VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-16-2022, 10:07 AM
NYTOM's Avatar
NYTOM NYTOM is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina
Posts: 1,206
Exclamation 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. 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. .
__________________
Tom Norwood
Classic "Short Tail 6A N822PM
TMX-O360 FP. KJNX
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-16-2022, 01:21 PM
moosepileit moosepileit is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 785
Default

I tested the "MSTRB" sub $50 hideaway as radio silent out of the box. No filters/chokes needed.
__________________
RV-6, bought from builder.
O-320, slider, carb, mags, FP
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-16-2022, 02:33 PM
n82rb's Avatar
n82rb n82rb is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: fort myers fl
Posts: 1,130
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-17-2022, 07:02 AM
MS19087's Avatar
MS19087 MS19087 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 787
Default 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
__________________
Mark
RV-9A; Built, Flown & Sold
RV-14A; Finishing and Flying (Phase 1)
2022 =VAF= donor
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-17-2022, 07:27 AM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 11,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by n82rb View Post
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.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century. Over 1,000 certifications accomplished. Discount for Veterans, Law Enforcement, Fire Fighters.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>

Last edited by Mel : 01-17-2022 at 07:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-17-2022, 09:22 AM
moosepileit moosepileit is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 785
Default

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?
__________________
RV-6, bought from builder.
O-320, slider, carb, mags, FP
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-17-2022, 10:13 AM
Paul 5r4 Paul 5r4 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Foley, Al
Posts: 682
Default

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.
__________________
Paul Gray
Foley, Alabama
N729PG..... 500+ hrs
RV 7A, Lycoming 0 320 D1A, Sensenich FP propeller
pilotforfun2001@yahoo.com
VAF supporter $$$
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-17-2022, 10:33 AM
n82rb's Avatar
n82rb n82rb is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: fort myers fl
Posts: 1,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-17-2022, 10:42 AM
n82rb's Avatar
n82rb n82rb is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: fort myers fl
Posts: 1,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul 5r4 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-17-2022, 11:11 AM
Paul 5r4 Paul 5r4 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Foley, Al
Posts: 682
Default

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!
__________________
Paul Gray
Foley, Alabama
N729PG..... 500+ hrs
RV 7A, Lycoming 0 320 D1A, Sensenich FP propeller
pilotforfun2001@yahoo.com
VAF supporter $$$
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:55 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.