FAA set to ban EL AL anti-missile system from US airports

[LTNman]

The 'Flight Guard' electronic counter-measure system to protect civilian aircraft against shoulder-fired surface to air missiles will be installed on El Al planes in June, as part of an Israel Civil Aviation Administration (ICAA) test, Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Thursday.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), however, refuses to allow civilian planes to be equipped with the flare-based system due to safety risks.

According to Transportation Ministry spokesman Avner Ovadiah, the new anti-missile system will be installed on one El Al aircraft in June, with tests lasting two to three months. If the tests are successful, he said, the system would be installed on all 30 El Al aircraft.

'We expect the first plane to be flying by June, and this is just the beginning of a comprehensive upgrade of the El Al fleet,' Ovadiah said.

The ministry allocated 6 million shekels ($1.3 million) in September to the adaptation of the anti-missile system, currently employed on IAF military aircraft, to civilian planes. Additional funds have since been allocated to develop the program. The government decided to allocate the funds after two Strella anti-aircraft missiles were fired at and just missed an Arkia airliner taking off from Mombassa airport in Kenya in November 2002.

Costing between $750,000 and $1 million per unit, the Flight Guard system's radar-connected sensors respond automatically to an approaching heat-seeking missile, firing thermal decoys to divert the missile from the aircraft.

Aviation sources said Flight Guard is embedded out of sight in the plane's body to avoid drawing attention, and its flares are designed not to be a fire risk if they land in civilian areas, Reuters reported.

Lieberman left this week for a working visit to the U.S, where he will hold talks with Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and other officials in order to raise awareness about the need to protect civilian passenger aircraft, Globes reported.

Defense industry sources told Globes that the FAA refuses to approve flare-based anti-missile systems for civilian airplanes, due to the safety risks. ICAA director Yitzhak Raz is discussing the matter with the FAA in an effort to change the decision, the paper said.

Flight Guard lost an FAA tender 18 months ago, Globes reported. In view of the failure in the tender, it is not clear how El Al planes equipped with Flight Guard will be able to use U.S. airports, the paper reported.

According to officials familiar with the Flight Guard system, its flares are calibrated not to discharge below a safe altitude in order to prevent fires or injury to people on the ground. The flare-based defense system can also be turned off, allowing the planes to land at U.S. airports, Globes reported. However, it is during the landing and takeoff procedures that aircraft are most vulnerable to the threat of heat-seeking missiles.

Rival manufacturer Rafael (Israel Armament Development Company), is developing its own electro-optical anti-missile defense system for civilian aircraft. The company is greatly encouraged by Flight Guard's troubles with the FAA, Globes reported, as its own system does not fire flares to divert incoming missiles. Rafael executives hope that the Israeli airlines will wait for its systems to be developed, and afterwards they will be able to market them successfully in the U.S.

[amanoffewwords]

If the tests are successful

How are they going to test it? Fire a SAM at it? :confused:

[flyhardmo]

How are they going to test it? Fire a SAM at it?
Do touch and goes at Mombasa Until someelse fires a misslie at them. Although they cant shoot straight and El Al might claim the test a success:confused:

[BEagle]

"The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), however, refuses to allow civilian planes to be equipped with the flare-based system due to safety risks."

Sounds more like a case of 'Not invented here' syndrome from the land of the Free......

Idiots!

[RRAAMJET]

Wrong BEags,

If there was any way this far-right Administration could pander further to Israeli interests, including sending more money to them via way of a "purchase", they would....

I think, however, the FAA is at the same thought-process level as we were in the RAF when we were testing non-emittive defensive systems for the 146, VC-10, 125, etc, back in the late '80's. It simply wasn't cricket for the Queen to dump a flare into an African thatched hut....;)

[Desert Dingo]

I'm having trouble following the logic in this.

If a missile is fired at an airliner it is unsafe to fire off a few flares and have the aircraft escape, because the flares may cause some damage on the ground.
It must therefore be preferable to let the missile strike the aircraft and have the aircraft crash, as this will not cause damage on the ground ?? :confused:

[mattpilot]

It must therefore be preferable to let the missile strike the aircraft and have the aircraft crash, as this will not cause damage on the ground ??

Bingo! :rolleyes:

[vitamin B]

Is it possible that the septics are worried that the flare devices WILL work. If so, it restricts the septics efforts to down an El Al flight (if necessary) as their missiles will be rendered impotent!!

Just a thought from the far side

vB

[mattpilot]

If so, it restricts the septics efforts to down an El Al flight (if necessary) as their missiles will be rendered impotent!!

If i understood you correctly, you are talking about the extreme measures the Gov't could take if we had another hijacking?

It is a valid point, however, i'm sure they could always switch to guns and take out the engines, no?

[B Sousa]

I think the Boys in the Hood are just Jealous because someone has better protection.

[Felix Lighter]

Not being privy to the type of system El Al intends to install, or its redundancy/safety systems I just want to play devils advocate for a second..........

Having seen a chinook accidentally ripple fire its whole load of flares at about 50ft after take off (& burn down a barn) and having seen an sea king fire 6 flares on the ground (one of which bounced off the helo pad, past the fuel tanker and impact the refueller in the back - thankfully he was wearing his you cant burn me clothes) and having had many flares personally miss-fire due to reflected flashes of light from window glass & gunfire rather than a incoming missile, I can surely see the FAA wanting to see more proof of the systems safety.

These systems operate well at medium altitudes but at low level there are problems.....and of course there is the human error aspect.

How many flares is an El Al 777 going to have and what package is it going to use to fire them...... not one at time thats for sure; probably 10 at a time to cover the required threat/arc.

Imagine for a second and accidental misfiring on the ground in the alley at LAX............ carnage!!!!

As I said, I'm playing devils on this argument...... it could be that the spams need to have an aircraft shot down first to justify the threat.

By-the-by, doesnt Airforce 1 have chaff/flares/jammers already?

I can see the day now that after deicing we'll move to the ORP for arming then on to the holding point at the runway...............;)

Personally I think we'd be better off with laser jammers anyway!

[crewrest]

Flares are old school anyway, the future lays in laser based systems, still if it's something the Israelis want, I'm sure the US Government will let them have it.

[Flight Detent]

Hi all,

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't AirForce 1(+++) had this system for years??

Cheers

[nibor]

You bet it does, but there will be 2 differences from the El Al version.

1. No one actually admits what is fitted to Airforce 1. It is difficult to rule against something that is not officially there.

2. Airforce 1 will have an American version fitted and EL AL will not.

Here is one to ponder,
Historically the 'American way' of dealing with a threat is to use maximum force and firepower to neutralize the threat regardless of collateral damage and the Israeli way is to use surgical strikes against known targets.

I know which country I would trust to build the safest system.

[proxus]

The US is just trying to reserve the option of being able to shoot the planes down if neccessary.

Proxus

[BigHairyBum]

Bring on the stealth liner!!:cool:

[Paul Wilson]

AFAIK all Man portable missles are IR homing, whereas a typical US mil jet will have IR homers, Rader homers, and of course guns. So there would be no problem in a US mil jet subjecting an ElAL jet to err rapid dissassembly.

[flufdriver]

SASKATOON 9999;

of course they are, they have the most experience in it!

[Octane]

There's also the safety issue of a large passenger aircraft carrying flares? I'm thinking of the Valujet tragedy in Florida caused by Oxygen generators self igniting. I imagine if flares (phosphorous?) did the same, it'd all be all be over very quickly.

[galaxy flyer]

I haven't read through all the replies, but anyone with experience with flare-based systems should know false alarms are common. The USAF systems have spread ground fires in various locations and you know who you are. I know of an instance where a C-5 going into MLD set acres on fire with an accidental discharge.

I don't live around JFK, but I did I would have a hose and a lawyer handy when El Al was in the area.

GF

[West Coast]

Beagle

Being a bitter old pile of self loading frieght is really getting old. Your like a broken record. No matter what the issue its the same old stupid American call from you. Did some yank splash your ass on 1v1 somewhere, run your dog over, piss in your wheeties or otherwise ruffle your feathers to the point that anything American gets pissed on by you?

In my 3 plus years on the prune you are among the most bitter of the regular posters.

[BEagle]

Morning Westie. So nice to hear from you again!

The 'Flight Guard' electronic counter-measure system to protect civilian aircraft against shoulder-fired surface to air missiles will be installed on El Al planes in June, as part of an Israel Civil Aviation Administration (ICAA) test, Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Thursday.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), however, refuses to allow civilian planes to be equipped with the flare-based system due to safety risks.

According to Transportation Ministry spokesman Avner Ovadiah, the new anti-missile system will be installed on one El Al aircraft in June, with tests lasting two to three months. If the tests are successful, he said, the system would be installed on all 30 El Al aircraft.

Protection against terrorists armed with ManPADs is a major area of concern currently. Warning, missile killing and false threat sensing are inextricably linked. In future, laser turrets may prove fully effective; however, the interim solution adopted by the Israelis appears pragmatic. The risk of misidentified release will reduce with the development period indicated; the system will only be installed if tests prove successful. If that then gives the Israelis a good item to export elsewhere, then good luck to them - and the same goes for anyone else coming up with an effective self-protection suite.

The damage to the DHL A300 seems to have resulted not so much from the missile warhead, but by either hydrostatic shock loading or the fuel fire. Protection is vital to prevent a smoking hole in the ground the next time some $hit with a ManPAD system engages a civilian airliner - even if the protection system wasn't designed by the US.

The FAA needs to get its head out of its ass on this.

[steamchicken]

Possibly I am stupid, but doesn't the bit about disarming this system below a "safe altitude" mean that it won't work exactly in the flight phase where the threat is greatest?

[lomapaseo]

Protection is vital to prevent a smoking hole in the ground the next time some $hit with a ManPAD system engages a civilian airliner - even if the protection system wasn't designed by the US.

The FAA needs to get its head out of its ass on this.

Seems to be a one sided bias argument above which flies in the face of the beginings of a good technical foundation. I am liable to get the usual rash of flames on this forum for being a devils avocate, but I also refuse to be swayed by bias such as head out of ass used as an argument.

The FAR/JARs which do govern the design and retrofit of most of the world's aircraft do not normally attempt to make trades in the amount of lives lost in the aircraft itself vs those lost on the ground by purposely ejected flaming bombs sic

Somehow the public, as yet, just won't stand for this. Nor do the regulatory authorities consider the trade between the possibility of a single manpad fired by a crazie vs in-air malfunctions by an equally deadly source of ignition which is to be added to the aircraft.

Since the regulations as empowered by governments do not consider these balances in their cost benefit to their populace, it is doubtful that the FAA which is only an authority can act in any other way except by presedential decree or act of congress supported by the greater majority

[Check 6]

West Coast, well said. Semper Fi!

:ok:

[BEagle]

Hoo-ah. And all those other noises you lot love to make.

'Way to go' - oh, and "Have a nice day"!


:yuk:

OK - Some excellent American things: F-14/15/16/18/22 . Coca cola. Apple pie. The V-8 engine. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo.

Some not so good American things: Plaid 'pants'. Hamburger backside. Dell customer service! Your leech-like lawyers. Not being able to pronounce Aluminium, Benny Hill or Robin Hood properly...

Some excellent Brit things: Beer (it isn't all called 'ale'). Aston Martin - except that's now mostly German. The Harrier (yes, it was originally ours!)

Some not so good Brit things: The weather. The Tornado GR1/F3.......

Chill, dudes.


;)

[BEagle]

Laser DIRCM sets needed for full coverage of large 777/A330 sized ac are certainly under very active development. Surprisingly (to me at any rate) effective coverage to achieve a high PK against a ManPAD can be achieved with a relatively small number of sites on the a/c.

It's a difficult one. If you fitted them to your airliner, would you be announcing "We protect our passengers better than other airlines" - or "We take you to airports where we need this level of protection!".......

[SLF3]

If the false alarm rate is one in a hundred take-offs or landings (see post above), and all the aircraft using Heathrow had the system installed, the systems would fire there about 12 times a day for false positives.

I think it is hard to argue this improves safety.

[chuks]

Threats evolve, so that some systems currently in use, such as 'Matador' are no longer effective against all missiles. Well, that's my understanding. Against an SA-7 you might be okay, but a 'Stinger' can beat the 'Matador' system, yes?

So I would assume that whatever system is chosen must be upgradeable to deal with future threats. Otherwise you have this million-dollar piece of hardware that is just taking up space.

It's hard to see how someone living on an airport approach path would be very understanding when flares start raining down on the children's birthday party. Not in the USA, anyway. Even if no one was injured there would be a suit for emotional trauma for sure. So, whatever their technical merits, I think flares for civil aircraft are probably a non-starter. The government enjoys soveriegn immunity so that this is not a concern of theirs to a large degree.

[LTNman]

Israel Ambassador to the US Daniel Ayalon said negotiations between Israel and the US for granting El Al a license for its passenger planes to the US to carry anti-missile systems would soon be concluded. El Al will be first airline in the world whose planes carry such systems.
Ayalon said even after El Al is privatized, the government would continue to urge it to buy only Boeing planes, and not those built by Airbus. "If Israel wants to increase its exports to the US, at the same time, it must increase its purchases in the US market," he said.

Ayalon added that Boeing contributed to Israel's economy through its reciprocal procurement agreements.