It is not a lengthy process-about two hours for a 10,000-foot runway-when done with equipment designed and certified for the task. The only way to determine proper lighting performance is through photometric testing. Many do not meet the requirements outlined in 150/5345-46, often due to installation or natural degradation over time. Even though airports install fixtures that have been certified to these specific standards, many do not have lights that are performing accordingly. We take the time to design airfield lights to perform in all conditions and then there is no enforced requirement to check them on a regular basis to ensure the continued photometric compliance necessary to maintain the airport’s certification.Īdvisory Circular 150/5345-46 contains charts of minimum outputs for specific runway and taxiway lights. This defeats the whole purpose of why the lights are installed. After installation, little time is spent inspecting and testing the photometric output of the lights to ensure that they’re still operating within the safety margins defined by FAA.ĭespite all the time and money invested in compliant lighting, photometric testing at Part 139 airports consistently shows that runway edge lights, centerline lights and touchdown zone lights don’t meet the minimum requirements. That’s when and where the paradox emerges. Lighting manufacturers then design and test fixtures to ensure compliance with the requirements, and airports invest in purchasing and installing these certified fixtures. FAA and ICAO perform considerable research to develop requirements for specific types of fixtures based on the photometric levels of lighting required to help aircraft land and taxi safely in various weather conditions. Unfortunately, there is a systematic shortfall. Runway lighting is but one important piece of this system, albeit a very vital one in low visibility conditions. The redundancies and checks/balances are a justifiable source of pride throughout the industry. Our aviation system is designed so that no single failure can, on its own, cause a fatal accident.

So for Part 139 airports, there is a requirement to perform the necessary inspections and to maintain the lighting to FAA operational tolerances. If only photometric testing and/or test equipment were eligible for AIP funding! According to the Part 139 regulation, specifically 139.311, certificate holders must maintain lighting in accordance with guidelines in the Advisory Circulars. This malaise can be compounded by management’s wish to avoid the expense of performing required inspections and conducting regular and required maintenance. However, the FAA does not test the photometric performance of such lighting. In order to maintain Part 139 certification, airports must comply with FAA standards regarding the performance of runway and taxiway lighting. The human eye is simply unable to detect reductions in the photometric performance of working fixtures, and this can potentially have serious safety implications.Īs an airfield lighting consultant and educator on the topic, I am concerned about an inconsistency that pervades at U.S. Tests, however, show that nothing could be further from the truth.

Don’t answer that question too quickly! Airport operators generally have the misconception that if the lights are on, all is well.

Runway lights