LED position lights drop in replacement

[markazzarito]

I see a lot of older certified aircraft specificaly mooneys in other posts on this forum are installing the Sextan System they seem to fit as drop in replacements for the factory position lights. They also provide a strobe option.  The documentation i can find

http://deltaaviation.comnav%20page/POH/M20C%201966%20Mark%2021.pdf

seems to indicate this kit is strictly for experimental aircraft and while it meets FAA requirements is not FAA approved for nor is it meant to be used in a certified aircraft. Can anybody elaborate on why or why not this kit can or cannot be used legally as a replacement for position lights on my 1963 M20C? Also what are the potential legal consequences for installing? Alternately does anyone know of another LED drop in replacment compatible with an M20C and approved for use in a certified aircraft?

Edited March 15, 2016 by markazzarito

[kortopates]

Whelen has FAA/TSO'd approved LED combination Navigation & Strobe lights. Google Whelen Orion 650 lights. They are available in a model that sits outside of the wing exposed to the elements and also in model enclosed in the plexi wing tip. They are approved for most of the vintage Mooney (and i expect the C model - just not the modern ones but that is not a big problem). There are several threads on these lights in Mooneyspace already, some showing installs and video's of them turned on. 

[goterminal120]

Using unapproved parts without a field approval voids the airworthy certificate. In turn the insurance company will not be liable to pay any claim. The FAA could violate you, but chances of them finding out are slim and none, unless there is an accident. Then I would be more concerned with insurance coverage than FAA.

[neilpilot]

5 hours ago, goterminal120 said:

Using unapproved parts without a field approval voids the airworthy certificate. In turn the insurance company will not be liable to pay any claim. The FAA could violate you, but chances of them finding out are slim and none, unless there is an accident. Then I would be more concerned with insurance coverage than FAA.

Do not disagree with your comment, but can you cite examples where an insurance company denied coverage on an aircraft with an unapproved part, when the loss WAS NOT  RELATED TO THE QUESTIONABLE PART?  In other words, lets say you have a loss due to off field landing due to a fuel or engine issue, or land gear up.  Even if the in surance company later becomes aware of the unapproved position lights, have there been examples where a claim was denied?

[Vance Harral]

It's extremely rare - bordering on never-happens territory - for an insurer to deny a claim based on trivialities such as this.  Yet the myth persists.  I'm sure the "risk" varies by insurer, but the aviation insurance market is a small community, and word would get around if any one insurer had draconian views.

Avemco is only one of many insurers, but I find it interesting they publish details on their claim denials.  Almost all denials are for reasons any reasonable person would agree are fair: e.g. unapproved pilot flying the airplane, filing a claim for an in-flight incident on a ground-only policy, etc.  https://www.avemco.com/Articles/ART0006-2011.pdf

Disclaimer: I haven't been an Avemco customer for many years.  Not pushing them as a good choice, I just think their claim denial information is likely to be representative of the industry as a whole.

[jetdriven]

7 hours ago, goterminal120 said:

Using unapproved parts without a field approval voids the airworthy certificate. In turn the insurance company will not be liable to pay any claim. The FAA could violate you, but chances of them finding out are slim and none, unless there is an accident. Then I would be more concerned with insurance coverage than FAA.

I would also love to see one bit of evidence supporting this claim. 

[Shadrach]

45 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

I would also love to see one bit of evidence supporting this claim. 

There is no evidence as far as I know. I can envision no scenario where an insurance company could/would deny a claim based on non TSO'd/PMA'd navigation lights. 

[philipneeper]

I used LED bulbs, FAA approved and fits with the old system

[goterminal120]

3 hours ago, neilpilot said:

Do not disagree with your comment, but can you cite examples where an insurance company denied coverage on an aircraft with an unapproved part, when the loss WAS NOT  RELATED TO THE QUESTIONABLE PART?  In other words, lets say you have a loss due to off field landing due to a fuel or engine issue, or land gear up.  Even if the in surance company later becomes aware of the unapproved position lights, have there been examples where a claim was denied?

I do not have personal experience or knowledge of this ever happening. But my insurance policy specifically states, aircraft must be maintained to airworthy standards. A void airworthy certificate would not meet the standard. I'd be interested to know how much digging an insurance company does during the claim process.

[goterminal120]

2 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I would also love to see one bit of evidence supporting this claim. 

Never claimed it happens, but technically it could.

[MB65E]

1 hour ago, philipneeper said:

I used LED bulbs, FAA approved and fits with the old system

May I ask which ones?

Thanks,

-Matt 

[philipneeper]

I got them from sun n fun 2014.... Let me dig around the hangar and see if I can find all the info 

[DXB]

I  enjoy the recurring scuffles this topic generates here.  As soon as there is a legal for certified aircraft drop-in option, I'm sure I'll find out here first and place my order immediately.  I'm guessing there still isn't yet but hopefully I'm proven wrong...

[kortopates]

I  enjoy the recurring scuffles this topic generates here.  As soon as there is a legal for certified aircraft drop-in option, I'm sure I'll find out here first and place my order immediately.  I'm guessing there still isn't yet but hopefully I'm proven wrong...

The legal drop in replacement has been mentioned many times in these forums. For starters see the second post above on them. Then you can use the search function to see pictures and videos.

One caveat, they are true drop in replacement for the common A650P &G's - if you don't have those you'll have to compare footprints and mounting holes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DXB]

3 minutes ago, kortopates said:

The legal drop in replacement has been mentioned many times in these forums. For starters see the second post above on them. Then you can use the search function to see pictures and videos.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By "drop in" I mean LEDs that fit the existing sockets for incandescent bulbs - am i using the term wrong?   To my knowledge this only exists for the landing light.  

[kortopates]

3 minutes ago, kortopates said: The legal drop in replacement has been mentioned many times in these forums. For starters see the second post above on them. Then you can use the search function to see pictures and videos.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By "drop in" I mean LEDs that fit the existing sockets for incandescent bulbs - am i using the term wrong?   To my knowledge this only exists for the landing light.  

Including the word "bulb" clarifies that, since this thread was about the entire fixture till Phil brought up bulbs above.

But AFAIK I have not seen a truly approved LED replacement bulb, just LED bulbs that claim to meet the FAA requirements which does not make them approved. But Phil above has been very reliable so I am looking forward to hearing what he found.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guitarmaster]

15 hours ago, goterminal120 said:

Using unapproved parts without a field approval voids the airworthy certificate. In turn the insurance company will not be liable to pay any claim. The FAA could violate you, but chances of them finding out are slim and none, unless there is an accident. Then I would be more concerned with insurance coverage than FAA.

I asked my insurance company this very question.  The response was, "If we were to do that, we would be out of business because nobody would insure their planes with us."
A bulb is a bulb.  I am pretty sure the GE330's that illuminate my cockpit are not TSO.  Just saying'...

As the saying goes, "You pays your money, you takes your chances."

[1964-M20E]

One of the owner performed maintenance items includes replacing lights lens and reflectors.  So in simplistic terms by the pilot/owner signing off on this replacement deems it airworthy.  End of argument.

 

 

[goterminal120]

10 hours ago, 1964-M20E said:

One of the owner performed maintenance items includes replacing lights lens and reflectors.  So in simplistic terms by the pilot/owner signing off on this replacement deems it airworthy.  End of argument.

 

 

So along those lines if an A&P installed a autozone starter because it fit we're good. Better yet unapproved engine parts. Who's going to know. (I've been wanting to install 10/1 Pistons since I got this airplane).The perpose of aproved parts is a paper trail to known working pieces. You can argue a light assembly is not the same thing. Where is the line. The FARs drew it. Is it really a safety issue, chances are not. Do I fudge on my plane? Absolutely. Do I fudge on a custermers plane? Not even by request.

   On a side note, a pilot/ owner sign off is for the installation. It doesn't make everything you touch magically airworthy.

[DAVIDWH]

Personally,

I would not want to mess with the massive cadre of insurance abogados whose only purpose is to litigate and deny claims.

For example when an acquaintance of mine was caught in a violent storm pushing a barge, tug broke loose and capsized.

When young widow applied for compensation, $1.3 million, insurance co. sent a diver down to the tug. One port hole was found to be open.

Insurance claimed the craft un-seaworthy and claim denied.

Enough said

 

[Sabremech]

15 hours ago, 1964-M20E said:

One of the owner performed maintenance items includes replacing lights lens and reflectors.  So in simplistic terms by the pilot/owner signing off on this replacement deems it airworthy.  End of argument.

 

 

Until it comes in for annual inspection and the A&P/IA says it's not legal. Argument ensues!

[N201MKTurbo]

So, if an FAA inspector says anything about them, say "Those were in the plane when I bought it. I was always wondering about them. Thanks for clarifying that, I'll get that fixed before the next flight"

[markazzarito]

On March 15, 2016 at 10:11 PM, kortopates said:

Whelen has FAA/TSO'd approved LED combination Navigation & Strobe lights. Google Whelen Orion 650 lights. They are available in a model that sits outside of the wing exposed to the elements and also in model enclosed in the plexi wing tip. They are approved for most of the vintage Mooney (and i expect the C model - just not the modern ones but that is not a big problem). There are several threads on these lights in Mooneyspace already, some showing installs and video's of them turned on. 

My C currently does not have strobes. Do you know if rewiring is required in order to power the strobes? Can the Whelen 650 lights replace the position lights using the existing wiring? After googling this is still unclear. I was also unable to find the threads you mentioned. Thanks!

Edited March 20, 2016 by markazzarito

[kortopates]

Without wiring to existing strobes you'll have to have wires pulled out to both wing tips and tail. Your current wiring to your existing position lights would be usable for the position lights on the Orion 650. The Orion's have 4 wires: ground, position voltage, strobe voltage and a strobe sync wires to optionally enable the strobes to flash all at the same time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

If you have no strobes and still have a red motorized anti-collision light....

Consider getting a whelen LED anti-collision light.  Similar to having their strobe, probably even better...

I had put a whelen strobe on to improve over the 60’s red light...

The whelen site does a nice job of indicating what is required lighting depending on the year of the plane.

Best regards,

-a-