Merged: Qantas 737 wing inspection lights on for take-off
Geez, I always considered some of my fellow countrymen to be anal in matters pertaining to aviation, but this is bloody ridiculous. If the f...ing lights annoy you, don't look at them!
spirax
It is my understanding that the reason the cabin lights are dimmed for take-off and landing, as they are done with Qantas, is because the cabin crew need to be able to see out in the event of an emergency before declaring their door a safe exit. Darker cabin = better ability to see what's going on outside, i.e. fire. I stand to be corrected though.
Nice one about "enjoying the view" but I don't think so.
Was it not the commercial dept that said it was best to have the cabin lights to dim for take-off and landing so the punters could enjoy the view or not be woken up on descent? Never mind that QF was one of the few carriers having a policy (up till then) of having the cabin lights on so as to make the a/c easier to see at night. Never mind the cabin safety advantages of having the lights on at that stage of flight! Just keep the punters happy!!!
Nice one about "enjoying the view" but I don't think so.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: YBBN
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
could the lights be on during the takeoff/landing phases to inspect the wings in case of possible failure of leading edge flaps?
Just putting it out there...
Is it possible to actually inspect the wings from the flight deck?
Just putting it out there...
Is it possible to actually inspect the wings from the flight deck?
Unless your really streching the neck with the face against the glass, only the tips of the wings can be seen from normal seated position.
Good in theory re the flaps but the lights policy as stated above is purely increasing visibility to aid in the 'see and avoid' mentality.
Unfortunately as the light procedure is published as an opertaing policy there is very little leeway to vary from its form. Just because it is current policy dreamed up as 'worlds best practice' doesnt necessarily mean it is the best procedure for all circumstances. Whether it is a benefit or more of a distraction to other operators will only be known through feedback. My suggestion should anyone be impeded or distracted by the lights that QF use- put pen to paper in a safety report.
Good in theory re the flaps but the lights policy as stated above is purely increasing visibility to aid in the 'see and avoid' mentality.
Unfortunately as the light procedure is published as an opertaing policy there is very little leeway to vary from its form. Just because it is current policy dreamed up as 'worlds best practice' doesnt necessarily mean it is the best procedure for all circumstances. Whether it is a benefit or more of a distraction to other operators will only be known through feedback. My suggestion should anyone be impeded or distracted by the lights that QF use- put pen to paper in a safety report.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transition Layer
QF at one stage was receiving a lot of customer complaints re turning the cabin lights on during descent causing pax to "wake up"..!! Especially on long haul ops. They also wanted to be able to see the "view"....
As most other airlines of the day had them off for tkof & ldg, the commercial folk were of the view that the procedure was costing the company business. And since it was the front-end pax that made the noise they took notice. The safety and operational folk of the day conceded to that commercial pressure thing and the procedure changed.
The 3 main reasons for having the cabin lights on at low level as I understand were; increases ability of CC to observe cabin when all pax seated, increases chance of seeing fumes etc during that segment of flight and makes aircraft easier to see from outside... all a matter of opinion I guess?
The argument of having the cabin lights dim/off to improve eyesight in the event of light failure is said to be a myth. I understand it has been shown that in such circumstance the time taken for the average cc to adjust is measured in seconds even when the cabin lights went from max bright to off.
M A E
Not much chance of doing that when the aircraft with the lights on is behind you at the holding point and your world becomes like daylight!! Like I said: AIRMANSHIP!!
It is my understanding that the reason the cabin lights are dimmed for take-off and landing, as they are done with Qantas, is because the cabin crew need to be able to see out in the event of an emergency before declaring their door a safe exit. Darker cabin = better ability to see what's going on outside, i.e. fire. I stand to be corrected though.
As most other airlines of the day had them off for tkof & ldg, the commercial folk were of the view that the procedure was costing the company business. And since it was the front-end pax that made the noise they took notice. The safety and operational folk of the day conceded to that commercial pressure thing and the procedure changed.
The 3 main reasons for having the cabin lights on at low level as I understand were; increases ability of CC to observe cabin when all pax seated, increases chance of seeing fumes etc during that segment of flight and makes aircraft easier to see from outside... all a matter of opinion I guess?
The argument of having the cabin lights dim/off to improve eyesight in the event of light failure is said to be a myth. I understand it has been shown that in such circumstance the time taken for the average cc to adjust is measured in seconds even when the cabin lights went from max bright to off.
M A E
Geez, I always considered some of my fellow countrymen to be anal in matters pertaining to aviation, but this is bloody ridiculous. If the f...ing lights annoy you, don't look at them!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hedge,
Try FAA AC120-74 Section 8.
The first attempt at new Qantas SOPs for lights reflected this document fairly closely. However, after many comments by line crew about multiple switchings required at critical times the policy was revised.
In the context of this thread the "Wing Lights" (name may vary according to aircraft type) were originally only required on lining up. The revised policy requires them all times during taxi up to 10,000ft and vice versa on descent.
Personally, when on final approach I have found the increased visibility of aircraft on/entering runways with wing lights on quite marked.
Try FAA AC120-74 Section 8.
The first attempt at new Qantas SOPs for lights reflected this document fairly closely. However, after many comments by line crew about multiple switchings required at critical times the policy was revised.
In the context of this thread the "Wing Lights" (name may vary according to aircraft type) were originally only required on lining up. The revised policy requires them all times during taxi up to 10,000ft and vice versa on descent.
Personally, when on final approach I have found the increased visibility of aircraft on/entering runways with wing lights on quite marked.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never ceases to amaze me how pilots leave their landing lights on at night in thick cloud where night vision is completely wrecked and the distraction of the back-lighting glare must surely affect crew concentration.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: boat
Age: 57
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF wing lights
Annoyance, lack of awareness or plain stupidity. Can someone in the know please explain why?
Having been blinded on numerous occasions I am yet to understand the logic behind the very use of the wing lights whilst taxying.
Having been blinded on numerous occasions I am yet to understand the logic behind the very use of the wing lights whilst taxying.
What happened to airmanship?
Feel free to join everyone else here in expressing your disgust.
Company policy which was designed in accordance with FAA and Euro recommendations. Not much we can do!
Company policy which was designed in accordance with FAA and Euro recommendations. Not much we can do!
Last edited by Transition Layer; 1st Sep 2009 at 06:54. Reason: maybe "whingers" was a bit harsh!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Next door to Hell
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad somebody brought it up. Please advise your management of the dangers to the rest of the aviation community, so you can get your SOP changed. It can be done.
TL, Spewwww.
TL, Spewwww.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny!
You opening with
and later on...
ROFLMAO! 
Maybe English isn't your first language. Open with an abusive and arrogant post, expect some "harsh" replies.
But you're not arrogant...
Annoyance, lack of awareness or plain stupidity.
I was merely trying to elicit a logical response,
Maybe English isn't your first language. Open with an abusive and arrogant post, expect some "harsh" replies.
But you're not arrogant...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
I think the point is that the QF drivers are only following the instructions issued by the owners of their particular train set.
We got the same accusations of arrogance when we were told not to flash landing lights at other aircraft when airborne. (a relic of pre-TCAS days).
Maybe if you didn't start with a presumption of arrogance or incompetence, the replies would have been more civil in return.
We got the same accusations of arrogance when we were told not to flash landing lights at other aircraft when airborne. (a relic of pre-TCAS days).
Maybe if you didn't start with a presumption of arrogance or incompetence, the replies would have been more civil in return.
Report it to an authority - not Pprune
If it's as bad as that use the appropriate channels to report it. Maybe then the relevant authorities may review the procedure worldwide - and possibly prevent a lot of name-calling....then again this is Pprune
Incident report - second form down on the left
Incident report - second form down on the left
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brisvegas
Age: 46
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad somebody brought it up. Please advise your management of the dangers to the rest of the aviation community, so you can get your SOP changed. It can be done.
Better yet....why don't you write to Peter Wilson (Chief Pilot) and you can list the dangers to the rest of the aviation community and try to get our SOPs changed.
Nunc est bibendum
Who else uses them again?
BA, Singair, Thai, Air France, Malaysian, Philippine Air Lines, Lufthansa, Cathay, Air China, China southern, China Eastern, Cathay (although that may have been a one off), etc, etc.
Please advise your management of the dangers to the rest of the aviation community, so you can get your SOP changed. It can be done.
As noted by others, this is supposedly the 'norm' around the world and so the standard response is that we won't be changing it unless ICAO and the euro mob change their guidance.It'll be another three or four weeks and we'll be doing this discussion all over again.