I was flying into Orlando early last friday night from Denver. The weather was scattered thunderstorms, and I figured we'd maybe dodge around a bit then come in through breaks. On final approach about 5 minutes from touchdown, we heard what sounded like someone banging on the roof with a hammer in rapid succession. Simultaneously, the lights flickered and the whole plane lurches like someone had stomped on the brakes, then let up. Most of the window blinds around me were closed, but directly after that little incident the guy sitting in the window seat next to me opened his just as a flash and thunderclap went off, indicating a near miss. I figured that was the second of two bolts, the first one striking the plane. I turned around to get a look at what others were doing, and noticed the couple sitting behind me were suddenly embracing each other with worried looks on their faces. I chuckled. Had my wife been with me, she'd have been crying about then.

So we touch down and the rain is pouring down. We taxi to the terminal, but they won't bring the gantry out to us because the threat of lightning is high they tell us and that is their policy, so we have to wait 5 minutes till they get the all clear. I am fortunately sitting in the aisle seat at the bulkhead so I am the first one off the plane. I get on the shuttle train from the sattelite terminal to the main concourse, and as I am riding the train, I see another strike out on the runway, with associated whack resonating through the car. Now I happen to notice the train track also has a large steel pipe barricade running on both sides, and we are elevated up about 30 feet from the deck, so I figure what the heck in the 45 seconds it takes to get to the concourse what's the chance of taking another strike. Fortunately this time my luck holds.

The way I see it, that airplane is probably safer than being in my own house as far as getting electrocuted by a direct hit goes, but having it shudder like that on approach wasn't so cool. I guess I am surprised that MCO traffic control let us come in like that, but I guess they are used to it and know what they are doing. I try to be wary of the arrival and departure times for airports prone to daily thunderstorm activity, but this trip my choices were limited. In any case, there's not much anyone can do if the plane takes a strike and flight controls go wonky. Nice to know my heart can stop for a good three seconds without any real physiological consequences. Burning down the adrenaline while cooped up in that sardine can afterwards was a different matter. It's unsettling for the other passengers when the big monkey in the front of the plane gets real twitchy...

To quote George Carlin, that is not a "near miss", that is a near HIT!

You might also have been on a plane that left the first airport with enough fuel +10 mins of flying time. The airlines are trying to cut out all excess weight and that includes "excess" fuel. How many times have airplanes been stacked up in the landing pattern for an hour or two or three? The lack of fuel means that they no longer have a choice about waiting for a storm to clear before landing. Now they will have to land regardless of onground weather conditions.

Some of the airline pilots are raising holy hell. There was a news blurb about it on the late night radio news that I listen to while standing my Bridge Watch.

I think I'll stick to my plan to minimize commercial flying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFE-yMMWCvc&feature=related

Are you sure it was lightning?

If the airlines are doing that, they are violating FAA regs. By law they are required to carry enough fuel to make it to an alternate landing site and still have 45 minutes reserve. I think US Airways just got nailed for trying to circumvent that requirement. Nonetheless, like any regulated industry, such businesses will constantly try and push the limits of enforcement.

As for the old William Shatner/John Lithgow Twilight Zone episode, well, I deliberately didn't look at the wing. If there'd been something out there playing around with us, the big monkey I think would've lost it.

I am getting real tired of this same weather pattern. It got old last year, and May wasn't enough of a break for me. I need to go somewhere it don't rain every day. I swear, it rains more often here in Florida than it did in Seattle, and it is never just a gentle calming rain either. Even the west Texas storms I grew up with weren't this ridiculous!

I hate flying. I'll drive a hell of a long ways before spending any time on a plane...especially if that requries spending any time in an airport...evil places!

I'm going to attempt to clarify here.
Remember, what you read in the press about something you don't know about is as equally error-filled as the stuff you read about which you DO know about!

They are not leaving with 10 minutes margin. They are leaving with 10 minutes beyond FAA required minimums. There is always a minimum required reserve (Like- fly to destination, then fly to alternate, then have 45mins more fuel at cruise). What's being argued about is whether the aircraft Captain can demand even more fuel than that and still keep his job. And the story in more detail is not about firings it's about getting certain Captains additional training so as to try to sell them on saving fuel weight. (although I'd expect one's job could be on the line at some point.)

Some pilots are like ETSers who have 100lb BOBs. They want to be prepared at detriment to overall balance in the mission. My tailwheel airplane flight instructor (a retired 747 Captain) makes fun of the guys who won't fly with anything less than full tanks because they are unsafe at high elevation airports because they might not be able to fly off and climb due to excess weight. Why carry 6 hrs fuel for a 1 hour flight?

Long hold times are unusual anymore because they do the gate-hold and flow control dispatch instead. You may get to sit out in the penalty box on the runway for a couple of hours instead of burning racetracks in the sky somewhere.

Should your pilot actually be getting very nervous, he can declare "minimum fuel." This says that any delay will cause him/her to declare an emergency and get 1st priority to the airport. (and then cause everyone else to do the same :-)

The item to watch for is how much more frequent minimum fuel and mayday calls for fuel become.

Pilot talk over. (I'd make a lousy journalist because I'd report the facts.)

Yep, lightning on planes should be mostly a through and through event, without anything more than a hiccup in the electronics. I suspect it was a hiccup we felt as something got slammed off and then back on again.

As for US Airways, I thought they were actually directing the pilots to find ways to shave off the fuel consumption so they can claim it would take less fuel than it currently does, and thereby try and establish a precedent that would allow them to actually load less fuel onto the plane. If traditionally it takes 30,000 lbs of fuel for a 320 to go cross country with the required reserves based on nominal fuel economy, and US Airways is trying to make a case that it can be done with 27,000 lbs instead and still meet the required minimums, I think the pilots and the flying public might have some cause for concern. I never did see the particulars about what US Airways was trying to claim they could get away with, but putting pressure on the flight staff to corroborate such a claim seems unethical and a conflict of interest, IMHO.

It was something like 10 US Air pilots that got called in - the company was monitoring everyones fuel usage, and they noticed that those 10 or so pilots ALWAYS had way way excess fuel on board, so they were told to cut back how much the carried - the union went ape, because now they had a mark on their record, and they were protecting their members

I'm no pilot, but I'll side with them on this issue. Engineers build a plane with a certain fuel capacity for a certain distance, pilots carry what they feel is sufficient to get them there and then some, based on that spec. An airline might have an opinion that the flight could be accomplished with less fuel, owing to new wing tips or some other kind of design change. Opinions vary, that's why we have so many of them. Pilots following design specs on aircraft should not be punished.

I bet the pilots getting dinged for this are old pilots. There's a reason why they're old pilots.