https://simpleflying.com/jetstar-boeing ... ng-strike/

Jetstar has grounded one of its 787s (VH-VKL) after being severely damaged by lightning strikes on May 7th.

The video of the post flight inspection is doing the rounds and is showing quite extensive damage, including multiple scorch marks and, more worryingly, a multitude of small holes in the fuselage skin.

It will take up to 2 months to repair.



While searching if this had been posted already, I stumbled onto this old thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436861&p=21856757&hilit=lightning#p21856757

Wow.. That looks really bad.. Is this normal? I'm sure many 787s have been struck by lighting over their years in service.. Did the lighting protection fail on this particular aircraft?

Francoflier wrote:

https://simpleflying.com/jetstar-boeing-787-lightning-strike/

Jetstar has grounded one of its 787s (VH-VKL) after being severely damaged by lightning strikes on May 7th.

The video of the post flight inspection is doing the rounds and is showing quite extensive damage, including multiple scorch marks and, more worryingly, a multitude of small holes in the fuselage skin.

It will take up to 2 months to repair.



While searching if this had been posted already, I stumbled onto this old thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436861&p=21856757&hilit=lightning#p21856757

These aircraft had the protection from what I’ve read

Good job it wasn't a Qatar Airways 787!

Doesn’t look that bad to me, they will assess the damage, design and execute a repair and then good to go.

pugman211 wrote:

The question becomes why did the lightning not follow the path to the static discharge wicks? Surely that is their function.

This is perfectly normal, you see lightning entry and exit points all over even on metal aircraft

zeke wrote:

Doesn’t look that bad to me, they will assess the damage, design and execute a repair and then good to go.

I agree.
When I read "holes", I imagined something much worse; that video was shot up very close, those are small shots.

Isn't the outer skin sacrificial when it comes to lighting strikes?

I wonder where the exit points are? Normally there is both an exit and entry.

Does remind me of the DL-772 that was struck 43 times coming into SYD one time, sat on the ground for a week then was ferried low to SIN for repairs.

Anecdotal - but at my airlines the 787s did seem to ‘attract’ more lightening strikes than the 767 and 777s!

pugman211 wrote:

The question becomes why did the lightning not follow the path to the static discharge wicks? Surely that is their function.

Static discharge wicks are to prevent static charge from building up on the airframe from friction against the air. They are not designed to handle lightning strikes or discharge. If the lightning finds it's way to a discharge wick it will be blown off the plane.

zeke wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

The question becomes why did the lightning not follow the path to the static discharge wicks? Surely that is their function.

This is perfectly normal, you see lightning entry and exit points all over even on metal aircraft

I have never seen lightning damage this extensive on an airliner before. A few popped rivets? Sure. But not dozens of holes straight into the skin (sheetmetal or other).
Those holes are not that small (some bigger than a rivet head) and appear to have some depth to them.

I wouldn't call grounding an airliner for 2 months to repair lightning strike damage 'normal' either.

I don't know whether that CFRP structure is more prone to damage or whether the lightning storm they encountered was particularly strong, but that's certainly not a typical lightning strike event or outcome.


I'd like to know how the repair will be made. I'm guessing Boeing has developed patching techniques.

Francoflier wrote:

zeke wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

The question becomes why did the lightning not follow the path to the static discharge wicks? Surely that is their function.

This is perfectly normal, you see lightning entry and exit points all over even on metal aircraft

I have never seen lightning damage this extensive on an airliner before. A few popped rivets? Sure. But not dozens of holes straight into the skin (sheetmetal or other).
Those holes are not that small (some bigger than a rivet head) and appear to have some depth to them.

I wouldn't call grounding an airliner for 2 months to repair lightning strike damage 'normal' either.

I don't know whether that CFRP structure is more prone to damage or whether the lightning storm they encountered was particularly strong, but that's certainly not a typical lightning strike event or outcome.


I'd like to know how the repair will be made. I'm guessing Boeing has developed patching techniques.

Yes, ET 788 ET-AOP "Queen of Sheba" suffered a much larger/worse hull fire back in 2013 and was patched and has been flying since w/out issue.

GlobalAirways wrote:

Yes, ET 788 ET-AOP "Queen of Sheba" suffered a much larger/worse hull fire back in 2013 and was patched and has been flying since w/out issue.

The ET bird was not so much 'patched' as 'rebuilt-in-situ'... The repair was extensive and took a specialist team from Boeing.
I would hope that fixing a lightning strike, albeit a severe one, would not require that sort of effort.

How would the repairs differ from a normal ramp-rash damage/repair, if any?

pugman211 wrote:

zeke wrote:

pugman211 wrote:

The question becomes why did the lightning not follow the path to the static discharge wicks? Surely that is their function.

This is perfectly normal, you see lightning entry and exit points all over even on metal aircraft

I agree that every strike has an entry/exit point regardless of material, and I do view this incident as normal too. I just thought maybe there would be a dedicated discharge location(s) on the lower half of the fuse that's all.

So, all in all, is this a non event?

Technically, the path of a lightning is ground to clouds, hence bottom to top on an aircraft.
A lightning will go originally cloud to ground, finding the path of least resistance (hence the zig-zags); once this is found, the discharge (major part of the energy) goes ground to cloud on that path.

scbriml wrote:

Good job it wasn't a Qatar Airways 787!

I'm missing something here...

Avatar2go wrote:

The effects of lightning can be very random. On this aircraft, the lightning protection system worked, as the goal is to protect the aircraft systems. There is damage to the outer skin, probably due to heating of the conductive and outermost layers. The heat is what causes the holes to develop. It can be repaired but will take some time.

The other consideration is whether the aircraft encountered positive or negative strikes. Positive strikes are far more powerful, but occur less frequently.

Avatar2go wrote:

The effects of lightning can be very random. On this aircraft, the lightning protection system worked, as the goal is to protect the aircraft systems …

… and the passengers, the aircraft and the reputation of both the operator and Boeing. My guess is that it achieved all goals presented perfectly.

Avatar2go wrote:

WesternDC6B wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Good job it wasn't a Qatar Airways 787!

I'm missing something here...

The reference is to the Qatar claim that paint peeling on A350 aircraft exposed, and in some cases compromised, the lightning protection system. Which resulted in the grounding of some aircraft by their regulator, and a major spat between Airbus and Qatar. But this situation is quite different, both as to aircraft, problem, and circumstances.

Now, I remember.

Francoflier wrote:

I wouldn't call grounding an airliner for 2 months to repair lightning strike damage 'normal' either.
.

Although to be fair, the article says "It could take up to two months to repair" not "will".

Is JQ maintenance completely separate to QF? Will the repair be done by QF? Or is all major maintenance at the QF Group outsourced these days, so that the distinction is immaterial?

vhtje wrote:

Is JQ maintenance completely separate to QF? Will the repair be done by QF? Or is all major maintenance at the QF Group outsourced these days, so that the distinction is immaterial?

I believe the QF was famous for saying words to the effect that new aircraft don’t need maintenance