Landing Without rwy lights???

[bryrex]

What do you all think about landing a light twin at night with no runway lights? No vasi, no beacon, just a gps approach and the dark abyss that is a 6000 foot runway. Would you land there? My partner thinks it is safe and doesn't mind doing it. I think it falls under careless and reckless. Any thoughts???

 

[JohnnyP]

If I was very familiar with the airport and had operated out of it during the day time and knew what to expect then id say as long as the landing lights were working then go for it, as long as it was VFR night time. Im not sure id want to tackle it in low visibility conditions because youve already got one strike against you with not having runway lights in the first place. And that combined with having to kind of search for the runway with your landing lights in reduced visibility could make for a dicey situation, but thats just me.

 

[A Squared]

If it's under 135, it's illegal.

Even if not under part 135, the FAA has sucessfully made a 91.13 charge stick for exactly that. In this case it was a landing and a takeoff.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4591.PDF

Ignore at your peril

 

[Wang Chung]

I did exactly what you are describing a few months ago. Night VFR at familiar non-towered home field, NO lights, 6000' in the middle of a field. Couldn't get the PCL to click on.

It went OK, but it wasn't comfortable. After I was parked, I thought about it and made up my mind that I would NOT do it again to be sure.

 

[minitour]

If it's under 135, it's illegal.

Even if not under part 135, the FAA has sucessfully made a 91.13 charge stick for exactly that. In this case it was a landing and a takeoff.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4591.PDF

Ignore at your peril

That is NOT someone I'd want to hire...

didn't grab the NOTAMS...tree strikes...wow...

seems almost as stupid as that sky diving "incident" in another thread...

-mini

 

[sky37d]

The phrase "Dumb and Dumber" comes to mind after reading this.

 

[mattpilot]

If it's under 135, it's illegal.

Even if not under part 135, the FAA has sucessfully made a 91.13 charge stick for exactly that. In this case it was a landing and a takeoff.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4591.PDF

Ignore at your peril

not true - well partially

After reading through the report, the 91.13 charge did NOT 'stick' for the night T/O and Landing..... only for the other part, where he struck a tree and continued to fly for 4 hours.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Sorry, but if you are stupid enough to ATTEMPT to land or takeoff at an airport without functioning lighting unless it is a bona-fide emergency, the feds need to come to your house to take your license.

 

[XTW]

Sorry, but if you are stupid enough to ATTEMPT to land or takeoff at an airport without functioning lighting unless it is a bona-fide emergency, the feds need to come to your house to take your license.

Thank you ATR!

 

[jergar999]

I have heard of an air ambulance service landing on a runway with no lighting. They managed to get ambulances parked at both ends with their lights on, as well as a few cars in the middle with their lights on the runway. I still don't think I would try it.

 

[User546]

I've done it once before at my homebase after I was unable to get the PCL turned on (similiar to the other poster).

As we were coming in, we kept getting lower, and lower, and lower and I still couldn't see the runway where it should've been. All of a sudden, at the very last split second, the concrete comes into light view and we flare the nose up just in time to pound it hard on the runway.

Come to find out, our landing light was inop (and before anyone starts it WAS working during the preflight!) and the only thing illuminating the runway was the flicker of the freshly-installed-bright strobes. And nevermind it took us 20 minutes to taxi back to the ramp with no forward illumination!

I made up my mind after that, that unless its an emergency I'm not going to attempt that kind of landing again (you never know what suprises might be lurking around the corner - like the land lights inop)

 

[Flibmeister]

Sorry, but if you are stupid enough to ATTEMPT to land or takeoff at an airport without functioning lighting unless it is a bona-fide emergency, the feds need to come to your house to take your license.

Good grief, what a narrow view you have of the flying world!

It hasn't been all that long ago that runway lights were considered a luxury normally found only at "the big airport"; those of us who operated at airports without them were trained to do so safely and to exercise good judgment as to the when and how.

The fact that airport lighting is much more common today may mean that there are fewer pilots with that skill and judgement, but it doesn't automatically make the practice dangerous. Many pilots, particularly those that operate from backyard strips or in remote areas, do so routinely and safely.

As in so many other aspects of flying, when it comes to using unlit airports, the pilot must recognize and abide by his limitations. If yours preclude you from using an unlit runway, fine, don't do that. But the fact that you don't possess that particular skill set doesn't automatically mean those that do are "stupid".

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

I can assure you, my 'view' far exceeds yours. I have flown all over the world in all kinds of airplanes and situations so as far as flying in and out of 'backyard strips or remote areas', I HAVE the experience, A lot. But it was with thousands of hours of experience, 2 or 3 crewmembers with the experience, an airplane set up for that particular type of flying. The original poster showed 1500 hrs experience. HIS opinion was it was careless and reckless. As someone also with 18 yrs of FAA experience, rest assured THEY would consider it reckless and careless. If you go in and out of a strip at night without lights and have no problem, lucky you. Wait until there IS a problem and just tell the investigator that you 'have much experience in doing that and have done it 'routinely' for years. I am sure he will be impressed. "Stupid" would apply to those who don't even THINK there is a problem it attempting that. The original poster shows caution and common sense. Very smart for someone with the amount of time he shows. If I had a partner in an airplane who thought it was "no problem", there would BE no 'partnership'.

 

[crudeoilpilot]

Ouch

To many deer and other critters around for me! Did this not used to be part of the P.P.L. criteria?

 

[sf3boy]

I took a Saab to State College at night with neither landing lights working, both MEL'd. MEL said a single taxi light is all that is required.

 

[ThomasR]

Cones & Rods

Military does it all the time; but the military is set up for a different environment. The aircraft have lights, both landing and search, that could light up a city. Your perspective at night is completely unexpected. Rates of closure and ground speeds are always miss perceived along with depth perception; peripheral vision is zero. Once you hit your lights your night vision is gone. There is nothing relaxing about making a night approach to a black hole.

 

[Flibmeister]

I can assure you, my 'view' far exceeds yours.

Actually, based on the qualifications listed in your post, I'm not assured of that at all-- particularly as it applies to the question at hand. Nevertheless, I'll limit my response to just one aspect of your post, then I'll drop the subject:

"As someone also with 18 yrs of FAA experience, rest assured THEY would consider it reckless and careless."

I worked for the FAA for 25 years, and am still engaged in aviation activities requiring that I work shoulder-to-shoulder with a variety of FSDO inspectors on a regular basis. This topic came up a couple of years ago in another forum, and at that time I consulted with several of those inspectors for an informal opinion.

Based on those conversations, I am confident that few, if any, FSDO inspectors would find that operation at an unlit airport, by a Part 91 operator, constitutes de facto evidence of a violation of 91.13.

However, if, in the course of that operation, the pilot displays a "deliberate or willful disregard of the regulations or safety" (examples given by one inspector were inoperative landing lights or cases where ground lights normally used for visual cues during night operations were inoperative), such a violation might be inferred.

 

[L.Skywalker]

Smith Ranch just north of San Francisco didn't have lights for years, and wasn't ever a problem as plenty of alternates available. Floods off a driving range located the area and if one was familiar it was cake. Mostly light singles at this field w/ a few twins.

 

[atrdriver]

You know, it's illegal under part 121 and 135 to takeoff or land at an airport without operating runway lights. The FEDs made it so for a reason, and that's that it is not a safe thing to do with passengers on the aircraft. So, if you are saying that it is safe in part 91, my question is simple...Why is it "safe" with no passengers and "not safe" when passengers are there?

atrdriver

 

[Lead Sled]

You know, it's illegal under part 121 and 135 to takeoff or land at an airport without operating runway lights. The FEDs made it so for a reason, and that's that it is not a safe thing to do with passengers on the aircraft. So, if you are saying that it is safe in part 91, my question is simple...Why is it "safe" with no passengers and "not safe" when passengers are there?

Personally, I've got several issues with using an unlit runway for Part 91 operations. However, if it is done carefully, it can be done safely, but not at any airport or landing strip under any set of circumstances.

I do have a problem with Atrdriver's logic - since when are parts 121 or 135 "safer" than part 91? I've flown under all three sets of regulations and the only thing I've ever noticed is that parts 135 and 121 are more restrictive, not safer. The safety record of well maintained aircraft flown by professional crews under Part 91 (majority of all corporate jets) are equal to or better than the best Part 121 air carriers. (We won't even talk about the safety record of 135 operators.)

Lead Sled

 

[A Squared]

not true - well partially

After reading through the report, the 91.13 charge did NOT 'stick' for the night T/O and Landing..... only for the other part, where he struck a tree and continued to fly for 4 hours.

Actually, yes it did stick. Take a second look at the docket. Bear in mind that this an appel to the full board. In the initial hearing, the judge found that the pilot was not "careless and reckless" the FAA appealed that decision to the full board. The board found that the pilot *was* careless and/or reckless.

Here's the board's opinion on the 91.13 charge:

We agree with the Administrator that respondent’s night takeoff from Noatak, in violation of section 135.229(b)(2)(i) because the runway was not clearly shown by boundary or runway marker lights, was also a violation of section 91.13(a). It is well settled that "a violation of an operational FAR provision. . . is sufficient to support a ‘residual’ [section 91.13(a)] violation." Administrator v. Thompson, 7 NTSB 714, 716 at note 7 (1991); see, e.g., Administrator v. Vogt, NTSB Order No. EA-4143 at 11 (1994). In any event, we think taking off with less light available than the regulation specifically specified may fairly be deemed an unsafe practice.​

Now, the violation of 91.13 was sustained as a "residual violation" as it was shown that the pilot violated 135.229(b)(2)(i). WHat is meant by a reisidual violation is that the FAA says OK, you violated this regulation, and violating regulations is reckless, so you are *also* in violation of 91.13, as a result of violationg the first regulation.​

Sooooooo, that does still leave open the question, would taking off or landing without runway lights be sufficient by itself to sustain a 91.13 violation? In other words, if it hadn't been a part 135 flight, and no specific regulations had been broken, would it still be reckless? I don't know. How lucky do you feel?​

 

[ShawnC]

Landing at night at an airport without runway lights, you know that voice in your head that says "I don't think this is such a good idea," you should be hearing that if you're sane.

It just doesn't sound smart to me, nor does it sound legal.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

I had to do it once, couldn't get the PCL to come on coming off of a VOR-A approach on a dark VMC night. Wasn't familiar with the airport, but I had a severe case of get-there-itis and somehow told myself I have to land it or else. I don't think that field had a VASI, I just remember the landing light bouncing off the tops of the trees on the approach end. As soon as the lights hit the tire marks, I pulled up and checked my pants.
Stupidest thing I had done up to that point, made me think if flying was really worth it.
Since then, I've done worse things, but that one stuck out (probably because I've learned to double check the PCL freqs on NOS plates )

 

[atrdriver]

Just ask yourself this: What would I tell the judge. If you can answer that question knowing that you are in the right, then fine, land. And while part 91 professional operations may indeed be as safe as 121 or 135 ops, take a look at part 91 operations in general, then ask me which is safer...

atrdriver

 

[Flibmeister]

...it's illegal under part 121 and 135 to takeoff or land at an airport without operating runway lights. The FEDs made it so for a reason...

Yes, I'm sure they did. And do you really think the exclusion of Part 91 from that rule was merely an oversight?

Part 91 operators are not required to provide an equivalent level of safety to Part 121 operators. This is by design, and is reflected throughout the regulations. Whether it's landing on an unlit runway, departing in zero-zero conditions, or taking a "look-see" when weather is below landing minimums, the feds have decide that while those operations may be "less safe" than following the 121 standards, they're not "unsafe"-- it they were, they'd be prohibited for ALL operators, not just 135/121.

 

[Lead Sled]

And while part 91 professional operations may indeed be as safe as 121 or 135 ops, take a look at part 91 operations in general, then ask me which is safer...

The accident rate associated with part 91 operations has little, if anything, to do with the less restrictive nature of the regulations, but rather with the experience level and competency of the pilots. If your theory were true, part 135 would be inherently the safest flying in the world.

Lead Sled

 

[Flibmeister]

...if it hadn't been a part 135 flight, and no specific regulations had been broken, would it still be reckless?

If the pilot was solo, in an airplane he owns, landing on his own backyard strip, then the answer would almost certainly be "no".

The General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook says there must be "...deliberate or willful disregard of the regulations or accepted standards of safety as to endanger the life or property of another, either potentially or actually." (emphasis mine)

So, as long as the pilot's butt and property is the only one at risk, he's home free. If that's not the case, the answer is "depends". <g>

 

[AIR2MUD]

Sorry, but if you are stupid enough to ATTEMPT to land or takeoff at an airport without functioning lighting unless it is a bona-fide emergency, the feds need to come to your house to take your license.

What about in the case of LIFEGUARD missions?

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

We are not talking about landing lights. The poster said runway lights. The above quote is yours. "In the course of that operation, the pilot displays a deliberate disregard of the regulations OR safety, example, CASES WHERE GROUND LIGHTS NORMALLY USED FOR VISUAL CUES DURING NIGHT OPERATIONS WERE INOPERATIVE, such a violation might be inferred. That sounds to me that if he did attempt the landing or takeoff, knowing full well that there were no lights, he deliberately disregarded either safety OR regulations. No?

So is it your opinion that a low time pilot is just fine operating an airplane into or out of an airport with no lighting for the runway of intended use? IOW, when the investigator, in the course of investigating the accident finds the airport has/had no operating lights, his findings would just say 'darned if I can figure out why 2 people are dead'.
ThomasR was dead on about 'flying into a black hole'. I find it extremely disturbing that the "FAA" inspectors you 'asked' would be sending the message to low time pilots that this is an 'ok' operation.

I guess that you would have no problem with those same pilots taking your family or friends for a little 'night flying'.

bryrex,
Good for you in your thoughts and concerns about this operation. If you happen to keep the partnership though, I would read the insurance policy on the airplane, (should there be one) very carefully.

Safe flying.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

AIR2MUD,
Lifeguard missions are not flown by low time pilots. Again the original post was about someones personal airplane. My original reply was referencing that situation. Are you a Lifeguard pilot?