From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #18 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Monday, April 9 2001 Volume 10 : Number 018 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Etiquette Re: Etiquette spyplane cartoons china times RE: Vicious downing of peaceful Chinese fighter by American su EP-3 Re: Etiquette Server Downtime For Disk Upgrades beginning at 1200 CDT (1700 GMT) 7 April 2001 Off Topic/EP-3 Incident F-8 Shepherd dogs O T "pilot asked to shoot down EP-3E" SR-71 962 at IWM Duxford (fwd) RE: O T "pilot asked to shoot down EP-3E" RE: F-8 Shepherd dogs *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 06:35:46 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: Etiquette Hopefully be the end of the weekend the issue will be a non issue as I plan on installing some form of MIME filter. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 513 8503 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Waukesha, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:13:05 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: Etiquette i regret the tone of my reply about "Etiquette" but it was the remark about my violating copyright(stratfor.com) that ticked me off,and i don't think i owe any one an apology. wayne _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:30:33 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: spyplane cartoons >From: "wayne binkley" > >it seems some of us are stressed out worrying(rightly so) about our >military people being held on hainan island,and tempers are short(mine >anyway).some times humour is a good way to relieve stress. i offer this >link to some cartoons(i have not looked at all of them, so if some offend >some one...well). >wayne > >http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/chinaplane/main.asp > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 16:44:02 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: china times the english language mainland newspaper. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:52:27 -0700 From: "T. Toth" Subject: RE: Vicious downing of peaceful Chinese fighter by American su - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Sent: April 6, 2001 12:52 AM To: Skunk Works List Subject: RE: Vicious downing of peaceful Chinese fighter by American su >About taking out the aircraft >The rest of this post is complete hogwash, and not worth responding to. Just >one thing. There is no reason to use any kind of force against China, or any >need to destroy a crippled, US aircraft. Not even Bush would do something so >stupid. You guys must be nuts! Complete Hogwash is sometimes called one's opinion, which is what I thought we were expressing here. ;-) Military action is not an option was exactly my point! So maybe I'm not so nuts after all. >-- Andreas [wondering if there are still some sane people around...] I guess according to your post I'm disqualified as far as answering that question is concerned. :-) About being forced to land or not I guess only time will tell. But If they did make the choice of landing there without Chinese authorization, then what can we say about what is happening, wasn't it to be expected? This is the perfect opportunity for the Chinese to get back at the US and in the process get a whole bunch of prizes at almost no risk. I'm not saying the Chinese are right or wrong, I'm just saying that expecting them not to take advantage of this situation would have been a gross miscalculation. Which doesn't mean they miscalculated, maybe they decided that the trade off (detention and inspection of plane) wasn't worth risking the lives of the crew, especially if this is not one of the 'story tellers'. Once again this is all just speculation but if what you say is right then the fact that the Chinese are keeping the crew would be normal considering they are investigating the incident (a crime if they believe it was intentional). And the fact that they are inspecting the plane is normal considering they were delivered a high-tech plane on a gold platter (landing without authorization and the 'instrument of the crime'). The only thing we could then blame them for is the fact that an American official is not present at the 'interrogating' sessions. In any case I still feel that if this crises is not resolved soon, taking no action against China (and I do repeat here that military action is not an option) would just result in the Chinese ,and others becoming more assertive and more willing to repeat that kind of action. Let's just hope the crew gets home soon. Timothy (who hopes he is sane...) Timothy, >About being FORCED to land on Hainan >Reports from Taiwan indicate that 'warning shots' were fired form the second >fighter to force the EP-3 to land on Hainan. Although I can't see what the >original source for this rumour would be, I find this theory more plausible >than near useless escape hatches and incredibly low odds of being >recuperated after bail out. Nobody, especially not the U.S. DOD or State Department, has said anything about the EP-3E being forced to land at Hainan. On the contrary, some seem to feel the need to defend the pilots decision to land at Hainan, and argue that they had a right to land there, after their Mayday call. From the beginning, China complained about the intrusion and landing at Hainan, after causing the accident. And of course, both complains are somewhat ridiculous. The Pentagon has stated that the crew had specific orders that the lives of the 24 crew members was to be rated above the protection of confidential or secret material or equipment, and that bailing out or ditching the aircraft were neither expected nor sensible. And the PIC (pilot in command or aircraft commander) has to make that decision under any circumstances, not some desk warrior sitting in front his monitor, contemplating the best way to start a nuclear holocaust. The current theory to the cause of the accident seems to be, that the Chinese pilot flew dangerously close -- probably below the port (left) wing of the EP-3E, possibly disturbing the airflow around that wing enough to result in an un-commanded drop of the left wing, which then struck the J-8, causing the observed damage. And for the second J-8, it might have very well looked like the EP-3E was purposefully trying to ram the fighter. One has to be quite paranoid to belive the EP-3E crew would do something like that on purpose, but on the other hand, I have seen posts from various people here lately, that advocated anything from simple sabotage of civilian airliners to complete nuclear first strike, over nothing more than a few bits and pieces of 'secret' equipment and some temporarily detained soldiers. One could get quite paranoid, considering that. >Lets not forget that the Navy had three ships in the area that had to move >out when the Chinese refused help in the search for the Chinese pilot. It >seems it would not have been much of a problem to fly back either to a >'friendly' base or at least to get even closer to US warships who where >nearby anyway, and then maintain a flight pattern compatible with a safe >bailout (even if the pilot had to stay at the controls while other 23 >members bailed out). There were no ships "in the area", but the US Navy dispatched three destroyers after the fact, which took several hours, if not a whole day to arrive there (coming from Hong Kong). They would have been of no use to the EP-3E crew, at all. >Don't forget that the EP-3 covered quite some distance between the collision >and Hainan and then still executed a safe landing. In addition to that one >has to take into account the fact that the crew must have known how mad the >Chinese would be (aggressive interceptions for last two weeks and collision) >and that their chances of being released safe and sound in short notice >would be low. Add to that the fact that these people are specially aware of >the necessity to avoid capture of sensitive equipment by the enemy and this >is the only theory that makes sense to me. I don't know why it wouldn't make sense to you. The mission and orders were clear: The crew is more important than some data or even some equipment. The chances to survive a bail-out or ditching are very slim. Flying the 100 km (70 miles) to the next viable landing strip seems very sensible. Why would they worry about being detained for a short time -- they didn't do anything wrong, and they have the collective might of the USA behind them. This was a tragic accident -- why should they commit suicide over that? >About taking out the aircraft The rest of this post is complete hogwash, and not worth responding to. Just one thing. There is no reason to use any kind of force against China, or any need to destroy a crippled, US aircraft. Not even Bush would do something so stupid. You guys must be nuts! - -- Andreas [wondering if there are still some sane people around...] - --- -- - - Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com 1517 Michigan Avenue or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- -- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:08:58 -0400 From: "Morris, Andrew" Subject: EP-3 No one supposes Bush arranged this incident to act as a distraction while his tax bill is being prepared for passage by congress? Like bombing former Yugoslavia or Libya. Naaaa. I'm surprised that no one mentioned the article in Air & Space this month about the problem of "flutter" causing damage to aircraft (ripping off wings). The aircraft that encountered this problem with catastrophic consequenses described in the article was none other than the Lockheed Electra. Not being an engineer or playing one on TV, it makes the mishap, the damage and the possible consequenses of what might have happened to even a new airframe should the damaged wing begun to experience flutter or flutter-like conditions after the collision.... Andy Morris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:38:11 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: Etiquette This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BED1.8FF6EF82 Content-Type: text/plain Good... Thanks George.... Greg W "George R. Kasica" 04/06/01 07:35 AM Please respond to skunk-works To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange cc: Subject: Re: Etiquette Hopefully be the end of the weekend the issue will be a non issue as I plan on installing some form of MIME filter. George - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BED1.8FF6EF82 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Etiquette

          Good... Thanks George....

          Greg W




        "George R. Kasica" = <georgek@netwrx1.com>

        04/06/01 07:35 AM
        Please respond to skunk-works
                =        =20

        To:     skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
        cc:    
        Subject:        = Re: Etiquette  

          Hopefully be the end of the weekend = the issue will be a non issue as I
          plan on installing some form of MIME = filter.

          George





- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BED1.8FF6EF82-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 07:00:30 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Server Downtime For Disk Upgrades beginning at 1200 CDT (1700 GMT) 7 April 2001 Hello: Beginning at 1200 CDT (1700 GMT) on April 7, 2001 all server systems that run this list will be unavailable so that the disk drives can be upgraded. This upgrade will result in the disk capacity increasing from its present 16GB up to 120GB. The duration of the outage is expected to be no longer than 12 hours ending at 0000 CDT (0500 GMT) April 8, 2000. No data will be lost during this upgrade. Thank you, ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 513 8503 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Waukesha, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:24:54 -0500 From: "Robert S. Hopkins, III" Subject: Off Topic/EP-3 Incident Is there a reliable source delineating the correct sequence of events for the EP-3 incident? [n.b. --- rather than clutter the list with duplicate replies feel free to contact me directly at drbob@shemya.net]. There are clear rules established by the ICAO for interception and escort, in part to prevent the chances for a collision like the one near Hainan. Several issues don't square with these rules: 1) Intercepting aircraft MUST remain between the "intruder" and the interceptor's sovereign territory (like a buffer). 2) "Intruding" aircraft must turn away from the sovereign territory (to avoid a collision with the interceptor and to move away from the territory). 3) Either the F8 was on the wrong side or the EP-3 turned the wrong way....... 4) OR the F8 was "thumping" the EP-3 (a common but dangerous practice) too aggressively, resulting in a collision. [The physical evidence supports (but doesn't prove) this possibility, especially the underwing damage, propellor damage, loss of the nose radome, and aerial instability. Incidentally, the greatest consequence of flying without the radome is loss of accurate pitot-static data such as airspeed and altitude. To compensate, the pilot would have to fly known engine power settings, a difficult but not impossible task.] I am intrigued that both the United States and the PRC are silent on the issue of international procedure and who was in the wrong. Prior to every mission in the RC-135 we reviewed these procedures, our actions in the event of an intercept, and related instructions unique to the day's mission. Robert Hopkins ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 08:41:05 -0700 From: Lee Markland Subject: F-8 Shepherd dogs Here's my take on the incident (with a grateful nod to Art for the idea). The F-8's were under orders to force the EP-3 to land in China, and were "shepherding" it like a couple of shepherd dogs. Weng Wei (Wong Way, how appropriate a name) was a hot dog looking for glory and recognition, maybe promotion, and was riding herd on the left. The pilot of the EP-3 shortly figured out what was going on, and turned out of the line of flight. He also signaled that he had no intention of being forced to land in China, Wong Way ignored the signals and the EP-3's intentions. The collison resulted. China cannot afford to have that story come out in the world press, thus they can't afford to release the crew, especially the pilot (the reason they have seperated the pilot from the crew). I expect that they will put the pilot of the EP-3 on trial and release the other crew members. I also expect George Bush to go along with this scheme. Reason: The Republicans are comprised of two quite disparate groups. The religious, "patriotic" extremists and big, multinational business and finance. Big Business provides the major funding and direction to Bush and the Republican party, and Bush sings the song the Religious and "patriotic" right wants to hear, and throws them all of the bones needed to retain their loyalty. Baron Nathan Rothschild is attributed with saying: "I don't care who makes the laws, so long as I control the money". That is still a true statement. The religious social agenda is a throwaway, the real issue, the important issue is international trade and international finance, and Democratic and Republican politico's are joined up in a circle jerk when it comes to international trade and finance, especially true of Clinton, and doubly true of Bush. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:27:20 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: O T "pilot asked to shoot down EP-3E"

just like most news papers in this country(USA) you have to register to gain access,but it only took me about 30 seconds to do so .better than "HTML?"

wayne

>This South China Morning Post story has been sent to you from
>wbinkley@angelfire.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Monday, Apr 09, 2001
>
>Spy plane 'forced to land'
>
>STAFF REPORTER in BEIJING and AGENCIES
>
>The US spy plane stranded on Hainan Island was forced to land by a Chinese fighter after requests to shoot it down were rejected by ground control, Chinese sources said yesterday.
>
>To read the full article, click here:
>
>http://china.scmp.com/ZZZZXLMY4LC.html
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>SCMP.com is the premier information resource on Greater China.
>With a click, you will be able to access information on Business,
>Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. Bookmark SCMP.com
>for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong, China, Asia
>and the World.Voted the Best Online newspaper outside the US and
>brought to you by the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's
>premier English launguage news source.
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Published in the South China Morning Post. Copyright (C) 2000.
>All rights reserved.
>
>--------- End Forwarded Message ---------
>
>
>
>Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody.
>FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:39:08 -0400 (EDT) From: David Allison Subject: SR-71 962 at IWM Duxford (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:37:41 +0100 From: Hannah Kingston To: allison@habu.org Subject: SR-71 962 at IWM Duxford Hello David Just a quick message to say that the aircraft has arrived safely at Duxford and WWAR are now in the process of reassembling it. The roll out for the press is still scheduled for 11am on 11 April. http://www.iwm.org.uk/duxford/duxford1.htm? Thanks Hannah Kingston Marketing Manager Imperial War Museum Duxford Cambridge England. CB2 4QR tel 01223 499320 fax 01223 837267 www.iwm.org.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:22:06 -0700 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: O T "pilot asked to shoot down EP-3E" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0C143.8A4C3596 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" It is interesting to read this story as printed from the South China Morning post ( http://china.scmp.com/ZZZZXLMY4LC.html ) and then read "versions" of it from: The Drudge Report - http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm The Australian - http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,1881371%255E2,00.html CNN - Can't find it USAToday - Can't find it Yahoo Reuters - Can't find it BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1260000/1260290.s tm Dennis - -----Original Message----- From: wayne binkley [mailto:wbinkley@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 8:27 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: O T "pilot asked to shoot down EP-3E" just like most news papers in this country(USA) you have to register to gain access,but it only took me about 30 seconds to do so .better than "HTML?" wayne >This South China Morning Post story has been sent to you from >wbinkley@angelfire.com >------------------------------------------------------------- > >Monday, Apr 09, 2001 > >Spy plane 'forced to land' > >STAFF REPORTER in BEIJING and AGENCIES > >The US spy plane stranded on Hainan Island was forced to land by a Chinese fighter after requests to shoot it down were rejected by ground control, Chinese sources said yesterday. > >To read the full article, click here: > >http://china.scmp.com/ZZZZXLMY4LC.html > >------------------------------------------------------------- >SCMP.com is the premier information resource on Greater China. >With a click, you will be able to access information on Business, >Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. Bookmark SCMP.com >for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong, China, Asia >and the World.Voted the Best Online newspaper outside the US and >brought to you by the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's >premier English launguage news source. >------------------------------------------------------------- >Published in the South China Morning Post. Copyright (C) 2000. >All rights reserved. > >--------- End Forwarded Message --------- - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0C143.8A4C3596 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It is=20 interesting to read this story as printed from the South China Morning = post (=20 http://china.scmp.com/ZZZZXLMY4LC.html ) and then read "versions" of it = from:
 
The=20 Drudge Report - http://www.drudgereport.c= om/flash.htm
The=20 Australian - http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,1881371%255E2,00= .html
CNN -=20 Can't find it
USAToday - Can't find it
Yahoo=20 Reuters - Can't find it
BBC -=20 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/news= id_1260000/1260290.stm
 
Dennis
 
-----Original Message-----
From: wayne binkley=20 [mailto:wbinkley@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 = 8:27=20 AM
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: O T = "pilot asked=20 to shoot down EP-3E"

just like most news papers in this country(USA) you have to = register to=20 gain access,but it only took me about 30 seconds to do so .better = than=20 "HTML?"

wayne

>This South China Morning Post story has been sent to = you from=20
>wbinkley@angelfire.com=20 =
>---------------------------------------------------------= - ----=20
>=20
>Monday, Apr 09, 2001=20
>=20
>Spy plane 'forced to land'=20
>=20
>STAFF REPORTER in BEIJING and AGENCIES=20
>=20
>The US spy plane stranded on Hainan Island was forced = to land=20 by a Chinese fighter after requests to shoot it down were rejected by = ground=20 control, Chinese sources said yesterday.=20
>=20
>To read the full article, click here:=20
>=20
>http://china.scmp.com/ZZZZXLMY4LC.html=20
>=20 =
>---------------------------------------------------------= - ----=20
>SCMP.com is the premier information resource on = Greater China.=20
>With a click, you will be able to access information = on=20 Business,=20
>Markets, Technology and Property in the territory. = Bookmark=20 SCMP.com
>for more insightful and timely updates on Hong Kong, = China,=20 Asia=20
>and the World.Voted the Best Online newspaper outside = the US=20 and=20
>brought to you by the South China Morning Post, Hong = Kong's=20
>premier English launguage news source.=20 =
>---------------------------------------------------------= - ----=20
>Published in the South China Morning Post. Copyright = (C) 2000.=20
>All rights reserved.=20
>=20
>--------- End Forwarded Message ---------=20
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0C143.8A4C3596-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:54:23 -0700 From: "T. Toth" Subject: RE: F-8 Shepherd dogs What is ironic is that the official Chinese version states that the fighters where flying 400 meters behind the EP-3, and apparently there are some international airspace rules that require aircraft to keep at least 300 metres between them... Yet a June 1999 edition of a mainland controlled newspaper was explaining in one of it's articles how Chinese'TOP GUNS' intercepted 'foreign surveillance' planes. This article described the 'incredible flying skills' of Chinese fighter pilots who generally fly as close as 30m., but who sometimes fly so close to the other plane that the wings are almost touching and that the foreign plane can not manoeuvre without risking touching the Chinese fighters. This tactic is used to herd the plane. The US had apparently previously filed complains about Wang Wei because of this type of dangerous flying. It is apparently quite something for Chinese pilots to be able to pit themselves against their US counterparts, and Wang Wei got medals for it. Is this accident the result? According to Jane's only the upgraded ARIES II (story teller) has a crew of 24, otherwise the crew is normally 22. Timothy ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #18 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works/ If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner