PDA

View Full Version : Landing Lights in cloud - good or poor airmanship?


Tee Emm
15th Sep 2009, 12:55
Back in another life I flew military types and landing lights (night only of course) were switched on at 200 feet to illuminate the landing area and turned off immediately the aircraft was airborne. Landing lights were installed for night flying only. Strobes if fitted were turned off in cloud. Mostly we took off and landed without landing lights to keep in practice for war zones. (I hasten to add I was never in one)

In retirement I live by choice (love watching aeroplanes) near an international airport and the skies are full of landing lights from 10,000 ft down day and night. Often at night these lights can be seen as a glow as the aircraft depart or arrive through cloud. I often wonder how these pilots are not distracted when flying through cloud with landing light reflections in their eyes. Certainly their night vision must be seriously compromised - or is that not a safety factor anymore?

While I understand it is common practice (and even a Regulation perhaps) for aircraft to have landing lights on below 10,000 ft, surely good airmanship would suggest these lights should be switched off while in cloud or poor visibility in order to avoid glare and distraction to the crew caused by the lights reflecting back off clouds?

Or is it a legal minefield because there is a rule that says landing lights must be switched on below 10.000 ft in climb and descent? Are SOP's that pedantic that good airmanship is no longer a desired factor in flying airliners - but strict adherence to the book is?

Clandestino
15th Sep 2009, 13:15
Chill out, Dude.

I often wonder how these pilots are not distracted when flying through cloud with landing light reflections in their eyes

Well, while flying through cloud I usually don't look out the window as all clouds look similar inside - I've seen it before. What I can see on instrument panel is what I'm interested in. No glare from landing lights there.

Certainly their night vision must be seriously compromised

Dude, I'm IFR flyer, usually operating in at least class D aerospace. I definitively don't expect night VFRers to buzz around in clouds or that I can see them at night, in clouds - blinded by landing lights or not.

I don't use approach/flare lights on CAT 2/3 night approaches and if I estimate they'll impair my landing (eg. in blowing snow) For everything else they're on from runway to FL100.

jb5000
15th Sep 2009, 13:15
Our operator (A320) says landing lights on for take off and landing and can be switched off/on when appropriate. There is also a guide that during LVPs they may be switched off for landing to avoid any cloud reflections hampering your ability to view the approach lights.

This is allegedly a fuel saving measure as the landing lights rotate down into the airstream causing an (albeit small) increase in drag.

Whenever the lights are on in cloud I have never noticed the reflection off the clouds to be a distraction or to have an adverse effect on my night vision.

If I'm honest, with all that above, I think you're making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.

411A
15th Sep 2009, 13:50
Are SOP's that pedantic that good airmanship is no longer a desired factor in flying airliners - but strict adherence to the book is?

At some airlines, what we might call basic airmanship is thrown out the window, in some cases.
Yes, I switch OFF the landing lights in cloud, and if the clouds extend down to minimums during the approach/landing phase, they are turned on when needed.

Also, it might surprise some to know that the original poster is not what you might call a johnnie-come-lately, unlike some of the 'Dudes' that have previously replied...:rolleyes::hmm:

18-Wheeler
15th Sep 2009, 13:57
I often wonder how these pilots are not distracted when flying through cloud with landing light reflections in their eyes. Certainly their night vision must be seriously compromised - or is that not a safety factor anymore?

No amount of landing lights nor strobes have ever bothered me at night and/or in cloud. I realise it may do for others though so I turned them off if requested.
In the last couple of airlines it was SOP to have the landing lights on below 10,000'. I also turned on the second set of landing lights on the 747 when we received landing clearance on approach and when receiving takeoff clearance, etc.

Clandestino
15th Sep 2009, 14:15
No, dude, I didn't for a second consider TM to be Johnny-come-lately, like me. From his post he looks to me like incurable case of WWWOL*. Having your lights turned off in cloud has some beneficial effect on bulb filament longevity, it reduces generator load, decreases fuel consumption & carbon emissions and all other neat stuff tree-hugging-hippies care about. However, unlike military dudes, I'm not allowed to land on unlighted runways so night vision is not of major concern for me. Landing lights do enable me to see the runway in last 300 ft of approach or so, but more important to me is that they enable potential conflicting traffic to realize I'm pointing my nose at them and clear away in a good time. So I really want them to be ablaze as I emerge from the cloud below FL100.

Alas, being severely young and inexperienced, I'm completely unable to estimate my remaining distance to the far end of cloud. This shortcoming of mine has made me unable to use landing light in sparing manner. I would really appreciate if some old hands share his method of measuring the distance remaining in cloud.

*When We Was On Lightnings - English Electric, of course

Cough
15th Sep 2009, 19:43
Tee Emm

I'm assuming that you do see the benefits from having landing lights switched on in VMC, but then turned off in IMC. Now if I flew with a colleague who spent all of his life worrying about whether the landing lights should be switched on or off in patchy VMC (and cycling them on and off several times potentially burning the bulb more...) then I would mention to him the phrase 'distraction management'.

Worry less about the small stuff and please notice the mountain.

(we aren't trying to spot the MiG with our last remaining bit of night vision-Just fly an airliner safely)

Just my thoughts anyhow!

Capn Bloggs
16th Sep 2009, 03:23
Landing lights in cloud at night, especially going through puffy cloud annoy me. And yes, night vision is something to be considered.

Strobes in thick cloud at night really annoy me (and probably the pax sitting closer to them than me)! I turn 'em off (after I've turned the Eng Ant Ice on!).

Clandestino = Gen Y. How about being half nice? This is Tech Log, not Jet Blast. Tee Emm's probably forgotten more about aviation that C will ever know.

PantLoad
16th Sep 2009, 06:36
I simply follow my company's SOP, and I don't worry about nonsense like this. (Feel free to substitute another eight-letter word for 'nonsense'.)
My company has explicit direction with regard to this topic. I don't ask 'why'....I just do it. Now, everyone's happy......


Fly safe,


PantLoad

divinehover
16th Sep 2009, 06:41
The only lights required in flight by law (I think) are a beacon and Nav lights. Therefore it should be entirely at pilots descretion what lights he needs. During a LVP Autoland it should not be that unusual to switch off Landing and Strobe lights as these can be very distacting and serve no perpose. No other aircraft is going to see your lights when you in cloud anyway.

Conclusion: If the landing lights are bothering you in cloud, switch them off and switch them back on again for the landing if you wish.

DH

Clandestino
16th Sep 2009, 08:11
Whoa, Capn Bloggs, I meant no disrespect towards Tee Emm. I'm sure he is a cool dude whose stories, like how he misjudged closure rate to Bear-F on one moonless night over the North sea and had to barrel roll in order not to ram it from behind and yet keep him in sight, would blow many a sock off. Now if he wrote something along the lines "I've noticed that landing light timings on modern airliners somewhat don't conform to what I've been doing on Lightning", I guess he would get a sensible answer about "limitations of see-and-avoid technique, inability to maintain your night vision while flying over bright city lights, lack of significant light scatter in anything better than CAT1 RVR and that everyone & his dog nowanights carries C mode transponder". However he loaded his questions in a manner leaving little doubt that he considers everyone who follows SOP, and not what he was taught to do while fast-jetting around, a bit unairmanshippy. He comes across as quite tight, man. He really oghta chill-out more.

OTOH I'm not quite into SOP fetishist club and there's nothing in SOPs preventing me in applying a bit of sense now and then. If any of installed lights do cause distraction - they get switched off without much pondering or ceremony. Most of the time they don't.

BOAC
16th Sep 2009, 08:55
Well, C - obviously a bad day or two there! Was some lady in your acquaintance ever seduced or whatever by a Lightning pilot? By the way, The RAAF NEVER flew Lightnings and I don't think T-M has any intercept experience over the (UK) North Sea even, nor, possibly, seen 'Migs' in his miltary service - furthermore, I read NOTHING in his post the way you did.

However, I think we all agree that having the light switches in your reach means you do what you think sensible - and in multi-crew, by agreement. However, as 'cough' has pointed out, it is not a good idea to treat them as cloud indicators. For me, I find strobes distracting in cloud and I know the pax see them more than I do.

Other lights I use on a sensible 'be seen' principle, except for landing lights which are sometimes useful on runways with minimal lighting for me 'to see' to judge my greaser and certainly on the ground. It should be remembered that nothing in 'SOPs' prevents use of common sense.

Regarding 'night vision' - yes, I do try to preserve it.

bayete
16th Sep 2009, 09:17
I think it is a simple question of what is best for the current situation that you find yourself in. If you have a certain type of light that is distracting in cloud switch it off if or if you feel that it is lowering your night vision capability and you think you might need it for landing at a poorly lit airfield or for going en-route VFR then switch them off in cloud.
I have flown a few different types and in some strobes and landing lights are more distracting than in others, due to strength and position. I was able to switch to red strobes on one type if the whites were distracting which was useful.

I don't like quotes like "I simply follow company SOP...I don't ask why, I just do it, now everyone is happy" Well it does not make me happy, SOP stands for STANDARD Operating Procedures, very often in aviation things are not standard and blind adherence to the SOP may not always be appropriate. As pilots we must be able to think why has the SOP been written and decide if it is appropriate to deviate from it. Always bare in mind that you may have to defend your actions in an inquiry. Which I would rather do than simply following SOPs in a situation that could lead to an incident/accident.
Just my personal thoughts.

MrBernoulli
16th Sep 2009, 09:44
TeeEmm,

Landing lights also provide a useful contribution to the 'see and be seen' philosophy. Below 10 000', when there are all sorts of other distractions available, landing lights allow aircraft to be seen much further away when viewed from the forward quarter. This includes allowing airborne fauna to also see aircraft at a greater distance - feathered birds and engines are never a good combination! :ok:

john_tullamarine
16th Sep 2009, 10:15
Tee Emm's probably forgotten more about aviation that C will ever know

An observation ...

I have no knowledge of C's experience.

However, Tee Emm is in that group of PPRuNers counted on the fingers of one (probably) or two (just possibly) hands in terms of years/flying hours/breadth of military/airline/GA experience. No Lightnings but some dabbling in Mustangs years ago ..

If my flying and flight management were a fraction as good, I would be more than pleased with myself....

Now, Tee Emm would be the first to admit that he doesn't have the monopoly on wisdom .. however, one would be foolish not to consider his counsel ... even if, at the end of the day, you might choose to disregard it.

Centaurus
16th Sep 2009, 11:58
Chill out, Dude.


WTF is that supposed to mean? This is an English language forum for professional pilots. Try the Spanish (?) forum.

Denti
16th Sep 2009, 12:47
Lights on below FL100 is as far as i know something those IOSA audit guys want to see in your SOPs. But as someone mentioned above SOPs are for standard operation, sound jugdement might lead to a different conclusion for the situation at hand. Strobes and forward lighting in clouds are of course an example of that.

Of course our SOPs call for landing lights and runway turnoff lights on below FL100, logo lights during darkness. Outboard landing lights on with the landing clearance. Pretty standard stuff as far as i know. On the way up its all lights except taxy light on with take off clearance, outboard landing light off and retract with flaps up, the rest off at FL100.

Clandestino
16th Sep 2009, 13:13
How embarrassing... :O

Tee Emm, my apologies! I didn't browse through your earlier posts; I've gathered that you're ex-mil and that you reside in UK so I assumed wrongly that there was one less A in the acronym of the air force you've served with. When I read under occupation: casual hero, I've thought:"Well that wouldn't befit an ex-Jag driver, must be Lightning then." So sorry, sir.

I read NOTHING in his post the way you did.

Must be generation gap and/or my level IV English. I would only be too happy to be demonstrated that I've mistaken TM's style for substance and that actually what he wrote was a polite request for information, politeness and unassumingness of which were wasted on me.

you do what you think sensible

A policy which is the most successful when what one thinks is sensible and what is sensible overlap.

Regarding the airmanship: if I'm not mistaken, while RAAF operated Mirages, it was considered to be good airmanship to cross the threshold at about 3 ft and I'm pretty certain that ops manual of locally deployed MiG-21s from 70ies stipulates optimal TCH of 1 meter. Is it good airmainship to do so? If a)someone knowledgeable weighed the risks of undershoot vs. overrun and concluded that overruns are more dangerous and more likely to happen with increased TCH b) his calculation is vindicated and there are far less landing gears torn off by runway lip than there were bogged down behind the far end of the runway, then answer is, surprisingly: yes. Just because I strive to cross threshold at 50ft, it doesn't mean that everyone else has to do the same. Airmanship is knowing what will assure the optimum outcome of the flight and doing it.

Preserving one's night vision at expense of making one's aircraft less conspicuous is definitively a no-no. Night vision was important a couple of decades ago with feeble airport lights and scarce navaids and still is with a lot of outback operations. If I understood correctly, the original question was about transport category aeroplanes operating from intl airport and for these it has not much relevance as a) it doesn't enable one to see through cloud or fog on approach b) it gets ruined by bright approach lights on landing anyway. Concern when I turn the landing lights or strobes or beacon off is not about night vision but about reflections off the droplets that can make acquiring visual reference (i.e. app/rwy lights) difficult. However, I was taught that in cat 1 or better conditions glare is not strong enough to be impeding on visual part of approach and landing. I'm only too happy to report that, so far, my instructors seem to be right.

Are SOP's that pedantic that good airmanship is no longer a desired factor in flying airliners - but strict adherence to the book is?

Not where I fly. Anyone proclaiming good airmanship to be obsolete is in for a nasty surprise. Following the book is good airmanship 99% of the time. 1% makes the difference between pilots and sysops.

FullWings
16th Sep 2009, 13:44
To attempt to answer the OP from a current airline pilot's point-of-view:

...the skies are full of landing lights from 10,000 ft down day and night. Often at night these lights can be seen as a glow as the aircraft depart or arrive through cloud. I often wonder how these pilots are not distracted when flying through cloud with landing light reflections in their eyes. Certainly their night vision must be seriously compromised - or is that not a safety factor anymore?
As mentioned by others, it's a common SOP these days. As far as distractions go, on the types I've flown it's not a problem. If you're in an aircraft with manual engine anti-ice, it reminds you to turn it on if you can't see the 'visible moisture' on account of it being dark outside.

As far as night vision goes, I much prefer a brightly lit cockpit where I'm awake and not mistaking one button for another in darkness. An aircraft with lights/strobes on can be seen at a respectable distance, more so if the selection includes landing, wing & logo - so I like to make myself visible to the world in the same fashion, especially when over Africa et al.

We takeoff and land from lit runways so "night vision" wouldn't be of much use. I have a feeling that the intensities of modern approach lighting installations are such that they would probably ruin any adaptation, anyway.

While I understand it is common practice (and even a Regulation perhaps) for aircraft to have landing lights on below 10,000 ft, surely good airmanship would suggest these lights should be switched off while in cloud or poor visibility in order to avoid glare and distraction to the crew caused by the lights reflecting back off clouds?
As mentioned earlier, not many people find this a problem and if it is, the remedy is in front of them in switch form. If operating in very low vis. for takeoff, I sometimes compare lights off to lights on to see what gives the best results in the conditions, much like trying low/high beam in a car when it's foggy.

From what the engineers tell me, on modern aircraft the landing lights are powered up at a reduced level all the time to keep the filaments and bulbs hot, so when brought to full output there isn't much thermal shock.

Or is it a legal minefield because there is a rule that says landing lights must be switched on below 10.000 ft in climb and descent? Are SOP's that pedantic that good airmanship is no longer a desired factor in flying airliners - but strict adherence to the book is?

I think current wisdom is that it is better airmanship to make yourself as visible to others as you can in a congested environment and hope that they do the same for you. I, for one, have no argument against this particular SOP. If I did, my employer empowers me to use my discretion to vary any SOP I wish to in the interests of flight safety, if I can justify it...

john_tullamarine
16th Sep 2009, 13:50
Some thoughts ..

(a) SOPs are for standard operation, sound jugdement might lead to a different conclusion for the situation at hand

As I was counselled at the debrief after a 727 check ride many years ago by a chap whom I held (and still hold) in high esteem (one Brian G) .. "John, my lad, the Ops Manual omits an important exhortation on the front page, viz, to be read with a modicum of commonsense " He might have been a tad briefer than that .. but the idea is much the same.

(b) Following the book is good airmanship 99% of the time.

.. a similar observation, I suggest ?

captjns
16th Sep 2009, 13:54
Well... I suppose the basic simulator pilot keep the landing lights on, even whilst flying in the clouds, so the water droplets can avoid the jet. Can't speak for the others guys who fly airplanes:E.

Centaurus
17th Sep 2009, 02:11
We takeoff and land from lit runways so "night vision" wouldn't be of much use.

Don't tell that to the flight attendants. After all, that is the rationale for dimming the cabin lights for take off and landing so that in event of a passenger evacuation, the evacuees (men, women and children while the captain is supposed to go down with his ship) will have their eyes accustomed the dark as they go down the slides.:ok:

FullWings
17th Sep 2009, 06:47
Don't tell that to the flight attendants. After all, that is the rationale for dimming the cabin lights for take off and landing so that in event of a passenger evacuation, the evacuees (men, women and children while the captain is supposed to go down with his ship) will have their eyes accustomed the dark as they go down the slides.
Yeah. The more you think about it, the less that makes sense: you'd start 20mins before takeoff with very low level red lighting if you really wanted them to be dark adapted - which gets ruined as soon as the emergency lights come on, especially by the really bright ones shining down the escape slides!

It might be better to have the cabins excruciatingly brightly lit (sunglasses required), so that in the event of a nighttime evacuation, the passengers couldn't see to pick up their duty-free and luggage and didn't pause at the top of the slide because they didn't like the view... ;)

PENKO
17th Sep 2009, 09:04
Nightvision for passengers?? That must be something Australian :).
Do you also tell the punters to stop reading the paper and switch off that 100-watt-high-intensity-night-vision-killer-of-a-reading-light before takeoff?

On topic and as others have said, I have never found landing lights in clouds to be an issue, other than during night approaches with a low cloud deck. The strobe can be irritating sometimes, but I'd rather be seen... And as for the passengers, if they don't like the strobes they can use their window blinds.

Sometimes night vision has it's merrits in modern airline operations, such as night visual approaches. But then again, I'd rather sacrifice my nightvision than having such a dark cockpit that I can't properly read my approach chart...

Bigmouth
19th Sep 2009, 19:58
...or newspaper.

"SOP" these days amongst Joe Avg's seems to be to turn every possible light on max brightness, day and night. And who needs night vision when you don't look out the window anyway?
Even with wx at mins this is done. Try dropping a hint about possibly being able to see the approach lights a tad earlier if the landing, taxi and wing, as well as the floods on the inside are killed, and get rewarded with a quizzical stare in return.

If we didn't have the extremely detailed sop's that we do, most guys wouldn't know what to do anymore. That goes for lights, too.