New info on the China debacle

Great Debates
21

wring is actually hitting on a point that no one’s really raised because not all that many people are familiar with aviation. A mid-air collision in VFR conditions (visual flight rules, where traffic separation is the responsibility of the pilots’ eyeballs, not Air Traffic Control) is a bad thing because both pilots are to blame. Neither should have put himself in such a dangerous position in the first place. So, an intercept in which one plane makes an abrupt movement (hypothetically speaking; I’m not saying we did) precipitating a collision suggests that blame can be spread pretty evenly.

Complicating matters is the situation in question. Our plane is out there frequently; we cannot just run home every time we’re intercepted, and I think the PRC knows this. An unnecessarily close intercept may paint the fighter in a bad light, but how, then, should the military recon plane respond? Keep conducting the mission, or run home? Our decision was to continue the mission, because a)the intercepts historically were professional and non-threatening, and b)therefore the safety of the crew was not an issue, and c)our rules don’t let us come home for no reason other than that we have a bad feeling. The fighters knew our track, they knew the capabilities of our aircraft, and they knew what our reaction would be when intercepted.

So, if it turns out we did make an unusual movement, I’m honestly not sure that we’ll walk away entirely free from blame. I’m not trying to muddy the waters, and I think Milo’s assertion that the PRC caused the collision is dead-on (which is why I haven’t mentioned this before). I’m just saying the potential is there for us to take a very small amount of blame.

And astorian, I think your hunch is half right and half wrong. You make it sound as if the PRC suddenly decided they didn’t like us being there and wanted us gone. Keep in mind, they’ve been seeing us and intercepting us for years. They intercept us to make a statement, to make sure we’re who they think we are, and (most of all, IMO) for the practice. We make a great target of opportunity for them. I think these fighter pilots love to scream out there and form up on our wing. I’m guessing this was a completely routine intercept that got botched, for the reasons you mentioned.

[sub]I completely blame wring for this post :D[/sub]

22

I have heard that the chinese fighter pilot might have tried to use his afterburner to heat the hull and cause it to crack. The afterburner however might have only gone off briefly and then conked out on the pilot due to instabilities in the engine. I also heard that the photos of the plane confirm this(I however was too lazy and probably ignorant to check that myself).

I was thinking, if the pilot had done something like that it would probably have caused the people inside to get burned(I have no idea really). If that were true the Chinese might just be holding the hostages untill they have healed to keep America from being outraged. Pure speculation though:).

23

We say the Chinese pilot was at fault. The Chinese say that our plane was at fault.

In the presence of two contradictory and equally hard to prove stories, I say we ignore them both and stick with the basics… the basics being that it’d be nearly impossible for the big, slow plane to hit the small, fast plane unless the latter was being reckless.

24

In a parallel realm:

When driving, if you tailgate someone and he must slow down or stop for any legitimate reason (light changing, debris or animal in the road etc.) and you then rear-end him, you are responsible for the accident, for not maintaining a safe distance. Of course, the other driver would assume at least some responsibility for the crash if he deliberately slowed or stopped suddenly out of recklessness or idiocy.

In the air, deliberating maneuvering so as to precipitate an accident with another plane that’s too close amounts to being suicidal or demented. So as a solution to the crisis, the U.S. can agree to have a distinguished panel of international shrinks interview the pilot. If the pilot is found to be suicidal and/or crazy, we apologize*.

*In return, the “People’s Republic” agrees not to interfere with the free flow of Chinese campaign contributions and orange beef to the United States.