Runway lighting Spacing
 

Looking at Runway lighting at various airports. No where can I find what the spacing is. Where as I am told on airports overseas the runway light spacing is specified for runway edge and center line lighting for each airport and it is normally on the page indicating what the Take-Off minimas are.. Am I looking at the wrong place if so could somebody please enlighten me.

Thanks

new

Standard edge lighting spacing for instrument runways is 60 metres.

.... and centreline lighting is 30 metres, except that if runway is intended to support CAT III operations or take-offs with RVR below 400 metres, spacing should be 15 metres.

Great thread, I am about to look into some solar powered lights, and was about to think about rough numbers required.

Made that job easier for budgeting :ok:

In the UK all the necessary characteristics and design parameters for aerodromes are set out in CAP 168 http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP168.PDF I imagine the rest of the world will be pretty similar

New ifr, you need too slow down a bit, take a deep breath, and just accept the fact that the airport authorities will provide the lighting required !

LMGTFY :E

Let me google that for you

Credits to CS...I wonder why they closed the thread :confused:

If he is new to IFR it would be kinda nice for him to be able to count the 14 lights required visibility though.

@ TCAS FAN - "Standard edge lighting spacing for instrument runways is 60 metres."

Be careful with that statement, as an example Taree used to be 90 metre spacing, I doubt anything has changed.

Not many country "IFR" airports are 60 metres.

Assuming that we are talking about international airports within ICAO Contracting States, each State will be a signatory to the ICAO Convention, Article 38 of which requires each State to notify Differences to the ICAO Standards. In the case of lighting, Standards are set out in ICAO Annex 14, Volume 1, at Chapter 5. Courtesy of a friendly State, link to this document is below

http://dcaa.trafikstyrelsen.dk:8000/...n%20no%205.pdf

All you want to know about lighting, but maybe were too afraid to ask?

If a particular State does not comply (ie meet the minimum) with a Standard a summary of Differences is contained in a Supplement to the Annex, specifying the nature of the Difference. Assuming that ICAO has been notified.

If you find that a particular State does not comply, and the Supplement does not notify it, speak to your aircraft's State of Registry regulator. They have the right to take the matter up either directly with the State or via ICAO.

Have a look at the Manual of standards Part 139
Manual of Standards Part 139 - Aerodromes

Chapter 9 covers airfield lighting and 9.10.4 states:

9.10.4 Longitudinal Spacing of Runway Edge Lights

9.10.4.1 The longitudinal spacing of runway edge lights must be uniform and be:

(a) for an instrument runway, 60 m +0 / -5 m;

(b) for a non-instrument runway, 90 m ± 10 m, or 60 m +0 / -5 m if there is an intention to upgrade the runway to an instrument runway at some time in the future.

(c) for non-precision instrument runways intended to be used in visibility conditions of 1.5 km or greater, where existing edge lights are spaced at 90 m ±10 m, it is acceptable to retain this spacing until the next replacement or improvement of the edge lighting system. (This situation typically arises from an existing non-instrument runway being upgraded to a non-precision instrument runway, but without re-installing the runway edge lights to the 60 m +0 / -5 m standard.)

Hope this helps

So are you saying that runways at Taree and Dubbo (examples from memory with 90m) are not instrument runways even though they have RNAV Rwy approaches ?

Captahab,

Not sure if that question was for me and i cant exactly answer it with certainty but i do know with a lot of things in the MOS139 there are dispensations for pre-existing stuff.
Eg: if the lights have been 90m spacing for 10yrs and the rule about the lights came out 9yrs ago then as the were per-existing to the new requirements they may be given a dispensation until its time to upgrade/replace them

Don't take this as gospel but i believe its how a lot of stuff at older airfields work or it would require many many millions of dollars to move taxiways/terminals/roads/apron lights each time an amendment was made for different spacing

Captahab

Unless the approach minima is specified as "circling minima", ie you are making an instrument approach to the airport, not a specified runway, the runways have to be designated as instrument runways. If the approach charts specify a runway to each RNAV procedure, it must be an instrument runway that you are making the approach to.

Check your AIP (Oz?) it will specify any Differences from ICAO Annex 14, and explain what has been used nationally. If no Difference is shown and no other references appear in the AIP to explain an apparent greater runway edge light spacing, I'd contact your regulator for an explanation.

Mount Isa has 90m spacing and has VOR, NDB, DGA and RNAV approaches. The 90m spacing is mentioned specifically in ERSA for MA.

Without looking at the AIP for a reference, in addition to what was quoted from the CASA MOS, it mentions a couple of runways that whilst they are "Instrument Runways" they are also classified as country airports and only have 90m spacing. Broome is another from memory (I stand to be corrected on that)

Edit: I guess MA and Broome fall into one of the categories Gav just mentioned.

The ERSA will reveal all. Look at lighting facilities for an individual airport and it provides the exact runway light spacing for that airport.

If he's new to IFR then he's unlikely to have the equipment or crew on board to allow a take-off minima of 800m...unless he's a qlink cadet. :uhoh:

Hope you don't mean counting 14 lights to check he has the required visibility to land at the DA :)?

ERSA only stipulates the light spacing if it doesn't meet the current standard as per MOS 139. For example, the Mt Isa runway has 90 metre edge light spacing, which met the applicable standard when it was installed back in the late 60s.

I wonder why they don't standardise on 50m & 100m for ease of calculating distances, instead of 60m & 90m?

Because 200' and 300' is easier to calculate than 165' and 328' ;)