Start up procedure

[taildraggin68]

Just for clarification, I am not knocking or disagreeing with anyones procedures they use. Not everyone is flying an A318 into a busy commercial airport and the individual ramp policies as well as the airliners policy and governing agencies policy will all be at play. Some aircraft and locations require different procedures while some are left to the PIC's interpretation of the rules. Some small jets require the beacon on when attached to an APU just for the exhaust from the APU itself, solely for the benefit of safety for the ground crews. The commercial world does differ from the military world which differs from the Civilian GA world but all should be in agreement that safety is the most important issue on the flight line as it is more dangerous moving in and around aircraft on the ground than in the air.

[AKar]

Just for clarification, I am not knocking or disagreeing with anyones procedures they use.

Hopefully you did not understand that I was challenging that in any way! Procedures vary, and it is always interesting to hear what others have learned and how different views are reasoned. I'm so used to the ICAO-way, which is about the big-stuff-busy-airport way, that is almost exclusively used on the places I've been working. But then again, for example in some military flight line the combined beacon/strobe is turned on most often only after the first engine start. The reason is simple: the F-18 requires the right 115V AC bus to be online for the strobes to work. As that requires the right generator to be online, it makes kind of practical problem! So its kind of inverse of the one GA way of having beacon on with the master!

More than one way to skin the a cat (who skins those anyway! )

-Esa

[taildraggin68]

Just for clarification, I am not knocking or disagreeing with anyones procedures they use.

Hopefully you did not understand that I was challenging that in any way! Procedures vary, and it is always interesting to hear what others have learned and how different views are reasoned. I'm so used to the ICAO-way, which is about the big-stuff-busy-airport way, that is almost exclusively used on the places I've been working. But then again, for example in some military flight line the combined beacon/strobe is turned on most often only after the first engine start. The reason is simple: the F-18 requires the right 115V AC bus to be online for the strobes to work. As that requires the right generator to be online, it makes kind of practical problem! So its kind of inverse of the one GA way of having beacon on with the master!

More than one way to skin the a cat (who skins those anyway! )

-Esa

No Esa, I did not take it as that in any way and wanted to be sure that no one took my somewhat smart alleck remark in response to ft's post as I was bashing any other procedures.....That said, I do agree that procedures will vary from aircraft to aircraft with the end responsibility lying soley with the PIC. One will most assuredly operate differently on a private grass runway vs a controlled metro airport and that flightline safety lies with all persons on the flightline. I guess the inference that the theory of chocks off to chocks on, beacon is on was absolutely wrong is what made me pop off a bit No biggy, all good here

[ft]

Rob,
while you are normally one of the rather few people whose statements I am prepared to accept as facts without much verification, I do maintain you're off the ball in this case.

In one corner, we have your opinion. It is backed up by two references, one to the AIM and one from AOPA. Both references are somewhat ambiguous. Just how ambiguos depends on perspective and how visually disturbing you deem the strobes to be. If you think strobes are, in fact, disturbing then both your references support the procedure of strobes off until taking the active. You support your opinion on experience working as a road deputy, which is another field entirely.

In the other corner, you have me (I won't go the route you took by stating my CV as I much prefer arguing my point and letting people judge my credibility by my writing, but I'll say this much: your CV does not render me starstruck), Esa and Dudley from this forum, representing insane amounts of experience in different operations (that'd be Dudley, in case anyone was wondering ), the MX and engineering perspective, ramp worker experience, professional aviation, industry experience, military aviation, human factors training...

You also have, as per my previous post with a few references gathered by a quick search of the interwebs: Skybrary (Eurocontrol, ICAO, FSF et al), Air Services Australia (also stating that visual impairment from strobes is a problem, which if accepted as fact invalidates your references), IFALPA, Airbus, AOPA. Those are some heavy hitters in this field.

You are free to maintain your opinion. I won't argue the point further but will rather leave every reader of this thread free to decide for themselves what to believe at this point.

I do, however, hope you will take the above into account when teaching students and at least tell them that they should not assume that your taught version is the only one they will come across. That way, they will at least be prepared when their training and the industry consensus clashes later on in their careers.

Um just a small government agency

...

aircraft moved only on completely dark airfields with no lighting at all until departed or hangered...

I'll be so bold as to claim that your small government agency and the teaching received while working there might not be the best source of knowledge as far as standard procedures in the rest of the world go.

The military are different, and while they often try to align with civilian procedures they have many other aspects to consider. Consequently, you'll frequently see them doing things bass ackwards as perceived through civilian goggles. Just how will depend on nation, outfit and even airbase. Esa's example with the generator is one case, your APU example another (we used the APU exhausts of the airliners to warm our hands on cold ramp nights - you do not want to do that on most fast jets... not that I think it was a particularly healthy practise under an A330 either ), flashing position lights a third, the requirement for signalling that ordnance and fast moving control surfaces are activated a second third... the list goes on.

And rest assured I did not even consider the possibility to take offence to your self-claimed smart-Alec remark. As you can see, I have a knack for those myself...

Cheers,
/Fred

P.S. There's no shortage of research on the effects of strobe lights. Flashing lights are great for attracting our attention, to the point where they will make us not perceive other things in the vicinity. They are bad for judging motion and distances. Google will dig up references.

P.P.S. For some reason, reading the forum with tapatalk only shows parts of my previous post.

[taildraggin68]

Hey Fred, I will concur that the Military may indeed be pretty bassackwards on a lot of things and yes there is most definitely some differences from the "outside world" (and yes there were ingenious ways to provide creature comforts on far away airstrips that could relate directly with your apu handwarming adventures ) Give young men multi-billion dollar equipment to play with without some strict rules can lead to problems pretty quick.

No harm, no foul

[ft]

Give young men multi-billion dollar equipment to play with without some strict rules can lead to problems pretty quick.

Aaaaand just what the (this segment replaced with pictures of unicorns and dandelions in order to protect innocent souls) do you think you are doing with my aircraft, son?!

/Sgt T (ret)

[taildraggin68]

Just a high speed clearing of the cobwebs from the maintenance log, but please note the entry regarding the large amount of seagull poop ingested into intake number two due to the low pass bikini watch over the beaches that didn't happen

[G-BJPS]

LOL!! having not read all of this thread at first, when I read the last few comments=WOW! How the conversation has diverted from a start up procedure! That made me laugh hard!















Having read it all now, I see where it went, but just love that millitary humour at the end! It feels like home!

[taildraggin68]

Now that this thread has been properly hijacked.....

There's always: Chief, I overheard a conversation between Col. Rumplebutt and the chief on tail number 503 declare that there was no way your aircraft could hold the mustard in a flat out race..............



I will let Fred finish the crew chiefs response (appropriately censored for PG audiences)

[Great Ozzie]

Hey Fred,

First let me say thanks for the earlier references you provided, and of course, your opinions.

I also very much appreciate the compliment you made - but this leads me to address some larger issues.

My intent behind "stating my CV" (as you put it) was to say, "I've got various flight experience, in a commercial environment, where people depended on me - not just to train them how to fly an airplane - but to do it in a safe manner". And when I mention something from L.E. experience, you may not see the connection; personally I do or else I would have no logical reason for stating that experience.

I do not see my responsibility to teach "everything out there in the industry". No one can do that. If someone wants to know what is done in Europe or how they should do something based on what Airbus does... well, google is a wonderful thing. I teach what I believe is safe / good technique based on the environment we are training in. If I can (and have) sign someone off to take a checkride (and pass) I'm not going to say to them (in effect) "listen to me... but don't listen to me". No. What I am going to say is, "Here is what I do and why I do it that way".

I am sorry you get the impression that I am giving "it's my way or the highway" type advice on the forum. That is something I have no interest in communicating (edit: oops... I mean "most of the time" ). Far from it... I give what I believe is the "straight dope"... a person then can use it in the sim as they see fit. If deciding to use it RW, then in consultation with their flight instructor, they can decide if it is useful to them. One thing I learned early on during my PPL training, different instructors have different ways of doing things. I felt then my responsibility as a pilot, was to incorporate what I felt was the best recommendation from each instructor into my own flying. I would hope each reader would come to their own conclusion what they think is best! That is what real flying requires: Thinking.

Which leads me to: I have such a hard time reading a post where someone says, "I do this because it is what my instructor taught me". Ok fine... but do you know *why* you are doing what you are doing!? Let each one be convinced in their own mind. The reason should be based on, "I can tell you why I do it this way" not "because my instructor said so".

I cannot believe we are having such a conversion about strobes... but as I said, there were some larger issues to address. Getting back to the lights issue, I would be more concerned about someone leaving a landing light on and nuking a line guy's or another pilot's eyeballs at night. The whole argument, for me at least, is being seen. I don't care if I get your attention with this light or that. As long as others know I am nearby. And whether or not I should be using a certain light based on how it affects those around me.

There isn't anything "ambiguous" about the AIM info, or the FAA link you provided, or the PHAK (Appendix 1). But it does require one to do some thinking.

Edit: About those strobes... my personal opinion, and only my personal opinion, is that on a small airplane, just have them on as you wish. On some planes, such as Embraers, they are annoyingly bright - on night time, distractingly bright even, so in general I think it is a good practice to switch them off on apron. But then, a small aircraft is very much harder to spot at night, so when taxiing, I don't think its bad idea to have the strobes on. One might as well check it out one night: leave the plane for a moment with navs + beacons on, and once both with and without strobes on, and both times look at the plane some 50-100 meters off, preferably through a windshield or a dirty window. One may notice how hard it is to spot, especially if the beacon is an antique rotating one, and if both of you were moving. Also see if the strobes improve things, and if they are more of distraction.

On dark nights, the small planes move like ghosts on the aprons. Smart pilots keep a good look out and some even take the trouble of cycling their landing and taxi lights briefly if they are not absolutely sure that the vehicle drivers or other pilots who could cross their path have spotted them. Thumbs up!

Man Esa... I feel like we did a mind meld.

This goes to my point: "Think!". Understand why you are doing what you are doing. Environment, operator, owner, aircraft etc. all these things play a part in the decision making process.

[AKar]

As the point came up, I do my best to not comment or advice in a deep voice of experience, as I'm probably one of the youngest of those who's involved in aviation around here - both in age and in 'career' (if there are those 'careers' anymore in the field). And certainly in stick time. Luckily, even a decade or so in aviation can give you so much of 'cases' from which to start digging and learning, and you get to know probably tens of very experienced persons, usually disagreeing with each other and with you violently but who have helped me to form my own views and especially to get an idea from where to start looking. Obviously, some things have 'truth' that should not be ignored, while others have just different ways of doing it. When I write here, no matter what's the topic, I just pass on the data I've noted and collected over the years, usually passed through the validity checks by those who've been working with the stuff for decades (especially if subject to debate), and flavored by my own experiences, studies and opinions, and those of others where available. All of which can be wrong! That's one big reason it is great to hear from others, having own opinions and own experiences.

This goes to my point: "Think!". Understand why you are doing what you are doing. Environment, operator, owner, aircraft etc. all these things play a part in the decision making process.

That's one of the best general advices for any field. A one good 'exercise' that felt stupid at first but has saved me some trouble is the classic "ask yourself why/why not". One can take any short procedure, advice, checklist or anything that tells you to do something or to do not. And quickly check that for each of the items in it you can answer yourself the question: Why is that? And if you cannot, then mark it up for brief study when you've got the time, if not right away. Surprisingly often you get deep into systems to find out something you didn't think of, great screw-up chances, spot unnecessary items, stupid procedures or find a regulation or something you didn't even know that existed.

we used the APU exhausts of the airliners to warm our hands on cold ramp nights - you do not want to do that on most fast jets... not that I think it was a particularly healthy practise under an A330 either

As you refer to A330 and airliners, I believe you mean the warm exhausts under the airplane - no need to worry about your health there, at least if you've got good hearing protection: those are just the pack heat exchanger cooling flow outlets, blowing out just nicely warmed air. I've regularly used them to dry my gloves, which they do very well - the warm air being wasted otherwise.. In military planes, the APU exhaust itself is often also there under the airplane, making that area of a jet blast hazard (the F-18 for example makes a dry spot into a snowy apron under it in mere seconds), but in airliners the APU itself exhaust almost exclusively back from the tail cone. An only exception that quickly comes into mind is MD-11, in which it is located approximately under the airplane's right horizontal stabilizer, at about 5 o'clock position or so. The packs (for drying the gloves!) are conveniently at the nose in the tri-holer. Business jets are another story (the APU being usually somewhere opposite to the baggage door).

LOL!! having not read all of this thread at first, when I read the last few comments=WOW! How the conversation has diverted from a start up procedure! That made me laugh hard!

And it all started when someone asked that shouldn't the beacon light be part of that start-up procedure... It could be said "Yes" next time, but in the other hand it would have been of less fun and educative!


-Esa

[ft]

Just a high speed clearing of the cobwebs from the maintenance log, but please note the entry regarding the large amount of seagull poop ingested into intake number two due to the low pass bikini watch over the beaches that didn't happen

What note? I'm quite certain I do not see a note of anything suchlike in any official records! Perhaps you are confusing it with a note regarding the compressor cleaning after the allowed and ordered low-level oversea sortie of last week?

By the way, bring me the HUD and TGP tapes. They.... er... contain confidential information and I will make sure they are... ah... disposed of properly.

Now, make sure I do not hear of any bikini low passes in the future!

[Great Ozzie]

(in the spirit of - always be willing to beat a dead horse )

Again this whole topic about "stobes" deals with the (MUCH) larger issue of Runway Incursions, Collision Avoidance & and "See and Avoid".

I happened across a pdf - European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions (Edition 2.0 - April, 2011) which I feel sums up this Lights Issue quite nicely:

Use of aircraft lights
It is a widely held belief that the use of aircraft external lights could be an effective tool as part of a runway incursion prevention programme.

The following guidelines have been developed by the IFALPA Aerodrome & Ground Environment Committee. The suggestions made in these guidelines should help to improve the visibility of aircraft operating in the manoeuvring area of an airport they should not been seen as replacing proper monitoring of radio and other communications.

The captain is responsible for ensuring operating limitations and established operating procedures are observed. The captain always has the final authority to use the aircraft lights as deemed necessary for the safe execution of flight (including ground movement operations).

Clearly, there are issues associated with the use of external lights which must be addressed for example the impact of dazzle effect from strobes, landing lights and some high power taxi and runway turn off lights especially in certain weather conditions (snow, fog etc.) and the impact of external light use on others must always be considered.

Guidelines for the use of aircraft lights during ground operations: To the extent possible and consistent with aircraft equipment, operating limitations, and flight crew procedures, the illumination of aircraft exterior lights day or night should be as follows: (and then a chart with their recommendations)

In that chart under TAXI-IN (runway vacated) calls for Landing Lights - OFF. Now I can guarantee you, I am not flipping that light off just because it says so on that chart. Just as with car headlights at night... Sometimes an airplane's lights are an absolute necessity to see where you are going (stupid dim things btw ) AND they can help others see me. But wrt to aircraft, if I don't need 'em... I don't need 'em and I need to be considerate of those around me.

Speaking of autos, who hasn't seen someone driving at night w/o the headlights and thought, "knucklehead...". And you have good reason for thinking that (not a wise practice). There is judgement involved... not blind adherence to a chart which may or may not be the best recommendation based on a number of factors.

Btw Esa... no... this is Lewis' fault! He was the one asking for comments!

[ft]

@Rob,
I could provide some further discussion here but I think we've provided enough reading for everyone to make up his/her mind on the subject at hand. As for teaching philosophy, that's an interesting discussion but I don't really have time. We generally agree anyway.

Yes, the AIM and the first AOPA articles do require some thinking, and that thinking is what leads us in completely opposite directions until the line up instruction. Oh well, I'm a very tolerant person. I am free to hold and voice my opinions. This is a right I value, so I will, with equal vehemence, defend your right to be wrong...

Kidding aside, if I'm teaching a contested subject (at least at advanced levels) I usually tell my students that "this is what I think is right, this is why I think it is right, this is another opinion on the matter with these arguments and this is why I think it is a worse option". That way, at least they know that they might want to get a second opinion and make up their own minds. I don't claim to be the sole font of Absolute Knowledge*.

Teaching "leave the strobe on" is vastly different from "use the strobe on the active and elsewhere only if you suspect you are hard to see and at risk of being run over by something much larger and if it won't be a significant nuisance to others". The latter is good judgement and, as correctly pointed out, PIC responsibility. The broader perspective of runway incursion prevention and concern for ATC, those around and the ability to judge distance/movement should also be taught - at least briefly. As you said, you need to consider the operating environment. Pragmatism rather than taking a dogmatic stance, and it goes both ways.

Who hasn't ended up with someone in the rear view mirror on a rainy night with the fog lights on and thought "knucklehead". Or met someone who just couldn't figure out to turn off the high beams? Or gotten stuck with someone who left the strobes on all the way for the taxi to the ramp in the vicinity of something they needed to see...

A good way of coming across the IFALPA text you are quoting would have been to click the IFALPA link in my previous post. Same table, by the sound of it, and essentially the same text but under the heading "Use of aircraft external lights to aid runway incursion prevention", with the follow-on "developed ... in association with EUROCONTROL and the US FAA". As I wrote, pretty authoritative.

In that chart, under TAXI-OUT, it specifically does not say to turn on the strobes.

Under CROSSING ANY RUNWAY, it says "Strobe lights ON".

Under ENTERING RUNWAY FOR TAKE OFF, it says "Strobe lights ON".

Under TAXI-IN (runway vacated) it says "Strobe ligths OFF".

As you yourself elected to refer to the IFALPA as an authorative source, I guess that settles it.

And that was part of the discussion I didn't have time for. Agh!

Esa,
on the A330... d'oh! I knew that! Only I didn't think about it when I was working the ramp and haven't readjusted my take on reality since. Thanks for clearing that up. I increased my personal life expectancy by two years as a result of this. (Ever been standing in aircraft exhaust for an hour or so? To those who haven't, you can end up with a very close approximation of the effect of sunburn, only there's no tan when it goes away. Probably not healthy... didn't enjoy it then, won't do it now...)

Cheers,
/Fred

*) Except for on the matter of operational use of aircraft strobes, of course.

[smokeyupahead]

I was taught that if there is power to the plane, such as battery on, then beacon is to be on as the aircraft is attended, being walked around, or engines starting at any moment. Taxi was with nav/formation lights and strobes/landing lights on after clearance for runway But I am sure there are other procedures in other locations.

I tought that was the case for the navigation lights, not the beacon. The beacon is an indication of imminent engine start.