Lightning struck a British Airways Airbus A350 while at the gate in Sao Paulo – and it flew to London anyway, six hours late.
Amazing video captures lightning striking a British Airways A350-1041 at Sao Paulo Guarulhos International Airport.
Following an inspection the aircraft continued to its destination with a 6 hour delay.
@bernaldinho79 pic.twitter.com/xNnTXmBCJ4
— Breaking Aviation News & Videos (@aviationbrk) January 25, 2025
On average every commercial plane is believed to be struck by lightning at least once a year, however it’s been over 40 years since a crash has been attributed to a lightning strike. The fuselage of a plane will generally conduct electricity and allow it to transmit from the strike and generally out the tail.
Boeing actually reduced lightning protection in the wings of 787s in order to reduce costs and speed deliveries. They maintain that safety has not been compromised.
Lightning strikes can still cause damage. An Air Canada Boeing 777 was struck by lightning as it departed Vancouver and also continued to London’s Heathrow airport.
WOW ✈️
Air Canada Boeing 777 gets struck by lightning while departing Vancouver, BC over the weekend pic.twitter.com/91LcPoiVpS
— Breaking Aviation News & Videos (@aviationbrk) March 6, 2024
Here’s video from an Australian domestic Boeing 787 flight’s lightning strike.
Video shows Jetstar 787 damage from a lightning strike during a flight from Melbourne to the Gold Coast earlier this month. The aircraft has been taken out of service for up to two months. https://t.co/mlisXjSSub
📹 SMH/The Age pic.twitter.com/kuueAqDEMa
— Breaking Aviation News & Videos (@aviationbrk) May 17, 2022
The British Airways flight was thoroughly inspected, and while lightning is powerful, modern aircraft are well-constructed and this one was fine.
“Boeing actually reduced lightning protection in the wings of 787s in order to reduce costs and speed deliveries.” That’s the least surprising thing here. Yet again, today’s Boeing chose profits over safety (allegedly). Anyway, how’r those whistleblowers doing these days…ohmygodno.
Why is this a story? Your article suggests that it shoudl have been delayed further? How much longer, oh wise one, should it have been delayed? Not sure what the point of this article is.
@Jason
VFTW is not the Associated Press.
Also, Gary Leff doesn’t do what Gary Leff does, for Gary Leff.
Gary Leff does what Gary Leff does because Gary Leff is… Gary Leff.
“Boeing actually reduced lightning protection in the wings of 787s in order to reduce costs and speed deliveries.”
Nothing about reducing weight, huh?
The current event was a lightning strike on an Airbus A350 but there were three stories tied to this event that were about Boeing airplanes. On average every commercial plane is believed to be struck by lightning at least once a year but there was no reporting on all of them. As for the B787 reducing cost, time, complexity and weight while supposedly reducing the effectiveness of the lightning strike dissipation capability of the wings supposedly to a degree greater than required by the FAA was not what the FAA managers in charge found. Studies found that those areas of the wings simply did not get struck by lightning as often as presumed in the original engineering. The B787 has been in the air for quite a few years with both the before change models and after change models. Many have had lightning strikes but none have had fuel tank explosions related to these engineering changes as best I can find.
From the picture it would’ve been awesome if the plane was going 88 miles per hour when that happened.
@Christian
What ‘picture’? These were all videos.
Are you saying the plane in the second video appeared to be going slow? Ok.
But why say ‘88’ mph? That’s oddly specifically. Why not 90? 87? 110?
That gives me reasonable suspicion that you were attempting a ‘H.H.’ reference by using ‘88’ randomly. Or perhaps, you meant ‘14’ mph. We know.
We’re not fools here. Be gone, fascist!
Is that you by another name, @AndyS?
And if this was all just an honest mistake; then, please, by all means, return here soon for a heartfelt apology from me. Otherwise, watch yourself.
88mph refers to Back to the Future, with which anyone born in 1990 would be familiar, even if they’re a middle manager at a tech company who thinks they have a lot of money.
@Dick Nice.
@Christian Is that your reason?
@Dick
Or is this another one of those ‘no, no… that ‘awkward gesture’ was just a Roman salute’ excuses?
@Dick
One more! ‘No, no.. that swastika is just a Buddhist symbol for peace..’ (says a guy at a rally advocating for ‘mass deportations’ of brown people). Right… far-right…