Research question: how to stop GA non-lethally? [Archive]

BackPacker

29th Aug 2008, 08:48

Just to clarify: is this for things like "anti-terrorism" purposes or to prevent "accidental" infringements?

In other words, are we talking about a pilot who is dedicated to flying over (or into) a prohibited area, or a pilot who simply got lost?

If it's a pilot who simply got lost, we probably have to think about ways to get his attention and show him the way out.

But if it's a pilot who wants to be there, despite the consequences, the problem becomes far more complex. You cannot simply take over control of a light aircraft since most of them don't have autopilots, fly-by-wire or anything. It's all mechanical.

Promises to be an interesting thread.

hardhatter

29th Aug 2008, 08:51

OK, I'll try to provide some more detail:

say for instance a plane is approaching a navy ship, or the like. The commander of the vessel cannot get into contact with the pilot. It could be just a student who is still trying to master navigation and has not seen the vessel, or it could be a maniac who wants to kamikaze the plane, it is not possible to tell.
Anyway, shoot the plane down and the commander could have killed an innocent civilian. But the gentle approach does not work either.
I need a middle ground, to prevent attack, but not kill the pilot.

What do you suggest?

I hope this clears things up a bit.

Please PM if you do not want to tell here online.

Thanks

danieloakworth

29th Aug 2008, 09:11

A navy Captain would normally issue a warning to the inbound aircraft on all guard frequencies, which i assume the student is on (unless his bufoonery knows no bounds).

For a no fly zone, he would be intercepted and escorted out in the first instance. He would only be engaged as a last resort after repeated warnings, including warning shots.

Hope this helps.

SNS3Guppy

29th Aug 2008, 09:24

Sure you're not a terrorist asking how to approach a ship?

If safety is threatened the commander has a duty to down the approaching aircraft.

Shooting to wound and non-lethal means are for bleeding-heart hollywood movies. In reality, there's only one correct answer, and it doesn't involve trying to figure out who dies and who lives; stop the threat.

In the US, around the Washington ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone), aside from very well publicized information describing the airspace in advance (this IS the purpose of NOTAMs, Notices To Airmen, after all), red and green lasers are used to paint the pilot and make clear he's in the wrong place. He will be intercepted. If he fails to comply, he will be shot down.

Approaching a boat, such as a carrier, Phalanx CIWS on board weapons, intercept aircraft, and other means exist to prevent an intruding aircraft from approching. In the case of a carrier group, ample means exist to protect the group, depending on the nature of the threat.

Lasers present a highly visible and targetable means of getting an aircraft's attention. Intercepts do the same thing.

You're not likely to find too many cases of a warship at sea being approached by a "lost" Cessna 150. Think about it. How many student pilots wind up at sea approaching a carrier battle group by mistake?

International intercept procedures already exist. One is expected to know them. Failure to respond may mean being shot down. One should know one's airspace. If one wonders into a restricted area or other location where one should not be, one takes the chance of paying the consequences.

What do you want? Giant strips of sticky fly-paper?

BackPacker

29th Aug 2008, 09:29

A navy Captain would normally issue a warning to the inbound aircraft on all guard frequencies, which i assume the student is on (unless his bufoonery knows no bounds).

Well, I don't know how long ago you've been a student but it's been two years ago for me, and I remember we never were on any guard frequency. The only frequency we were on was the primary ATC frequency for the bit of airspace we were in, or when in the Open FIR (this was in the US) on a school/training area air-to-air frequency.

I still fly around most of the time with just one frequency selected and the second radio turned off altogether. Only when I make long and/or overwater flights I have 121.5 selected on the second box. And I still find it hard to follow two conversations simultaneously.

Not to mention that a lot of small aircraft don't even have two radios.

If the captain of a Navy vessel would want to contact an aircraft by radio, his best bet would be the ATC frequency or frequencies that happens to be assigned for that airspace.

For a no fly zone, he would be intercepted and escorted out in the first instance.

That would only work in a no-fly zone where military aircraft would be present or at least nearby. Bombing ranges, aircraft carriers, that sort of thing. But if it's a lone frigate somewhere at sea, before they are able to deploy their on-board helicopter, if they even have one, it's too late.

It could be just a student who is still trying to master navigation and has not seen the vessel, or it could be a maniac who wants to kamikaze the plane, it is not possible to tell.

As others have said, it is unlikely that a student who is lost on a x-country flight would fail to notice a big expanse of water. It would more likely be a more experienced pilot on an overwater flight who saw something interesting and decided to take a look.

(I may have missed something in air law, but there's no blanket rule preventing small aircraft from overflying or circling a warship at sea, is there? Other than rule 5?)

hardhatter

29th Aug 2008, 09:36

To further clarify, an example:

last year, a frigate was approached by a Cessna 152. The frigate was lying in green water, escorting a human-aid transport ship.
The local police chief was curious about this big grey ship and decided to fly over and take a look.
Can you imagine the itching of the trigger fingers of the crew when they saw that plane approaching, not reacting on radio, and started to slow down and circle the frigate? But do you shoot it down or not?
They didn't in fact, but it would have helped if they could stop the plane or at least warn him off in a non-lethal way.

note that this was a lone frigate, so no air support available.

Unfortunately I do not know if the abovementioned incident is public knowledge, so I had to leave out location and nationality.

And for the people who are asking if I have a towel wrapped around my head: ;) : no, I work for the Dutch Institute of Applied Science Technology, TNO, at the department of Defense and Safety. You want more information, PM me. :8

Rod1

29th Aug 2008, 09:38

Your average student flyes a 152. If a 152 flew into the side of a warship, the student would die and the warship would need its paint touching up.

There was a case in the USA a few years ago when a lost student flew over a military base. The commander of the base was criticised for not shooting it down (which he could have done). His response was, it was no threat.

Rod1

Pace

29th Aug 2008, 09:41

I see your adress is "somewhere over the rainbow" do you really want us to take this seriously?

Pace

Human Factor

29th Aug 2008, 10:02

I need a middle ground, to prevent attack, but not kill the pilot.

You've already answered your own question. There is no middle ground. It is not possible to interfere with a light aircraft in order to alter it's course without an input from the pilot. Your options are either to speak to him and determine whether or not he is a threat or shoot.

There is research going on with regard to remote controlling of airliners. This may or may not turn out to be possible however airliners by their nature are sophisticated pieces of technology with a number of means by which ground control could be attempted. The main drawback is the fact that the pilots would need to know how to disable the system should there be a fault, thereby rendering it pointless. I know which CB I would pull as soon as I got on board.

Light aircraft are far less sophisticated. For example, other than the death and destruction option, the only method of preventing my Yak52 from entering a prohibited area is to speak to the pilot in advance. We do not have an autopilot which can be "interfered" with. In fact, we don't even have a transponder. I'm sure the time will come when that will be mandatory but it will not prevent infringements in itself.

Maybe I need to fit chaff dispensers...... :}

Windy Militant

29th Aug 2008, 10:11

This sounds like a problem given to Second year Phd students to see if the can apply novel or unexampled thinking. Over the years I've seen some pretty weird stuff investigated, it's not aimed at actually finding a solution, but to see how the student approaches the problem.
Off the top of my head how about a frangible barrier say tissue paper fired from a firework rocket, A bit like a Bloodhound but with a bog roll warhead rather than spring steel impactors. If they ignore that then use the Vulcan. ;)

wobble2plank

29th Aug 2008, 10:22

Back in the cold war days there was an 'IZ' zone between east and west Germany. Stray into that without radio clearance and no sqwark and you were shot down. No tears, no warnings, just shot down. On the charts for the area this was clearly pointed out in huge, big, red letters. RTFQ.

As to warships, if there is enough time the helo might well be scrambled to intercept. Amazing how quick you can get those things off the deck. Alert 5 anyone? A big helo such as a Merlin or a Sea Hawk hovering in front of or over a c-152 will give the pilot a shock (hovering over the front will cause a loss of aircraft control in a light aircraft, Sea King had 11 tons of down wash!). Visual warnings (I have hung a blackboard out of the back of a chopper with the correct frequency on it to a lost C-150 who transgressed a military zone!), audio warnings and a good inspection of the aircraft can generally reveal if it is a threat or not.

If it is not perceived to be a threat then the aircraft details will be logged and forwarded to the relevant authorities.

The Americans, generally, are far more protective of their 'zones', especially the CPZ, Carrier Protection Zone. If you are lost, over sea, and see a huge carrier, fly the other way, quickly! They will shoot you down.

Best idea, don't get lost! Monitor guard 121.5 at all times, if not for yourself but to possibly aid someone else. Plan your flight, study the NOTAMS (also a reason for guard monitoring as SAR-OPs are promulgated over guard and there is nothing worse than trying to conduct SAR operations and having rubber neckers in light aircraft in your way!).

Forgot to add, don't forget QRA, they will be on your tail (and shooting past you) very quickly. Get a nice view of a 'type-hoon' though!

Genghis the Engineer

29th Aug 2008, 10:24

I can think of an occasion where I was flying from the Isle of Wight to somewhere north of Southampton and spotted, rather to my surprise, a US aircraft carrier in the middle of the Solent. I'd love to have taken a closer look at it (within the usual limits of 500ft msd), but elected to stay well away given the likelihood of the Captain taking a dim view of my (legal, but perhaps ill-advised) sightseeing.

Which brings up some interesting questions. There was no NOTAM for said ship published. The UK system and, so far as I understand it pretty much the rest of the world, has a system whereby NOTAMs (NOtices To AirMen) are published, and we as aircraft commanders are required to check them before flying. I doubt that the UK powers that be would have objected to, let's say a ½nm TRA (Temporary Restricted Area) around that ship - had that existed then I'd have been able to go as close as the TRA permitted, and the captain of the ship would have known that if an aircraft entered the TRA, it could legitimately have been considered as a possible threat.

A second thought for you. If an aircraft turns up at an airfield without a working radio, there are a system of standard light signals used to communicate with the aircraft. A flashing red light direct at an aircraft in the air simply says "go away and don't come back unless we say you can". This signal would be recognised by any qualified pilot anywhere in the world. Now officially, it has no relevance to a ship but in practice I think that any pilot approaching something and getting a flashing red light directed right at them will get the clear message that they're not wanted. Presumably if an organisation such as NATO wanted to go to ICAO and ask for this to be formalised, there's a chance it might happen. A powerful red spotlight would not be much of a technical challenge to fit to any ship.

Finally, it's worth asking what automatic right does a ship in international or national waters have to exclude light aircraft from its vicinity? If the local police chief has an unidentified vessel on his patch, I'd argue that he has every right to go and take a look at it - he could do worse than transmit his intentions on guard since presumably the ship will be monitoring that, although that itself may be problematic since (a) he may not have a formal police callsign, and (b) even if he does the ship may not recognise it. For that matter, do the local press not have a reasonable right to go and report what's happening on their patch? Local harbourmaster?... I suspect that your military customer might be being just a little precious.

G

N.B. I doubt very much that any moderator will make this a sticky for you.

N.B.B. First year PhD students I'd have thought, by the second year they should be capable of doing something useful, or have been sacked.

LH2

29th Aug 2008, 10:24

Ships already have various means of signalling other craft in the vicinity. In the absence of any supporting intelligence, the biggest problem in the scenario you describe, apart from insufficient coordination with local authorities, appears to be a hot-headed commander more than anything else.

I suggest you speak with an experienced Master (if possible from a non-armed ship) for suggestions on what he would have done. You are far more likely to get anything of interest from him than from a bunch of PPLs.

Now, if you want totally out of the box answers to impress your boss, what about shooting a big fishnet to wrap the aircraft, then inflate a big balloon to keep it in the air. Put some small electric motors on it and you can now direct it back to the coast or to a barge where it can be let down gently. Not as cheap and practical as shooting a couple flares, but hey, who am I to decide what governments spend their research budgets on.

Now for the thread drift of the day:

I see your adress is "somewhere over the rainbow" do you really want us to take this seriously?

Well, I see your handle is PACE. Have you met each other yet? :}

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/08/21/7-pace-859.jpg

Heliplane

29th Aug 2008, 10:34

I see 2 issues here:

1) Ensure that the "innocent" and well intentioned pilot is aware of the problems he/she is creating so that corrective action can be taken.

2) Create a non-lethal (or less lethal) way to bring down a real threat.

For (1), the only thing I can think of is to tap into some of the technological advances that all/most aircraft will soon be equipped with. Perhaps adapt the new Mode S transponders so that ATC units, military, police, etc can identify a target and send a message directly and personally to the specific aircraft. Given the available technology and the increasing use of Mode S transponders, this should not be too difficult.

For (2), an aim-able electromagnetic pulse that can be targetted into a very small defined area (ie only affecting the intended target) that would knock out the aircraft's power plant :E. Sorry - that was all I could think of... Could work ok for a small Cessna but you'd be buggered in fly-by-wire aircraft. Perhaps not completely unlethal though.

The only other suggestion is to do something like in the opening scene to the James Bond film where they wrapped a wire around the tail of Cessna 152 and gently deposited it onto a Florida highway.

hardhatter

29th Aug 2008, 10:40

@LH2: that would put me out of a job! :ooh::E

This problem was given to me as a "nice to have"; not a necessary 'must-have'; the problem was at first only for surface ships and divers approaching, to prevent something like the USS Cole happening again.
To stop a ship is easy...:E

But the air component was added as an afterthought; I thought there would be no real option apart from signalling, seems that idea prevails throughout the community here.

But you never know, maybe someone has a bright idea?

BackPacker

29th Aug 2008, 10:50

If the local police chief has an unidentified vessel on his patch, I'd argue that he has every right to go and take a look at it - he could do worse than transmit his intentions on guard since presumably the ship will be monitoring that,

If it was an unidentified vessel, transmitting his intentions on guard would warn other aircraft but NOT the ship by default. Maritime radio uses a different frequency band and a different guard frequency, compared to Aeronautical. And even though the spectra are close together, there is no overlap so no ship-to-air channel/frequency by default.

The only way a ship would be able to communicate with an aircraft would be if the aircraft had a maritime radio or vice versa. Those setups are typically only found in military aircraft or vessels, or civilian aircraft that may at some point in time be involved in SAR missions. And you would need to be dual licensed, of course, to operate in both bands.

So the only time transmitting your intentions on guard makes sense is if you know you are dealing with a military vessel. In which case it is no longer unidentified and it makes no sense for a police chief to go look - unless you call it sightseeing.

BackPacker

29th Aug 2008, 11:18

It safely comes down to earth... etc etc.

Sorry to rain on your parade but in the scenario presented (Navy vessel) the aircraft would NOT safely come down. At least not in the current implementation of the 'chute.

The Cirrus landing gear is specifically designed to crumble upon impact, when descending under the 'chute. This absorbs the impact energy and lowers the g forces the people in the cockpit have to endure to tolerable levels.

in case of a descent over water, the landing gear does not crumble and the people inside the cockpit have to endure the full force of the impact. Not good.

hardhatter

29th Aug 2008, 11:22

Maybe I do not remember correctly, but weren;t there some instances where the ballistic chute actually caused a crash, or did not work as it should?

but I must admit, if i were working for the US, I would recommend it. :)

But I am only working for the Dutch, they do not have such influence in the world of aviation. :O

13thDuke

29th Aug 2008, 11:37

dont overfil

29th Aug 2008, 11:53

In the UK light signals or red pyrotechnics are used for danger area infringements and airfields which want you to go away.
DO.

LH2

29th Aug 2008, 12:04

have a system where they can be deployed remotely by the military whilst the engine is cut

Small problem here. That would only stop non-rogue targets. The first thing the bad guys do is trash the system--they know their trade very, very well, which is why they present a credible threat.

the problem was at first only for surface ships and divers approaching, to prevent something like the USS Cole happening again.

Funny that you should mention that. Years ago I worked with one of the guys who designed some of the covert countermeasures they now have in place as a result of that event. Seriously spooky stuff. :uhoh:

Another out of the box idea: Big turbine capable of generating a smooth 200kt windstream and directing it at the oncoming aircraft. Result: the aircraft now flies backwards, away from the ship.

Out of the box #3: A flock of UAVs capable of clamping onto the wings/fuselage of the offending aircraft and flying it away from the area.

Out of the box #4: A UAV or on-deck instrument which can direct non-lethal energy into the cockpit (intense heat/light/sound)

Out of the box #5: A smoke-screen (complete with chaff) around the vessel while it quickly manoeuvres away from its position (not really out of the box, already implemented, I would have thought it would be of use against a slow moving threat)

Out of the box #6: A big mirror in front of the boat, to make it "disappear". On top of it, the impression of being about to have a mid-air will make the aeroplane turn away from its course.

Out of the box #7: Shoot a big airbag that completely covers the target aeroplane and brings it down safely. If it was a false positive, buy the pilot a new aeroplane.

Out of the box #8: A radio frequency emitter which will transmit a beam directed at the aircraft with a series of pulses designed to create an inductive current on any detonators the aircraft might be carrying onboard. :ouch:

Want more? :E

hardhatter

29th Aug 2008, 12:08

@LH2: wait while I get my pen and writing block, then keep 'em coming. :D
and yes, think that kind of thing as the Cole, same idea. ;)

Ultranomad

29th Aug 2008, 12:21

Hardhatter, there was indeed at least one case of ballistic recovery system killing a Cirrus pilot. However, the guy deployed it in a situation it was never designed for, and had by that time already violated a lot of written and unwritten rules, including flying VFR into IMC.
As to your initial question, I'd propose firing a burst of red flares at the offender. This would serve several purposes at once:
- a red flare is an old and documented way of saying "go away" (just like the flashing red light gun);
- a burst of small flares can be made to look like anti-aircraft fire, exerting a psychological pressure on the pilot;
- if properly designed, such flares could be made with very small (but non-zero) destructive power, so that if the pilot fails to heed the warning, the damage to the plane will be proportional to his insistence (or stupidity) in trying to get through. A fatal hit cannot be excluded, but it would be about the same situation as with rubber bullets used by riot police.

dublinpilot

29th Aug 2008, 12:26

soay

29th Aug 2008, 12:49

in case of a descent over water, the landing gear does not crumble (sic) and the people inside the cockpit have to endure the full force of the impact. Not good.
The honeycomb seat bases would still absorb some of the impact.

Windy Militant

29th Aug 2008, 13:12

The honeycomb seat bases would still absorb some of the impact.

Doesn't the Honeycomb melt when you sit on it? Mmmm tasty though!

Big turbine capable of generating a smooth 200kt windstream and directing it at the oncoming aircraft. Result: the aircraft now flies backwards, away from the ship.

Be interesting to see the effect on the ship if deployed athwartships. :uhoh:

I know you could have lots of like bags full of some like floaty gas stuff all round it on ropes ! ;)

NB. I thought the first year of a Phd was learning joined up writing! ;)

eltonioni

29th Aug 2008, 15:42

say for instance a plane is approaching a navy ship, or the like. The commander of the vessel cannot get into contact with the pilot.
The solution is easy.

If there is no zone around the ship and the aircraft is 501' away from it the ships captain can simply bugger off.

This is the serious answer.

However, there is always the Monty Python solution...

http://sawyerspeaks.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/monty_foot.jpg
This is the not so serious answer.

hardhatter

29th Aug 2008, 16:11

@dublinpilot: problem with the "walllaser" is that you could potentially blind the pilot, and I am not sure, but I think that could fall under Geneva Convention as well. So I am afraid that would not work well.

@eltonioni: If there is no zone around the ship and the aircraft is 501' away from it the ships captain can simply bugger off.

a ship cannot move as easily as a plane. :E
On a serious note: as long as the plane stays away far enough, nothing is wrong. The problem is when the plane flies into the zone, so, within the 500 yards. What then?

I did ask around about the red flares/tracerfire idea, it could be doable, it would need some more research, I have to ask if the 76 mm flak can be used for that purpose, only problem is I do not know at what speed the projectile will leave the cannon. Too fast and the flare would go through the wing! :sad:

Steve N

29th Aug 2008, 17:11

I think the best solution would be for the US Navy to buy all of us a Mode S transponder then they can see who we are. CAA estimate of total cost £20m. Problem solved.

Just trying to help http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

dublinpilot

29th Aug 2008, 17:22

hardhatter,

My suggestion with the lasers was not to shine it AT the aircraft, but somewhat in front of it. No pilot in their right mind will see a wall of light (ahead) of them and continue to fly into it. No danger in blinding the pilot so long as the lasers aren't pointed at him. (The real question here is are lasers currently strong enough to be seen in daylight, and can we be sure that they aren't going to blind somone at 30,000ft while you're trying to ward off someone at 500ft).

Again same story with the flares. They are not shot AT the aircraft, but at a point in front of the aircraft. They create a wall, that it's obvious the pilot should not fly through.

dp

Genghis the Engineer

29th Aug 2008, 17:35

If it was an unidentified vessel, transmitting his intentions on guard would warn other aircraft but NOT the ship by default. Maritime radio uses a different frequency band and a different guard frequency, compared to Aeronautical. And even though the spectra are close together, there is no overlap so no ship-to-air channel/frequency by default.

The only way a ship would be able to communicate with an aircraft would be if the aircraft had a maritime radio or vice versa. Those setups are typically only found in military aircraft or vessels, or civilian aircraft that may at some point in time be involved in SAR missions. And you would need to be dual licensed, of course, to operate in both bands.

So the only time transmitting your intentions on guard makes sense is if you know you are dealing with a military vessel. In which case it is no longer unidentified and it makes no sense for a police chief to go look - unless you call it sightseeing.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Surely only in a military dictatorship does the military automatically have the right to dictate to local police - and even then, it assumes that the military vessel is local, and that the local police might not have any interest in what local civilian behaviour may be connected to said military vessel. Actually, even in a military dictatorship or a warzone, it's probably in the military's interest for the local police to have a fair idea of what they're up to, so long as said police don't actually belong to the other side.

Secondly, the question was about military vessels, so it seems entirely reasonable to me that they'd carry some form of RT equipment which is air-band capable. If you're doing nothing else with it, then listening on guard seems a reasonable use of it to me.

G

Ultranomad

29th Aug 2008, 17:37

Hardhatter, you need to stage a counterattack that looks a lot more dangerous than it actually is, so use a shell that bursts spectacularly but has little killing power. 76 mm would be a big overkill. It's just my gut feeling, but I'd opt for something like a 20 mm (or even 14 mm) automatic gun, and use lightweight, low-speed tracer rounds with very bright (daylight-visible) flame, and maybe also a delayed big flash. Go to movie studios and ask what they use for war movies.
Then, should the threat turn out to be real, you only need a second or two to switch to real ammo.

Gertrude the Wombat

29th Aug 2008, 17:39

I may have missed something in air law, but there's no blanket rule preventing small aircraft from overflying or circling a warship at sea, is there?
I think Darwin came up with a idea that more or less covers it.
Boggle!

If I were flying along the East Anglian coast and saw an interesting boat offshore I might well go and do some sightseeing. If it's a warship it's probably one of ours, which means it belongs to me, on account of I paid for it, and I'm paying the wages of those on board.

Sounds to me like I'm entitled to go have a look at it. I would not expect to be shot at. (If I happened to notice some red lights or red flares I might choose to turn round and go away however.)

chrisN

29th Aug 2008, 18:31

1. A very tall fence.
2. Barrage balloons (formal WWII name for idea mentioned in post 31 above).
3. Barrage balloons plus hi-vis net strung between cables.
4. Artificial cloud with banner hung on its outside reading “Beware - non-transponding gliders inside”. That should see anything off!

Chris N.

bjornhall

29th Aug 2008, 18:40

How about this solution: Send out a circular to all officers, asking them the question put by the original poster.

Sort out those who reply that the question is retarded, since the light aircraft does not pose a threat, and since the role of the military is to protect the civilians, not to intimidate them or interfere with their freedom of navigation.

Dismiss the rest as not fit for command in a democratic society.

Problem solved!

eltonioni

29th Aug 2008, 18:41

I'm with you Gertrude and I'm struggling to see what sort of scenario is at work here.

If there is a RA around it then I don't go in on pain of tea and no biscuits or a target drone up my chuff.

If I have a couple of Excocets tied with string to the wing of my C172 just how will anyone react quickly enough to deploy some new fangled non-lethal yet effective mystery device?

If the vehicle / ship in question has a huge neon sign on the side flashing "GO AWAY LITTLE AEROPLANE" and there is no RA then it would be reasonable and perfectly legal to take great delight in circling it at 501' taking photographs to post on the mil section of PPRuNE later than evening.

Fire tracers, flares or spagetti anywhere near me and I'll have you in jail no matter how battleship grey your paint scheme is.

(I do like the cloud suspended banner idea though :))

IO540

29th Aug 2008, 18:57

I would love to know what the rules of engagement of a US Navy ship parked off the IOW would be, for this kind of scenario....

englishal

29th Aug 2008, 20:31

Well I would assume that only if you broke the rules - say the 500' rule - could they even think about shooting you down (unless you are flying an Airbus from Iran of course.....:rolleyes:). I have regularly flown over navy ships off the south coast of the UK (no Notams saying I can't) and didn't get shot down.

wobble2plank

29th Aug 2008, 20:55

CCZ's are de-activated for ships entering port or, as in the case of the IOW, anchoring as the harbour is not deep enough to accept the vessel (US Carriers not our little flat deck canoes). The only time that they may be active is when flying operations are taking place whilst 'alongside'. As this requires diplomatic clearance, manning issues, performance issues (no wind over/down the deck) etc. etc. etc. it is rarely done.

Hence, when a ship/carrier is in port or anchored you will not see a NOTAM as the zone doesn't exist. They may get pi$$y if you fly too close but as you are not hampering their operations they don't have alot of choice.

Most military vessels will have lower ROE (Rules of Engagement) whilst transiting 'friendly' waters. They will give far greater latitude than when in a 'hot zone' where the ROE is considerably tighter. But then you wouldn't want to be buzzing around in your little C-150 there anyway.

hardhatter

30th Aug 2008, 11:49

Maybe a good idea to add that the ship in question is not in friendly waters, but neutral at best.
Think of places like off the coast of Iran, Somalia and so on. Not threatening, but it may take one man that is allowed, while the government looks the other way, if you know what I mean.

englishal

30th Aug 2008, 12:52

Normally you don't get too many private type or small GA ops in those parts of the world, and those that are there, probably stay well clear of navy ships for good reason. Even I'd be suspicious of a C172 flying less than 500' from a Navy ship in those areas! And I think the "non lethal" thing is irrelevant in that instance.

Not that it'd make much difference in the case of the UK. We allowed our sailors to be taken hostage by some gun boats in international waters off Iran despite a Lynx helicopter and a warship being quite capable of defending them.......

ShyTorque

30th Aug 2008, 20:55

If the local police chief has an unidentified vessel on his patch, I'd argue that he has every right to go and take a look at it - he could do worse than transmit his intentions on guard since presumably the ship will be monitoring that, although that itself may be problematic since (a) he may not have a formal police callsign, and (b) even if he does the ship may not recognise it.

I think the police chief could carry a loudhailer and shout a warning such as "Police - Go away or I shoot!"

Cron

30th Aug 2008, 21:32

An easy one: LePage glue gun with altitude viscosity additive. Climb and the glue rapidly thins, descend and the glue rapidly thickens.

Regards

Cron

BackPacker

31st Aug 2008, 16:57

Hardhatter, I see you work at TNO. I don't know if you're a pilot of small aircraft, but if you're not and if you want to see up close and personal how small aircraft work, fly and operate, send me a PM. I'm based at Rotterdam so I'm sure we can arrange something.

PompeyPaul

31st Aug 2008, 17:14

Well, if reality is not an issue then theoretically you could create infinitely dense matter, similar to that found in a black hole. With very little you could warp time and space around the protected area.

Any incoming aircraft would then simply carry straight on in their view of space, and would pass straight through the very heart of the protected area. Whilst in reality they are flying through time and space curved by the dark matter thus moving around the protected zone.

bjornhall

31st Aug 2008, 20:19

Well, if reality is not an issue then theoretically you could create infinitely dense matter, similar to that found in a black hole.

I would very much like to see that theory! :)

RTN11

1st Sep 2008, 00:46

Are there any cases where light aircraft genuninly turned out to be a threat?

Are you trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist?

BartV

1st Sep 2008, 06:21

But you never know, maybe someone has a bright idea?

I'm waiting until TNO releases another press-release that their very smart people have found a very unique way to solve this or that problem...

(they don't say they get it from forums instead of using their own brains)

BackPacker

1st Sep 2008, 06:45

I'm waiting until TNO releases another press-release that their very smart people have found a very unique way to solve this or that problem...

It's more likely that TNO will conclude that light aircraft in flight cannot be controlled from a distance at all since they're all mechanical, and even if they do have autopilots these can easily be disabled. It's also not possible to disable for instance the engine in a non-lethal way (EM pulse or something) unless it's a FADEC equipped aircraft.

So the only way to try to stop such a potential threat has to be sought initially in warning the pilot that he's in no-go territory, with lasers, flares or tracer rounds most likely. And if that doesn't work, then there is no other option left but to deploy traditional lethal means.

And there's probably a footnote that a light aircraft has never imposed a significant threat to any warship or other military target (except for the publicity value - Mathias Rust comes to mind). The load capacity is simply not large enough and then there's the matter of detonation.

They'll wrap it all up in a nice report and present it to the authorities along with a nice invoice.

Nevertheless, there are some good things said on this thread. I have seen the documentary about the USS Vincennes (I think it was) who shot down the Iranian passenger plane. I don't know if procedures have changed, but one of the reasons for the confusion about whether the plane was civvy or not, was a lack of understanding how the civvy aviation world used its frequencies, transponders etc. For one thing, I think they used UHF guard instead of VHF guard to warn the aircraft. And they did not mention the squawk the aircraft was using.

From this thread, I hope that the military learns that GA aircraft, particularly the small ones, do not automatically monitor VHF guard all the time due to lack of radio equipment, brain capacity or whatever. So in addition to guard they should also broadcast on other likely frequencies.

I don't know if it is technically possible, or desirable, but would radio equipment that simply broadcasts on all 600+ aeronautical VHF frequencies simultaneously, be a partial solution? "Light aircraft at 3000 feet, heading 090, 20 miles east of Harwich, squawking 7000, approaching US warship Vincennes, contact Vincennes on 121.5 immediately. I repeat..."

Kolibear

2nd Sep 2008, 11:49

How to stop GA non-lethally?

Just carry on increasing the price of AVGAS

Wessex Boy

2nd Sep 2008, 13:25

I have done this exercise to prevent news helicopters getting photos of an IRA Bombsite, it was just a case of keeping our big green helicopter between the site and their little Jetrangers, I am not sure that they were so used to having big green helicopters in that close a proximity.....especially with some idiot crewman in the door making rude gestures at them :E

IO540

2nd Sep 2008, 14:32

I don't know if it is technically possible, or desirable, but would radio equipment that simply broadcasts on all 600+ aeronautical VHF frequencies simultaneously, be a partial solution?

It's quite possible. For a short range job (say the hypothetical warship) you could do it with a few kilowatts. For say 100nm range, close to impossible, and 100s of kW and a pretty big aerial sticking up somewhere.

The communist era Radio Free Europe jammers were pretty big things :) In my childhood, I used to go for walks with the grandparents under the one in Prague. And they didn't need to jam so many frequencies.

SNS3Guppy

3rd Sep 2008, 01:32

How about some powerful green lasers, which effectively make a transparent 'wall' in the path of the aircraft. It wouldn't stop them if they were intent on being there, but it would show the pilot that there was something going on, and that they were somewhere that they shouldn't be.

Not sure if green lasers can be made powerful enough yet to be daylight visible? Person operating them would need to be sure that there was nothing higher up either....wouldn't want to blind the airline crew that's up higher!

As previously described, warning laser systems are presently in use, generally with alternating red and green.

Green laser is intended for daylight use and is much more visible to the human eye.

Intrude in the Washington DC ADIZ and plan on getting flashed as a warning, prior to getting intercepted...and failing to respond to that...shot down.

The police chief who elected to visit a warship in his 152 to satisfy his curiosity...deserved to get shot down.

For those who ask if a light airplane represents a threat...the unsinkable Bismarck wasn't threatened by light airplanes either...until it was stopped dead in the water by one. The USS Cole wasn't in danger from a light water craft...until it had a gaping hole blown in it's hull by one. How much of a threat it represents is really irrelevant. If it's not supposed to be there, then that's all that is relevant. One doesn't stand at an armed checkpoint and ignore an approaching vehicle simply because "it's just a little car." One doesn't ignore a light airplane just because it's "just a little airplane." A threat is a threat until proven otherwise, and should be treated accordingly.

hardhatter

3rd Sep 2008, 11:46

@SNS3Guppy: thanks for your response, I did not know about the Washington DC ADIZ lasers. Sounds good, I am looking into it now.

Keep it up! :ok:

bjornhall

3rd Sep 2008, 20:00

The police chief who elected to visit a warship in his 152 to satisfy his curiosity...deserved to get shot down.

How very North Korean of you.

SNS3Guppy

3rd Sep 2008, 20:55

How very stupid of the police chief.

So far as the Washington ADIZ (it was mentioned earlier in the thread in a previous post), visit the folllowing:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/divisions/eastern_region/avsafety_program/vws/media/vws512k.wmv

It's hard to miss.

Visual Warning System for The Washington Air Defense Identification Zone (http://www.faa.gov/news/news_home/visual_warning/)

Special Notice

A new warning signal for communicating with aircraft is being deployed within the Washington D.C. metropolitan area Air Defense Identification Zone (DC ADIZ,) including the Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ.) The anticipated operational date is May 21, 2005. The signal consists of highly focused red and green colored lights in an alternating red/ red/green signal pattern. This signal may be directed at specific aircraft suspected of making unauthorized entry into the ADIZ/FRZ and are on a heading or flight path that may be interpreted as a threat or that operate contrary to the operating rules for the ADIZ/FRZ.

The beam is not injurious to the eyes of pilots/aircrews or passengers, regardless of altitude or distance from the source. If you are in communication with Air Traffic Control (ATC) and this signal is directed at your aircraft, we advise you to immediately communicate with ATC that you are being illuminated by a visual warning signal. If this signal is directed at you and you are not communicating with ATC, we advise you to turn to a heading away from the center of the FRZ/ADIZ as soon as possible and immediately contact ATC on an appropriate frequency, or if unsure of the frequency, contact ATC on VHF guard 121.5 or UHF guard 243.0.

Be advised that failure to follow the recommended procedures outlined above may result in interception by military aircraft and/or the use of force. This notice applies to all aircraft operating within the ADIZ, including Department of Defense, law enforcement, and aeromedical operations. This notice does not change procedures established for reporting unauthorized laser illumination as published in advisory circular 70-2.

Even government aircraft, emergency medical operations, and law enforcement traffic isn't exempt. If one supposes that the local police chief in his private Cessna 150 is immune, or that holding him equally accountable makes on a "North Korean," then think again.

The ADIZ is an example of a multi-tiered secrity system which includes ample notice, warning, and a threat of use of force...backed up by the willingness to use it.

BackPacker

3rd Sep 2008, 22:06

SNS3, there is no suggestion that the frigate concerned was in the ADIZ or in fact anywhere near. All hardhatter wrote was:

The frigate was lying in green water, escorting a human-aid transport ship.

Now I don't know the exact location of the ADIZ but I don't think the ADIZ is anywhere near where a human-aid transport ship would need an escort from a warship. That would be more appropriate for places like Iraq or Somalia, not Washington DC.

Hardhatter did not even suggest that the police chief was US, nor that he was or was not in reception of any kind of ATC service, nor whether the harbour was his area of jurisdiction and whether he was on duty or not. All it was was a possible scenario they're thinking about in a research institute.

The only reason the ADIZ came up is that they've got a nice way of warning pilots that they're doing something stupid/illegal, and that that same method might be applicable to the scenario mentioned.

If one supposes that the local police chief in his private Cessna 150 is immune, or that holding him equally accountable makes on a "North Korean," then think again.

It's been a while since I've been in the US, but at this side of the pond anything that's not specifically forbidden is still allowed. So as long as there's no published TFR/RA(T)/TRA/SRZ/ADIZ/FRZ or otherwise prohibited area around a warship, regardless of whether it's in port or not, I'm entitled to circle it to go sightseeing as long as I abide by the normal rules of the air. Regardless of whether I'm a private citizen, a police officer on duty or someone else, and regardless of the nationality of the warship. If that makes the commander nervous, he can ask me to leave and if he does so politely, I will.

Let me know if this is any different in the "land of the free" though.

SNS3Guppy

3rd Sep 2008, 22:36

The only reason the ADIZ came up is that they've got a nice way of warning pilots that they're doing something stupid/illegal, and that that same method might be applicable to the scenario mentioned.

I know. I introduced it.

It's been a while since I've been in the US, but at this side of the pond anything that's not specifically forbidden is still allowed. So as long as there's no published TFR/RA(T)/TRA/SRZ/ADIZ/FRZ or otherwise prohibited area around a warship, regardless of whether it's in port or not, I'm entitled to circle it to go sightseeing as long as I abide by the normal rules of the air. Regardless of whether I'm a private citizen, a police officer on duty or someone else, and regardless of the nationality of the warship. If that makes the commander nervous, he can ask me to leave and if he does so politely, I will.

Simply because you legally may, doesn't mean you should.

I'm entitled to carry a firearm most places, and I often do. I wouldn't necessarily want to run up to a police car at night, waving it in the air and saying "hey guys, look at this!" Simply because I might legally be able to do it doesn't mean I should.

In the US one can fly around all day long at the minimum legal altitudes over congested areas. In some places pilots do...they can legally do it, and darn it, they will. Of course, eventually they lose the right to operate in that area, restrictions are put in place, airports get squeezed out and closed...but who's going to tell them they can't exercise their full rights?

As a pedestrian in most places, legally I have the right of way over an eighteen wheel truck. I may not survive insisting on exercising that right...but after all, it is my choice, right?

Whether a military ship has a need to escort another ship or not, flying directly toward it to go have a look-see is a foolish thing to do.

Being a police chief doesn't change that.

One doesn't need an ADIZ, or even a NoTaM in place to show a little common sense.