NVFR Lighting requirements
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NVFR Lighting requirements
Hello all,
Quick question regarding intrument lights for NVFR. I've been told that the aircraft must have TWO sources of instrument lighting, but the CAO's just say that you need instrument lighting with an alternate power source. So which is it?
My understanding is that you need :-
- Instrument Lights
- Intensity controls
- Landing Light
- Pax compartment lights
- Pilots compartment lights
- NAV and Anti Collison Lights
- Shock proof electric torches for each pilot
If any of you experienced pilots can answer my question, it would be much appreciated
Cheers
Quick question regarding intrument lights for NVFR. I've been told that the aircraft must have TWO sources of instrument lighting, but the CAO's just say that you need instrument lighting with an alternate power source. So which is it?
My understanding is that you need :-
- Instrument Lights
- Intensity controls
- Landing Light
- Pax compartment lights
- Pilots compartment lights
- NAV and Anti Collison Lights
- Shock proof electric torches for each pilot
If any of you experienced pilots can answer my question, it would be much appreciated
Cheers
CAO 20.18, APP V, 1: says ..... "The (instrument) illumination shall be such that..." (c) " its power supply is so arranged that in the event of the failure of the normal power source, an alternative source is immediately available."
It is my understanding from when I did NVFR that if, for example your pirimary source of the alternator fails, you have the battery which meets the requirements of the CAO.
It is my understanding from when I did NVFR that if, for example your pirimary source of the alternator fails, you have the battery which meets the requirements of the CAO.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Wit,
Got another question regarding LSALT. Using Mt. Macedon in VIC as an example :-
Off the WAC chart, the tint at Mt Macedon indicates terrain up to 3280ft. The obstacle height for Mt Macedon is 3465, which is 185ft above the 'height determined for terrain', off the tint. So since this is LESS than 360ft above the terrain, is LSALT 3465ft + 1360ft? Or since Mt Macedon is the highest thing in the area, and is marked on the WAC in bold purple italics, is it just + 1000ft?
Am I right in thinking that when working out LSALT, you should always look at the hypsometric tints first?
Got another question regarding LSALT. Using Mt. Macedon in VIC as an example :-
Off the WAC chart, the tint at Mt Macedon indicates terrain up to 3280ft. The obstacle height for Mt Macedon is 3465, which is 185ft above the 'height determined for terrain', off the tint. So since this is LESS than 360ft above the terrain, is LSALT 3465ft + 1360ft? Or since Mt Macedon is the highest thing in the area, and is marked on the WAC in bold purple italics, is it just + 1000ft?
Am I right in thinking that when working out LSALT, you should always look at the hypsometric tints first?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without looking it up I understood that an obstacle such as a tower can be added up to a height of 360ft above the terrain without notification to CASA, hence the 360' plus 1000 for LSALT above any spot height. Is the Macedon spot height for terrain or for a tower?
When you live....
Originally Posted by flyboyUK2003
Thanks for that Wit,
Got another question regarding LSALT. Using Mt. Macedon in VIC as an example :-
Off the WAC chart, the tint at Mt Macedon indicates terrain up to 3280ft. The obstacle height for Mt Macedon is 3465, which is 185ft above the 'height determined for terrain', off the tint. So since this is LESS than 360ft above the terrain, is LSALT 3465ft + 1360ft? Or since Mt Macedon is the highest thing in the area, and is marked on the WAC in bold purple italics, is it just + 1000ft?
Am I right in thinking that when working out LSALT, you should always look at the hypsometric tints first?
Got another question regarding LSALT. Using Mt. Macedon in VIC as an example :-
Off the WAC chart, the tint at Mt Macedon indicates terrain up to 3280ft. The obstacle height for Mt Macedon is 3465, which is 185ft above the 'height determined for terrain', off the tint. So since this is LESS than 360ft above the terrain, is LSALT 3465ft + 1360ft? Or since Mt Macedon is the highest thing in the area, and is marked on the WAC in bold purple italics, is it just + 1000ft?
Am I right in thinking that when working out LSALT, you should always look at the hypsometric tints first?
Hope this helps, UTR.
PS I may be stating the obvious but the fact that Macedon is in bold purple means it is the highest obstacle in the grid square - not the "area" - I got picked up on this when the obstacle was very close to a grid line.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the help guys.
Scrambler - the figure on the WAC for Mt Macedon is the GRID MAX. ELEV. for OBSTACLE, which I have always figured as meaning the height from AMSL to the top of the obstacle.
As for the AIP references, i've had a good look thru all that, but as its in legalese, i'm finding it a bit vague. Still using Mt Macedon, having flown past in the daylight plenty of times, I know that the tower on top of it is the highest obstacle in the area, say on a track from KTN to ML. Now Mt Macedon is also marked on the WAC as the highest Grid Obstacle in that grid, as UTR pointed out, but it does not tell you the height of the actual tower. Since you can't tell if the tower is 360ft above the terrain ( which I am determining from the tints), then shouldn't LSALT be calculated by adding 1360ft to the TINT height?
Maybe I'm being a knob, and this is painfully easy to all you guys, but i'd appreciate any help you could give me. And if you're wondering why I'm not asking my instructor, he went on holiday today!!
Scrambler - the figure on the WAC for Mt Macedon is the GRID MAX. ELEV. for OBSTACLE, which I have always figured as meaning the height from AMSL to the top of the obstacle.
As for the AIP references, i've had a good look thru all that, but as its in legalese, i'm finding it a bit vague. Still using Mt Macedon, having flown past in the daylight plenty of times, I know that the tower on top of it is the highest obstacle in the area, say on a track from KTN to ML. Now Mt Macedon is also marked on the WAC as the highest Grid Obstacle in that grid, as UTR pointed out, but it does not tell you the height of the actual tower. Since you can't tell if the tower is 360ft above the terrain ( which I am determining from the tints), then shouldn't LSALT be calculated by adding 1360ft to the TINT height?
Maybe I'm being a knob, and this is painfully easy to all you guys, but i'd appreciate any help you could give me. And if you're wondering why I'm not asking my instructor, he went on holiday today!!
Sure, I certainly agree the AIP’s are written in a manner that is often hard to work out readily and easily. Don't, however, underestimate the importance of being able to interpret them correctly lest you come unstuck with a pedantic, albeit correct, instructor on your next NVFR renewal.
Having said that, let me throw in my tuppence worth:- If you refer to the legend on the WAC for Mt. Macedon, you will see that the purple print printed next to Mt. Macedon relates to a "Grid maximum elevation for obstacle". A spot elevation is shown in black numbers. That (purple numbering) would indicate that the height printed includes the obstacles (towers/masts??) on top of Mt Macedon.. Thus, if flying over Mt. Macedon it is appropriate to add 1000 ft to the 3465 ft depicted and a check of an ERC 2 (IFR planning chart) indeed shows the LSALT on a route over Mt Macedon is 4500 ft.
Where difficulty with LSALT determination arises is if, for example, there was no specific indication of a height for Mt Macedon (either as terrain only or as an obstacle). If that were the case, then it would require 1360 ft to be added to "the elevation determined for terrain" (AIP quote) and you’d need to add 1360 ft. to the 3280 ft. determined from the tint. Sounds confusing - then refer to my first sentence in this post!!!
Having said that, let me throw in my tuppence worth:- If you refer to the legend on the WAC for Mt. Macedon, you will see that the purple print printed next to Mt. Macedon relates to a "Grid maximum elevation for obstacle". A spot elevation is shown in black numbers. That (purple numbering) would indicate that the height printed includes the obstacles (towers/masts??) on top of Mt Macedon.. Thus, if flying over Mt. Macedon it is appropriate to add 1000 ft to the 3465 ft depicted and a check of an ERC 2 (IFR planning chart) indeed shows the LSALT on a route over Mt Macedon is 4500 ft.
Where difficulty with LSALT determination arises is if, for example, there was no specific indication of a height for Mt Macedon (either as terrain only or as an obstacle). If that were the case, then it would require 1360 ft to be added to "the elevation determined for terrain" (AIP quote) and you’d need to add 1360 ft. to the 3280 ft. determined from the tint. Sounds confusing - then refer to my first sentence in this post!!!
When you live....
Originally Posted by down3gr33ns
Don't, however, underestimate the importance of being able to interpret them correctly lest you come unstuck with a pedantic, albeit correct, instructor on your next NVFR renewal.
UTR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, finally I'm getting some good answers! Yuo'd be surprised how many people i've asked this question to who have all had their NVFR ratings for quite a while, who havent been able to give me a straight answer! 
3gr33ns, going along the lines of spot elevations- if your track is between 2 places where there are no man made obstacles within your buffer zone, but there are spot heights, and a grid accurate maximum spot height, which are marked in bold black numbers, for example Mt Buller - then since its is marked as being the MAXIMUM spot height on the chart, can you add 1360ft to that figure? Or as the charts all tell you that spot heights do not necessarily show the highest terrain, do you still have to add 1360ft to the tint terrain figure? It would seem to me that if you're looking at a Grid Max Spot height, then you could use that number.
Thanks again for your answers guys, this is the one thing thats catching me out while studying for the NVFR....and of course it would have to be the most important thing too!
Yuo'd be surprised how many people i've asked this question to who have all had their NVFR ratings for quite a while, who havent been able to give me a straight answer! 3gr33ns, going along the lines of spot elevations- if your track is between 2 places where there are no man made obstacles within your buffer zone, but there are spot heights, and a grid accurate maximum spot height, which are marked in bold black numbers, for example Mt Buller - then since its is marked as being the MAXIMUM spot height on the chart, can you add 1360ft to that figure? Or as the charts all tell you that spot heights do not necessarily show the highest terrain, do you still have to add 1360ft to the tint terrain figure? It would seem to me that if you're looking at a Grid Max Spot height, then you could use that number.
Thanks again for your answers guys, this is the one thing thats catching me out while studying for the NVFR....and of course it would have to be the most important thing too!
