One BA flight has been having one of those days this morning at LHR (caught on webcam). BA1387 from MAN, an A320 (G-TTOB) - landed on 3rd attempt (2 x go-around 0954 and 1007). The weather is pretty murky but no-one else appears to be having issues landing. METAR: Wind 290° 3kt. Visibility 8000m. Clouds broken 400ft, overcast 900ft. Temperature 9°C, dew point 9°C. QNH 1035hPa.

For those who enjoy cruising, a new airline partnership has been launched.

Ambassador Cruises recently announced that they have merged with Compagnie Française de Croisières (CFC) and as a result will be offering new fly-cruise packages, including the Caribbean, later in 2025/6 aboard the group's 3 ships - Ambition, Ambience and CFC's Renaissance. The airline chosen for this charter work is Corendon.

Amazing that they have not contracted with that super luxury airline Global ... :p

They would need more than one A380..... :p

Probably a really really daft question....but shall ask it anyway :p

Why do some flightcrew (not sure who makes the decision) dim lights when taxiing, taking off and landing and others do not?

Is it discretionary or do airlines stipulate it should be done or is it personal choice/habit to do it?

I've picked this old (old) thread from the Forum FAQ but have not had time to read it today. There are regulations and SOPS involved.
WHY ARE CABIN LIGHTS TURNED OFF FOR TAKE-OFF/LANDING?

Tbh the reason for asking is that I like to watch the airport webcams sometimes and this morning I had Brisbane onscreen and several aircraft were taking off with the cabin lights on full brightness (Qantas and Virgin Australia flights specifically) ...it was so bright inside the aircraft that you could make out people sitting in their seats, which I found odd since the majority of flights I have taken early morning, late evening and overnight have always dimmed the cabin lights

Like you, I've experienced it both ways. I've never kept a record of which carrier does it which way.

My most common carriers are EK/ LH / SIN and by and large EK/ SIN go by procedures LH are more sympathetic to their passengers re lighting and to be honest I applaud them for it. I was with BA recently and lights up and very bright but I am with them very infrequently so not sure crew or operation.

Cheers
Mr Mac

It's getting harder and harder to talk to a human. We were trying to alter our SQ tickets last week and could we find a phone number manned by a real person? No way - only an automated list that didn't cover our issues. And no email address either.

It was solved by turning up a bit early at the airport where a nice lady made all the changes at no cost in 5 minutes - but it wasn't brilliant for planning purposes..........................

Many many years ago I wrote to BA asking the same question. I received a very nice letter from the Senior Engineer or someone who said it was in case you crashed (I don't think he used those words but it was clear ....) and it would interfere with everyone's night vision or similar. Seemed a bit odd but that's what they said.

Suspect its one of those very old procedures that has been set in stone so long no-one ever dares ask about it.

Same with a brand new Sonos speaker - big magnetic effects and (allegedly) some of the production chemicals left over on a new speaker set off the alarm at Birmingham Airport.

After all the red lights started flashing on the machine , a nice chap came over and asked what I had in there. I explained, and his response was "oh, another one". They still had to go through all our carry on etc with a fine tooth comb (fair enough) and he explained about the chemicals on the speaker outside left over from production - he suggested a wipe with Pledge will get ride of them.

Note to self - next time carrying Semtex, spray it with Pledge first.

Throwing a suggestion out on here since it is the SLF part of the website.

Since it is obvious that questions from SLF and those outside the aviation employment environment are often frowned upon in the accidents section, would it not be possible to have an area within SLF for people who are unqualified and who want to understand when things go wrong to ask pertinent questions without being shot down in flames or ridiculed or yelled at?

Afterall it is us, the humble SLF and aviationally minded enthusiasts who have to depend on the often sensationalised media when tragedies, incursions etc happen and since we are not encouraged to ask questions in the accident section, where exactly can we gain the education and knowledge from that gives a more truthful picture of what happened in these situations?

Surely being able to discuss things like this would not only help those of us who don't have ATPL etc to understand the nuances but it would go a long way towards removing the fear of the unknown.

Thoughts?

Thank You. I welcome comments.

I think it's a good suggestion, but perhaps It might be a better fit if the subforum was under non airline flying rather than passengers.

I mean absolutely no disrespect, seriously I do not...but sometimes when things get "heated" on the accident threads and someone who is not employed or has no connection to the industry asks a question, the person asking questions can be made to feel very uncomfortable, and worse, they can only read the threads when logged out and thus cannot enquire about phraseology or aspect of the accident in order to understand what may or may not have occurred.

There are some flightcrew, groundcrew, ATC who seem to forget that we humble SLF and those with an interest in all things aviation don't always know one end of the aircraft to the other and almost certainly do not understand the various phaseology used. We just pay our fares and sit behind the flightcrew, often completely ignorant to what is going on behind that closed door. Pre-2001 it was a highlight to visit the cockpit....I managed many jumpseat flights and not just in cruise but for landings and take-offs and it gave a true insight as to what goes on up there in that hallowed place, now that the opportunity to pick the brains of pilots during flights has been taken away, all we are left with are media headlines splashed, terminology that is often wrong, descriptions of what may or may not have happened that are wide of the mark and so forth....and there isn't anywhere to ask "what about?" or "what does this/that mean?" when things go bad.

I'm not suggesting that specific flightcrew, groundcrew, ATC should devote all of their time answering what to them may seem stupid questions, but just to give their knowledge and their experiences to those of us who really genuinely want to know what things mean and why things don't work like they should and why things go horribly wrong without snapping at the questioner (and in some cases, belittling them, even if that was not the intent).

SLF here.

I know this isn't what you're asking,, but a good source of non-sensational analysis of the 2 most recent accidents (Washington DCA & Philly Medevac) is by Juan Browne at Blancolirio.

Washington DCA:


Philly Medevac:

YT has its place, I agree, but asking questions in real time and obtaining actual responses from those in the know is simply not going to happen and not everyone wants to be registered to YT where the "right" or accurate response might not happen whereas a a site like this one has such a huge wealth of knowledge and experience to share.

This site has so many incredibly experienced people on it, why can't there be a section for those of us without that experience and knowledge ask questions without getting our heads bitten off....afterall, supposedly there is no such thing as a dumb question (allegedly). There are people here wanting to learn but who have no avenue to do so (unless prepared to be chewed up, spat out and have the accident and other pertinent sections barred from access when logged in)

Some of us just want to learn from those who have the knowledge and experience....why is that so hard to do?

My many flights in the jumpseat of airliners hatched my absolute love of all things aviation, it led to spending every Saturday at Rogers Aviation (Cranfield) that in turn led to being trusted to update the Jeppesens at the flying school and that led to being given the priviledge of being about several flights with student pilots doing IFR training (with the scary looking hood that covered the windows of the Cessna 172 - G-BEZO) and that led to being asked to act as observer during post maintenance air tests aboard Cessna 421 Golden Eagles and Hawker 125 and Cessna Titans and others.....I was in my late teens and it was totally thrilling to get to do all of these things and to watch the engineers when repairing aircraft, asking questions and being shown how things work on the Cessna 337 etc. I would spend hours reading AAIB/NTSB reports and even now I get them delivered to my door when they are released...

But nothing beats being able to discuss the many nuances of flying and procedures and protocol and phraseology with flightcrew, groundcrew and ATC (retired or active) on a site like this one....especially when things go wrong.

The first problem is that PPRuNe has always had the rule that we do not have the same topic discussed in two different threads. The reason is how much it complicates the discussion by splitting the replies and information. Naturally, this also makes moderation difficult. For now - I will mention this to my fellow Mods as I do understand the request. For now. Please hold your horses.

Thank you for understanding the situation and response to it, I do appreciate that greatly. I completely understand the issues with multiple threads (was once an admin of a cruise ship forum in my spare time for around 15 years - its owner lived in Houston so had the added disadvantage of time zones on top - and it was a headache to deal with, so in that I understand yours and the rest of the staff here in being hesitant)