Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Embraer 145s And Lightning  
User currently offlineRobertmalpass From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 46 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2734 times:

Are Embraer 145s more susceptible to lightning strikes than other aircraft?

There have been electric storms around BRS this evening and only the BA 145s were diverted to CWL and BHX, while the EZY 737s/319s managed to land at BRS with no apparent problems.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1334 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

Was it specifically because of the lightning or was it the severity of the storms?

User currently offlineRobertmalpass From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2721 times:

Only know they were diverted, not sure of the reason, but must have been the weather. In any case the storm wasn't that severe.

User currently offlineHb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

I've heard that yes, they are more susceptible to lightning strike.

User currently offlineWaukewan From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2635 times:

I've also heard that because of their electronics and navigation systems they are more prone to lightning than most other aircraft.

-Mike


User currently offlineTimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1334 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2609 times:

Quoting Waukewan (Reply 4):
ecause of their electronics and navigation systems they are more prone to lightning than most other aircraft.

That's interesting! I guess it can't be too serious a problem, except for the odd diversion. I wonder if E realised about this problem before they put the jet into production?


User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2999 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

I believe that there was an incident where an EMB-145 was struck by lightning in the UK somewhere. It caused both engines to shutdown. I do not think that it was determined if there was a problem with the FADEC electrically from the strike or if the super heated gases from the lightning strike caused both engines to stall due to the close proximity to each other and the airflow around the fuselage.
In anycase the FADEC did not allow the engines to motor through the event automatically and the turbines had to be restarted manually.

I will look to see where I saw that report and post it when I find it.

Okie


User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2999 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2497 times:

www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-RJXG_11-05.pdf

Here you go give that a try. Incident of lightning strike on an Embraer.

Okie


User currently offlineRobertmalpass From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2381 times:

Great thanks Okie! Interesting to see that E145s seem to be more susceptible to lightning. It's a shame as they're funky little planes.

User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2373 times:

Is it not more likely that the Embraer being so small makes it less stable in flying through rough weather. If you look at the flight cancelations when the weather gets bad, the express flights are always the first to get canceled

User currently offlineRobertmalpass From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

I'd heard it was more a function of their ILS category rating rather than the size of the aircraft. But not absolutely sure of this.

User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2999 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2223 times:

Quoting Artsyman (Reply 9):
If you look at the flight cancelations when the weather gets bad, the express flights are always the first to get canceled

It is going to be a combination of all the above along with ops.

1. Possibly a susceptibility to lightning problems.
2. Small plane in a rough atmosphere.
3. If weather disrupts operations then you are dealing with rescheduling fewer passengers when you cancel or divert an RJ.
4. If weather is effecting operations then an RJ is probably going to be scheduled for a short hop and is going to be right back in the soup for the next flight.
5. An of course most RJ lift is provided by SJP's and the diversion or cancellation is thrown into SJP's court to deal with the equipment and crew scheduling issues.
6. Some of the passengers will blame the delay of diversion on the SJP not the mainline carrier.

Okie


User currently offlineThegooddoctor From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2212 times:

I don't know if they are any more susceptible to lightning strikes than other airliners - they might be affected more adversely than others.

When I worked for Mesa, I heard a couple stories of our CRJ's getting hit. The worst I had heard as far as outcomes from this was that one CRJ lost a winglet due to a strike.

S



The GoodDoctor
User currently offlineUadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

we had a erj come in last week that was hit by lightning. it hit the antenna underneath that is near the forward part of the fuselage. it blew out #2 radio and litterlly split the antenna in half. "exit wounds" were on each wing and a bigger one on the trim tab on top.


bus driver.......move that bus:)
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1995 times:

I have never seen any statistics showing a higher incidence of lightning strikes on the -135/40-45, so I think the answer would be no unless someone can show otherwise.

Quoting Okie (Reply 6):
believe that there was an incident where an EMB-145 was struck by lightning in the UK somewhere. It caused both engines to shutdown. I do not think that it was determined if there was a problem with the FADEC electrically from the strike or if the super heated gases from the lightning strike caused both engines to stall due to the close proximity to each other and the airflow around the fuselage.
In anycase the FADEC did not allow the engines to motor through the event automatically and the turbines had to be restarted manually.

The fadecs control the engines...read the report; the engines (only 1 I believe) had a compressor stall that the fadec could not resolve; as it decellerated to around 53.5% N2, the fadec commands a shutdown to protect the engine. The report notes a normal borescope, and normally functioning fadecs for that engine post flight. If both fadecs on 1 engine are inoperable for whatever reason, the engine will shut down if running and cannot be started if shutdown, so the is no such thing as being "restarted manually."

[quote=Artsyman,reply=9]Is it not more likely that the Embraer being so small makes it less stable in flying through rough weather. If you look at the flight cancelations when the weather gets bad, the express flights are always the first to get canceled

That above comment is utter nonsense. An erj is a transport certified a/c, period. There is no distinction in capability b/t it and a 747 when relating to weather...with the big picture being that rough weather (precip, icing, etc) is to be avoided whenever possible.



Quoting Okie (Reply 11):
It is going to be a combination of all the above along with ops.

1. Possibly a susceptibility to lightning problems.
2. Small plane in a rough atmosphere.
3. If weather disrupts operations then you are dealing with rescheduling fewer passengers when you cancel or divert an RJ.
4. If weather is effecting operations then an RJ is probably going to be scheduled for a short hop and is going to be right back in the soup for the next flight.
5. An of course most RJ lift is provided by SJP's and the diversion or cancellation is thrown into SJP's court to deal with the equipment and crew scheduling issues.
6. Some of the passengers will blame the delay of diversion on the SJP not the mainline carrier

My comments:

1. Not a valid point
2. Covered in 2nd paragraph above
3. Airlines schedule equipment to try to "right size" the operation to the city and market; therefore pax off a cancelled RJ will have to be accomodated, in all liklihood, on another RJ, so a cancelled RJ is as big a problem as a cancelled 737 in terms of logistics.
4. Weather affects the entire system...


User currently offlineElectech6299 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Quoting Robertmalpass (Thread starter):
There have been electric storms around BRS this evening and only the BA 145s were diverted to CWL and BHX, while the EZY 737s/319s managed to land at BRS with no apparent problems.

Lots of variables to answer here, and I think many are barking up the wrong trees....

Only two airlines and three frames have been mentioned, out of hundreds of airlines and frames currently flying. So to pin your observation on the frame is not likely to be correct.

What if BA has stricter ops rules- or BA ERJ pilots (or frames) do not have current ILS certification for the prevailing weather? Then EZY ERJs (do they have any? just hypothetical....) could have landed but not BAs. If it's an ops rule, you might have seen EZY ERJs landing while BA 737s and 320s diverted.

What about CRJs? Any data on them?

There's way too many variables here for me to believe any diversions were based on rumors about lightning strikes. If someone has specific meteorological data from the time and knowledge of BA ops rules and how they were applied, I'm sure you'd get a more precise answer. Just some food for thought...

[Edited 2006-05-15 04:25:54]edits: spelling

[Edited 2006-05-15 04:28:07]


Send not to know for whom the bell tolls...it tolls for thee
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Embraer's Orders And Backlog Info posted Fri Oct 14 2005 16:04:44 by YV136C
Planes And Lightning On Video posted Mon Aug 8 2005 23:48:42 by JHSfan
Composite Materials And Lightning Stikes posted Thu Apr 28 2005 17:08:38 by FlyBeQ400
Embraer Questions And Observations posted Wed Mar 9 2005 18:44:52 by MD80Nut
Embraer-Jets And Alitalia Express posted Tue May 18 2004 22:59:34 by Futurestar68
Embraer 170 And Republic Airways posted Sun Apr 4 2004 07:05:22 by Hugojimenez
Airplanes And Lightning posted Wed Mar 1 2000 23:17:50 by Bimmer202
Airliners And Lightning posted Wed Jan 12 2000 04:59:58 by Matt D
VT-PAF Embraer And 5A-DMG Buraq Delivery posted Sun Oct 29 2006 18:17:08 by AirMalta
Hot: Embraer And Varig Close To Deal 4 Embraer 190 posted Wed Sep 6 2006 03:52:26 by LipeGIG