A 330 Take off Light Usage at Night Landings
Villas,
A landing isn't just approach and flare. I think it is you who hasn't given it a thought.
I find the TO light very useful during the roll out, and also during the approach and flare.
If you want the opinion of Airbus, I suggest you email them.
A landing isn't just approach and flare. I think it is you who hasn't given it a thought.
I find the TO light very useful during the roll out, and also during the approach and flare.
If you want the opinion of Airbus, I suggest you email them.
Airbus opinion is as published. T.O. Light not recommended for landing.
Choose to take or ignore their advice.
I believe the reason is the TO light is aimed too high( If correctly adjusted) so only adds glare without lighting up touchdown point. Seems sensible to me!
As long as the engineers haven't stuffed up the adjustments/installation, and I have flown some buses that I felt the two lights were reversed....
Choose to take or ignore their advice.
I believe the reason is the TO light is aimed too high( If correctly adjusted) so only adds glare without lighting up touchdown point. Seems sensible to me!
As long as the engineers haven't stuffed up the adjustments/installation, and I have flown some buses that I felt the two lights were reversed....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm astonished. Not seeing wood for trees, and over complicating an issue - come to mind. If you dare use the 'takeoff light' on landing it's not going to knock the a/c out of the sky. Why not just try it and see: no pun intended. How can such a piece of trivia become a No No SOP? Can sensibility please return to our world.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat and Jonty
Goeasy has given the correct reason. If anybody needs to go to airbus it is you and not me. you are the wise guy so check with them. They have already said what it is for. I know airlines which forbid it's use for landing. If you find it useful then perhaps your airline has non standard setting for the light. In any case you can do what you want but SOP cannot be rubbished. Rat there are many things if you did or didn't the airplane doesn't fall off the sky but with that mind set sometimes they do as in the case of Air Asia Indonesia.
Goeasy has given the correct reason. If anybody needs to go to airbus it is you and not me. you are the wise guy so check with them. They have already said what it is for. I know airlines which forbid it's use for landing. If you find it useful then perhaps your airline has non standard setting for the light. In any case you can do what you want but SOP cannot be rubbished. Rat there are many things if you did or didn't the airplane doesn't fall off the sky but with that mind set sometimes they do as in the case of Air Asia Indonesia.
And if the manufacturer certifies the aircraft with that instruction included, then why go counter too it, and face the imminent question from a lawyer, after an incident. It can be used to show your disregard for instructions.
This is the world we live in these days. Litigation fever. And arse-covering is the consequence! 'Common sense' wont get you out of jail.
This is the world we live in these days. Litigation fever. And arse-covering is the consequence! 'Common sense' wont get you out of jail.
People, it's a light.
Are we really so far gone as thinking human beings that we cannot switch it on because Airbus doesn't explicitly say we should?
It really is a worry when 'pilots' are so hamstrung by their inability to think for themselves that they cannot switch on a light unless it explicitly says they should.
However, I think this probably says more about the different cultures in different airlines and parts of the world, than it does about lights.
Villas,
This one line in your post makes me hope I never get on your aircraft.
SOPs are not perfect, please don't think they are.
Anyway, enough time has been spent arguing about a light. Maybe we should move on to the toilet door lock? Now where was that mentioned in the SOPs?
Are we really so far gone as thinking human beings that we cannot switch it on because Airbus doesn't explicitly say we should?
It really is a worry when 'pilots' are so hamstrung by their inability to think for themselves that they cannot switch on a light unless it explicitly says they should.
However, I think this probably says more about the different cultures in different airlines and parts of the world, than it does about lights.
Villas,
This one line in your post makes me hope I never get on your aircraft.
SOP cannot be rubbished
Anyway, enough time has been spent arguing about a light. Maybe we should move on to the toilet door lock? Now where was that mentioned in the SOPs?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about we discuss the weight-on-wheels switchover logic between the Vacuum Waste System Autoflush and the air compressor manual Flush-Control Motor? And the different pressure differentials they create on the rinse ring mechanism of the toilet. More importantly, how high up you need to be in the A330 to create enough differential toilet suction to run an entire roll of toilet paper down the cabin aisle with one end stuck in the toilet, and have it instantly inhale the entire thing upon flush.
Tried it at FL340 during a mid-flight "cabin inspection" on a ferry flight once, running the roll forward from the lav at the L2 door, through the first-class aisle, through the galley, and into the open cockpit. Set the end down on the jumpseat, walked back to the L2 lav, blocked the door open, ripped the paper off the roll, stuck the other end down into the lav, and gave it a Vac-U-Flush. It did pretty good but still only made it a quarter of the way down before the paper broke off. Next time gotta try the good 2-ply stuff and not the El Cheapo wax paper rolls they cater on the airplanes. Maybe take it up to FL410, and have someone else walk the roll back to keep the paper free of binding on seats, etc.
Ba-WHOOOOOSH!!!!!!
Regarding earlier discussions I will add it is CONFOUNDING to my simple mind that a TAKEOFF flap setting (2) is also known as "approach flaps". What insidious ogre of an engineer designed such a system, knowing what a trap it would put in place for a pilot who does not share his mathematical expertise?
Tried it at FL340 during a mid-flight "cabin inspection" on a ferry flight once, running the roll forward from the lav at the L2 door, through the first-class aisle, through the galley, and into the open cockpit. Set the end down on the jumpseat, walked back to the L2 lav, blocked the door open, ripped the paper off the roll, stuck the other end down into the lav, and gave it a Vac-U-Flush. It did pretty good but still only made it a quarter of the way down before the paper broke off. Next time gotta try the good 2-ply stuff and not the El Cheapo wax paper rolls they cater on the airplanes. Maybe take it up to FL410, and have someone else walk the roll back to keep the paper free of binding on seats, etc.
Ba-WHOOOOOSH!!!!!!
Regarding earlier discussions I will add it is CONFOUNDING to my simple mind that a TAKEOFF flap setting (2) is also known as "approach flaps". What insidious ogre of an engineer designed such a system, knowing what a trap it would put in place for a pilot who does not share his mathematical expertise?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonty
SOPs are not perfect. True! but if Jontys don't like it is the criterion then there will be no SOP. You go to the manufacturer and ask him. He has the software, the hardware the test pilots. I can give you an incident where three airlines could have come to grief for changing a procedure without consulting the manufacturer.
SOPs are not perfect. True! but if Jontys don't like it is the criterion then there will be no SOP. You go to the manufacturer and ask him. He has the software, the hardware the test pilots. I can give you an incident where three airlines could have come to grief for changing a procedure without consulting the manufacturer.
