LED lighting

[kevinw]

About a year ago I had a strobe light go out on one of my wings. My mechanic replaced it but now I have one wing that blinks twice and the other blinks three times. It works, it's legal, but it just looks goofy and I don't like it. My plane goes in for annual next month and I'm thinking of replacing both of them with LEDs and possibly the tail as well. Looking at Whelen Orion series. I've read they are much brighter, less likely to burn out, less power draw and lighter due to no flash box. Has anyone converted lately and know what lights would be needed for an '82 J?

I found this YouTube video this morning. What a difference! 

 

[mooniac15u]

I think the Whelen STC only covers B-G models. Please let me know what you find. I've been interested in converting my J to LEDs too. 

[kevinw]

50 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

I think the Whelen STC only covers B-G models. Please let me know what you find. I've been interested in converting my J to LEDs too. 

The airplane in the video I attached is a 1981 J. In any case I'll check with my A&P and report back.

[ArtVandelay]

53 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

I think the Whelen STC only covers B-G models. Please let me know what you find. I've been interested in converting my J to LEDs too. 

I went with Orion 650,500, no special paperwork required just a log entry.

[M20F]

Don got his put in with just a log book entry (see above link), I am somewhat researching for my F but in my case there is a clear STC so no worries.  May want to call Mark at Lasar and see what he says.

Edited March 7, 2016 by M20F

[mooniac15u]

Just because someone signed these off doesn't necessarily mean the FAA would agree that they are a legal installation.

If only a logbook entry is needed then why did Whelen go to the time and expense of getting an STC?

[M20F]

22 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

If only a logbook entry is needed then why did Whelen go to the time and expense of getting an STC?

http://www.dvatp.com/aviation/stc

Read down a bit and there is a box that goes into detail and gives an example using a Garmin 430.  

[mooniac15u]

1 minute ago, M20F said:

http://www.dvatp.com/aviation/stc

Read down a bit and there is a box that goes into detail and gives an example using a Garmin 430.  

That example shows that a 337 and a field approval are needed for items with STCs for other aircraft.  That is significantly different than "just a log entry."

[mooniac15u]

Here's Whelen's view on installing their lights on aircraft not listed on the STC.  See page 4 for details and note the last line "Up-date aircraft records and complete form 337."

http://www.whelen.com/pb/Aviation/Catalog%20Price%20Lists%20and%20Manuals/Anti-Collision_Light_Systems_Installation_and_Service_Manual.pdf

[M20F]

Just now, mooniac15u said:

That example shows that a 337 and a field approval are needed for items with STCs for other aircraft.  That is significantly different than "just a log entry."

This is how your Garmin 430 was granted a field approval. There is no "Approved" data to install a Garmin GNS-430 in a Cessna 172. Garmin has an approved STC for a Mooney which they provided to us. You do not own a Mooney, but the installation in your Cessna is close enough to the Mooney, that I submit the Mooney STC as "acceptable" data to form the basis of the field approval. The FSDO looks at the data and says OK, the Mooney and Cessna are close enough, and we will approved the Cessna installation based on the Mooney. If Garmin had no STC for any aircraft, but the GNS-430 was PMA'd, I could not submit a 337 to the FAA asking for them to OK this installation in your Cessna. I have no data for them to approve, and they will not be put in the position to make an "engineering" call on the suitability of an alteration.

In this example it is a 337 with the STC for another aircraft submitted as the basis for approval.  This is the same thing Whelen is saying you do in the document you cite. 

[mooniac15u]

Just now, M20F said:

This is how your Garmin 430 was granted a field approval. There is no "Approved" data to install a Garmin GNS-430 in a Cessna 172. Garmin has an approved STC for a Mooney which they provided to us. You do not own a Mooney, but the installation in your Cessna is close enough to the Mooney, that I submit the Mooney STC as "acceptable" data to form the basis of the field approval. The FSDO looks at the data and says OK, the Mooney and Cessna are close enough, and we will approved the Cessna installation based on the Mooney. If Garmin had no STC for any aircraft, but the GNS-430 was PMA'd, I could not submit a 337 to the FAA asking for them to OK this installation in your Cessna. I have no data for them to approve, and they will not be put in the position to make an "engineering" call on the suitability of an alteration.

In this example it is a 337 with the STC for another aircraft submitted as the basis for approval.  This is the same thing Whelen is saying you do in the document you cite. 

So, it sounds like a field approval is needed to install these LED lights on an M20J.

[Hank]

I'd put them on my C in a heartbeat, if the price wasn't so ludicrously high. Over a thousand bucks for two lights??? Not from me . . . I'll live with my dinky incandescents a while longer.

[DonMuncy]

The regulations clearly define a major alteration as one "that might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or that is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.”

Any modification that is not a major one is a minor one.

It is the installer's decision as to which is which.

In my opinion, manufacturers of things to put in your plane often get an STC for something which clearly constitutes a minor modification, because they are less likely to be found liable if for some reason something should go wrong. Secondly, they can charge more for it if it has an STC. Third, they know that some highly conservative installers will balk at installing it without an STC or 337. Thus if a buyer can't get an A&P to install it, they will send it back or raise a stink. The end result is that manufacturers often spend money to get an STC and we, the buyers, pay extra. This is a highly unfortunate situation, and like much in aviation, you really can't blame the players. This is just the way the system has grown.

 

[kevinw]

3 hours ago, M20F said:

Don got his put in with just a log book entry (see above link), I am somewhat researching for my F but in my case there is a clear STC so no worries.  May want to call Mark at Lasar and see what he says.

Thanks for the info. So it sounds like a logbook entry, very little labor and a 6 lb gain in UL. Lance Casper posted he has an account with Aircraft Spruce and will pass along his discount; I'll definitely take him up on that. I think I'm going to pull the trigger once my mechanic agrees to do it.

[mooniac15u]

Since anti collision lights are required by 91.205, doesn't that fall under "other qualities affecting airworthiness"?

[M20F]

9 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Since anti collision lights are required by 91.205, doesn't that fall under "other qualities affecting airworthiness"?

Add the first part "appreciably affect"

[DonMuncy]

I agree with Mike. The question is whether the change from the original light to an LED "might appreciably affect … qualities affecting airworthiness". I recognize that an argument could be made that the LED does affect the quality of that light. However, if I were the one making the decision, I would decide the intent of the rule Impliedly requires that the change adversely affects that quality. And I would say that it actually enhances the quality.

But I am unlikely to be the one making the decision  

 

[mooniac15u]

13 minutes ago, M20F said:

Add the first part "appreciably affect"

That's not how that sentence structure works. The "appreciably affect" only applies to the first part of the list. The "other qualities affecting airworthiness" does not have an "appreciably" qualifier because they repeat the word "affect" but leave out the "appreciably."

[mooniac15u]

So, I can install any battery I want as long as it has a TSO?

[mooniac15u]

18 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

I agree with Mike. The question is whether the change from the original light to an LED "might appreciably affect … qualities affecting airworthiness". I recognize that an argument could be made that the LED does affect the quality of that light. However, if I were the one making the decision, I would decide the intent of the rule Impliedly requires that the change adversely affects that quality. And I would say that it actually enhances the quality.

But I am unlikely to be the one making the decision  

 

Installation of any new lights might not meet the viewing angle requirements for a specific airframe. If the angles aren't met then the aircraft isn't airworthy. 

[DonMuncy]

3 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Installation of any new lights might not meet the viewing angle requirements for a specific airframe. If the angles aren't met then the aircraft isn't airworthy. 

Yes, and a different type of paint might not have the same resistance to airframe icing, so it isn't airworthy if repainted.

[mooniac15u]

2 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

Yes, and a different type of paint might not have the same resistance to airframe icing, so it isn't airworthy if repainted.

Which regulation requires aircraft paint to resist icing?

[M20F]

3 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Which regulation requires aircraft paint to resist icing?

I think Don, I, and others tried to provide some information on the topic and you disagree with the information provided.  No worries, I am going to move on from the thread now though.  

[Hank]

32 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

So, I can install any battery I want as long as it has a TSO?

You still have the W&B concern, as well as cranking amps and the ability to power the plane for the specified time if the alternator goes out. And probably a few others I'm forgetting, maybe temperature and altitude effects, etc.

[ArtVandelay]

13 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

Installation of any new lights might not meet the viewing angle requirements for a specific airframe. If the angles aren't met then the aircraft isn't airworthy. 

So, you check the viewing angles, check the brightness (LEDs are way brighter), minor alteration...log entry, done.