Early in the month Keith posted an interesting evaluation of lightning protection...It included this: This explains why the Cone of Protection concept we'd been teaching is inaccurate. Well, I'm not so sure....Here is a slightly different perspective..all the experts may not agree: While I don't know what "inaccurate" means, other experts still use the cone of protection as a criteria for improving lightning protection, not guarranteeing protection. For a number of years the University of Florida has carried on fundamental lightning research ...articles which can be found at their website.. The following is a University of Fla sponsored discussion on boating protection which utilizes a cone of protection concept.... http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000001-d000100/d000007/d000007.html Note that although it was originally produced 5/85 and it was reviewed 4/02 so it sounds reasonable current......... Keith's source makes a good point when discussing multiple cables forming a (shuttle) protection grid....shrouds on a sailboat offering some of this especially when properly grounded....This is better than a single lightning rod. A grid begins to approach the condition studied by electrical engineering students: the electric potential inside a sphere is zero....outstanding lightning protection (but no guarantee!!) and the analagous situation where the metal shell of an auto body offers riders protection when enclosed..... So for the unfortunate listee already struck by lightning, a pilot house may offer some increased protection and definitely would if metal such as handrails and shrouds above were properly grounded....Sheathing the top in copper,for example, further increases protection.... This reminds me of the "whistle signals in fog thread": it's just better to steer as wide a course as possible from the disturbance .... (No, I don't have any association with U of Fla.) Cheers, Rob Brueckner 1972 Hatteras Yachtfish