Landing at night before the lighted displaced threshold

[GoodGuy]

The airport I fly at has a displaced threshold at night by lighting. I believe this is to account for a forest area that acts as a black hole on short final.

My question, is it “illegal” to land and touchdown before the lighted threshold at night? On winter nights with the moon you can clearly see where the RWY starts and that it is clear. I can’t find anything in the CARS that addresses this. If so, can someone tell me where I can find the rule.

Also, for the purposes of training, can you land on a RWY with the lights turned off?

Thank you.

[digits_]

I would say that even during the day landing before the treshold of a runway would be the same as landing off the runway. I don't think the lights matter for landing.


//edit: looks like you can during the day after all in Canada
viewtopic.php?t=78839

weird...


Runway requirements: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/reg ... ge-22.html

Talks about white lights along the runway. Seems to imply that the displaced area should not be used at night if not lit.

[photofly]

602.40 applies at night.

You could argue that landing prior to the lit portion of the runway is ok, because technically the aerodrome is lit in accordance with the regulations. I can't find a rule that says you have to land on a runway at all, day or night.

[PilotDAR]

If you have an unpleasant event off the marked area of a runway, you might be having an unpleasant discussion with your insurer. Give the airport authority some credit for marking the runway to represent the area of the runway suited for operations. You may not be aware of the reasons for a paved portion not being marked for use. I've landed on three runways which had displaced thresholds, and within those displaced areas, I saw arrestor cables. Another runway I know has a thousand feet of displaced threshold at each end, where only one particular aircraft type is permitted to use that area - for noise abatement. Your choice to operate on an unapproved portion of a runway might create a problem for someone else.

I remember when I was the kind of caretaker for a private aerodrome. In the spring, I walked the runway, and found that the south end of the turf runway was pretty soft, while the rest was fine. So, having some baseball diamond chalk, I marked displaced threshold markings in the soft area. The other fellow who used the runway frequently did not take my marking seriously. He landed his Piper Tomahawk in the area I'd marked with the displaced threshold markings. He came to a pretty short stop, up to the axles in mud, and with the plane covered in mud. I remember helping him tow it in and wash it - there was mud sprayed al over, and up on top of the T tail! He took me more seriously after that!

[172_Captain]

My own opinion and interpretation coming but...

I don’t see why it would be illegal. It’s a surface prepared for the purpose of take off and landings, and you’re not causing a hazard to the general public.

I operate in and out of 3,500ft strips of reserves day in and out. I always taxi behind the lights to get the extra 200ft of runway. Is that illegal?

[5x5]

To me it's not a question of legal or not, it's more a question of why anyone would want to anyway. Again this is simply my personal opinion but night flying VFR is about as risky as it gets due to the presence of illusions. The lights on a runway are part of the protection/assistance to guide your judgement. The only reason I can think of to possibly land before the lighted area would be to save maybe a small amount of taxi time which to me isn't a good result of the risk vs reward decision making process.

I am, and will always advise anyone that flies VFR at night to be, more cautious rather than less.

[futurebushpilot]

I believe that it is legal, but the real question is why would you want to? The PAPI or VASI are (I believe) aligned for a night approach of 3°, or even 2.5° (which will be noted in the CFS). The displaced threshold assures the pilot of sufficient clearance on approach when coming in at the regular angle and touching down at or past that point. Any night landing before that line will put clearance into question. The insurance company would likely not be very forgiving. So legal? Yes. Wise? Definitely not.

[ahramin]

Landing at or Take-off from an Aerodrome at Night
602.40 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall conduct a landing or a take-off in a heavier-than-air aircraft at night at an aerodrome unless the aerodrome is lighted in accordance with the aerodrome lighting requirements specified in Part III.

602.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or controlled aerodrome.
(2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that

(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and

(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.

Pretty grey area. TC would probably say it's completely illegal and issue a penalty but then fail to make a clear legal argument at the tribunal. I guess it comes down to why would you want to, do you think you'll get caught, and do you have time to fight it?

[ahramin]

Landing at or Take-off from an Aerodrome at Night
602.40 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall conduct a landing or a take-off in a heavier-than-air aircraft at night at an aerodrome unless the aerodrome is lighted in accordance with the aerodrome lighting requirements specified in Part III.

602.96 (1) This section applies to persons operating VFR or IFR aircraft at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled or controlled aerodrome.
(2) Before taking off from, landing at or otherwise operating an aircraft at an aerodrome, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall be satisfied that

(a) there is no likelihood of collision with another aircraft or a vehicle; and

(b) the aerodrome is suitable for the intended operation.

Pretty grey area. TC would probably say it's completely illegal and issue a penalty but then fail to make a clear legal argument at the tribunal. I guess it comes down to why would you want to, do you think you'll get caught, and do you have time to fight it?

[lownslow]

Legal/illegal aside, by landing prior to the threshold you’re sticking your neck a long way out if things go poorly. It’s your insurance company's job to look for reasons not to pay out.

[Dh8Classic]

I believe that it is legal, but the real question is why would you want to? The PAPI or VASI are (I believe) aligned for a night approach of 3°, or even 2.5° (which will be noted in the CFS). The displaced threshold assures the pilot of sufficient clearance on approach when coming in at the regular angle and touching down at or past that point. Any night landing before that line will put clearance into question. The insurance company would likely not be very forgiving. So legal? Yes. Wise? Definitely not.

Simple, the runway is reasonable length at full length but kind of short at displaced threshold length. So once closer in, dip down below the normal descent path and touch down a few hundred feet before the displaced night time threshold but still well beyond the daytime threshold. Have done it before.

[digits_]

I believe that it is legal, but the real question is why would you want to? The PAPI or VASI are (I believe) aligned for a night approach of 3°, or even 2.5° (which will be noted in the CFS). The displaced threshold assures the pilot of sufficient clearance on approach when coming in at the regular angle and touching down at or past that point. Any night landing before that line will put clearance into question. The insurance company would likely not be very forgiving. So legal? Yes. Wise? Definitely not.

Simple, the runway is reasonable length at full length but kind of short at displaced threshold length. So once closer in, dip down below the normal descent path and touch down a few hundred feet before the displaced night time threshold but still well beyond the daytime threshold. Have done it before.

I've never heard about a "night time displaced threshold". Do you know of an airport that has one?

[Scout44]

I believe that it is legal, but the real question is why would you want to? The PAPI or VASI are (I believe) aligned for a night approach of 3°, or even 2.5° (which will be noted in the CFS). The displaced threshold assures the pilot of sufficient clearance on approach when coming in at the regular angle and touching down at or past that point. Any night landing before that line will put clearance into question. The insurance company would likely not be very forgiving. So legal? Yes. Wise? Definitely not.

Simple, the runway is reasonable length at full length but kind of short at displaced threshold length. So once closer in, dip down below the normal descent path and touch down a few hundred feet before the displaced night time threshold but still well beyond the daytime threshold. Have done it before.

I've never heard about a "night time displaced threshold". Do you know of an airport that has one?

Check out the CFS entry for CYRO as an example. Under lighting: "Ngt thld 249' fr end of Rwy 27 and 1341' fr end of Rwy 09 only 1730' lgtd"

But in the Rwy data section, thresholds only displaced by about 200' each end, ergo daytime threshold, night time threshold.

[Scuderia]

//edit: looks like you can during the day after all in Canada
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=78839

Are you referring to Whiskey25's bolded quote in the third post? For what it's worth, that section of the AIM was changed a few years ago and no longer stands as quoted.

[digits_]

//edit: looks like you can during the day after all in Canada
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=78839

Are you referring to Whiskey25's bolded quote in the third post? For what it's worth, that section of the AIM was changed a few years ago and no longer stands as quoted.

It was, thanks for pointing that out!

Simple, the runway is reasonable length at full length but kind of short at displaced threshold length. So once closer in, dip down below the normal descent path and touch down a few hundred feet before the displaced night time threshold but still well beyond the daytime threshold. Have done it before.

I've never heard about a "night time displaced threshold". Do you know of an airport that has one?

Check out the CFS entry for CYRO as an example. Under lighting: "Ngt thld 249' fr end of Rwy 27 and 1341' fr end of Rwy 09 only 1730' lgtd"

But in the Rwy data section, thresholds only displaced by about 200' each end, ergo daytime threshold, night time threshold.

Thanks!

[PilotY]

The airport I fly at has a displaced threshold at night by lighting. I believe this is to account for a forest area that acts as a black hole on short final.

My question, is it “illegal” to land and touchdown before the lighted threshold at night? On winter nights with the moon you can clearly see where the RWY starts and that it is clear. I can’t find anything in the CARS that addresses this. If so, can someone tell me where I can find the rule.

Also, for the purposes of training, can you land on a RWY with the lights turned off?

Thank you.

Can't land unless the airports lighted unless you're like a police authority or MEDEVAC I believe. Reading the AIM AGA on displaced thresholds doesn't say anything about landing on them, so I'd imagine its probably "legal" but it would be like a pilot responsibility thing.

[Redneck_pilot86]

The airport I fly at has a displaced threshold at night by lighting. I believe this is to account for a forest area that acts as a black hole on short final.

My question, is it “illegal” to land and touchdown before the lighted threshold at night? On winter nights with the moon you can clearly see where the RWY starts and that it is clear. I can’t find anything in the CARS that addresses this. If so, can someone tell me where I can find the rule.

Also, for the purposes of training, can you land on a RWY with the lights turned off?

Thank you.

Can't land unless the airports lighted unless you're like a police authority or MEDEVAC I believe. Reading the AIM AGA on displaced thresholds doesn't say anything about landing on them, so I'd imagine its probably "legal" but it would be like a pilot responsibility thing. Considering my flight school had to write off an aircraft because a guy rammed into the sole tree on short final right in front of the runway just after sunset, I'd suggest you don't.

You're missing the nuance. The aerodrome IS lighted - the law isn't clear as to whether or not a pilot is obligated to land within those lights, as long as they can determine it is safe to do otherwise. I've had night landings in the winter with a full moon that were better lit than daylight landings in a mile and low ceiling. Its not as cut and dried as some people indicate.

[Whiskey25]

//edit: looks like you can during the day after all in Canada
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=78839

Are you referring to Whiskey25's bolded quote in the third post? For what it's worth, that section of the AIM was changed a few years ago and no longer stands as quoted.

It has changed, but not that much... still permissible. From the AIM AGA 3.1 - Oct 2020

When the portion of the runway preceding the threshold is marked with arrows (see AGA 5.4.1), it is permissible to use that portion of the runway for taxiing, takeoff, and landing roll-out from the opposite direction. When taking off from the end opposite the threshold, pilots should be aware of the fact that there are obstacles present that have penetrated above the approach slope leading to the physical end of the runway and have resulted in the threshold being displaced. In some cases, this may result in the publication of a specified climb and/or visibility.

[Scuderia]

//edit: looks like you can during the day after all in Canada
viewtopic.php?t=78839

Are you referring to Whiskey25's bolded quote in the third post? For what it's worth, that section of the AIM was changed a few years ago and no longer stands as quoted.

It has changed, but not that much... still permissible. From the AIM AGA 3.1 - Oct 2020

Still permissible but significantly different meaning.

The old wording says one may use the displaced portion, full stop. Eg. landing on 34 in Nanaimo exactly where the pavement begins.
The new wording says it can only be used when landing from the opposite direction. Eg. landing on 16 in Nanaimo and rolling right to the end to exit on taxiway A.

CYCD.jpg (192.73 KiB) Viewed 1263 times

[CpnCrunch]

It's in AIM AGA 3.5 (not 3.1):

"When the portion of the runway preceding the threshold is
marked with arrows (see AGA 5.4.1), it is permissible to use that
portion of the runway for taxiing, takeoff, and landing roll-out
from the opposite direction. "