Navigation Rules Indicate China Owes US an Apology Where's Jiang's Apology? April 6, 2001 By: Mary Mostert ( http://www.bannerofliberty.com/ ) In Tuesday's analysis (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS4-01MQC/4-3-2001.1.html) I referenced a news article in Beijing's China Dailyin which China's Assistant Foreign Minister Zhou Wenzhong demanded that U.S. Ambassador to China Joseph Prueher answer "Why did the US military plane approach a place so close to China? Why did the US plane take a sudden turn, bump into and damage the Chinese jet?." After thinking about that for a couple of days, during which the Chinese government made increasingly belligerent demands for an "apology" for this supposed ramming of their fighter plan by a lumbering turbo-prop plane, I voiced my doubts about that scenario in yesterday's analysis: "Now, let's see. All of the airplanes were in international waters. The U.S. EP3 is a large, slow moving turbo-prop 4 engine plane. Apparently, the one involved in the current incident may be one of the older planes and is capable of long flights. It is also capable of sitting out in international waters and "vacuuming up" information from the airwaves of another nation. Australia, for example, picked up a lot of information that way when the atrocities in East Timor were going on. "While I am no aircraft expert, what does not compute in this particular incident is just how, physically, the EP3 could have "moved suddenly," as charged by the Chinese and "run into" their fast moving fighter aircraft. In fact, one of the problems the fighter aircraft has in trying to "escort" or harass an EP3 is slowing down enough to fly along side an EP3." (See: http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS4-01MQC/4-5-2001.1.html). I gather from my e-mail that there is a rising discontent with the Chinese behavior of the past few days. Some readers are urging some pretty stiff reactions including banning Chinese Chinese ships from entering U.S. ports, refusing entrance of Chinese ship containers from entering the U.S. on all other ships, seizing Chinese assets in the United States, canceling the "Black Berets" order given Chinese mainland factories, etc. One reader, Rod Mitchell, e-mailed me with information sharing his knowledge of marine navigational rules. After reading my analysis on talk show host Michael Reagan's website (http://www.reagan.com) he wrote: "I have been into marine navigation all my life and into aviation as a pilot for about 10 years. The rules of the road on the sea and in the air have a lot of similarities: * The least maneuverable or least powered craft always has the right of way. We do occasionally in San Diego harbor see a sailboter decide he wishes to exercise his right of way over an aircraft carrier and cut across the carrier's bow. This just exemplifies that prudent command dictates safety over right of way in all cases. To somehow consider that a jet fighter is less maneuverable or less powered than a prop plane with a maximum speed of 340mph is true ignorance. * You never conduct close operations with another craft unless all commanders are in communication and all agree to the operations. Yea, I know about the games our military planes have played over the years, I am a retired Naval Officer. In an emergency, the person in command of the craft is allowed to break every rule. Just reading some of the reports on the web indicates that the Chinese jet was operating at low speed to stay with our plane. It makes sense for our plane to be traveling at low speed to stay on station longer depending on the granularity of the data they were gathering. I am not a jet-jock, but it seems a jet fighter aircraft is rather unstable (thus the fly-by-wire and computer controls) and especially so at low speed. Stalling many aircraft results in a quick break of one wing before the other which sends the plane into a very quick bank/turn and continuing into a spin. Looking at the damage photos of our plane, Rod's $0.07 worth of speculation put the Chinese plane slightly in front of and to the right of our plane, it stalls, breaks left, clips off the nosecone of our plane, continues the hard left turn, hits the prop of the left outboard engine as it continues into a spin. The term we use in the aviation game is: the bad guy "Augered in". "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots; there are very few old, bold bilots." The Chinese owe us an apology and an immediate release of our people and plane. I have sent my comments to President Bush and, among other things, suggested we start the process of seizing Chinese assets in the USA. Regards, Rod in Escondido rodm1@home.com There is a ring of truth in Rod's analysis of this event. In today's China Daily Chinese President Jiang Zemin is quoted as saying yesterday in a comment on the issue while visiting Chile that "China and the United States should place the highest priority on bilateral relations in resolving their spy plane dispute." He continued to demand an apology from President Bush saying: "I have visited a lot of countries and seen that it is normal for people to ask forgiveness or say `excuse me' when they collide in the street." The South China Morning Post this morning has an article in which it admits that a similar collision nearly occurred in mid-December - also southeast of Hainan Island - when the US claimed a Chinese F-8 fighter came within about 20 feet of an EP-3. The EP3's maximum speed is about 340 miles per hour whereas the Chinese fighter plane's speed is twice the speed of sound - something like 1500 miles per hour. Obviously, it was Jiang's failure to halt that kind of harassment of our planes in international water that led to the current situation. So, Jiang, where's YOUR apology? To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com