Black-Hole Approach

For the last few years, my home airport has been a private, paved and lighted strip in a rural area. The pilot-controlled lighting is non-standard, however. For one, the systems intensity is relatively weak. For another, there seem to be fewer runway lights than at most other airports Ive used. And the light fixtures themselves seem located farther from the pavement than Im accustomed. Often, there are few other ground lights in the area to help provide perspective at night. The runway does not have a rotating beacon, only a dimly lit windsock that may or may not tell the truth. There are few obstructions in the area above a couple of hundred feet, although theres a tall tower about five miles north.

Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside

Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

The paint scheme on the DA50 RG was created from a design competition—the winning design by Kirk Smith. Courtesy Diamond Aircraft

Key Takeaways:

Black-hole approach conditions, caused by dim or non-standard airport lighting and a lack of surrounding cultural illumination, create an optical illusion where pilots perceive themselves as higher than they actually are, risking premature descent.
A fatal accident investigation underscored that even experienced and familiar pilots can be susceptible to black-hole conditions, resulting in an unstable approach and collision with obstacles.
The NTSB identified pilot complacency, insufficient instrument cross-check, lack of copilot monitoring, and the failure to use available visual glidepath indicators (PAPI) as key contributing factors to the accident.
Visual glidepath indicators like PAPIs are crucial safety tools designed to provide obstruction clearance and counter black-hole illusions, emphasizing the importance of their proper utilization during approaches.

See a mistake? Contact us.

For the last few years, my home airport has been a private, paved and lighted strip in a rural area. The pilot-controlled lighting is non-standard, however. For one, the system’s intensity is relatively weak. For another, there seem to be fewer runway lights than at most other airports I’ve used. And the light fixtures themselves seem located farther from the pavement than I’m accustomed. Often, there are few other ground lights in the area to help provide perspective at night. The runway does not have a rotating beacon, only a dimly lit windsock that may or may not tell the truth. There are few obstructions in the area above a couple of hundred feet, although there’s a tall tower about five miles north.

I’ve flown in there at night several times and I’ll do it again several more times. But I don’t like it. The combination of dim, non-standard lighting and the lack of nearby ground illumination—what the NTSB calls cultural lighting—pretty much defines the so-called black-hole approach, the kind where depth perception suffers from lack of detail, especially when there are few peripheral details. The human eye just isn’t all that good at night. More light and more lighted objects to help with depth perception are better.