Narrative:

The end of civil twilight was PM41 local and at approximately PM45 our dispatch office was advised by an arrival flight that the airfield lighting was OTS. That particular flight was holding over olm VOR and other flts were being held on the ground at sea for takeoff. The flight holding over olm was dispatched to sea without an alternate due to the forecast clear WX and no expected delays. At about PM00 the flight over olm had its destination amended to bfi and proceeded to land there as there was no estimate when the lights would be back in service. At about PM15, 2 other flts bound for sea with ETA's of PM35 and PM40 contacted us and told us they would be holding for the sea airport lights and planning bfi as alternates. Holding times and fuel remaining was discussed. At about PM35, a flight holding at a sea gate for departure contacted dispatch and inquired if it was possible to takeoff without airport lights provided he had adequate forward visual reference, i.e. Centerline markings. He also mentioned that it was clear and 15 mi visibility. He seemed to feel he had better visibility than he would for an IFR takeoff. At PM45 we were advised that only the runway centerline lights were operational and the 2 aircraft holding airborne wanted to know if this was adequate to land. We could find nothing in the FARS that specified how much, if any, airport lighting was required to land at night. We have 1 portion of our operations specifications that addresses temporary runway lights at special airports, but that did not seem to apply. Our company policy also did not seem to address what lights are required to land at night. With this gray information the 2 airborne flts were advised to land with the available lights. If they could not safely see the runway on approach, then we would plan to divert to bfi. Both flts landed safely at sea. All airport lights were back in service shortly thereafter. The major problem was the lack of guidelines for a 121 flight to land at night in VMC. The captain's dispatch judged centerline lights to be adequate in this case. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter aircraft dispatcher stated that she had since learned through her company that the runway lights were required for VFR night operations under far part 121 operations.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAR PART 121 DISPATCHER RELEASED COMPANY ACFT FOR TKOF ON VFR NIGHT WHEN THE RWY LIGHTS WERE OUT.

Narrative: THE END OF CIVIL TWILIGHT WAS PM41 LCL AND AT APPROX PM45 OUR DISPATCH OFFICE WAS ADVISED BY AN ARR FLT THAT THE AIRFIELD LIGHTING WAS OTS. THAT PARTICULAR FLT WAS HOLDING OVER OLM VOR AND OTHER FLTS WERE BEING HELD ON THE GND AT SEA FOR TKOF. THE FLT HOLDING OVER OLM WAS DISPATCHED TO SEA WITHOUT AN ALTERNATE DUE TO THE FORECAST CLR WX AND NO EXPECTED DELAYS. AT ABOUT PM00 THE FLT OVER OLM HAD ITS DEST AMENDED TO BFI AND PROCEEDED TO LAND THERE AS THERE WAS NO ESTIMATE WHEN THE LIGHTS WOULD BE BACK IN SVC. AT ABOUT PM15, 2 OTHER FLTS BOUND FOR SEA WITH ETA'S OF PM35 AND PM40 CONTACTED US AND TOLD US THEY WOULD BE HOLDING FOR THE SEA ARPT LIGHTS AND PLANNING BFI AS ALTERNATES. HOLDING TIMES AND FUEL REMAINING WAS DISCUSSED. AT ABOUT PM35, A FLT HOLDING AT A SEA GATE FOR DEP CONTACTED DISPATCH AND INQUIRED IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO TKOF WITHOUT ARPT LIGHTS PROVIDED HE HAD ADEQUATE FORWARD VISUAL REF, I.E. CTRLINE MARKINGS. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT IT WAS CLR AND 15 MI VISIBILITY. HE SEEMED TO FEEL HE HAD BETTER VISIBILITY THAN HE WOULD FOR AN IFR TKOF. AT PM45 WE WERE ADVISED THAT ONLY THE RWY CTRLINE LIGHTS WERE OPERATIONAL AND THE 2 ACFT HOLDING AIRBORNE WANTED TO KNOW IF THIS WAS ADEQUATE TO LAND. WE COULD FIND NOTHING IN THE FARS THAT SPECIFIED HOW MUCH, IF ANY, ARPT LIGHTING WAS REQUIRED TO LAND AT NIGHT. WE HAVE 1 PORTION OF OUR OPS SPECS THAT ADDRESSES TEMPORARY RWY LIGHTS AT SPECIAL ARPTS, BUT THAT DID NOT SEEM TO APPLY. OUR COMPANY POLICY ALSO DID NOT SEEM TO ADDRESS WHAT LIGHTS ARE REQUIRED TO LAND AT NIGHT. WITH THIS GRAY INFO THE 2 AIRBORNE FLTS WERE ADVISED TO LAND WITH THE AVAILABLE LIGHTS. IF THEY COULD NOT SAFELY SEE THE RWY ON APCH, THEN WE WOULD PLAN TO DIVERT TO BFI. BOTH FLTS LANDED SAFELY AT SEA. ALL ARPT LIGHTS WERE BACK IN SVC SHORTLY THEREAFTER. THE MAJOR PROBLEM WAS THE LACK OF GUIDELINES FOR A 121 FLT TO LAND AT NIGHT IN VMC. THE CAPT'S DISPATCH JUDGED CTRLINE LIGHTS TO BE ADEQUATE IN THIS CASE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ACFT DISPATCHER STATED THAT SHE HAD SINCE LEARNED THROUGH HER COMPANY THAT THE RWY LIGHTS WERE REQUIRED FOR VFR NIGHT OPS UNDER FAR PART 121 OPS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.