As Peter has pointed out, the highly conductive TKS strips took the load. All the damage seems to have occurred at the fasteners attaching the strips to the composite wing. I am wondering whether the overall bonding to produce a Faraday cage effect was comprised by the TKS strips and whether the initial design criteria included those strips.
That degree of damage is very worrying. Was it referred to Cirrus for comment?
Aviathor wrote:
At one end of the scale this article posted by Rwy20
Huh, I think that must be a mix-up. The only link I posted here was to the AOPA Air Safety Institute’s online course on the limitations of Nexrad?
Aviathor wrote:
My comment is partly based on one lightning encounter I had, which I related here, after which I clearly question the reliability of SS to keep you out of electrical activity.
I hope we are all here to learn from each others experiences and knowledge. Its that Ive had practical experience using this device for 30yrs in the muck since Im non-turboed. There are a lot of pilots who read (according to Peter) but dont contribute probably due to language reasons, that could come away with a misconception about SS limitiations as well as being struck by lightning. Fortunately the tread did continue to state that you dont have to be inside a TS to get struck by lightning. A stormscope will warn you of such an event. Please read the tread about “How useful is a Satellite WX or stormscope system for avoiding TS?”
NCYANKEE has made some good real world experience points along with Peter. I also explained in that tread Post #43, my reasoning why I prefer the SS over data linked lightening if I had to choose.
Ted.P wrote:
Ted.P 25-Jan-16 10:09 #34
As Peter has pointed out, the highly conductive TKS strips took the load. All the damage seems to have occurred at the fasteners attaching the strips to the composite wing. I am wondering whether the overall bonding to produce a Faraday cage effect was comprised by the TKS strips and whether the initial design criteria included those strips.That degree of damage is very worrying. Was it referred to Cirrus for comment?
I wonder if the same degree of damage would have occurred on an AL airplane. Or was the plane not produced properly with mesh bonding material inbedded in the composit airframe.
I know that O&N Flint tip tanks had to have wire mesh as part of the tank construction to be certified.
Rwy20 wrote:
Huh, I think that must be a mix-up.
Yes sorry. It was NCYankee.
C210_Flyer wrote:
A stormscope will warn you of such an event.
Oh, it warned me all right. It was just way too late. It went from one cell 20NM at 10 o’clock and another one at 2 o’clock to being surrounded by strikes. And I did not know what else was around me because non-turboed, I was in the muck.
There seems to be some expectation that bonding &c can protect the aircraft from any damage and surprise at the level shown. All CS23 states (23.867) is that the aircraft must be protected from catastrophic effects from lightning
It does not say anything about sustaining no damage. I have seen several airliners first hand that have sustained damage that have left the aircraft grounded with skin panels requiring replacement (and others with damage to the onside electrical buses.) These photos suggest something not dissimilar – the aircraft survived the strike and landed safely requiring maintenance action, so entirely in keeping with the certification.
Josh wrote:
the aircraft survived the strike and landed safely requiring maintenance action, so entirely in keeping with the certification.
Certification won’t entirely protect you as this accident http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=17435 shows. The lightning strike destroyed large parts of the tailplane.
I’m afraid I don’t read German – is there an English version of that bulletin? Flying in the vicinity of an very active thunderstorm as a recipe for disaster in all respects though. Our ops manual prohibits us from flying within 5NM of an active CB at low altitude, and I would not wish to be any closer in a light aircraft.
C210_Flyer wrote:
I wonder if the same degree of damage would have occurred on an AL airplane.
http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184456-1.html
Aerostar. In brief, a few holes, melted fasteners, and a small chunk taken out of the prop.
