Chinese pilot to blame for mid-air collision, US report says

By Robert Karniol, JDW Asia-Pacific Editor, Bangkok
A Chinese F-8 fighter pilot was to blame for a controversial April 2001 mid-air collision with a US Navy (USN) surveillance aircraft over the South China Sea off Hainan Island, according to an official report obtained exclusively by Jane’s Defence Weekly under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, the report said that Beijing almost certainly gained access to a range of classified material as a result.

The US report flatly contradicts China’s version of the event, which cost F-8 pilot Wang Wei his life and put a chill on Chinese-US relations. Beijing maintains that the EP-3E Aries II electronic surveillance aircraft was at fault, saying the two aircraft were on parallel courses some 120m apart when the US aircraft banked sharply to the left and rammed the Chinese fighter (JDW 11 April 2001).

China detained the 24-person US aircrew for 11 days, only releasing them on 12 April 2001 after Washington issued the formal “apology” demanded by Beijing. This face-saving gesture saw the US express “sincere regret” over the missing pilot and aircraft, without acknowledging responsibility. The Aries II, which had made an emergency landing on Hainan Island, was returned to the USN in a disassembled state on 3 July 2001 after three months in Chinese custody.

Both the EP-3E’s mission and much of the equipment it carried were classified. This, perhaps, along with the political sensitivities involved, meant it took the USN nearly two years to respond to JDW’s request for a copy of the Judge Advocate General Manual (JAGMAN) investigation of the collision. Under the statute, federal agencies are normally required to respond to a FOIA request within 20 business days of its receipt, but may extend this by 10 business days under certain circumstances.

The JAGMAN report says a 14-member combat reconnaissance crew (CRC-1) from Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron One (VQ-1), homeported at Washington State’s Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, and a 10-member naval security group crew were assigned to the Aries II for its mission of 1 April. This was to be CRC-1’s 12th operational mission since starting their deployment on 2 March 2001 – initially to the Naval Air Facility at Misawa, Japan, and later to Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa, Japan. Planned as a nine-hour flight, the 1 April mission was launched from Kadena at 0500 hours.

The collision occurred around 1000 hours, soon after the EP-3E crew spotted two Chinese F-8s that had closed to about 1nm in loose trail. The US aircraft initiated a pre-planned slow left turn to the east and settled on heading 070, wings level and autopilot engaged. Then one of the Chinese fighters began harassment tactics.

“The lead F-8 commenced the first of three passes to join in formation on the port side of PR-32 (the EP-3E’s designation),” the report states. “During the first approach, the F-8 pilot came within 10ft of PR-32 and was observed saluting the EP-3E flight station. The F-8 drifted out of formation but returned to within 5ft of PR-32’s port wing at the same altitude. On this second approach the F-8 pilot was observed to have his oxygen mask removed and was seen gesturing to the crew with hand signals in a pushing motion.

“On the F-8’s third and final pass the F-8 pilot overshot [due to excessive closure rate] his attempt to join up with PR-32. This placed the F-8 below and slightly forward of PR-32’s port wing. The F-8 pilot slightly raised the nose of his aircraft in what appeared to be an effort to slow his aircraft. At approximately 1005 hours the F-8 pilot was unable to control his closure rate. The F-8 pitched up into PR-32’s number-one propeller, striking the propeller at the point where the F-8’s vertical stabiliser and fuselage meet. The F-8 was immediately ripped in half … [It] was last seen trailing smoke in an uncontrolled dive toward the ocean surface.”

The JAGMAN investigation concludes that:

* the second F-8 was not a factor in the collision;
* CRC-1 did not commit any dangerous or hazardous manoeuvres;
* CRC-1 did not provoke the lead F-8 pilot;
* CRC-1 did not cause the collision between PR-32 and the F-8; and
* CRC-1 was not negligent, not responsible and not at fault for the collision between the F-8 and PR-32.

John Keefe, a US Embassy official in Beijing at the time the incident occurred, said in a separate study obtained exclusively by JDW: “Over the past year or so before the collision there had been a pattern of increasingly aggressive intercepts of US surveillance aircraft by Chinese fighters. The US government had brought the issue … to the attention of the Chinese government in a December 2000 démarche while the US and China were engaged in Military Maritime Consultative Agreement talks. The Chinese did not respond to the démarche but at least the Chinese military was aware of US concerns.”

The F-8 pilot’s death nevertheless appears to have brought Beijing unforeseen benefits in terms of access to highly sensitive US equipment and information. “VQ-1 crews carry classified materiel as a matter of routine. Classified materiel is necessary in executing the flight mission,” the JAGMAN report states, although subsequent detail is masked out in the version provided to JDW.

“Destruction of classified materiel in flight included jettisoning classified materiel out of the starboard overwing hatch (after PR-32 recovered from its uncontrolled and rapid descent following the collision); smashing equipment with the onboard axe and other hard objects and, upon landing, hand-shredding classified papers.”

However, the investigation concludes, the effects of shock combined with a lack of sufficient time before the emergency landing at Hainan’s Lingshui airfield failed to produce the desired result. “Compromise by the People’s Republic of China of undestroyed classified materiel on PR-32 is highly probable and cannot be ruled out,” the report determines.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw030915_1_n.shtml