E190 poor design

beasly said:
Sounds like a CFI taking a dump after eating spicy tacos.
Click to expand...
Since the airplane is derisively called many things involving food (ironically most of it Latin American as opposed to south American), that fits I suppose.

Actually, I like the noises the 145 makes. You can tell things are happening. The PTU on the Airbus 320 series is far more obnoxious than most anything the airplane makes.


Sent from Seat 3D
 
Houston said:
14 CFR 91.209(b)
Click to expand...

Which says "No person may: (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off."

Polar mentioned that you can see the strobe lights in the cockpit also and this is true. And on a long dark night, they get pretty distracting. So to me, this is in the interest of safety. On that note, the airplane also has flashing beacon lights on the top and bottom of the fuselage which are technically anti-collision lights, so if they are on and operating you really aren't in violation of 91.209(b).
 
I used to fly Cessna 402s in a previous life. Great airplanes. The B models had rotating beacon lights on the tail. The C models did not (never understood this as the C was supposed to be an improvement). A lot of people used to quote 91.209(b) in regards to starting the engines and taxiing out at night with the wingtip strobe lights running. And I always argued the second part of the reg, because I think running the strobe lights on the ground at night is a distraction to you as well as other aircraft, and that's obviously a safety issue. I recently rode on Cape Air and I see they have added beacon lights to the bottom of their 402s, great idea.
 
Dan208B said:
I used to fly Cessna 402s in a previous life. Great airplanes. The B models had rotating beacon lights on the tail. The C models did not (never understood this as the C was supposed to be an improvement). A lot of people used to quote 91.209(b) in regards to starting the engines and taxiing out at night with the wingtip strobe lights running. And I always argued the second part of the reg, because I think running the strobe lights on the ground at night is a distraction to you as well as other aircraft, and that's obviously a safety issue. I recently rode on Cape Air and I see they have added beacon lights to the bottom of their 402s, great idea.
Click to expand...

Yup. I flew a Piper Archer for a while and all it had was landing lights, nav lights and strobe lights. At night all I used to run until I took the runway or crossed a runway was the nav lights. No one ever said anything to me about it.

When I worked the ramp I used to love the guys that would come in at night with all of the lights on and blazing, blinding everyone in sight. From my experience that was more way dangerous than just running the nav lights. If aircraft manufacturers were just a little bit less cheap and just put a beacon on the tail that would solve a lot of problems.
 
N519AT said:
Yup. I flew a Piper Archer for a while and all it had was landing lights, nav lights and strobe lights. At night all I used to run until I took the runway or crossed a runway was the nav lights. No one ever said anything to me about it.

When I worked the ramp I used to love the guys that would come in at night with all of the lights on and blazing, blinding everyone in sight. From my experience that was more way dangerous than just running the nav lights. If aircraft manufacturers were just a little bit less cheap and just put a beacon on the tail that would solve a lot of problems.
Click to expand...
Too, the beacon is the universal signal for "I am starting or I am running," whereas strobes mean something else entirely.
 
Dan208B said:
On that note, the airplane also has flashing beacon lights on the top and bottom of the fuselage which are technically anti-collision lights, so if they are on and operating you really aren't in violation of 91.209(b).
Click to expand...

Can you site anything other than opinion to support that statement?
 
Houston said:
Can you site anything other than opinion to support that statement?
Click to expand...

Yes. The MEL for the airplane uses the wording "Red Anti-Collision lights." Nobody is going to question that in a real-life situation. If you're concerned about it and have a fed on board, ask them what they think before you do it, that's usually a good solution.
 
Dan208B said:
Yes. The MEL for the airplane uses the wording "Red Anti-Collision lights." Nobody is going to question that in a real-life situation. If you're concerned about it and have a fed on board, ask them what they think before you do it, that's usually a good solution.
Click to expand...

What type aircraft, and is your MEL more or less a copy of the MMEL?
 
One the CRJ we can MEL all three (wingtip, wingtip, tail) strobe lights, as long as the flight is only operated during daylight hours. We can MEL only one of the two red beacon lights.
 
Houston said:
What type aircraft, and is your MEL more or less a copy of the MMEL?
Click to expand...
Embraer 170/190. I'm not sure about the MMEL. But on that note, the FARs have no definition for "anti-collision light." In my personal opinion that would be beacons and strobes. Would you agree? It could be the opinion of the individual inspector you're dealing with.

That brings to mind the 737. On the overhead panel, the beacon light switch is labeled "anti-collision."
 
Dan208B said:
A lot of people used to quote 91.209(b) in regards to starting the engines and taxiing out at night with the wingtip strobe lights running. And I always argued the second part of the reg, because I think running the strobe lights on the ground at night is a distraction to you as well as other aircraft, and that's obviously a safety issue.
Click to expand...

Shack. For start, if red beacon isn't working, and all there are remaining onboard are "day" strobes (white); then having those on at night is a distraction and safety hazard. Position lights on, and a taxi light on if you like, are sufficient. If equipped with "night" strobes (red), usually in place of a rotating beacon, those can safely be used without blinding everyone else on the ramp from persons, to drivers, to pilots.

In terms of turning off day strobes in IMC, when they're a distraction to the cockpit, comes under the heading of "judgement" that pilots are paid and certificated to exercise. And turning them off for safety reasons in that situation is perfectly valid. Besides, who's going to see you in IMC anyway?

On a related note, flying in formation(s) at night, the lead aircraft never has his strobe lighting on. Because it's a safety hazard to the trail aircraft, not only when "unaided", but under NVGs too.

Firebird2XC said:
What else do they entirely otherwise mean?

You know what you do when you have to MEL the beacon system, right? Turn on the strobes. Derp.
Click to expand...

If they're day strobes, that could be a problem. And usually is.
 
Heck the strobes have been removed and deactivated on the majority fo the 727's I have seen. The Red beacon satisfies the reg.

One think I can't stand are the GA aircraft that taxi around with the stobes and all the landing lights on.
 
Seggy said:
You guys mean the E-180s?
Click to expand...

Yeah, half of my reserve flying this month has been covering the first leg or two of a commuter's trip while they attempt to meet the trip near the end of the first workday after not being able to get to base. The other half has been repositioning empty E-180s back to where they need to be after they've been looked at by maintenance for several days after doing, well, their 180, if they even made it to pushback before the "ding!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top