Re: Dangerous Aircraft lighting

Date:         28 Aug 97 02:30:42 
Organization: Grobbebol's Home
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In ZineGreen <> wrote:
> I've never heard of an airline asking its crews to shut of logo lights to
> save money.  First of all, the money saved would be infinitesimal.  But
> more importantly, crews are normally too safety conscious to stand for
> such a mandate had it come from the airline's management.  I've been an
> airline pilot with 3 airlines in the US, and I've never encountered an
> airline asking its crews to skimp on any such matter that would affect
> safety of flight.

my $100 question is : what would a logo light have to do with safety ?

I know that logolights are well known for the dumb installation, the awful
places to reach etc. I can think of a few reasons why the logo-lights off
would save money for sure.

You probably never have had the outboard logolights of a 767 failed because
of the wiring bewteen tghe inner and outer light; the DC-11 (for others, the
MD-11) also has a very 'nice' installation at the tail.

The only ones that are really easy to reach were the ex-martinair
logo-lights. because of the long name, two lights were installed in the
wingtips of the DC-10's. however, the heat.... wiring damaged etc etc.

yes I hate the logolights.

Grobbebol's Home                 |      Don't give in to spammers.     |     Use your real e-mail address
Linux 2.0.30 on an i586/64 MB    |             on Usenet.