Aer Lingus plane struck by lightning

ian_m

Aer Lingus has confirmed that one of its flights this morning was struck by lightning on take-off.

A spokesman for the airline says the aircraft immediately returned to Dublin Airport, which he said was standard procedure.

More here...

Tenger

This situation is 'routine'. Apparently all aircraft get get by lightening once per year. They took off (I heard it was the 1210 departure to LHR) climbing up, got hit, asked for (and got) an immediate return to DUB.

This is a news story in light of the AF447 incident on Monday morning.
However I'm sure it was very frightening for the passengers onboard.


In addition an EI flight 3-4 days ago had a multiple birdstrike, if this had happened just after the US1549 Hudson ditching it would have the same effect.

Run_to_da_hills

If it was an Aer Lingus A330 other than an A320 that got struck it would have made even bigger headlines.

tricky D

Bramble wrote: »

...asked for (and got) an immediate return to DUB.

Immediate or do they do some checks first for takeoff hits. Reason I ask is last year I saw and heard on liveatc an approaching RyanAir getting hit on wing about 7 nm from 28. Pilot let tower know of hit, tower asked for/proposed a go around, pilot agreed and headed off to Lambay for about 20 mins for checks.

random_banter

I'm aware that this is fairly routine. Just out of curiosity becuase i've never experienced it- what would the passenger experience be like in this situation? Would they have been climbing normally and the passengers heard a loud bang, something like that? Or nothing unusual?

*Kol*

random_banter wrote: »

I'm aware that this is fairly routine. Just out of curiosity becuase i've never experienced it- what would the passenger experience be like in this situation? Would they have been climbing normally and the passengers heard a loud bang, something like that? Or nothing unusual?

You wouldn't hear anything from the lightning. The cabin will light up from the brightness of the lighning itself though. I was on an A330 flight
last year where we went straight through a lightning storm. The cabing was lit up several times with the lightning. The noise of thunder claps when you are at cruising height is unreal.

That Aer Lingus aircraft must have been hit at the nose area for the crew to see that they had been struck by lightning otherwise they probably would not know (unless they have had indication/electrical problems in the cockpit)

Foggy43

All you will find are burn marks where the lightning did strike. The problem is where the lightning exited. You could find a hole. Could be anywhere, tail section, wing tips, a burnt out static wick.

All I have ever found was burnt out static wicks. The only function the static wick has is to eliminate static on HF radio.

Celtic Mech

*Kol* wrote: »

You wouldn't hear anything from the lightning. The cabin will light up from the brightness of the lighning itself though. I was on an A330 flight
last year where we went straight through a lightning storm. The cabing was lit up several times with the lightning. The noise of thunder claps when you are at cruising height is unreal.

That Aer Lingus aircraft must have been hit at the nose area for the crew to see that they had been struck by lightning otherwise they probably would not know (unless they have had indication/electrical problems in the cockpit)

Yeah...going thru an electrical storm you wouldnt hear anything unless the a/c was hit. My last onboard lightning strike was heading into Rome last November. Going thru Heavy weather..All of a Sudden a massive Bang noise followed by a huge white flash. No biggy if you know your about to expect it due to weather outside, but reckon it may not be too pleasant for unseasoned passengers/nervous passengers.

On an a/c all the parts/panels etc are all bonded to each other by either bonding leads or conductive strips. This keeps all the aircraft at the same potential...i.e. would cause no other area to be more/less resistive than another. When lightning strikes, it basically gets conducted thru te fuselage and exits to atmosphere..hopefully thru the static wicks. If an area wasnt bonded correctly, it would cause a potential difference with the possibility that area will be damaged if lightning strike occurs.

Once did an inspection after a strike...found the exit point of a blown out static wick...but when the lightning hit, its start point was an the crown (just over cockpit windows) and went all the way back along the top of the fuselage. Think we counted 50 odd separate entry/burn marks! Nightmare as they all have to be located, mapped for location then checked if the damage is within limits. If not your grounded immediately.

Kevster

Yeh, they're designed to take strikes. I just have a question though, guys: Isn't Aer Lingus' fleet made up of the same type of Airbus that crashed recently off the coast of Brazil? I heard that this type of Airbus has a known flaw with it's Pitot tube. Are they all repaired now or what?

Tenger

Kevster wrote: »

........ Isn't Aer Lingus' fleet made up of the same type of Airbus that crashed recently off the coast of Brazil? I heard that this type of Airbus has a known flaw with it's Pitot tube. Are they all repaired now or what?

Its not a 'known flaw', it an instruction by Airbus to upgrade their pitot tubes, if it was a flaw all the A330 would be grounded immediately. Its an ongoing replacement process. Am sure EI have changed theirs by now as their fleet is smaller than AF.

FlutterinBantam

This process has now been accelerated by all operators.

richievo5

i was on a ryanair flight that got hit by lightning coming home from scotland a few months back , and didnt have any affect on the aircraft

Kevster

Okay, if it's not a flaw, but the airplanes are still allowed to fly with it, doesn't this put extra pressure/difficulty on the pilots? What I'm getting at is: Why on Earth are aieplanes allowed to fly with old parts? It's not like a car where you break-down and simply stop on the road. If you break-down in the air, good luck to ya.

*Kol*

Kevster wrote: »

Okay, if it's not a flaw, but the airplanes are still allowed to fly with it, doesn't this put extra pressure/difficulty on the pilots? What I'm getting at is: Why on Earth are aieplanes allowed to fly with old parts? It's not like a car where you break-down and simply stop on the road. If you break-down in the air, good luck to ya.

What parts are you talking about? I'm not being smart but the majority of the parts on any aircraft are as old as the aircraft is.

Celtic Mech

richievo5 wrote: »

i was on a ryanair flight that got hit by lightning coming home from scotland a few months back , and didnt have any affect on the aircraft

How do you know that?! You, as a passenger, seen no consequences in the cabin..fine. But whats to say the cockpit instruments/radio's hadnt suffered any electromagnetic damage?! For all you know one or two of the EICAS or EFIS screens could have been ruined as a result. Very often in the Cabin you will see nothing...even looking at the a/c after its landed, for an untrained eye you will notice nothing wrong/damaged in the majority of cases. But the lightning damage could have made absolute sh!te of instruments!!

partyatmygaff

Celtic Mech wrote: »

How do you know that?! You, as a passenger, seen no consequences in the cabin..fine. But whats to say the cockpit instruments/radio's hadnt suffered any electromagnetic damage?! For all you know one or two of the EICAS or EFIS screens could have been ruined as a result. Very often in the Cabin you will see nothing...even looking at the a/c after its landed, for an untrained eye you will notice nothing wrong/damaged in the majority of cases. But the lightning damage could have made absolute sh!te of instruments!!

The pilots probably declared an emergency but seeing as it is a short-haul flight they probably were near the destination airport anyway so just emergency landed there.

I'd say it was something minor though or else they would of noticed something in the cabin.

Tenger

Kevster wrote: »

............Why on Earth are airplanes allowed to fly with old parts?..............

Thats sounds like a headline from The Sun.
All aircraft parts have a finite lifespan, be it hours flown or take-off/landings. They are replaced regularly. An aircraft is inspected after every flight and receives services far more regularly than a car. No reputable airline would allow its aircraft to fly with 'old parts'/

The replacement of pitot tubes is similarly to the regular updates your PC gets. There was no safety warning about them, as a/c get serviced they get replaced.

Kevster

I know that it's human (or rather 'Boards.ie') nature to object and refute everything that another user says, but we are talking about peoples' lives here. If these components had shorter replacement times, then accidents would reduce in number. Also, I am aware that some components can't be checked without completely dismantling the various parts of the airplane - How often does that happen?

...Why also do I feel uncomfortable knowing that the poorer nations of this world are flying airplanes that the richer nations no longer use (and had ben using for decades)?

Tenger

Kevster wrote: »

...Why also do I feel uncomfortable knowing that the poorer nations of this world are flying airplanes that the richer nations no longer use (and had ben using for decades)?

While this is true in a way you must remember that aircraft are designed to fly for 20-30 years. Planes not like a car or an ipod (or similar consumer electronic device) that will die 6 months after the warranty. (Saying that my 2nd Gen ipod still works fine!)

Planes get 3 levels of service throughout their life (A, B and C) CelticMech will explain better.

Aviation is completely safety consciuousous, accidents are very bad for business, look at Pan Am. The Lockerbie bombing effectively ended its career. Spainair have experienced very bad times since their crash at Madrid last year.

Mythago

Kevster wrote: »

I know that it's human (or rather 'Boards.ie') nature to object and refute everything that another user says, but we are talking about peoples' lives here. If these components had shorter replacement times, then accidents would reduce in number. Also, I am aware that some components can't be checked without completely dismantling the various parts of the airplane - How often does that happen?

...Why also do I feel uncomfortable knowing that the poorer nations of this world are flying airplanes that the richer nations no longer use (and had ben using for decades)?

Alot of components on aircraft are "lifed" i.e they have a set life, in flight hours or take-off/landing cycles. These are constantly under review & lengthened or shortened as required. To reduce replacement times on a whim would pretty much make aviation by far the most expensive form of transport on the planet(or off it for that matter), as well as ensuring a huge amount of aircraft never leaving the ground due to lack of spares.

A problem commercial aviation has is people's perception of "old". Passengers like modern a/c, you will often hear comments from people about flying on an old prop, even though this prop may be more modern than any other jet they've flown on. Poorer nations do fly older generation a/c, doesn't necessarily mean they're going to fall out of the sky. Generally, if an airline is banned from European skies then I'd avoid it (unless it was cheap & I was in a rush:D).

Think someone on here mentioned before about people's willingness to pay €20 to sit in any old taxi home but object to paying €20 to sit in a 5 yr old a/c with a fully regulated maintenance schedule, a highly trained flight crew & masses of support on the ground.

Celtic Mech

Kevster wrote: »

Also, I am aware that some components can't be checked without completely dismantling the various parts of the airplane - How often does that happen?

When Airbus firstly build an a/c, they go thru the type approval process etc. One of the documents thats involved in this is the Maintenance Planning Document. Essentially, this document tells at what intervals which inspections are due. There would be more restrictive, on aircraft that are ETOPS approved for certain ETOPS critical systems.
Usually C Checks, which are heavy checks, are done each year (18 months max). This is when a lot of dismantling gets done. But if some checks dont coencide with these heavy checks they must be done before hand.

Fratton Fred

I was on the 6:40 flight to LHR this morning so it was probably the same plane, St Ciara i think it was.

Good job it didn't happen when I was on board, it sounds like that could have woken me up

Wibbs

I was on a 737 back in the early 80's flying over the france when we went into a storm. Hairiest plane fight ever for me. All over the sky. Overhead bins opened etc. Mad. The bangs as others have said were horrendous. Lots of flashes too. There were screams and people praying etc(a party of people coming back from Lourdes were doing the rosary loudly). A fair few opened up their duty frees. Very Irish.:D My dad was chilled, which chilled me out. He told me he had been worse and proceeded to tell me lurid tales of near misses in flights he had been on and other tales of being on ships hit by lightning and st elmos fire etc. Then after a while in the middle of all this he actually nodded off:eek:.

When we landed my father put the talk on the pilot and he told him they had been struck twice, but that while it could cause damage it would be unlikely to cause catastrophic damage(then I was let into the cockpit and shown around. I must have been in the cockpit of planes in flight 6 or 7 times as a kid. It was almost a ritual and something to look forward to and the crew were always so cool showing me all the bits and bobs. Loved it:) Innocent days). I didn't feel or remember feeling the actual strike though. Hard to tell though as the thing was buckin like a cork in a storm at sea. Since that day and based on that, turbulence doesn't freak me so much. It is nothing short of amazing what sort of apparent punishment those things can take.

mandysmithers

Jesus h. Christ!! Being a very nervous flyer, I'd say I'd never get on a plane again after that. I'd probably die of a heart attack if there was a loud bang and a bright flash in the cabin.