Lighten our darkness, oh Lord! The lighting thread

[markbavpilot]

Hi all,

1st post here so excuse me if this has been asked previously........

At what height/position are the cabin lights dimmed for landing?

On the other side, at what height/position are they turned back on again after a night time take off?

Cheers.

Mark.

[Crew_MYT]

Hi,

For landing the cabin lights are dimmed after the 'Final Cabin Secure' which is 10 mins to landing, they are then switched back on when we get onto stand.

As for take off they are dimmed again after 'Final Cabin Secure' after the crew have done demo and then switched back up after crew release - about 10-15 mins ater take off.

Hope this helps - this is just the way it is at my current airline.

[markbavpilot]

Hi,

no, that's great, I'm sure it is much of a muchness across the board?

Thanks again.

[Tarnished]

Never understood the logic of turning the lights off when all medical advice and practical thinking says it takes about 30 mins for the Mk 1 human eyeball to become fully dark adapted.

Subdued lighting so you can't see the fear in each others faces as you are about to meet thy doom, sense of smell is not affected by darkness. Any night adaption is probably going to be shot by the flash of the ensuing fireball. Guess it must be so that the pax are unaware that the fan has been hit when the generators drop off line. Do you really want to be locked in a dark cabin with 100+ strangers when everything goes pear shaped?

Face it, the lights are turned out so the crew can escape undetected, after all they know the aircraft, you don't

[jettesen]

the lights are dimmed so that if there is an emergency, your eyes will be focused to the brightest available light , which will be the emergency lighting along the floor.

[Tarnished]

ever seen how bright titainium burns???

[markbavpilot]

Whats the titanium got to do with anything :confused:

And it is correct to say they are dimmed so that you are acustomed to the dark should an evacuation be required.

[Tarnished]

Mark,

my appologies for not actually posting a reply which addressed your original question.

have just re-read what you asked and my responses. You are absolutely correct, the lights are dimmed so there is a chance your eyes might be "dark-adapted" when the power fails and you need to exit the aircraft into a dark environment.

However, if the CAA/FAA was really determined to enforce this principle to enhance the safety of the passengers why then does it allow you to continue to read by means of your own nice bright individual reading light???????? Spoiling your own night vision and that of the poor bugger sat next to you???

True flight safety only comes when you lock the planes in the hangar...


Fly safe

T

[kansasw]

"However, if the CAA/FAA was really determined to enforce this principle to enhance the safety of the passengers why then does it allow you to continue to read by means of your own nice bright individual reading light???????? Spoiling your own night vision and that of the poor bugger sat next to you???"

Only those few of us who can read, or insist on reading during landing, and yes maybe our less literate seatmates, will be vision-impaired if difficulties ensue. Perhaps we readers are in a diminishing and less-regarded minority.

Overall I think the number of survivors of a desperate situation as posited will be about the same cabin lights on or off, and mostly there is no way to analyze/statistacalize that anyway, so WTH sez I. Leave my reading light on at least, thanks.

[AVIACO]

A sparking or blazing engine will be far easier to see if the lights are out, and hence no internal reflections. I recently flew from BKK to HKT on a TG AB6 and none of the lights were dimmed for either TO or landing. As well as the obvious safety hazard, there was also the ire arising from the fact that you cannot see the beautful Thai scenery when the cabin lights are set to MAX.

Upon querying this with the Purse on disembarkation, I was told that she simply "forgot" to dim the lights.

Hmmmm....................

[Trislander]

The dimming of cabin lights for t/o / landing may be many a company's procedure but it is by no means a CAA/FAA mandatory procedure. It is recommended by the CAA/FAA but is not a ruling.

Any chance to get used to the darkness before all power fails is better than from complete brightness to pitch black, even if it is not the full 30 mins.

The reason why pax may use their reading lights is because as stated above this procedure is not a ruling and to some pax who may not understand why it is done, it is just seen as an inconvenience!

Crew_MYT:
--------------
Blimey, we're released between 30 secs - 3 mins after t/o!!!

Tri:ok:

[G-Foxtrot Oscar 69]

Can some one also explain why Easy have to dim the cabin lights for T/O & Landing in bright sun?

I guess money havs something to do with it like it saves 25p on fuel per flight.

[av8boy]

Whats the titanium got to do with anythingYeah. It’s the magnesium that’s going to be problematic.


Never understood the logic of turning the lights off when all medical advice and practical thinking says it takes about 30 mins for the Mk 1 human eyeball to become fully dark adapted. It’s not a switch that’s flipped at 30 minutes. Eyes adjust gradually. I'll take what I can get.


Only those few of us who can read, or insist on reading during landing, and yes maybe our less literate seatmates, will be vision-impaired if difficulties ensue. Perhaps we readers are in a diminishing and less-regarded minority.
How trite. I can read. I love to read. I'm highly educated. However, I never hesitate to declare a hiatus during the time just before takeoff and landing. I’ve never had to make use of my dark-adjusted retina during aircraft evac, but I’ve also never doubted the efficacy of this process. I’ll take any moral edge I can when it comes to getting out alive. Sometimes you’ve simply got to take advantage of the Darwin factor: survival of the dark-adjusted-est.


However, if the CAA/FAA was really determined to enforce this principle to enhance the safety of the passengers why then does it allow you to continue to read by means of your own nice bright individual reading light???????? Spoiling your own night vision and that of the poor bugger sat next to you??? What’s more, why do they allow pax to wear fabrics that will melt into the skin at the first sign of fire? Why do they not allow FAs to fine people on the spot for being up when the seat belt sign is on? In fact, why not mandate that seat belts be fastened at ALL times? Honestly, it would have saved lives…

Regulation in this area is not what it should be. That doesn't mean we should throw away what we've got. I apologize if I’ve offended anyone. I’m just really angry about lax cabin safety regulation.

[SyllogismCheck]

Hear what your saying av8boy and quite agree.

I for one choose to keep my belt fastened all the time I'm seated for obvious reasons, the trouble is that if the good people around me dont do so they may well injure me if they end up being thrown onto me during an encounter with clear air turbulence. Now granted its suggested in the pre-flight safety briefing that people stay belted up but only in passing and the reasons aren't explained fully or in any way graphically as it wouldnt do to suggest to them that something untoward could happen, they just dont want to consider the possibility let alone have it presented to them by the cabin crew.

As a point in case I once flew with someone who was truly terrified of flying. I knew about this for sometime before the flight and she kept asking me for reassurance so I suggested to her that it really is incredibly safe but if she wanted to feel as if she had done all she could to ensure some additional level of personal safety she might consider wearing shoes that would stay on her feet, natural materials that covered her legs and arms, checked out the locations of and counted rows to exits and stayed belted up as much as possible. Of course she asked the reasons for all these suggestions so I did my best to explain in a non dramatic fashion and simply emphasise that she would simply be giving herself a head start in as many ways as a possible.
Come the day of the flight she dressed in a flimsy synthetic skirt and flip flops, hardly ideal! I didnt ask why as I thought it would probably be enough to stop her flying at all to give her any thoughts about an incident on the day itself. I didnt need to ask anyway, it was simply a case of the fact that the only level she could consider the possibilities on was that of 'guaranteed' safety, to of prepared slightly for anything else would to some degree of been to acknowledge the possibility of something going wrong and was simply unacceptable to her, no matter how tiny and remote the danger.

This is the way the majority of pax think I'm afraid, to them its all or nothing and the only way they fly is with the illusion of assured safety, it doesnt really add up because I'm sure most of the people who neglect to wear their seatbelt in the cruise on an aircraft will wear one habitually all the time when travelling by car even though there is no crew to remind them to do so, perhaps they see a belt as a life saver there but cant in an aircraft environment where there there is little or no sensation of speed or movement or any understanding of the possibilities for unexpected turbulence and its possible violence.

I take my precautions without fail when flying, sure a situation could arise where they make not one jot of difference but then again one could arise where they allow me to help not only myself but possibly others. I'll take that option for increased safety just like I dont drive without a seatbelt. Others would do well to do the same but I think they have the mindset of the young lady I mentioned and simply will not, or maybe cannot, consider the possibilities.

[SkySista]

S-Check, agree totally.

I ALWAYS belt up when I fly (having once seen that NASA crash test footage with the dummies was enough to convince me if i hadn't been already!) :eek:, and I like to keep a hold of a seatback when moving about the a/c... Like you say, I just keep an eye out for the possible "large person" who may land on me or block the exit come an emergency....!

Reminds me of a quote by John Wiseman, the SAS dude, (about survival kit but also applies here to seatbelts)

The day you'll need it is the day you leave home without it....(or don't wear it etc)"

Sky

[mr Q]

BA on LHR late night longhauls used to tell its passengers that cabin lights were dimmed before takeoff to enable passengers to have a better view of London at night.
Query- What level of turbulence will necessitate the cabin crew being told over the PA during meal service to take their seats for safety reasons?? This was a Virgin HKG-LHR and LHR-HKG sectors

[astreau]

I always thought that, just like in a car, the lights were dimmed so the crew could see through the rear-view mirror!!

[ultimatepro63]

during a p.e lesson at school today near heathrow airport i couldnt help but just notice a air canada a340 on finals as it got closer to the runway just before dissapearing under the trees a bright white light came on (rather like a landing light) but then turned off and after another a340 on approach done the same thing but it was on...off..on..off it was a very bright light from the right hand side seemed like it was coming from the wing ???:confused: :confused:

[Flightsimman]

Hello all,
I have only recently noticed on some Qantas 737-400's that when on final approach their landing lights seem to flash alternatively.
Is this a recent thing and what is the reason, i.e. to prevent bird strikes ?
Regards,

:ok:

[Itswindyout]

who might be on the runway, a bit like the honking of the horn, or manic waving of the hands as you approch the crossing.

windy

[Dash-7 lover]

Don'y think there's any specific reason for it but if anyone watches an ATP or J41 you'll notice that whilst on the ground the anti-colls are flashing red but the moment the wheels leave the ground they switch to white. Not sure what that's all about??

[GK430]

Most modern aircraft have two settings for the landing lights. Constant required at night time for obvious reasons.
Flashing adds to conspicuity during daylight ops.
I think Gulfstream were one of the first to employ this, but happy to be corrected.

[WJman]

I have only seen this on 737 series airplanes. I was on a maintenance course and the I was told it was a way to have the aircraft noticed by possible conflicts on landing and take off, birds, other aircraft ect..
It had been shown that the steady beams were not very visible during the day and the solid beams were something that other aviators are used to and it can go unoticed due to constant exposure.
I was also told that the intermittent lights did not affect the view of the pilots as they only go off momentarily then on again.
Having said that I have never seen any other types fitted with the flashing or rotating light cycle.
The flashing you see is basically a rotation from on to off of the inboard and outboard landing lights as well as the taxi and turn off lights.
Hope this helps.

[BOAC]

At least 6 threads available on this - found via search, so far I have only gone back to 2002.

[Juud]

Quick question, if somebody has time & the inclination to answer, I'd be obliged.

Flew home the other day as pax on a 737. Halfway the flight, suddenly most of the cabin lights switched off. Apart from me, it didn't seem to alarm anybody at all, the CC carried on serving food until the cockpit call bell chimed. The lights came back on a while later.

Purser later mumbled something about a generator having given up the ghost and the pilots having had to switch on the APU.

How does that work?
Do the engines drive a generator that powers the lights?
Never knew the APU could be switched on inflight, always see it get switched off before?

Any light to shed? :)

[BOAC]

I do not have the full details of the busbar feeds for the Classic and NG 737s wrt cabin lights. I know that the 'Jurassic' 737s had half the lights on each busbar, so that a generator or engine failure would put out half the lights. I will try it the next time I can (before departure!) for my benefit. Maybe someone here knows?

It sounds as if what you heard is correct, and maybe either the ceiling or wall lights went off? It would take the crew a minute or two to light the APU and connect it to the 'failed' busbar.

A correction to Rainboe's post - on the NG, the APU can supply electrical loads up to the maximum certified aircarft altitude of 41,000'. The limit of 37,000' is for the 'Classic'. Once again Chris Brady (http://www.b737.org.uk/apu.htm) has the info!

NB For Rainboe - some companies have different limits:)

[Juud]

Knowing people that know stuff..... :ok:

Exactly as you say BOAC, half the lights went off, and yes it was on a Jurassic.

So if I have understood this correctly, each engine has its own generator, and they are what is normally used for electricity during the flight. In addition, there is the APU, normally used for the generation of electricity on the ground. With many airports forbidding its use longer than 30 mins before departure time because of the noise pollution, this leave sthe cabin often too hot or too cold for pax boarding, and us FAs begging the pilots to please switch it on.
The APU can also be used inflight and it's no big deal.

Thank you very much gentlemen, anmother bit of ignorance dispatched. :ok:

BOAC, Mr Brady now in the favourites; even if reading him is hard with my limited technical knowledge. Still very enlightening.

With the 2 of you in a benevolent mood ;) would it be possible to explain
"engine bleeds off take-off" to me?
What is it? :confused:

[BOAC]

Surprisingly I cannot find this on CB's site:) .

In order to produce more thrust at take-off, the aircraft can take-off either 'un-pressurised', or 'pressurised' by using the APU compressor to provide an air supply. This reduces the bleed air demand on the engines, thus either reducing the exhaust temperature at take-off or allowing more thrust to be used.

[Juud]

A tad condensed there BOAC. ;)
In order to produce more thrust at take-off, the aircraft can take-off either 'un-pressurised', or 'pressurised'
Errrmmmm..... :confused:


Both unpressurised and pressurised take-offs produce more thrust than a 'normal' take-off?
So for 'normal' take-off there is a third option? An if so, what would that be?
More thrust at take-off would be needed for taking off from a shortish runway, for taking off at a high altitude airport where the air is thinner of for a take off with max TOW?
OK, for a likely even more stupid question, what is the function of this 'extra' air provided either by the APU's compressor or the bleed air from the engines? More air at higher pressure makes for faster/more powerful fuel burning? :confused: I do realise that you chaps are indulging me here, and that understanding all this is of no use whatsoever to an ageing trolley tart. It's just that I've always been more interested in technical stuff than in reading the Hello!

[BOAC]

I do realise that you chaps are indulging me here, and that understanding all this is of no use whatsoever to an ageing trolley tart. It's just that I've always been more interested in technical stuff than in reading the Hello! - always happy to 'indulge a 'trolley tart':)

Point 1) You missed the rest of the quote off - or 'pressurised' by using the APU compressor to provide an air supply. - does that clarify?

Point 2) Not sure what you mean.

Point 3) Yes

Point 4) The 'bleed air' - from whichever source - is used to supply air at a higher pressure to various things, including, in this case, the air conditioning packs.

[Juud]

Ah yes yes yes! <jumps up and down in ppruning chair excitedly>

I think I am getting it BOAC. It was the punctuation doing me in there. (of course nothing to do with the fact that I don't know my **** from my elbow regarding jet engines)

The extra thrust take-off is achieved by either doing an unpressurised one, or by achieving pressurisation through use of the APU compressor rather than 'stealing' bleed air from the engines, correct?
<looks expectantly at BOAC for a gold star in copybook>

Which inexorably leads to a next question (that saying about a fool and ten wise men has a lot of truth in it) in fact something I have wondered about for years. But I'll save that one for tomorrow, because I will first have to figure out how to make you understand what it is I don't understand. :uhoh:

Also, you well deserve a break from my badgering. :)
Thank you so far. :ok:

[panda-k-bear]

I could give you a gold star if BOAC's not around... Just an extra little bit of info re. APUs and 737s - in order to operate an ETOPS 180 flight (a la Aloha Airlines from the west coast to Hawai'i), the 737 has to have the APU running for the duration of the flight as it has no RAT. It's good safety wise but doesn't half drink fuel up quickly!

[DC8VideoMan]

It had been a very long flight in the Arrow Air DC-8/62, transportng C.A.R.E. supplies from Frankfurt to Baku and Ashkhabad in Turkmenistan, unable to shut-down, all but one engine for power while unloading and fueling, since old soviet APU's were considered a weeks vacation in the heartland.

While returning to Istanbul to pick-up a B-707 engine for the return trip to Frankfurt, extremely tired and way-over our legal limit, communications with Moscow ATC sucked 90% of the time. Following NDB's not on our charts, the controllers throughout the trip continued to make our flight less than enjoyable. (No...they didn't have the coordinates for the NDB's but conjured up something for us) We managed most of the way, even though I had a First Officer right-out of training, with absolutely no international experience.

Here we are trolling along near Tbilisi Georgia, on a computer flight plan issued by a kid in Miami's Operations.....when Moscow says, "You must turn left now...turn left, turn your lights off, you are in a war zone!"

The "oh crap" factor kicked-in, the lights were turned off, and a hard left was executed. We later discovered the State Department Notams about that area were readily available to our dispatch, which in-turn was suppose to flight plan us accordingly, while also providing the Notams....you idiots!!

Well, we lived, didn't get shot-down, and kept-on trucking towards Istanbul when ATC tells us that Istanbul cannot accept anymore traffic, therefore descend and fly direct to the Ankara ??? outer marker.

WHAT??? "Hey first officer, pull-out the Ankara ILS!" Quickly please!!

FO: "I can't find it??"

CA: "Ask ATC for the info, including the ILS information."

While on approach to Ankara in the middle of the night with about 1 mile visibility from dust, we lose all hydraulics.

Our F/E and the mechanic did a great job through the night, and by mid-morning we were off to Istanbul to pick-up the jet engine, that would not fit through the door. Six hours of this and that, they managed to load it, and off to Frankfurt we flew.

A little secret was waiting for us upon arrival. We were laid-off.

Ahhh, the life of a Freight Dog, Miami style.....

Capt. Dave Bertrand (Ret.)

Disclaimer: Capt. Dave lives in Tennessee and retired early, living on his 30 acre cattle ranch, and promotes his DC-8 DVD video, sold in over 14 countries since 2001. He would not have ever traded flying freight around the world for flying passengers between Rochester and Atlanta for United, when he had the chance. Dave Bertrand asserts that international freight pilots are some of the best pilots in the world, and are paid a whole lot less.

[Luke_f]

lo folks,

About 2 hours ago we had a C-130 leisurely fly over the house below 100ft. It was heading South West towards Exeter. The house being in West Dorset at the top end of the Exeter approach (roughly). Nothing odd about that I know. Saying that we just had a Chinook pass below 100ft heading North East. Last week it was Merlins.

What was odd about this C130 was the array of lights on the rear of the plane. On the left and right wing (as seen from behind) were three white lights. They were evenly spaced from one another. There were two lights on the rear of the tail. One on top and the second half way down. I have provided a picture below depicting what i saw.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/ElliotCarver666/lights.jpg
(The yellow dots represent lights)

Now I've seen C130's at night from all angles many times. Spotting and at work (Civie at RNAS Yeovilton). Ive never seen these lights before. Without coming across as a conspiracist the first thing that ran through my head was it looked like a landing guidance assist system of some sort. I might be talking nonsense and the lights might be a part of the Herc i never knew about - I'ts why im asking.

Cheers, :ok:
Luke

[ATCO17]

Known as Station Keeping Equipment (SKE). A means for pilots to line their aircraft up on each other during night formation flying.

[chevvron]

Been in use for at least 15 years to my knowledge.

[Bigt]

There was a far bit of night flying (mil) in the East/Mid Devon area during the early hours this morning

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<About 2 hours ago we had a C-130 leisurely fly over the house below 100ft.>>

I'm very sorely tempted to say I cannot believe this, but I have to accept what you believe to be the height. If it did that over my house it would hit my radio tower!!

[Luke_f]

Lo folks,

@ATCO17 Cheers buddy. Cleared up a little mystery in the house!

@HEATHROW DIRECTOR lols the amount of time ive spent in Yeoviltons VCP i know my heights :P and yeah it is low. It used to be 3 - 4 times a night untill we complained about 5 years ago. Not that we mind much, just a new aerial was built right in the flight path where they used to pop over the ridge. We got fed up holding our breaths at 3am wondering if were about to witness a 130 losing its wing!

cheers folks :ok:
Luke

[ATCO17]

Luke, you're welcome for the help there, but I have to question your height assessment....Fixed wing Mil aircraft (apart from light ones) are only allowed to transit below 250 feet in certain areas of the UK, and even then, not below 100 feet MSD (Minimum separation distance), unless departing / approaching an aerodrome. I'd accept that a C130 might look lower, but if he was below 250 feet in your part of the world, he was perhaps bending the rules a little!

[Stretchwell]

The lights are formation lights and absolutely nothing to do with SKE. All your talk about " below 100ft" etc is, I'm sorry to say, a load of ill-informed rubbish. :=

Ok, rant over !! :oh:

.....but it does annoy me when such complete garbage is written !! :rolleyes:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Problem here, with the greatest respect, is that Luke f is a young person and possibly not an aviation professional and perkin does not reveal his details so we have to assume that he too is not an av prof.

It is a fact of life that the human brain is almost incapable of accurately assessing heights and distances. During my working life I fielded any number of telephone calls from pilots, ATCOs and other aviation-types who believed they had seen something "scary" aloft, ie two aircraft about to hit. In every case, the aircraft were legally separated.

It's no good us professionals TRYING to tell them otherwise... I escorted a group of anti-noise people round Heathrow ATC once. The rather stupid chairman told me in no uncertain terms that he was concerned about Heathrow inbound a/c flying down Windsor High Street at 5-600 feet. He would not accept that he was wrong. I showed him the SSR which proved that the aircraft were around 1,200 ft but he would not have it - claimed we had "fixed" the radar for his visit!!

This very day my wife and I came back from Jersey on a fast catamaran. We wathed two large ships through binoculars and were convinced that they were keeping very close station on each other - no more than yards apart. As our ferry turned north across the track of the ships we saw that they were actually a couple of miles apart!!

The only professionals I would ever believe regarding estimated heights are met observers. They can estimate cloud heights to a very high degree of accuracy. Everyone else....? No way Jose!

Don't forget what Father Ted said: "This one is small; that one is a long way away".

[Stretchwell]

Dear Perkin - you are suggesting night time below 100ft in peace time in the UK?? Sorry but garbage is being kind to you - you really are out of your depth on this topic. I suggest you restrict any contributions to topics you may have any knowledge of and not make ridiculous remarks on a subject that you obviously do not understand.

Nothing personal, honest !!

[robin]

I hear what you say about flying heights, but from my house in Mid Devon (it seems like it's a turning point from the Exe Valley towards Dunkeswell) I can see C130s night flying from my lounge window.

The house is at 400' AMSL, and when sitting in my chair on the ground floor the a/c are below this height using the valleys as a standard route.

I would estimate flying heights of some of these a/c at around 300' AMSL/200' AGL in my area

[Stretchwell]

Hi Robin. A Herc could be 149 feet below the level of your lounge and still be 251ft MSD (Minimum Separation Distance) so totally legal (although I am presuming the valley floor to be at sea level). Hercs are big and often look much lower than they are in reality. Flying in the valleys can also give the impression that aircraft are lower than they actually are.
Hope you enjoy the flybys !!

[robin]

I'm not objecting to the fly-bys, except, perhaps that being so low in the valley, they tend to disppear behind my hedge

[Stretchwell]

Glad you enjoy the flybys - from what you say they are perfectly legal and legitimate training for our guys.

[FutureController]

I've heard different things about the custom when switching landing lights on and off for commercial airline flights. I live about 50 miles from KLAX - right under a route for some of the Eastern-bound flights - mostly from 24L/R (I am just at the Southern base of Saddleback Mountain). The pilot(s) are typically just switching the lights off as they go over my place between 18,000 and 24,000 feet and roughly 400 knots, but this varies by about 40-60 miles. Am I correct when I imagine they are going through some sort of post-takeoff checklist and the 1st officer gets around to this about 15 minutes after wheels-up? How does this work?

I just love planes, want to fly someday, just starting my commercial flight and Aviation Science degrees at Mount San Antonio College, and fly as much as I can on FSX. :) Any words of encouragement and/or knowledge are more than appreciated! I am so jazzed about the 787 rollout.

Scott

[411A]

The procedure varies by company.
Some switch off the landing lights at 10,000 ft, others at a higher altitude.
The very best of luck with your future flying.
I've been at it for over forty years...and still going.
If you have more questions, ask away, or send a PM if you prefer.

Of course, I can't answer about newer types, I've been in the 'ole L1011 for a very long time...28 years to be exact.

Ah....Lockheed.
Superb.:)

[BelArgUSA]

Hola Scott -
xxx
Yes, in the USA, many airlines do a "climb check" at 18,000 feet, like switching lights off, and twisting the altimeter to standard at that time, maybe even call the cabin staff for an "emergency" cup of tea. As 411A says, other airlines, other countries do all that "climb check" at 10,000 feet.
xxx
I see you are at Mt.SAC... Used to lecture occasionally there in the 1970s, they have among the best aviation curriculums. Lots of famous people were around there too, Ray Lahr (designer of the CR-3 whiz wheel), Clay Lacy (famous pilot now retired from UAL, Learjet/FBO operator, and speed records and his College in the Air flying a UA DC8 with Mt.SAC students over the N and S Poles). Is Bob Thomas still around...? (Captain and Training Mgr. with FedEx, ex Flying Tigers) - Well, you are in good hands. The who's who of Califonia aviation is there.
xxx
Unfortunately I am far (in the Deep South, Buenos Aires, ARG), I am an ex PanAm, still flying 747-200s and soon to retire on a Brazil beach as D.O.M. (dirty old man), but if my buddy 411A cannot suggest answers to your questions, you can always hit on me, I still remember FAA rules are. Where do you fly from...? Riverside, Chino...?
xxx
All the best to you -
:)
Happy contrails

[FutureController]

I posted this thread, but it comes up under someone else and asking a different question. I believe I posted it here - In the appropriate forum, so it should not have been moved.

No - you posted it in the correct forum, wrong thread. Your question was about a/c lights. We decide if it should be moved, not you.

Again...What are the rules/customs in the US regarding landing lights on/off? I live under a major route from KLAX and noticed it varies by about 75 miles as to when they switch the lamps off. Is the co-pilot simply making his way through a checklist? Explain...

If you read the responses thoroughly and sit for a moment to think about it, the answer could be obvious and don't forget, it is the Captain's decision when to put the lights on or off - or just leave them on if he/she wishes.

Scott

PS-Wow...It comes up fine in the reply section. Very strange.

Take time to get used to your new toy?

[FutureController]

So, when you're throttling-up from 250 Knots you begin the process of turning the lamps off? This doesn't sound right. The 18,000 foot mark does though...That's about where they are at this point and they're up around 400 Knots. Nearly all of the aircraft are within a few minutes of eachother doing this on this route.

Ahh...I hear one passing over me now. Must be a DC-9-XX if I can hear him!

[tyne]

Hi I live on the approach to Newcastle Airport UK (EGNT) in Tynemouth on the coast.

Aircraft coming to land at RW25 come over the coast at arond 1700 feet preparing for the left turn inland and down onto the runway.

At night I notice most have their landing lights on some way out. You can see them coming from the South for some time. Other aircraft display nothing more than the regulation nav lights and strobes.

Someone once told me landing lights had to be used beliw 10,000 feet.

Has this rule changed? Is it just personal preference? I had thought it might be because of cloud - the landing lights making anoying reflections and things like that. But over the recent clear spell we've had, I've seen several decent sized aircraft 737/320 size coming in minus all but the minimul illumination.

Can anyone explain please?

Thanks


Dan