A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Beacons/anticollision lights and engines



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old October 16th 06, 06:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Jim Macklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,070
Default Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

The Beechjet [Hawker 400 ] has a light in the forward edge
of the vertical stabilizer. It has no speed restrictions.
King Airs have recognition lights in the wing tips.

"Wade Hasbrouck" wrote in
message
news:FradnXlbm4Qjkq7YnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@cablespeedwa .com...
|
| "Mxsmanic" wrote in message
| ...
| Robert Chambers writes:
|
| Haha, in a 737... you mean in Bill Gates somewhat
grainy representation
| of a 737 you mean.
|
| No, I mean in Precision Manuals' extremely faithful
representation of
| a 737-800.
|
| prior to engine start the beacon goes on, once you
start up if it's
| night time put all the lights on for taxi, if there are
others that
| might be impacted by the strobes turn them off, if
you're flying in a
| cloud (or in your case a pretend cloud) turn the
strobes off to prevent
| the reflection of the strobes from giving you vertigo -
you might fall
| off your chair.
|
| What about landing lights? When do you turn them on,
and when do you
| turn them off? (Obviously they are on during take-off
and landing,
| but I mean outside of that.)
|
| --
| Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
|
| I believe use of landing lights are "pilot discretion" as
they are not
| required equipment for Part 91 operations. Common sense
should tell you if
| you are going to annoy/irritate another aircraft/airplane.
|
| In the plane I trained in, my instructor got me into the
habit flying around
| during the day with the taxi light on, which I believe is
part of the
| "Operation Lights On" initiative. The 172s I fly now has
the a "pulsing"
| landing light, and will fly around day and night with the
landing light on
| pulse, and then for takeoffs and landings, I set it to
"steady" Anything to
| make you stand out and get other people's attention.
|


  #92  
Old October 16th 06, 06:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

FAA doesn't define "flight" or "fly" as they are common english word and if
you don't know what they mean you should look them up in a dictionary. If
you know of another definition that should be used, would be glad to see it.


In law, any word that is important to the purpose of the law is likely
to be explicitly defined.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  #93  
Old October 16th 06, 07:15 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

In the plane I trained in, my instructor got me into the habit flying around
during the day with the taxi light on, which I believe is part of the
"Operation Lights On" initiative. The 172s I fly now has the a "pulsing"
landing light, and will fly around day and night with the landing light on
pulse, and then for takeoffs and landings, I set it to "steady" Anything to
make you stand out and get other people's attention.


For an instant I had this mental image of future aircraft looking like
something out of _Close Encounters of the Third Kind_ with
multicolored flashing lights and blinding beams aimed in every
direction. And that cool light that illuminated Roy Neary's truck,
suitable for landings from 100 miles away.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  #94  
Old October 16th 06, 07:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Wade Hasbrouck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Wade Hasbrouck writes:

FAA doesn't define "flight" or "fly" as they are common english word and
if
you don't know what they mean you should look them up in a dictionary.
If
you know of another definition that should be used, would be glad to see
it.


In law, any word that is important to the purpose of the law is likely
to be explicitly defined.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.


I will leave to it you to find a definition that meets this standard that
says a pilot is not "flying", and don't think you will be able to, until
then you are probably the only one in the newsgroup the doesn't believe a
pilot is actually flying, and I don't think any one cares if you think we
don't actually "fly" because we do. Or are you just going to use the
arguement "The FAA didn't define it, so you don't actually fly...", which I
would say "In that case nothing flys because the FAA didn't define it and I
should be able to what ever I want because I am not 'flying'"

And if you can't find a definition of "fly" or "flight" that meets your
standards, what definition are you going to use?

  #95  
Old October 16th 06, 07:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
et...
Remember those two airline pilots that got busted for being drunk when
they boarded the plane in Florida recently? Were they not charged with
operating an aircraft under the influence? The engines were not yet
running, as I recall. So, apparently, it takes a lot less to "operate" the
aircraft than "air navigation" in reality.


Just as logging takes place from initial movement to final rest, as long as
flight was intended, "air navigation" includes times spent operating on the
ground, as long as the intent was to fly.

If the intent was not to fly, no operation happened.

In any case, if anything the citation of those pilots simply reinforces the
point that operating an aircraft need not involve the engines being started.

Nonetheless, I'll re-read the
regs to see your point of view on this.


For what it's worth, both of the relevant regulations have been posted to
this thread: the requirement to use anticollision lights, and the definition
of "operate". So, it shouldn't be too hard to re-read them.

Pete


  #96  
Old October 16th 06, 07:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
My DE was a 747 captain for NWA, and he had asked me "Which
is more efficient, an aft CG or a forward CG? Which is more stable?" and
we
were discussing things and he used the 747 as an example.


WOW! He brought up CG efficiency (as opposed to stability) on a PP
check ride?


Stuff like that happens, especially with the applicant shows a
better-than-average knowledge of the basics. Most DE's have the same
curiosity as the rest of us...if you breeze through the minimum
requirements, they'll push you to try to find the real limits of your
knowledge, even though that's not strictly required for the checkride.


  #97  
Old October 16th 06, 12:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
B A R R Y[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
Anything to make you stand out and get other people's attention.


I've been known to flip mine on while flying day VFR when converging
traffic is spotted. Anything to help him or her see me. G
  #98  
Old October 16th 06, 12:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

Recently, Wade Hasbrouck posted:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

What about landing lights? When do you turn them on, and when do you
turn them off? (Obviously they are on during take-off and landing,
but I mean outside of that.)


I believe use of landing lights are "pilot discretion" as they are not
required equipment for Part 91 operations. Common sense should tell
you if you are going to annoy/irritate another aircraft/airplane.

In the plane I trained in, my instructor got me into the habit flying
around during the day with the taxi light on, which I believe is part
of the "Operation Lights On" initiative. The 172s I fly now has the
a "pulsing" landing light, and will fly around day and night with the
landing light on pulse, and then for takeoffs and landings, I set it
to "steady" Anything to make you stand out and get other people's
attention.

In contrast, our flight school just posted a bulletin opposing the use of
landing lights at any time other than taxiing. We were trained to land
without them, and I now find it much easier to do so than to use them. One
reason is that our airport is frequented by deer, who just stop dead on
the runway when they see the lights, and there was a deer strike just a
couple of weeks ago because the pilot was using landing lights.

Neil



  #99  
Old October 16th 06, 12:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
et...
Remember those two airline pilots that got busted for being drunk
when they boarded the plane in Florida recently? Were they not
charged with operating an aircraft under the influence? The engines
were not yet running, as I recall. So, apparently, it takes a lot
less to "operate" the aircraft than "air navigation" in reality.


[...]
Just as logging takes place from initial movement to final rest, as
long as flight was intended, "air navigation" includes times spent
operating on the ground, as long as the intent was to fly.

If the intent was not to fly, no operation happened.

In any case, if anything the citation of those pilots simply
reinforces the point that operating an aircraft need not involve the
engines being started.

I'm not claiming that the engines need to be started to be operating an
aircraft; can one *not* be operating an aircraft if the engines *are*
running? You point is a good one, but I think that such rulings suggest
otherwise, that's all. As you know, laws and regs become expanded by their
application, sensibly or otherwise.

Neil


  #100  
Old October 16th 06, 07:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Beacons/anticollision lights and engines

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
om...
I'm not claiming that the engines need to be started to be operating an
aircraft; can one *not* be operating an aircraft if the engines *are*
running?


A close reading of the regulations suggest that one can indeed be not
operating an aircraft even if the engines are running. No enforcement
action has been described that would contradict this reading.

You point is a good one, but I think that such rulings suggest
otherwise, that's all.


The ruling described here does not address the question of whether having
the engines operating always requires anticollision lights to be on. In
particular, in that case the pilots were clearly engaged in "air
navigation", and that was what got them into the realm of "operate". Of
course, the other issue is that it's not clear that that case hinged on the
definition as found in Part 1 of the FARs of the word "operate".

But even if it did, the fact that the pilots were in the cockpit with the
intent to actually fly puts them in a much different situation than someone
in the cockpit just meaning to taxi the airplane around on the ground. As I
suspect you know, when flight is NOT intended, there need not even be a
certificated pilot aboard the aircraft while the engines are running, or
while the aircraft is being taxied.

For example, a "crewmember" is defined to be "a person assigned to perform
duty in an aircraft during flight time". Thus, the prohibition against
acting as a crewmember while under the influence found in 91.17 would not
necessarily apply to a non-pilot taxiing around on the ground, even if they
were "drunk as a skunk". It would come down to that person's ability to
assert that they never meant to fly the plane (easier when the person isn't
a pilot than if they are, IMHO).

Clearly, the FARs distinguish between someone intending to fly the airplane
and someone not. This happens to be one of those cases.

Pete


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[VERY LONG} MD airplanes, complete and projects, engines, gliders, many other items. [email protected] Aviation Marketplace 0 June 10th 06 10:51 PM
Landing lights Robert Barker Owning 20 May 11th 06 02:33 AM
Jet sailplane update Bob C Soaring 0 April 13th 06 08:06 AM
Buying an L-2 Robert M. Gary Piloting 13 May 25th 04 04:03 AM
36HP VW Engine Claton Cadmus Home Built 12 October 24th 03 05:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.