I understand that one normally turns on beacons or anticollision
lights whenever an aircraft's engines are running. Is this a
regulation, or just a polite custom?

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I understand that one normally turns on beacons or anticollision
> lights whenever an aircraft's engines are running. Is this a
> regulation, or just a polite custom?
>

Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you start your virtual
engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual prop?

Kingfish wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> I understand that one normally turns on beacons or anticollision
>> lights whenever an aircraft's engines are running. Is this a
>> regulation, or just a polite custom?
>>
>
> Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you start your virtual
> engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual prop?
>
Can't he just read the regulations? He's obviously got access to
internet.

§ 91.209 Aircraft lights.

No person may:

(a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during the
period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a distance of 3
statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the horizon)—

(1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;

(2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a night
flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft—

(i) Is clearly illuminated;

(ii) Has lighted position lights; or

(iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;

(3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft—

(i) Has lighted anchor lights; or

(ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not required on vessels; or

(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
interest of safety to turn the lights off.

Kingfish writes:

> Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you start your virtual
> engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual prop?

I turn on the beacon. I understood that the strobe is for low
visibility conditions and that a lot of pilots are irritated by
strobes operating on the ground. Whereas the beacon simply indicates
that the engines are turning (in addition to improving visibility).

In a 737, I turn on the anticollision lights before engine start.

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

Emily writes:

> Can't he just read the regulations? He's obviously got access to
> internet.
>
> § 91.209 Aircraft lights.
>
> No person may:
>
> (a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during the
> period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a distance of 3
> statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the horizon)—
>
> (1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;
>
> (2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a night
> flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft—
>
> (i) Is clearly illuminated;
>
> (ii) Has lighted position lights; or
>
> (iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;
>
> (3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft—
>
> (i) Has lighted anchor lights; or
>
> (ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not required on vessels; or
>
> (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
> system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
> anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
> determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
> interest of safety to turn the lights off.

Nothing in this quoted section mentions engines, so it doesn't answer
my question.

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

Haha, in a 737... you mean in Bill Gates somewhat grainy representation
of a 737 you mean.

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.



Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kingfish writes:
>
>
>>Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you start your virtual
>>engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual prop?
>
>
> I turn on the beacon. I understood that the strobe is for low
> visibility conditions and that a lot of pilots are irritated by
> strobes operating on the ground. Whereas the beacon simply indicates
> that the engines are turning (in addition to improving visibility).
>
> In a 737, I turn on the anticollision lights before engine start.
>

Emily > wrote in
:

> Can't he just read the regulations? He's obviously got access to
> internet.

Maybe we all should answer his questions just like you did Emily.

Just point him to FAR / AIMS.

You were nicer then me, as I was only going to put a link and let him
click through it. I.E tell him the answer can be found at:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Tit
le14/14tab_02.tpl

Allen

Trying again.... Stupid newsreader puts a line break in long URLs.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?
&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

A Lieberma > wrote in
. 18:

> Trying again.... Stupid newsreader puts a line break in long URLs.
>
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?
> &c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

Anybody know of a better newsgroup reader (freeware) then what I am using?
Xnews just drives me nuts sometimes esepcially with word wrapping.

Allen

A Lieberma wrote:
> Emily > wrote in
> :
>
>> Can't he just read the regulations? He's obviously got access to
>> internet.
>
> Maybe we all should answer his questions just like you did Emily.
>
> Just point him to FAR / AIMS.

Problem is, he won't look it up on his own. It's not hard to find the
CFR online, and it's not hard to order a FAR/AIM on the internet. Next
thing I know, he'll probably be arguing that the reference I posted is
incorrect.

Personally, I'd rather look it up myself than wait for someone here to
answer my question.

A Lieberma wrote:
> A Lieberma > wrote in
> . 18:
>
>> Trying again.... Stupid newsreader puts a line break in long URLs.
>>
>> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?
>> &c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl
>
> Anybody know of a better newsgroup reader (freeware) then what I am using?
> Xnews just drives me nuts sometimes esepcially with word wrapping.
>
> Allen

I just use Thunderbird. I was going point out your second post was
still wrong, but it looks like you figured it out. :-)

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Emily writes:
>
>> Can't he just read the regulations? He's obviously got access to
>> internet.
>>
>> § 91.209 Aircraft lights.
>>
>> No person may:
>>
>> (a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during
>> the period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a
>> distance of 3 statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below
>> the horizon)-
>>
>> (1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;
>>
>> (2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a
>> night flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft-
>>
>> (i) Is clearly illuminated;
>>
>> (ii) Has lighted position lights; or
>>
>> (iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;
>>
>> (3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft-
>>
>> (i) Has lighted anchor lights; or
>>
>> (ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not required on vessels;
>> or
>>
>> (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>> system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>> anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>> determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>> interest of safety to turn the lights off.
>
> Nothing in this quoted section mentions engines, so it doesn't answer
> my question.
>
Then, go read the rest of the regs to discover what "Operate and
aircraft..." means.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
>> Emily writes:
>>
>>> Can't he just read the regulations? He's obviously got access to
>>> internet.
>>>
>>> § 91.209 Aircraft lights.
>>>
>>> No person may:
>>>
>>> (a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during
>>> the period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a
>>> distance of 3 statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below
>>> the horizon)-
>>>
>>> (1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;
>>>
>>> (2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a
>>> night flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft-
>>>
>>> (i) Is clearly illuminated;
>>>
>>> (ii) Has lighted position lights; or
>>>
>>> (iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;
>>>
>>> (3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft-
>>>
>>> (i) Has lighted anchor lights; or
>>>
>>> (ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not required on vessels;
>>> or
>>>
>>> (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>>> system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>>> anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>>> determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>>> interest of safety to turn the lights off.
>> Nothing in this quoted section mentions engines, so it doesn't answer
>> my question.
>>
> Then, go read the rest of the regs to discover what "Operate and
> aircraft..." means.

No good deed, it appears....

I don't run strobes in IMC at night because the flashing
back scatter causes me problems. I also don't run strobes
near other airplanes on the ground at night because it
blinds the other pilot. I do run normal positions lights
and rotating beacons. At night I also run recognition
lights if I have them. Some of the planes I flew had logo
lights on the tail and I would run them too.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Kingfish wrote:
| > Mxsmanic wrote:
| >> I understand that one normally turns on beacons or
anticollision
| >> lights whenever an aircraft's engines are running. Is
this a
| >> regulation, or just a polite custom?
| >>
| >
| > Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you
start your virtual
| > engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual
prop?
| >
| Can't he just read the regulations? He's obviously got
access to
| internet.
|
| § 91.209 Aircraft lights.
|
| No person may:
|
| (a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in
Alaska, during the
| period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a
distance of 3
| statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the
horizon)—
|
| (1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position
lights;
|
| (2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity
to, a night
| flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft—
|
| (i) Is clearly illuminated;
|
| (ii) Has lighted position lights; or
|
| (iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;
|
| (3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft—
|
| (i) Has lighted anchor lights; or
|
| (ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not required on
vessels; or
|
| (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an
anticollision light
| system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights.
However, the
| anticollision lights need not be lighted when the
pilot-in-command
| determines that, because of operating conditions, it would
be in the
| interest of safety to turn the lights off.

I do get the feeling that he is a future suicide hijacker
and he wants to blend in around real pilots.




"Emily" > wrote in message
...
|A Lieberma wrote:
| > Emily > wrote in
| > :
| >
| >> Can't he just read the regulations? He's obviously got
access to
| >> internet.
| >
| > Maybe we all should answer his questions just like you
did Emily.
| >
| > Just point him to FAR / AIMS.
|
| Problem is, he won't look it up on his own. It's not hard
to find the
| CFR online, and it's not hard to order a FAR/AIM on the
internet. Next
| thing I know, he'll probably be arguing that the reference
I posted is
| incorrect.
|
| Personally, I'd rather look it up myself than wait for
someone here to
| answer my question.
|

He should setup his sim at a disco/nudie bar. Plenty of
smoke to simulate IMC, strobe lights and distractions.


He can even do an alcohol experiment and see why drinking
and flying don't work well together.


"Robert Chambers" > wrote in
message
om...
| Haha, in a 737... you mean in Bill Gates somewhat grainy
representation
| of a 737 you mean.
|
| 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.
|
|
|
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| > Kingfish writes:
| >
| >
| >>Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you
start your virtual
| >>engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual
prop?
| >
| >
| > I turn on the beacon. I understood that the strobe is
for low
| > visibility conditions and that a lot of pilots are
irritated by
| > strobes operating on the ground. Whereas the beacon
simply indicates
| > that the engines are turning (in addition to improving
visibility).
| >
| > In a 737, I turn on the anticollision lights before
engine start.
| >

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I don't run strobes in IMC at night because the flashing
> back scatter causes me problems. I also don't run strobes
> near other airplanes on the ground at night because it
> blinds the other pilot. I do run normal positions lights
> and rotating beacons. At night I also run recognition
> lights if I have them. Some of the planes I flew had logo
> lights on the tail and I would run them too.

I think most pilots have problems with strobes in IMC at night. I don't
run them then or on the ground but I know a few who do. An beacon is
sufficient to meet the regs in both those cases, although I'm sure there
are some pilots who think strobes are required at all times. There's no
other explanation for those few blinding the rest of us on the ground.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> He can even do an alcohol experiment and see why drinking
> and flying don't work well together.

Maybe I'll do that tonight!!!!! Except I can't play MSFS without
crashing it anyway, so that's probably a bad experiment.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I do get the feeling that he is a future suicide hijacker
> and he wants to blend in around real pilots.

Wouldn't a real hijacker just research this on this own so as to not
arouse suspicion? Or at least pretend to be a student pilot....

In article <Ly7Yg.2988$XX2.2011@dukeread04>,
Jim Macklin > wrote:
>He should setup his sim at a disco/nudie bar. Plenty of
>smoke to simulate IMC, strobe lights and distractions.
>

No dice. Discos and nudie bars have real live girls. They
scare him.

Emily writes:

> Next thing I know, he'll probably be arguing that the reference I posted is
> incorrect.

Not incorrect (I haven't verified it, but a copy and paste is easy
enough to do), but it says nothing about engines. My question was
whether regulations required anticollision lights or beacons to be lit
whenever engines are operating. I know it seems to be a standard
policy, but I don't know if it is mandatory, especially for GA
aircraft.

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

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> I don't run strobes in IMC at night because the flashing
> back scatter causes me problems. I also don't run strobes
> near other airplanes on the ground at night because it
> blinds the other pilot.

Under what conditions are strobes supposed to be useful? Seeing
aircraft from great distances, maybe? (In clear weather, or maybe
not.)

> I do run normal positions lights and rotating beacons. At
> night I also run recognition lights if I have them.

What are recognition lights?

> Some of the planes I flew had logo
> lights on the tail and I would run them too.

Some of the aircraft in MSFS have ice lights. I presume those are
used only when you want to look for ice on the wing?

I also get confused about avionics, panel, and flood lights, but I
suppose that varies greatly from one aircraft to another.

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

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.

LOL
"Spam Magnet" > wrote in message
...
| In article <Ly7Yg.2988$XX2.2011@dukeread04>,
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
| >He should setup his sim at a disco/nudie bar. Plenty of
| >smoke to simulate IMC, strobe lights and distractions.
| >
|
| No dice. Discos and nudie bars have real live girls. They
| scare him.
|

Emily writes:

> Maybe I'll do that tonight!!!!! Except I can't play MSFS without
> crashing it anyway, so that's probably a bad experiment.

What do you find difficult about flying in MSFS?

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

There are pilots who are just inconsiderate.


"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > I don't run strobes in IMC at night because the flashing
| > back scatter causes me problems. I also don't run
strobes
| > near other airplanes on the ground at night because it
| > blinds the other pilot. I do run normal positions
lights
| > and rotating beacons. At night I also run recognition
| > lights if I have them. Some of the planes I flew had
logo
| > lights on the tail and I would run them too.
|
| I think most pilots have problems with strobes in IMC at
night. I don't
| run them then or on the ground but I know a few who do. An
beacon is
| sufficient to meet the regs in both those cases, although
I'm sure there
| are some pilots who think strobes are required at all
times. There's no
| other explanation for those few blinding the rest of us on
the ground.

Who really knows. Did you ever see that movie about the guy
who scammed the airlines and a bunch of college girls?

True story.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > I do get the feeling that he is a future suicide
hijacker
| > and he wants to blend in around real pilots.
|
| Wouldn't a real hijacker just research this on this own so
as to not
| arouse suspicion? Or at least pretend to be a student
pilot....

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Nothing in this quoted section mentions engines, so it doesn't answer
> my question.
>

Those are the regulations. As it doesn't mention engines, there
is no requirement having anything to do with engines. Many people
put the beacon on when the master (not the engine) is turned on.
I used to do that as well (it's also a good reminder that your
master is on after you get out of the plane). However, I only
have strobes now, and I don't run those until I'm on the runway
now.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kingfish writes:
>
>> Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you start your virtual
>> engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual prop?
>
> I turn on the beacon. I understood that the strobe is for low
> visibility conditions and that a lot of pilots are irritated by
> strobes operating on the ground. Whereas the beacon simply indicates
> that the engines are turning (in addition to improving visibility).
>
You are wroing on just about all counts except for the part about
being irritated by strobes on the ground.

Ron Natalie writes:

> Those are the regulations. As it doesn't mention engines, there
> is no requirement having anything to do with engines.

OK, thanks.

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

Emily wrote:

> I think most pilots have problems with strobes in IMC at night. I don't
> run them then or on the ground but I know a few who do. An beacon is
> sufficient to meet the regs in both those cases, although I'm sure there
> are some pilots who think strobes are required at all times.

The nature of the anticollision lights is a certification (the rules
changed over the years progressively) issue. There's no need to
operate a beacon to meet the regs in any of the cases you describe.
If the pilot decides that there is conditions warrant they should
be off, he can turn them off. If conditions are not such that
they need to be off, they should be on while operating the aircraft.

I don't have a beacon. I'm not even required to have any anti-collision
lights, but I have an STC for strobes. I don't use the strobes in
dim or dark conditions on the ground. I'm also careful where I point
my not required by the regs landing light as well at night.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:34:12 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Emily writes:
>
>> Can't he just read the regulations? He's obviously got access to
>> internet.
>...
>> (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>> system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>> anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>> determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>> interest of safety to turn the lights off.
>
>Nothing in this quoted section mentions engines, so it doesn't answer
>my question.

Yes it does. In the excerpt here, "Operate" means running the engines.
That means all conditions, day or night, except for the exclusion.
That's also mentioned in section 3 of the AIM, "Airport Operations."
In that section, they mention the risk from jet/prop blast. I've read
other FAA articles that discuss the risk of propeller accidents, which
might be prevented with lighted anti-collision lights. A spinning
propeller may not be immediately evident to someone walking across the
ramp. Walking into a propeller can not only cause serious injury or
death, but even worse, may require an expensive engine teardown to
inspect for damage. Any measure that helps prevent that can only be a
good thing.

RK Henry

RK Henry writes:

> Yes it does. In the excerpt here, "Operate" means running the engines.

According to whom?

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

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
> Anybody know of a better newsgroup reader (freeware) then what I am using?

40tude, Free Agent, Thunderbird, Outlook Express, to name a few.

I use OE and it works fine. Filtering via anything more complicated than
just ignoring an entire thread or blocking a particular poster is a pain,
but at least OE doesn't break URLs when you post them, even if they are
longer than the normal line length limit you've set. It's a standard
component that comes with IE, so it's almost certainly already installed on
any Windows computer you might be using.

Others will swear up and down OE is a piece of junk. Those people are
blinded by their own prejudice. But that said, there are plenty of
non-Microsoft choices available if you'd rather not use OE, for whatever
reason.

Pete

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I understand that one normally turns on beacons or anticollision
> lights whenever an aircraft's engines are running. Is this a
> regulation, or just a polite custom?
>
Turning on the Beacon prior to engine start is taught from the
beginning. It is visual warning that something is about to or is
happening. Engine running or aircraft moving.

It is common sense.
Strobes go on at the end of the runway. So not to blind others on the
ground.

Michelle P

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> [...] I'm not even required to have any anti-collision
> lights

Why not?

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I understand that one normally turns on beacons or anticollision
> lights whenever an aircraft's engines are running. Is this a
> regulation, or just a polite custom?

NO! You turn them on after your runup and when you are ready to take the
runway. In fact, it is bad form to operate the strobes on the ground
when near other aircraft.

"A Lieberma" > wrote
>
> Anybody know of a better newsgroup reader (freeware) then what I am using?
> Xnews just drives me nuts sometimes esepcially with word wrapping.

Most will do that.

Try putting a <at the beginning (no space and at the end> (no space) and see if
that helps. As in this:

<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl>
--
Jim in NC

granfather'ed



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
| ...
| > [...] I'm not even required to have any anti-collision
| > lights
|
| Why not?
|
|

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:52:59 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>RK Henry writes:
>
>> Yes it does. In the excerpt here, "Operate" means running the engines.
>
>According to whom?

1. In FARs part 1.1, Definitions, "Operate" is defined:

"Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or
authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in
§91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of
aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner,
lessee, or otherwise)."

If you're planning on using the airplane for flying, I'd interpret
that as beginning with the moment you turn the key 'til the airplane
is back in the hangar. I suppose it could exclude running the engine
at the shop, since that's not for the purpose of air navigation, but
the mechanics usually turn on the beacon too.

2. The mention in the AIM about lights isn't regulatory, but it may as
well be. It's good operating practice, and a pilot ignoring good
operating practice could conceivably be caught by the catch-all
regulation, FAR 91.13, Careless or reckless operation. Especially if
someone got hurt. And of course, none of us wants anyone to get hurt.

Running the anti-collision system is low-cost insurance. Except for
cases like not operating strobes around people, it's better to just go
ahead and use it. It could save someone's life.

RK Henry

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...] I'm not even required to have any anti-collision
>> lights
>
> Why not?

Ooops, you're right. While not originally required for night
certification, The plane needs them after 1971. However several
times since 1971 the requirements for anticollision lights has
been expanded.

RK Henry writes:

> 1. In FARs part 1.1, Definitions, "Operate" is defined:
>
> "Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or
> authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in
> §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of
> aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner,
> lessee, or otherwise)."

I don't see the word "engine" anywhere in the quoted text--again.

It's best to read what regulations say, and not try to guess what
you'd like them to mean. Legal documents are generally explicit;
imagination is neither required nor recommended.

> If you're planning on using the airplane for flying, I'd interpret
> that as beginning with the moment you turn the key 'til the airplane
> is back in the hangar.

So it's your interpretation; it's not written in the regulations.

> Running the anti-collision system is low-cost insurance. Except for
> cases like not operating strobes around people, it's better to just go
> ahead and use it. It could save someone's life.

I never expressed any objection to it.

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

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Who really knows. Did you ever see that movie about the guy
> who scammed the airlines and a bunch of college girls?
>
> True story.

_Catch Me If You Can_ (2002), starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks,
Martin Sheen, Christopher Walken, Natalie Baye.

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

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Who really knows. Did you ever see that movie about the guy
> who scammed the airlines and a bunch of college girls?
>
> True story.

Which movie is that?

Emily writes:

> Which movie is that?

_Catch Me If You Can_, from 2002.

I think Tony Curtis was in another, similar movie, but it wasn't about
the same person.

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

B A R R Y wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2006 06:18:01 -0700, "Kingfish" >
> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you start your virtual
>> engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual prop?
>
>
> I'm imagining a computer monitor with a big-ass Whelan tail strobe on
> top... <G>

That thought gives me a headache.

Actually the FAA means , in the paragraph you cited, that
"operate" means use an airplane in a business or otherwise
have the control of the airplane. It does not mean that the
engine is running.


"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:52:59 +0200, Mxsmanic
>
| wrote:
|
| >RK Henry writes:
| >
| >> Yes it does. In the excerpt here, "Operate" means
running the engines.
| >
| >According to whom?
|
| 1. In FARs part 1.1, Definitions, "Operate" is defined:
|
| "Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to
use or
| authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as
provided in
| §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the
piloting of
| aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as
owner,
| lessee, or otherwise)."
|
| If you're planning on using the airplane for flying, I'd
interpret
| that as beginning with the moment you turn the key 'til
the airplane
| is back in the hangar. I suppose it could exclude running
the engine
| at the shop, since that's not for the purpose of air
navigation, but
| the mechanics usually turn on the beacon too.
|
| 2. The mention in the AIM about lights isn't regulatory,
but it may as
| well be. It's good operating practice, and a pilot
ignoring good
| operating practice could conceivably be caught by the
catch-all
| regulation, FAR 91.13, Careless or reckless operation.
Especially if
| someone got hurt. And of course, none of us wants anyone
to get hurt.
|
| Running the anti-collision system is low-cost insurance.
Except for
| cases like not operating strobes around people, it's
better to just go
| ahead and use it. It could save someone's life.
|
| RK Henry

Catch Me If You Can, I think...Tom Hanks and DeCapprio. I
saw the real guy on the Tonight show. He made phony ID
using decals from a model and then recruited college girls
to travel with him so he would not "stand out" while he dead
headed all over the world.

I wonder if he could still do that with the new security and
background checks?


"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Who really knows. Did you ever see that movie about the
guy
| > who scammed the airlines and a bunch of college girls?
| >
| > True story.
|
| Which movie is that?

Frasca made a sim/training device back in the mid 1960
period. Mounted on the chair was a boxing glove that would
hit you in the back of the head if you exceeded the
parameters. Sounds like a negative reinforcement.



"Emily" > wrote in message
...
|B A R R Y wrote:
| > On 14 Oct 2006 06:18:01 -0700, "Kingfish"
>
| > wrote:
| >
| >> Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you
start your virtual
| >> engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual
prop?
| >
| >
| > I'm imagining a computer monitor with a big-ass Whelan
tail strobe on
| > top... <G>
|
| That thought gives me a headache.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Catch Me If You Can, I think...Tom Hanks and DeCapprio. I
> saw the real guy on the Tonight show. He made phony ID
> using decals from a model and then recruited college girls
> to travel with him so he would not "stand out" while he dead
> headed all over the world.
>
> I wonder if he could still do that with the new security and
> background checks?

I did see that but wasn't sure you were talking about the same movie. I
highly doubt he could do that today. It's hard enough to get on a
commercial flight when you're legally authorized to be on it.

He'd probably pose as a fed and start checking everybody
else.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Catch Me If You Can, I think...Tom Hanks and DeCapprio.
I
| > saw the real guy on the Tonight show. He made phony ID
| > using decals from a model and then recruited college
girls
| > to travel with him so he would not "stand out" while he
dead
| > headed all over the world.
| >
| > I wonder if he could still do that with the new security
and
| > background checks?
|
| I did see that but wasn't sure you were talking about the
same movie. I
| highly doubt he could do that today. It's hard enough to
get on a
| commercial flight when you're legally authorized to be on
it.

It means all that and more. It's an all-purpose definition intended to
be plugged into wherever the term is found in the regulations.

I found a source on AOPA's site. I won't reproduce it here, but AOPA
members can search for it as article 352. It says that the pilot must
turn on the anti-collision lights whenever he "operates" [their
quotes] the aircraft, which means every time he starts the engine. I
consider that a fairly authoritative source, though not as
authoritative as the FAA, of course.

RK Henry

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:09:14 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Actually the FAA means , in the paragraph you cited, that
>"operate" means use an airplane in a business or otherwise
>have the control of the airplane. It does not mean that the
>engine is running.
>
>
>"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
>| On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:52:59 +0200, Mxsmanic
>
>| wrote:
>|
>| >RK Henry writes:
>| >
>| >> Yes it does. In the excerpt here, "Operate" means
>running the engines.
>| >
>| >According to whom?
>|
>| 1. In FARs part 1.1, Definitions, "Operate" is defined:
>|
>| "Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to
>use or
>| authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as
>provided in
>| §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the
>piloting of
>| aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as
>owner,
>| lessee, or otherwise)."
>|
>| If you're planning on using the airplane for flying, I'd
>interpret
>| that as beginning with the moment you turn the key 'til
>the airplane
>| is back in the hangar. I suppose it could exclude running
>the engine
>| at the shop, since that's not for the purpose of air
>navigation, but
>| the mechanics usually turn on the beacon too.
>|
>| 2. The mention in the AIM about lights isn't regulatory,
>but it may as
>| well be. It's good operating practice, and a pilot
>ignoring good
>| operating practice could conceivably be caught by the
>catch-all
>| regulation, FAR 91.13, Careless or reckless operation.
>Especially if
>| someone got hurt. And of course, none of us wants anyone
>to get hurt.
>|
>| Running the anti-collision system is low-cost insurance.
>Except for
>| cases like not operating strobes around people, it's
>better to just go
>| ahead and use it. It could save someone's life.
>|
>| RK Henry
>

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> I wonder if he could still do that with the new security and
> background checks?

Probably. The security and background checks are designed to _look_
secure, not to _be_ secure.

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

RK Henry writes:

> I found a source on AOPA's site. I won't reproduce it here, but AOPA
> members can search for it as article 352. It says that the pilot must
> turn on the anti-collision lights whenever he "operates" [their
> quotes] the aircraft, which means every time he starts the engine. I
> consider that a fairly authoritative source, though not as
> authoritative as the FAA, of course.

AOPA has no enforcement or regulatory authority at all.

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

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
>>Actually the FAA means , in the paragraph you cited, that
>>"operate" means use an airplane in a business or otherwise
>>have the control of the airplane. It does not mean that the
>>engine is running.
>
> It means all that and more. It's an all-purpose definition intended to
> be plugged into wherever the term is found in the regulations.

Does that mean that regulations that use the word "operate" do not apply to
gliders?

It may be that some aircraft cannot be operated without an engine running,
but a) an aircraft with an engine can have that engine running without the
airplane being "operated", and b) some aircraft can be operated without any
engine, running or otherwise.

It may be a fine line, but the line is there and I see no reason to infer
from the regulation that the starting of an engine necessarily has anything
to do with the operation of anticollision lights.

Pete

Turning beacons on before start was part of "Operation
Lights ON" as an advisory for safety reasons. I have no
problem with that as long as it does not cause harm to the
airplane. At night is required to turn the NAV lights on.
AIM 4-3-23. Use of Aircraft Lights

a. Aircraft position lights are required to be lighted on
aircraft operated on the surface and in flight from sunset
to sunrise. In addition, aircraft equipped with an
anti-collision light system are required to operate that
light system during all types of operations (day and night).
However, during any adverse meteorological conditions, the
pilot-in-command may determine that the anti-collision
lights should be turned off when their light output would
constitute a hazard to safety (14 CFR Section 91.209).
Supplementary strobe lights should be turned off on the
ground when they adversely affect ground personnel or other
pilots, and in flight when there are adverse reflection from
clouds.

b. An aircraft anti-collision light system can use one or
more rotating beacons and/or strobe lights, be colored
either red or white, and have different (higher than
minimum) intensities when compared to other aircraft. Many
aircraft have both a rotating beacon and a strobe light
system.

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.

d. Prop and jet blast forces generated by large aircraft
have overturned or damaged several smaller aircraft taxiing
behind them. To avoid similar results, and in the interest
of preventing upsets and injuries to ground personnel from
such forces, the FAA recommends that air carriers and
commercial operators turn on their rotating beacons anytime
their aircraft engines are in operation. General aviation
pilots using rotating beacon equipped aircraft are also
encouraged to participate in this program which is designed
to alert others to the potential hazard. Since this is a
voluntary program, exercise caution and do not rely solely
on the rotating beacon as an indication that aircraft
engines are in operation.

e. At the discretion of the pilot-in-command turn on all
external illumination, including landing lights, when
taxiing on, across, or holding in position on any runway.
This increases the conspicuity of the aircraft to
controllers and other pilots approaching to land, taxiing,
or crossing the runway. Pilots should comply with any
equipment operating limitations and consider the effects of
landing and strobe lights on other aircraft in their
vicinity. When cleared for takeoff pilots should turn on any
remaining exterior lights.



AC 91.73

(2) Because adherence to the guidelines in this AC are
voluntary and aircraft equipment

varies, flightcrews are cautioned not to rely solely on the
status of an aircraft's lights to

determine the intentions of the flightcrew of the other
aircraft. Additionally, flightcrews must

remember to comply with operating limitations on the
aircraft's lighting systems.

b. Exterior Lights. To the extent possible and consistent
with aircraft equipage, operating

limitations, and flightcrew procedures, illuminate exterior
lights as follows:

(1) Engines running. Turn on the rotating beacon whenever an
engine is running.

(2) Taxiing. Prior to commencing taxi, turn on navigation,
position, anti-collision, and

logo lights. Strobe lights should not be illuminated during
taxi if they will adversely affect the

vision of other pilots or ground personnel.

(3) Crossing a runway. All exterior lights should be
illuminated when crossing a runway.

(4) Entering the departure runway for takeoff. When entering
a runway to takeoff, or

when taxiing into position and holding for takeoff,
illuminate one or more landing lights and all

other exterior lights. Strobe lights should not be
illuminated if they will adversely affect the

vision of other pilots.

(5) Takeoff. Turn on all remaining landing lights when
takeoff clearance is received or

when commencing takeoff roll at an airport without an
operating control tower.

8. SUMMARY. Taxi operations require constant vigilance by
the entire flightcrew, not just the

pilot taxiing the aircraft. The flightcrew needs to be
continually aware of the movement and location

of other aircraft and ground vehicles on the airport
movement area. Taxi operations require the same

planning, coordination, and proper execution, as do the
other phases of flight operations. Safe

aircraft operations can be accomplished and incidents
eliminated if the flightcrew is properly trained

and correctly accomplishes standard taxi operating
procedures and practices.

/s/

Nicholas A. Sabatini

Director, Flight Standards Service

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
| It means all that and more. It's an all-purpose definition
intended to
| be plugged into wherever the term is found in the
regulations.
|
| I found a source on AOPA's site. I won't reproduce it
here, but AOPA
| members can search for it as article 352. It says that the
pilot must
| turn on the anti-collision lights whenever he "operates"
[their
| quotes] the aircraft, which means every time he starts the
engine. I
| consider that a fairly authoritative source, though not as
| authoritative as the FAA, of course.
|
| RK Henry
|
| On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:09:14 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >Actually the FAA means , in the paragraph you cited, that
| >"operate" means use an airplane in a business or
otherwise
| >have the control of the airplane. It does not mean that
the
| >engine is running.
| >
| >
| >"RK Henry" > wrote in message
| ...
| >| On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:52:59 +0200, Mxsmanic
| >
| >| wrote:
| >|
| >| >RK Henry writes:
| >| >
| >| >> Yes it does. In the excerpt here, "Operate" means
| >running the engines.
| >| >
| >| >According to whom?
| >|
| >| 1. In FARs part 1.1, Definitions, "Operate" is defined:
| >|
| >| "Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to
| >use or
| >| authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as
| >provided in
| >| §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the
| >piloting of
| >| aircraft, with or without the right of legal control
(as
| >owner,
| >| lessee, or otherwise)."
| >|
| >| If you're planning on using the airplane for flying,
I'd
| >interpret
| >| that as beginning with the moment you turn the key 'til
| >the airplane
| >| is back in the hangar. I suppose it could exclude
running
| >the engine
| >| at the shop, since that's not for the purpose of air
| >navigation, but
| >| the mechanics usually turn on the beacon too.
| >|
| >| 2. The mention in the AIM about lights isn't
regulatory,
| >but it may as
| >| well be. It's good operating practice, and a pilot
| >ignoring good
| >| operating practice could conceivably be caught by the
| >catch-all
| >| regulation, FAR 91.13, Careless or reckless operation.
| >Especially if
| >| someone got hurt. And of course, none of us wants
anyone
| >to get hurt.
| >|
| >| Running the anti-collision system is low-cost
insurance.
| >Except for
| >| cases like not operating strobes around people, it's
| >better to just go
| >| ahead and use it. It could save someone's life.
| >|
| >| RK Henry
| >

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>B A R R Y wrote:
>> On 14 Oct 2006 06:18:01 -0700, "Kingfish" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you start your virtual
>>> engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual prop?
>>
>>
>> I'm imagining a computer monitor with a big-ass Whelan tail strobe on
>> top... <G>
>
> That thought gives me a headache.

I wonder if he opens his bedroom window and shouts...CLEAR.........before
engine start? Or would it be.......VIRTUAL CLEAR?

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>> On 14 Oct 2006 06:18:01 -0700, "Kingfish" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you start your virtual
>>>> engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your virtual prop?
>>>
>>> I'm imagining a computer monitor with a big-ass Whelan tail strobe on
>>> top... <G>
>> That thought gives me a headache.
>
> I wonder if he opens his bedroom window and shouts...CLEAR.........before
> engine start? Or would it be.......VIRTUAL CLEAR?

I'm trying to come up with a smart remark about 737's not having props,
but nothing's coming....

Dave Stadt writes:

> I wonder if he opens his bedroom window and shouts...CLEAR.........before
> engine start?

The simulator does this for me.

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Emily writes:
>
>> Can't he just read the regulations? He's obviously got access to
>> internet.
>>
>> § 91.209 Aircraft lights.
>>
>> No person may:
>>
>> (a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during the
>> period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a distance of 3
>> statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the horizon)—
>>
>> (1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;
^^^^^^^
>>
>> (2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a night
^^^^
>> flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft—
>>
>> (i) Is clearly illuminated;
>>
>> (ii) Has lighted position lights; or
>>
>> (iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;
>>
>> (3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft—
>>
>> (i) Has lighted anchor lights; or
>>
>> (ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not required on vessels; or
>>
>> (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>> system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>> anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>> determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>> interest of safety to turn the lights off.
>
>Nothing in this quoted section mentions engines, so it doesn't answer
>my question.

How is it possible to operate an aircraft without an engine that
is in operation?

On the other hand, no reply from anyone here will satisfy your questions.

Obviously, non-stop simming on MSFS has removed any and all common
sense from you. And, you obviously have no concept of "logic"

A Lieberma > wrote:
> Anybody know of a better newsgroup reader (freeware) then what I am
> using? Xnews just drives me nuts sometimes esepcially with word
> wrapping.

I use xnews and there are a couple tricks to getting the wrapping you
like. The following assumes the version you are using is the same
version as mine and user settings are similar (most of mine are "factory
default"). Suppose you are composing a post and insert an outrageously
long line like this:

Thisisanoutrageouslylonglinethatjustgoesonandonand onandonandonandonandonandonandonandonandonandIthin kthatisenough.

Obviously as you type such a line it will normally wrap at 72 characters.

At the lower right of the main text window you should see two icons, one
with a blue checkmark on a folder icon and another that is a red arrow
pointing down and then to the left. If you click on the red arrow icon
you toggle word wrap. After typing in a paragraph, try clicking it a few
times. You should see auto-inserted newlines come and go.

Now above the main text window should be several menu options:
[Ext. Edit] [Rewrap] [Undo] [Save] [Send Now!]

With word wrap on, click on [Rewrap] to force permanent insertion of
newlines. Now click on the red arrow on the lower right to turn word
wrap off. Now go back to the long line(s) that got wrapped and manually
delete the newline (move the cursor to the beginning of the last chopped
line and hit backspace). With word wrap off, post the message.

I sure hope that helps.

"Blanche Cohen" > wrote in message
...
> How is it possible to operate an aircraft without an engine that
> is in operation?

Well, for one...operate an aircraft that has no engine at all.

There may be other ways. But I'd think the above would be a sufficient
counter-example for you.

The regulation does NOT say anything about engine operation, nor does the
definition of "operate" per the FAA. It's true that engine start and
aircraft operation are closely related, but the regulation isn't about
engines, it's about aircraft.

Inasmuch as an operation can take place at a different time than engine
start, the former is what the regulation is talking about, not the latter.

Pete

The 727 has a prop. They install it under the tail while
parked.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Dave Stadt wrote:
| > "Emily" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >> B A R R Y wrote:
| >>> On 14 Oct 2006 06:18:01 -0700, "Kingfish"
>
| >>> wrote:
| >>>
| >>>> Hmmm. Do you turn on your virtual strobe before you
start your virtual
| >>>> engine, so as not to endanger anyone with your
virtual prop?
| >>>
| >>> I'm imagining a computer monitor with a big-ass Whelan
tail strobe on
| >>> top... <G>
| >> That thought gives me a headache.
| >
| > I wonder if he opens his bedroom window and
shouts...CLEAR.........before
| > engine start? Or would it be.......VIRTUAL CLEAR?
|
| I'm trying to come up with a smart remark about 737's not
having props,
| but nothing's coming....

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Now above the main text window should be several menu options: [Ext.
> Edit] [Rewrap] [Undo] [Save] [Send Now!]

Thanks Jim,

I think I had tried that and on the second message, the URL got
truncated in a different position.

Instead of using the backspace, I was deleting the last charactor of the
line, and re-inserted the deleted charactor.

No biggie, not normal that I post such long URL's anyway, just hate
nuicance things since I am suppose to be smarter then the computer. :-)

Allen

Blanche Cohen writes:

> How is it possible to operate an aircraft without an engine that
> is in operation?

You'll have to ask glider pilots about that.

> On the other hand, no reply from anyone here will satisfy your questions.

Quotations of regulations need to at least mention the subject of my
queries. Many people seem to believe that their own personal
interpretation of regulations has the same force of law as the
regulations themselves, but that is not the case.

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

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Blanche Cohen writes:

> > How is it possible to operate an aircraft without an engine that
> > is in operation?

> You'll have to ask glider pilots about that.

> > On the other hand, no reply from anyone here will satisfy your questions.

> Quotations of regulations need to at least mention the subject of my
> queries. Many people seem to believe that their own personal
> interpretation of regulations has the same force of law as the
> regulations themselves, but that is not the case.

Regulations are written to get the maximum meaning in the fewest words.
Sometimes that requires one to make some common sense interpretation of
the words. You seem to want "operation" to mean "when the wheels turn" or
perhaps "when the wheels leave the ground". Most of us think it means
"when the engine starts" (for planes with engines). Arguing over a
definition like this is a common, yet tiring, USENET exercise. It's
especially tiring when the entire thread is posted to multiple groups.
Followups set to RAS.

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

--
Don Poitras

It was called "Catch me if you can" and Tom Hanks was in it as the guy
trying to catch the guy.

Emily wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> Who really knows. Did you ever see that movie about the guy who
>> scammed the airlines and a bunch of college girls?
>>
>> True story.
>
>
> Which movie is that?

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Blanche Cohen writes:
>
>> How is it possible to operate an aircraft without an engine that
>> is in operation?
>
> You'll have to ask glider pilots about that.
>
>> On the other hand, no reply from anyone here will satisfy your
>> questions.
>
> Quotations of regulations need to at least mention the subject of my
> queries. Many people seem to believe that their own personal
> interpretation of regulations has the same force of law as the
> regulations themselves, but that is not the case.
>
The subject of your query was stated:
"I understand that one normally turns on beacons or anticollision lights
whenever an aircraft's engines are running. Is this a regulation, or just
a polite custom?"

Note that YOU were the one that set the parameters that the "aircraft's
engines are running", therefore, the regs quoted directly answered your
original question, as the PIC is always "operating an aircraft" if the
engines are running, and therefore it is not "just a polite custom". Once
again, you choose to argue rather than learn.

Neil

Emily,

> Problem is, he won't look it up on his own.
>

Problem is, you still answer! This newsgroup is now mainly filled with
longwinded discussions on a simmer's questions about reality. Sad!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

It's not real. It's not the same as flying. There's no pressures on the
seat of the pants, or feeling of movement, or wind noise. I don't do
well on MSFS either. But why would I want to? It'll only get you from
Point A to Point A.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



Mxsmanic wrote:
> Emily writes:
>
> > Maybe I'll do that tonight!!!!! Except I can't play MSFS without
> > crashing it anyway, so that's probably a bad experiment.
>
> What do you find difficult about flying in MSFS?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Problem is, you still answer! This newsgroup is now mainly filled with
> longwinded discussions on a simmer's questions about reality. Sad!

Why do you find questions about real flying in a piloting newsgroup
sad? What would you prefer to discuss?

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

Gene Seibel writes:

> It's not real. It's not the same as flying. There's no pressures on the
> seat of the pants, or feeling of movement, or wind noise. I don't do
> well on MSFS either. But why would I want to? It'll only get you from
> Point A to Point A.

I consider that an advantage, as the objective is to fly, not to get
somewhere. Going from one real-life airport to another would be a
huge inconvenience unless I actually had a legitimate reason to
travel, which I virtually never do (I hate travel).

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

"Don Poitras" > wrote in message
...
> Regulations are written to get the maximum meaning in the fewest words.

You base that assertion on what? The FARs certainly don't bear that out.
There's plenty of verbiage there, much of it excess if one takes the
position that one must make inferences with respect to definitions of words
in the regulations.

> Sometimes that requires one to make some common sense interpretation of
> the words.

One does need to occasionally use "common sense" definitions, yes. However,
when the FAA has provided a definition (as they have here), that is not
required.

> You seem to want "operation" to mean "when the wheels turn" or
> perhaps "when the wheels leave the ground". Most of us think it means
> "when the engine starts" (for planes with engines).

YOU seem to want "operation" to mean "when the engine starts". This isn't
how the FAA defines it, nor does it make any sense that the FAA would write
a regulation that applies to all aircraft, but have some sort of implicit
exclusion for powered aircraft in which only "engine start" defines the
course of operation.

What happens with a motor glider? Is the aircraft not being operated when
the engine is shut down in flight? How about a regular powered airplane?
Does shutting the engine down in flight allow the pilot to stop using
anticollision lights? What about a balloon? Are lights required only when
the burner is operating?

> Arguing over a
> definition like this is a common, yet tiring, USENET exercise.

It's especially tiring when the FAA has already provided a definition, and
yet people insist that their definition is incomplete or that one should
infer additional meaning beyond that provided in the official definition.

> It's
> especially tiring when the entire thread is posted to multiple groups.
> Followups set to RAS.

If you think that your comments and replies to them belong only in
r.a.student, then don't post your comments to another newsgroup in the first
place.

Pete

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. com...
> Note that YOU were the one that set the parameters that the "aircraft's
> engines are running", therefore, the regs quoted directly answered your
> original question, as the PIC is always "operating an aircraft" if the
> engines are running, and therefore it is not "just a polite custom".

The PIC is NOT "always 'operating an aircraft' if the engines are running".
The FAA specifically defines "operate" to relate to "air navigation". There
is nothing in the definition that suggests that simply having the engine
running constitutes "operating".

Is it a good idea to turn on the anticollision lights if you've got the
engine running? Sure, especially if you are going to move the airplane (for
example, taxiing from one spot on the ground to another). Is it a
regulatory requirement? No, it is not. If you are not engaged in "air
navigation", you are not "operating" the aircraft as far as the FARs are
concerned.

> Once again, you choose to argue rather than learn.

Seems to me, that accusation is more appropriately leveled at many of the
other participants in this thread, this time.

Pete

But it's not flying. It's making pictures on a computer screen.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gene Seibel writes:
>
> > It's not real. It's not the same as flying. There's no pressures on the
> > seat of the pants, or feeling of movement, or wind noise. I don't do
> > well on MSFS either. But why would I want to? It'll only get you from
> > Point A to Point A.
>
> I consider that an advantage, as the objective is to fly, not to get
> somewhere. Going from one real-life airport to another would be a
> huge inconvenience unless I actually had a legitimate reason to
> travel, which I virtually never do (I hate travel).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gene Seibel writes:

> But it's not flying. It's making pictures on a computer screen.

Sitting in an aircraft isn't flying, either. The aircraft flies; you
sit and watch. Only birds actually fly.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
> RK Henry writes:
>
>> 1. In FARs part 1.1, Definitions, "Operate" is defined:
>>
>> "Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or
>> authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in
>> §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of
>> aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner,
>> lessee, or otherwise)."
>
> I don't see the word "engine" anywhere in the quoted text--again.
>
> It's best to read what regulations say, and not try to guess what
> you'd like them to mean. Legal documents are generally explicit;
> imagination is neither required nor recommended.
>
>> If you're planning on using the airplane for flying, I'd interpret
>> that as beginning with the moment you turn the key 'til the airplane
>> is back in the hangar.
>
> So it's your interpretation; it's not written in the regulations.
>


You are such a little cock wad. If you are starting the aircraft to fly
you are operating the aircraft.

601XL Builder wrote:
> ...
> If you are starting the aircraft to fly
> you are operating the aircraft.

Apparently less then even that. In the Florida state criminal
trial of the drunk airline pilots, they were stopped during the
pushback which they commanded before even starting the engines.
There was expert testimony, by either FAA or expert with prior
FAA exp, that the the mere authorization to push it back was
operating the aircraft for purpose of flight under FAA rules, and
therefore "operate" as one necessary element of the state crime
was there and the jury agreed.

F--

601XL Builder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> RK Henry writes:
>>
>>> 1. In FARs part 1.1, Definitions, "Operate" is defined:
>>>
>>> "Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or
>>> authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in
>>> §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of
>>> aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner,
>>> lessee, or otherwise)."
>>
>> I don't see the word "engine" anywhere in the quoted text--again.
>>
>> It's best to read what regulations say, and not try to guess what
>> you'd like them to mean. Legal documents are generally explicit;
>> imagination is neither required nor recommended.
>>
>>> If you're planning on using the airplane for flying, I'd interpret
>>> that as beginning with the moment you turn the key 'til the airplane
>>> is back in the hangar.
>>
>> So it's your interpretation; it's not written in the regulations.
>>
>
>
> You are such a little cock wad. If you are starting the aircraft to fly
> you are operating the aircraft.

Personally, I think we should point him in the direction of the FAA. As
much as I hate to defend them, I think that they'd love to hear that
this particular reasonably well written reg is open to interpretation.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The 727 has a prop. They install it under the tail while
> parked.
>
Either that or you drop the rear airstairs if the plane is
so equipped. Don't know about the 727, but some of the
DC-9's you HAD to do that. When the plane was empty
it only took a couple of guys standing in the back to
tip it up off the nose gear.

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Jim Macklin wrote:
> > The 727 has a prop. They install it under the tail while
> > parked.
> >
> Either that or you drop the rear airstairs if the plane is
> so equipped. Don't know about the 727, but some of the
> DC-9's you HAD to do that. When the plane was empty
> it only took a couple of guys standing in the back to
> tip it up off the nose gear.

I once read that the Concorde used to pump fuel around after landing to
move the CG far enough forward that departing pax wouldn't tip it over.

They also did a lot of active CG management (by pumping fuel around) in
flight as they went from subsonic to supersonic and back.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gene Seibel writes:
>
>> But it's not flying. It's making pictures on a computer screen.
>
> Sitting in an aircraft isn't flying, either. The aircraft flies; you
> sit and watch. Only birds actually fly.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

From the American Heritage Dictionary...

Fly n. flew, flown, flying, flies -intr. 1. To engage in flight,
especially: a. to move through the air by means of wings or winglike parts.
b. To travel by air: "We flew to Dallas." c. To operate an aircraft or
spacecraft. (all other definitions don't relate to the thread)

Flight n. 1.a. The motion of an object in or through a medium, especially
through the earth's atmosphere or through space. b. an instance of such
motion. c. the distance covered in such motion. 2.a. The act or process of
flying through the air by means of wings. b. The ability to fly. (rest of
the definitions don't relate)

Aircraft n., A machine of device such as an airplane, a helicopter, a
glider, or a dirigible, that is capable of atmospheric flight.

I don't see any mention of computer simulations in these definitions So, it
would appear that according the American Heritage Dictionary, actual real
life flying of an airplane is considered "flying" and operation of a
computer simulation is NOT. I know this is not the FAA's definition, but
considering the FARs around the logging of simulator time, and even the fact
that there is a "simulator" column in my logbook, don't think the FAA
considers using a simulator "flying" either. i.e. I can't use a simulator
to maintain VFR currency or pass a flight review. And the last time I
checked a personal computer is not "capable of atomospheric flight", unless
you do something like throw it out a window, and then which isn't even
"controllable flight" and you can really ride it and the computer is then
"flying" and not you.

Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
<snip>

>And the
> last time I checked a personal computer is not "capable of atomospheric
> flight", unless you do something like throw it out a window

As I think someone pointed about before, strap a big enough engine on it
and anything's possible.

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>And the last time I checked a personal computer is not "capable of
>>atomospheric flight", unless you do something like throw it out a window
>
> As I think someone pointed about before, strap a big enough engine on it
> and anything's possible.

That would have probably been me... :-) But then he would actually be
flying, and we know he wouldn't want to do that, and then also he wouldn't
be flying a 737 anymore, as he would be flying a "Pentium 4" or an "Amd64"
or what ever computer he has, and I don't think anyone in this newsgroup
would be able to help him figure out how to fly that. :-)

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> > The 727 has a prop. They install it under the tail while
>> > parked.
>> >
>> Either that or you drop the rear airstairs if the plane is
>> so equipped. Don't know about the 727, but some of the
>> DC-9's you HAD to do that. When the plane was empty
>> it only took a couple of guys standing in the back to
>> tip it up off the nose gear.
>
> I once read that the Concorde used to pump fuel around after landing to
> move the CG far enough forward that departing pax wouldn't tip it over.
>
> They also did a lot of active CG management (by pumping fuel around) in
> flight as they went from subsonic to supersonic and back.

I found out during my Private checkride, during the oral portion, that
apparently the 747 has a tank in the tail and that the procedure used to be
basically "burn it when you want", but to avoid getting caught in an aft CG
situation, they pump the fuel from the tail tank to the main tanks as soon
as practical. 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.

Emily writes:

> ... I think that they'd love to hear that
> this particular reasonably well written reg is open to interpretation.

Except that I didn't say that. I said that someone has interpreted
the regulation, not that it is open to interpretation (quite the
opposite, generally).

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

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> I know this is not the FAA's definition ...

And so do I, which makes the purpose of the post a bit mysterious.

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

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Wade Hasbrouck writes:
>
>> I know this is not the FAA's definition ...
>
> And so do I, which makes the purpose of the post a bit mysterious.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

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.

However, the FAA does have a definition for "aircraft"

FAA says from FAR 1.1 "General definitions":

"Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in
the air."

Pretty much the same as the one from the dictionary, and probably a little
more restrictive than the dictionary. You computer kind of fails to meet
that definition.

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>
>> Note that YOU were the one that set the parameters that the
>> "aircraft's engines are running", therefore, the regs quoted
>> directly answered your original question, as the PIC is always
>> "operating an aircraft" if the engines are running, and therefore it
>> is not "just a polite custom".
>
> The PIC is NOT "always 'operating an aircraft' if the engines are
> running". The FAA specifically defines "operate" to relate to "air
> navigation". There is nothing in the definition that suggests that
> simply having the engine running constitutes "operating".
>
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. Nonetheless, I'll re-read the
regs to see your point of view on this.

Neil

"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.

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.
|

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.

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.

"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?

"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

"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.

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>

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

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

"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

B A R R Y writes:

> 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>

Maybe this is a stupid question, but why don't aircraft use reflective
markings, like cars, bicycles, motorcycle riders, etc.? Bright
landing lights could make reflective markings gleam from a
considerable distance.

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

Neil Gould writes:

> 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.

Isn't the field fenced?

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

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Isn't the field fenced?
>
Many airports aren't fenced and many of those that are have fences that
won't stop a deer.

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Isn't the field fenced?
>
It's a large enough area that deer reside on the property, but that's
beside the point because I land without landing lights at any airport,
regardless of fencing. ;-) Landing lights can fiddle with your depth
perception, whereas just using ILS and runway lights as references
provides all the information necessary to make a smooth landing at night.

Neil

Had NOTHING to do with the landing light.


Karl
"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
om...
> 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
>
>
>

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "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".
>
True, however, the testimony of the FAA official as shown on CourtTV
implied that it did. Who knows how that weighed into the final decision?

> Clearly, the FARs distinguish between someone intending to fly the
> airplane and someone not. This happens to be one of those cases.
>
I defer to your legal expertise, as I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on
TV. So, you can't get busted for running the engines without the beacon
flashing.

Neil

Recently, karl gruber > posted:

> Had NOTHING to do with the landing light.
>
The pilot claimed it did, so I'll accept his close-up and personal-view
word for it.


>
> Karl
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> om...
>> 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

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>>> 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

During my night training, my instructor would reach over once in a while on
final and turn the landing lights off, and "fail" them.

Also during my night check out for the club I flyout of now, the instructor
had me do a lot of the basic manuevers without instrument lights. We did a
couple loops around the pattern, steep turns, slow flight (straight and
level and turns), power off stalls, and straight and level. Basically the
about 80% of the flight was without instrument lights. You get a real good
feel of when you need to be adding rudder and such. For safety, he would
give me quick glimpses of the instruments, mostly the airspeed indicator.
All of this was to see if I could handle the airplane in the event of an
electrical failure at night.

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
om...
> I defer to your legal expertise, as I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on
> TV. So, you can't get busted for running the engines without the beacon
> flashing.

I'm a pilot. I can get busted for practically anything, if the FAA so
chooses. I'm just saying that the FAA would have to assert I was engaged in
"air navigation" in order to make the charge stick.

How that would hold up in the enforcement proceedings depends on a variety
of things, but that doesn't change the regulatory aspects.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> om...
>> I defer to your legal expertise, as I am not a lawyer nor do I play one
>> on
>> TV. So, you can't get busted for running the engines without the beacon
>> flashing.
>
> I'm a pilot. I can get busted for practically anything, if the FAA so
> chooses. I'm just saying that the FAA would have to assert I was engaged
> in "air navigation" in order to make the charge stick.
>
> How that would hold up in the enforcement proceedings depends on a variety
> of things, but that doesn't change the regulatory aspects.
>
> Pete
>

FAR 91.13 pretty much lets the FAA nail you for something when there isn't
anything else they can get you on.

91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
top
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may
operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the
life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No
person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air
navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for
air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or
discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to
endanger the life or property of another.

only if your landing light (which isn't all that bright to begin with)
was shining directly at your traffic (which at that point you can't see).


Mxsmanic wrote:
> B A R R Y writes:
>
>
>>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>
>
>
> Maybe this is a stupid question, but why don't aircraft use reflective
> markings, like cars, bicycles, motorcycle riders, etc.? Bright
> landing lights could make reflective markings gleam from a
> considerable distance.
>

yes to keep the deer off the surrounding roads.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Isn't the field fenced?
>

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>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.

In IRS (tax) law and FAA rules, that isn't true. In each case, contrary to
the rest of US case law, your are presumed guilty and the burden of
proof is on the defendant to prove innocence.

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> I understand that one normally turns on beacons or anticollision
>> lights whenever an aircraft's engines are running. Is this a
>> regulation, or just a polite custom?
>
> NO! You turn them on after your runup and when you are ready to take the
> runway. In fact, it is bad form to operate the strobes on the ground
> when near other aircraft.

In a recent FAA Safety Video, the one with Patty Wagstaff, they say that at
night, landing lights and strobes should NOT be turned on until you are on
the runway, and they also suggested lining up about 3' off center from the
center line to make you standout more on the runway at night. Also they
said that you should not use taxi lights around other aircraft, for the
obvious reason that it can be blinding and ruin night vision of other
pilots. The video was about 15 minutes or so about runway safety.

Turning on only the rotating beacon just before or after startup shouldn't
be considered "bad form" as the rotating beacon on the tail isn't really
"blinding" and won't ruin your night vision (it is red), and is a good
safety measure regardless of whether or not the FAA requires you to turn it
while the engine is running, which judging by the checklist for a 172 (from
the POH which is approved by the FAA for that plane), the "turn on beacon
and strobes" is one of the last things in the "before takeoff" section and
is after the actual run-up, so this would indicate that the FAA doesn't
require you to have it on while ground, but it does make good safety sense
in my opinion to turn on the rotating beacon just before starting the
engine, because if it was required while the engine running, would assume
that the FAA would have told Cessna that the "turn on beacon" item needs to
be in a different place, like the "starting the engine" section, so pilots
don't accidentally violate an FAR.

I don't think the FAA (and other pilots) will be mad at you if you turn on
ONLY the rotating beacon before engine startup. However, turning on the
strobes may earn you the ire of some pilots.

I didn't have to worry about strobes during my training as the airplane I
flew (1978 Cessna 172N) didn't have strobes. The ones I fly now (1976
Cessna 172Ms) through my currently club do have strobes.

Blanche Cohen wrote:
> In IRS (tax) law and FAA rules, that isn't true. In each case, contrary to
> the rest of US case law, your are presumed guilty and the burden of
> proof is on the defendant to prove innocence.

Cannot agree. The concept of guilt and innocence belongs only to
criminal law, not civil law. Beyond that, in FAA violation
matters, the burden is upon FAA to prove a violation occurred.
In tax law, recent change in law shifted the burden of proof to
IRS in most cases upon reaching the litigation stage.

Fred F.

Recently, Wade Hasbrouck > posted:

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>> I defer to your legal expertise, as I am not a lawyer nor do I play
>>> one on
>>> TV. So, you can't get busted for running the engines without the
>>> beacon flashing.
>>
>> I'm a pilot. I can get busted for practically anything, if the FAA
>> so chooses. I'm just saying that the FAA would have to assert I was
>> engaged in "air navigation" in order to make the charge stick.
>>
>> How that would hold up in the enforcement proceedings depends on a
>> variety of things, but that doesn't change the regulatory aspects.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>
> FAR 91.13 pretty much lets the FAA nail you for something when there
> isn't anything else they can get you on.
>
> 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
> top
> (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person
> may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to
> endanger the life or property of another.
>
> (b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation.
> No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air
> navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft
> for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for
> receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless
> manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
>
Well, wait a second. According to Peter D., "...operate an aircraft..."
must involve air navigation. So, the usage of "operate an aircraft, other
than for the purpose of air navigation" should be an impossibility! But,
my suspicion is that the FAA is well aware of this inclusion. ;-)

So, now, it seems that if the engines are running one would be considered
to be "operating an aircraft".

Neil

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
.. .
> [...]
>> (b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation.
>> No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air
>> navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft
>> for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for
>> receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless
>> manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
>>
> Well, wait a second. According to Peter D., "...operate an aircraft..."
> must involve air navigation. So, the usage of "operate an aircraft, other
> than for the purpose of air navigation" should be an impossibility! But,
> my suspicion is that the FAA is well aware of this inclusion. ;-)

The reason they specify "other than for the purpose of air navigation" is
*because* the default is to include only those purposes of air navigation.
This is why 91.13(a) does not read "...operate an aircraft, for the purposes
of air navigation, in a careless and reckless manner..." Because of the way
"operate" is defined, no qualifier is needed in that use.

The qualifier *is* needed in the use for 91.13(b), because the definition of
"operate" would not ordinarily include "other than for the purpose of air
navigation".

In other words, the wording you seem to think is self-contradictory is in
fact further evidence of the intended interpretation of "operate" elsewhere.

> So, now, it seems that if the engines are running one would be considered
> to be "operating an aircraft".

No, it would not seem that at all.

Pete

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Turning on only the rotating beacon just before or after startup shouldn't
> be considered "bad form" as the rotating beacon on the tail isn't really
> "blinding" and won't ruin your night vision (it is red), and is a good
> safety measure regardless of whether or not the FAA requires you to turn
> it while the engine is running, which judging by the checklist for a 172
> (from the POH which is approved by the FAA for that plane), the "turn on
> beacon and strobes" is one of the last things in the "before takeoff"
> section and is after the actual run-up, so this would indicate that the
> FAA doesn't require you to have it on while ground, but it does make good
> safety sense in my opinion to turn on the rotating beacon just before
> starting the engine, because if it was required while the engine running,
> would assume that the FAA would have told Cessna that the "turn on beacon"
> item needs to be in a different place, like the "starting the engine"
> section, so pilots don't accidentally violate an FAR.

Can you say "run-on sentence"? Sure, I knew you could! :)

Anyway, your assumption is poorly placed.

As has been beaten to death in this thread already, the FARs require that
anticollision lights be on while the aircraft is being operated.
Anticollision lights may take the form of a rotating beacon, strobes, or
other types of light meeting the requirements for an anticollision light.

Whatever your anticollision lights are, they must be turned on while you are
operating the aircraft. While it may seem desirable to leave strobes off
for the benefit of other pilots, for example, this is not an option when the
strobes are the aircraft's only anticollision lights.

Likewise, regardless of the wording of the 172 checklist, if a rotating
beacon is installed as the anticollision light, then that beacon must be
turned on while one is operating the aircraft. The FAA's approval of the
checklists found in the POH are irrelevant to the question of interpreting
the requirement to turn on anticollision lights while operating an aircraft.

> I don't think the FAA (and other pilots) will be mad at you if you turn on
> ONLY the rotating beacon before engine startup. However, turning on the
> strobes may earn you the ire of some pilots.

Ire or not, if your strobes are the installed anticollision lights, then
they must be on while you are operating the aircraft.

Pete

Reckless taxiing is an operation that is not air navigation
and the rule was written to allow violation on aircraft that
were not yet in flight.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
| .. .
| > [...]
| >> (b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of
air navigation.
| >> No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the
purpose of air
| >> navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport
used by aircraft
| >> for air commerce (including areas used by those
aircraft for
| >> receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a
careless or reckless
| >> manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another.
| >>
| > Well, wait a second. According to Peter D., "...operate
an aircraft..."
| > must involve air navigation. So, the usage of "operate
an aircraft, other
| > than for the purpose of air navigation" should be an
impossibility! But,
| > my suspicion is that the FAA is well aware of this
inclusion. ;-)
|
| The reason they specify "other than for the purpose of air
navigation" is
| *because* the default is to include only those purposes of
air navigation.
| This is why 91.13(a) does not read "...operate an
aircraft, for the purposes
| of air navigation, in a careless and reckless manner..."
Because of the way
| "operate" is defined, no qualifier is needed in that use.
|
| The qualifier *is* needed in the use for 91.13(b), because
the definition of
| "operate" would not ordinarily include "other than for the
purpose of air
| navigation".
|
| In other words, the wording you seem to think is
self-contradictory is in
| fact further evidence of the intended interpretation of
"operate" elsewhere.
|
| > So, now, it seems that if the engines are running one
would be considered
| > to be "operating an aircraft".
|
| No, it would not seem that at all.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> Can you say "run-on sentence"? Sure, I knew you could! :)

I never claimed to be a great writer... :-) I was computer science major,
not an english major... :-)
Sorry, could resist a posting a reply.

>
> Anyway, your assumption is poorly placed.

I didn't say I practiced my assumption... :-) I guess it was more of a
hypothesis vs. an assumption. I don't know why if someone, if they had a
beacon on the tail, wouldn't turn it on once the engine it is started... It
almost seems like there are some people in this thread that are like "Well,
I have a beacon, but I am not turning it on, because I don't think I have
to." Commonsense says that it is a much safer world if you turn it on just
before turning the key, and leaving it on until you shut the engine down,
because after all, you won't get in trouble for turning that thing on.

For the record, I turn on the rotating beacon, when I get to the item in the
check list that says "Master Switch on.", and turn it off during the
"Securing the airplane" checklist.

>
> As has been beaten to death in this thread already, the FARs require that
> anticollision lights be on while the aircraft is being operated.
> Anticollision lights may take the form of a rotating beacon, strobes, or
> other types of light meeting the requirements for an anticollision light

Agree this has been beaten to death.

> Ire or not, if your strobes are the installed anticollision lights, then
> they must be on while you are operating the aircraft.

Are there any planes that have only strobes? Not trying to make an
arguement, I am just curious, as almost every plane I have seen as the
beacon on the tail, haven't seen one that has just strobes. I admit that
it would sort of suck for other pilots if that is all you have, and FARs are
FAR, and if that is all you got, that is what you gotta use.

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>> Ire or not, if your strobes are the installed anticollision lights, then
>> they must be on while you are operating the aircraft.
>
> Are there any planes that have only strobes?

Yes. I know of two owned by people in these newsgroups (my own airplane,
and Ron and Margy Natalie's airplane) for sure, and it's not exactly an
uncommon situation.

Pete

"A Lieberma" > wrote

> Thanks Jim, ((a different jim than Jim in NC))
>
> I think I had tried that and on the second message, the URL got
> truncated in a different position.
>
> Instead of using the backspace, I was deleting the last charactor of the
> line, and re-inserted the deleted charactor.
>
> No biggie, not normal that I post such long URL's anyway, just hate
> nuicance things since I am suppose to be smarter then the computer. :-)

Did you try the <> before and after the link trick?
--
Jim in NC

In rec.aviation.student Wade Hasbrouck > wrote:
> For the record, I turn on the rotating beacon, when I get to the item in the
> check list that says "Master Switch on.", and turn it off during the
> "Securing the airplane" checklist.

In the plane I use (school plane), the switch for the beacon and the
strobes is a split switch. We just leave the beacon on all the time.
That way, if the master switch is on, the beacon starts. It's a heads-up
for people on the ramp that there's a risk that somebody might start the
engine.

It's also a handy reminder that you've left the master switch on when
securing the airplane.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Isn't the field fenced?

I was flying today with my instructor and as
we approached, the tower warned us of a coyote
on the the active runway. Huge, fenced airport.

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:

>> Isn't the field fenced?
>
> I was flying today with my instructor and as
> we approached, the tower warned us of a coyote
> on the the active runway. Huge, fenced airport.

Back when I was instructing, a Citation got stuck on a taxiway for
almost an hour while they tried to find someone to go run the coyote
off. I'd think they would be afraid of something that loud, but I
taxied by on the runway and saw it lying on the taxiway, right in front
of the jet. This was a large suburban airport, too. I guess it just
wanted to take a nap.

"Alan Gerber" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.student Wade Hasbrouck >
> wrote:
>> For the record, I turn on the rotating beacon, when I get to the item in
>> the
>> check list that says "Master Switch on.", and turn it off during the
>> "Securing the airplane" checklist.
>
> In the plane I use (school plane), the switch for the beacon and the
> strobes is a split switch. We just leave the beacon on all the time.
> That way, if the master switch is on, the beacon starts. It's a heads-up
> for people on the ramp that there's a risk that somebody might start the
> engine.
>
> It's also a handy reminder that you've left the master switch on when
> securing the airplane.
>
> ... Alan
>
> --
> Alan Gerber
> gerber AT panix DOT com

Aren't the beacon and strobes typically on separate switches? At least they
are in the 172s I have been in, don't know about other aircraft.

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> Did you try the <> before and after the link trick?

<http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1943L/history/20061015/1935Z/KEKY/KMBO
>

<http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1943L/history/20061015/1935Z/KEKY/KMBO
/tracklog>

Lets see if this works. My latest flight :-)

Allen

A Lieberma > wrote in
. 18:


> <http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1943L/history/20061015/1935Z/KEKY/
> KMBO /tracklog>
>
> Lets see if this works. My latest flight :-)
>
> Allen

Guess not :-(

Lets try the eliminating the wrap feature now.

<http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1943L/history/20061015/1935Z/KEKY/KMBO>

Allen

In rec.aviation.student Wade Hasbrouck > wrote:
> Aren't the beacon and strobes typically on separate switches? At least they
> are in the 172s I have been in, don't know about other aircraft.

In the Warrior I'm flying now, it's two thin switches that fit into the
space of a full-sized switch -- like the master switch. So you can turn
on either or both, as needed, in one motion. I don't remember if the
school's older Warrior (now gone) had the same setup.

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
gerber AT panix DOT com

"Wade Hasbrouck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> [...]
>>
>> Can you say "run-on sentence"? Sure, I knew you could! :)
>
> I never claimed to be a great writer... :-) I was computer science
> major, not an english major... :-)
> Sorry, could resist a posting a reply.
>
>>
>> Anyway, your assumption is poorly placed.
>
> I didn't say I practiced my assumption... :-) I guess it was more of a
> hypothesis vs. an assumption. I don't know why if someone, if they had a
> beacon on the tail, wouldn't turn it on once the engine it is started...
> It almost seems like there are some people in this thread that are like
> "Well, I have a beacon, but I am not turning it on, because I don't think
> I have to." Commonsense says that it is a much safer world if you turn it
> on just before turning the key, and leaving it on until you shut the
> engine down, because after all, you won't get in trouble for turning that
> thing on.
>
> For the record, I turn on the rotating beacon, when I get to the item in
> the check list that says "Master Switch on.", and turn it off during the
> "Securing the airplane" checklist.
>
>>
>> As has been beaten to death in this thread already, the FARs require that
>> anticollision lights be on while the aircraft is being operated.
>> Anticollision lights may take the form of a rotating beacon, strobes, or
>> other types of light meeting the requirements for an anticollision light
>
> Agree this has been beaten to death.
>
>> Ire or not, if your strobes are the installed anticollision lights, then
>> they must be on while you are operating the aircraft.
>
> Are there any planes that have only strobes? Not trying to make an
> arguement, I am just curious, as almost every plane I have seen as the
> beacon on the tail, haven't seen one that has just strobes. I admit
> that it would sort of suck for other pilots if that is all you have, and
> FARs are FAR, and if that is all you got, that is what you gotta use.


Mine only has strobes and that is not uncommon.