Direct-To on the GPS, waypoint set as Porepunkah. It'll give a continuous bearing and NM to the ARP. Above LSALT, activate the flight plan and start your enroute climb. That's how I'd do it, anyway. But not there. Somewhere else. With lights.

It’s all a moot point.
The aircraft never got far enough to climb and circle. Maybe the pilot’s plan will become available in the ATSB report…. If there is one.

Bob: No. LSALT IS 6700 - 7300 FT. The radius available is less than about 1.5 miles from memory and Ozrunways.

‘Visit the website ypok.org.au.’

No night landings permitted. nearest strip,- my beauty in the next valley over about a 4000ft ridge. But no lights. Plan B is to somehow stay alive until about 0530 when you have a horizon

All he needed to do was wait30 - 40 minutes

But he wasn’t landing.
Nothing on the website / AIP appears to preclude a night departure. Some fly neighbourly requirements before 0800 but that’s it.

Except for the lack of lighting.

That's never stopped Jetstar with a hundred passengers in back, why should it worry a 182 Driver? :}

What is the minimum lighting requirement for takeoff (NOT landing) on an uncertified strip under part 91?

It would come under Part 91.410 Use of Aerodromes, (2) (b) "the aircraft can land at, or take off from, the place safely having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take‑off (including the prevailing weather conditions)."

Good luck proving to a court that taking off at night on a dark runway without adequate runway lighting is acceptable without NVIS. Especially if you came to grief while taking-off.

I think you might be confusing alternate requirements with direct operational rules.

I'm familiar with both alternate requirements and rules (as much as humanly possible :hmm:). I'm asking what the minimum amount of lighting is?

In this case, would a car headlights at the departure end make it safe? Two cars? Three? Edge light spacing? The AMC and GM is silent as well

It could be argued he took off safely. The engine failure is naturally unrelated.

(Putting aside the terrain part).

There used to be film about of RFDS landing/taking off from station strips at night by car headlights, still, probably mercy flight where you can do anything.

Back in the late 80's I went for a jolly one night with the NT Air Med Senior Base Pilot in the Nomad from Gove to Lake Evella to practice night landings there using head lights. He turned the runway lights on for departure every time though.

Or toilet rolls soaked in kero in coffee cans for emergency lighting on bush strips!

DF.

I am fairly certain that the RFDS only use car headlights or dunny rolls soaked in fuel as a last resort, after a thorough risk assessment.
I would bet money that these are also only used for urgent medical-vac, not just coz they felt like it.
I am also fairly certain that RFDS pilots are current, confident, and at the top of their game before they get signed off for night work.

Fairly certain that ole mate in his / her C182 would fail on so many of these counts.

imagine how much difference waiting for 30 - 45 minutes would make.

I'd agree with you on every point except the last. If this is proven to be a mechanical issue, rather than
somatogravic illusion, then I don't think having a smidgen of daylight would have made that much difference, bar maybe a touch less damage. But there's no way we'll ever know as the ATSB ain't going to investigate.

Sunny, with all due respect, do you heave either NVRF or CIFR? I have flown with a few pilots that could take off on this airstrip, climb to LSALT on instruments within 3 or less nautical miles and do it with a precision I could only dream about. I am not one of them and I doubt any of them would do anyway unless there was a compelling reason.

That is beside the point however, a way back in this thread I asked what numerous are now asking and no-one seems to be able to answer and that is, are runway lights required for take off ? I think for private ops there are no requirements in law but I don't know for sure.

I do know that I saw the aftermath of a crash where a single line of flares was laid for a night landing but the pilot on arrival chose the opposite runway. Fortunately all that was damaged was the aeroplane. The insurance paid out (to the best of my knowledge).

As for the insurance, I am betting that if the pilot has any he will be paid out too. That is just what I have witnessed over the last 4 decades.

Back when I was paid to do that the process was risk assessed (although we didn't call it by those words) and many airfields in my patch had only flares, car lights, cat eye reflectors or a combination.. It wasn't only life and death ops, but it wasn't for a sniffle either. Of course this was all ops manual approved.

What about farmer Joe?

I know several pilots that had to match the insurer dollar for dollar, that is pay half the damages, as they were operating outside of coverage stipulations. One for not doing a low pass to check for animals and hitting a roo on touchdown, another for operating at an aerodrome unfit for use and so on. These incidents were all aircraft I managed so I know exactly what the insurance companies will baulk at. Some of the bills were upwards of $50k to the pilot.

I don't dispute it 43, interesting reading. Just not my experience. thanks for the info.

There has been comment on here that if lights are required for landing, are they required for take off?

and it is that type of thinking which makes the Australian regs the cumbersome, unwieldy, pile of pony poo that it is...

Surely, if the airfield states lights are required for landing, it would be very difficult to argue in a court of law that “I was departing, Your Honour, and the regs do not specifically state that lights are required for take off...”

How do you normally do circuits in YPOK? From my memory the valley is wide enough for moderate circuits, maybe not "Moorabbin wide", but clearly ypok is not a Lukla in Nepal..
Airrcraft doesn't know if it's day or night..