EK 380 hit by lightning

Lightning My thoughts went to the Plastic Pig and I went hunting for possible answers

Lightning – My thoughts went to the Plastic Pig (Boeing 787 Dreamliner) and I went hunting for possible answers

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/boeing-787-withstands-lightning-strike/

“…The 787 flight test team gathered the unexpected data last month after one of the Dreamliner test aircaft was struck by lightning. Unlike traditional aluminum aircraft where the entire aircraft is conductive, on a composite airplane the charge from a lightning strike would find its way to the conductive parts such as wiring or hinges. In order to avoid the risk of the charge damaging these kinds of parts, Boeing had to add conductive material to the composites in order to provide a pathway for lightning strikes…”

“The added weight to protect the airplane from lightning strikes ended up being more than Boeing anticipated. The material was one of the factors that pushed the Dreamliner past its target weight earlier in the development process.”

“Boeing 787 program manager Scott Fancher told Bloomberg News the strike occurred during a flight in the Seattle area. Fancher said there appears to be no damage to the airplane, adding engineers continue to study how lightning will affect the composite airplane. The company will further test the affects of lightning with simulated strikes while the airplane is on the ground later this year…”

http://blog.seattlepi.com/airlinereporter/2011/04/27/short-take-fasteners-in-boeing-787-dreamliner-wings-require-re-work/

Granted the topic of delay of re-working the fasteners is already on a different thread but it’s relevance to lightning strikes is why this extract is here.

“…thousands of improperly coated fasteners inside the Boeing 787 Dreamliner’s wing need to be replaced to help protect against lightning strikes.”

“…The FAA requires that all joints and fasteners not produce sparks around fuel after a lightening strike. Since the majority of the aircraft is made of composites, it is vunerable to arcing from one metal part to another. Boeing flies their test fleet of Boeing 787s with special anti-static additives. When the first Dreamliner, ZA001, was hit with lightening, it received no damage. 35 Boeing 787′s that have already been built which will require the re-work,…”

Here’s an older thread on the same topic on this forum http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=72839

The sidebar on the right of the article lends credence to their sensational story. 😎

Arthur

I think we are getting our wires crossed on what “non event” means to each other.
A lightning strike to aircrew, and to engineers etc is a big deal, I am talking about the reporting of such an event by the media.

“Terrifying Moment”
“Amazingly, it landed minutes later”.

etc etc etc.

This is nonsense, lightning strikes happen all the time, and probably every day to aircraft around the world, you will be familiar with the “Faraday Cage” that is the fuselage. This aircraft landed without incident and with barely a mark on her. Hardly worth reporting to be honest, but most certainly not in the vain the DM reported it.

Fair enough – I wasn’t aware what they found on the inspection that made it into a non-event.

I’m just not sure how you dismiss it as a non-event just by looking at the video though.

Google a recent Lufthansa 737 incident to see what can happen. A Qantas 737 turned back the other day because of a lightning strike – they didn’t think it was a non-event.

You’re right, they were events, but we’re talking exclusively about the reported “event” by the Daily Mail that was the EK A380 that was on approach into Heathrow. Where is the event? There isn’t one. I think maybe you’re being picky for the hell of it.

Of course they would report it, they have to. Any potential damage or anything that could affect the airworthyness has to go into the tech log

Sounds like an event to me.
I would have thought that anything that requires reporting is an event. A TCAS RA, a heavy landing, lightning strike, bird strike etc – all reportable events I would have thought. Anything that may require further action really. It is probably trivial to the pilots but non-trivial to the engineers that had to carry out an inspection that may last many hours.

The fact that there were no problems is a testament to the design – it wasn’t always like that. To this day lightning strikes can cause problems if there is incorrect bonding or such like issues. Google a recent Lufthansa 737 incident to see what can happen. A Qantas 737 turned back the other day because of a lightning strike – they didn’t think it was a non-event.

I don’t think I said anything about control problems did I? I’m not dressing anything up, I’m only saying what has happened to me. If another operator wants to treat lightning strikes as non-events fair enough. We didn’t.

Of course they would report it, they have to. Any potential damage or anything that could affect the airworthyness has to go into the tech log.
So you are saying the 3 times you were hit you had control problems with damaged controls? That’s fine, but that’s extremely unlucky to have had damaged controls on all 3 occasions. Blackened fuselage and blown static wicks also is not an event, you can’t dress up your lightning strikes with this because this would happen as a given, it’s just the by-product of such a strike.

We are actually talking here about the EK 380 that had a lightning strike on approach into LHR, as you can see it was reported that the Emirates 380 landed without a scratch and without harm to the 500 passengers on board. Is that an event? It absolutely is not an event. There was no damage to flight controls, no electrical problems, no systems failures. Infact the plane landed normally without a glitch, it’s a complete non event. On post flight inspection they might find a bit of blackened fuselage & a static wick blown off but so what? It’s a complete non event.

If this is a non-event then the pilots wouldn’t report it so nobody would know when an aircraft had been struck. The three times I’ve had lightning strikes in the aircraft I was in were far from non-events, damaged controls, static wicks blown off and blackened fuselage at the entry and/or exit points. All the aircraft I’ve been involved in had a post-strike inspection that had to be carried out – that makes it an event in my book.

Imagine finding the entry/exit points on the A380, could take some time.

Arthur.

As a pilot I’ve been struck by lightning, it was a non event. Post flight inspection and repair to the hole in the fuselage does not make it an event, that is what they are designed to do (as you well know). Had the plane had systems failures, loss of electrics yadda yadda and then had to make an emergency landing then that could be classified as an event.

While aircraft nowadays are designed to be safe if struck by lightning, I’m not sure I would describe it as a non-event. Certainly the lightning strikes I was involved in required post flight inspections, testing and repair work.

Lets hope their fuel tank inerting and wiring are OK.

No-one ever failed to make money by re-affirming people’s prejudices, mrtotty.

The Daily Mail is a complete and utter rag, designed only to titillate the ignorant and uninformed and make lots of money in the process.

Unique frames in Video

Unique frames in Video.

Flight crew should keep it as a memento

All modern aircraft are designed to act as lightning conductors.

Reporters are morons. Good picture, and some minor hassle for the engineers, but as Dean said, an utter non-event.

Cracking video indeed.

Rubbish bit of reporting, but a nice video though!

A complete and utter non event. Amazing how the Daily Mail says “Amazingly, the Emirates service from Dubai landed safely minutes later, with not even a scratch and its 500 passengers and crew unscathed.”