Narrative:

Turning on final approach to runway 22 at tyr, following a GA aircraft when tower advised 'it looks like the left runway edge lights are out.' we were on about a mi final with the runway clearly in sight, including all right side edge lights VASI, and what appeared to us to be some left side edge lights. We advised tower we thought we had some left side lights still on and since we had the runway clearly in sight and lighted, I chose to continue on and land. Everything else was perfectly normal and the landing was on centerline and no problem. After landing, I asked tower about the lights and they said the left edge lights were out. The tower was able to get all left side edge lights on a dim setting with right side lights on normal and we departed 15 mins later without problem. My question is, what amount of runway lighting is required to legally land? Far 135.229 states in paragraph B2 for night operations 'the limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are clearly shown -- for airplanes, by boundary or runway marker lights.' the lighting we had was clearly adequate for a normal, safe landing. In this profession, safety always has to come first. However, I always like to remain within the guidelines of the FARS. I believe I did in this situation. Another airlines landed behind us as well as a corporate aircraft, but a third airliner chose to hold till the problem was resolved. Who is correct in this situation? Or is it one of the many grey areas not clearly defined? I believe it is a judgement call in this situation, but it would be helpful to have some better guidelines. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter was advised that the far rule is subjective in the way it is written regarding the amount of runway boundary lights needed to meet the intent of the regulation. Therefore, the amount of lighting for the pilot should be sufficient to provide the boundaries of the runway. For airport installation, they need to meet the appropriate advisory circular for airport runway lighting. Reporter stated that the FAA had not contacted him regarding this matter.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF ACR LTT ACFT QUESTIONED IF HE WAS LEGAL IN LNDG AT NIGHT WHEN SOME RWY BOUNDARY LIGHTS WERE OUT.

Narrative: TURNING ON FINAL APCH TO RWY 22 AT TYR, FOLLOWING A GA ACFT WHEN TWR ADVISED 'IT LOOKS LIKE THE L RWY EDGE LIGHTS ARE OUT.' WE WERE ON ABOUT A MI FINAL WITH THE RWY CLRLY IN SIGHT, INCLUDING ALL R SIDE EDGE LIGHTS VASI, AND WHAT APPEARED TO US TO BE SOME L SIDE EDGE LIGHTS. WE ADVISED TWR WE THOUGHT WE HAD SOME L SIDE LIGHTS STILL ON AND SINCE WE HAD THE RWY CLRLY IN SIGHT AND LIGHTED, I CHOSE TO CONTINUE ON AND LAND. EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PERFECTLY NORMAL AND THE LNDG WAS ON CTRLINE AND NO PROBLEM. AFTER LNDG, I ASKED TWR ABOUT THE LIGHTS AND THEY SAID THE L EDGE LIGHTS WERE OUT. THE TWR WAS ABLE TO GET ALL L SIDE EDGE LIGHTS ON A DIM SETTING WITH R SIDE LIGHTS ON NORMAL AND WE DEPARTED 15 MINS LATER WITHOUT PROBLEM. MY QUESTION IS, WHAT AMOUNT OF RWY LIGHTING IS REQUIRED TO LEGALLY LAND? FAR 135.229 STATES IN PARAGRAPH B2 FOR NIGHT OPS 'THE LIMITS OF THE AREA TO BE USED FOR LNDG OR TKOF ARE CLRLY SHOWN -- FOR AIRPLANES, BY BOUNDARY OR RWY MARKER LIGHTS.' THE LIGHTING WE HAD WAS CLRLY ADEQUATE FOR A NORMAL, SAFE LNDG. IN THIS PROFESSION, SAFETY ALWAYS HAS TO COME FIRST. HOWEVER, I ALWAYS LIKE TO REMAIN WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE FARS. I BELIEVE I DID IN THIS SITUATION. ANOTHER AIRLINES LANDED BEHIND US AS WELL AS A CORPORATE ACFT, BUT A THIRD AIRLINER CHOSE TO HOLD TILL THE PROBLEM WAS RESOLVED. WHO IS CORRECT IN THIS SITUATION? OR IS IT ONE OF THE MANY GREY AREAS NOT CLRLY DEFINED? I BELIEVE IT IS A JUDGEMENT CALL IN THIS SITUATION, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE SOME BETTER GUIDELINES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS ADVISED THAT THE FAR RULE IS SUBJECTIVE IN THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF RWY BOUNDARY LIGHTS NEEDED TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE REG. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF LIGHTING FOR THE PLT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RWY. FOR ARPT INSTALLATION, THEY NEED TO MEET THE APPROPRIATE ADVISORY CIRCULAR FOR ARPT RWY LIGHTING. RPTR STATED THAT THE FAA HAD NOT CONTACTED HIM REGARDING THIS MATTER.

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.