Landing Light SOP

[kristoffer-m20j]

When ever possible I try to follow the same SOP as the BIG BOYS. With that being said what is the SOP for airliners when it comes to turning on the landing light. Is it altitude based, distance etc...

Kristoffer
1993 M20J MSE
http://homepage.mac.com/kristofferp/flying

[Tony]

Except, NEVER in the clouds at night!

>From another M20J driver. BTW, have you noticed in a group of pilots
it's easy to tell Mooney pilots? We're the ones with the big grins. In
the early 70s, when we flew Rangers, we were the ones with will
developed right arms (if you didn't drop the nose a little at the right
time getting the manual gear up was worse than a one armed pullup).

[Jose]

> Except, NEVER in the clouds at night!

Why? It's not a bad way to know you're actually =in= the clouds, and
not between layers or something.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

On 29 Oct 2005 10:09:54 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> When ever possible I try to follow the same SOP as the BIG BOYS. With
>> that being said what is the SOP for airliners when it comes to turning
>> on the landing light. Is it altitude based, distance etc...
>
>I don't know what's standard for airline pilots, but I was taught to
>turn on the landing light(s) during my pre-landing check-list, which
>takes place when I'm ten miles out.

I was taught (in the USA) to use the landing light whenever in the
vicinity of an airport, which is not to much different to the above.
That includes take-off as there's often traffic on a reciprocal
heading.

The UK has Flight Information Service which gives information, often
without radar. If there's any chance of conflict I use the landing
light as an extra precaution, that's in addition to strobes which are
always on.

[Jay Honeck]

> I was taught (in the USA) to use the landing light whenever in the
> vicinity of an airport, which is not to much different to the above.
> That includes take-off as there's often traffic on a reciprocal
> heading.

Interesting. I've never used my landing light on departure, except
near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.

Do others here do so?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I was taught (in the USA) to use the landing light whenever in the
>>vicinity of an airport, which is not to much different to the above.
>>That includes take-off as there's often traffic on a reciprocal
>>heading.
>
>
> Interesting. I've never used my landing light on departure, except
> near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.
>
> Do others here do so?

Only at night. :-)

Matt

[Bob Gardner]

AIM 4-3-23:

"c. The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program, Operation Lights On, to
enhance the see-and-avoid concept. Pilots are encouraged to turn on their
landing lights during takeoff; i.e., either after takeoff clearance has been
received or when beginning takeoff roll. Pilots are further encouraged to
turn on their landing lights when operating below 10,000 feet, day or night,
especially when operating within 10 miles of any airport, or in conditions
of reduced visibility and in areas where flocks of birds may be expected,
i.e., coastal areas, lake areas, around refuse dumps, etc. Although turning
on aircraft lights does enhance the see-and-avoid concept, pilots should not
become complacent about keeping a sharp lookout for other aircraft. Not all
aircraft are equipped with lights and some pilots may not have their lights
turned on. Aircraft manufacturer's recommendations for operation of landing
lights and electrical systems should be observed."

Bob Gardner

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I was taught (in the USA) to use the landing light whenever in the
>> vicinity of an airport, which is not to much different to the above.
>> That includes take-off as there's often traffic on a reciprocal
>> heading.
>
> Interesting. I've never used my landing light on departure, except
> near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.
>
> Do others here do so?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Private]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I was taught (in the USA) to use the landing light whenever in the
>> vicinity of an airport, which is not to much different to the above.
>> That includes take-off as there's often traffic on a reciprocal
>> heading.
>
> Interesting. I've never used my landing light on departure, except
> near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.
>
> Do others here do so?
> --

I have always thought that the SOP depended on who owned (or paid to
replace) the light bulb. Owners use as little as possible, renters = light
on when Hobbs on. I would think that owners who are not as fussy about
using certified bulbs are more likely to use the light for safety. Students
in rental planes in practice areas should use the lights on when Hobbs on
strategy although their instructor may tell them to conserve the bulb life.

Happy landings,


Happy landings,

[Jay Honeck]

> "c. The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program, Operation Lights On, to
> enhance the see-and-avoid concept.

<SNIP>

Thanks, Bob.

I wonder, though -- do landing lights in the daytime really do that
much for you? I seem to recall reading that bright lights coming at
you during daylight hours actually tends to camouflage what is behind
them.

(Groping back into the distant recesses of my history minor here...)
Didn't the British actually experiment with using extremely bright
lights to hide their aircraft during the day?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"

[Tony]

..

Close to min decent or decision height or whereever you are you'll be
including a look out the windscreen as part of your scan. Look into a
well light cloud and your scan will have a hard time getting back on
instruments. Trust me on this one, you don't want to find out for
yourself.
..

[Bob Gardner]

Before I had a car with automatic daytime running lights (05 Corolla), I
routinely turned on my headlights during the day. DRLs are mandatory in
Canada and many other countries. Motorcyclists keep their headlights on
during the day to enhance visibility. The "camouflage" theory is faulty.

Bob Gardner

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> "c. The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program, Operation Lights On, to
>> enhance the see-and-avoid concept.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Thanks, Bob.
>
> I wonder, though -- do landing lights in the daytime really do that
> much for you? I seem to recall reading that bright lights coming at
> you during daylight hours actually tends to camouflage what is behind
> them.
>
> (Groping back into the distant recesses of my history minor here...)
> Didn't the British actually experiment with using extremely bright
> lights to hide their aircraft during the day?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "
>

[Larry Dighera]

On 29 Oct 2005 11:04:26 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>::

>I've never used my landing light on departure, except
>near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.
>
>Do others here do so?

Due to the congested airspace within 100 miles of Los Angeles, I
always burn a landing light to enhance conspicuity.

It rumored (in some AC if I recall correctly) that a landing light
will reduce the probability of a bird strike.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Interesting. I've never used my landing light on departure, except
> near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.
>
> Do others here do so?

I use my landing light a lot, especially in somewhat hazy conditions,
or when ATC has called me as traffic for someone else.

<knock on wood> I've replaced one landing light since 1994
<knock on wood>
<knock on wood>
<knock on wood>
<knock on wood>
....

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

> Before I had a car with automatic daytime running lights (05 Corolla), I
> routinely turned on my headlights during the day. DRLs are mandatory in
> Canada and many other countries. Motorcyclists keep their headlights on
> during the day to enhance visibility. The "camouflage" theory is faulty.

except when *everyone* is using lights. :-(

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Jose]

> "c. The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program, Operation Lights On,

I'm always amused that things like this get names like "Operation such
and such".

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skywise]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in news:xPKdnc7ST_orV_7eRVn-
:

> Before I had a car with automatic daytime running lights (05 Corolla), I
> routinely turned on my headlights during the day. DRLs are mandatory in
> Canada and many other countries. Motorcyclists keep their headlights on
> during the day to enhance visibility. The "camouflage" theory is faulty.
>
> Bob Gardner
<Snipola>

I can speak from experience that no matter how bright the lights
are on a motorcycle (day OR night), most people just don't see them.
Observation is object based and most drivers are looking for cars,
not bikes. You tend not to see what you aren't looking for.

But the camouflage theory is based on what the background is. If the
background is a brightly lit blue sky, then lights can be used to
camouflage an object on a hill (or an aircraft) becasue the lights
are reducing hte contrast between the bright sky and the silhouette
of the object against the background. I've seen this demonstrated
on one of them discovery-like channels.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Supernews sucks - blocking google, usenet.com & newsfeeds.com posts

[Dale]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I was taught (in the USA) to use the landing light whenever in the
> > vicinity of an airport, which is not to much different to the above.
> > That includes take-off as there's often traffic on a reciprocal
> > heading.
>
> Interesting. I've never used my landing light on departure, except
> near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.
>
> Do others here do so?


If I was inflight my landing light was on, except at night when I only
used it for takeoff and landing.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:



> I wonder, though -- do landing lights in the daytime really do that
> much for you? I seem to recall reading that bright lights coming at
> you during daylight hours actually tends to camouflage what is behind
> them.
>
> (Groping back into the distant recesses of my history minor here...)
> Didn't the British actually experiment with using extremely bright
> lights to hide their aircraft during the day?

Do headlights hide an oncoming car? No.

The US did some work using a bank of lights facing forward to hide an
aircraft for ASW work. From what I've read it was effective, but was
never implemented.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Lakeview Bill]

"I seem to recall reading that bright lights coming at you during daylight
hours actually tends to camouflage what is behind them."

Of course, this begs the question: "If you are 5,000 or 6,000 feet up in the
air, and you see a light coming toward you, do you really need to be
concerned with precisely what is BEHIND the light?"



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > "c. The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program, Operation Lights On,
to
> > enhance the see-and-avoid concept.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Thanks, Bob.
>
> I wonder, though -- do landing lights in the daytime really do that
> much for you? I seem to recall reading that bright lights coming at
> you during daylight hours actually tends to camouflage what is behind
> them.
>
> (Groping back into the distant recesses of my history minor here...)
> Didn't the British actually experiment with using extremely bright
> lights to hide their aircraft during the day?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "
>

[RK Henry]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:17:09 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>Before I had a car with automatic daytime running lights (05 Corolla), I
>routinely turned on my headlights during the day. DRLs are mandatory in
>Canada and many other countries. Motorcyclists keep their headlights on
>during the day to enhance visibility. The "camouflage" theory is faulty.

I've observed lights camouflaging an oncoming car. It was in Florida.
The Canadian cars with headlights on virtually disappeared under the
bright Florida sun while the cars without headlights on were clearly
visible. Most of the countries that require DRLs are northern
latitudes where the winter days can be quite dim or even dark all the
time. In those places, I think that DRLs probably help. Maybe the U.S.
too, in winter.

I remember seeing a TV documentary about camouflage that detailed the
U.S. Army's experiments with camouflaging a tank by lighting it up.
The film demonstrated that it actually works under the right
conditions.

I think the landing light should be used when it will actually help.
On a bright CAVU day it probably won't help much. During rain, low
clouds, or haze, I've seen landing lights make an aircraft much more
visible. On a hazy day, I've had the tower call my aircraft to another
pilot and I'd hear only "looking" as a response. Then I snapped on my
landing light and immediately heard the other pilot report visual
contact. It does work.

The rest of the time, I leave the landing light off. The damn thing
burns out so frequently that running it when I don't need it only
wastes bulb life. Then it won't be there when I really do need it.

RK Henry

[Marc CYBW]

I seem to remember a Flying article on an LED replacement landing light
"bulb" that lasted 20x or more regular bulbs - for almost the same price.


"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> > I was taught (in the USA) to use the landing light whenever in the
>> > vicinity of an airport, which is not to much different to the above.
>> > That includes take-off as there's often traffic on a reciprocal
>> > heading.
>>
>> Interesting. I've never used my landing light on departure, except
>> near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.
>>
>> Do others here do so?
>
>
> If I was inflight my landing light was on, except at night when I only
> used it for takeoff and landing.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Mike W.]

What is a certified bulb, exactly?

"Private" > wrote in message
news:fuP8f.345716$tl2.15531@pd7tw3no...
> snip<
> I would think that owners who are not as fussy about
> using certified bulbs are more likely to use the light for safety.
>

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Didn't the British actually experiment with using extremely bright
> lights to hide their aircraft during the day?

Well, they did use searchlights to try to keep U-boats from spotting anti-sub
patrol Liberators, but I don't recall that the reports stated that they were
particularly bright. The general idea was to shine a light that would be about
as bright as the ambient light and prevent the plane from registering as a dark
object.


Speaking from personal experience, if you happen to be in front of another
aircraft, the landing lights attract the eye. If you're off to one side, they
don't show up at all.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[BTIZ]

normally the transition through 10,000ft is the lights on silent cockpit
line

my lights are on the gear.. no lights until the gear come down
BT

"kristoffer-m20j" > wrote in
message ...
>
> When ever possible I try to follow the same SOP as the BIG BOYS. With
> that being said what is the SOP for airliners when it comes to turning
> on the landing light. Is it altitude based, distance etc...
>
> Kristoffer
> 1993 M20J MSE
> http://homepage.mac.com/kristofferp/flying
>
>
> --
> kristoffer-m20j

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:19:38 GMT, "Marc CYBW"
> wrote in
<_4W8f.91989$ir4.658@edtnps90>::

>I seem to remember a Flying article on an LED replacement landing light
>"bulb" that lasted 20x or more regular bulbs - for almost the same price.

I'll bet a LED lamp would last even longer than that.

The standard early Cherokee landing light is a #4509 (13 volts). It
is a PAR36 sealed beam lamp with a tungsten filament (C6) rated at 100
watts with an average rated "lab life" of 25 hours, and initial
maximum beam candlepower of ~110,000. About $10/each from the source
below.

There is also a Quartz equivalent lamp #Q4509 with the same
specifications except a 100 hour life and 140,000 candlepower.


Wholesale pricing:


SUNRAY LIGHTING INC.
1 Whatney
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 452-0900
(USA) 800-8-LIGHTS
FAX "TOLL FREE" (800) 255-3141

http://sunraylighting.com/


DISCLAIMER:
The lamps mentioned, while meeting the nominal specifications
required, may NOT BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH PMA REQUIREMENTS. Consult an
FAA certified A & P mechanic before purchasing.


I have no affiliation with Sunray Lighting other than as a satisfied
customer.

[Jay Honeck]

> Before I had a car with automatic daytime running lights (05 Corolla), I
> routinely turned on my headlights during the day. DRLs are mandatory in
> Canada and many other countries. Motorcyclists keep their headlights on
> during the day to enhance visibility. The "camouflage" theory is faulty.

Apples and oranges. On the ground, a landing light (or headlights)
will probably enhance visibility, even in the daytime. (Although, as
other posters have noted, not all the time.)

In the air, though, it's not so cut and dried. I found this on a
military history website:
************************************************** ******************
The post-war period saw interest in naval visual stealth and camouflage
declined further, although one USN initiative is worth analysis.
Codenamed 'Project Yehudi', this 1940's programme adapted contrast
lighting techniques experimented with during the First World War. By
attaching bright light sources to the outside of RN corvettes and the
Royal Canadian Navy vessel HMCS Trillium, First World War-period
technicians had sought to eliminate silhouetting effects.

The technique worked best during periods of haze, but changeable
weather meant that it was only effective for seconds at a time and was
negated by movement of the vessels. 'Project Yehudi' revived this
'active camouflage' principle by modifying TBM-3 Avenger and B-24
Liberator anti-submarine patrol and attack aircraft with similar
lighting schemes.
************************************************** ******************

So, I guess it all comes down to this: Are the benefits derived from
flying around with your landing light(s) on greater than the problems
encountered when you try to land at night with burnt-out landing light
bulbs?

:-)

(Must be why Lopresti can sell those danged Boom Beams for a grand!)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Gardner]

To go back to the beginning of the thread then, Jay, why do the airlines
bother?

Bob

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Before I had a car with automatic daytime running lights (05 Corolla), I
>> routinely turned on my headlights during the day. DRLs are mandatory in
>> Canada and many other countries. Motorcyclists keep their headlights on
>> during the day to enhance visibility. The "camouflage" theory is faulty.
>
> Apples and oranges. On the ground, a landing light (or headlights)
> will probably enhance visibility, even in the daytime. (Although, as
> other posters have noted, not all the time.)
>
> In the air, though, it's not so cut and dried. I found this on a
> military history website:
> ************************************************** ******************
> The post-war period saw interest in naval visual stealth and camouflage
> declined further, although one USN initiative is worth analysis.
> Codenamed 'Project Yehudi', this 1940's programme adapted contrast
> lighting techniques experimented with during the First World War. By
> attaching bright light sources to the outside of RN corvettes and the
> Royal Canadian Navy vessel HMCS Trillium, First World War-period
> technicians had sought to eliminate silhouetting effects.
>
> The technique worked best during periods of haze, but changeable
> weather meant that it was only effective for seconds at a time and was
> negated by movement of the vessels. 'Project Yehudi' revived this
> 'active camouflage' principle by modifying TBM-3 Avenger and B-24
> Liberator anti-submarine patrol and attack aircraft with similar
> lighting schemes.
> ************************************************** ******************
>
> So, I guess it all comes down to this: Are the benefits derived from
> flying around with your landing light(s) on greater than the problems
> encountered when you try to land at night with burnt-out landing light
> bulbs?
>
> :-)
>
> (Must be why Lopresti can sell those danged Boom Beams for a grand!)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Morgans]

"Marc CYBW" > wrote in message
news:_4W8f.91989$ir4.658@edtnps90...
> I seem to remember a Flying article on an LED replacement landing light
> "bulb" that lasted 20x or more regular bulbs - for almost the same price.

LED bulbs would be unlikely to provide enough brightness to be a good
landing light.

Is it possible you ere recalling a HID (high intensity discharge) system?

There is a popular system, called a Lopresti boom beam, that is made for
such applications.

http://www.speedmods.com/Boom_Beam/boom_beam_systems.htm

It is more like a strobe light bulb, with high voltage discharging it so
rapidly that it looks like it is constantly on. They are also found in some
cars nowadays, and are identified by an unusual "blue" tint, and are very
bright, while drawing little current. There is no filament to break, so
they stand up to severe vibration, very well.

Some people have gone to the junkyards, and gotten lights out of donor cars.
They are said to be somewhat tricky, as the transformer and wiring is best
kept intact, since it is such a high voltage.

LED light are starting to see use as nav lights, with some kits being sold,
and some people home-brewing applications. No heat, no vibration problems,
very long life, low current drain. Hard to beat, if you get it right.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> To go back to the beginning of the thread then, Jay, why do the airlines
> bother?

Help me here -- I can't find any reference in this thread to airlines
using their landing lights en route.

While landing and taking off, yes -- but I thought we were discussing
whether landing lights actually enhanced visibility outside of the
airport environment?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[W P Dixon]

I hate those car lights!,
Oh they'd be great on my car while driving, but being in a car heading
into them I hate it! Blinds the crap out of me in my wife's low sitting car.
Doesn't bother me as bad in my truck.

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> It is more like a strobe light bulb, with high voltage discharging it so
> rapidly that it looks like it is constantly on. They are also found in
> some
> cars nowadays, and are identified by an unusual "blue" tint, and are very
> bright, while drawing little current. There is no filament to break, so
> they stand up to severe vibration, very well.
>
> Some people have gone to the junkyards, and gotten lights out of donor
> cars.
> They are said to be somewhat tricky, as the transformer and wiring is best
> kept intact, since it is such a high voltage.
>
> LED light are starting to see use as nav lights, with some kits being
> sold,
> and some people home-brewing applications. No heat, no vibration
> problems,
> very long life, low current drain. Hard to beat, if you get it right.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Blanche]

Bob Gardner > wrote:
>Before I had a car with automatic daytime running lights (05 Corolla), I
>routinely turned on my headlights during the day. DRLs are mandatory in
>Canada and many other countries. Motorcyclists keep their headlights on
>during the day to enhance visibility. The "camouflage" theory is faulty.

But why on earth must the motorcyclists keep the day lights on HIGH?
I can see them just fine with regular lights. The HIGH beams not only
force me to hit the night option on my rearview mirror (reducing the
chance to see cars without any lights in the mirror) but are incredibly
aggravating.

Enhancing visibility is a good idea. Blinding me is not.

[John Gaquin]

"kristoffer-m20j" > wrote in

> that being said what is the SOP for airliners when it comes to turning
> on the landing light. Is it altitude based, distance etc...

below 10000.

[Morgans]

"Blanche" > wrote

> But why on earth must the motorcyclists keep the day lights on HIGH?
> I can see them just fine with regular lights. The HIGH beams not only
> force me to hit the night option on my rearview mirror (reducing the
> chance to see cars without any lights in the mirror) but are incredibly
> aggravating.
>
> Enhancing visibility is a good idea. Blinding me is not.

Are you talking about the high lights being a problem during the day, or at
night?
--
Jim in NC

[Dale]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:


> There is also a Quartz equivalent lamp #Q4509 with the same
> specifications except a 100 hour life and 140,000 candlepower.


The Q4509 is what I used in the 182. With the standard bulb I'd be
lucky to get 25 hours, with the Q bulb I was getting 100+ hours.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" > wrote

> I hate those car lights!,
> Oh they'd be great on my car while driving, but being in a car heading
> into them I hate it! Blinds the crap out of me in my wife's low sitting
car.
> Doesn't bother me as bad in my truck.

I know what you mean. IMHO, they ought to be banned, except for use on high
beam, with a regular light for low beam.

I don't know if there are any stats on crashes being caused by blindness
from oncoming cars with HID's, or if there ever has been a crashed cause by
HID blindness. There have been times when I felt unsafe, because of being
temporarily blinded by those things on two lane roads.
--
Jim in NC

[Private]

I will defer to more knowledgeable AMEs here for an "exact" definition if I
am using the term "certified" incorrectly .

What I meant was FAA approved replacement part as compared with similar
specification part lacking correct aviation paperwork. It is my
understanding that some owners install (but do not log) non-certified??
replacement bulbs due to much lower cost.

Happy landings,

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> What is a certified bulb, exactly?
>
> "Private" > wrote in message
> news:fuP8f.345716$tl2.15531@pd7tw3no...
>> snip<
>> I would think that owners who are not as fussy about
>> using certified bulbs are more likely to use the light for safety.
>>
>
>

[Private]

"Private" > wrote in message
news:Y8%8f.351571$oW2.280247@pd7tw1no...
>I will defer to more knowledgeable AMEs here for an "exact" definition if I
>am using the term "certified" incorrectly .
>
> What I meant was FAA approved replacement part as compared with similar
> specification part lacking correct aviation paperwork. It is my
> understanding that some owners install (but do not log) non-certified??
> replacement bulbs due to much lower cost.
>


There is a current thread, subject "Landing Lights at NAPA", on
rec.aviation.owning that discusses this subject extensively.

Happy landings,


> "Mike W." > wrote in message
> ...
>> What is a certified bulb, exactly?
>>
>> "Private" > wrote in message
>> news:fuP8f.345716$tl2.15531@pd7tw3no...
>>> snip<
>>> I would think that owners who are not as fussy about
>>> using certified bulbs are more likely to use the light for safety.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Roger]

On 29 Oct 2005 21:32:48 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> Before I had a car with automatic daytime running lights (05 Corolla), I
>> routinely turned on my headlights during the day. DRLs are mandatory in
>> Canada and many other countries. Motorcyclists keep their headlights on
>> during the day to enhance visibility. The "camouflage" theory is faulty.
>
>Apples and oranges. On the ground, a landing light (or headlights)
>will probably enhance visibility, even in the daytime. (Although, as
>other posters have noted, not all the time.)
>
I see a lot of the newer cars with those damed bluish white lights.
They say they are better than the regular ones, but to older eyes
those things are blinding. One on dims is worse than a set of
halogens on bright for me.

I don't fly around with my landing light on (unless I forget) as it's
in the wheel well and does nothing except warm up the well a tad.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:39:35 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Blanche" > wrote
>
>> But why on earth must the motorcyclists keep the day lights on HIGH?
>> I can see them just fine with regular lights. The HIGH beams not only
>> force me to hit the night option on my rearview mirror (reducing the
>> chance to see cars without any lights in the mirror) but are incredibly
>> aggravating.
>>
>> Enhancing visibility is a good idea. Blinding me is not.
>
>Are you talking about the high lights being a problem during the day, or at
>night?

Both!

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:04:08 -0800, Dale > wrote:

>In article om>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>
>> I wonder, though -- do landing lights in the daytime really do that
>> much for you? I seem to recall reading that bright lights coming at
>> you during daylight hours actually tends to camouflage what is behind
>> them.
>>
>> (Groping back into the distant recesses of my history minor here...)
>> Didn't the British actually experiment with using extremely bright
>> lights to hide their aircraft during the day?
>
>Do headlights hide an oncoming car? No.

But they make a VW look like it's twice as far away as a buic right
beside it.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>The US did some work using a bank of lights facing forward to hide an
>aircraft for ASW work. From what I've read it was effective, but was
>never implemented.

[Roger]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:47:07 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"W P Dixon" > wrote
>
>> I hate those car lights!,
>> Oh they'd be great on my car while driving, but being in a car heading
>> into them I hate it! Blinds the crap out of me in my wife's low sitting
>car.
>> Doesn't bother me as bad in my truck.
>
>I know what you mean. IMHO, they ought to be banned, except for use on high
>beam, with a regular light for low beam.

I hate 'em with a passion. When I meet a car with those on at night I
darn near have to pull over and they claim they are easier on the eyes
of oncoming drivers. Maybe young ones, but the majority of drivers
are now in the middle age and older class.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>I don't know if there are any stats on crashes being caused by blindness
>from oncoming cars with HID's, or if there ever has been a crashed cause by
>HID blindness. There have been times when I felt unsafe, because of being
>temporarily blinded by those things on two lane roads.

[Mike W.]

Yeah I know. Other than the sales reciept, there is no paperwork for an
incandescent lamp.

"Private" > wrote in message
news:I609f.361999$tl2.177786@pd7tw3no...

> There is a current thread, subject "Landing Lights at NAPA", on
> rec.aviation.owning that discusses this subject extensively.
>
> Happy landings,
>

[Jose]

> Help me here -- I can't find any reference in this thread to airlines
> using their landing lights en route.

When most of us are enroute, we are where the airlines are landing or
taking off.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[LWG]

I agree! I set the mirror to night and have a hard time seeing anything in
the rear.

The lights on in the day thing is good, but I question the high beams. I
also wonder about the legality of having them on all the time. I know the
cops will ticket the Good Samaritans who flash their lights to warn others
of speed traps, based upon some motor vehicle law about failing to dim
lights for oncoming traffic. How would that not apply to motorcycles?

Les
"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:39:35 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Blanche" > wrote
>>
>>> But why on earth must the motorcyclists keep the day lights on HIGH?
>>> I can see them just fine with regular lights. The HIGH beams not only
>>> force me to hit the night option on my rearview mirror (reducing the
>>> chance to see cars without any lights in the mirror) but are incredibly
>>> aggravating.
>>>
>>> Enhancing visibility is a good idea. Blinding me is not.
>>
>>Are you talking about the high lights being a problem during the day, or
>>at
>>night?
>
> Both!
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jose]

> The lights on in the day thing is good

....unless you see a deer in the road.
Hit the brakes - hit the horn - turn off the lights.
Oh - can't do that - blasted car "does what's best for me".

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Darrell S]

wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2005 10:09:54 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
> wrote:
>
>>> When ever possible I try to follow the same SOP as the BIG BOYS.
>>> With that being said what is the SOP for airliners when it comes to
>>> turning on the landing light. Is it altitude based, distance etc...
>>
>> I don't know what's standard for airline pilots, but I was taught to
>> turn on the landing light(s) during my pre-landing check-list, which
>> takes place when I'm ten miles out.
>
Most airlines turn their lights on for takeoff and turn them off climbing
through 10,000 feet. Descending for landing they turn them on at 10,000
feet and turn them off after landing. Nav lights are on all the time when
power is available. The anti-collision light is turned on prior to engine
start and is turned off after parking at the end of the flight. .

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

[Darrell S]

Darrell S wrote:
> wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2005 10:09:54 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> When ever possible I try to follow the same SOP as the BIG BOYS.
>>>> With that being said what is the SOP for airliners when it comes to
>>>> turning on the landing light. Is it altitude based, distance etc...
>>>
>>> I don't know what's standard for airline pilots, but I was taught to
>>> turn on the landing light(s) during my pre-landing check-list, which
>>> takes place when I'm ten miles out.
>>
> Most airlines turn their lights on for takeoff and turn them off
> climbing through 10,000 feet. Descending for landing they turn them
> on at 10,000 feet and turn them off after landing. Nav lights are on
> all the time when power is available. The anti-collision light is
> turned on prior to engine start and is turned off after parking at
> the end of the flight. .

Note: for clarification that first sentence probably should have said
"landing lights" rather than just lights. Since small prop aircraft
frequently don't go above 10,000', it would probably be wise to turn the
landing lights off at cruise altitude and turn them back on at start of
descent.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

[Bob Gardner]

Help me here. Where in my post do you find the word "enroute"?

Bob

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> To go back to the beginning of the thread then, Jay, why do the airlines
>> bother?
>
> Help me here -- I can't find any reference in this thread to airlines
> using their landing lights en route.
>
> While landing and taking off, yes -- but I thought we were discussing
> whether landing lights actually enhanced visibility outside of the
> airport environment?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Michelle P]

Bob,
A single light will enhance visibility. Many lights will actually cause
the vehicle to blend in during the day.
Michelle

Bob Gardner wrote:

>Before I had a car with automatic daytime running lights (05 Corolla), I
>routinely turned on my headlights during the day. DRLs are mandatory in
>Canada and many other countries. Motorcyclists keep their headlights on
>during the day to enhance visibility. The "camouflage" theory is faulty.
>
>Bob Gardner
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
>>>"c. The FAA has a voluntary pilot safety program, Operation Lights On, to
>>>enhance the see-and-avoid concept.
>>>
>>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>Thanks, Bob.
>>
>>I wonder, though -- do landing lights in the daytime really do that
>>much for you? I seem to recall reading that bright lights coming at
>>you during daylight hours actually tends to camouflage what is behind
>>them.
>>
>>(Groping back into the distant recesses of my history minor here...)
>>Didn't the British actually experiment with using extremely bright
>>lights to hide their aircraft during the day?
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>>Iowa City, IA
>>Pathfinder N56993
>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>"
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Michelle P]

Airlines in general: lights on below 10,000 feet. Easy since they have
other things to do at that altitude as well.
Michelle

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>To go back to the beginning of the thread then, Jay, why do the airlines
>>bother?
>>
>>
>
>Help me here -- I can't find any reference in this thread to airlines
>using their landing lights en route.
>
>While landing and taking off, yes -- but I thought we were discussing
>whether landing lights actually enhanced visibility outside of the
>airport environment?
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
>

[George Patterson]

Private wrote:

> There is a current thread, subject "Landing Lights at NAPA", on
> rec.aviation.owning that discusses this subject extensively.

That thread is discussing the purchase of certified bulbs from non-aviation
suppliers. A GE landing light bulb is a landing light bulb no matter where you
buy it.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Jose]

> A GE landing light bulb is a landing light bulb no matter where you buy it.

Is the same true of stall switches? I'm sure Piper doesn't make them
itself - if we could find the source we could buy them for five dollars.

Piper charges seven hundred dollars.

Same thing?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:

> Same thing?

If all the markings are the same, I defy you or anyone else to prove otherwise.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Jose]

> If all the markings are the same, I defy you or anyone else to prove otherwise.

Come to the FAA's attention and they will do so. So will the insurance
companies. One comes with paperwork, the other doesn't.

Is it right? Probably not. Is it so? Probably.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Greg]

Jose wrote:

> > Except, NEVER in the clouds at night!
>
> Why? It's not a bad way to know you're actually =in= the clouds, and
> not between layers or something.

Why do you like to harm your night vision in the clouds? I'm curious.
How bright do you keep your instrument panel while you do this?

[Greg]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Before I had a car with automatic daytime running lights (05 Corolla), I
> routinely turned on my headlights during the day. DRLs are mandatory in
> Canada and many other countries. Motorcyclists keep their headlights on
> during the day to enhance visibility. The "camouflage" theory is faulty.

Because of its higher latitude, Canada (and Scandinavia etc) has a lot of hours
of twilight during many months when the sun is low but headlights are not
required since it is daytime. This is one of the reasons why DRLs became
popular and then mandatory in Canada. Unfortunately, in North America, it is
legally acceptable to use high beam lights (somewhat dimmed) for DRLs even
though they are aimed up. This causes a lot of glare and can be
distracting/harmful to the vision of oncoming drivers. Most GM cars use this
type of setup, and Saturn cars are the worst offenders, I believe. Then again
many drivers leave fog lights (with their diffused beam that goes EVERYWHERE,
not in an aimed beam like headlights) on all the time at night even though it is
clear as a desert sky. North America car light standards are poor.

[Jay Honeck]

> Help me here. Where in my post do you find the word "enroute"?

Well, if we're talking about using landing lights while *landing*, I guess
we're in agreement!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Why do you like to harm your night vision in the clouds? I'm curious.
> How bright do you keep your instrument panel while you do this?

Actually, come to think of it, I do it outside the clouds, to let me
know when I enter them.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:14:09 -0800, "Darrell S" >
wrote:

wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2005 10:09:54 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> When ever possible I try to follow the same SOP as the BIG BOYS.
>>>> With that being said what is the SOP for airliners when it comes to
>>>> turning on the landing light. Is it altitude based, distance etc...
>>>
>>> I don't know what's standard for airline pilots, but I was taught to
>>> turn on the landing light(s) during my pre-landing check-list, which
>>> takes place when I'm ten miles out.
>>
>Most airlines turn their lights on for takeoff and turn them off climbing
>through 10,000 feet. Descending for landing they turn them on at 10,000
>feet and turn them off after landing. Nav lights are on all the time when
>power is available. The anti-collision light is turned on prior to engine
>start and is turned off after parking at the end of the flight. .

The one that flew through the pattern at 3BS didn't have them on, or I
was so close I couldn't see them from that angle.

I live about 15 miles out and pretty much in line for 14 at MBS. I see
a lot of them turning their lights on about this far out, sometimes a
bit father out. I'd guess that puts them around 5000 or so. If they
are lining up for 14 it's 2600.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> nteresting. I've never used my landing light on departure, except
> near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.
>
> Do others here do so?
>

Always. What would be the rationale for not doing it when you do it
during approach?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

>> nteresting. I've never used my landing light on departure, except
>> near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.
>>
>> Do others here do so?
>>
>
> Always. What would be the rationale for not doing it when you do it
> during approach?

None, really, I suppose. Except that it's called a "landing light" -- not a
"departure light."

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:

> Come to the FAA's attention and they will do so. So will the insurance
> companies. One comes with paperwork, the other doesn't.

The paperwork on a new part is the receipt. There is no requirement that the
purchaser keep the receipt. So, the FAA cannot and will not "do so."

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[George Patterson]

Greg wrote:

> North America car light standards are poor.

That's because what works well in Boston (or, as you state, Canada) doesn't work
well in Florida. Having much in the way of lighting standards in North America
is a poor idea.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> None, really, I suppose. Except that it's called a "landing light" -- not a
> "departure light."
>
> :-)
>

Nice recovery... ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Chris G.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There are many pilots with many different operating practices. Here is
mine:

1a) Landing & Taxi lights:
Leave the Landing Light off until calling ready for departure to the
Tower. (nighttime only)

1b) Landing lights only:
Use the lights anytime (at night) on the ground

2) Leave them on until I land. It's promotes visibility of my plane,
even if a minute amount. I do this during day or night flights. On a
LONG x-c, in relatively unpopulated space, I might consider turning off
the light.

My preference would be to get a flasher for the landing lights so I can
have the best of both worlds--longer bulb life and enhanced visibility
to others.

Chris G.
PP-ASEL 8-27-05
www.k7sle.com


kristoffer-m20j wrote:
> When ever possible I try to follow the same SOP as the BIG BOYS. With
> that being said what is the SOP for airliners when it comes to turning
> on the landing light. Is it altitude based, distance etc...
>
> Kristoffer
> 1993 M20J MSE
> http://homepage.mac.com/kristofferp/flying
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDZkhbMhhgBf/D8rsRArJZAKCzEm931HJUjwdOV7NfAwUaQFwTdgCfWM0s
3FCf30aixzaZ/VkpRWvrEq4=
=bRTn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[RST Engineering]

90% of the wear on a bulb is the inrush current when you turn it on. A
landing light flasher without an inrush current limiter is an excellent way
to burn out bulbs faster. None of the commercially available flashers I am
aware of use ICLs.

Jim



> My preference would be to get a flasher for the landing lights so I can
> have the best of both worlds--longer bulb life and enhanced visibility
> to others.

[Jay Honeck]

RST Engineering wrote:
> 90% of the wear on a bulb is the inrush current when you turn it on. A
> landing light flasher without an inrush current limiter is an excellent way
> to burn out bulbs faster. None of the commercially available flashers I am
> aware of use ICLs.

Hey Jim -- If you can stand looking at this horrible website for a
minute, what do you think of the Pulsar?

http://www.avtek2.com/pulsar_info.htm

Mike (the owner) is very active on the Cherokee Pilots Association, and
several folks who have this flashing unit say that their bulbs last
damn-near forever. Does that mean they use ICLs?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:03:52 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>>> nteresting. I've never used my landing light on departure, except
>>> near major airshows (OSH, Sun N Fun) where it's often requested.
>>>
>>> Do others here do so?
>>>
>>
>> Always. What would be the rationale for not doing it when you do it
>> during approach?
>
>None, really, I suppose. Except that it's called a "landing light" -- not a
>"departure light."
>
>:-)

In that case maybe it should only be used for landing and not
approach!!!!

I fly out of EGPE and the most used runway is 23. The VFR main route
South (towards the Loch Ness Monster!) means many inbound flights are
on a reciprocal heading, descending whilst you're climbing. That's in
addition to commercial traffic coming into uncontrolled airspace plus
helicopter medical & commercial traffic in the vicinity of the town
directly ahead. And for fun there's the military having fun too.

So that's military 200ft to 1000ft, helicopters 1000ft to 2000ft and
VFR cimbing and descending. Add to that the Scottish weather and it
can be interesting looking for grey against grey under a grey
overcast. Then there's the low sun (sometimes) in your eyes at this
time of year.

Guess I'll keep using the landing, approach or take-off light often!

[RST Engineering]

I really can't tell. He claims to have "five stages of filtering" whatever
that means. He also says that the filament never really turns off, so there
is no thermal shock to the filament in the on-mode. But a dimming scheme
such as this is probably using some sort of pulse width modulation in the
"off" mode to dim the filament without heat buildup. I'd call it a dimmer
rather than a flasher -- dim, bright, dim, bright, and so on.

Seems to me that with any form of filtering there is going to be an
unavoidable heat loss in the inductors; that area under the curve is power,
and if the area goes down that power had to go somewhere. If it's not
light, it's heat.

It is an interesting product, but if I had to deal with that gawdawful web
page more than five minutes, I'd download it and read it in the original
html.

If you can get Mike to come on over here and discuss the internal
mechanisms, I'd be interested in finding out if my guess is correct. Of
course, five minutes with the product and an oscilloscope would be all it
would take also.

Jim




"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Hey Jim -- If you can stand looking at this horrible website for a
> minute, what do you think of the Pulsar?
>
> http://www.avtek2.com/pulsar_info.htm
>
> Mike (the owner) is very active on the Cherokee Pilots Association, and
> several folks who have this flashing unit say that their bulbs last
> damn-near forever. Does that mean they use ICLs?

[Montblack]

("RST Engineering" wrote)
>> Hey Jim -- If you can stand looking at this horrible website for a
>> minute, what do you think of the Pulsar?
>>
>> http://www.avtek2.com/pulsar_info.htm


> It is an interesting product, but if I had to deal with that gawdawful web
> page more than five minutes, I'd download it and read it in the original
> html.


Found this testimonial (w/mid-air pictures) on the Halloween site from Hell.

http://www.avtek2.com/Mid-Air%20Collision.htm

"Hi Mike,
I bought your pulsar unit several weeks ago, and I am still very pleased.

As for the mid-air, which occurred 11-26-00 over Katy Texas,
I was asleep in the right seat of my 172 and a pilot friend was flying.

A 150 collided with us, his right wing broke free and he was fatally injured
as his plane fell onto Interstate 10. His right wing pulled my right landing
gear out of my plane and his propeller cut the outer 7 feet of my right wing
loose and it buckled under. The impact was like turbulence, and not very
loud. The ensuing spin was more dramatic to me.

I awoke and flew. 3 spins and 14 minutes later we landed. My 172 was not
totaled and is probably flying again now. 2 hunters were in a field below us
and they were making a video of their bird hunting and looked up. I have
that 7 foot piece of wing in my hanger now and I look at it before every
flight.

I hope my thoughts help you to be an even better pilot, Ed Oppermann
(This is my "pulsar equipped" plane !!)"


Montblack

[Mike W.]

Show us an example of this magical paperwork.

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> > If all the markings are the same, I defy you or anyone else to prove
otherwise.
>
> Come to the FAA's attention and they will do so. So will the insurance
> companies. One comes with paperwork, the other doesn't.
>
> Is it right? Probably not. Is it so? Probably.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Greg wrote:
>
>> North America car light standards are poor.
>
>
> That's because what works well in Boston (or, as you state, Canada)
> doesn't work well in Florida. Having much in the way of lighting
> standards in North America is a poor idea.

You have me curious now. How is the lack of light (aka darkness)
different in Florida than in Boston?


Matt

[Jose]

> Show us an example of this magical paperwork.

The airframe log, no? Even if the owner changes a lightbulb, doesn't it
have to be entered into the log somewhere? Certainly this is true (but
I'm not sure where to check it) if replacing a stall warning switch - $5
at Radio Shack, $700 from Piper.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> In that case maybe it should only be used for landing and not
> approach!!!!

And, of course, you should turn it off for taxiing.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> You have me curious now. How is the lack of light (aka darkness)
> different in Florida than in Boston?

The main standard discussed in this thread is using the headlights all the time.
There have been a variety of objections expressed in this thread to the
advisability of doing so in various areas of the country. I'm not going to recap
them.

As far as I can tell, the main difference at night between Boston (or any major
city) and much of Florida is the lack of street lights in the latter. One effect
of this is the fact that the high-intensity lights that have become so popular
aren't particularly blinding in metro areas. It also is not a real big deal if a
driver has forgotten to turn his lights on. Those HI beams are blinding in rural
areas. It's also pretty difficult for a driver to not notice that his lights are
off.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:

> The airframe log, no? Even if the owner changes a lightbulb, doesn't it
> have to be entered into the log somewhere? Certainly this is true (but
> I'm not sure where to check it) if replacing a stall warning switch - $5
> at Radio Shack, $700 from Piper.

Sure. Here's an example of a correct logbook entry

"11/19/1998. Replaced left landing light with GE 4509. George Patterson. PPC
#xxxxxx."

The place of purchase is not required, nor is the price.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> You have me curious now. How is the lack of light (aka darkness)
>> different in Florida than in Boston?
>
>
> The main standard discussed in this thread is using the headlights all
> the time. There have been a variety of objections expressed in this
> thread to the advisability of doing so in various areas of the country.
> I'm not going to recap them.
>
> As far as I can tell, the main difference at night between Boston (or
> any major city) and much of Florida is the lack of street lights in the
> latter. One effect of this is the fact that the high-intensity lights
> that have become so popular aren't particularly blinding in metro areas.
> It also is not a real big deal if a driver has forgotten to turn his
> lights on. Those HI beams are blinding in rural areas. It's also pretty
> difficult for a driver to not notice that his lights are off.

OK, I see the urban vs. rural aspect, but Boston vs Florida didn't
really convey that. :-) I live in rural PA and we have very few street
lights, mainly just lights at some of the major road intersections.

Even then, I don't find the street lights terribly helpful to me when
flying at night as I'm not usually that low. :-)

Matt

[Jose]

> Sure. Here's an example of a correct logbook entry
> "11/19/1998. Replaced left landing light with GE 4509. George Patterson. PPC #xxxxxx."
> The place of purchase is not required, nor is the price.

So, does this mean it's ok to use a non-certified light, or just that
you'd probably get away with it?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike W.]

Yes it is supposed to be logged, but does everyone you know log adding a
quart of oil, or adding air to the tires? In a perfect world, yes it would
all get logged.

A maintenance log is not certification paperwork that accompanies a landing
light, it is paperwork that the owner/pilot is creating at the time of
repair.

I doubt very much that a switch you could buy at Radio Crap would be the
same manufacturer and part number as the one that you would get from Piper.
Besides, repair of electrical circuits in general is not spelled out in the
regs. Replacement of bulbs and landing lights are specifically listed.

We are talking about replacing a 4509 bulb with another 4509 bulb. From
§43.13, (b) 'Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventative
maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use such materials of
such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft
engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its
original or properly altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function,
structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other
qualities affecting airworthiness).'

If a bulb is replaced with the same make/part number as the original, or
with a different manufacturer's that is specifically made to replace that
part number, then you have satisfied §43.13. Where you bought it is of no
importance.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> > Show us an example of this magical paperwork.
>
> The airframe log, no? Even if the owner changes a lightbulb, doesn't it
> have to be entered into the log somewhere? Certainly this is true (but
> I'm not sure where to check it) if replacing a stall warning switch - $5
> at Radio Shack, $700 from Piper.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike W.]

What makes you think a GE 4509 is 'non-certified'? Show us where it says, or
implies, anywhere, that a replacement landing light has any type of
certification.


"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> > Sure. Here's an example of a correct logbook entry
> > "11/19/1998. Replaced left landing light with GE 4509. George Patterson.
PPC #xxxxxx."
> > The place of purchase is not required, nor is the price.
>
> So, does this mean it's ok to use a non-certified light, or just that
> you'd probably get away with it?
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> What makes you think a GE 4509 is 'non-certified'?

Nothing. I'm just smarting from paying seven hundred dollars for a five
dollar part.

Jos
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:

> So, does this mean it's ok to use a non-certified light, or just that
> you'd probably get away with it?

It is *not* ok to use a non-certified part. My take on the matter is that, if an
aircraft was certified to use Delco part number AC-9732-5, I can install a Delco
AC-9732-5 that I bought at the local NAPA dealer. I have heard that certain
assholes in the FAA feel that a Delco AC-9732-5 purchased from NAPA isn't ok;
that you have to buy it from, say, Piper for it to be legal. My take on that is
that they are wrong, and, given that nobody can tell where I bought my Delco
AC-9732-5 unless I tell them, I *will* "get away with it."

Either way, when I install the same make & model of part that is listed in the
certfication papers, I *am* installing a certified part. It says so in the
certification.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if Delco actually made part number AC-9732-5. I made
that up.

As far as a GE 4509 bulb is concerned, that's what the two aircraft I've owned
were certified to use, and every bulb I installed was a certified bulb.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Greg]

Jose wrote:

>> Jose wrote:
>>
>> > > Except, NEVER in the clouds at night!
>> >
>> > Why? It's not a bad way to know you're actually =in= the clouds, and
>> > not between layers or something.
>>
> > Why do you like to harm your night vision in the clouds? I'm curious.
> > How bright do you keep your instrument panel while you do this?
>
> Actually, come to think of it, I do it outside the clouds, to let me
> know when I enter them.

Ahh, ok. That makes more sense than using landing lights (and strobes for
that matter) inside clouds.

[Greg]

George Patterson wrote:

> Greg wrote:
>
> > North America car light standards are poor.
>
> That's because what works well in Boston (or, as you state, Canada) doesn't work
> well in Florida. Having much in the way of lighting standards in North America
> is a poor idea.

I disagree. Bad DRL implementations (e.g. those based on high beam bulbs) and bad
lense standards that permit implementations that cause excessive glare (e.g.
NHTSA/DOT standards that Canada also uses) are still poor whether in Newfoundland or
New Mexico. Take a drive at night anywhere in western Europe and you'll see what I
mean.

[Greg]

Roger wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:47:07 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"W P Dixon" > wrote
> >
> >> I hate those car lights!,
> >> Oh they'd be great on my car while driving, but being in a car heading
> >> into them I hate it! Blinds the crap out of me in my wife's low sitting
> >car.
> >> Doesn't bother me as bad in my truck.
> >
> >I know what you mean. IMHO, they ought to be banned, except for use on high
> >beam, with a regular light for low beam.
>
> I hate 'em with a passion. When I meet a car with those on at night I
> darn near have to pull over and they claim they are easier on the eyes
> of oncoming drivers. Maybe young ones, but the majority of drivers
> are now in the middle age and older class.
>

Don't be too quick to blame HID lights themselves. Usually HID lights are in high
end cars with above average (for N America) lenses that have proper focus and
(assuming proper aim) do not cause excessive glare to oncoming drivers.

Unfortunately there are a lot of (crap) "HID conversion kits" which are a
disaster. There are also even wanna-be HID lights sold under names like "cool
blue" and other crap. At best they just slightly reduce light output. At worst
they cause glare and blinding of oncoming drivers.

Good headlights provide lots of light and keep it in the road in front of you and
NOT in the eyes of oncoming drivers. Take a drive in Europe (a continent with
generally excellent headlight standards) at night and you will notice how nice it
is to drive without glare in your face everytime a car passes, and HID lamps
won't bother you a bit. Unfortunately our leaders in North America standards
don't take glare seriously.

(Potentially ambiguous rear red turn signals are not legal in Europe either,
although N America has led with the center high mount stop lamp, which I think is
a good feature.)

[Jose]

> Ahh, ok. That makes more sense than using landing lights (and strobes for
> that matter) inside clouds.

Actually, an occasional strobe in clouds is a good way to see what they
are made of.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Greg wrote:

> There are also even wanna-be HID lights sold under names like "cool
> blue" and other crap.

I've not done an extensive survey or anything, but the few aftermarket kits I've
looked at carried a note that they are for off-road use only. Of course, that
doesn't slow most people down. I think "cool blue" was one of the ones I glanced at.

I have a Nissan 4WD pickup truck with Bosch fog lights. I've never felt the need
for better lighting on the road.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:UDA9f.10245$bD.4407@trndny01...
> It is *not* ok to use a non-certified part. My take on the matter is that,
> if an aircraft was certified to use Delco part number AC-9732-5, I can
> install a Delco AC-9732-5 that I bought at the local NAPA dealer. I have
> heard that certain assholes in the FAA feel that a Delco AC-9732-5
> purchased from NAPA isn't ok; that you have to buy it from, say, Piper for
> it to be legal. My take on that is that they are wrong, and, given that
> nobody can tell where I bought my Delco AC-9732-5 unless I tell them, I
> *will* "get away with it."

IMHO, a caveat here is that sometimes parts are manufactured in bulk, and
then certified through additional testing by another party (such as the
aircraft manufacturer). Just because the part is manufactured by the same
manufacturer who made it for the aircraft doesn't mean it's certified for
that use.

However, as far as I know, when the part is certified through the third
party, it's labeled as such. You wouldn't find an aircraft type certificate
specifying "Delco AC-9732-5" if that part was certified through the aircraft
manufacturer; it would be relabled something else.

The problem comes in when one looks at the part being replaced, rather than
the type certificate, maintenance manual, etc. The part itself may not have
any of its markings changed after going through another layer of inspection.
For that matter, the installed part might not be legal.

It might seem silly to worry about a light bulb, but it may be that the
"certified" version of the bulb has been tested to ensure a variety of
things that are important for aircraft, but not as important for other uses.
Fire hazard comes to mind, for example. I mean, you don't really want your
bulb catching things on fire regardless of where you're using it, but being
on fire while in the air in an aircraft is especially bad news.

Not that I know bulbs are actually tested for fire hazard...it's just
something I expect they could be tested for. My point is simply that if one
doesn't know for a fact that a part from one source is identical IN EVERY
WAY to the same part from another source, one should make sure they've
obtained the part through an aviation-approved source.

Pete

[W P Dixon]

I can relate!, I have two deer spotters mounted on my brush guard. I turn
them on when I turn down my dead end street, just because my neighbors get a
kick out of them lighting the neighborhood. ;) I have never used them on the
road in traffic.
What gets me is these little cars with those messed up lights and then
they also have fog lights running as well! I'm like Jim I think they need to
get rid of those things. And fog lights are not meant to be on all the time,
they need to give tickets to those idiots.

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:vuB9f.10408$bD.5995@trndny01...
> Greg wrote:
>
>> There are also even wanna-be HID lights sold under names like "cool
>> blue" and other crap.
>
> I've not done an extensive survey or anything, but the few aftermarket
> kits I've looked at carried a note that they are for off-road use only. Of
> course, that doesn't slow most people down. I think "cool blue" was one of
> the ones I glanced at.
>
> I have a Nissan 4WD pickup truck with Bosch fog lights. I've never felt
> the need for better lighting on the road.
>
> George Patterson
> Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your
> neighbor.
> It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:19:42 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> In that case maybe it should only be used for landing and not
>> approach!!!!
>
>And, of course, you should turn it off for taxiing.
>
>George Patterson
> Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
> It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

And if you don't like what you see in an emergency night landing?

[Darrel Toepfer]

wrote:

> And if you don't like what you see in an emergency night landing?

Turn it off, no worries...

[Eduardo K.]

In article >, Greg > wrote:
>Roger wrote:
>
>Unfortunately there are a lot of (crap) "HID conversion kits" which are a
>disaster. There are also even wanna-be HID lights sold under names like "cool
>blue" and other crap. At best they just slightly reduce light output. At worst
>they cause glare and blinding of oncoming drivers.

Actually 'Osram coolblue's are quite good. So are 'Silvania Silverstar's. Both
are a very soft blueish white and work quite well. There are losta of chinese
crap that are deep blue that ARE crap...


--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|

[Chris G.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I've been wanting to learn more about what is out there for the various
flasher products for landing lights. So, ther eis Pulsar, but I'm sure
they're not the only company. Who else?

Chris



Jay Honeck wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>>90% of the wear on a bulb is the inrush current when you turn it on. A
>>landing light flasher without an inrush current limiter is an excellent way
>>to burn out bulbs faster. None of the commercially available flashers I am
>>aware of use ICLs.
>
>
> Hey Jim -- If you can stand looking at this horrible website for a
> minute, what do you think of the Pulsar?
>
> http://www.avtek2.com/pulsar_info.htm
>
> Mike (the owner) is very active on the Cherokee Pilots Association, and
> several folks who have this flashing unit say that their bulbs last
> damn-near forever. Does that mean they use ICLs?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDZ+8bMhhgBf/D8rsRAumJAJ0axIyNXA0L4XwpIB3bYgc1DdsUYgCfQwCk
ergHwdbcvytDGenPTHFuRPQ=
=5OO/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[George Patterson]

wrote:

> And if you don't like what you see in an emergency night landing?

Naw, leave it on. It helps you pick the softest trees. :-)

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Capt.Doug]

>"kristoffer-m20j" wrote in message
> When ever possible I try to follow the same SOP as the BIG BOYS. With
> that being said what is the SOP for airliners when it comes to turning
> on the landing light. Is it altitude based, distance etc...

The landing lights come on when we are cleared for take-off and are
extinguished ascending through 10,000 feet. They are turned on again when
descending through 10,000 feet, if we are at 250 KIAS or less, and are
extinguished when clearing the runway.

Also, (ON A SOAPBOX HERE), The taxi light is extinguished if we are facing
landing traffic as a courtesy. The taxi light is also extinguished when not
under movement or when being directed by a marshall for parking. The strobe
lights are NEVER illuminated while on the ground unless we are on the active
runway.

D. (B-727, MD-80, A-320)