Tail light - buld replacement

[nightmoves]

Hi all. I know I'm on a roll with my 2nd question of the weekend, so please forgive me.

My tail light beacon (?) is burnt out on my F. Anyone know what to order to replace it with? I did try searching the forums and didn't find anything relevant. I remember seeing some suggestions not to long ago about so me $15 LEDs that weren't aviation. I don't necessarily have a problem with that but I wanted to see if anyone had recent experience with replacing this bulb. My lighting system is stock if that matters.

Thanks!

 

[carusoam]

Consider taking a look here...  https://www.whelen.com/pb/Aviation/Catalog Price Lists and Manuals/General_Aviation_Catalog.pdf

This came from an MS thread a few minutes before your new thread...

Best regards,

-a-

[Jim Peace]

I just replaced mine with this in a 64M20c

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/whelen14volt.php

It is the 14 volt vertical Cessna one:

Whelen number: 01-0771554-12

Spruce number: 11-10686

[Yetti]

While we are on the subject.  Most of these part numbers will be in the Service & Maintenance Manual.  The major parts (tires and alternators and such) will be in the Type Data Sheet.  For the TDS you can find one on the FAA site or I use the one here.   http://67m20e.com/Mooney TCDS 2A3 Rev 52 dtd 9DEC10.pdf

While it is legal for an owner of the plane to do the work to replace light bulbs and other maintenance they will need to have the S&M Manual readily available to ensure the plane stays airworthy in the eyes of the FAA.

You also want to do a log book entry into the Airframe log for changing the light bulbs.

[Jim Peace]

22 hours ago, nightmoves said:

Hi all. I know I'm on a roll with my 2nd question of the weekend, so please forgive me.

My tail light beacon (?) is burnt out on my F. Anyone know what to order to replace it with? I did try searching the forums and didn't find anything relevant. I remember seeing some suggestions not to long ago about so me $15 LEDs that weren't aviation. I don't necessarily have a problem with that but I wanted to see if anyone had recent experience with replacing this bulb. My lighting system is stock if that matters.

Thanks!

 

I have my original tail light and navlights an beacon for sale if you want them for a back up....I just went all LED

[Raptor05121]

ebay or amazon...3156 white. find one with as many LEDs as you can.

Just my $0.02. Do with it what you will.

[RobertGary1]

On 4/30/2018 at 5:32 AM, Yetti said:

While we are on the subject.  Most of these part numbers will be in the Service & Maintenance Manual.  The major parts (tires and alternators and such) will be in the Type Data Sheet.  For the TDS you can find one on the FAA site or I use the one here.   http://67m20e.com/Mooney TCDS 2A3 Rev 52 dtd 9DEC10.pdf

While it is legal for an owner of the plane to do the work to replace light bulbs and other maintenance they will need to have the S&M Manual readily available to ensure the plane stays airworthy in the eyes of the FAA.

You also want to do a log book entry into the Airframe log for changing the light bulbs.

Unless you change the type of bulb then you need a minor mod signed by A&P

-Robert

[Raptor05121]

What if, and I'm just pointing this out, most owners are aware of laws and legality of swapping out parts, and they don't need the legal belittling every time someone mentions hangar fairies? Maybe?

[mooniac15u]

Advising a new owner to follow the regs is legal belittling?

[Yetti]

2 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

What if, and I'm just pointing this out, most owners are aware of laws and legality of swapping out parts, and they don't need the legal belittling every time someone mentions hangar fairies? Maybe?

If you will notice I am usually on the receiving end of the legal begals who don't even hold an A&P certificate.   On this one the person was asking a question that only needs a flatblade screw driver and a manual.  basically it took longer to write it on the internet than it would to do the work.    Generally this could have been responded with a curt RTFM.  

There is still no ruling from the FAA that the source of the light (LED or Filament) really needs an STC.  It sure as heck is not cutting a wing spar so it does not arise to Major Repair. But since an STC needs an IA sign off, we are treating a light bulb change like a Major Change.

[Skates97]

3 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

What if, and I'm just pointing this out, most owners are aware of laws and legality of swapping out parts, and they don't need the legal belittling every time someone mentions hangar fairies? Maybe?

I think that is most likely the case. I also think that most of those owners are also aware of the vast fleet of "experimental aircraft" flying around in the same airspace with parts that are legal for "experimentals" and can be installed by hangar fairies (actually the fairies don't show up because the owner can just do it), but they can't use those parts on their own plane (even if the parts are better than what is "legal"), nor install something themselves because it hasn't been given the blessing of the government. 

I wonder how many vintage planes would be flying if there was an audit done on every plane out there and if a hangar fairy had done work on it then it would be grounded... 

Personally I would feel more comfortable getting in a plane which had a competent owner who regularly had the cowling off, poked around, tightened things, (God forbid replaced a leaky gasket or something themselves), etc... than one where the owner never checked things themselves, only opened the door to check the oil level and just trusted that nothing is wrong because their A&P had looked it over 25-40 flight hours ago when they did the oil change.  But what am I thinking, everyone knows nothing changes under the cowling between oil changes and annuals...

[Marauder]

1 hour ago, Skates97 said:

I think that is most likely the case. I also think that most of those owners are also aware of the vast fleet of "experimental aircraft" flying around in the same airspace with parts that are legal for "experimentals" and can be installed by hangar fairies (actually the fairies don't show up because the owner can just do it), but they can't use those parts on their own plane (even if the parts are better than what is "legal"), nor install something themselves because it hasn't been given the blessing of the government. 

I wonder how many vintage planes would be flying if there was an audit done on every plane out there and if a hangar fairy had done work on it then it would be grounded... 

Personally I would feel more comfortable getting in a plane which had a competent owner who regularly had the cowling off, poked around, tightened things, (God forbid replaced a leaky gasket or something themselves), etc... than one where the owner never checked things themselves, only opened the door to check the oil level and just trusted that nothing is wrong because their A&P had looked it over 25-40 flight hours ago when they did the oil change.  But what am I thinking, everyone knows nothing changes under the cowling between oil changes and annuals...

I think we all understand and agree that there are legal limits on what we can do under 43. I also get it that the A&Ps among us feel an obligation to remind us. Even if it is getting a bit long in the tooth. 

I did owner assisted annuals for the first 7 years of ownership and know firsthand that in some cases I knew more about how a particular system worked than the IA. I also installed a fair amount of stuff under the guidance of an IA (like the CiES senders). Any of us with solid mechanical & electrical skills can do a good portion of what is required to maintain our planes. It’s just not legal. 

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

What if, and I'm just pointing this out, most owners are aware of laws and legality of swapping out parts, and they don't need the legal belittling every time someone mentions hangar fairies? Maybe?

The guys with risk, i.e., IAs and A&Ps who put their names in the logbooks, can be expected to err on the side of their own risk reduction, or even just maintain a philosophy of constantly leaning in the that direction for their own risk mitigation, especially if it affects their livelihood.   This sort of thing is true in all industries.   Another side of this is the regulatory body who sometimes has to point out, no you really don't need to take it that far, that's not what we meant, there's another way to look at it, etc., etc..   But, until they say that, you can expect the guys with the certificates at risk to push in the direction of their own risk reduction.   This is normal and to be expected.

Once in a while somebody points out an alternative path through the regulations that relaxes requirements, but those with risk may not embrace that without clear precedent, and so the cycle continues even when there may be an alternate path.

In the middle are the owners.   Common practice, even among the certificated folks at risk, varies widely.   No two IAs may agree on the "right" way to do things.   YMMV, proceed at your own risk, etc., etc.   I'm not aware of any airplanes falling out of the sky due to LED nav lights.

[cctsurf]

3 minutes ago, EricJ said:

The guys with risk, i.e., IAs and A&Ps who put their names in the logbooks

I agree with your analysis.  I have one minor quibble.

There is exposure for IAs and A&Ps.  I get that.  I would like to argue that I am the one with WAY more risk than any IA or A&P.  I put my rear end in the seat and fly her.  I have a much greater concern about the condition of my airplane than my A&P.  Just sayin'.  My IA and I joke about that fact every time we get together.

[skydvrboy]

I've said it on here before and I'll say it again.  Call the FSDO and ask.  We can banter back and forth about what's legal or not and about what they do or don't care about, but the only way to know for sure, is call the only guy whose opinion matters.  

Our FSDO rep is much more concerned about keeping you safe than trying to bust you for not following the letter of the law.  I know, because I talk to him 2-3 times a year.  When I asked about changing my interior bulbs from incandescent to LED, he told me "We allow you to do stuff as complex as changing a tire and packing the bearings, why would we care about you changing a light bulb." 

Granted, this was for an interior bulb, not exterior, but I know there are folks here on MS that question whether or not an owner can change an interior bulb to an LED. My guess is that he would say the same thing about an exterior bulb, but that's the point.  What I think doesn't matter, the only opinion that counts is that of the FSDO, so ask.

[Guest]

The problem as I see it is the responsibility that the FAA places on maintainers.  Why is the IA signing today’s annual responsible for those things done to the plane decades ago?

When I sign an annual or a maintenance release in Canada I am only attesting to the work I have completed and signed off.  Do what ever you want to your plane, log it it you want but I’m not responsible for it, you are.

The only time an airplane is determined to be Airworthy is at new production and application for a C of A, importation and application for a C of A, or if the C of A is revoked by the Minister of Transport and a new one has to be applied for..

 A change in regulation would be helpful.

Clarence

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, skydvrboy said:

I've said it on here before and I'll say it again.  Call the FSDO and ask.  We can banter back and forth about what's legal or not and about what they do or don't care about, but the only way to know for sure, is call the only guy whose opinion matters.  

Our FSDO rep is much more concerned about keeping you safe than trying to bust you for not following the letter of the law.  I know, because I talk to him 2-3 times a year.  When I asked about changing my interior bulbs from incandescent to LED, he told me "We allow you to do stuff as complex as changing a tire and packing the bearings, why would we care about you changing a light bulb." 

Granted, this was for an interior bulb, not exterior, but I know there are folks here on MS that question whether or not an owner can change an interior bulb to an LED. My guess is that he would say the same thing about an exterior bulb, but that's the point.  What I think doesn't matter, the only opinion that counts is that of the FSDO, so ask.

I’m sure like we so often hear, people shop the FSDO’s to get the answer that appeals most.  The administrator needs to provide clarity to his staff.

Clarence

[Marauder]

8 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I’m sure like we so often hear, people shop the FSDO’s to get the answer that appeals most.  The administrator needs to provide clarity to his staff.

Clarence

Another issue is the FSDOs are not all created equally. What is okay for one FSDO isn't for another. I went through this with a small panel extension that was approved in NY and was asked to be removed during an upgrade in PA. Same goes for the G5 as backup to a G500 or Aspen. I asked at another shop in my area if this was allowed and got the resounding "NO!". Yet, there are planes on this forum that are doing exactly that. Reportedly under an FSDO approval. Wassup with that?

I read somewhere that the FSDO sign-offs were being moved to one central organization. Anyone remember seeing this. Not sure if that will improve standardization or create more delays in getting approvals...

Edited May 3, 2018 by Marauder

[EricJ]

37 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

The problem as I see it is the responsibility that the FAA places on maintainers.  Why is the IA signing today’s annual responsible for those things done to the plane decades ago?

When I sign an annual or a maintenance release in Canada I am only attesting to the work I have completed and signed off.  Do what ever you want to your plane, log it it you want but I’m not responsible for it, you are.

The only time an airplane is determined to be Airworthy is at new production and application for a C of A, importation and application for a C of A, or if the C of A is revoked by the Minister of Transport and a new one has to be applied for..

 A change in regulation would be helpful.

Clarence

I've been saying this for a while, that once an airplane hits something like thirty or forty years old (or so, whatever) it should relax to something like Experimental status.   By that time it is unlikely that the airplane is as it was when it left the factory, and technology will have changed enough that things like chasing down incandescent bulbs is counterproductive. 

 

[Skates97]

5 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I've been saying this for a while, that once an airplane hits something like thirty or forty years old (or so, whatever) it should relax to something like Experimental status.   By that time it is unlikely that the airplane is as it was when it left the factory, and technology will have changed enough that things like chasing down incandescent bulbs is counterproductive. 

 

I know I've seen you and I think others mention that before, something like a "Vintage Status."  Not only would it allow the owner to do more work on the plane, that would also allow owners to install the experimental stuff which in most cases is going to make the plane better/safer than the old stuff that is already in there. Sure, they could put in the certified stuff but most people with 30-50+ year old planes don't want to drop that kind of money into them. Instead they continue to fly around with aging equipment that is refurbished and patched together which is what the regulatory world demands.

As with most things, when the government tries to improve safety through regulation it goes overboard and hurts safety in the process.

[Hank]

48 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Another issue is the FSDOs are not all created equally. What is okay for one FSDO isn't for another. I went through this with a small panel extension that was approved in NY and was asked to be removed during an upgrade in PA. Same goes for the G5 as backup to a G500 or Aspen. I asked at another shop in my area if this was allowed and got the resounding "NO!". Yet, there are planes on this forum that are doing exactly that. Reportedly under an FSDO approval. Wassup with that?

Exactly!!

Anyone remember reading last year (?) that the FAA was easing up on LED light installations in favor of safety? don't recall the details, but sure would like to see it again.

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

I've said it on here before and I'll say it again.  Call the FSDO and ask.  We can banter back and forth about what's legal or not and about what they do or don't care about, but the only way to know for sure, is call the only guy whose opinion matters.  

Our FSDO rep is much more concerned about keeping you safe than trying to bust you for not following the letter of the law.  I know, because I talk to him 2-3 times a year.  When I asked about changing my interior bulbs from incandescent to LED, he told me "We allow you to do stuff as complex as changing a tire and packing the bearings, why would we care about you changing a light bulb." 

Granted, this was for an interior bulb, not exterior, but I know there are folks here on MS that question whether or not an owner can change an interior bulb to an LED. My guess is that he would say the same thing about an exterior bulb, but that's the point.  What I think doesn't matter, the only opinion that counts is that of the FSDO, so ask.

My IA and Mike Busch have both tried asking FSDO's about the question of LED lights.  Unfortunately, they both suggested the responses they have gotten have been inconsistent from different FSDO's, different personnel at the same FSDO's, and different times with the same personnel at the same FSDO's.

I suppose one way to interpret that is that nobody cares about this question enough at the FSDO's to come up with a consistent answer, so they both suggested if I wanted to put in an LED light, to just go ahead and put the damn thing in, and keep the old bulb handy in case someone has a problem with it.

[Skates97]

56 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

My IA and Mike Busch have both tried asking FSDO's about the question of LED lights.  Unfortunately, they both suggested the responses they have gotten have been inconsistent from different FSDO's, different personnel at the same FSDO's, and different times with the same personnel at the same FSDO's.

I suppose one way to interpret that is that nobody cares about this question enough at the FSDO's to come up with a consistent answer, so they both suggested if I wanted to put in an LED light, to just go ahead and put the damn thing in, and keep the old bulb handy in case someone has a problem with it.

I bought my plane with LED's in it. The previous owner had them in for years. He also gave me a small box with the original bulbs in it "just in case."

[Aviationinfo]

Don't get me started on Experimental vs Certified parts.   ADS-B?  Why the heck is it ok for an RV to fly IFR in the same airspace as the airlines with an uncertified ADS-B out unit, communicate to the same ATC and land at the same airports, but our Mooneys cannot?  Ludicrous.  So a stupid light bulb that is safe on an RV ought to be safe on any other GA airplane.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Aviationinfo

[Yetti]

On 5/3/2018 at 11:33 AM, M20Doc said:

The problem as I see it is the responsibility that the FAA places on maintainers.  Why is the IA signing today’s annual responsible for those things done to the plane decades ago?

Clarence

The IA and I have an agreement that the plane is only fixed until it exits his hangar door.   It would seem hard to be responsible for the future.