Runway Lights Required?
- Thread starter centralhome
- Start date
Either it wasn't NOTAM'd when it should have, or if it were a pop up NOTAM, ATC should have notified the pilot somewhere along the way. Or at the very least, it should have been in the AWOS. The absence of the lights turning on shouldn't be considered enough cause to suspect the runway is closed. And if you think it is, then show me in the FARS or the AIM where it says a pilot should suspect the runway is not safe to land if the lights don't come on...
And the landing from the back seat thing was done in a Citabria. The student sits up front and the instructor sits in the back. Landing from the backseat is much like landing at night without a landing light. All you have is your peripheral vision to judge how high you are.
I know your next move is to accuse me of being willing to land a Citabria from the backseat without a landing light and without runway lights, but thats not what I'm saying.
not biting
Stone Cold
Well-Known Member
Butt,
You know, having a conversation with my 3 year old nephew is easier than trying to talk to you...and he's in the "why?" stage...
You know, having a conversation with my 3 year old nephew is easier than trying to talk to you...and he's in the "why?" stage...
moxiepilot
Well-Known Member
it is not ATC's responsibility to diseminate NOTAMs.
and, butt, the above post is not "bait". I hate flame wars and other crap like that. The point was that it appeared to me that you, yet again, missed the point of his post. His point was with regard to safety. What I garnered from your post was that this was an operational misfiring of the system, and if it was me flying, well....that would never happen to me...
just basing my observation from the tones of your previous posts in the past...
and, butt, the above post is not "bait". I hate flame wars and other crap like that. The point was that it appeared to me that you, yet again, missed the point of his post. His point was with regard to safety. What I garnered from your post was that this was an operational misfiring of the system, and if it was me flying, well....that would never happen to me...
just basing my observation from the tones of your previous posts in the past...
What exactly are you trying to argue?
In this thread, my stance is that it's possible to do a safe takeoff and landing on a runway that is not lit. Its not always possible to be safe, but it can be done. I admit, on a cloudy, new moon night, at a small, unfamiliar runway, it's probably not going to be too safe.
Thats my stance, what is yours? Are you trying to say it's never safe? Are you saying you always must have the lights on to be safe? If thats you stance, then you need better proof than that story posted earlier. A crew landing at an airport where there were men working near the runway is a NOTAM dissemination issue, not a "landing on an unlit runway" issue. If they made a safe landing, then it serves as proof to my case, because they were able to do it without lights. If the FAA is investigating them, it's not because they landed without lights, it's because they were never informed of the NOTAM, or they never informed themselves. Either way, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
dc3flyer
Well-Known Member
Back on topic again, I am pretty sure Part 135 requires runway lights (or maybe it is just in my company's opspecs).
And for landing with no runway/landing lights.... when I was a full time CFI, I would usually make my students do at least one of each, but never made them do 1 of both. I would make them land with no landing light because that could REALLY happen one day, and I would make them land with no runway lights because not ALL runways have lights and it is possible to do in a safe manner.
And for landing with no runway/landing lights.... when I was a full time CFI, I would usually make my students do at least one of each, but never made them do 1 of both. I would make them land with no landing light because that could REALLY happen one day, and I would make them land with no runway lights because not ALL runways have lights and it is possible to do in a safe manner.
It's not a Part 135 requirment and it isn't in our OP Specs. It's in our Company SOPs however.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Butt, sometimes your attitude blows my mind. Unfortunately, I couldn't resist the bait, so I'm going to reply...
I have about 150 hours at night, with almost 100 of those hours acting as an instructor. I don't know an exact number, but I'm sure I've done several hundred takeoffs and landings at night. Is that not enough?
I don't even know where to start with that. Yes, they do help with flaring. And knowing how much runway is remaining. And spotting the runway if you need to return after an engine failure on departure. And having an idea if the runway is being used or not (at airports with PCL, at least).
He might not taxi across it to begin with, if he knows a plane is about to land because he saw the lights come on.
Same could be said for maintenance/snow removal crews.
That's ironic. I went out two nights ago to practice takeoffs and landings with no landing light. I didn't think it was any big deal. There's a reason why it's not "required equipment" for part 91 night operations.
Yes, I've done that too, and no, it doesn't suck. How do you think instructors taught in tandem seat tailwheel aircraft 60 years ago? They just did. It's not that big of a deal.
Look, you can go do whatever you want. I'm just offering some free advice. Take it or leave it, and I won't be surprised if you leave it. I also won't be the least bit surprised if you have to answer to the feds for something some day, considering your attitude and thoughts on supposed "technicalities" in the regs. Good luck with that. Please don't damage any plane but your own, or hurt any people, other than yourself, in the process.
I have about 150 hours at night, with almost 100 of those hours acting as an instructor. I don't know an exact number, but I'm sure I've done several hundred takeoffs and landings at night. Is that not enough?
I don't even know where to start with that. Yes, they do help with flaring. And knowing how much runway is remaining. And spotting the runway if you need to return after an engine failure on departure. And having an idea if the runway is being used or not (at airports with PCL, at least).
He might not taxi across it to begin with, if he knows a plane is about to land because he saw the lights come on.
Same could be said for maintenance/snow removal crews.
That's ironic. I went out two nights ago to practice takeoffs and landings with no landing light. I didn't think it was any big deal. There's a reason why it's not "required equipment" for part 91 night operations.
Yes, I've done that too, and no, it doesn't suck. How do you think instructors taught in tandem seat tailwheel aircraft 60 years ago? They just did. It's not that big of a deal.
Look, you can go do whatever you want. I'm just offering some free advice. Take it or leave it, and I won't be surprised if you leave it. I also won't be the least bit surprised if you have to answer to the feds for something some day, considering your attitude and thoughts on supposed "technicalities" in the regs. Good luck with that. Please don't damage any plane but your own, or hurt any people, other than yourself, in the process.
Just tell me where you stand. Do you feel it's always unsafe to land without lights? Do you feel it's sometimes unsafe to land without lights? I'm having a hard time trying to figure out where you stand on this.
If another pilot is using the status of the runway lights being on or off to determine whether there is any traffic, that pilot is an idiot. Especially if there are a bunch of airports in the area that share the same PCL frequency. At night time other aircraft stick out like a sore thumbs, as you should know since you seem to be the self appointed master of night flying. Why would the lights being on matter one bit?
Well then we just have to agree to disagree.
And runway lights are?
We have to agree to disagree again.
No big deal, right. I'm sure you were able to land flawlessly on your first try. I see you're the self appointed master of landing a plane from the backseat, too.
jrh
Well-Known Member
I've already spelled out where I stand. But I'll say it again--taking off and landing without runway lights is something that can probably be done without incident under many circumstances, but there is enough added risk that I wouldn't recommend making a habit out of it.
Do it once or twice by mistake? Not a big deal. Stuff happens, chances of dying are pretty slim.
Go out and practice touch and goes with the lights off? Not a good idea under any conditions, and I suspect most feds would agree. Why not call your local FSDO tomorrow and see what they think of the idea?
By the way, you never answered my first question to you--what is actually *gained* by practicing takeoffs and landings without runway lights?
And I'm not asking to try to pick a fight or continue an argument or anything. I'm asking because I legitimately want to know what benefits you expect from such training. I've never heard of this until now, but I'm open to new ideas. If it really is good for students, I'd consider doing it.
Of course they *should* look both ways, but they might not. Why give the other pilot one more opportunity to act like an idiot? It's defensive, proactive flying to always turn the lights on.
But we're getting side tracked. I threw that out as one possible example of many "what if" scenarios that all add up to "operating without lights = bad idea."
There's no way I can flawlessly defend numerous specific scenarios. Nor can I come up with all the possibilities of things that could go wrong. All I'm saying is, in general, I don't like the idea of intentionally leaving the lights off, for the sake of training or otherwise.
:whatever:
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm a self-appointed master of anything, but whatever.
No, runway lights are not required by regulation, but just because something isn't required by regulation doesn't mean a pilot should go do whatever they want. Common sense and accepted practices have to come in to play at some point.
Is there any regulation that says a pilot must use a checklist? No, there isn't, but it's commonly accepted practice that proficient pilots use checklists. It's just the way things are done. If a pilot lands gear up and the feds investigate and find there was no checklist usage going on, you better believe that pilot will have some explaining to do.
In the same way, doing takeoffs and landings on an unlit runway is not an accepted practice anywhere that I've been, seen, or heard of before.
:whatever:
I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, either. It's certainly not the message I intended to send.
Ralgha
Well-Known Member
I'm squarely in Butt's camp. I've landed many times without runway lights, and even without a moon to light it up. It's a non-event. The story about the lights being inop and people troubleshooting it is entirely irrelevent. It's just as likely that there would be people next to or on a lit runway as an unlit one, and that particular story is, as Butt said, a NOTAM issue. Absolutely nothing to do with the runway lights.
Likewise the argument about pilots taxiing across an unlit runway assuming it's not in use. If they are the type of person to do that, then they're going to charge right across a lit runway also.
What about in the daylight? Do you not use any runway at all because of the chance of someone taxiing across it? Don't even try to say that it's easier to see them in the day, because it's not.
As to what is gained by it? Confidence in your ability to land without runway lights, so you can do it without undue stress when it become necessary.
Last thing, jrh, you can't use the regs to support your decision to fly without a landing light, and then in the next breath use them to denounce landing without runway lights. Neither is required by the regs.
Likewise the argument about pilots taxiing across an unlit runway assuming it's not in use. If they are the type of person to do that, then they're going to charge right across a lit runway also.
What about in the daylight? Do you not use any runway at all because of the chance of someone taxiing across it? Don't even try to say that it's easier to see them in the day, because it's not.
As to what is gained by it? Confidence in your ability to land without runway lights, so you can do it without undue stress when it become necessary.
Last thing, jrh, you can't use the regs to support your decision to fly without a landing light, and then in the next breath use them to denounce landing without runway lights. Neither is required by the regs.
Eww.
jrh
Well-Known Member
When is it necessary? If you can't get the lights to come on, divert somewhere else. There's no reason a pilot should *have* to land on an unlit runway.
That's like saying we should fly close to thunderstorms in training so that we can get comfortable flying through severe turbulence. Then we can handle it without undue stress when it becomes necessary to fly close to thunderstorms in the future.
You're right. I shouldn't have even brought the issue of landing lights in to the debate. All I did was confuse the issue.
But I stand by my original opinion, it's a bad idea to intentionally use a runway without edge lights.
For those of you who want to go practice "no runway light" takeoffs and landings, go ahead. In fact, why not ask your friendly local FAA inspector to ride along with you next time, just for the heck of it? It would be a ton of fun. I'm sure Mr. FAA would be down for it.
The same argument can be said about doing partial panel NDB approaches. You can always divert to another airport that has an ILS, right? So why bother doing partial panel NDBs?
[/quote]That's like saying we should fly close to thunderstorms in training so that we can get comfortable flying through severe turbulence. Then we can handle it without undue stress when it becomes necessary to fly close to thunderstorms in the future.[/quote]
This is assuming flying through a thunderstorm is just as dangerous as landing without runway lights. At least 3 or 4 people have said in this thread they've done it, and have all admitted it being a non-issue. Considering you've never even done it once, I think their opinion on this means more than yours.
They have better things to do.For those of you who want to go practice "no runway light" takeoffs and landings, go ahead. In fact, why not ask your friendly local FAA inspector to ride along with you next time, just for the heck of it? It would be a ton of fun. I'm sure Mr. FAA would be down for it.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Ok, it's obvious this isn't going anywhere. I've said my piece, you've said yours, and we both know where each other stands. I'm sure any outsider reading this thread has plenty of information to decide for themself what they feel comfortable with, which was half of why I even bothered to get in to it with you.
I'm done now.
Have a good night!
I'm done now.
Have a good night!
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Are talking about the training environment here or real life day to day operations?
If I am partial panel (for real) and my destination airport only has an NDB you can be damn sure I am going to ask ATC for vectors someplace else, preferable that is VMC and at least with an ILS or a PAR. Sure we TRAIN the partial panel stuff for the extreme situations when we don't have the gas to go somewhere else or we are on fire and need to get down right now. But if I can do something else, even if it means having to divert I am certainly not going to be shooting a partial panel ILS to mins let alone an NDB.
rvatornate
Well-Known Member
snip,
Actually we are required by FAAO 7110.65 Paragraph 4-7-12 to "Before issuing an approach clearance or en route descent, and subsequently as changes occur, inform an aircraft of any abnormal operation of approach and landing aids and of destination airport conditions that you know of which might restrict an approach or landing. "
At ZKC that is interpreted as making sure the pilot has all the notams at the intended airport of landing. I often find it amazing how many pilots do not have the current notams for the airport they are going to.
averyrm
Well-Known Member
Landing at night with/without runway lights and with/without a landing light is equally dangerous.
As long as you're a proficient pilot (able to hit the centerline and flare without seeing the ground immediately under the nose) the biggest danger is hitting a deer or other large animal, it's hard to stop or swerve at 80+ knts, and the lights really don't reach that far.
As long as you're a proficient pilot (able to hit the centerline and flare without seeing the ground immediately under the nose) the biggest danger is hitting a deer or other large animal, it's hard to stop or swerve at 80+ knts, and the lights really don't reach that far.