Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Other / Unknown
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General None Reported / Taken
Airport
We were cleared for a night visual approach into COU by Approach after we picked up the runway around 12 or so miles out. Once we were slowed and dirty we were handed off to the Tower for our landing clearance. The Tower said that he was having some problems with the lights and asked us to use caution. We had all the lights except that the actual side lights appeared funny. It appeared as the right side lights were on maximum intensity and the left side lights were very dim. We continued because the runway was in view and it was a clear night. When we were closer in we picked up all the runway markings including the side stripes; the number; and threshold. It wasn't until after landing that we realized that perhaps the lights on the left side of the runway might have never been on. The Tower was not to sure of which lights were malfunctioning as he asked us after we were stopped which lights appeared to be out to us. The landing was uneventful as we had the entire runway a few miles out due to the clear night. Cause; the threats were definitely the short notice and the need to make split second decisions on the landing. Other factors were also the fact that we were landing at night with some of the airport equipment malfunctioning. Looking back at the situation now I believe the proper action would have been to execute a go around and probably land at another airport. The company trains us to take our time; use CRM; and to never be afraid to go-around when things just do not look correct. This event was really out of the control of the company and it is more something I could do better in the future.
We were cleared for a nighttime visual approach to Runway 20 in COU; acquired the field approximately 13 miles out; and were subsequently cleared to land. We initially asked Tower to put the lights on high intensity to acquire the field more easily. We turned just inside a five mile final and requested the lights be turned down to lower intensity for landing. Shortly after this point; we were fully configured and stabilized for landing. We had the visual approach loaded in the FMS; were using the VASI for glide slope control and were backing it up with the FMS as a reference. The ODALS; REILs and VASI were all clearly visible. But something on the field did not look right. It appeared that the right runway edge lights were still on high intensity but the left side appeared to be on low intensity. The Captain (pilot not flying) asked for the lights to be turned down to low intensity a second time. The Controller replied that he thought they were. As we got closer; the Tower Controller said something to the effect of; 'We seem to have lost some lights.' At this point we acquired the runway center line; edge lines and threshold markings and continued to a landing. After landing; the Tower Controller asked us what lights were out; and it appeared that most of the left side edge lights were out. Cause; obviously; the primary threat was the lack of the full complement of runway lights for landing. Another threat was when the event occurred; namely; after becoming established on about a 3-mile final approach during a night visual and a high workload period. Finally; there was distraction from the task at hand as we expended mental energy trying to make sense of what we saw visually on the field. It appeared that only the left-side lights had gone to low intensity; and that the extremely bright right-hand side lights were drowning them out. The aircraft was stabilized for approach during the entire time; so there was no undesired aircraft state.
Air Carrier night time arrival into COU landed with one side of the runway lights inoperative. ATC indicted a loss of some lights but was unsure of the exact location.