Originally Posted by
jimf671
Sometimes that means the "Before we knew what we were doing generation."?
===================
I have been following the triggered lightning story because it affects availability for SAR training flights. The G-TIGK story already mentioned raised the conductivity issue and that has been mentioned by a number of people. The idea is that the changes in materials over the years has made susceptibility to TL damage worse because it affects the flow of an electrical charge around the airframe or can result in explosive vapourisation of materials. So those who say that 'we never had that in my day' may indeed be correct.
The change in manufacturing from traditional metal to composites and honeycombs has resulted in aircraft that are much more susceptible to significant damage when subject to a lightning strike. It's a well known phenomena that water is gradually absorbed into these structures over time. Introduce the massive energy of a lightning strike and the water than vaporises and expands, with the potential for some real and substantial damage. Add in the cost of replacing powertrain components following a strike and the corporate need to reduce risks and cost naturally kicks in.
S-61s used to get struck a lot, but apart from pinholes in blades nobody really blinked. I can remember seeing some very interesting photo’s of Bristow S76 blades when that was subject to a lightning strike and hobbled it’s way back into Aberdeen (I think it was Aberdeen).
The current TL MetOffice tool is a pain, mainly due to the lack of forecast stability. However it’s all we have and the real risks associated with being struck are only getting worse with modern aircraft.