![]() |
Clarifying ...
Dean, your NS and NSP and are two almost identical 'products' where the NS is a package (pair) of NAV/POS/Strobes for the wingtips, and the NSP is the 'addition' of the Tail POS/Strobe to make wingtips & tail package. And, the NSP and NS are using the identical WINGTIP components and the Tail POS/Strobe is simply adding the 3rd component of equal intensity.
Therefore, the graph is applicable to the NS and NSP regarding the intensity of the products in both packages. Is that a fair clarification of your comment? " The NS and NSP are identical except for the rear position light. The graph applies to the 01-1180 and 11-1180 part numbers, but the older 01-1080 and 11-1080 part numbers aren't a whole lot lower, and all of them are above the 400 candela mark." I'm glad to see you step in to comment on your products. LED lighting is such an important area of safety for us all, with lower power consumption, and extreme product life, not to mention other benefits. Use of daytime recognition lighting is possible, and with all the glass panel power requirements the low power requirements of LED lighting is a bonus. The biggest contention I see here is the EAB community trying to satisfy government regs, and compliance of products to meet the standards. The DAR I contacted specifically asked me if I intend to fly 'night' and whether the aircraft lighting was "TSO'd". He was interpreting the EAB lighting standard as 'must comply' and was not about to accept anything less as the threshold. Neither his judgment nor mine were sufficient to accept anything less for him to approve night VFR. All about paperwork. Possibly fodder for a different discussion thread. Thanks |
I find it interesting how some DAR's get caught up on the TSO'd lighting during the initial certification. For one, the Phase one testing has to be completed in Day VFR conditions. After I leave, anything can really get changed. It is up to the owner operator to insure that the operating limitations are met. The current limitations from the Order specifically state that they must meet the requirements of FAR 91.205 (c) for night flying, meaning the position lights and anti-collision lights must be approved.
Vic |
Quote:
And I do check whatever lighting they do have, primarily to make sure the correct colors are on the proper side. You'd be surprised! |
Didn't figure you would get caught up either, Mel. :) Yes, I have found the nav lights reversed, and the trim as well.
Vic |
Quote:
|
Hi, Dean.
Our Letter of Design Approval for the Ultra Galactica series of lights was issued by the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office and dates back to September, 2012. This was followed by LODAs for the Red Baron Galactica beacon and PosiStrobe CP position / strobe light. Subsequent international approvals have been issued to newer products, but it appears that this data has not quite made it to all of the individual FAA offices quite yet. Aveo does not claim certification status when it does not exist. Best, Rick Lindstrom Aveo Southwest Livermore, CA |
Quote:
Mr. Welch has certainly been busy posting in every aviation forum imaginable, I fail to understand what motivates this response. The UPN recently issued by the NY MIDO is not accurate in content, and a little bit of research might have helped significantly before he set out to demean Aveo products. Here's the text of my reply from the Zenith forum: "Hi, Gary. Attributed to both Mark Twain and Winston Churchill: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." I think this applies perfectly in this situation. I can't help but notice that you've made this same, identical post on various aviation forums, including this one, in response to a recent Unapproved Parts Notification from the Farmingham MIDO in New York. This UPN was released with no prior notification to any Aveo office worldwide, and without any due diligence by the FAA to confirm accuracy of its contents. Needless to say, this UPN is not accurate. All Aveo lights that are listed as certified are indeed so. Aveo also builds experimental versions of our TSO'd products that are not certified, have different part numbers, and sell for considerably less. This UPN has a bit difficulty with this distinction. The Nebulons, Pegatron, and SmartStrobe products mentioned have earned international certification, absolutely required for installation in the extensive line of civil jets for which they were initially designed. Without getting into further specifics, due to a possible legal response, let me direct you to the main Aveo website for clarification regarding this UPN. There you'll find copies of certification and acceptance documents that correct the assertions made in the UPN, and repeated online. (www.aveoengineering.com) And as always, please feel free to contact my directly if you'd like further clarification. Rick Lindstrom Aveo Engineering Southwest Livermore, CA 925.443.9999 rick@aveosw.com Zenith 601XL/B N64KP" |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:05 AM. |