Re: Aircraft and lightning

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: boris petkovic <petkovic7@xxxxxxxxx>

Hi Jim,





> I don't think the danger is underestimated.  I think
> that the planes
> are lightning proof.
-----
They are very *resilient* to lightning and they ought
to be.
Althought "never say never" is saying.
They will hardly ever be completely safe from all the
effects associating lightning.
If only were aircrafts simple enclosed metallic boxes
or indestructable Faraday cages from textbooks...
-----


> Both the 1975 Eastern Flt 66 incident at JFK and the
> 1985 incident in
> Dallas were thunderstorm related but not lightning.
>
>
http://www-frd.fsl.noaa.gov/mab/microburst/micro_course.html
>
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/coppenbarger/micro.html
-----
Looks like I'll have to double-check credibility of my
references or consult them with more care;)
Indeed,offical reports on the incidentss rejected
lightning to be the cause (becouse no evidences of
in-flight fire,explosion,or lightning strike were
found)

However,eye witnesses claimed both aircrafts
encountred lightning just preceeding crashes.
I bet that lightning had its' fingers in these
incidents.Moreover,a discussion of the indirect
effects of lightning on the Boeing 747 controls and
electronics can be found in:
"Postmortem for flight 66",IEEE Spectrum 12:35,July
1975.
-----

> >According to eyewitnesses ,they have strange
> >properties of being very bright (almost blinding)
> and
> >they produce explosive booms sometimes accompanied
> by
> >sounds reminding of artillery salvos.
>
> The one I observed was essentially silent (or, at
> least, you couldn't
> hear it over the relatively high background noise in
> the plane).

-----
Testimonies about untypical booms are usually given by
witnesses on earth,not by passangers aboard,I
pressume.

regards,
Boris