Tail light - buld replacement

[MyNameIsNobody]

(Presumably unofficial) that everyone in Pacific North West challenges authority for sport.

[Yetti]

19 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Wait, so what are those "several standards?"  Does it go beyond TSO or standard parts?  After all, I can replace my Champion spark plugs with Tempest spark plugs, even though there is no STC, AML or really any installation basis other than the (presumably unofficial) application chart Tempest provides, right?

and if I understand correctly, minor modifications (not just repairs) only require acceptable data, right?

Bad example try again   https://www.lycoming.com/service-instruction-no-1042-af

Has anyone found the PMA for GE Light bulbs?

[jaylw314]

3 hours ago, Yetti said:

Bad example try again   https://www.lycoming.com/service-instruction-no-1042-af

Has anyone found the PMA for GE Light bulbs?

But that's a service instruction from the manufacturer, it's not an approval from the FAA.

For that matter, can you use the Galaxy 4522 landing lights since the maintenance manual only references GE landing lights?  what say IA's?

[Yetti]

8 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

But that's a service instruction from the manufacturer, it's not an approval from the FAA.

For that matter, can you use the Galaxy 4522 landing lights since the maintenance manual only references GE landing lights?  what say IA's?

Depends on if the Engine Manual states that Manufacture SB are to be followed for continued airworthyness.   http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10383452/are-service-bulletins-mandatory

 

No on the Galaxy light bulb if you are from the no PAR 46 LED bulb is acceptable since the manual only states GE 4522.  I still have not found the PAR for IT and no one else has presented it.  Since GE4522 is stated in the manufacture manual people from that camp would like to believe it is part of the original Type Certificate.

[mooniac15u]

8 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

But that's a service instruction from the manufacturer, it's not an approval from the FAA.

For that matter, can you use the Galaxy 4522 landing lights since the maintenance manual only references GE landing lights?  what say IA's?

Engines have type certificates like airframes. Nobody here questions the approval basis of items included in Mooney SBs or SIs as the TC holder.

[Aviationinfo]

I don’t think the Mooney TCDS says anything about the landing light at all.  Nor about the lightbulbs for nav lights.

Am not certain but I think in this case it means you can use what is considered to be a “standard” part.  The GE tractor (landing) light bulbs, for instance.  Although the question has been raised about their PMA status...  if they don’t have a PMA and they’re legal for use, why wouldn’t other bulbs meeting the TSO requirements be legal?

[mooniac15u]

1 minute ago, Aviationinfo said:

I don’t think the Mooney TCDS says anything about the landing light at all.  Nor about the lightbulbs for nav lights.

Am not certain but I think in this case it means you can use what is considered to be a “standard” part.  The GE tractor (landing) light bulbs, for instance.  Although the question has been raised about their PMA status...  if they don’t have a PMA and they’re legal for use, why wouldn’t other bulbs meeting the TSO requirements be legal?

At least in some cases the Parts Catalog specifies a bulb.

[Yetti]

The theory purported by one group is that for continued airworthiness you have to follow the TCDS which states that the Service and Maintenance Manual must be followed, and the S&M states a GE bulb is the only acceptable part since it's number is listed.   To get a new bulb installed it would need to have a STC which of course needs a 377 and an IA to file it even if you have not really done a major modification.

The other camp is along these lines   https://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_FAACounterSafety_203196-1.html

 

[Aviationinfo]

2 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

At least in some cases the Parts Catalog specifies a bulb.

Well, that would certainly be a good source, no argument there.

I’m not sure that the parts catalog serves as certification for acceptable parts used on a given airframe though— I thought that was partly done through the TCDS.  For instance, the TCDS actually specified a battery and manufacturer.

I am curious about the certification basis of using certain parts though, that for instance, are in the original parts catalog but are no longer available because their manufacturers went out of business.  I don’t have an example but would be interested to hear how we’re supposed to handle it from a regulatory perspective.

[mooniac15u]

6 minutes ago, Aviationinfo said:

Well, that would certainly be a good source, no argument there.

I’m not sure that the parts catalog serves as certification for acceptable parts used on a given airframe though— I thought that was partly done through the TCDS.  For instance, the TCDS actually specified a battery and manufacturer.

I am curious about the certification basis of using certain parts though, that for instance, are in the original parts catalog but are no longer available because their manufacturers went out of business.  I don’t have an example but would be interested to hear how we’re supposed to handle it from a regulatory perspective.

The TCDS certainly doesn't list all of the approved parts of an aircraft. For example, the wing spar is listed in the parts catalog but not on the TCDS. The Parts Catalog contains the full list of approved parts.

[MyNameIsNobody]

1 hour ago, Yetti said:

The theory purported by one group is that for continued airworthiness you have to follow the TCDS which states that the Service and Maintenance Manual must be followed, and the S&M states a GE bulb is the only acceptable part since it's number is listed.   To get a new bulb installed it would need to have a STC which of course needs a 377 and an IA to file it even if you have not really done a major modification.

The other camp is along these lines   https://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_FAACounterSafety_203196-1.html

 

I think you and Paul are spot on, but where does it end?  I want the process of evaluation to change.  Until then I fly with parts that are “blessed”.  I just think the prices of recognition lights are ridiculous and I wouldn’t pay it.  Why pay it when a GE taillight bulb that lasts 1500 hours is under $5 bucks?  Now regarding landing lights and strobes that is a different animal.  I paid for an STC on a HID landing light and installed Whelen strobes that also had wingtip bulbs integrated for recognition lights.  I fly with my landing light on at all times.  Go ahead and put some lower cost unapproved LED in your recognition light.  I don’t care, but A&P’s and FAA ramp inspectors do.  For what you get it is NOT worth not putting in a $5 buck bulb that is “the blessed” bulb in my opinion.

There are guys on here that definitely have the “stench of unapproved” emanating from all over “their” planes.  “It”/hanger fairy’s are celebrated on this site.  No bueno.

Edited May 11, 2018 by MyNameIsNobody

[Yetti]

5 minutes ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

  Why pay it when a GE taillight bulb that lasts 1500 hours is under $5 bucks? 

That is the question that hits the nail on the head.   Because I can get a not PMA, not STC tail light bulb that does the primary job of lighting up the tail AND it will be a strobe so people can actually see my tail and not run into it.   So for a small amount of money, I have increased safety.   Further we share the skies with planes that have these increased safety features.   What the FAA should be doing is using the Experimental Market for just that.   If your light bulb can fly around for 2-5 years and not cause the plane to fall out of the sky, then it is approved for Certified Planes.  Would not be hard to implement a process like that.

[MyNameIsNobody]

11 minutes ago, Yetti said:

That is the question that hits the nail on the head.   Because I can get a not PMA, not STC tail light bulb that does the primary job of lighting up the tail AND it will be a strobe so people can actually see my tail and not run into it.   So for a small amount of money, I have increased safety.   Further we share the skies with planes that have these increased safety features.   What the FAA should be doing is using the Experimental Market for just that.   If your light bulb can fly around for 2-5 years and not cause the plane to fall out of the sky, then it is approved for Certified Planes.  Would not be hard to implement a process like that.

Agree 100%.  If a panel (avionics) item has flown for years in Experimental and is no different than certified other than “It’s certified”...OR even if it is not certified BUT has flown as an experimental part...LET FAA BLESS IT as “O.k. To install in a certified plane.  That, sadly is not the case.  You put that not PMA, not STC tail light bulb in your plane with the increased safety of a strobe and you are WRONG.  FAA is NOT keeping up with demand for certification.  That is a massive fail by Federal Government.  We agree.  I just won’t put that in my plane. You and Paul will...

[Yetti]

You have made an assumption.   I still have the tail light bulb that came with the plane.  It is incandescent not LED.   Is it the part number that is in the parts manual, I don't know, because I have never looked at it.   I am required as an owner to know for continued airworthiness?  Yes.  Am I flying dirty, not sure.    Have you checked all your installed part numbers with the parts manual?  You too could be flying dirty and not know it.

[MyNameIsNobody]

46 minutes ago, Yetti said:

You have made an assumption.   I still have the tail light bulb that came with the plane.  It is incandescent not LED.   Is it the part number that is in the parts manual, I don't know, because I have never looked at it.   I am required as an owner to know for continued airworthiness?  Yes.  Am I flying dirty, not sure.    Have you checked all your installed part numbers with the parts manual?  You too could be flying dirty and not know it.

Didn’t say “did”.  I will try to get to sleep tonight knowing I might be flying “dirty”...

Maybe it will be 45 seconds instead of my usual 30 to ZZZZZZzzzzzz

[mooniac15u]

16 hours ago, Yetti said:

Bad example try again   https://www.lycoming.com/service-instruction-no-1042-af

Has anyone found the PMA for GE Light bulbs?

I believe that by today's regulations a GE light bulb would fall under "commercial parts" per 14 CFR 21.9 (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title14-vol1/pdf/CFR-2012-title14-vol1-sec21-9.pdf ).  One could argue that it doesn't apply because our aircraft don't have the requisite lists of commercial parts but the IPC provides a pretty good list of which commercial parts should be used.

[Yetti]

(3)Commercial part means an article that is listed on an FAA-approved Commercial Parts List included in a design approval holder's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by § 21.50;

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8110.118.pdf

 

 

 

[mooniac15u]

1 hour ago, Yetti said:

(3)Commercial part means an article that is listed on an FAA-approved Commercial Parts List included in a design approval holder's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by § 21.50;

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8110.118.pdf

 

 

 

And that's why I said, "One could argue that it doesn't apply because our aircraft don't have the requisite lists of commercial parts but the IPC provides a pretty good list of which commercial parts should be used."

The point is that the FAA has acknowledged that there is a category of "Commercial Parts" that doesn't fit any of the other definitions of approved parts.  Our aircraft are too old to have been certified with a Commercial Parts List but that doesn't mean we can't get insight into how things like light bulbs fit into the general scheme of approved parts.

[Yetti]

I thought it was fall out of the sky....

 

Onto a bus load of kindergartners