Spyplane : Big Talk Now.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Intentionally Left Blank
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congress says : Quote: “ The idea that American taxpayers should start rewarding communist piracy is as contemptible as it is unlikely to happen. This Congress will never allow a single dollar to be used to compensate the perpetrators of international aggression. “ Unquote. 
(Reuters) - After rejecting Beijing's demand for $1 million, the United States is sending China $34,576 to pay for support of a crippled U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft that collided with a Chinese fighter jet in April, U.S. officials said on Thursday. The officials, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters there was no word yet on whether China would accept the payment.
(Reuters) - After rejecting Beijing's demand for $1 million, the United States is sending China $34,576 to pay for support of a crippled U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft that collided with a Chinese fighter jet in April, U.S. officials said on Thursday. The officials, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters there was no word yet on whether China would accept the payment.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: WWW
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone kindly qoute me some or other document where I can research this 3sm/12NM thing ....I still say somewhere along the line someone is confusing shipping with A/C!!!
Also Wino ....if you as an airline pilot find it justified/OK that mil a/c can fly through controlled airspace / FIR's without contact or knowledge of ATC ...thereby endangering your passenger's lives and those of your crew......then I'll be damned ....and it's not about beaurocracy either ...it's about plain common sense ...
And yes ICAO is the authority that lays down rules for Civilian A/C / ATC ...but that does'nt then automatically give the mil the right to do whatever they choose to ...does it .....
Come on guys ...lets all just stop for a moment and think what we are all propagating ...
If FIR and controlled airspace boundaries mean nothing ..then why are we bothering ...everyoone can jut do as they please ....
Right now the shoe is conviently on the other foot ...aand we all having a friendly "go" at the Chinese, but what if the reverse happens ...I would like to see any Western response to Chinese mil A/C flying up and down 12NM offshore straight through civilian traffic / controlled airspace ....will there be retaliation ...you bet yea !!!
Also Wino ....if you as an airline pilot find it justified/OK that mil a/c can fly through controlled airspace / FIR's without contact or knowledge of ATC ...thereby endangering your passenger's lives and those of your crew......then I'll be damned ....and it's not about beaurocracy either ...it's about plain common sense ...
And yes ICAO is the authority that lays down rules for Civilian A/C / ATC ...but that does'nt then automatically give the mil the right to do whatever they choose to ...does it .....
Come on guys ...lets all just stop for a moment and think what we are all propagating ...
If FIR and controlled airspace boundaries mean nothing ..then why are we bothering ...everyoone can jut do as they please ....
Right now the shoe is conviently on the other foot ...aand we all having a friendly "go" at the Chinese, but what if the reverse happens ...I would like to see any Western response to Chinese mil A/C flying up and down 12NM offshore straight through civilian traffic / controlled airspace ....will there be retaliation ...you bet yea !!!
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, but the British gov't uses airliners for practice intercepts without the knowledge of the crew. This was debated here a couple of months ago and found to be OKAY by most of you current nay sayers now, so which is it?
And No, I don't like it much either, but atleast in the United states's case we virtually never put up a fighter without an AWACS first, and I do very much trust the awacs radar to keep everyone away from each other. However, not all countries do that, and using ASR-9 radar to seperate fighters and civilian traffic is NOT a good idea...
Cheers
Wino
And No, I don't like it much either, but atleast in the United states's case we virtually never put up a fighter without an AWACS first, and I do very much trust the awacs radar to keep everyone away from each other. However, not all countries do that, and using ASR-9 radar to seperate fighters and civilian traffic is NOT a good idea...
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strength-5 In an earlier post by Wino, see page 4, he justified the US action as being a "Freedom of Navigation Exercise" I found this link to learn more www.nationalreview.com/comment-hawkinsprint051501.html From my reading of that page and others on the subject I am left with the view that this does not enjoy world wide recognition and still leaves us with the question of the right of the American aircraft to be where it was when it was. This is central to the argument, I believe
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Actually, in the UK there is a list of forbidden intercepts, and that includes cilvil and/or passenger carrying aircraft - civil or military.
I have to admit that, in the 50s to 80s there was a lot of breaking of the rules. Firstly, it was common for ex military pilots to put "embellish" on their flight plans. Secondly, flights such as BA xmas children's flights used to plead to be intercepted. Thirdly, Air Anglia used to complain vociferously if they were NOT intercepted as it actually generated customer traffic from the spotters/pax in the know!
All QRA/Battle Flight aircraft are, however, under radar control. I might point out, however,that the military controllers who are responsible for control in the same MRSA as the civilians have no civil qualifications; Nor, for that matter, do the pilots. Which returns us neatly to the point that the military do not work to civilian rules and regulations.
As to your comment about the Chinese use of airspace - that is exactly what the USSR used to do with Bear (TU95/142) aircraft operating throughout the UKADR/FIR in the MRSA at FL360 talking to nobody on a regular basis for over 30 years (350+ intercepts a year). Nobody "retaliated" or complained because everyone knew it was legal for them to do so.
Bonzaman. The 3/12NM limit is agreed by nearly all nations. Where problems arise are where nations have narrow straits; large Gulfs; or off-shore islands which they consider gives them national authority in the intervening area. This is where nations disagree and problems arise. This happens in both the air and on the sea. Various nations frequently traverse these areas to establish, in their view, their right of free passage. Such areas are the Gulf of Sirte and large areas of the South China seas. (I seem to rememeber that Australia regularily sends ships to establish free passage. I also seem to remember complex rules for being able to launch a ship based helicopter ). It also includes the Aegean where clashes/intercepts between Greek and Turkish fighters have lead to regular collisions/losses.
(ps. I might point out that, post the KAL flight shootdown a much much more vigorous approach was taken and intercepts of any flight-planned aircraft were refused - including Soviet military.)
[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: ORAC ]
I have to admit that, in the 50s to 80s there was a lot of breaking of the rules. Firstly, it was common for ex military pilots to put "embellish" on their flight plans. Secondly, flights such as BA xmas children's flights used to plead to be intercepted. Thirdly, Air Anglia used to complain vociferously if they were NOT intercepted as it actually generated customer traffic from the spotters/pax in the know!
All QRA/Battle Flight aircraft are, however, under radar control. I might point out, however,that the military controllers who are responsible for control in the same MRSA as the civilians have no civil qualifications; Nor, for that matter, do the pilots. Which returns us neatly to the point that the military do not work to civilian rules and regulations.
As to your comment about the Chinese use of airspace - that is exactly what the USSR used to do with Bear (TU95/142) aircraft operating throughout the UKADR/FIR in the MRSA at FL360 talking to nobody on a regular basis for over 30 years (350+ intercepts a year). Nobody "retaliated" or complained because everyone knew it was legal for them to do so.
Bonzaman. The 3/12NM limit is agreed by nearly all nations. Where problems arise are where nations have narrow straits; large Gulfs; or off-shore islands which they consider gives them national authority in the intervening area. This is where nations disagree and problems arise. This happens in both the air and on the sea. Various nations frequently traverse these areas to establish, in their view, their right of free passage. Such areas are the Gulf of Sirte and large areas of the South China seas. (I seem to rememeber that Australia regularily sends ships to establish free passage. I also seem to remember complex rules for being able to launch a ship based helicopter ). It also includes the Aegean where clashes/intercepts between Greek and Turkish fighters have lead to regular collisions/losses.
(ps. I might point out that, post the KAL flight shootdown a much much more vigorous approach was taken and intercepts of any flight-planned aircraft were refused - including Soviet military.)
[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: ORAC ]
