Whelen OR36R1W beacon light no STC

[SSimpson77]

Thought I’d share this update to those of you looking for the LED beacon update with above Whelen light. Looking at previous offers and sales of these lights they were titled as FAA/Pma/ STC for the Mooneys. 
I asked the rep for the AML and when he forwarded me it, the Mooney is definitely not on there. I think he was shocked

 

No biggie, did a 337 with my IA during annual. He’s pretty straight forward to protect his butt and mine so I like that he did the 337. 
 

It is super bright and can’t even hear it now that it’s on!!! Winning

 

[carusoam]

Interesting detail for @OSUAV8TER to see...  (above)

-a-

[bradp]

Sounds like this would be a minor mod with a logbook entry if it’s Faa / PMA. It does not reach the threshold for any of the criteria for a major modification, it’s an approved part and has a TSO approval (thus the approved data exists).  I’m not an AP / IA but I’d be perfectly OK as an O/O with installing this with a logbook entry from any AP. 

[EricJ]

4 hours ago, bradp said:

Sounds like this would be a minor mod with a logbook entry if it’s Faa / PMA. It does not reach the threshold for any of the criteria for a major modification, it’s an approved part and has a TSO approval (thus the approved data exists).  I’m not an AP / IA but I’d be perfectly OK as an O/O with installing this with a logbook entry from any AP. 

I think a large fraction of 337s are CYA-only.    I'm not even sure they do that job well, though.

[OSUAV8TER]

WAT is now taking a pathway, it seems, where their lights are FAA PMA and TSO approved. They are no longer going after STCs because they are lengthy for application and approval and it stymies innovation. The correct pathway forward is a minor alteration with a logbook entry and a 337 is not necessary. A 337 is done with an STC or a major modification.

James

[A64Pilot]

On 5/1/2021 at 11:16 AM, EricJ said:

I think a large fraction of 337s are CYA-only.    I'm not even sure they do that job well, though.

I would agree with you, and what makes it worse is manufacturers getting STC’s for products that shouldn’t be STC’d like clocks and sun visors.

‘I think they do this to spread the belief that you need and STC product to be legal and that justify’s an excessive price.

[EricJ]

35 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I would agree with you, and what makes it worse is manufacturers getting STC’s for products that shouldn’t be STC’d like clocks and sun visors.

‘I think they do this to spread the belief that you need and STC product to be legal and that justify’s an excessive price.

I think they do it because a lot of the market thinks such things need STCs and so will buy the one that has it "to be sure".

 

[chriscalandro]

That light is the direct replacement for the incandescent strobing one, which IS STC-ed. 
 

that’s how I got my mechanic to sign it off. 

[PT20J]

It’s the FAAs fault. To make parts for airplanes generally requires some sort of FAA approval. The FAA approves such things at the regional level. Thus, Rosen (which is located in the Northwest Mountain region - the same one where Boeing is located) had to get an STC for sun visors (keep in mind that Rosen makes visors for Boeing and other jet aircraft). GLAP which is in a the Great Lakes region was allowed to build thicker windshields with simple PMA approval. 

Skip

[rotorman]

Is there another direct replacement for the original rotating beacon that's not so spendy?

[carusoam]

11 hours ago, rotorman said:

Is there another direct replacement for the original rotating beacon that's not so spendy?

Sounds like a good topic for its own thread...

There used to be a few lighting suppliers... and rotating beacons have been gone for about 20years...

Whelen has probably made three different versions of rotating beacon replacements... before they went LED...

Best regards,

-a-