Thanks, chaps, glad it was of interest.
Matt Gunsch wrote:
Randy and Taigh, there is one problem with what JDK posted and that is it is for a British aeorplane, not a US airplane. We all know they talk and spell funny over there and have strange names for the parts of thier aeroplanes.
Hmmm - British Commonwealth aeroplane, please!

I appreciated it was somewhat tangential, but it is a rare thing - a contemporary 1930s document of actual practice, not a modern interpretation of what they did then.
Apart from the operational reality and safety being rudimentary at best, the objective was clearly just getting up and down again (safely being a nice extra) - what the point was (night interception? bombing?) remaining unaddressed.
There's a number of 'differences' to be borne in mind here, apart from spelling and the rule of the road; 1930s aviation developed from 'seat of the pants' to fundamental airways and night (not 'all weather') flying in the 1930s. I suspect that US, British Empire and continental practice all developed more or less independently; and 1930-1941 and 1941-45 were two different eras in terms of night flight.
In the '30 there was unwarranted optimism as to the utility of some types at night, the Spitfire Mk.I being expected to act as a day
and night fighter, and thus being equipped with lights and signalling devices to allow that. It was far from ideal in the role. I suspect US types like the P-39 and P-40 had just as unrealistic expectations placed on them. It was only in 1940-41 when the RAF Bomber Command and Luftwaffe both switched to night missions that the systems started to be refined and more realistic for both bombers and their predators - although the P-61 was a case of overkill based on 1940 RAF data.
Cheers,