Research question: how to stop GA non-lethally?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somwhere over the rainbow
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: De Dam
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have a system where they can be deployed remotely by the military whilst the engine is cut
the problem was at first only for surface ships and divers approaching, to prevent something like the USS Cole happening again.
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.
Want more?
Last edited by LH2; 29th Aug 2008 at 12:10. Reason: out of the box #8
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LKBU
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Or as suggested above, a 'wall or red flares' would likely achieve the same effect.
Finally shooting some non-lethal weapons (eg flares, plastic bullets, etc) at the aircraft may cause it to use the prop, or engine. The aircraft would have to ditch, but provide those on board with some chance of survival, compared to simply sending a missile at it.
dp
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!
Or as suggested above, a 'wall or red flares' would likely achieve the same effect.
Finally shooting some non-lethal weapons (eg flares, plastic bullets, etc) at the aircraft may cause it to use the prop, or engine. The aircraft would have to ditch, but provide those on board with some chance of survival, compared to simply sending a missile at it.
dp
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BackPacker
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The honeycomb seat bases would still absorb some of the impact.
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.
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!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hardhatter
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.
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...
This is the not so serious answer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somwhere over the rainbow
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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:
a ship cannot move as easily as a plane.
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!
@eltonioni:
If there is no zone around the ship and the aircraft is 501' away from it the ships captain can simply bugger off.
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!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bristol'ish
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Just trying to help
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LKBU
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Then, should the threat turn out to be real, you only need a second or two to switch to real ammo.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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?
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.)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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
)