NEMP protection - ACJ and BBJ Considerations
 

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

With the world becoming more dangerous, the possability must surely exist that one day an aircraft could be affected by NEMP or DEW.

With traditional aircraft such as B737, a total electrical and hydraulic failure will not render aircraft uncontrollable. (manual reversion)

With fly-by-wire, and say all circuits fried by NEMP or DEW, what will happen? I understand the RAT may deploy from batt bus, but if this system has no NEMP/DEW in the design criteria...will it deploy and will aircraft be controllable? Are their any circuit boards in the RAT deployment system?

A high altitude nuclear explosion can send a NEMP 2500 km!

I have let this thread get a little out of hand and am now in the process of bringing it back into line. Some of the posts I will delete, others I will amend without comment.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, can we adopt a reasonable degree of decorum in this forum .. the original question is as valid as any other and deserving of reasoned comment.

EMI considerations are not the stuff of imagination but are addressed at the design and certification stage. Perhaps the nuclear catastrophe scenario is a little out of left field .. but is it not an interesting question to contemplate ?

.. even contemplating a 73 with no hydraulics at all and no electrics is the stuff of nightmares ... rather anyone else than me, I'm afraid

What makes you think a 737 or indeed ANY other lane will be immune to the effects. Apart from taking out every car, aeroplanes would be affected with fried electronic fuel control units and every other control system. I think it's questionable whether there are any aeroplanes not hardened that will survive. Not really a problem, there is unlikely to be much to come down to. Good on Airbus not to bother!

This is a serious question and I would be interested to find out the answer.

FYI if the 737 lost all power, it could glide in manual reversion.

Whats wrong with considering the effect of the electromagnetic environment you are flying in?

Electromagnetic interactions form a fundamental part of the survivability of picture of todays modern aircraft.

Electronic warfare, the digital battlefield does exist.

Rainbow, A DEW or NEMP would not necessarily mean "there is unlikely to be much to come down to"

Clandestino, ok lets say its impossible for a terrorist activity to result in a NEMP or DEW, what about an accident?

IF you do not have the info or are not interested, thats fine, dont bother replying. But I do not believe in denying others to chance to expand their knowledge.

It is possible for a DEW to be directed at an aircraft. They can be designed for this purpose.

Say you were going to fly an ACJ for a head of state, wouldn't it be nice to know the effect of a DEW?

Hi,
The 'bus doesn't have manual reversion but it does have manual control of both the rudder and THS in the event of total electical and hydraulic failure.
Fargoo :ok:

Mach 4,

I think you may find the A320 was designed and certified as a civilian aircraft, not really intended for war zones.

Probably not much about directed energy weapons in CS25 or EUROCAE ED14.

fargoo, thanks. The question is is there any circuitary in the RAT system? If so it could be fried by NEMP or DEW.

Another airbus deploys the RAT by cable (perhaps A330 but not sure)

Rivet gun, if you do not know the answer fine, thanks for your input.

To save anyone repeating that its unliley to happen, etc etc. I agree its unlikely to happen.

But I am still interested in the answer?

Depends what you mean by circuitry really, if you mean switches, solenoids, and wires supplied from the Hot Battery Bus then the answer is yes.
If you mean solid state electronics then the answer is no.

Look, you are asking a hypothetical question. Every electrical circuit will get fried. All electronic control units will be burnt out, all navigation and instrumentation will probably be worthless. What exactly more do you want to know? Why passenger aeroplanes aren't shielded with hundreds of kilos of lead each? I think Airbus and Boeing have quite reasonably taken the view that you can only defend an aeroplane from direct attack in this manner to a limited degree.

Now that's a brave one! Even If I didn't have technical knowledge, I could simply use encarta or wikipedia or whatever to fill in the gaps and guess what wiki says about DEWs - they are either fictional or don't work as planned which is what I knew before. Only serious DEW project, US YBL-1 is seriously stuck in the development phase. And if that moneywaster is ever operative as planned, its laser won't just be able to fry your circuits but your airframe as well, be it B737 or A320.

Nothing, but no one has ever intended, or intends, to fly a transport category airplane into nuclear warzone or into crossfire between Flash Gordon and Evil Ming Empire, the only warring parties currently equipped with DEWs.

Rivet Gun certainly knows the answer and he tried to tell it to you by using mild irony.

And the question was: Is A320 inability to take major trashing from nuclear explosion design flaw?

And the 1 eurocent answer is: NO !

This thread is based on very false assumption that FBW airplane falls out of the sky when its electronics are burnt and "classic" flies happily on. Mach 4, if you were really 737 rated, you would have known that manual reversion is not a joke and manual reversion with absolutely no electrics is certain killer. So if you get hit by Flash Gordon's death ray you'll meet your maker very soon, not much difference between classic controls and FBW.

Not much chance of it happening in real life, though. Phew!

Woodrick,

thanks for your reply

The question relates to will the aircraft loose all flight controls in event of NEMP or DEW event? and in particular will the RAT deploy and will some flight controls work. ACJ's are becoming more and more popular and there is a possability I may fly one in 2007/2008. The principal I currently fly for is looking at electronic counter measures for his aircraft and the question of NEMP/DEW has arisen. He pays alot of money for his aviation department and his questions to me need to be answered fully. If I gave answers along the lines of postings above, I would be considered a schoolboy and probably fired!

I am awaiting an answer from the head of A320 technical team, but in the meantime I am interested if anyone reading this forum has specific knowledge.

Rainboe,

If you are not interested in the answer to this question fine, but I am! A B737 can glide in manual reversion, lower undercarriage and has a chance to survive. And yes I have done this in simulator and provided you remain vmc it is not that difficult, at least you have a chance.

Someone on this forum may have the technical knowledge I am interested in. if you have not or are not interested - why are you posting? I respectively ask you to only post if you can add to this request.

This forum can be really useful in increasing knowledge, and knowledge is a good thing which should not be censored.

PS if someone wants to discuss airbridges, let them. If you are not interested you do not have to read the post!

Clandestino,

same to you, if you do not know the answer or are not interested...fine, but why the hostility? I do not have any false assumptions about FBW and whether they "fall out the sky", I simply do not know. I have not done an airbus course, and if I did I may not have that knowledge anyway. I am merely seeking an answer to my question. Look its not a big deal if you cannot help, please don't bother replying if you cannot add something positive. I really do not want to argue about whether or not I should be asking this question. I am asking the question and nothing you say will stop me from seeking the answer.

Thank you

Sorted.
 

Reading the above, I have an answer for you.

The Airbus will crash :eek:
The 737 will not ( possibly ) :}
You want to fly on 737's. :ok:
You do not want to fly on A320's. :uhoh:
You most certainly do want to avoid flying in nuclear war zones. :=
There are ( currently ) ZERO nuclear war zones on the planet.

Hello Flightman --manager at LHR

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Obviously your answer that airbus will crash and boeing will not is not the technical answer I am looking for. I am sure my principal would be impressed if I repeat what some manager at LHR thinks without any technical explanation.

If someone really does have something sensible to add it would be interesting.

Bringin' obstinacy to new levels...
 

Let's assume we have two airplanes, 737 and A320, and there is sudden nuclear explosion at place relativelly close and equidistant from each of the planes.

A320 gets his FBW fried and spins out of the skies uncontrollably.

B737 gets his electrics fried and yes, it can glide, and yes it can lower its gear and yes, there's manual reversion but WHERE THE HECK WILL YOU BE GOING NOW IN 737 WITH NO AHRS, NO ADC AND NO STBY INSTRUMENTS EITHER (it's all solid state nowadays)?!?!?

Short answer - earthwards, rapidly.

Ok clandestino

Thats a bit better!

But are you certain" airbus will spin out of sky uncontrollably"

Airbus have already said they could add an option for the RAT to be manually deployed by cable from flight deck. (in the same way as another airbus, think they said A330 but not sure)

Assuming RAT deploys either manually by cable or by the standard automatic deployment, are you saying airbus will definately "spin out of sky" and if so can you back this up with any technical opinion.

I wouldn't be so sure that NEMP/DEW will never be a factor for civilian aircraft. For example, Iran recently made threats in Israel's direction. Never say never! who knows whats is in store for the world in the next few years.

FYI with 10,000 hours and 20 years flying experience, I think on a good day with a bit of luck i could pull off a double engine failure in the situation you describe. But at least the possibility of survival exists!

Thank you

1.) Aircraft do not have "unprotected" circuitry or every single lightning strike would fry our equipment. So it may not damage all equipment.

2.) Energy density is required to induce an electric field. The further away the lesser the problem. If you are close enough to have the circuitry fried your probably close enough not to have to bother for a landing anymore. :uhoh:

Try this:

http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/emp.html

more coming up when I can find it again.

EMP
 

error_401,

Are you a Ham radio operator?

WA3IKQ

Wow what a thread !!

If your boss is that worried about getting fired by a nuke, then I suggest you get a new boss !! Also, if you are figuring to get your jet EMP hardened, then you had best suggest he either:

a. Get some serious money to do the work (even the majority of mil jets will fall out the sky post nuclear event)

b. Go the other way and buy an un-refirbished DC3 (or equivalent). Even then, I think the compass would not be much use.

PS. As we are on an A320 thing, does anybody know the best cattle class seats on BA's 320's ? Got to fly in one soon, just hope I make it.....

:uhoh:

c130jbloke

I suggest to move the thread to the jet blast and asking for ideas on how to harden aircraft against NEMP. Should be fun. :}

Don't you think that the DC3 could be in danger of blowing the fuel in the tanks? This could be an additional threat. ;)

P.S. sorry forgot about the seating in an A320. I don't know BA's cabin layout but overwing exit row is a good guess. Usually slightly longer pitch between the seats. Front and aft exits are usually behind separation walls so of no use. Don't sit in the last row usually the seats do not allow for full travel back to relax position.

Look chum, I'm rated on the 737 (as well as the 747-400), and shortly will be re-rated on it. I do happen to know what I'm talking about. I'm glad you are so glibly confident a 737 would survive manual reversion- I am not so sure it is that assured. All instruments are supplied by the Air Data Computer, so they would go out. The Standby ASI is supplied with direct pitot static, so hopefully that would work, but not necessarily if the standby electrical system was burnt out.

You harp on about RATs. They would have electrical control systems that may be burnt out, so probably useless.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this. Can you advise me how many aeroplanes have ever had a problem due to EMP interference, and how much of a hazard you actually think it currently is to civil aviation? Do you think perhaps we could better invest in protecting aeroplanes from meteor strikes, for instance, or beef up the undercarriages so if an earthquake occured during the take-off/landing rolls, we would be better protected from disaster?

So you are writing to people demanding better protection from a hazard that:
*hasn't ever occured yet
*there is no likely prospect of it occuring yet.

E401,

Noted, thanks for the A320 tip. I figure that would be problem with the Nuke vs aircraft problem, its such a useful weapon for ending the world......

I still got to fly in that A320 though......bugger.

:\

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

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.

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?

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'!

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?

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.

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.

Q - That's the man we need - ! :}

...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. :D

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.

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?

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 :}

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.

From a post that may have just been deleted:

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.

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.

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:rolleyes: .

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

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?

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

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.

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.