The Shane Osborn controversy
I’m torn on this one. Apparently, Shane Osborn, the pilot for that Navy EP-3 that the Chinese Air Force knocked out the sky back in 2001, before the 9-11 attack (remember those days?), is running in a Republican primary in Nebraska for a Senate seat that was vacated by Tom Harkin, the actual phony Vietnam veteran. Some controversy arose, during the campaign, if Osborn had acted correctly that day when he landed the aircraft in China, or if he should have ditched the aircraft along with it’s classified cargo and the crew into the China Sea, most likely causing loss of life.
To me that was dirty politics. I think questioning what most soldiers do in combat situations shouldn’t be political fodder. None of us were there nor were we faced with those decisions, so who are we to question it, just to win a campaign. Unless there was some evidence of gross neglect which caused death or severe injury.
Anyway, Osborn approached a friend who was still in the Navy and at the Pentagon to provide unclassified information which would clear him of the accusations. That friend did exactly that and put it on official CNO stationary;
The letter does exonerate Osborn from any wrong doing, that there was no restriction forbidding him from landing the aircraft in China under those circumstances. Osborn passed it around, even though is was on stationary from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations giving the impression that it was the official position of the CNO in regards to the landing in China, and it might well be, but it doesn’t have the approval of the CNO.
So Osborn is taking fire from veterans in Nebraska now;
I’m glad that I don’t have to vote in that Republican primary, because I’m torn. If the document contains true information, it does exonerate Osborne, however it’s the format in which it was presented that is dishonest and deceitful. I’m convinced that he made the right decision, with my 20/20 hindsight because the crew is all home, and no leader wants to make a decision that would result in a situation that would cost lives. On the other, third hand, it wasn’t very nice of his opponent to even spark the discussion in the first place. I don’t know…discuss.
Thanks to whichever of you sent the links to us. All I know is your real name and I don’t want to blast that out to the world.
Category: Who knows
I’m inclined to give Osborne a pass as to the format in which the information was given. I don’t think it was his intent to deceive voters that this was the official Navy position.
With all that sensitive equipment aboard, they don’t have WP incendiaries that could have been set off as the last crew member deplaned?
Lighting off WP’s on Chinese soil would be a VERY bad idea.
Worse than providing our enemy with a windfall of intelligence? I don’t think so. Destroying the aircraft upon crew evacuation would accomplish both goals: the crew lands safely and the classified material and equipment remains out of enemy hands. We’d already destroyed one of their aircraft so we’re in bigger trouble for destroying our own?
Where’s the problem?
As I said in another comment, I worked as an S-2 NCO in Vietnam and we always kept WP grenades close to the classified materials so that they could be destroyed quickly if we were in danger of being overrun.
We’re supposed to be concerned if we piss off the bad guys?
In that situation, the main idea isn’t so much to destroy the equipment (although you do your best in that regard) but to destroy the manuals, tapes, key cards, etc.
All of the latter tell the enemy much more about WHAT you can do with the gear, and how you plan to do it, than just having the gear itself will.
And for what it’s worth, there have been only two successful ditches of a P-3 in it’s history, and both (IIRC) did involve loss of life. In the first event, off the Aleutian Islands, one of the 2 flight engineers was killed in the initial impact when an equipment rack collapsed on him. The pilot, who stayed on top of the fuselage to account for everyone, was washed away and lost. The three sensor operators died of exposure. The rest made it, barely. FWIW, the only reason any of them survived is because a Soviet fishing trawler was nearby and able to make it to their area in record time.
The 2nd ditch was in the past few years, off of Dubai, I believe.
But the P-3 is a rugged and reliable airframe, designed to take a licking and keep on ticking, but like all platforms, it has it’s limits.
I fully support Mr. Osborne in his effort to gain elected office, and I have no doubt that those speaking out against him are being prodded to do so by his opponent, and other folks who don’t want him in office.
AW1 Tim, all survived the VP-47 ditch in the North Arabian Sea, amazingly. The number four prop shattered on approach, which grenaded the number three engine and cut most of the control cables in the fuselage. Another feat of airmanship, and further proof the P-3 is a tough old bird.
This is a very tough/rough primary between two qualified candidates.
Ahh the cornhusker state,I think they are the state that ws given all of that dirty back room monies and deals to get osamcare pushed through,yeah that’s right Nebraska your honest hard working and full of shit,He got all his boys home safe.
I remember that, my Bn (2d Bn 3d Mar) was part of a contingency plan to land on the island, rescue the crew and destroy the plane. We all really thought we were going to war with China.
I remember, that was why I enlisted at the time, I thought there was going to be a war with in the next couple years and wanted to do my part! Fooled Me!
Sen Tom Harkins is from Iowa. He lied about being in Vietnam and the people still elected him over and over again. Glad to hear he’s finally retiring, but is this Osborne guy in Iowa or Nebraska?
Should be Iowa. And yeah, Harkin disgraced himself with his “padding” of his resume regarding Vietnam. He was doing a valuable job, an important one, and he did it well. Then he had to go and lie about it to make him seem something that he wasn’t.
He should’ve been booted for that years ago.
Osborne is Nebraska, I guess, my mistake. I get those corny states mixed up.
Jonn…You mean those “cornholeo states”.
Hey now! We never want to be confused with the Nebraska folk! And, I have voted against Harkin in ever election since 1985, when he was first elected. There are some stupid people here.
When it comes to politics, the choice always comes down to this: Which snake do I choose? I’m serious. If they’re not slithering serpents at the start, they become precisely that sooner or later. So, it really matters little, at least in this day in age.
I previously was willing to give Osborn the benefit of the doubt on landing vice ditching. (I personally thought he should have ditched the plane, but he was the pilot flying the aircraft – so it was his call.)
There is no plausible explanation for him getting this on CNO letterhead other than to imply it’s the official position of the Navy and/or the CNO’s office. And if that were the case, someone in that office would have signed it.
If that memo’s not signed by someone in the CNO’s office, I have to say I’ve lost a helluva lot of respect for Osborn as a man. Because if it’s not signed, it’s not official. And presenting it like this when it’s unsigned – e.g., presenting it as an “official” Navy document from the office of the CNO, when it is not – is dishonest as hell.
The Wiki on this is pretty intense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
The issue is not the landing of a crippled aircraft full of classified equipment and information (whether or not this was smart, within regulations or heroic). The true issue is creating a false “official” statement on a purloined letterhead. It seems to me that this smacks of the same actions being done daily (hourly) by the current people in charge of our nation. I don’t believe that the good people in Nebraska would be well served this man. The old saying of “the first murder is very difficult, the next ones, not so much”.
There is the fact that RINOs from DC have dumped a million for attack ads against Osborne’s opponent, Sasse.
That alone will put me to vote against him.
I’ll have to claim secret squirrel status on this incident, as I know folks at NAVAIR on the EP-3 class desk. The flight station on the incident aircraft performed a miracle bringing that bird in, ’nuff said. I also served with the surviving VP-9 ditch F/E in VP-49, read the story at “Adak, The Rescue of Alfa Foxtrot 586.” Absolutely gripping read. And the SS-3 onboard the VP-47 Dubai ditch aircraft is my next door neighbor in the cube farm at work.
Small Navy world, cheers AW1 Tim!.
In my infantry battalion staff experience in Vietnam, we always had white phosphorous incendiary grenades close at hand so as to destroy classified materials if we should be in danger of being overrun.
Surely these P-3 aircrews had something similar?
Speaking as someone who flew on the same aircraft that landed in China and on that same track, I can tell you that there was nothing like WP on board. We were to use other, more primitive methods.
I’m curious, MustangCryppie – what was the rationale in forgoing any form of incendiary destruction devices on-board? Fire danger in event of a crash/hard landing?
Never thought about it, but that makes sense to me.
Just the thought of having an incendiary device like that inside the skin of the aircraft makes my skin crawl.
Then again we had flares in our survival vests.
And yet, you were surrounded by hundreds of gallons of JP4. And fast movers carry all kinds of ordnance.
Yeah, it seems to me a few thermite document destruction devices in a fireproof cabinet might have been useful. If nothing else, try to set them up and light them after landing as one is departing the craft.
Then again, I’m not an aviator. I’m sure that was likely evaluated and ruled out by folks who know far more than I do about such missions.
At least, I certainly hope it was. Otherwise, maybe it should be.
Just the perspective of a ground guy who’s worked extensively in classified environments.
I remember the VP-9 ditch, and all of us (we were flying P-3b’s at that time) being grateful that someone had successfully ditched a P-3. People survived. Now we knew it could be done.
That incident was also the catalyst for switching from the old style “poopy suits” to the Imperial Wetsuit pattern to cut the risk of exposure (and help SAR crews locate you in the water).
Flying out over the North Atlantic like we did, (I was east coast) we always said we’d prefer, whenever possible, to ride it in and attempt a ditching rather than bail out.
Anyway, small world indeed. The AW rate then was quite small, compared to many others, so we all knew someone who knew someone. It was a good job indeed. 🙂
I loved those exposure suits we had. I remember that the instructions on the bag were in Swedish!
If I recall correctly, the new exposure suit was originally designed for use by oil rig workers in the North Sea. A vast improvement in survivability. And Poetrooper, there is indeed an emergency destruct bill in place to destroy classified items, and it most certainly does NOT include Willey Pete grenades! We like to land alive and uncooked.
FULL STOP:
Read his award citation.
He did a damn good job. Along with he crew they did everything correctly in the time they had.
EVERYONE LIVED!
The pilot, Lt. Shane Osborn, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for “heroism and extraordinary achievement” in flight.
I don’t deny that Osborne is/was an excellent pilot who did a great thing in an extraordinary situation. And he deserved the medal he received. The larger issue in the present day is: he did not need to use a suspect ginned-up letter on misappropriated stationary; there is certainly enough real stuff on record to support his actions in the past. That he would even consider using this letter to polish his resume says much about his judgement or character.
Sounds like the current Joe Teti issue that has people up in arms. The service isn’t in question, the symantics behind some of the facts are.
That’s my problem with it too, Bullnuke. The source article (2nd link in Jonn’s article above) clearly says the letter was produced by a buddy of Osborn’s working in the Pentagon. It’s indeed on CNO letterhead, but is unsigned. It therefore does NOT represent an official Navy position on squat.
To attempt to use that document as “proof” of anything is IMO rather underhanded and dishonest.
He’s a no doubt, straight up, big balls aviator, nobody can question that. But he screwed the pooch when he involved an active duty military member. There’s a reason why you’re prohibited from political activity in uniform, and this is the reason why. The appearance is that the Navy is endorsing this candidate, even though we all know that’s not the case. Osborn should have said thank you for your support, but I can’t use this. The letterhead is not his fault, but allowing it to be used is. He should have known better.
I don’t know Shane, but I have many, many flight hours in the aircraft that went down and many, many flight hours on the same track they were flying on. It doesn’t take someone like me to realize that Osborn did the Lord’s work that day. It’s amazing that he kept himself and the aircraft together. I’ve read the post action report and I can guarantee you that I would have been cleaning the shit out of my flight suit for a week after. He saved a bunch of lives and frankly, he had a bit more on his mind than ensuring other leaders on the plane did their job and ensured classified was disposed of properly. This criticism is tacky. I would love to take the people who made this charge and put them on PR32 that day and see how they would react. They would more than likely be blubbering piles of shit and piss. As the EWAC, the aircraft commander, Osborn MIGHT have been ultimately responsible for everything that happens on the plane, but to my thinking it actually was another of the mission commanders who screwed the pooch. This is not a criticism of that mission commander. I may very well have been sucking my thumb in the corner after what happened. I like to think I wouldn’t have, but one never knows how they’ll react. By the way, when I flew on EP-3’s, I was one of the mission commanders. I never considered that the EWAC was responsible for anything I did on the aircraft. I can guarantee you that if I screwed the pooch, Shane Osborn would not have been the one court martialed. As far as the memo is concerned, I’m not upset by it. CNO is obviously a big office. All kinds of memos come out of CNO that he has no clue about. I would be upset if the memo presented a controversial position, but it just presents the facts. The aircraft was in an in extremis situation, was authorized by instruction to land in China to save the aircraft, and… Read more »
Concur. You never know just how you’ll react in an extremis situation until it happens. I have just over 5K hours in P-3b & P-3CuII’s as an acoustic sensor systems operator.
The closest we came to having to ditch was in ’79 when we were trying to get back into Lajes Field, Azores. We had a fuel transfer issue that made it impossible to land anywhere else. It was night, with a thunderstorm, rain going sideways, etc. All sorts of fun.
We shot 7 approaches to the field. On that last approach, our PPC informed us that if we couldn’t get in, we would be forced to ditch. I’d already spent the previous LONG 20 minutes or so reviewing all the emergency procedures I was responsible for. The worst part was the waiting, though the turbulence wasn’t much fun either.
But none of us wanted to ditch. We even felt it would be better to crash-land onto the runway rather than try and set down in that storm-tossed and very cold water.
Obviously we made it. I’m not at all comparing what we went through as being anything like what that crew endured, but every P-3 crewman has some sort of hairy tale to tell. It’s the nature of the beast.
But I’ll say this much: Hearing the words “Ditch” or “Fire” while airborne, heck any sort of thing like that, is an amazing way to focus your thoughts on what’s important right there and then. It made you glad you did all those drills, all that training over the previous years.
“Hearing the words “Ditch” or “Fire” while airborne…”
One time, one of my CPOs was on a TransPac to Japan from BPT and after Condition 5 was set, he made a little nest and laid down to sleep away the transit.
Well, as often happened on the flight out on a deployment, the PPC decided to hold some drills. He didn’t announce them over the 1MC, just decided to say the mission commander, “Okay, bail out drill…”
Well, one of the crew went up to my sleeping Chief and shook him awake. The Chief woke up to this guy about 6 inches away, a look of extreme alarm on his face, screaming “BAIL OUT!!!!!”
From all accounts, the Chief looked like he had Parkinson’s. He was flailing around thinking it was the real thing.
Yup, he is reminded of that incident often. Funny as hell.
I won’t go into all the real emergencies. That would take far too long. Fun times.
If the buddy had authority to write it. No harm.
If the buddy had authority to write and release it, MCPO, the document would be signed.
It isn’t signed.
May I suggest that this discussion is getting lost in the weeds. Osborne’s actions/judgement during this incident is a valid point of discussion, as is his defense (discounted by any sleazy execution of course).
Politically, the issue is going forward. Osborn is the establishment guy, the McCain/ Graham guy, the McConnell guy. Sasse is the Cruz, Lee & Palin guy. Not to mention a fantastic thinker and speaker. Pick your side accordingly.
At face value, this appears to be an attempt to legitimize his claims of validity in landing the plane with an official “looking” document. As a Naval officer, he should have recognized that the letter was invalid and never used it without a signature. It has zero athoritative meaning and simply looks suspicious. How many SV shitheels have we lambasted for the same thing in trying to legitimize their claims of heroics ?
Use of the CNO letterhead was not an accident. That it has a “By Direction” signature block and is unsigned means no one was willing to sign it as an official CNO endorsement. Those who have a “By Direction” signature authority are specically designated in writing, and on CNO’s staff, there are damned few people who can do that on his letterhead.
While I have zero chops on whether or not Osborne should have landed the plane or ditched, his use of this letter was simply wrong and misleading at best. With that kind of judgement, I’m not sure I’d be voting for him to be in a position of authority in my state.
Osborne lost, Sasse won.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/05/13/tea-party-backed-ben-sasse-wins-nebraska-primary-for-u-s-senate/