EP-3 in China Discussion

[bunk22]

Point being that it's not the decision of an O-3 to say "The Chinese aren't our enemy, so it's no big deal if they get our secrets". Those decisions are made by people a little higher than our paygrade... and it's not our prerogative to second-guess it.

I'm thinking that in the heat of the moment and trying to gain control, then keep control of the aircraft, the aircraft commander had a bit more on his mind than the decisions of those paygrades above him. I'm trying to put myself in his situation, in the panic at the time and think how difficult it must have been to do what he did.

 

[zab1001]

First off... zab-- if you're going to edit out the part of my post that refers to the EP-3 incident, at least leave the remainder in the book thread... since it doesn't really have much relevance to this one.

Dude, this is me publically apologizing, I had to edit about 20 posts and pull any rhetoric that could be damaging to the site. I scope locked and blew it. To be honest I can't even remember what I edited out, I had so much sh!t to do. I'm sorry. Wanna re-post, feel free.

What can i say...I'm not a talker...

(FYI all, those guys did do their damndest to destroy as much crypto as they could, after going nearly inverted- much bigger deal in a large aircraft with folks walking around, just an afterthought)

 

[Brett327]

Now if they were under orders to never let that aircraft fall into Chinese hands

I think that's kind of implied.

Brett

 

[HooverPilot]

Holy crap! Take a short trip away and the kids start fighting as soon as I go out the door! I think we are going to have to understand that we are not all going to agree on this.

Now if they were under orders to never let that aircraft fall into Chinese hands, then perhaps the survival of he and his crew was definitely second to the mission.

I just don't like this logic, I've never actually told my dog to not crap on the floor, but I guarantee that she knows it's wrong and doesn't do it.

Sorry if it's a bad analogy, but it's a whole lot better than the rest of the ones I thought of...

 

[bunk22]

Holy crap! Take a short trip away and the kids start fighting as soon as I go out the door! I think we are going to have to understand that we are not all going to agree on this.



I just don't like this logic, I've never actually told my dog to not crap on the floor, but I guarantee that she knows it's wrong and doesn't do it.

Sorry if it's a bad analogy, but it's a whole lot better than the rest of the ones I thought of...

No, it's a good analogy and like somebody said above, it was probably implied. What I should have added, but which I thought was implied as well, was the lives of the crew were second to the Chinese getting that aircraft and absolutely under no circumstances were they to ever land that plane in China (meaning crash the plane before landing safely in China). From what I read and from what I understand, that was not the policy/ROE/SOP or whatever you want to call it, at least not at the time. I could be wrong on this and any EP-3 guy can chime in and correct me. I will ask my XO though. He was an ES-3 bubba for a tour and perhaps could shed some light on this issue. Knowing him, I think he would definitely not side with me on this one.

However, that's still not my point though (of course by now I'm not sure what the hell my point was). To sit here and say I would have done this or they should have done that is pure bull****. Unless you, me or anyone was in that situation, life on the line, fighting for control of that aircraft, you don't know what the hell you would have done.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I agree with A4s, sometimes a military aircrew must assume an additional risk to protect national secrets and intelligence capabilities in a peacetime environment. I think they should have found a nearby ship and ditched or bailed out next to it rather than land in China. Although I retired before the incident and do not know the classified details, many of my P-3 pilot buddies (including the guy who did the all engine out ditch off Masirah) felt they should have either tried for Taiwan or a closer airfield in any other country besides China or Viet Nam. Once they recovered from the initial upset, they proved the plane was flyable by taking it to China. A Barbers crew flew a P-3 over 1000 miles on 2 engines with very similar damage after a prop threw its blades.

I also feel that they could have done a lot more to keep the Chinese off the plane after they landed. They could have just not opened the door. The aircraft was sovereign U.S. territory and every Mission Commander board I ever set on discussed this type of scenario in depth. They did not even try and keep the Chinese off. I doubt the Chinese would have forced their way on with guns blazing. If nothing else, there would have been more time to destroy crypto and equipment. From what I've heard and read, there was no real effort made to keep the Chinese off.

I may not have made a decision to ditch or bail out, but I made my PPC stay onstation after losing an engine while conducting EO support for U.S. IFOR troops over Bosnia in 1995 as I felt the ground guys were in too much risk without us. There was a company of them versus the 11 of us. (This was an actual occurrence of those "hypothetical" PPC/TACCO/MC board situations where the NFO MC could override the PPC safety of flight decision for "operational necessity") I also kept the plane on the deck between a reflagged Kuwaiti tanker and 2 Iranian Bog Hammers in the Persian Gulf in 1988 against my PPCs objections that we couldn't do anything. Our constant over flights of the Bog Hammers eventually drove them away from the tankers. Both were "peacetime" situations where we assumed additional risks for national objectives. I believe safe guarding intelligence and crypto is a national objective worth taking additional risks for.

When we flew generic P-3s on PARPRO missions off North Korea in the mid to late 1980s, our SOP and ROE was that we were to ditch rather than land in North Korea if we had a malfunction, damage or intercept that would not allow us to get back to South Korea or Japan. This was peacetime and was meant to keep the aircraft, equipment and crypto safe. It was assumed that the North Koreans would rescue us and eventually return us unharmed, so it was not from a fear of a hostage type situation.

The crew did a great job flying the damaged plane, they failed in other areas.

Bunk - you said that the pilot may not have had time to think about areas other than just saving the plane/crew. In the P-3 and EP-3 world, the PQS and qualification boards cover these type of scenarios. He should have known what to do. Since you fly an aircraft without a tactical mission or much (if any) classified equipment/crypto, your training and qulification boards probably do not go into these areas as deeply. In the C-2, I agree it would be save the aircraft, crew and pax first. This is not necessarily true for a P-3, EP-3 or some of the Air Force recon/intell collection aircraft.

 

[Falcaner]

Seems to me hear that we are asking the question which is more important the mission or the men. I personally have always sided a little bit more toward the side of the men. But like bunk said the mission does not exist in a vacuum. There are going to be times when the mission is more important then the men. Just look at the 101st guys if the men were more important then the mission to them they would of never of gotten out of the dam plane. If it were me who was at the controls I am not sure what I would have done. What was the sea state like, how long could we fly for, was there a carrier I could fly toward and then ditch and have the helos pick me up. These are all questions to which I would have to have and answer to before I could make a decision. Just me 2 cents

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Dude, this is me publically apologizing, I had to edit about 20 posts and pull any rhetoric that could be damaging to the site.

Hey, no worries at all... I totally understand if you want to edit out stuff that might be less-than-flattering... not trying to get on your case, but re-reading my post made me go... "hrmmm"

Onto the point..

I'm thinking that in the heat of the moment and trying to gain control, then keep control of the aircraft, the aircraft commander had a bit more on his mind than the decisions of those paygrades above him.

Really? I know what you're saying about the heat of the moment, but that's the nature of the military. People went into Vietnam to bomb worthless targets... people got shot down, tortured, and killed trying to do that. Are you going to say that they should have turned around and gone home because they were looking out for the lives of their crew? Or because killing people in a strip of jungle in Southeast Asia didn't **really** protect our national security?

Or is it just that these decisions aren't made by us?

There's a reason there's a chain of command and, more importantly, civilian control of the military. They decide what's important to national security... and 'in the heat of the moment' is not the time for a JO to second-guess those decisions.

Then again, maybe I'm just a snot-nosed O-1 who's still a few weeks from his wings

 

[VarmintShooter]

Wow ... a real honest to goodness pissing match (which for once I'm not part of, thank God).

This coming from the crud at the bottom of the barrel, with no PPC time, and indeed no aircraft quals at all, but ...

We weren't there.
We don't know what equipment was or wasn't lost to the Chinese versus destroyed (or dumped?).
We don't know the SOP.
We don't know the condition of the plane.
We don't know how the seas were or whether there were friendlies nearby.
There are lots of other things we don't know too.

In other words, we really don't know ANYTHING (especially me ).

What was the best course of action? All these things that we don't know could make all the difference. It goes seriously against my gut to turn the plane over to the Chinese, but I wasn't there, so dudes, I'd have to go with the pilot's judgement here. Isn't that why they leave things up to the pilot in command?

Don't they discuss that sort of thing in the squadrons? "You are just outside Chinese airspace and the wing catches fire ... what do you do?" Or does all that scenario planning stuff end after the VT's?

Maybe some of you know everything that was going on, or think that the variables aren't important, fair enough I guess.

Oh, no pissing match for me this time ... if you guys want to hate on each other then go ahead. :sleep_125

 

[bch]

I in no way have an "informed" opinion on the EP-3 incident. But I do have an informed and praciticed opinion on professionalism! Nice to see people judging others, based off of the aircraft that they fly, and in such a childish manner at that! Give me a freaking break!

 

[Brett327]

Unless you, me or anyone was in that situation, life on the line, fighting for control of that aircraft, you don't know what the hell you would have done.

I think what's being discussed now is the should vice the would .

Brett

 

[bunk22]

Really? I know what you're saying about the heat of the moment, but that's the nature of the military. People went into Vietnam to bomb worthless targets... people got shot down, tortured, and killed trying to do that. Are you going to say that they should have turned around and gone home because they were looking out for the lives of their crew? Or because killing people in a strip of jungle in Southeast Asia didn't **really** protect our national security?

Then again, maybe I'm just a snot-nosed O-1 who's still a few weeks from his wings

Sorry bud, comparing a fighter pilot on a bombing run during a war is a totally different scenario than that of an EP-3 that had a mid-air while not at war. Actually, I'm not even sure where you're coming from on this one. I will agree with your last statment though.......you summed it up well.

 

[bunk22]

Bunk - you said that the pilot may not have had time to think about areas other than just saving the plane/crew. In the P-3 and EP-3 world, the PQS and qualification boards cover these type of scenarios. He should have known what to do. Since you fly an aircraft without a tactical mission or much (if any) classified equipment/crypto, your training and qulification boards probably do not go into these areas as deeply. In the C-2, I agree it would be save the aircraft, crew and pax first. This is not necessarily true for a P-3, EP-3 or some of the Air Force recon/intell collection aircraft.

I have no doubt that certain situations are covered under your PQS and qualification boards. I also know that not all scenarios are covered as well. An example might be a mid-air with a Chinese fighter and what actions to take if your aircraft is barely controllable. It was probably very dynamic at the time with little thought given to anything but trying to survive by getting that aircraft on the ground. That scenario is probably covered now I suppose.

 

[bunk22]

I think what's being discussed now is the should vice the would .

Brett

Again, IMO, the "should of" doesn't fly either. They should have flown that aircraft to Taiwan, regardless of its condition. Okay, who says it would have made it? From what I read, the aircraft was barely controllable. They should have ditched it. Okay, like Varmint said, what were the conditions for ditching? Could the flat nose of the P-3 caused the aircraft to flip over? I dunno Would of, could of, should of.....all the same to me. The best thing to do from this situation, IMO, is to learn from it. Sure, some mistakes are going to have to be brought to light in order to learn from this mishap but do it in a way to teach and not prosecute. This way, certain guidlines, procedures, or whatever can be (has been I'm sure) implemented to better prepare pilots in case this situation or one like it ever happens again.

 

[Brett327]

The difference between should and would is hopefully in the lessons learned from the mistakes that were made. Hopefully, if another crew is in a similar situation, the mistakes they make will be "original."

Brett