[MS19087]

So this question was brought up in the past and i never saw a definitive answer. As experimentals i understand that we are not bound to comply with the requirements of installing TSO'd equipment. However I am a bit confused when it comes to legal night operations where it states that one has to meet the requirements of the TSO (i dont have the reference) for Navigation and strobe lights to be legal. If experimental lights (ie FlyLED) meet or exceed the "requirements" yet are not TSO'd, are they legal for night flight???

Input from a DAR would be helpful . . . Thanks!

Mark

 

[Mel]

So this question was brought up in the past and i never saw a definitive answer. As experimentals i understand that we are not bound to comply with the requirements of installing TSO'd equipment. However I am a bit confused when it comes to legal night operations where it states that one has to meet the requirements of the TSO (i dont have the reference) for Navigation and strobe lights to be legal. If experimental lights (ie FlyLED) meet or exceed the "requirements" yet are not TSO'd, are they legal for night flight???

Input from a DAR would be helpful . . . Thanks!

Mark

Night flight must comply with §91.205. §91.205 does not differentiate between "Standard" and "Experimental". "Experimental" must met the same requirements as a "Standard" certificated aircraft.

 

[Flandy10]

Night flight must comply with §91.205. §91.205 does not differentiate between "Standard" and "Experimental". "Experimental" must met the same requirements as a "Standard" certificated aircraft.

Don’t want to split hairs, but 91.205 does say “standard “..

“Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any oper- ation described in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains the instruments and equipment specified in those para- graphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition.”

It’s not 91.205, but our ops specs that require us to follow it. See the attached legal interpretation (Rourke_1) from FAA.gov.

Now, where does it say that what is being installed in EAB aircraft is an “approved equivalent”, I will defer to someone else.

please correct me if I am wrong here Mel.

 

[Mel]

Don’t want to split hairs, but 91.205 does say “standard “..
“Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any oper- ation described in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains the instruments and equipment specified in those para- graphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition.”
It’s not 91.205, but our ops specs that require us to follow it. See the attached legal interpretation from FAA.gov.
Now, where does it say that what is being installed in EAB aircraft is an “approved equivalent”, I will defer to someone else.
please correct me if I am wrong here Mel.

Part 43 also does not apply to Experimental Aircraft, but we must do a condition inspection to the scope & detail of part 43 (appendix D).
The point is that our Op Lims specify that for night operations we must comply with 91.205. And taken from your attached interpretation:
"For amateur built aircraft, there are no FAA-approved equivalents."

 

[Auburntsts]

My understanding is per 91.205 the lighting has to meet the standards (angles, intensities, etc) outlined in Part 25. No where does part 91 (or 25) say TSO that I know of like 91 does for say transponders. So my layman's interpretation is if meets or exceeds part 25 you are good to go. YMMV.

 

[pazmanyflyer]

My understanding is per 91.205 the lighting has to meet the standards (angles, intensities, etc) outlined in Part 25. No where does part 91 (or 25) say TSO that I know of like 91 does for say transponders. So my layman's interpretation is if meets or exceeds part 25 you are good to go. YMMV.

Mine too but this is where the water gets really muddy (for me). They may meet or exceed but are they "approved"? I searched and searched but could not find an "approved" list. The only thing that comes up is that the "approved" lights are accepted as the TSO versions.

 

[rv6n6r]

Part 43 also does not apply to Experimental Aircraft, but we must do a condition inspection to the scope & detail of 43(appendix D).
The point is that our Op Lims specify that for night operations we must comply with 91.205. And taken from your attached interpretation:
"For amateur built aircraft, there are no FAA-approved equivalents."

I'm still not sure any of this answer's the OPs question. 91.205 doesn't mention TSO, and as I understand it, something can be "approved" (i.e. reviewed and found acceptable by the FAA or designee) though other means, such as a DAR or DER signoff, no?

 

[BobTurner]

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is the same as Auburntsts. When ADSB was new the FAA accepted ‘approved’, for experimental aircraft, as a manufacturer’s statement that their product met the ‘performance standards’ of the applicable TSO. (Not necessarily other stuff, like RFI, parts traceability, etc.). I asked Paul (FlyLEDs) and he replied that his product met or exceeded the required angular coverage, brightness, and color standards.

 

[ATC_RV8OR]

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is the same as Auburntsts. When ADSB was new the FAA accepted ‘approved’, for experimental aircraft, as a manufacturer’s statement that their product met the ‘performance standards’ of the applicable TSO. (Not necessarily other stuff, like RFI, parts traceability, etc.). I asked Paul (FlyLEDs) and he replied that his product met or exceeded the required angular coverage, brightness, and color standards.

Much like a kit from Vans, a kit from FlyLEDs is just a kit. YOU are the manufacturer. The FlyLED is a great product with a great owner no doubt. I believe his statement to be true. Since they are not completely assembled and tested they are just components. it’s up to the manufacturer who is assembling the kit to ensure it meets standards.

The TSO is a standard that the manufacturer meets and ensures each unit conforms to the TSO. There’s nothing magic about the TSO.

Buy a FlyLED kit, perform all the tests to meet the regs, document it and if it passes be on your way. Without testing (do you have the equipment for such) it can meet or exceed but it doesn’t matter without paperwork to back it up just like everything thing else in aviation.

That said, buying lights with TSO is the guaranteed easiest route.

 

[Thermos]

I'm still not sure any of this answer's the OPs question. 91.205 doesn't mention TSO, and as I understand it, something can be "approved" (i.e. reviewed and found acceptable by the FAA or designee) though other means, such as a DAR or DER signoff, no?

The most straightforward answer is that an FAA approval can either be via TSO just for the lights themselves, or as part of an original, supplemental or amended type certificate for an aircraft that uses those lights. Can a DER issue a compliance finding to 23.2530 that would be considered acceptable for meeting the intent of our ops limitations? My experience says probably not, although I'm happy to be proven wrong.

And even if you could get an approval via this path, the time and money you'd spend on a DER would be far more than what you'd spend on a set of TSO'd lights from Whelen or another suppler.

HTH

Dave

 

[rv6n6r]

Mel (or someone), correct me if I'm wrong, but:
- Aircraft mfg (you) approves the lights for installation and night flight, based on the component manufacturer's declaration that they meet the required spec
- FAA designee (DAR) approves the airplane as airworthy per the builder's specs
Aircraft systems are therefore approved for the intended operations.

 

[Mel]

Mel (or someone), correct me if I'm wrong, but:
- Aircraft mfg (you) approves the lights for installation and night flight, based on the component manufacturer's declaration that they meet the required spec
- FAA designee (DAR) approves the airplane as airworthy per the builder's specs
Aircraft systems are therefore approved for the intended operations.

The DAR approves the aircraft as meeting the requirements of §21.191(g). The builder certifies that the aircraft is "In a condition for safe operation".
Ref: 8130-6, Section III, Blk D.

The legality of lighting, etc. is determined by the builder. If it is questioned, it is up to the builder or operator to prove compliance.

In the specific case of lighting, I have never heard of this ever being challenged. Typically it falls into the "Duck" category. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

[penguin]

Since the re-write of Part 23 things have become less clear. Part 23 used to specify colors and angles, 23.2530 now says (paraphrasing) if required by Pt91 lights must be red, green & white with angles to provide sufficient coverage. 91.209 says light must be fitted and used. I can't find anything that says the lights must be TSOd or meet a TSO. The issue is always if someone suggests your aircraft does not meet the rules how would you show it does? If TSOd lights are fitted, or lights which meet the TSO, there isn't much argument. But Op Lims take precedence, if they say the aircraft must meet 91.205 then approved lights must be fitted. What does "approved" mean, how much do you like arguing?

 

[Scott Hersha]

Typically it falls into the "Duck" category. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

And there you go…….. I don’t think any FAA inspector is going to go out on the ramp and check the intensity, angle, etc, of you exterior lighting to try to determine compliance. That is up to you the builder. That being said, the goal shouldn’t be to find the least expensive solution. This is a safety of flight issue, and if you can determine that your installation meets the FAA FAR standard, and it is safe for operation - that is written in your aircraft logbook, and you shouldn’t worry about it.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

The issue is always if someone suggests your aircraft does not meet the rules how would you show it does? If TSOd lights are fitted, or lights which meet the TSO, there isn't much argument. But Op Lims take precedence, if they say the aircraft must meet 91.205 then approved lights must be fitted. What does "approved" mean, how much do you like arguing?

Well, I'd start by saying "show me the actual rule". 91.205 says:

(2) Approved position lights.

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

Part 1 says

Approved, unless used with reference to another person, means approved by the FAA or any person to whom the FAA has delegated its authority in the matter concerned, or approved under the provisions of a bilateral agreement between the United States and a foreign country or jurisdiction.

I'd say I, as the builder, have approved whatever lights are on the plane.

 

[Desert Rat]

This whole thread, is interesting on an academic level, but thats about it.

Has anybody in the history of the world ever had any pushback from the feds with regard to FlyLED lights or equivalent?

Likewise, has anybody with a part 23 airplane ever had a ramp check where they were forced to prove their nav lights complied with a TSO?

I'd be shocked if anybody answers yes to either of those.

 

[Mel]

This whole thread, is interesting on an academic level, but thats about it.
Has anybody in the history of the world ever had any pushback from the feds with regard to FlyLED lights or equivalent?
Likewise, has anybody with a part 23 airplane ever had a ramp check where they were forced to prove their nav lights complied with a TSO?
I'd be shocked if anybody answers yes to either of those.

As I said in post #12, I've NEVER heard of anyone being challenged on the legality of lights. For this to happen, the lights would almost have to be a "cause" of an accident/incident, and that would be a real stretch.

And, as has also been said, the search for a lighting system should be focussed on safety, not price.

 

[newt]

The issue is always if someone suggests your aircraft does not meet the rules how would you show it does?

Who is going to suggest this, and why can't you tell them to go and kick rocks when they do?

- mark

 

[PhatRV]

l can shop at the various aircraft salvage vendor for the ancient incandescent light nav lights and they are dim compare to the experimental LED units. The DAR and ASIs only want to know if I have the necessary lights, and if the red/green nav lights are on the correct wing tips. Anything else is just hearsay.

 

[RV8JD]

Some good reading here in Part 25.

The phrase "...must be approved" is commonly used.

But Part 25 covers the airworthiness requirements for Transport Category Airplanes (i.e., not us).

 

[Desert Rat]

As I said in post #12, I've NEVER heard of anyone being challenged on the legality of lights. For this to happen, the lights would almost have to be a "cause" of an accident/incident, and that would be a real stretch.

And, as has also been said, the search for a lighting system should be focussed on safety, not price.

I know what you said Mel. I'm agreeing with you. Also, I never said anything about price vs safety so not sure what you mean by that second comment.

 

[Mel]

I know what you said Mel. I'm agreeing with you. Also, I never said anything about price vs safety so not sure what you mean by that second comment.

The price comment was from another post.

 

[MS19087]

So when I started this thread I anticipated that the discussion would take this very route. That is no definitive answer would result. It is clear buying TSO’d lighting makes you legal. However non-TSO’d lighting remains a very gray area. I heartily agree that the chances of getting ramp tested for your lights is probably next to zero percent. I’m head OSH later this month and will talk to vendors and perhaps others of “authority “ and see what they say … likely the same thing you folks are saying

 

[RV7A Flyer]

So when I started this thread I anticipated that the discussion would take this very route. That is no definitive answer would result. It is clear buying TSO’d lighting makes you legal. However non-TSO’d lighting remains a very gray area. I heartily agree that the chances of getting ramp tested for your lights is probably next to zero percent. I’m head OSH later this month and will talk to vendors and perhaps others of “authority “ and see what they say … likely the same thing you folks are saying

You're going to ask yourself right into an answer you don't want if you keep going. You'll no doubt be able to find someone at the FAA who thinks only TSO'd lights can be used on any aircraft whatsoever, and then what?

Plenty of people here have told you that you don't need a "TSO'd" light system, that what's on the market for experimentals is fine and nobody has ever had an issue with them, etc. But if you want to find someone to tell you you can't do what a jillion RVers have been doing, go for it.

 

[rmartingt]

You're going to ask yourself right into an answer you don't want if you keep going.

This!

Don't poke the bear. Don't ask The Man. Like we say at work, "if you don't think you're going to like the answer, don't ask the question".

Don't be the guy that brings us the next ruling along the lines of "instruction is carriage for hire".