NEMP protection - ACJ and BBJ Considerations

[error_401]

C130JB

Thats the basic discussion about these weapons. They are like children with a huge club (like Capt. Caveman). Able to lift it and to drop it but without control where it hits and what it will cause. So a big

Leave these things in the drawer and let us fly in peace and safely.

E401

[xetroV]

Originally Posted by mach 4.0

I understand that the A320 series has no NEMP (nuclear electromagnetic pulse) or DEW (direct energy weapon) protection as part of its design criteria.

I understand that NO civil airliner has NEMP or DEW protection as part of its design criteria, maybe with the exception of, say, the Fokker F.VII.

[tallsandwich]

Agressiveness

In 1990 I was designing some electronics packaging for aviation use and the EMC/RFI considerations were significant. Even then, there were still people (Engineers, can you beleive it!) who did not know/think that this (EMC/RFI) was a problem that needed to be addressed.

Some of the (educated?) posters on this thread may not realise it but someone in a design meeting will probably have asked the question as to the extent of the electromagnetic protection required in this plane, and this (having been decied) will have gone into the design specs. Extending the EM requirement beyond (ok, WAY beyond) what is commonly understood (your normal EMC/RFI noise from high frequency devices) is an obvious and interesting 'what if' design-impact question, which, brainpower allowing, could be asked in order simply to enjoy sharing knowledge and learn (at least some of the contributers are capable of learning).

If you want to be rude and take no pleasure from (even hypothetical) discussion then do as you say - go to JB and take your narrow minded taxi-cab driver opinions in JB. I will trade insults with you there when I become an equally sad person.

Stick at it mach 4.0

For example - they post about "civil aircraft" - as if things would have been different had the question being posted about a military aircraft????. So, tell me that no civil aircraft designs have ever been transitioned to mil-specs....suddenly your question becomes interesting to them?

[Rainboe]

Rainbow
If you do happen to know what you are talking about (as you claim), go ahead, give a technical explanation why the A320 will "spin out of the sky" as you put it.

At no stage did I ever say an A320 will 'spin out of the sky', so I won't answer that. I have no idea what it will do. Any facetiousness is down to the pointlessness of discussing a wholly hypothetical situation of an upper atmosphere EMP burst when most knowledge is classified anyway, virtually no aeroplane can be protected, and if it should occur, people aloft in an aeroplane will not be high on the agenda with all the damage on the ground with the infrastructure and communications completely down. So who do you want to answer and what sort of answer can you expect of them?

<<the possability must surely exist that one day an aircraft could be affected by NEMP or DEW>> I totally disagree with this assertion.

And my handle is Rainboe, which you should recognise if you were a Boeing pilot, and I have 39 years as a real pilot behind me, and 34 years on jets, and 18,500 flying hours. Call me when you approach any of those totals and you will then have respec'!

[mach 4.0]

Tallsandwich

Thanks for your reply. You have summed it up very well.

I am surprised by the resistance to the question, I wonder why they bother to post replies? They must have nothing better to do!

They don't realise that in corporate aviation, some of the very high net worth individuals/ heads of state do have genuine threats against them and their families. Many take their own safety very seriously and over time many develop a good knowledge of aviation.

Perhaps the principals are overly paranoid, (or perhaps they are more aware of DEW than the schoolboys on this thread) but they are paying the money, and I just cannot go back to the principal with a whole load of reasons/ excuses why he should not be asking the question.

I will still be seeking the answer to the question, and will provide an answer to the best of my knowledge. And hopefully slightly more technical than I have read here!

Thanks for your support, I will be waiting for a further response from airbus.


Rainboe,

If DEW does not exist today, it certainly has a chance to in the future. My response has to be supported with some facts or reasoning.

The more I think about it, the more I think a good question has been asked. To clarify, how does an A320/ ACJ compare with a non fly-by -wire aircraft in the event of DEW/NEMP. What is the immediate effect, are both aircraft flyable?

The question has nothing to do with anything on the ground. Perhaps a DEW will not affect anything on the ground, perhaps the NEMP will affect the aircraft far beyond the serious damage on the ground. Who knows, but this is simply not the question. I cannot make excuses and give reasons why the question must not be asked.

My understanding is that a non fly-by-wire aircraft will still be flyable. It may have no flight instruments, but on a nice sunny day, it can probably glide to a forced landing. Therefore survivability is a possibility.

So the question is, in the same scenario but in the ACJ, is survivability a possibility? And perhaps this means, will the rudder and stab work?

[Airbus Instructor]

A320 FBW Systems

Gentlemen,

Find below some information about the A320 FBW systems.

• The RAT can be extended by two ways:

1. Automatically; in case of loss of both AC BUSSES with A/C in-flight and speed > 100 KTS, where the EMER GEN will automatically activate to supply the ESS busses and save battery life.
2. Manually, by pushing one of two push buttons, (RAT MAN ON) on HYD panel OR (MAN ON) on the EMER ELEC panel, the last one will not only extend the RAT, but also will activate the emergency generator to supply the ESSENTIAL Busses; the two push buttons will supply BATT power to two different solenoids that will unlock the RAT uplock and allow a spring to extend the RAT.
3. The logic on the A330/A340 is almost similar; the only Airbus that uses a cable to extend the RAT is the A300 and the A310.

• The A/C flight control system is totally hydraulically operated, so HYD pressure should be available to have control.

• In case of total ELEC failure provided HYD PRESS is available, the A/C can be controlled using the STAB trim wheel for PITCH control and using the rudder pedals for YAW/ROLL control. Now in the configuration, the A/C is fully controllable and can be maneuvered for landing.

• Landing gear is controlled electrically, but a mechanical backup is provided to mechanically unlock the Doors/Gears uplocks and take them down.

• Wheel brakes are electrically controlled, but a manual backup is provided as well, (of course HYD should be available)

Sorry for the long answer but I hope this gives better understanding of the A320 System.

[vapilot2004]

EMP generation has been demonstrated without the mushroom cloud - so far only by the West.

Given a choice between an A320 and a 737 during a nucular attack, I'll take the DC-9, thank you.

Didn't the chopper in Goldeneye have total EMP protection. Maybe we should ask Q.

Q - That's the man we need - !

[GlueBall]

...Mmmm...let's see: The ENOLA GAY [B-29] didn't have any of its electronics "fried," after dropping its nuke.

It's good to know that "cables & pulleys" and "radio tubes" remain unaffected by radio magnetic pulse. And it's a technology that's still available if needed.

[tallsandwich]

I agree, it is not a scenario that is ever likely to have remotely registered in the design process, and I also agree that to call it a design flaw is inappropriate (that suggests the aircraft is not 'fit for purpose'). It was unfortunate that such language was used.

There are many design studies into the effect of all sorts of threats (OK military funded design studies) which I suspect would surprise lots of people who have never worked in such an environment. As such, I can to some extent understand the reactions.

Consider:
1. Not all the information that is required to answer the question posed is inacessible.
2. The lifecycle of a class of planes is suficently long that projecting requirements several years into the future is not unreasonable.

I personally would like to see more "visionary" or "conceptual" discussions, some of which will be ridiculed but nevertheless enjoyed. For example, discussion of alternative flight propulsion in the light of environmental concerns and hydrocarbon fuel depletion is a subject that will become of releveance in the long term, yet it would be pointless to refuse to debate it just because it was not a current commercial decision factor.

I strongly believe that true professionals never ridicule those who ask questions, despite how silly they may seem.

[SR71]

I can't help thinking that the high net worth individual posing the question, would be smarter investing in some technology that gave him/her a better idea of whether WW3 was about to start so that he/she didn't have to go flying in the first place.

On the basis that neither conventional a/c nor FBW a/c were designed with this scenario in mind, would aforementioned individual want to put him/herself in this position in the first place?

[Clandestino]

Post deleted as it was reffering to old topic name and so became irellevant.

C

[Final 3 Greens]

C150 - the way to go

It's official.

Your local club Cessna 150 is better protected against nuclear explosions than sophisticated jets, because anything electronic is kn@ckered and placarded "inop."

So when the mushrooms start to erupt, just pull on your Raybans and remain in manual reversion

[mach 4.0]

Airbus Instructor

Thanks for your helpful technical information. very usefull.

SR71

yes that would be smarter! but this is not the question that has been asked. yes we know neither a/c were designed with NEMP/DEW criteria..this has already been stated.

By the way some civilian aircraft do have ECM pods. Why is that when it is so unlikely to need one? Perhaps DEW/ NEMP is a concern to the customer. Perhaps the guy spending the money just wants one, and this is his decision. Perhaps the guy wants some reassurance, but this is not the issue here. The issue is - I need a sensible logical answer backed up with some clear information.

To everyone that has made a positive contribution, thank you.

[tallsandwich]

From a post that may have just been deleted:

How about a thesis on A320s and NEMP protection - wonder who would supervise that one?

Answer: anyone would supervise it, if you had funding

Final 3 - do I understand that becuase you have an MSc I should feel your posts are more worthwhile than those of a BSc, and that if a PhD posted he would be more right than you?

It's not having the qualification that counts - it is about demonstrating it in your posts which matters; try it.

[Clandestino]

1. Is airbus FBW susceptibility to damage from nuclear explosion electromagnetical impulse sign of bad design?

No - no airplane, civil or military, is designed or can be designed to take mayor nuclear trashing. FBW or othervise. Forget about Air Farce One being immune to nukes, it's only for the movie purpose.

2. But if we have manual reversion, we could still be able to land even with FBW burnt out.

Perhaps. I admit that I oversimplified things when stating that Airbus would spin out of the sky. You could eventually still control it via rudder and stab trim. But if you followed the link supplied by error_401 you'd find that if you're close enough to nuclear explosion to get your electronics damaged, you're also close enough to get lethal gamma rays burst. Actually now you have two options: getting killed in airplane crash or dying of radiation sickness couple of hours later. Besides, mutual-assured-destruction doctrine is still alive and there are hardly chances that first explosion wouldn't be followed by hundreds of others. Are you still sure you want to live to see next 30 minutes of world war 3?

3. Yeah but what with directed energy weapons? You just keep telling me about nukes.

DEWs are sci-fi and speculational weapons. When (and big if) they are fielded, they won't be there to damage your electronics. If anything like YAL-1 or MIRACL is fielded, it will be able to drill nice hole all through the airframe and everything within it. Wikipedia has nice article about limitations of (once again: hypothetical) DEWs. I guess this answers "What if DEWs fall into hands of the terrorists?" question also.

4. With 10000 hrs over 20 years I could land B737 in manual reversion.

Well, with one 737 sim session that covers manual reversion you would have known that this isn't joking matter. Oh and you've just had your electronics fried by NEMP, remember? No IRS, no EFIS and no FADEC too. If you're flying older 737, there still might be functioning standby airspeed indicator, standby altimeter and perchance standby horizon too, but with new maschine you would be limited to looking out the window. Now if all you see is inside of the cloud, dismissal comes pronto. In VMC you can extend the agony but not by much.

5. By the way some civilian aircraft do have ECM pods.

Yes they do, and they are there to thwart the radars - that is to prevent search radar from finding you, targeting radar from acquiring you and missile radar from guiding the missile towards you. And there El-Al planes equipped with IR flares dispenser to spoof IR guided manpads. ECM are not there to create the protective cloak wich shields from NEMP or DEW.

6. I simply cannot go back with a load of reasons why the question should not be asked.

Questions were asked and questions were answered. Now go and tell your editor that you have no story.

[Flightmech]

Originally Posted by mach 4.0

By the way some civilian aircraft do have ECM pods. Why is that when it is so unlikely to need one? Perhaps DEW/ NEMP is a concern to the customer.

ECM pods have nothing to do with the effects of NEMP/DEW . They are designed to avoid radar lock-on etc and some dispense flares/chaff to deter inbound threats.

Please move this thread to JetBlast. Purely hypothetical. It's like asking the manufacturer of a Japenese fishing trawler to design inbuilt protection in case a cow falls out of the sky from an IL76 flying overhead .

I don't see that is the prerogative of the mods to dictate precisely what subjects may or may not be discussed .. provided they have some merit and are relevant to flying, they can stay .. provided that the tone of the discussion remains at least reasonable

[tallsandwich]

Rainboe - Even if I agreed that the initial question was hypothetical, you still don't get it do you - I have tried to explain that there is value in answering hypothetical questions, and unless there is a forum rule against it, why not? Did you know that the use of hypothetical scenarios is an established LEARNING technique?

[Plastic Bug]

zzzztt!

Hey folks, before ya'all start tearing each others hair out, think of this: An EMP pulse will fry working ELECTRONICS if you are close enough. Basic electric stuff should survive. Batteries, for example, would still be batteries. Things that rely on electro-magnetism may have problems.
How does the RAT deploy? Not telling. How do the flight controls get commands? Not telling. Would a FBW airplane still fly?
Yes.
How?
Not telling. You either know or you don't. If you know, you are supposed to know. If you don't know:
A/ Check your flight/maintenance manual
or
B/ You have no business asking.
PB

[Final 3 Greens]

F4F

The question was....

A320 lack of NEMP protection - is this a massive design flaw

As it appears that no A320 has experienced an actual NEMP or DEW event, the original question was a hypothesis built on a hypothesis.

Hope this clarifies.

[Final 3 Greens]

Tall Sandwich

Did you know that the use of hypothetical scenarios is an established LEARNING technique?

Yes, in fact I design such learning workshops on a regular basis.

However, it is important to recognise these types of workshops are generally used to change the way people think about the world (cognitive learning intervention) and the parameters are sometimes so complex that there is no concrete conclusion at the end of the exercise.

This should not come as a suprise to airline pilots, since thinking about sim sessions will differentiate between training in SOPs, including known/unknown* events, such as engine failure and using the sim for unknown/unknown events**, such as spinning a 747.

(As I am not a line pilot, please forgive me if these examples are not perfect, I am trying to illustrate a key point in learning design, in which I have quite a lot of expertise.)

Are the learning outcomes from the first and second scenarios the same, or of equal utility? Of course not.

The problem with hypothesising about the NEMP event and it's effect on an Airbus, is the lack of hard data about the likely outcome.

In a learning workshop, we would probably recognize the potential probability/severity of the risk and therefore move on to more tangible thinking, such as how could one avoid the risk (e.g. use surface transport in times of tension) or mitigate it (fit bang seats to the A320.) Then we would use tools such as cost benefit analysis to determine how to respond.

It's meta level thinking that generates potential options for investigation.

However, trying to concretely address the original hypothesis behind this thread would be unlikely to produce much other than a list of opinions and, as such, would be relatively unhelpful.



*Known to have happened, unknown order of magnitude or probability, **unknown to have happened, unknown order of magnitude or probability

Edited to amend above definitions.