The landing light debate.......again

Post by **Quantum** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:57 pm

Hi guys,

Just a thought. Between the take-off and landing many people have many views as to what the 'procedure' should be. Many countries and real world airlines have their own policies. But, and I'm sure most people will agree, landing lights should be ON for take-off and ON for landing. Maybe it's too simple to suggest that the client need only monitor those two events for landing light useage. At any other time people may use whatever policy that they wish to adopt.

Rgds

John

Post by **joefremont** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:17 pm

I agree, the lights should be on when landing or taking off. There is no real regulation requiring that they be turned off except but most airlines have some rules that they should, and these rules are not consistent.

The problem is that if the pilots leave them on too long they may burn out and they won't be available when it comes time to land. Flynet makes a heavy jet assumption that everyone will be flying along at high altitude and making everyone turn them off at fl100 will suffice. This does not work as well for those who fly the propliners. I did a DC-4 flight from SFO to LAX the other day and purposely set my altitude at 9000 feet so I did not have to worry about the lights.

I agree that flynet should have some rule would encourage pilots to turn off there lights, I would suggest making it time based rather than once you climb above 1000ft or turn on your lights above 1000ft a timer starts, if the lights are still on in 15 minutes then a penalty is assessed.

BFuller · Post by **BFuller** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:18 pm

Nothing wrong with the way it is imo.

michiyoshi · Post by **michiyoshi** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:12 am

I agree as well, there is nothing wrong with it.

In the real world, landing lights are off except for take off and landing, and for training environments, while doing maneuvers. Even a flight between SFO and LAX, after you depart the airport environments you should turn the landing light off.

I don't recall any flight out of an airport environment where I left the landing light on. (real world speaking, not FS)

AK_Dave · Post by **AK_Dave** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:59 pm

I can see both sides of this issue, and I was upset about the landing light penalty at first. Once I realized, however, that you can shut if off anywhere between 1000 AGL and 10000 MSL, it suddenly became a non-issue for me. Just make it part of your departure checklist. Once airborne, gear up, flaps up when appropriate, yaw damper on, etc., etc., landing light off. Since I realized the large zone in which FlyNET doesn't care about your landing light, I've only been dinged once for it, thanks to a phone call during climb out. LOL

It seems to me that:

A. There are more important topics to be discussing re: FlyNET
2. TPTB aren't going to change the landing light policy no matter how much discussion there is about it.

Yours in Flight,
AK_Dave

Post by **Quantum** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:57 pm

Hi Dave,

A change to the landing light is on the 'to-do' list as there are some airports where the 1,000ft AGL and 10,000ft AMSL gap is considerably narrowed due to airport elevation and/or terrain. There are also some aircraft with retractable landing lights that need to switch them off/retract them as soon as possible after t/o to avoid damage due to airspeed limitations or to reduce drag in the climb. To be able to operate aircraft using correct procedures and not incur a FlyNET penalty would be desireable. The suggestion was to made to try and satisfy all 'camps' and make it easier to implement a fix for the high elevation airports.

Rgds

John

Growler · Post by **Growler** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:47 pm

I'm a pilot not a bloomin editor... sorry guys

Growler · Post by **Growler** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:48 pm

Once I realized, however, that you can shut if off anywhere between 1000 AGL and 10000 MSL

What is this witchery you speak of?

Does that mean in Scottish, that I can turn off my lights anywhere between 1 and 10,000 feet?

AK_Dave · Post by **AK_Dave** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:26 pm

Growler, the system requires you to have landing light ON below 1000 feet above ground level. The system requires you to have landing lights OFF above 10000 ft above sea level. The system doesn't give a fart whether they are ON or OFF in between. I include turning off my LL as part of my checklist to transition from take off to cruise climb.

John, thanks for correcting me. I wasn't aware that changes to the LL policy were on the to-do list.

AK_Dave

Tomb · Post by **Tomb** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:39 am

i have been caught by this several times since the landing lights go out on gear retraction on several aircraft i fly

since gear goes up on a postive rate of climb i accept 95% as my norm for some aircraft

johnhinson · Post by **johnhinson** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:05 pm

For my three-pennyworth, it seems a negative attitude to impose standards over and above what suits all types for aircraft for all kinds of virtual airlines. Older aircraft most certainly do not keep their landing lights on for long after take-off, as mentioned above this often is necessary to reduce drag. (I'm not convinced modern craft do, either).

The reason I feel it is negative is that somebody new to a VA (like myself) has to lower their flying standards to meet these requirements, or get a smack from headmaster.

Could not the limitation be lifted at take-off? I've no problem with the 1000' rule on descent.

If Flynet want an alternative opportunity to smack bottoms to enhance reality, why not simply impose a penalty on anybody who forgets to turn the navigation lights on.

John

CAPFlyer · Post by **CAPFlyer** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:08 pm

All I can ask is that people STOP bringing this issue up. It's been brought to Konny's attention, he's agreed that it needs to be changed, and it WILL BE IN DUE TIME. Until then - LET IT BE!

Sorry, but I'm getting a bit tired of hearing the same topics being raised again and again and all the NEGATIVITY in the posts on the issues. John, you claim that the restriction is a negative attitude. At the same time, I can say (and be correct) that for you to continue the complaints about it is just as negative. It is what it is right now so let it be and deal with it until it's resolved. It takes all of 20 seconds to go from takeoff to 1000' AGL where you can then turn off your landing lights, so why are you so worried about it? Even in the B377 at MTOW (one of the slowest climbing airplanes ever), you're not talking about any more than a couple of minutes from takeoff to 1,000' AGL.

Instead of complaining about it, why not deal with it and let the guys who put the time in to program it fix it when they can instead of having to constantly see people complaining?

johnhinson · Post by **johnhinson** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:36 pm

Oh right.

I thought I was offering some ideas and alternatives that hadn't been mentioned before.

Sorry if they are not welcome - I didn't see it said anywhere that positive suggestions were not welcome. I misunderstood that this part of the forum was for things like that.

I won't answer your questions because you won't like the answers.

So sorry.

John

Drako · Post by **Drako** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:40 pm

I can feel another thread being locked

What is wrong with this post?

1, The Title, the .....again implies there is a post elsewhere.

2, Moderator Reply, Re-word it to "This subject has already been brought to Konny's attention, he's agreed that it needs to be changed, and it is on the list however it is not a priority. Please refrain from constantly raising this issue until Konny has made progress on it."

3, REMEMBER THE FORUM RULES....To be honest I would rather log into this forum and see bugs addressed without irrelevant remarks and chatter that come with them. Unfortuantly it is now part of Forum Culture to complain moan and chat.

Every Forum has a search engine allowing you to search for a problem and its answer first, most people are to lazy to use it which results in multiple posts on a subject. I only answered this post because I am sick of wading thru inane remarks to find a cure to a problem, But yet again I find myself guilty of the stuff I just remarked on.

Whats going to damage this Programme is the Forum and how its looked after. Common sense like I said is lacking in replies and I will bet v$1000 that someone responds to this post negativly

Post by **Quantum** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:02 pm

Post deleted by Quantum