I’m not claiming it’s best practice, I’m just saying that Qantas pilots are complying with SOP as they are bound to and therefore, they are not “clowns”, as a previous poster claimed. I don’t quite understand your statement on position lights, could you elaborate please?

The prior discussion started when someone called QF pilots clowns for blinding other traffic with wing inspection lights. (And for that matter aiming taxi lights at opposing traffic while at the holding point)

Yes, the use of wing inspection lights is mandatory, and yes, we all comply. It is possible to be in complete compliance and a complete knob concurrently as I am sure you are aware.

With regard to position lights: For some reason it seems to be an Australian trait to cling to dumb ideas learned in GA, such as not using the navigation lights in daylight, despite them being required for IFR flight. As a result you often see, as I have previously mentioned, QF aircraft without wing tip lights illuminated. Until such time as a hapless observer has been blinded by the wing lights he or she may not be instantly aware of conflicting ramp traffic passing in front.

I have seen aircraft pushing back on a dark cargo ramp with just a beacon which is an underwriter’s (and headline writer's) dream.

Arm chair admirals at it again. Try lawn bowls instead.

26.24 Navigation lights

(1) An aircraft operating by night must be fitted with navigation lights.

(2) When required to be fitted, navigation lights must be displayed during a flight, and when operating on the movement area of an aerodrome.

I can see it could open to interpretation but it is my understanding position lights are only required at night. I stand to be corrected.
Above reference from MOS 91.
I'm not arguing airmanship but take exception to the vitriol directed at Qantas pilots who, it seems, are only following SOP. Yes, sometimes the lights are left on at the holding point, I’ve seen it from a variety of operators but I always give them the benefit of the doubt , just an oversight.

Can you provide a reference for that requirement?

My apologies. I was thinking about IMC conditions, not IFR flight per se. 6 Position and anti-collision lights

Equipment for displaying the lights prescribed in regulation 196 of CAR 1988.

Note In accordance of the provision of subregulation 195 (1) of CAR 1988, position and anti-collision lights must be displayed at night and in conditions of poor visibility.

Nah. Tried it once. They were doing it wrong.

My apologies, it was not my intention to suggest anyone's a clown for following an SOP. But some clown who invented aviation dreamt up that SOP and the pilots bear the brunt because wherever they go with their wing lights on people think they are clowns. In Australia everyone's obviously used to the clownishness but around the world they have somewhat of a rep for this sort of thing.

I asked about this a few years ago. I’m unable to find it, but was told by a tech pilot who was involved in the implementation review that the wing lights on taxi are a recommendation in some document (IATA? ICAO? I’m not familiar with these things…) and that’s where the policy came from.

TBH, I’d rather be blinded by the wing lights than not see the other aircraft at all. Perhaps someone in the know can comment on why some 737/320 enjoy waiting at B4 in SYD with literally nothing switched on. Makes it very hard crossing 07/25 and continuing North on B.

It may also be from rule statements that say "display all external lights", which would include position lights, technically wing lights and so on. Lights during the day can actually distort distance judgement, which is why I'm not a fan of driving lights on cars. Makes it harder to judge gaps in broad daylight, some drivers will take it cautious and stop for longer, others will take the risk and just go anyway, who cares who's right, its and accident anyway. The light is also on the fuselage, not the wingtip, so dazzeling you up to 50 meters from where the collision point is side on might be counter intuitive. Places like Sydney there are lights everywhere, so adding to the confused mess does not help, and if you can't see the broadside of a white and red 737 within 100 mt of it how the hell did you pass a medical.

Position lights for night operations are also supposed to aid the observer in telling direction of travel, adding odd unnecessary lights could confuse this ability, hence why anti collision lights flash/strobe as well.

I may be wrong but suspect Autralophthisiucuss (did I get that right??) may've been being facetious.

I use a different technique during daytime: I keep my eyes open and looking around and in 20,000 hours have never hit another airliner. At night I see beacons, nav lights, even passenger window lights and have never hit anyone. But seeing only a red beacon below a steady white light may lead the observer to think he's looking at the steady white tail light of an older type. Thought was put into the design and location of aircraft lighting and introducing something random like this SOP works against it.

So is it because of these clowns that we now have a new item on the Airbus parking checklist?

I doubt it. Read the methodology behind it in I think it’s the FCTM. Qantas aren’t the only ones in the world to use them during a flight.

Wing Lights - OFF?
 

D’oh. Multiple post. Sorry

Wing Lights - OFF?
 

…and again…:ugh:

Wing Lights - OFF for parking?
 

It’s because they were once left “ON” and, when parked with the Air Bridge attached, the rubber weather shield caught fire because of the heat.:O

And hence using them for what they are not designed for, are they even rated for ground use without airflow for cooling? Or has no one thought of that for ground operations. And yes airframe manufacturers can easily overlook these sort of things as they don't see a problem until it is, that the light manufacturer probably has in a fine print list somewhere that it requires airflow or cooling during extended operation. Anyway, that will probably lead to them being LED and even more blinding.