|
The U.S. and China:
Debriefing the Crew
With Eric McVadon
Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Thursday, April 12, 2001; 3 p.m. EDT
The 24 crewmen and women have arrived in Hawaii where they will remain for two or three days of debriefings. During the five-hour flight from China to Guam, a "repatriation team," including psychologists, physicians and intelligence offficers, began debriefing the U.S. air crew. The sessions continue in Hawaii with a promise that the service people will return to their homes by Easter weekend.
Retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy, will be online Thursday, April 12, at 3 p.m. EDT, to discuss the debriefing process and the techniques used. During his Navy career he flew a P-3 maritime patrol plane, one similar to the EP-3E aircraft involved in the current U.S.-China incident.
McVadon retired from the Navy in 1992 and is now consulting, researching, writing and speaking on Asia-Pacific security matters, Chinese military and proliferation issues and security matters involving China, Taiwan, Japan, Mongolia and the Korean peninsula.
A transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: Happy to be here on such a happy day for the crew and look forward to answering your questions.
Fairfax, Va:
What is the advantage for the chinese to keep the equipment on board of this plane? How valuable is this equipment?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: We don't know exactly how valuable because we don't know precisely what's left. The crew says that it completed the destruction but the Chinese could still learn a lot about antennaes, configuration and the list of the equipment on the airplane. The advantage is they may learn from this how to make it harder for us to collect on them.
Laurel, Md.:
If the Chinese pilot was at fault and he did in fact hit the U.S. aircraft, was it most likely an accident or done intentionally? If it was not an accident, what was the motivation of the Chinese, other than to make a point that they don't like us (the U.S.) being there?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: It was an accident. He was trying to intimidate the crew and demonstrate his unhappiness with their being there.
New York, N.Y.:
To what extent are military personnel trained in what to notice while on their mission so that their superiors can maximize the benefits of the debriefing process?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: They're very highly trained and there are all sorts of means to ensure that the data is recorded electronically and by other means so that nothing is lost. That is for the normal mission. Obviously, there are questions about recording the data of something like a mid-air collision.
Washington, D.C.:
Thank you for your service to the United States, sir.
Since the EP-3E and the P-3 are essentially siblings from the same family of aircraft you can probably shed some light on this. After the impact with the F-8, what would've been the next step for the crew? With disabled engines, would they have dumped any fuel or other expendable payload? Would they have to trim both the ailerons and rudders? What other procedure would they have taken (I'm a GA pilot who doesn't fly complex or multi-engine aircraft).
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: The P-3 cannot dump fuel. The most important thing would've been to shut the engine down and regain control of the aircraft. The rudder would be trimmed and both pilots would be pushing on the right rudder.
Vienna, Va.:
To avoid double jeopardy, will the United States bar these 24 crew members from flying along the China coast again? We don't jeopardize repatriated POW's by sending them back to the same front that they were repatriated from (in case of a 2nd capture)?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: I suspect that most of the crew members will volunteer to fly again. For those who would not wish to fly, there probably will be consideration of their wishes. All air crew personnel are volunteers.
Falls Church:
Can you compare and/or contrast the recent spy plane in China incident with the US Pueblo incident in N. Korea in the 60's. In light of the two political regimes?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: In the North Korean case, the ship was intentionally attacked. In this case, it was intentional intimidation, but an accident. And of course, both governments wanted to see the incident behind us so that we could forward our bilateral relationship.
Washington, D.C.:
What happens during debriefing?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: Normal debriefing consists of ensuring that all of your data is understood by the debriefers. This debriefing will bear no resemblance to that. It will altogether be an effort to understand the unusual event that happened, especially what the Chinese might learn from what was left in the aircraft.
Arlington, Va.:
What is debriefing?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: Talking to the crew about what happened to them. It is not an adversarial situation.
Roger Saavedra - Fairfax, Virginia:
How would we have reacted if the plane and crew perished,(thank god it did not happened)and the chinese pilots survived?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: U.S.-China relations would proabably be far more strained today than they are. I do not believe that we would have engaged in a hostile attack on China as a consequence of the accident.
Washington, D.C.:
Why do we spy so much and then condemn others for spying on us? isn't that hypocritical?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: It may be hypocritical but it seems to be essential in today's world. We need to know what China is doing to threaten Taiwan. These flights provide that information.
Greenbelt, MD:
Would it be safe to say that the data collected on the Chineese was destroyed but the electronics was not? If the electronics were not would not it be wise to upgrade our current and future hardware with some type of destructive mechanism to include the radars housed in the lower bay and nose of the aircraft?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: We don't know whether the equipment was destroyed or not. The crew says the destruction list was completed. There may have been devices to destroy the equipment. We're not sure. Destroying radar antennas may not be useful but destroying other more sensitive antennas may be.
Reston, VA:
Was there any thought to launching any type of hostile means against China to retrieve the plane and crew?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: It must've crossed the minds of our senior leadership, but prudently was quickly dismissed. It simply was not the way to solve this problem. It would've created a bigger problem.
Temple Hills, MD:
If debriefing is simply a relay of information and the ensuring that all facts are the same on both sides, why is it scheduled to be a 3 day process? Doesn't this seem to be a little lengthy?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: This is very far from a normal debriefing. We want to know about the collision. We want to know what was destroyed. We want to know what the Chinese asked and how they acted. And because this is such a significant incident, we want to get it right.
Washington DC:
When is the line crossed, in terms of technology given to another country, of when a craft has to be scuttled. Did we give up too much information? Should the crew have done anything else in order to prevent the dissemation of information, including as not landing in China?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: A hard decision had to be made whether to land in the sea or land in China. In some militaries, the nod may have gone to protecting the equipment rather than the crew. In our Navy, the people came first, as hard a call as that is to make.
Annandale Virginia:
How would the equipment on the plane have been destroyed?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: Erasing hard drives, physically destroying equipment, shredding documents and maybe there were special destruction devices in some of the very sensitive equipment.
Lafayette, Louisiana:
Is there any chance that the EP-3E transmitted its data, including any possible information on the accident, to a US base or facility before it destroyed it? Perhaps via sattelite?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: Yes, there is. I believe a significant amount of information collected beforehand had been transmitted and that some details of the accident and the intentions were passed to headquarters.
Titusville, FL:
Besides destroying codes, and all collected data on computer hard drives, etc. does the Navys ditching procedures have crew members also carry out physical destruction procedures on onboard electronic surveillance equipment?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: We believe that there was also physical destruction of sensitive equipment--that's one of the reasons for the thorough debriefing.
Los Angeles, CA:
What's your opinion on how the entire situation has been handled by both sides?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: Better than I hoped at first. All in all, the Bush administration has passed its first severe foreign affairs test. And the Chinese government also knew when to stop pushing.
WDC:
What exactly does a repatriation team -do-? Who is on this team? Physicians, psychologists, government/military reps? It sounded as though the crew was in "high spirits" throughout the ordeal....is there a fear that there could be long-term psychological repercussions from their experience?
Also - will the military be asking them for as many details as they can remember about their detention as additional intelligence?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: I think that those details will be sought, but there is another side to this team's task. We all know that American thinks very well of this crew. The crew may not know that and may doubt themselves. This is a time when reassurance is needed. They may think they let their country down.
Alexandria, Va:
What is the pilot in for upon his return? From what I heard, many retired pilots had suggested that he should have ditched the plane rather than let it fall into the hands of the Chinese. How will the Navy view him? Is this the end of his career?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: No, the pilot showed extraordinary skill. Many will second guess. Ditching the EP-3 is very dangerous and all may have been lost. Yes, it was a difficult decision but in retrospect, I think it was the right one.
Washington, DC :
How was the crew treated by the Chinese?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: I was assured by both my Chinese contacts and by Gen. Sealock that they were being treated well. The interesting question is whether they were in fact interrogated in one form or another, as some have suggested.
Oakton, VA:
How cooperative should the crew have been in answering questions from the Chinese? Are they allowed to use their own judgement in which questions to answer?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: I'm told they were allowed to use their own judgement and understand they were very prudent in their conduct. They were not, of course, POWs.
New Bunswick, N.J.:
Do the service men and women recieve any sort of acknoledgment for being in the hands of the Chinese? i.e., a medal?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: I believe they will be decorated, but I don't know what the name of the award will be.
Crownsville, Md.:
When a debriefing is done, do they question each of the personnel separately and then see if their accounts of what happened reconcile?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: I believe that's a preferable way, not because they're hostile witnesses, but rather because the debriefers will be looking for undistorted information.
Crystal City, VA:
I disagree with your earlier comment. How was the crew different from being POWs other than there not being a present day war? Were they not citizens of one country being held against their will by another?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: It troubles me to characterize the crew in those terms because it seems to unnecessarily heighten the rhetoric when we were attempting to achieve a peaceful resolution. China felt we were wrong to conduct surveillance. We feel China was wrong in the way it conducted the intercept.
Vienna, VA:
At what point do they decide that destruction of classified material is necessary and how much time do they have?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: Destruction began as soon as the decision to land in China was made. They had between 20 minutes and half an hour.
Herndon, Va.:
Was our plane forced to land in China by the other chinese pilot, or did our pilots choose to land there?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: Contrary to some rumors, the pilot chose to land at Lingshui.
Fairlakes, Virigina:
Do you feel the US will gain any intelligence data on the Chinesse goernment from the Navy personel do to thier captivity in China? What kind of information would be valuable from about the ordeal?
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: I don't think the information will be significant. There may be some interesting tidbits.
Eric McVadon, U.S. Navy Ret.: As a P-3 pilot, I'm very proud of this pilot and crew and all America should feel the same. They did a marvelous job under the most extreme circumstances.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to [GUEST NAME], and to
everyone who joined us.
That was our last question today. Thanks to [GUEST NAME], and to
everyone who joined us.
That was our last question today. Thanks to Eric McVadon, and to
everyone who joined us.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to [GUEST NAME], and to
everyone who joined us.
That was our last question today. Thanks to [GUEST NAME], and to
everyone who joined us.
That was our last question today. Thanks to Eric McVadon, and to
everyone who joined us.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to [GUEST NAME], and to
everyone who joined us.
That was our last question today. Thanks to [GUEST NAME], and to
everyone who joined us.
That was our last question today. Thanks to Eric McVadon, and to
everyone who joined us.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
