VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV General Discussion/News (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Potential DYI lighting option problems (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=202886)

NYTOM 01-16-2022 10:07 AM

Potential DYI lighting option problems
 
There are some very reasonably priced LED vehicular hideaway emergency lights out there that could be utilized as a anti-collision beacon. ;) Saw some interesting posts about them here and need to know if anyone using these types of lights has found any radio interference using them. :confused: Even the best aviation grade LED can cause trouble if not installed properly. Some of these small hideaway's would make a very nice unobtrusive red beacon for the belly of my RV. . :)

moosepileit 01-16-2022 01:21 PM

I tested the "MSTRB" sub $50 hideaway as radio silent out of the box. No filters/chokes needed.

n82rb 01-16-2022 02:33 PM

yes some of the lighting systems can be electrically noisy. the bigger problem is that if you use experimental lighting you are limited to day VFR. how so? the rules don't apply to EAB right. not exactly.

condition 3 in standard ops-limits:

After completion of phase 1 flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205 this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR.

FAR 91.205

(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required:

(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

(2) Approved position lights.

(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft.

now im sure mel will correct me if im wrong, and please do, but I don't believe that the DAR giving you the pink slip constitutes approval of the lighting system. the question I don't have an answer to is, does it have to have the TSO or just meet the TSO to be approved.

MS19087 01-17-2022 07:02 AM

FlyLED NAV and STROBES Compliant?
 
The FlyLED says they exceed the standard, however I do not believe they are TSO’d. If this is the case, would they be non-compliant for night flight since they are not “approved”?
Can someone clarify this? Thanks

Mel 01-17-2022 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n82rb (Post 1582561)
yes some of the lighting systems can be electrically noisy. the bigger problem is that if you use experimental lighting you are limited to day VFR. how so? the rules don't apply to EAB right. not exactly.
condition 3 in standard ops-limits:
After completion of phase 1 flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205 this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR.
FAR 91.205
(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) Approved position lights.
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anti-collision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft.
now im sure mel will correct me if im wrong, and please do, but I don't believe that the DAR giving you the pink slip constitutes approval of the lighting system. the question I don't have an answer to is, does it have to have the TSO or just meet the TSO to be approved.

As you state, the issuance of an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate does NOT "approve" any of the lighting installation. Compliance with §91.205 is on the shoulders of the owner/operator of the aircraft. The definition of "approved" is fairly ambiguous in §1.1.

It is my opinion that the lights don't have to be TSO'd, but must meet the requirements of the TSO. In case of an incident, it is up to the owner/operator to convince authorities as to their legality. Again, this is my opinion, and we all know about opinions. If anyone can direct me to information contrary to this, please do so.

moosepileit 01-17-2022 09:22 AM

EAA on IFR-

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-bui...ifr-operations

"Our Operating Limitations state that we have to equip the aircraft in accordance with 91.205, and 91.205 lists the minimum equipment required, but nowhere is there mention of a requirement for TSO’ed equipment. Thus, the answer is NO, the instruments and equipment installed in your homebuilt under the requirements of 91.205 are not required to be “TSO’ed”."

If your "IFR" EFIS need not be TSO'd but you install a TSO'd lighting set and don't meet the angles and candella of the background regulations- would you be good? No.

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-bui...llision-lights

"Am I required to have anti-collision lights on my homebuilt?

No, if you are only going to using your aircraft for day, VFR flight. FAR 91.205 lists the instrument and equipment requirements for standard category aircraft. This FAR does not apply to Experimental-Amateur Built aircraft."

Ops Lims-


“After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with § 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.”

Meet the reqs, not bearing a TSO, or also meet the TSO sticker, but build and install to meet the background requirements either way.

No?

Paul 5r4 01-17-2022 10:13 AM

I have the Flyled package from Paul McVitty. Been flying with them for several years and there is not a speck of any radio interference. Superior quality, brightness and customer service. Side note regarding brightness. After installing my Flyleds, a friend took a video of me making an approach and it looked like there was a huge glowing red and green UFO on the wingtips escorting me in. Wish I could find it to share now.

As far as the discussions of being approved... I feel like people are ALWAYS debating these issues. Remember our airplanes are experimental which allows quite a lot of latitude.

n82rb 01-17-2022 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mel (Post 1582677)
As you state, the issuance of an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate does NOT "approve" any of the lighting installation. Compliance with §91.205 is on the shoulders of the owner/operator of the aircraft. The definition of "approved" is fairly ambiguous in §1.1.

It is my opinion that the lights don't have to be TSO'd, but must meet the requirements of the TSO. In case of an incident, it is up to the owner/operator to convince authorities as to their legality. Again, this is my opinion, and we all know about opinions. If anyone can direct me to information contrary to this, please do so.

thanks mel, thats exactly what I thought you would say. I also agree with you that they only have to meet the requirements, not be tso'ed.

I also have the flyleds on my plane, I think I was the first to get the flat top wingtip versions in the states. they are fantastic, brite and quite, but I would expect that from the design that paul used for them. he has assured me they exceed all the requirements of the faa so i had hesitation to use them.

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB

n82rb 01-17-2022 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul 5r4 (Post 1582718)
I have the Flyled package from Paul McVitty. Been flying with them for several years and there is not a speck of any radio interference. Superior quality, brightness and customer service. Side note regarding brightness. After installing my Flyleds, a friend took a video of me making an approach and it looked like there was a huge glowing red and green UFO on the wingtips escorting me in. Wish I could find it to share now.

As far as the discussions of being approved... I feel like people are ALWAYS debating these issues. Remember our airplanes are experimental which allows quite a lot of latitude.

true, but since your operating limitations directly state a FAR that must be met, there is no latitude that they be approved. there could be an argument made that unless there is paper to prove they have approval, such as a tso or PMA, that they not approved. however, I dont think the FAA wants to go down that road for lighting systems on EAB. I think they are happy with data showing that they meet the requirements. the honest truth is that the requirements of the TSO really do not translate well to LED lighting. they were written with incandescent lighting in mind. again, my thoughts are worth exactly what you paid for them.

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB

Paul 5r4 01-17-2022 11:11 AM

Ahhh the APPROVED debate and regulation references.

Here is my take. There are literally thousands of experimental aircraft flying flyleds as well as others with paperwork signed off for the coveted pink slip by FSDO FAA guys as well as DAR's. A pretty good endorsement that this is a standard and accepted practice. Install and fly on!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:43 PM.