digits_ wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:23 pm
You can easily check that yourself.
So, you're suggesting that this is soooo obvious that it is common sense and doesn't need to be written down anywhere?
There are quite a few (thousand) books on flight crew illusions, I just can't remember this in any of them. But, I fully admit, I might have missed it.
I wrote out the whole procedure how you can check it out yourself. Any pilot should be able to follow it. So yes, easy to verify if it is accurate.
I never said it was obvious. It is one of those things that usually don't matter.
If you disagree, let me know at which step it fails or where the error is.
---------- ADS -----------
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Semantics maybe - but in reduced visibility you have marginal to no depth perception. You cannot accurately determine height and distance. This is why PAPI/Approach Lights/DME was invented.
@Cliff Jumper
Optical illusions discussed here - shortened horizon distance is mentioned.
On an offset lateral profile where lights were misleading
I can understand that part of the problem the crew had in SFO because there are not many runways with airplanes on it pointed towards you with all those bright lights blinding you.
That brings up an interesting topic; the use of the taxi-light while holding short?
I always have it on anytime I’m away from the apron, provided it isn’t pointed directly AT another aircraft. Even when not in motion, I’ll generally leave it on unless giving way to another aircraft.
They’re usually aimed low enough that it won’t “blind” anyone else. What’s everyone else’s opinion on this? Looks like in the AC incident it helped a bit.