.. I knew I should have kept a closer eye on this.

(a) I will now go through from the start and cull the nonsense

(b) the original question is valid.

(c) we really don't want to descend to trading insults in this forum, please ..

Plastic Bug

Thanks for yor post - though I am not sure about your statement - please feel free to illustrate where in the forum rules you are not allowed to ask questions if you don't know an answer, you could help me there. I think john_tullamarine's answer does not agree there.

Final 3 - thanks for you exmaples of hypothetical learning - I quite agree that there does not have to be a concrete conclusion (but also, I hope you will agree, there sometimes is a conclusion).

Even though we know that there is no empirical data avilable to answer the question to a high degree of confidence, Mach 4.0 was asking for help to
1. Find some of that data (obviously not empirical, but from public domain reserach).
2. Get guidance on the process of investigating the question using the data.

Thanks.

Does anyone know if the Airbus proposed A330 tanker for the USAF, has a additional hardened NEMP requirement, or is it come as is?

May answer the question. USAF nuclear war planning with B2's hunting mobile ballisic missiles, would suggest their tankers operating close enough to where the mushroom clouds billowing. If If USAF KC330's could be disabled by EMP, a hell of a flaw in their preparation.

Tallsandwich

I agree that there can be a concrete conclusion; usually, you need clear and agreed variables to achieve this.

Sometimes, it is not necessary to reach a concrete conclusion - just being aware of the potential scenarios and options is a valuable enough outcome.

Now, let's move on to discussing those meteorite and earthquake protection systems :}

Final 3 - you do crack me up, Sir.

But you forgot to add Martien Ray Gun protection - I think that was also suggested 3 pages back somewhere in the mockery; now that we have approval to ask hypothetical questions, it will be open season. However for the sake of everyone who by now are pulling their hair out, let's save that topic for another time when "things are quiet".

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please, can we keep the discussion on a friendly and sporting level.

Restating the basics ..

(a) if it is (even tenuously) related to professional flying and relevant to technical matters .. it's a goer. While I have no problem with some thread wander and creep .. we need to keep some sort of focus on the original thread topic lest the whole thing degenerate into utter anarchy ..

(b) does it need to have a definitive answer ... of course not

(c) will we permit ignorant and boorish behaviour .. absolutely not

My apologies to

(a) those who have approached the topic seriously .. I should have stepped in much earlier

(b) to those whose posts were intended as light humour .. I may have been a bit heavy handed as I waded through just now

I bet Easyjet are sorry they chose them Airbuss now :)

and now something which may change this discussion a bit.

Is anyone able to calculate the induced electric pulse lets say into the 1 km cable of the avionics bus assuming:

a) a given nuclear explosion say xxx kilotons (or choose megatons)

b) derive the radius within anything will be destroyed anyways and rule that out as it would not help the discussion

c) at that boundary come up with an induced (probable, possible, maybe so high) voltage according to the scenario given above

d) correcting this value for the shielding which every single electric and electronic part in an aircraft has

e) derive a peak voltage induced may found in the bus

Then we're talking sense. I'm not too got at maths so i cannot do it myself.
So - the invitation is posted - start heating up your brain cells before you answer.

And in the end we may find out that the shielding provided against other EMP mishaps like LEMP - and for those who don't know that term LEMP=lightning emmited magnetic pulse may be fair enough to protect our work gear as soon as we are far enough away not to get melted or to glow in the dark or ripped to pieces from a blast.

To the question if it is a design flaw. I don't think so. And to extend the discussion - if I properly remember a 777 is also a FBW plane? So both manufacturers thought of this as not being a real problem. Maybe they even thought about that and already came up with a solution to my little brain puzzle.

Have a nice and "hard thinking" time

E401

P.S. "Final 3 Greens" I agree about setting up scenarios for learning techniques. Great tool and sometimes fun and motivation.

I don't think you are going to get many solutions to this one somehow! I think I shall go sit in the sun with a nice cold beer instead.

Self Loading

I bet Easyjet are sorry they chose them Airbuss now

Not as much as Ryanair, whose planes don't have window blinds - aka atomic flash filters.

(For those of limited humour or working in the Ryanair legal department, let me say that this is a joke and no disrespect aimed at the airline.)

that's why i'm bad at the math.

too much sitting in the sun and having a beer :}

by the way - it looks as if my post has cooled down the discussion a bit. exactly like a cold beer.

cheers

P.S. If you fry all electrics the cooling won't work either - so, once on the ground the beer might not be cold anymore.

Will meet a friend Friday - Capt. and instructor on the A320 - Will ask about manual reversion.

my brother is finally back in college so i can post...because he gets b***chy
it is his computer...but i've missed alot:(

back on topic this is a question that i myself have thought about but never had the presence of mind to bring up...I have a volume in How Stuff Works, in which there under the topic of "Jamming devices" there is a photo of a B-52 sitting upon a huge platform undergoing EMP testing and this photo must be al least 20 years old as most of the illustrations are so it seem to have been or be a military issue for a while.

I do feel that conventional weaponry AT THE VERY PRESENT is the greater risk...only because i can't imagine a terrorist building one of such high wattage now...as far as Technically advanced sovereign govts well it seem like they'd only hurt themselves as they are the ones who NEED the juice...

interesting topic but i not sure there's an anwser, but i think it is, or at least will be an issue for the near future the world is full of madness :\

ps i never PPRuNE at work because they already think i'm crazy:} :} :}

Thank you everyone!

To clarify further;

My understanding is the question relates to the worst case scenario as far as NEMP/DEW damage is concerned.

Ignoring all other scenarios about whether it is likely, whether everyone on board gets fried, what would happen on the ground, whether its a totally stupid question, etc, etc.

Just what is the worst case scenario of the NEMP/DEW damage? So although deep technical analysis of the strength of the NEMP/DEW required to cause problems is great supporting information. The answer that is really being sought is what is the likely worst case scenario as far as flight controils are concerned?

Therefore I see the answer revolves around, what would the worst NEMP/DEW damage do to the systems which

a) deploys RAT.

Airbus head of A320 team told me personally "by definition the battery bus is always operational, so RAT would deploy. But then went on to say one could have the option of manually deployiong via cable from flight deck.

b) once RAT is deployed, bearing in mind worst NEMP/DEW damage, would the stab/ rudder be available?

Even if this is a totally dumb question, I am intrigued!

My view, is that BBJ, being capable of complete manual reversion, still has a chance of being controllable, perhaps vmc only. It is quite right all flight instruments may be inop, and you are still in deep s*it. However it does seem that the aircraft has a chance of being controllable..if only by seat of the pants, and if a/c remains vmc.

So I believe, the answer this principal is intereted in is. In worst case scenario, is their a possability of the a/c being controllable, is survivability a possability, or will aircraft certainly have no flight controls.

Is this clear? to reiterate, in worst case scenario of NEMP/DEW damage are both aircraft potentially controllable and thus do both have a possability of survival.

(with hindsight the threat title is too controversial! I just wanted to stimulate debate.)

My view, is that BBJ, being capable of complete manual reversion, still has a chance of being controllable, perhaps vmc only.

Have you considered the physiological effects of a nuclear detonation - i.e. the flight crew may well be blind?

Surely that's your worst case scenario?

mach 4.0

again - there might not be a worst case. The worst case might be that you loose one generator and a couple buses and avionics like after a direct hit by lightning.

Only getting some hard figures would clarify a bit because (see my previous post) an aircraft is NOT UNPROTECTED ! ! ! Or we would fall out of the sky or loose everything every time we get hit by lightning.

So your worst case might be the scenarios we train for with partial or total com losses - loss of some ADC, EFIS, steering computers.
Will a RAT deploy - chances are YES. Would eventually your APU start? Maybe.

To get your worst case scenario we need to know what a pulse of given strenght would cause. So start up your computers and calculate it. Or ask somebody who knows - but they may not tell you - or they will have to shoot you once told.

E401

This should give you the figures you need. Wikipedia - EMP

Final 3 greens

Thank you but to re clarify, the question relates solely to the controllability of the aircraft, i.e. will rudder and stab work? There are many, many considerations. Agreed.

Error 404

I do not believe any calculations need to be made as we are looking at worst case scenario. Therefore for example, will NEMP/DEW affect battery? I believe not.

Your comment chances are RAT will deploy is just an opinion without any supporting reasoning/information. What would be helpful is a reason why the chances are the RAT will deploy.

Therefore I believe the individual components of the RAT deploy system need to be looked at. For example;

Battery not sure/ unaffected by NEMP/DEW
deploy switch not sure
wire to solenoid ditto
solenoid not sure
spring in solenoid unaffected possibly
etc, etc

Of course, i dont have a clue about the RAT system, this is just an example. And if I had done an airbus course, I doubt very much if course would discuss effect on NEMP/DEW on RAT system.

Once again, I am only trying to discover the effect on the flight controls, and the answer needs to be supported by some sort of reasoning. not just an opinion.

Thank you.

Thank you but to re clarify, the question relates solely to the controllability of the aircraft, i.e. will rudder and stab work?

Fair enough, I was scoping the physical capability of the crew into the controllability aspects of the aircraft, but now understand where you are coming from.

As I don't have the tech background to comment on what you need, I'll duck out.

Final 3 Greens

Same for me - I'm outa here.

E401

P.S. Might be back on Friday about that trim and rudder issue.

Mach 4.0, I might be a bit late to answer, but you could have avoided much turmoil if you had asked more neutral, i.e. FBW instead of A320. We all know that A320 isn't the only FBW model nowadays and your questions sounds like another French-bashing. An A320 will have the same problem like a Boeing 777 or 787 or an Embraer 170 or Saab 2000 or any other FBW aircraft.

Ask the right question - and you will get the right answer!

Happy continuation of the discussion (I agree that all modern airliners will fall from the sky in case of a nuclear holocaust).

Dani

Dani

Agreed, the title encouraged alot of time wasters and nonsense, more suited to jetblast.

However I cannot get away from the fact that the question is type specific to ACJ.

You say that all FBW a/c will have the same problem, but you have not supported this statement with any fact or reasoning. It is just another opinion.

It is possible that not all FBW a/c will react the same way, it depends very much on each particular system. Wouldn't you agree?

There is no shortage of opinions, but the only factual post I remember is from airbus instructor.

It should now be quite clear, this post is a search for knowledge. Despite some of the posters claiming they "know what they are talking about" due to number of hours, etc, etc we really have no further info on this subject.

Despite the questions irrelevance to mostly everyone, it could be a good learning experience. However the answer is beyond the knowledge of the average line pilot, and I suspect this is why no progress has been made.

I think it's probably reasonable to assume that if you're flying an airliner close enough to a rapidly emptying sunshine bucket to be effected by it, the least of your worries is going to be EMP. :ugh:

Simple answer is down to cost vs risk!

Risk is low, cost to harden a320 against DEW/EMP is astronomical - so it never happens!!!! hardening that is!

Also be aware that certain specifics may be in breach of some national security agency rules! If you knew how hard a product was, you would also know how big to build your bomb to destroy it!

Microprocessor manufacturers could harden their products but the cost is prohibitavley high. Indeed as microprossor technology advances the physical distance between devices on a cpu/chip decreases the hardness also decreases such that true hardness becomes dificult to achieve!

No civilian design requirement exists so why allow design creep for a whim?

Data security is MUCH more an issue than nuclear hardening!

In terms of bandwith this thread is a waste of space, there are cheaper ways of achieving the demise of any aircraft regardless of type!

Rainbow

Of course there is an answer. What in particular, do you find impossible to answer? Just because you do not know the answer does not mean an answer does not exist.

Take the battery for instance, will this be affected by NEMP?DEW? Is there an answer to that? yes! Airbus have confirmed, it will be unaffected. Will a switch work? yes, thererfore will a current flow to the solenoid, etc, etc

Human factor, suggest you read the thread, we have heard that one many times before, but that is not the question.

Gokmt

Thank you, but hardening is not the issue here whatsoever.

It is simply a comparisson between NEMP/DEW on an ACJ and BBJ. Thats it!

Mach 4.0

Just one final thought.

Your logic is that you can step through your systems, bit by bit and arrive at a works/doesn't work conclusion for the whole. I believe that this is a rather naive view and it suggests a lack of exposure to testing complex systems, I'm not being insulting here, just commenting on what I see in the interests of trying to give you a different view to consider.

My experience in working with complex, interdependent, electronic based systems is that the only real proof (or should I say non proof of failure) is to test the whole system, since individual modules may pass a test, but when integrated, the system has a reasonable probability of failure due to unforeseen circumstances, what one may call a known/unknown scenario.

So we started with a deductive approach and then often fell back to an inductive approach to understand why the system did not work as we expected it to work. The causes of failure were often relatively trivial, but nonetheless the system, as a whole, failed.

And that was in conventional testing, not something as exotic as NEMP/DEW, where a system that is certified to operate with one set of parameters is then exposed to a different set of parameters.

That does not give you any hard data or logic, you may say and that is precisely the point.

One needs to test the system to have any degree of confidence in a hypothesis.

If I were a consultant to your boss, I would feel ethically obliged (after all it is his neck potentially on the block) to point out the severe limitations of this deductive methodology and also to point out that a full systems test is not feasible, so the confidence level in the hypothesis is adjusted accordingly.

I agree with 3 Greens. Larger systems are inherently because of their size more prone to total failures than smaller ones.NEMP damage is such a large an unforcasting type of scenario, that even most of the equipement said to be NEMP proof ( and sold to NATO standards and higher) really are only tested to certain parameters.

For example say the EMP pulse of energy came from an explosion behind the aircraft as opposed to the front. The natural shield of the Aircraft fuselage and its cargo and equipment would surely make it more NEMP proof than an occurence happening infront of the aircraft where there is little shielding at all.
NEMP is really a big broad happening that cant really be 100% protected as is there isnt such thing a 100% cleared mine field ( I once tried to impart on a colleague during a Hash walk in Kabul last year). So in thas instance, It would be hard on even a conventional non FBW aircraft such as 738 which would overtly suffer similair damage with similiar catastrophic outcomes.

It's becvause they haven't thought out the problem, just looking at it from a physical POV of 'what if some nutter exploded a nuke above the atmosphere.....?' they are trying to work out the problem (which can't be worked out), quite forgetting: why do it? how to do it (delivery etc)? what will be left on the ground after they have done it (because it will not be an act in isolation or without retaliation)? To give the problem some credibility, it was implied at the beginning 'it will almost certainly happen' (it won't).

So keep flogging that dead horse guys, there is no answer, but it's immensely amusing watching you try and get there. Work your slide rules frantically and leave the living to everyone else!

Rainboe,

The moderator has ruled against you - the question is valid, and he has asked that all comments are constructive. If you still disagree, please direct your complaints to the moderator, not mach 4.0.

Unfortunately you still are talking about not being able to get a valid answer, yet we have clearly indicated that a satisfactory outcome of this thread could be:
1. A fun exercise just to learn and exchange information.
2. An answer to the question, albeit one with a low confidence factor or substantial assumptions attached to it.

I'm glad to know however you are still enjoying the debate.


g0kmt:

"In terms of bandwith this thread is a waste of space". Again the moderator does not agree - why don't you send him a message instead of wasting space on your comments? According to forum rules, your comments are the ones that will be deleted.


Thanks.

Let us be clear on several points ..

(a) I have no view as to the value of the thread topic. However, so long as the site's rules are met (and the posts are reasonably polite) the thread can work its way to whatever conclusion may evolve.

(b) I have not ruled for or against any poster (save to delete and edit posts which are not appropriate for a thread in this forum).

(c) in this forum, the role of the moderator essentially is one of facilitator .. not that of purveyor of personal prejudice.

.. but it is interesting to watch how a technically difficult topic develops ..

Gamma gotcha
 

If this badly designed Airbus is flying close enough to the explosion to have all it's electronics wiped out, then the dose of gamma radiation will mean that the occupants have days, or if they are really unlucky, perhaps weeks to live.
So just what is the point of this discussion? If I fly the rest of my life in an NBC suit, I will not even begin to feel happier than I do now when I strap my Airbus to my backside and go to do battle with the elements.
Valid or not, my opinion is that the question is a bogus waste of everyone's time and a cheap dig at Airbus, once again. Massive design flaw!!! Phhhaahhh

tallsandwich

appreciate your comments

Final 3 greens,

Agreed, however some reasoning/technical knowledge is surely better than for instance "chances are RAT will deploy"

Ruibik 101

Please dont waste our/ your time. we've heard that all before. If you read the thread, you will already see that I have accepted that thread title is poor and has encouraged alot of ridicule and nonsense.

I'll take this comment to be a request for the title to be varied a tad ...

I-Ford

Interesting, however I wouldn't say it is purely speculative to give a likely outcome to a BBJ in worst case NEMP/DEW damage. Maybe it is on an ACJ and that is the question I am interested in. Speculation is fine provided it is based on some technical reasoning and not just an opinion without any basis.

Just a reminder, this is not a debate on whether a nuclear detonation is likely or whether it is surviveable, or any other reason. It is purely to to discover the result of worst case NEMP/DEW on flight controls of ACJ and whether it is likely to be controllable.

If the nuclear explosion NEMP bothers you, forget about that and lets just consider DEW.

Agreed, however some reasoning/technical knowledge is surely better than for instance "chances are RAT will deploy"

Only if systemic confidence levels are high, otherwise what's the difference?

Still, its an interesting discussion.

How the (N)EMP works, from wikipedia:

Now how the DEWs work, also from Wikipedia.
So when we're talking about damage from (N)EMPs and DEWs are we comparing like and like? Seems not. If your airplane is hit by DEW (even in some avionics bus or part of fly-by-wire) there will be no induced voltage that can send damaging currents all through the systems, so no need to worry about your FBW getting knocked out by the single DEW hit.

But explosive evaporation of your aircraft's surface (or even worse underlying structure too) is another matter.

So any answers yet? We're still awaiting some slide rules to be put down and a solution to an unanswerable series of questions! Shame that so much criticism was directed at those that said no answers were possible, but Mach4- are you clearer now?