Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SkyPilot
If you can land an aircraft (as he did on the runway), then believe me, you can ditch one at sea.

If you can't recognize the difference between landing on a runway and ditching at sea then you haven't thought the issue through. The Navy doesn't go for suicide missions or poison pills for its people. Ditching or bailing out over the ocean would have meant the death of some or all of his crew.

27 posted on 01/16/2008 4:03:08 AM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
If you can't recognize the difference between landing on a runway and ditching at sea then you haven't thought the issue through.

How successful a ditching is depends on several factors - including how rough the seas were and the weather. Both of those factors at the time of the incident were ideal for ditching.

A suicide mission. I think it is you who are reaching here - I never suggested anyone commit suicide. What I said was the pilot should have ordered the crew to bail out - and then he should have ditched the aircraft.

It would have been a much better option than what he did do - to wit - he handed over a TOP SECRET aircraft and TOP SECRET documents to the Chinese; and he subjected the US to days and days of humiliation at the hands of the Chinese as they demanded (and subsequently received ) an apology for our actions.

42 posted on 01/16/2008 4:51:40 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

“...Ditching or bailing out over the ocean would have meant the death of some or all of his crew.”

True. The other question is, how many lives will be lost because the Chinese have compromised what was on that plane?

I am 100% opposed to the pilot’s decision. And I came from that community.


45 posted on 01/16/2008 5:01:21 AM PST by ex-NFO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
"...Ditching or bailing out over the ocean would have meant the death of some or all of his crew..."

Our military folks know that death and danger are a pivotal part of their job, and they are indeed expendible when it comes to completing their mission. It's not like being a civilian where if you don't like your job conditions you can just quit and look for a more pleasant environment. There are greater issues at play besides your personal happiness and your life.

It surprises me that a lot of FReepers can't wrap their brains around that concept.

There was a show on History Channel a while back, and an old WWII vet said that his commanding officer told him, prior to embarking on a hazardous mission, to either come back after successfully completing the mission, or to not come back at all. That sums it up.

66 posted on 01/16/2008 6:29:28 AM PST by -=SoylentSquirrel=- (I'm really made of people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur; SkyPilot
I agree with SkyPilot on the proper course (bail out, or destroy equipment, then bail out) but I also have to second Non-Sequitir here. I certainly never expected to survive ditching in a KC-135. Ditching is a nightmare, and the water is pretty cold in that part of the Pacific.

Yeah, he shouldn't have landed in China, but let's be clear: his other options could reasonably be expected to kill his entire crew.

110 posted on 01/16/2008 8:56:32 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (Support Scouting: Raising boys to be strong men and politically incorrect at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson