Spyplane : Big Talk Now.

[stagger]

A couple of days ago Colin Powell announced that "friendly" relations between the US and China are to resume. So perhaps we should all ease up on the rhetoric and attempt to come to a similar rapprochement?

[MarkD]

In this specific instance, I have to back the American position.

Territorial claim or not, incompetent airmanship brought down the EP-3 and F8 and the incredible claim that the EP-3 turned into the F8 highlighted the stupid lie for what it was.

AI is no doubt a tricky business as the 15Cs in Alaska vs Bear have proved over the years. Only last week a Fulcrum was scrambled to intercept an idiot driving a PIA to LHR via Russian airspace. The goal is to direct not to destroy.

The F8 impacted the EP-3: China's fault.
China ATC/Air Defence didn't respond to mayday: China's fault.
US plane over "Chinese waters"? Probably checking to see if they were developing any missiles to fire over Taiwan again.

The Yanks are arrogant bastards about a lot of stuff but to back guys who don't respond to maydays is surely not a good idea for professional pilots.

Next time it really could be a Chinese KAL007 - or maybe they might fire off an SA-2 like that poor bastard in the Indian A310 this week.

[Techman]

Wino, I really dont understand why you would find my post as offensive as you apparently did.

Did I say something wrong or incorrect, or was it because I didnt.

[Wino]

Nah, it was just a sarcastic comment to a sarcastic comment.

I also didn't intend to offend you, I should have put a smile after the smartass, my apologies.

Cheers
Wino

[Techman]

Sarcastic!!, Me ??? never.

Offended!!, Me ??? never.

Techman

[KIFIS]

Con-pilot:

I have read your latest post a number of times and I would like to congratulate you on a nice piece of writing. My motives in keeping this sad accident (as you correctly describe it) in the fore have been motivated by a sense of injustice. After all the antagonism and argument put forward by both sides I find this feeling still remains but it has been somewhat tempered by your well balanced analysis.
I would like to join you in calling for a truce. If it’s good enough for the leaders of the PRC and USA to want this then it should be good enough for us. Bear in mind however, that a genuine cease fire requires the consent of all parties.

Also I ‘d like to accept your invitation for a beer. Open the hangar doors, aeroplanes, girls, motor cycles and history, anything but politics.

KIFIS

[con-pilot]

KIFIS, You got it buddy. Girls, damn, I forgot about girls.

[boofhead]

With regard to Winos comment about saving the world. It is statements like that the rest of us find annoying, and show that many Americans do not know other than what they are told by the very effective US propaganda machine.
Apart from the misstatements about the UN dues and the costs the US faces in defending the world (single handed according to Wino), the record of the military campaigns is not as good as he presents either.
Since 1945 the US has not won any wars. Korea was fought to a stalemate, holding territory already in the hands of the ROK before the war. The US forces (I should say UN forces but I want to keep it at Wino's level of understanding) made it as far as the Chinese borders in North Korea but were forced back,, way back, when the Chinese entered the fight, and they were lucky to make it back to Seoul after another couple of years. If the Chinese had been interested in holding what they won initially then the war would not have even been a stalemate.
Vietnam was won, militarily, since the aim was not to invade the North, then the politicians gave it away, resulting in a humiliating defeat.
Even today the US tries to hide the fact that they lost hundreds of personnel during the Cold War (but I will give you a win there, and even credit the politicians).
The Gulf War was entered into with the aim of recovering Kuwait and reducing Saddam's threat to the region. The first part was achieved, after a year of preparation and only 100 hours of fighting, but the second was not, and NATO (sorry, the US) is still fighting for that.
Then the Kosovo campaign was fought to knock out Slobbo, and failed miserably also. Dropping bombs from 15,000 feet onto civilians! Call that a war? The collateral damage ensured Milosovic' survival! It was only when his own people got fed up with him that he was kicked out, and if he gets off the trial he will go back and do it all again!
Never mind the various 'wag the dog' skirmishes we saw during the last admimistration.
Nevertheless the US has a great potential with its military, and could, if it had the will, defeat any foe. The US has a lot to be proud of, and if people like Wino would only stop exaggerating, the anti American feelings would subside.

[Strength-5]

Hi there folks ...
Could someone out there be so kind and answer me this few simple questions ...
I works as an ATC in the Gulf and as such we see a lot of A/C carrier movements and practice flights / patrol of certain XYZ "no fly zone" flights etc ....
These flights often penetrate ICAO civilian classed A & C airspace with no prior warning and are not under any ATC control ..in fact they don't even call ATC .....when the pilots or "powers that be" on the ships get questioned as to who / what these flights are ...we often get the answer "we are operating in International Waters.....
Now excuse me for sounding ignorant ...and maybe this is what the Chinese had difficulty understanding as well ...but I fully grasp a ship SAILING AROUND in International Waters ...but can someone please explain how A/C accomplish this ? And we not talking about these A/C staying in un-controlled airspace either ...oh no... they venture up and down through designated National ICAO classed A & C controlled airspace ..doing their own "little thing " !!!
This portion of airspace is "shared" aith many countless different International airlines on a daily basis operating into / out of the Gulf countries and also overflying East /West - West /East ...
Can someone tell me what gives these "Tom Cruisers" of this world the legal right to do what they do daily ?
Secondly, and I hope it never comes to that, who will take resposiblility if "Mr Ace of Base" with a F16 strapped to his rear-end has to meet up with an Airliner ??
International waters are as far as I am concerned for ships ...and International airspace classed A B C D E F & G are for A/C ....last two mentioned in particular is a good place to start if you want to do what you like , when you like ...
Then lastly there there's the tentative issue of Flight Information Boundaries (FIR's) ..this usually demarcates the sovereign airspace of a particular country ...whatever the class of airspace ....and once again this has nothing to do with International waters ..the boundaries are often different ....International waters is once again for SHIPPING ...if an aircraft is within a country's FIR, un-authorised / with no clearance to be there ....that country has the sovereign right to defend it's airspace ...
Now I am not sure where "said" spy plane was flying at the time of the little "bumper bashing" ...but if ..IF ...it was within China's FIR then, and worse if it was in ICAO class A or C with no clearance from ATC / Chinese authorities ..then I am sorry to say it had no right to be there ...
I Hope I am wrong in the statements I made above ....if I am ...I will eat humble pie ...please enlighten me ...
Please pass this thread on to every / all fighter "jocks" / Aircraft carrier operators for their comment ...

[ORAC]

You are wrong.

The national territory of a nation, including it's airspace, originally extended out to 3 miles (cannon shot range). This was extended to 12nm. Within this they can decide the rules.

Outside 12nm the rules are set by international aggrements and treaties - which only apply to the signatories.

During the 60s to 90s the USSR would on a regular basis send Bear B/D bombers down the north sea at 36K feet through the MRSA and air routes. When LATCC/ScATTC complained it had to be politely pointed out to them that the Soviet air force were not an ICAO signatory and were free to fly in international airspace as they saw fit.

Similarily the med is divided up into FIRs. But if you think that everyone is talking to ATC you are wrong. When Nicosia got a radar for the first time instead of operating procedurally and saw all the aircraft operating in "their" FIR which they had not known about they had a fit.

Same rules apply in the Gulf,South China Seas etc.

It just be comes important that everyone knows the rules, their obligations and try to ensure they carry out their,legal, duties, in the most responsible, safe, manner they can. Politics allowing.

[Strength-5]

Orac ...where on earth do you get that info from ?????
In other words any A/C can zoom about 13 NM from the coast of UAE / Bahrain / Qatar smack bang in controlled airspace and they would be legal ....PLEASE !!!!
Just where do FIR boundaries come into the picture ??? And what about the laws governing controlled airspace ....req for crew & A/C ....and I don't for any minute swallow that bit about not being a signatory to ICAO ....you don't have to be a signatory ...it's simply ..if you fly in ICAO airspace ...you obide by the rules regulations set by ICAO and the local ATS authority....
Most the airports in the gulf are close to the coast ....you mean to say that any old "Joe Soap" could go zooming through the respective TMA's/CTA's provided they are further than 13NM offshore ...HA !!! That would be smack bang through the take off path / final approach path for most these airports ....

[LatviaCalling]

Hello guys!

I'm the scoundrel who started the original EC3 thread and quickly got blasted by KIFIS and all his Mainland Com-Symp cronies.

This time I wanted to stay out of the war zone for a while and lurk until things lost their high-pitch rhetoric. After scrathing my head for a while, I decided that KIFIS and his gang have learned nothing new and have nothing new to add and have even scared away young "peter ten thije".

Talking to KIFIS is like trying to talk to OCB. Both love the cut-and-paste method. Neithr will listen to logic. That shows me ignorance right away. If you can't take the time to answer someone properly, then why do it with cut-and-paste and then type the answer "No."

Again, reading through all of the postings, I don't see where the problem lies. The U.S. aircraft was clearly in international waters. It was agressively approached by a Chinese fighter whose pilot made a mistake. Whoops. A big mistake. He damaged the American plane and destroyed his own, and perhaps his own life.

I really don't think that America should be held responsible for such foolish action.

On spying. Of course the Americans were spying. Intelligence is just a toned-down word for that. The Chinese also spy on the U.S. Just look at all the nice stuff they carted away from the U.S. during the Clinton administration and the FBI was powerless to stop it.

At one point FIBIS you mentioned that to spy the Americans should use satellites. This plane, although it is ancient by world standards, was loaded with all the latest stuff that could be packed aboard. That included interception of faxes, phones and cellular mobile phones. A satellite passes at a rather fast speed, but this plane goes along the Chinese coast in international waters, mind you, at slow speed. More chance to pick up information.

No, putting it all together, I believe that you, especially, have fronted this issue with either a very dark ignorance or some other unknown reason that is very apparent in the other camp.

[petertenthije]

Hi LatviaCalling,

I am stil here. I'm affraid I have to take the blame on the satellite remark. It wasn't FIBIS who started it, it was me.

Greetz
Peter ten Thije
[email protected]

[bonzaman]

Strength-5, If you look back on pages 3 and 4 of this thread, you will see that I have already raised the FIR issue. In a reply to that, Wino stated that the aircraft was operating what he called a "freedom of navigation exercise" I did a search on that on the internet and found a considerable volume of information on the subject. I did not go to the next step to discover if such an operation overcame the question of clearances in controlled airspace. However my understanding is that the American aircraft was operating in the Hong Kong FIR at the time of the interception.
My reason for not going on with the discusion, is that if you question the activities of the American aircraft, you are automatically labelled, by some, as being anti American, which I am not. Most of us from this part of the world think of our American cousins with affection and respect. That does not mean that we cannot question their activities if we feel it necessary.

[Strength-5]

Tks bonzaman
I hear what you say ....my thread is not specifically aimed at any particular nation ...it a case of "if the shoe fits..."
All I am saying there a lot of the military flying could still take place virtually un-hindered with just a little co-ordination witht he necessary ATS unit or relevant CAA/DCA ...

In the end of the day if the "poo poo hits the fan"...and mil A/C meets civilian airliner "They" will save themselves a lot of embarrasment / unnecessary questions ...there too much of this "us" and "them" when it comes to mil/civilian co-operation and liaison ....there is no real reson why we cannot work together ....
But as you say bonzaman , it's probably not worth the effort trying to eduacate those that always know better ....

[Strength-5]

I just read some of the past threads again ...I think it was Wino that thinks that an FIR is a "Flight Indentification Region" ...maybe in the US ...but definitely not in any ICAO country I know .....
Maybe Wino could tell us what type of pilot he/she is??? What type of rating /Aircraft that is .....and in what country ....I suggest that old Wino and a few others around here get hold of a few ICAo docs and look up the division of airspace ....
Brief explanation :
An FIR (Flight Information Region) which is clearly defined and which, by signed treaty/agreement with it's neighbouring countries is publicly published in Jepp's AIP's etc ....these FIR's can be in excess of 200NM !!! offshore ...An FIR does not necessarily follow the International bundary of any country ...ie. it can be bigger/smaller ....
Anyway a FIR is divided into controlled airspace -(CTA's , Airways , TMA's, CTR's, & ATZ's) and un-controlled airspace, Un-controlled airspace within each FIR is divided into information/advisory routes and Danger / Prohibited & Restricted Areas ....each piece of airspace is ICAO classed "A" through to "G" ...defining what type of service is provided / available in each airspace ..... exp.a CTA can be class A,B or C or even D etc etc ...
There's no mention made of 12 NM anywhere ...and as someone mentioned ...for a foreign A/C that wishes to enter another country's FIR (Controlled or Uncontrolled ) they usually require set protocol approval from the ATS centre / local CAA/DCA or goverment agency .....or sometimes, all of the above ....the requirements to enter each country's FIR is clearly published in the country's in question AIP for all airmen to see .....
So that 12NM bulldust does'nt come into the picture at all ...again remeber we are taling A/C NOT Ships !!!!!!

Come on chaps ...lets keep this professional here ..befreo you quote something / say something ...CHECK the relevant documentation and make sure it is accurate ...

[boofhead]

An FIR is set up for participating airplanes. A military airplane would normally avoid it or go through the same flight planning/clearance as a civvie, but if it needs to, it will pass through without any formalities. If you think you have any more protection in an FIR/Controlled Airspace from collision than you have outside such, you are wrong. For this reason I always have the logo light and the radar on, even in clear blue, because military airplanes often have a means to detect radar signals and so identify me as civilian/harmless.
Outside territiorial waters (3sm/12sm) there is no legal requirement to avoid an FIR, and no way to enforce the rules.
Many FIRs overlay other countries, starting at 20,000 feet or so. Would you say that the countries below have lost the right to their airspace? Of course not. Usually they are paid for the use by the FIR authority.
And finally, the USA has not ratified the Law of the Sea treaty, and is therefore legally only allowed to "own" airspace out to 3sm from the coast, yet they enforce 12sm. Thus proving that Might is Right.

[ 06 August 2001: Message edited by: boofhead ]

[Wino]

Icao.

Doesn't the second letter mean CIVIL? I don't see military in there anywhere. The 2 are completely different animals.

And I got 3 typeratings and worked for European as well as American airlines.

Don't get too enamoured with your beaurocracy, it aint always the answer either...

Cheers
Wino

[GustyOrange]

Wino, I agree with about 95% of your comments on this thread, however just to clear a couple of things up. Britain fought the Argentines, NOT England. And Britain makes a massive military contribution to peacekeping around the world including Iraq. Please don't tar us with the European brush.

[Wino]

Guilty on that one. Though I lived in England for a while, and know the difference, to most americans the UK and England are the same thing and it creeps into my writings.

Again, my most sincere apologies...

Cheers
Wino