hell, I don't ever want people hitting me in the face with stuff against my will.

 

[kmac]

Let's first make the distinction between a prisoner (or war) and someone contained under "peaceful" conditions. There's a reason the folks who teach SERE also teach peacetime containment now. One thing that you're taught in both (I assume) is to come home alive (with honor). The dying part is great for the movies, but makes you useless to the military. Now I'm not trying to talk now about whether or not the crew should have ditched. Let's just be clear that diverting into an unfriendly area is not the same as diverting into your wartime enemy's land.

That being said, if the crew had the time/opportunity to destroy all classified material, would the decision to ditch still be relevant? At that point the survival of the crew is the only mission. It's probably pretty reasonable to assume that that was the entire crew's thought process during the incident. Destroy the stuff and survive. Doesn't that idea work for everyone?

 

[Ryoukai]

^ I would assume there'd be a difference between being a POW and a, "detainee" but I would think that it would still suck to be either and would be a second choice to going anywhere else. Am I totally off base/uninformed in my opinion or does this make sense to anybody else?

 

[bunk22]

I feel odd being the only one not in the military to post here, but I have a question for senor Bunk. Why would you volunteer yourself to become a prisoner somewhere? I mean, it's not a guts and glory thing but more a, "how do I avoid becoming the official b*tch of some guy in a country that doesn't like me?" I mean, hell, I don't ever want people hitting me in the face with stuff against my will.

Volunteer? Trying to control a badly damaged airplane and find the quickest place to safely set her down wasn't volunteering, it was surviving. Once again, I know it's simple to sit behind a computer screen and think I would have done this or done that but without being in that situation, nobody knows how they would have reacted or what they would have done.

 

[bunk22]

^ I would assume there'd be a difference between being a POW and a, "detainee" but I would think that it would still suck to be either and would be a second choice to going anywhere else. Am I totally off base/uninformed in my opinion or does this make sense to anybody else?

Where would you have gone with the damaged aircraft? What was the closest airfield and how long could the aircraft have kept flying in that condition? How controllable was it? What was the sea state for ditching? What effect would that flat nose have upon impact with the water? I believe the PIC did what he had to do and made the appropriate decision under the circumstances.

 

[bubba716]

This has turned into one heated discussion. I don't necessarily agree with what Lt. Osborne did. However, I think you all need to realize that I am sure that he put a lot of thought into landing PR-32 on Chinese soil. Another thing yall need to realize is that the crew was probably able to destroy quite a bit of the equipment on the aircraft. I don't remember off the top of my head but didnt they stay airborne for like 15 minutes after the collision? Twenty people can really tear some stuff up in that amount of time. Those planes have pick axes and weighted bags on board for the specific purpose of getting rid of as much paper and equipment as possible. We all need to remember that this crew wasn't just flying a "normal" airplane.

(edited for opsec-zab1001)

All in all what I am trying to say is that I honestly believe that Shane Osborne didn't jump into the decision to land in China, the decision was probably made after they realized that they would be able to destroy most of the systems on board. Just my opinion, yall should all relax just a little bit though. Ya might live longer. Take care.

 

[bch]

This has turned into one heated discussion. I don't necessarily agree with what Lt. Osborne did. However, I think you all need to realize that I am sure that he put a lot of thought into landing PR-32 on Chinese soil. Another thing yall need to realize is that the crew was probably able to destroy quite a bit of the equipment on the aircraft. I don't remember off the top of my head but didnt they stay airborne for like 15 minutes after the collision? Twenty people can really tear some stuff up in that amount of time. Those planes have pick axes and weighted bags on board for the specific purpose of getting rid of as much paper and equipment as possible. We all need to remember that this crew wasn't just flying a "normal" airplane. All in all what I am trying to say is that I honestly believe that Shane Osborne didn't jump into the decision to land in China, the decision was probably made after they realized that they would be able to destroy most of the systems on board. Just my opinion, yall should all relax just a little bit though. Ya might live longer. Take care.

Are you serious kid? And all this info is based off of your vast experience in applying for OCS and planning on being a pilot? (Per your profile) This is why people get all puffed up about topics like this. People with no basis coming in and giving their "expert opinion".

I think one theme is common in all this non sense, none of us were there!

 

[zab1001]

EDP aka Emergency Destruct Plan is a normal part of EP-3 and P-3 ops. Everyone on the crew has a specific required action, whether it's smashing a crypto computer or burning paper items. These actions are practiced regularly inflight as part of emergency drills.

And this thread is going exactly as expected.

Just a few thoughts:
I've flown the exact same route those guys were on, and played charades with PRC MIGs. Keep in mind, rarely if ever, are there any friendly assets on the water. By the time you get to Hainan from Okinawa, you aren't exactly fat on gas, add to that these dudes are 3 engine, and missing the nose (GREAT for fuel consumption), so I don't necessarily buy the "go to the PI or Taiwan". Not that I've broken out the charts and ran the numbers...then again there is no "Max Range MINUS RADOME" chart.

 

[bubba716]

Yes sir, I am just a kid, however I do know a little bit about EP's my old man flew on them nearly his entire career in the Navy and we have discussed this incident many times.

 

[webmaster]

Ditto on what zab said... and thanks for the edits, this whole topic borders on what can and can't be said. For those who went through SERE in the last couple years hopefully you discussed this, if you are about to go, ask for the debrief on this during class, very interesting, and may change some of your opinions. For those going through 30, bring this scenario up during class, alot of good discussion points, both systems and tactics based.. ZAB prob has the same 411, since we were both subjected to it, and alot of the community "intropsection" that resulted.

I will say four things (facts), they brought a P3 back from being near inverted (and a lot of time in the sims had scratch crews struggling to do the same thing and save the plane), they didn't just let the Chinese on board, there were quite few flight instruments operating that were initially thought to be inop (breakdown in CRM), and they spent alot more time than 15 minutes in the air after the middair.

Bottom line, everyone survived.

 

[TransvestFO]

Wow, what an interesting thread. Seems like most has been hashed out. Seems like surviving the incident was good, though some say not the most inportant part of any mission. The one thing that was glanced over briefly was the destruct bill. Without getting into it too much, let's just say the process faced some strong scrutiny after this incident. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it.... The results of this incident are history, period. The point to make is what have we learned. I believe there are a couple of good training points to make here (1) If you are running a crew, run the crew. that may involve putting yourself at personnal risk to ensure good communications are maintained. the tube rats need to know what the pilots are doing (-3 needs to know what lead is doing, whatever the case). The pilot's need to make sure the tube rats know what their intentions for the aircraft are. Think "bailout, bailout, bailout" after an mid-air... destruct bill may not be the first thing on your mind. (2) Don't bring items on an aircraft that clearly don't belong there. For those of you who don't know, this incident had many repracusions, and it wasn't because the Chinese got to look at a 1950's era Lockheed electra. It was because aircrew had lots of personal study material with them. Those of you who fly P-3 or EP-3's know what I am talking about.

 

[Flash]

Wow, I am gone for a week and this is what pops up. A little background, I left VQ-1 4 months before this happened and I knew every officer on the crew. I knew the two senior guys, Shane Osborn and the senior NFO, pretty well. I went on deployment with Shane and got to know him pretty well and yes, he is a bit full o fhimself. I got to talk to a lot of the guys about what happened with the whole incident, I have even read the after action report for the seniors here in DC.

I can say with full conviction, the crew did the right thing! Nothing on htat aircraft was worth anyones life. How do I know that, because 6 months earlier I was flying those exact same missions and know exactly what that crew was carrying. It is not like the plane carried the defense plans for Taiwan or the latest in equipment, it was a Navy plane after all. I will go into the choices facing the crew in an email tonight (I am at work so I have to be short) but there were not good choices.

I have spoken to several VQ-1 drivers, and to a man, they think the decision to go into Hainan was wrong ... dead wrong, and they claim they would not have done it. I agree with that call ...

I have no idea who you were talking to, though I can actually guess on a few of them, but the unanimous opinion among the EP-3 pilots and NFO's that I know, and that includes several dozen of my former squadronmates (EP-3 types), was that he made the right decision. Again, I will address the choices later but he made the best of a bad situation and brougth his crew home.

I would hate to sound arrogant but I know a whole lot more about this particular incident, from the fact I was part of the squadron just months before and know second hand from the crew what went on to seeing the actual after action reports, than anyone else on this board. I will return later tonight but I want to close out by reiterating, Nothing on that plane was worth one crewmembers life. Believe me, I know!

 

[bunk22]

I would hate to sound arrogant but I know a whole lot more about this particular incident, from the fact I was part of the squadron just months before and know second hand from the crew what went on to seeing the actual after action reports, than anyone else on this board. I will return later tonight but I want to close out by reiterating, Nothing on that plane was worth one crewmembers life. Believe me, I know!

Not arrogant at all brother. My major point has always been that nobody knows what they would have done in that situation unless they were there. IMO, doing what he did was the absolute right decision.

 

[Flash]

I was in VT-86 when my former squadronmates landed the EP-3 in China. I spent the rest of my time in the squadron explaining to almost everyone in the squadron, especially the instructors, why the crew probably did what they did. I found out later that my presumptions were largely correct and I got most of the back story. I gave the same basic explanation I gave back then and still do to people who ask.

When the PRC F-8-II FINBACK hit the EP-3 they lost one engine and had another damaged. The force of the collision rolled them almost completely inverted and they dropped about 15k in altitude. After regaining control of the plane they tried to figure out the what to do. The nose cone was ripped off and they thought they lost altimeter and airspeed indications and they did not know the extent of any other damage that they might have. The crew on the EP-3 that landed in China had three basic choices:

DITCHING: This was, and I presume still is, preferred to bailing out over water if one had to chose. I know there have been several US P-3's to ditch and I think one Aussie one too (?). There has only been one US P-3 that ditched where everyone survived, the last one in 94 or 95. I heard the pilot speak when I was in flight school, he was an instructor in VT-10 at the time, and it was a great story. Basically, it was a good dose of luck combined with skill that saved them. That pilot got a DFC too. On all of the other P-3 ditchings though at least one of the crew perished, not good odds to begin with. There has never been an EP-3 ditching. Would it be that much different? It is a couple thousand pounds heavier and I really don't think the antennas on the bottom, including the big M&M, would affect the planes integrity or impact that much. The thing that many people don't remember is that the crew of the EP-3 is twice the size of a regular P-3. That leaves 2 times the amount of people that need to get out of the plane.

A key point in this case is that the crew did not know the extent of the damage to the plane and were reluctant to mess with a plane that was still flying, why mess with what works? One of their biggest worries was about possible split flaps. That would have raised there ditching speed by 20 or 30? knots (VP pilots, correct me if I am wrong). Those extra knots could mean the difference between most of the crew getting out to most sinking to the bottom of the South China Sea with the crypto boxes and Natops pubs. It just wasn't a good option in this case.

BAILING OUT: As any VP guy knows, a bailout drill is almost as much as a harrasment session than it is a real drill. That is not because it is people don't take it seriously but because the likleyhood was so small. The only reason most of the pilots said they would order a bailout was an uncontrollable fire over land. There would have been about 20 individuals spread over a couple square miles over the SCS without any SAR for a long time. The flight crew probably would not have made it out because they would have had to rely on autopilot at some point to run to the back. Not likely with a P-3 autopilot, especially on a plane in that condition.

LANDING: This is the one that seems to have generated the most questions here and with the people I have talked to about this. They were 2-4 hours from either Taiwan or the Phillippines (I am being general for a reason). To fly that long with an aircraft in that condition was a dicey prospect. Would the second damaged engine/prop hold out? Was the plane structually sound? Lots of questions and not a lot of answers. Which is why an airfield that was a lot closer was the best option.

Flying a big sky pig is not like Tacair where you have a yellow and black ticket out of the airplane if it really hits the fan. And in Tacair you are rarely alone and unafraid 1000 or 1500 miles from the closest friendlies (I am hard pressed to think of an example). You almost always have a wingman or a controller keeping an eye on you, it might be tenuous sometimes but it is there. You are really out there on your own in a P-3 or EP-3 (or RC-135 too). The closest competent SAR was in Taiwan and their S-70C Bluehawk helos (SAR equipped H-60's) and don't quite have the legs to get there. The closest US SAR was in Okinawa, a long way away and out of the range of the HH-60's to get there. And it is not like the PRC would have been out there looking for them ASAP, even if they could. They would have been SOL for a very long time.

One critique I do have of the whole incident was some of the aftermath. Specifically the awards they gave to the crew. I thought the flight station should have all rated Air Medals (there were three pilots who flew it, not just one) and backenders should have gotten something other than AM's. Shane does have an ego, but that does not mean he made the wrong decision. He could have been the nicest guy in the world and gone nose first into the SCS and it would not have mattered a bit.

Finally, while many you might speculate what was on that plane no one on this board really knows what was carried on VQ birds. The VP guys have somewhat an idea, but only a partial one. Like I said before, neither the plans for the MMA or Michael Jackson's defense strategy were on the plane. Was the stuff harmless? No, and who says the Chinese got their hands on it anyways? In any case, it was not worth anyone's life, period. Anyone who knows what was on the plane and says otherwise is smoking something, and I do know a few VQ types that think that way (strangely, all were O-4/5 types).

I hope this clarifies a bit what I said earlier.

 

[zab1001]

Thank God a (former) VQ guy has spoken up...

I can't believe I just said that. I KEED I KEED.

DITCHING: This was, and I presume still is, preferred to bailing out over water if one had to chose. I know there have been several US P-3's to ditch and I think one Aussie one too (?).

Yup. Ditch is always preferred over bailout when overwater. The Aussie P-3 was on Christmas Island (yes, it exists, and no, it isn't what you are imagining). LONG story shortened and dumbed-down, the Aussies did an abrubt pull up at low altitude (I think on a departure) and ripped the leading edges off the wings (access panels to the plenums for those of you in the know). You can figure out the rest.

There has only been one US P-3 that ditched where everyone survived, the last one in 94 or 95. I heard the pilot speak when I was in flight school, he was an instructor in VT-10 at the time, and it was a great story. Basically, it was a good dose of luck combined with skill that saved them. That pilot got a DFC too.

That was the engine out, no hydraulics dead-stick off of Oman. Here's the link to a recount of the story:
http://www.vpnavy.com/vp47ditch.html

On all of the other P-3 ditchings though at least one of the crew perished, not good odds to begin with.

Here's my quarterly plug for the book "Adak", the factual account of the VP-9 bird that went down in the Northern Pacific. HIGHLY recommended.

There has never been an EP-3 ditching. Would it be that much different? It is a couple thousand pounds heavier and I really don't think the antennas on the bottom, including the big M&M, would affect the planes integrity or impact that much.

Probably the only point I'd disagree with. I have never read an EP-3 Pilot-FE NATOPS, but I know in a straight stick we avoid ditching with the bomb bay open at all costs. Aerodynamic funkiness (go liberal arts!), plus the idea of the bomb bay acting as either a water scoop or a water brake. The M&M radome would either rip off and possibly create a hole in the fuselage or dig into a swell and create a violent pitch-down. Or maybe nothing would happen, but my money would be on something catostrophic (as if a ditch isn't that already).

The thing that many people don't remember is that the crew of the EP-3 is twice the size of a regular P-3. That leaves 2 times the amount of people that need to get out of the plane.

Another great point. In a ditch, there are basically 2 ways out for the aircrew in the tube, 2 overwing exits. 20-some people waiting patiently to exit a rapidly sinking aircraft...yeah fun...

A key point in this case is that the crew did not know the extent of the damage to the plane and were reluctant to mess with a plane that was still flying, why mess with what works? One of their biggest worries was about possible split flaps. That would have raised there ditching speed by 20 or 30? knots (VP pilots, correct me if I am wrong).

Add 20K to land flap ditch speed for flaps man. or up.

BAILING OUT: As any VP guy knows, a bailout drill is almost as much as a harrasment session than it is a real drill. That is not because it is people don't take it seriously but because the likleyhood was so small. The only reason most of the pilots said they would order a bailout was an uncontrollable fire over land.

Yup. Or any scenario where you cannot control the aircraft at all. Pretty hard to ditch when your yoke inputs aren't doing anything and Autopilot has taken its usual dump. Ditch with just power lever inputs and assymetric thrust? Uh...lets see, never practiced it, never done it, I'd trust the silk at that point.

There would have been about 20 individuals spread over a couple square miles over the SCS without any SAR for a long time. The flight crew probably would not have made it out because they would have had to rely on autopilot at some point to run to the back. Not likely with a P-3 autopilot, especially on a plane in that condition.

(this is more to add to the discussion of procedures, esp for any new Orion-Aries guys out there, not to argue any of your points)
Well, the Plane Commander would most likely not make it out. Bailout training evolutions end with the co-pilot and FE leaving the PPC at the controls to keep the plane steady while they bailout. Then the PPC (who already has his chute on) gets to trust the autopilot or trim up as best as he can and sprint tot he main cabin door in the back. Riiiight...

LANDING: This is the one that seems to have generated the most questions here and with the people I have talked to about this. They were 2-4 hours from either Taiwan or the Phillippines (I am being general for a reason). To fly that long with an aircraft in that condition was a dicey prospect. Would the second damaged engine/prop hold out? Was the plane structually sound? Lots of questions and not a lot of answers. Which is why an airfield that was a lot closer was the best option.

As I posted earlier, what was their fuel state and how much effect was that WALL on the nose having on fuel flow and power settings? When I see fuel flow per engine below 1000 pounds, I get a hard-on, when it's 1300 or higher, I get a migraine...

Flying a big sky pig is not like Tacair where you have a yellow and black ticket out of the airplane if it really hits the fan.

Agreed. Price we pay for a pisser and coffee pot.

And in Tacair you are rarely alone and unafraid 1000 or 1500 miles from the closest friendlies (I am hard pressed to think of an example). You almost always have a wingman or a controller keeping an eye on you, it might be tenuous sometimes but it is there. You are really out there on your own in a P-3 or EP-3 (or RC-135 too). The closest competent SAR was in Taiwan and their S-70C Bluehawk helos (SAR equipped H-60's) and don't quite have the legs to get there. The closest US SAR was in Okinawa, a long way away and out of the range of the HH-60's to get there. And it is not like the PRC would have been out there looking for them ASAP, even if they could. They would have been SOL for a very long time.

Yet another great point. Due to the nature of these kinds of ops, people make all kinds of crazy assumptions. "Oh the Battle Group could have picked them up". What Battle Group? It is understood on these ops you are out there by yourself.

One critique I do have of the whole incident was some of the aftermath. Specifically the awards they gave to the crew. I thought the flight station should have all rated Air Medals (there were three pilots who flew it, not just one) and backenders should have gotten something other than AM's.

The whole flight station DIDN'T get AMs??? And the tube rats did??? Are you f-ing kidding me?

Finally, while many you might speculate what was on that plane no one on this board really knows what was carried on VQ birds. The VP guys have somewhat an idea, but only a partial one. Like I said before, neither the plans for the MMA or Michael Jackson's defense strategy were on the plane.

Now that's funny. Yet another excellent point.

and I do know a few VQ types that think that way (strangely, all were O-4/5 types).

yet another reason to pay your JOPA dues.

Great post Flash.

edit: I'm counting on you new Orion-Aries guys to idiot check me on my facts as per NATOPS. As we all know, NATOPS is for new guys...