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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |