Before anybody blames fly by wire maybe 'traditional' methods may have flaws as well, as a Boeing 777 started falling out of the sky yesterday, as passengers were told to switch off any electrical equipment as they were interfering with the planes progress.

Maybe Boeing has a catastrophe waiting to happen, lets hope not!

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...amp;sec=nation

Geordie

Geordie, that story is pretty frightening too, but once again, everyone survived. If you believe that the glass is half full, then yesterday was a very lucky day for fliers.

My mother was in a jet struck by lightning on its approach to Portland (OR) airport (just past Mt. Hood) and everything was fine. I have seen pilots interviewed on TV who said a plane can handle a lightning strike surprisingly well* under most conditions, although they like to avoid the situtation if possible. While touching the ground, maybe not so much.
Major kudos to the AF FAs for getting everybody out so quickly. It's astounding but wonderful that no fatalities or serious injuries occurred. I only hope there were no pets flying in cargo.

*Most commercial flights avoid the turbulent center of thunderstorms by flying over or around them. Perhaps more importantly, all commercial airplanes are outfitted with protective equipment. The shells of airplanes are generally made of either aluminum (an excellent conductor of electricity) or composite that contains conductive fibers so if the plane is struck, the lightning travels along the exterior of the plane then out into the open air. Sensitive electrical equipment is shielded with surge protectors and grounding devices. The FAA tests every crucial piece of flying and landing equipment against lightning.

Interesting Scientific American article on the subject:
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_quest...A9809EC588EF21

Also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4493047.stm

LoveItaly: Like your late DH, I always count the seats to the nearest exit--usually do this while the flight attendents are going throught their safety demonstration routine. And ditto on safe-flying clothing. Thanks for reminding us of these common-sense tips.

An article appeared many years ago in MIT’s “Technology Review.” It was entitled, “When Lightning Strikes, Close the Airport.”

It noted that if it had been a rule to close an airport whenever lightning strikes are detected within a 20-mile radius, fully half of the commercial aviation fatalities in a particular period studied would have been avoided. Some reports of yesterday’s accident report lightning strikes near the airport shortly before the landing.

If I recall, the article was not discussing only the effects of direct lightning strikes on planes. It was rather suggesting that nearby lightning be used as an indicator of the whole complex of risks that accompany thunderstorm activity - high winds, updrafts and downdrafts, poor visibility, and very wet runways, in addition to the probably small risks of the lightning itself.

The Boston Globe report quoted Chris Yates of Jane's Transport magazine as saying, “… it comes down to the judgment of the air traffic controller and the skill of the pilot to determine whether it's appropriate to land or to divert." But if 1,000 pilots, trying to avoid an annoying diversion of their flights, make a decision with 0.1 percent risk of an accident, that will be, on the average, about one accident per year. Perhaps we need some more quantitative ways of judging whether or not it’s safe to land.

In all probability, the next time we won’t be so lucky as to have no fatalities.

- Larry

If you closed an airport every time there were lightning strikes anywhere within a 20-mile radius, half the airports in the world would be closed half the time (almost). Lightning is an extremely common phenomenon, and it's not particularly dangerous to planes. While it tends to be associated with bad weather, weather can be very bad indeed without it, and conversely lightning strikes can occur in nearly clear skies.

Let us be grateful that not on died.

This morning they were interviewing stranded travelers at SFO, and they all were saying: we'rejust greatful everybody got out of that plane alive, we can wait for our flights. (I don't know what's the connection between Toronto and San Francisco).

Looking at those flames: it's a miracle.

AnthonyGA,

The article addressed the issue you raised: how often would airports be closed by the proposed policy. I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the article, I only have my memory of it (and the Technology Review on-line archives don't go back that far). The effect would be nowhere near "half the airports in the world closed half the time." Stop and think about that - if you mean it to be taken literally, it's clearly an exaggeration.

But yes, there certainly would be an effect on air traffic, and it was discussed in the article. Some airports would hardly be affected at all, but other major hubs, like Chicago in the summer, would be seriously impacted. It's the usual question of a tradeoff between costs (both economic and convenience) vs. loss of life.

I confess I'm not sure of the 20-mile radius I referenced; the proposal could have called for a smaller number. If I'm remembering properly, it was based on the study of a particular high-accident year in commercial aviation, in which fully half the fatalities would have been avoided by the proposed policy.

- Larry

flying from Spain to jfk tomorrow.(today)
hope the weather is nice .... i think i will get very anxious if we have to land in a storm after the news today.

There is no question about it being a miracle. My cousin was supposed to be on that flight but his stay in Paris was extended due to business.
What a turn to hear good news.

I don't attribute favorable outcomes to miracles. If I played roulette, and I hit an <i>en plein</i> number, I would accept it as something that happens an average of 1 time in 38. Inferring celestial intervention is unnecessary.

The same statistical principle applies to the crash.