Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 February 26
| Science desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 25 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 27 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
February 26 edit
Static discharge and lightning igniting fuel edit
According to the article Pan Am Flight 214, the plane was damaged due to lightning igniting fuel vapors. The response was to install Static discharger on aircraft. I read the article on that, and it seems to be focused on preventing static electricity build up from interfering with cabling and electronic equipment. What I don't get is how discharging static electricity would prevent a lightning strike from igniting fuel vapor. Can someone explain? RudolfRed (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- From reading our articles, Static discharger and that on the flight, I don't think it would have helped in the situation with Flight 214. If you look at the report, this was only one of a number of the recommendations made to FAA Wikisource:Aircraft Accident Report: Pan Am Flight 214/Attachment II in response to the accident which the FAA then implemented Wikisource:Aircraft Accident Report: Pan Am Flight 214/Attachment III. I'm fairly sure it's common the CAB/NTSB and FAA will feel that what was discovered from an accident suggests the need for something, even if that probably wouldn't have helped in the specific accident. This may have been even more common in the past, when there were still a lot of unknowns. See also the report itself, especially the end Wikisource:Aircraft Accident Report: Pan Am Flight 214. The modern FAA's lessons learnt also doesn't mention static dischargers but does suggest the accident was one of the key catalysts for further research etc that lead to improved protection against lightning strikes [1]. This, while maybe not the best source (NY Daily News) is also perhaps of interest [2]. As may be obvious from Inerting system, something which arose, at least in part from flight 214, is still an ongoing issue. Nil Einne (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- I suspect an indirect lightning strike could create a static charge (flying through where a bolt passed, or by electromagnetic induction as the bolt increased and decreased in intensity). Wnt (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)