Lights On? Are they kidding?

[5 Left & Right]

Ok, so we should all fly around with our lights on now so's we dont run into each other.

Oh yeh good one, you're joking right?

Please tell me you are joking............

[Deaf]

IIRC lights have actually been used as camoflage for concealing/breaking up the dark image of an a/c against the light sky (during the day obviously).

[gaunty]

5 Left & Right

Your comment is a very good demonsatration of why we have such a difficult job of education and cultural change.

I would really be very interested in learning why you think "lights on" is such a very bad idea, beyond having to change the odd light bulb every now and then.

It is hardly a new idea and it is very well established that birds can see lights better than they can objects, perhaps our betters have worked out that birdbrain mode works well with pilots.:p

[Continental-520]

I directed by a Chief Pilot of mine once not to use landing lights on a 5nm final straight in within an MBZ cause "it wears out the globes, and they're bloody expensive to change".

So, since then, I've only ever been using them when there's other traffic in the same MBZ.

Can't please everyone.


520.

[splatgothebugs]

See and be seen,

The day you leave the lx off because nobody is inside the MBZ is the day some NORDO a/c will come very close to you.

Takes all of a second to turn them on and if they burn out inside 6 months, not 12 months to bad for the operator. :p :ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

My Landing lights are always on in my Bonanza when within say 5nm of the desto/departure point, or anytime that seems to warrant it from a good airmanship pov...like transiting Southport MBZ.

In a jet we always have the landing lights on below 10000'...only 3-4 minutes even when departing.

What I find a little irksome is the idea that to prop up our disfunctional new system we are now expected to have landing lights on essentially all the time.

Could it be that See and Avoid is not all it's cracked up to be.:suspect:

And if two aircraft come together with lights blazing I suppose they'll recommend I paint my aircraft dayglo orange next:hmm:

Chuck.

[pullock]

I tend to agree with Chuck, perhaps the newly found need for operation of landing lights is symptomatic of a problem with the system.

For what it's worth, the operator who said that using landing lights butns them out too fast may seem a bit tightarsed, but the fact is that they are not designed for continuous inflight operation, and will therefore not last very long at all if used all the time. Even when they are used within their design spec, they still don't last very well.

Methinks someone has shares in a light bulb company :D

[tobzalp]

seeing as the government is going to pay for ADSB in every single aircraft, surely they will pay to replace the bulbs as well.:rolleyes:

[1279shp]

At flying school many moons ago, it was "policy" NOT to use landing lights at any time during daylight hours. Student's heavy landings or grass ops tended to caused them to blow fairly regularly. It was a cost cutting measure as being complete "sealed beam" they aren't cheap.

Today though, landing lights are on for take-off and landing.
Usually switched off at 'BUMPF' checks, on again once power is pulled prior to turning base.

Alongside this though I've noticed more and more a/c have wingtip/tail strobes too. So it is very much a case of see and be seen.

Being so visible it makes me wonder if all training a/c shudn't be painted black too?! :)

[gaunty]

I'm still waiting to hear why it is such a bad idea, given that we are encouraged to have the headlights in our cars on in daylight in bad viz or the country.

pullock

but the fact is that they are not designed for continuous inflight operation, and will therefore not last very long at all if used all the time. Even when they are used within their design spec, they still don't last very well

is that a fact or a personal prejudice. It is a fact that the number of cycles on and off is more damaging than otherwise.

tobzalp
You do your argument no favours.

[gissmonkey]

CX use em for ALL climb and descent, be it 37000' or 1000'.:ok:

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

What about those aircraft that have retractable landing lights?

Often they can't come out until slow enough which is often on base or final.

[VH-ABC]

I'm fairly sure that the human eye/brain combo picks up changes in light source (ie flickering/flashing) better than a constant light, so what's wrong with the rotating beacon?

[hombre_007]

Definately agree with ABC........and whats wrong with the nav lights?????????? :confused:

[cjam]

I guess everyones eyes must be different then 'cause when I am trying to rendezvous with another a/c up high during daylight it is heaps easier for me to find them with the landing light on. They can have strobes and anti-cols going and I know the general area they are in and as soon as they switch on the landing light BANG...there they are (assuming the right direction of course.)

[Willie Nelson]

I think the whole lights on thing is a little better than asking your passengers to keep a look out for aircraft (latest flight safety) if I got on a boat and the captain asked me to keep my eyes out for other boats, rocks or icebergs I would politley step straight off that very boat. A bus driver doesn't ask you to keep your eyes out for small children and stray dogs.

There may be a lot of people that seem to be happy with asking their passengers to look out for other aircraft and I accept that it would improve safety, but I will draw the line just before that point and allow my passengers to relax during their flight.

Willie

[Xplicit]

You know how the cops are asking us to drive around the streets with our lights on ... what a crap idea. What next.... driving around with our horns on??

And we are all pilots here right...? If you can see a beacon, or a nav light, or a landing light before you can see the aeroplane... should you really be flying??
And if you are talking light's on (landing light and others) at night, then yeah go for it... but during the day.,... you can't be serious??!!??!!

[squire]

Perhaps with the use of an electrically conductive paint system we can illuminate the entire aircraft. This could further be used to sell advertising space on the aircraft thus generating enough revenue to pay for the expensive bulbs.:}

[triadic]

Although given a slight mention to date, the issue of using lights for long periods of time may actually cause damage to your electrical system.

Every aircraft is designed with the use of electrical items like lights designated for various periods of time and perhaps in conjunction with (or not with) other electrical services.

During the design stage of all aircraft an electrical load analysis is conducted in order to ascertain if any limits need be placed on the use of various electrical services.

The use of lights in many light aircraft was possibly not considered or perhaps designed to be used continuously. This does not apply in transport category aircraft that have been using lights on climb and descent and on two-way air routes for many years and of course they have more electrical grunt!

I would suggest that many operators and pilots although supporting the use of lights (by day) for long periods of time have little knowledge if this is or is not likely to cause temporary or long term damage to their aircrafts electrical system.

In the light (!) of this, it would be wise to check if there are any limits on the use of lights and even wiser to discuss these issues including the load analysis data with your engineer. Globes are not the issue.

In the meantime I would be cautious in the long term use of landing lights.

"no known traffic" :ok:

[ravan]

Just my two bobs worth -- Read recently of the findings from a study by the Canadian Transport people where they ran a trial of getting car drivers to drive with their lights on at all times.

Their conclusion, based on the statistics they gathered, was that accident rates were not significantly reduced by the practice.

Is it appropriate then to use the "lights on for cars" argument to draw comparisons with flying?

[Dale Harris]

Well, I don't think the boss will be too happy about us flying the chieftain at 130 kts everywhere........

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Is anybody aware of an invention called RADAR and a RADIO operated by AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS who can see better than the human eye?

ADSB?? Lighties don't even want to pay enroute charges or transponder, I am surethere will be a rush to equip with ADSB.:rolleyes:

[bush mechanics]

Most times the expensive part of changing external lights is the diassembling of assemblys to get to the lamps.I Order the parts at work and lamps arnt that expensive.Some lamps for driving lights are more expensive these days.Maybe we have to mod our 402s so the taxi light dosnt retract with the nose and the landing lights in the wing tips are braced for speeds above 175kts!!!
Anyone who has had a aircraft painted lately will notice that rego markings are noe HUGE!!!CASA say it in line with the yanks,But we think someone at casa ramped the wrong a/c because he couldnt read the rego.

[pullock]

Gaunty,

My comments are based on fact. I agree with you that higher cycles are worse for the lights, but high power aircraft lights are only intended for short duration useage. lights that are intended for continuous use such as logo lights are constructed entirely differently from landing and taxi lights. Sorry mate.

[5 Left & Right]

Wether it burns out light bulbs, or it is or isn't company policy is beside the point. If they recommend we display lights to (help)avoid collision, that is a clear indication that the airspace system is deficient.

I believe see & avoid is a myth, landing lights (and lets face it they are the only ones you will see if there is a serious conflict) point straight ahead and if you are in that position and actually see the light then its more than likely too late.

See? maybe.

Avoid? Probably not.

[pullock]

I couldn't agree more 5LR, I did make that point in my original post.

[cjam]

Xplicit....you saying "And we are all pilots here right...? If you can see a beacon, or a nav light, or a landing light before you can see the aeroplane... should you really be flying?? " shows your inexperience if nothing else. There are many situations due to light or cloud/ aircraft colours when it is difficult to see an a/c but easy to see a light.
I see you are a ppl who has been registered on prune for about five minutes. Thats great, but I also note that in the five posts you have made there is significant negative comment including reference to " all you do-gooder ausis" and "rag-heads" out there.
I am pretty inexperienced myself but have had the sense to tred-lightly when I am not 100% sure of something and in the presence of folk more experienced than myself. This way you see, I might learn something from other ppruners, hell, might even make a few friends that I can call on when I travel.
There is enough negativity here already.
Also, if you plan to go on to CPL and try to find work you have a long row to hoe with ample opportunity to hone bitterness and attitude. Cheers, cjam

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

I believe see & avoid is a myth, landing lights (and lets face it they are the only ones you will see if there is a serious conflict) point straight ahead and if you are in that position and actually see the light then its more than likely too late.

Couldn't agree more. How often is it when given traffic that includes an estimated time of passing you strain your eyes to see it and more often than not don't?

This see and avoid bull**** being thrust forward and topped off with even more crap such as leaving landing lights on to avoid conflict stinks.

Does this mean that there is no need to use or listen to the radio anymore?

The best way of avoiding conflict is to LISTEN, RESPOND and then if need be LOOK. The see and avoid should be in your head, with a picture of what is where and when at all times so that you can then better position yourself to avoid conflict. What is so hard about this?