In light of the recent plane disappearance from radar screens, the TV news is already interviewing experts claiming that lightning strikes is no issue for an airplane. How is that possible? You mean, it will never ever short-out, fry, or scramble the circuitry onboard an aircraft? Including radio, GPS, and other (often auto) transmissions from the aircraft?
I find this very hard to believe when a simple power surge will cause a PC havoc. I say the experts want us to continue to feel safe when flying. Perhaps the truth is too scary for the general public? Factual explanation(s), anyone? I mean, planes just don’t disappear…and the experts seem so puzzled; yet, isn’t it obvious? What aren’t they saying? - Jinx
Lightning travels around the surface of the airplane, usually leaving whatever is inside unharmed. It’s the same principle as why the Faraday Cage works.
Lightning will on occasion cause some damage to airplanes, but usually the damage is minor, such as pitting on the skin of the aircraft or the loss of a communication antenna or some such. The key word there is “usually”. On rare occasions, you can get some major damage, including loss of the aircraft.
Generally speaking, lightning strikes in aircraft are not serious. I’ve been in an aircraft that was struck by lightning, a couple of the radios got fried but turning them off and back on fixed them, other than that there were no other electrical problems. Back on the ground we discovered about seven small “holes” around the aircraft where the lightning had entered/exited. Our company operate in the tropics and each wet season there is normally at least one lightning strike on an aircraft, it has not yet caused any major problems.
That is not to say that thunderstorms are not dangerous, thunderstorms contain up and down draughts that can cause severe turbulence that in extreme cases can cause structural failure of an aircraft. They can also have severe hail which isn’t good for your aircraft either. Thunderstorms are to be avoided whenever possible, normally by a margin of 20 nm at altitude, but lightning strikes are probably not the biggest danger associated with thunderstorms.
It is still possible that a lightning strike was responsible for the Air France accident, but there are other possible causes that may be more likely.
BTW, the plane didn’t “disappear from radar screens” there is no radar coverage in the area that the aircraft crashed. I know, you would have got that idea from the media reports, but it’s not accurate. And you’re right, aircraft don’t just disappear, and this one didn’t either, it crashed in an area where there is no radar coverage and poor air to ground communications, so details are initially sketchy.
I hope this isn’t too much of a threadjack, but… why does lightning strike planes at all? They’re not grounded, are they?
I was sure the answer here was going to be that lightning doesn’t strike planes for this reason. Glad I didn’t get here sooner; I probably would have embarrassed myself by confidently asserting this nonfact. :rolleyes:
Maybe the lightning strike doesn’t strike the plane per se, but the plane’s in the way ? Or maybe the plane’s fuselage provides better conductivity for that “leg” of the trip to ground than air ?
(BTW, I failed physics. Hard. So, you know, those are both wild, wild ass guesses)
Radar offers something close to line-of-sight coverage. So targets at low altitude will not be seen even when reasonably close to the radar transmitter, nor at high altitudes if far away. Oceans would thus be coverage “holes”, as would many remote areas over land.
Heaps. There is a good map of Australia with the radar coverage floating around, but I can’t find it. This is the best I can do. Radar coverage tends to be concentrated around populated areas with significant air traffic. Anything oceanic will have no coverage. Places like the US and Europe are almost entirely covered by radar, but a sparsely populated country like Australia is not.
Looking at that map, it seems that you can fly from Canada down through the Dakotas right into the middle of America without registering on radar. Colour me suspicious.
Isn’t that because Canada and the US have some sort of integrated system? So the US has access to all the RADAR around Canada’s border as well, and well - they’re not particularly worried about Canadians (or at least weren’t).
Sure. The point of showing the map is not so much that there are gaps, but that there are almost no gaps. The US has a lot of radar coverage. By contrast, the ocean has no coverage and unpopulated or poor countries have very little coverage. Given that most of the world is ocean, there are large regions that are not covered by radar.
BTW, I mistook the Austalia map, it is an airspace map, though the radar coverage map looks very similar, I just can’t find it.
Me, too, although when my aircraft were hit, there was no interior inidication–just a flash and a very muffled whump which was very hard to hear over the drone of the engines, earplugs, and headset (some people heard it; I didn’t). On landing, one of our antennae (one of these little sticks) was blown open where the bolt left the plane. The other time we got hit, I think we lost a static wick. Neither time did I hear a thing, or the did plane so much as hiccup.
My definition of “fried” is different. When my sailboat was hit by lightning all the electronics fried with “fried” here meaning they were dead and had to be replaced. And the compass was pointing towards the Vatican.
