Comparing LED Landing Lights

[OSUAV8TER]

I just finished up creating this video comparing a Whelen Aerospace Technologies PAR-46 sized LED Parmetheus Plus and a Parmetheus Pro. It helps show the difference between the two and articulates that not all LED lights are created equal. While not as diverse as the Avweb report that was done over a year ago, it does show a more practical application when I put one light in one wing of my Bonanza and the other in right wing. Enjoy!

 

 

[Hank]

Naturally, the Plus was released just a few months after I installed the original Parmetheus LED . . . But it works well and is always on for visibility. 

[201Steve]

How dumb that the FAA approved these stupid things by issuing an STC. I know I’m beating a dead horse but I’ve been triggered. Lol. Nearly as dumb as the GD visor. But not quite. 

[OSUAV8TER]

Whelen and a lot of other aircraft LED lighting companies pursue STCs because the original bulb was considered a standard part due to the filament. LED does not have a filament, hence the STC. The incandescent bulbs you use are set to an antique tractor standard, which was used for aircraft, and the incandescent bulb is considered a standard part like your AN hardware. I know a lot of people grab cheap PAR-36 and PAR-46 off Amazon and slap them in, but you get what you pay for. There are major differences in quality of build, brightness, etc. Some of these LED landing lights, as they heat up (yes LED diodes heat up), have circuitry that dim the light to protect the bulb. Some of these LED lights lose half their brightness in a matter of minutes. So when you get an LED light and slap it in, then wonder why it isnt very bright, well you get what you pay for. 

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, OSUAV8TER said:

Whelen and a lot of other aircraft LED lighting companies pursue STCs because the original bulb was considered a standard part due to the filament. LED does not have a filament, hence the STC. The incandescent bulbs you use are set to an antique tractor standard, which was used for aircraft, and the incandescent bulb is considered a standard part like your AN hardware. I know a lot of people grab cheap PAR-36 and PAR-46 off Amazon and slap them in, but you get what you pay for. There are major differences in quality of build, brightness, etc. Some of these LED landing lights, as they heat up (yes LED diodes heat up), have circuitry that dim the light to protect the bulb. Some of these LED lights lose half their brightness in a matter of minutes. So when you get an LED light and slap it in, then wonder why it isnt very bright, well you get what you pay for. 

Can you cite a relevant lighting standard that specifies a filament is required?   Most standards or mil specs don't specify implementation, only function and performance.   For the most part landing lights don't have any particular spec requirements, other than they have to provide illumination and not create too much glare or create a fire hazard.   This is in both 23.1383 and 27.1383.

Put me in the camp that thinks an STC for a landing light is marketing for the people who think it's necessary or somehow makes it better.   It seems to me to be akin to citing the TSO for DC-DC converters for a single metal conductor:   it converts the input voltage to the same output voltage!   Yes, that's actually done.

[PT20J]

As it has been explained to me, for a certificated aircraft to maintain compliance with its type certificate, you are supposed to use parts supplied by the manufacturer, or manufactured under PMA, or STC, or TSO, or standard parts, or an owner produced part. The incandescent landing light bulb is considered a standard part, not because it has a filament, but because it meets a published specification. It is acceptable to use in your airplane if it is called out by part number in the IPC which means you can buy it from Spruce instead of Mooney. If I want to manufacture replacement bulbs for sale, then my bulbs are not made by Mooney, they are not standard parts (they don't exactly replicate the spec for the incandescent bulb because the entire point is to make a better light bulb), they are not owner produced, there is no applicable TSO. That pretty much leaves a STC. Some FAA regions have decided that it's nuts to have STCs (which by FAA definition are major alterations) for things like sun visors and landing lights, and are instead allowing manufacturers in their regions to get PMAs even though it's not an exact replacement (because it's an improved part).

The FAA should really fix this. There are a lot of parts that either increase the utility or decrease replacement part cost that should be fine to use on certificated aircraft.

Skip

[carusoam]

The FDA has a similar process...

The FDA has regulations to be followed... companies make drug products in compliance with these rules...

If the company swaps out a standard light bulb for an LED... There is a much smoother process for this...

But documentation of that change will be clearly noted in the equipment logs...

An internal corporate organization decides on the depth of the affects of the change...

To make sure that the change is better, doesn’t have any side effects... and doesn’t affect how the machinery operates in all phases....

 

If medicine manufacturers had to go to the FDA for every light bulb change... we wouldn’t have any medicines....

 

There is a balance to this... if the company decides to short change some rules and regulations... the FDA does come and visit... if they don’t like what they see... things get more challenging and more costly at the same time...

Pharma companies have forums that they attend... they openly discuss new ideas and how they handle them... so they don’t get caught off guard...

PP thoughts only, not a pharmaceutical manufacturing engineer...
 

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

The FDA has a similar process...
Pharma companies have forums that they attend... they openly discuss new ideas and how they handle them... so they don’t get caught off guard...

PP thoughts only, not a pharmaceutical manufacturing engineer...

Not involved in pharma, but two-decades-plus as a medical device manufacturing engineer. FDA regs can be onerous, but they have nothing on the FAA's antiquated, byzantine rules . . . . .

[OSUAV8TER]

There is no TSO for a landing light because the standard was the incandescent GE light bulb. So in my mind if you want to switch to LED you find one that carries an STC (like a Whelen) or you go spend $30 at Amazon and do a minor modification to your aircraft. I'm not a Karen and I won't turn you in. It's your airplane. For my airplane, I want high quality parts, which is what I did with these Whelen lights. I don't always do that if it does not make sense. For this, it always has and always will.  

[Floyd]

Unless flying for hire, there is no FAR that requires a landing light.  Since there is no requirement to have one, why can you not add one under the NORSEE provision?

 

[EricJ]

20 hours ago, Floyd said:

Unless flying for hire, there is no FAR that requires a landing light.  Since there is no requirement to have one, why can you not add one under the NORSEE provision?

 

Landing lights seem to be what the FAA cares about the least.    Even when there's a requirement, the spec is extremely loose and basic (FAR 23.1383 and 27.1383).   The only thing an owner is allowed to touch with wiring repairs under Preventive Maintenance is a landing light.

I don't think they're standard parts, either, as they don't meet the requirements for such under the FAA definition.   If there's a standard for lighting, particularly covering landing lights, I've never been able to find it.
 

[201Steve]

On 7/18/2020 at 5:14 PM, PT20J said:

The incandescent landing light bulb is considered a standard part, not because it has a filament, but because it meets a published specification.

What is the published spec? “GE Model xxx”? Or is it a General type of bulb cited? I’ve not seen what the ‘published spec’ Refers to.

 

The mythical “aircraft quality part” thing gets me sometimes. I think it goes overboard and here’s my logic: Whelen makes light bulbs of all varieties. They’ve been making lightbulbs long before they started Making aircraft light bulbs. What kind of silly idea makes one think that they got better or worse at making light bulbs because they were putting it in an airplane? The application is the same. If I’m designing a light bulb for a police spotlight, I’m not making compromises like “Oh this is for finding bad guys at night and not going in an airplane so I’m going to make this one overheat and de-rate the power faster. But the airplane bulb, lets hire a new team of engineers to solve this problem.” They are going to produce the same quality of product at the rate that it’s possible across all its applications because, it’s the same application: It’s dark and I need light. That is comparing apples to apples. If you want to argue Chinese amazon over Whelen as a general brand, then we are talking about Glock vs Hi Point and that comparison isn’t unique to Aviation either. 

On 7/17/2020 at 7:40 AM, OSUAV8TER said:

There are major differences in quality of build, brightness, etc. Some of these LED landing lights, as they heat up (yes LED diodes heat up), have circuitry that dim the light to protect the bulb. Some of these LED lights lose half their brightness in a matter 

[201Steve]

By the way, sorry for hijacking your otherwise very helpful and informative post to complain. 

[OSUAV8TER]

11 hours ago, 201Steve said:

What is the published spec? “GE Model xxx”? Or is it a General type of bulb cited? I’ve not seen what the ‘published spec’ Refers to.

 

The mythical “aircraft quality part” thing gets me sometimes. I think it goes overboard and here’s my logic: Whelen makes light bulbs of all varieties. They’ve been making lightbulbs long before they started Making aircraft light bulbs. What kind of silly idea makes one think that they got better or worse at making light bulbs because they were putting it in an airplane? The application is the same. If I’m designing a light bulb for a police spotlight, I’m not making compromises like “Oh this is for finding bad guys at night and not going in an airplane so I’m going to make this one overheat and de-rate the power faster. But the airplane bulb, lets hire a new team of engineers to solve this problem.” They are going to produce the same quality of product at the rate that it’s possible across all its applications because, it’s the same application: It’s dark and I need light. That is comparing apples to apples. If you want to argue Chinese amazon over Whelen as a general brand, then we are talking about Glock vs Hi Point and that comparison isn’t unique to Aviation either. 

Steve,

While Whelen does use common parts between the two lights, they do have their own unique staff of R&D and engineers that only work on aviation lighting. It's not fair to assume and simplify what they do. Because of this forum, the Whelen engineers are going to probably build an LED light that is unique to Mooney aircraft. Their emergency services engineers are not going to do that. That will be a very unique light, only for Mooney aircraft. It will have to go through rigorous testing and will probably get some sort of FAA approval.

I respect your decision to buy a non-aviation landing light LED but words matter, and your assumptions are not correct.

James 

[201Steve]

2 hours ago, OSUAV8TER said:

Steve,

While Whelen does use common parts between the two lights, they do have their own unique staff of R&D and engineers that only work on aviation lighting. It's not fair to assume and simplify what they do. Because of this forum, the Whelen engineers are going to probably build an LED light that is unique to Mooney aircraft. Their emergency services engineers are not going to do that. That will be a very unique light, only for Mooney aircraft. It will have to go through rigorous testing and will probably get some sort of FAA approval.

I respect your decision to buy a non-aviation landing light LED but words matter, and your assumptions are not correct.

James 

I use a GE bulb for now.  It’s just a conversation. I already apologized for hijacking an otherwise helpful post. This isn’t an attack on James, Or Whelen. Matter of fact, from a business standpoint, good for them for getting the government to regulate light emitting diodes. I’m not mad at them, if you have the resources to squash your competition by regulation, you’re working the available system. However, as a certificated aircraft owner who’s affected by egregious over regulation, I think I’m well within my bounds to at minimum challenge the sensibility of FAA over regulation by way of a conversation. 
 

Again, probably a little over the top to hijack your post. Next time I’ll make my own thread but I’ve learned some things from its’ discussion. 
 

take care James

[Airways]

3 hours ago, OSUAV8TER said:

Because of this forum, the Whelen engineers are going to probably build an LED light that is unique to Mooney aircraft.

Do I hear “recognition light” ?
 

[Hank]

14 minutes ago, Airways said:

Do I hear “recognition light” ?
 

Do I hear "less than $400 each", especially since one light isn't enough?

[Airways]

I’ll happily trade in my current projector lamps ! Maybe they can use them to hatch dragon eggs...