maynarkh @ maynarkh @feddit.nl

Posts

4

Comments

1,468

Joined

2 yr. ago

I like to link this everywhere one of those places get mentioned. It rattled me.

https://elan.school/

Yeah, those are very helpful, minority victims don't deserve help as we all know.

I get what you are saying, I think I see where our disagreements start.

I read up on EEZs and see the disputes there. It seems the rules unfairly favour the nation / alliance with the biggest navy, ergo the US and allies. I don't fault the Chinese for trying to alter that, maybe they should indeed park a few warships 12 miles off Washington and see what happens. As I saw, they also sail into US EEZs to put that pressure back on the US, with the US just tailing them.

My argument is that according to the current rules, flying there is fine. You say the rules are unfair, and they might be, and people should maybe sit down to change them. Not by dumping flares on top of aircraft, though.

On that point, I see you're saying that the Australians might be lying. All I can say, and all I said, is that if what they say is true, the Chinese are in the wrong from an aviation safety perspective, and to me that perspective is all that matters. If the Australians were intercepted and flares were only used with proper separation as a signalling device, that's fine. The Australians claim otherwise, and have released no footage, which I agree is suspicious.

On the one hand, even if the crew was in breach of some UN provision, that is to be solved in the UN, in a boardroom, not in the air. Again, dropping flares on an aircraft is illegal, unprofessional, dangerous and idiotic.

And again, if you read the whole Part (or even point 1), you'd know it specifically enumerates which rights the treaty is regulating does it grant the EEZ coastal state, namely economic exploitation (like fishing and oil drilling), the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific research, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and the normal rights and duties of any other state.

So the question, in what way do you think flying a helicopter (which is a right of any state in the EEZ) endanger any right of China specifically provided for in this treaty? Did they scare away fish?

EEZs don't protect random made-up rights, only specific ones, and only if those don't infringe on the rights of other states.

To clear it up, which of these do you disagree with?

• All states have a right of free overflight and navigation as long as they do not infringe on China's right on oil drilling, fishing and preservation of nature as provided by the treaty part 5 on EEZs.
• China has a right to the exclusive exploitation of its EEZ with regard to living and non-living resources, so it is the sole power that can build oil rigs, fish, etc. as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of all other states for free navigation or overflight.
• The AU helicopter was exercising its right of overflight, and did not infringe on China's right to fishing or oil drilling or nature preservation.

Because if all that is true, UN provisions don't justify obstructing the helicopter, and again, even if they did, this would be a diplomatic matter to be settled through normal channels, not by endangering lives through idiotic air showmanship.

See also "deregulation" types arguing for even more stringent regulation of unions.

Falls under “freedom of overflight,” which necessitates that when entering another country’s EEZ you must

        shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal state

    shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal state

  

Source please, because the UN convention text says the opposite, the coastal state has all rights to fishing and the creation of oil rigs and artificial islands, but that's it.

Otherwise:

1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.

Ergo, other than what's expressly stipulated (fishing, artificial islands and oil rigs) it's the same as the high seas (article 87 is the one that says anyone may do anything in the high seas), and:

No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.

Source.

Again, as I’ll repeat, flares are literally described by the FAA as a way to intercept aircraft. The US has used them against Russian aircraft, but in fact the US also does so to intercept civilian aircraft!

What about, what about, what about. And no, the FAA does not say that an interceptor may dispense flares in the way of the intercepted aircraft close enough to create danger for either aircraft. It can use them to get the pilot's attention as a signal, that's all. Just as it is in the video you linked, the fighter dispensed a single flare in the view of the GA plane, at a safe distance. The flare was almost to the ground by the time the aircraft came into view. From your source:

If the aircraft of interest does not comply, the interceptor may conduct a second climbing turn across the intercepted aircraft's flight path (minimum 500 feet separation and commencing from slightly below the intercepted aircraft altitude) while expending flares as a warning signal to the intercepted aircraft to comply immediately and to turn in the direction indicated and to leave the area. The interceptor is responsible to maintain safe separation during these and all intercept maneuvers. Flight safety is paramount.

And about

“breach of Chinese EEZ” (Peter Cronau, ABC)

This is literally a tweet from someone working at ABC, says that "military activity in EEZs are illegal", forgets to mentioned that this is literally only said by China and North Korea, and runs contrary to the UN agreements.

Sorry, but you really come across as arguing in bad faith, and trying to find flimsy justifications for the Chinese crew endangering flight safety and claiming rights they do not have, EEZ or not, by taking random snippets from places and pretending the rest isn't there.

What I'm guessing at is less open warfarey, more kristallnachtey.

I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that we will go shoot each other before the hunger deaths set in. As in, we won't last long enough to die of hunger.

It's the tortured smile of a politician looking at a device that costs peanuts and is able to destroy tanks, or said politician's armoured car, from relatively great distances. /s

Good question, but we are rearming and integrating our militaries so that the far right who will take power in the chaos can massacre random demographies with relative ease. At least we won't die of hunger.

who helped cobble together a computer in his garage with his dad’s money

And the sold it with his mom's connections.

And bots, and the feels of bots.

Yeah it would poison the training data.

Good. The thing is that network "fast lanes" work by slowing down all other lanes.

Hate and stupidity are a vicious cycle.

Normally, there are no restrictions for aircraft’s innocent passage through another country’s EEZ.

There are no restrictions at all according to the UN. It literally points back to the high seas section. Am I missing something? Can you point to the specific section in the UN charter that contradicts article 58?

The term "innocent passage" only appears in the territorial waters section, not the EEZ section.

Also, if the aircraft actually breached some airspace, escort them out and file a report, like the Baltics do with the Russians all the time. That's the professional way to do it.

Also, is there another source where it says they were in China's EEZ? This article says they were near SK, which would suppose a SK EEZ, but they don't say exactly.

In practice, an ICC conviction is more about diplomatic isolation and making it impossible for the suspects to enter countries party to it. I'd say that even German politicians may rethink their stance on Israel and its leadership if this goes through with a conviction.

As an aviator, you don't endanger other aircraft as a matter of course. That's the long and short of it. Does not matter what flag the aircraft flies under, or what language the pilot speaks, this is not something a competent and professional aircrew does.

Also, did this not happen in international waters near South Korea? Why can't the Australian Navy joyride their helicopters there?

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised