Anti-collision lights?

[reddituser8901]

Howdy pilots (and mechanics too),

Say you’re pre-flighting your C172S for a VFR-day flight and find the beacon burnt out.

Can you still fly?

I’ve asked my CFI, other CFIs, and the FT dep. at my flight school this same scenario, and the answers are pretty divided. Coming to you guys for help! Keep in mind, I’m waiting for a DPE to take my commercial check-ride.

I’ll walk you through my thought process:

First and foremost, 91.205(b)(11) says that for small civil airplanes certificated after 03/11/1996, an approved aviation red or white anti-collision system is required.

The C172S was certificated in 1998, so this regulation applies to us.

Now, we have to find what the anti-collision lights, as certified by the airplane, are. The TCDS tells us to refer to ACE-07-09 for this answer.

ACE-07-09 says, “ … Cessna holds that the white anti-collision light installation on the Model 172R/172S meets or exceeds the safety level provided by 14 CFR, part 23, 23.1401, per Amendment 23-11. The installation is shown to be directly compliant aside from color alone … the strobe light intensities of the Model 172R/172S installation meet, or exceed, all minimum intensity requirements of 23.1401 per Amendment 23-11, the anti-collision light regulatory requirement per the certification basis of the aircraft.”

In short, the strobe lights are the certified anti-collision lights on the C172S.

However, the LETTS 2017 LOI says, “the airworthiness standard that governs the need for an airplane to have an anti-collision light system, 23.1401(a)(1), states that ‘the airplane must have an anti-collision system that … consists of one or more approved anti-collision lights …’ Because both the strobe lights and the rotating beacon are both approved anti-collision lights under 23.1401(a)(1), they are both part of the same anti-collision system. Accordingly, the FAA considers the aircraft’s rotating beacon and strobe lights to be part of the aircraft’s anti-collision system. As 91.205(a) specifies that the instruments and equipment by that section be ‘in operable condition’ both the rotating beacon and strobe lights would need to be operable for the requirements of 91.205 to be met.”

So, because both lights are part of the same system, the word ‘or’ in 91.205(b)(11) becomes an ‘and’ and means both the strobes and beacon must be operational if installed and for the requirements of 91.205 to be met.

The LOI also addresses the use of a KOEL, “ … operation of an aircraft using only the aircraft’s strobe lights after placarding it inoperative and making an entry in the aircraft logbook would not be permitted unless such action is authorized by a waiver.”

In summary, the C172S’s certified anti-collision lights are the strobes. The beacon is not required by the CEL or KOEL. However, according to the LOI, if the airplane is equipped with both a beacon and strobe lights, the FAA considers them part of the same system. Consequently, both must be operative for the airplane to be deemed airworthy.

Given that the C172S has both a beacon and strobes, the airplane is not airworthy, and I cannot depart.

What do you guys think? Am I completely delusional or have I got it right? What answer would you give a DPE?

 

[Clip4]

Your AC lights are a system. For what ever reason, Cessna still equips 172s with a beacon.

§ 91.209 Aircraft lights.
No person may:

(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off.

The equipment list for your aircraft lists both the strobe and beacon as standard equipment (page 6-21). Neither is listed as optional.

 

[Domenick]

Anti-collision lights regulation PDF with diagrams:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2tly...ions.pdf?rlkey=zu53fsjlcovc3kuod84ep63ew&dl=0

 

[midlifeflyer]

You are correct about one of the silliest Chief Counsel letters. Basically, if the strobe/beacon is treated as a single combined system, both are required under the rule.

I don't necessarily accept the statement that

Because both the strobe lights and the rotating beacon are both approved anti-collision lights under 23.1401(a)(1), they are both part of the same anti-collision system.

I can see a situation in which an airplane has only a rotating beacon. I decide that I want to have even more visibility at night and add wingtip strobes under an STC. Those are two independent systems and the operation of one satisfies the reg.

 

[tsts4]

It was working when I did my preflight Dunno what happened

 

[Clip4]

It was working when I did my preflight Dunno what happened

Oh yea, that will work on a commercial practical test with the examiner asking you questions while preflighting the aircraft.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It was working when I did my preflight Dunno what happened

Oh yea, that will work on a commercial practical test with the examiner asking you questions while preflighting the aircraft.

That and a ramp check are probably the only two times the question might come up

 

[tsts4]

Oh yea, that will work on a commercial practical test with the examiner asking you questions while preflighting the aircraft.

Mostly…..

 

[MauleSkinner]

I would at least be sure to mention 91.213.

 

[Zeldman]

Oh yea, that will work on a commercial practical test with the examiner asking you questions while preflighting the aircraft.

I was on my multi commercial checkride and the DPE told me that old joke...

 

[midlifeflyer]

I was on my multi commercial checkride and the DPE told me that old joke...

It’s a joke?

 

[dmspilot]

The C172S equipment list does not list either the strobe or the beacon as required equipment.

The C172S NAV III equipment list shows the strobe as required equipment, but the beacon is not shown as arequired. More importantly, the NAV III also has a KOEL which shows the strobe is required for all operations, but the beacon is not required for any operation.

The certification basis of the C172S is specified as follows:

Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-6, except as follows:
23.423; 23.611; 23.619; 23.623; 23.689; 23.775; 23.871; 23.1323; and 23.1563 as amended by Amendment 23-7. 23.807 and
23.1524 as amended by Amendment 23-10. 23.507; 23.771; 23.853(a)(b)(c); and 23.1365 as amended by Amendment 23-14.
23.951 as amended by Amendment 23-15. 23.607; 23.675; 23.685; 23.733; 23.787; 23.1309 and 23.1322 as amended by
Amendment 23-17. 23.1301 as amended by Amendment 23-20. 23.1353; and 23.1559 as amended by Amendment 23-21.
23.603; 23.605; 23.613; 23.1329 and 23.1545 as amended by Amendment 23-23. 23.441 and 23.1549 as amended by
Amendment 23-28. 23.779 and 23.781 as amended by Amendment 23-33. 23.1; 23.51 and 23.561 as amended by Amendment
23-34. 23.301; 23.331; 23.351; 23.427; 23.677; 23.701; 23.735; and 23.831 as amended by Amendment 23-42. 23.961;
23.1093; 23.1143(g); 23.1147(b); 23.1303; 23.1357; 23.1361 and 23.1385 as amended by Amendment 23-43. 23.562(a),
23.562(b)(2), 23.562(c)(1), 23.562(c)(2), 23.562(c)(3), and 23.562(c)(4) as amended by Amendment 23-44. 23.33; 23.53;
23.305; 23.321; 23.485; 23.621; 23.655 and 23.731 as amended by Amendment 23-45.

The latest amendment on the list, 23-45, is from 1993. Therefore the 172S (non-NAVIII) received its type certification entirely based on rules in place prior to the anticollision light requirement of 1996.

 

[WDD]

The more practical question is - Am I going to fly this with a burned out beacon?

Me? No. Then again, I'm that guy that flies with every light on. And if I have to get a replacement beacon, I'm getting the brightest legally allowed.

 

[Half Fast]

I cannot think of a time when, on a daytime flight, I have spotted another airplane because of its anti-collision lights or, having seen another plane, even been able to tell the AC lights were on.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I cannot think of a time when, on a daytime flight, I have spotted another airplane because of its anti-collision lights or, having seen another plane, even been able to tell the AC lights were on.

You stole that from my thoughts just now.

 

[guest user]

I like your train of thought here:

The latest amendment on the list, 23-45, is from 1993. Therefore the 172S received its type certification entirely based on rules in place prior to the anticollision light requirement of 1996.

However, I would counter with this:

Model 172S, Skyhawk SP, 4 PCLM (Normal Category), 2 PCLM (Utility Category), ApprovedMay 1, 1998 [sic]

TCDS pg 29

This would indicate to me that the TCDS for the 172S was approved, and thus the model was certificated, in 1998 which is the crux of the issue. Regardless of when the rules upon which it based its certification were written.

For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system.

FAR 91.205(b)(11)

 

[Lindberg]

I'm confused by this question because as far as I know, burned out beacons and such are only ever found at the end of a flight, not on the preflight.

 

[Jim_R]

I cannot think of a time when, on a daytime flight, I have spotted another airplane because of its anti-collision lights or, having seen another plane, even been able to tell the AC lights were on.

I agree.

And yet I still turn them on every time I fly. Just like I always use my turn signal even when there's nobody around. Makes sure that they're on when they *would^ be useful.

 

[dmspilot]

This would indicate to me that the TCDS for the 172S was approved, and thus the model was certificated, in 1998 which is the crux of the issue. Regardless of when the rules upon which it based its certification were written.

"in accordance with part 23 of this chapter"

And yet it was approved in 1998 based on the 1993 and earlier versions of FAR 23. If it had to conform to the 1996 rules then why doesn't it?

The certification basis is chosen at the start of the certification process. The following order describes certification of an update to a previous design:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8110_48A.pdf

The FAA decides which updates to Part 23 an updated design has to comply with.

Are you saying that if Cessna had manufactured the 172S without beacons or strobes, and they could have done so since it was not required by its certification basis, owners would have had to install them before they could be flown? That doesn't really make sense, since owners are clearly not responsible for updating aircraft to conform with amended type certification requirements.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

That and a ramp check are probably the only two times the question might come up

I have been ramp checked three times. The lights were not part of the ramp check.

 

[reddituser8901]

"in accordance with part 23 of this chapter"

And yet it was approved in 1998 based on the 1993 and earlier versions of FAR 23. If it had to conform to the 1996 rules then why doesn't it?

The certification basis is chosen at the start of the certification process. The following order describes certification of an update to a previous design:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8110_48A.pdf

Are you saying that if Cessna had manufactured the 172S without beacons or strobes, and they could have done so since it was not required by its certification basis, owners would have had to install them on March 11, 1996? That doesn't really make sense, since owners are clearly not responsible for updating aircraft to conform with amended type certification requirements.

Thanks for contributing to my post!

To my knowledge, an 'amended' type certificate is the same thing as Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). An STC is the FAA's approval of a major change in a previously approved type-certificated product. Per the FAA, "The STC, which incorporates by reference the related TC, approves not only the modification but also how that modification affects the original design." Sometimes, alterations are made that are not specified or authorized in the TCDS. When this condition exists, an STC will be issued. STCs are considered a part of the permanent records of an aircraft and should be maintained as part of that aircraft's logs. Thus, if I'm interpreting what you are saying correctly, what was previously approved in the earlier years becomes somewhat 'nullified' (for lack of a much better word), and conforms to the newer standards/regulations.

But I obviously don't know best and that's why I'm coming to you guys for help. I just don't know how I would answer a DPE if he asked what I'd do if I noticed the beacon was out on a C172S NAV III given all of the available (and rather conflicting) information.

I feel like there's two ways to skin this cat and you'd have information to back yourself up in whichever direction you took. I want to say that it's not legal to fly if the beacon is out given the data, and it's always fine to err on the side of safety. However, I also feel that if I were to say that the certified anti-collision lights of the airplane per the TCDS are the strobes, and the beacon is not required by the KOEL or listed as required on the CEL, I'd be good to still go. Additionally, at the surface, if you are unaware that the LETTS LOI even exists, the vast majority would still go given the scenario. That's why I think the answer could go both ways. As to what to the DPE wants to hear, I don't know. Help .​

 

[ateamer]

I agree.

And yet I still turn them on every time I fly. Just like I always use my turn signal even when there's nobody around. Makes sure that they're on when they *would^ be useful.

I did that up until a year or so ago. What I do now is use the turn signal if there is either traffic, and not signal otherwise. What that does is help to keep my brain more actively involved by forcing accurate observation and evaluation of my surroundings.

 

[Jim_R]

I did that up until a year or so ago. What I do now is use the turn signal if there is either traffic, and not signal otherwise. What that does is help to keep my brain more actively involved by forcing accurate observation and evaluation of my surroundings.

I would suggest that your strategy is flawed. If you *do* happen to miss observing someone else, you are denying them the benefit of awareness of your intent. That does neither of you any good.

I would also suggest that if you need a "trick" like that to stay engaged behind the wheel, it might be time to consider not being behind the wheel.

 

[ateamer]

I would suggest that your strategy is flawed. If you *do* happen to miss observing someone else, you are denying them the benefit of awareness of your intent. That does neither of you any good.

I would also suggest that if you need a "trick" like that to stay engaged behind the wheel, it might be time to consider not being behind the wheel.

I don’t have any problem staying alert. It’s a training technique to increase mental engagement.

 

[Ed Haywood]

I have been ramp checked three times. The lights were not part of the ramp check.

Agreed. I have been ramp checked twice. Both times, the FAA inspector presented his ID, asked to see my pilot certificate, stuck his head in the cockpit to eyeball the airworthiness cert and registration, and said thanks.

 

[dmspilot]

But I obviously don't know best and that's why I'm coming to you guys for help. I just don't know how I would answer a DPE if he asked what I'd do if I noticed the beacon was out on a C172S NAV III given all of the available (and rather conflicting) information.​

The NAV III is pretty clear. You have a KOEL you can point to. It specifically says the beacon is not required. The DPE will be happy to see if you know how to use it.

The pre-NAV III is obviously a bit more ambiguous as there is no KOEL. But your knowledge of minutiae or ability to dive down a rabbit hole of regs, CC opinions, and a half a century of Part 23 history is not as important as exercising good judgment and decision making. In other words, if you're not sure, make the more conservative decision.

 

[asicer]

Agreed. I have been ramp checked twice. Both times, the FAA inspector presented his ID, asked to see my pilot certificate, stuck his head in the cockpit to eyeball the airworthiness cert and registration, and said thanks.

As I recall, the AW needs to on board and visible. The registration only needs to be on board. I once got into a plane that had it the other way around

 

[Lindberg]

As I recall, the AW needs to on board and visible. The registration only needs to be on board. I once got into a plane that had it the other way around

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

As I recall, the AW needs to on board and visible. The registration only needs to be on board. I once got into a plane that had it the other way around

Right. With students, we always make sure the airworthiness certificate is visible from the outside. It's the first thing on the preflight checklist.

The FAA inspector cannot enter the aircraft unless he has a search warrant.

My ramp checks required me to present my certificates and the POH, and the inspector checked that the data plate on the airplane matched the POH. He looked at airworthiness and registration. On one of my ramp checks I was asked to present proof of a Flight Review if I had it. I no longer carry my flight logbook, but that was many years ago, and I did have it with me.

 

[asicer]

View attachment 130984

 

[reddituser8901]

The NAV III is pretty clear. You have a KOEL you can point to. It specifically says the beacon is not required. The DPE will be happy to see if you know how to use it.

The pre-NAV III is obviously a bit more ambiguous as there is no KOEL. But your knowledge of minutiae or ability to dive down a rabbit hole of regs, CC opinions, and a half a century of Part 23 history is not as important as exercising good judgment and decision making. In other words, if you're not sure, make the more conservative decision.

So, in your opinion, I should pretend the LOI doesn't exist and call it how it is written in the KOEL/CEL/TCDS?

 

[dmspilot]

So, in your opinion, I should pretend the LOI doesn't exist and call it how it is written in the KOEL/CEL/TCDS?

I didn't address the FAA CC letters in my earlier post.

FAA CC: "As an initial matter, it appears that the strobe light and the rotating beacon are part of the same anticollision system"

A generic CC letter for a hypothetical aircraft does not override the KOEL which is clear what is required and what is not.

They are not the same system on the C172S. From the ACE-07-09 and the NAVIII KOEL, the strobe lights are the entire anticollision light system and satisfy certification requirements by themselves. The same might not be true of other aircraft.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don’t have any problem staying alert. It’s a training technique to increase mental engagement.

You may well be the unusual exception, but as a general rule, my experience has been people who say they only use turn signals when needed are called people who don’t use turn signals.

The problem with the philosophy is not about engagement. It’s the basic premise that your turn signals are for you. They’re not. Your turn signals are for me. They are for the person down the street whom you cannot even see.

There are states which are infamous for not using turn signals. I’d bet every single driver you’d ask says use them when needed.

 

[ateamer]

You may well be the unusual exception, but as a general rule, my experience has been people who say they only use turn signals when needed are called people who don’t use turn signals.

The problem with the philosophy is not about engagement. It’s the basic premise that your turn signals are for you. They’re not. Your turn signals are for me. They are for the person down the street whom you cannot even see.

There are states which are infamous for not using turn signals. I’d bet every single driver you’d ask says use them when needed.

I 100% understand that. If another car is going to be affected by my turn or lane change - now, as it happens, or when the turn is complete - I signal. I’m actually so hardwired to use signals that it’s more of a conscious decision to not signal. Ask any of my trainees from law enforcement- I was known as the turn signal nazi.

 

[guest user]

The certification basis is chosen at the start of the certification process.

I agree with this statement. However, the aircraft is not certified until the process is complete. Or are you suggesting that merely starting the certification process qualifies as being certificated?

Again, the regulation reads:

For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system.

FAR 91.205(b)(11)

Note that it says 'certificated after', I do not see where it says anything related to 'certification process started after' or 'certified to amendments after' or any similar language to care about 1993 in any way, shape, or form. I really see no other way to read this than as written.

I understand your position (Certification was to standards of 1993, thus 1996 doesn't apply), and it makes sense. However, in this case, it does not seem to align with what is written.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I 100% understand that. If another car is going to be affected by my turn or lane change - now, as it happens, or when the turn is complete - I signal. I’m actually so hardwired to use signals that it’s more of a conscious decision to not signal. Ask any of my trainees from law enforcement- I was known as the turn signal nazi.

"Another car" is a pretty narrow view, although I'm not sure how you know whether your lack of a signal will affect me. But when I refer to someone you can't even see, I'm referring to pedestrians. Perhaps the one a half block away who needs to get to their child across the street and has to wait for the car that, as it turns out, they didn't have to wait for if they signaled for the turn they made as previous intersection.

I'm a little sensitive on the subject. I have lived in two states where using turn signals was the exception. I'm sure that every single driver (except those who think signaling is a challenge to their masculinity) who delayed someone from going through an intersection because they didn't signal there would be an opening in the traffic flow would swear they didn't "need to" and adding the signal wouldn't have "affected" the other driver.

 

[dmspilot]

I agree with this statement. However, the aircraft is not certified until the process is complete. Or are you suggesting that merely starting the certification process qualifies as being certificated?

Again, the regulation reads:

FAR 91.205(b)(11)

Note that it says 'certificated after', I do not see where it says anything related to 'certification process started after' or 'certified to amendments after' or any similar language to care about 1993 in any way, shape, or form. I really see no other way to read this than as written.

I understand your position (Certification was to standards of 1993, thus 1996 doesn't apply), and it makes sense. However, in this case, it does not seem to align with what is written.

Yes, I know what it says:
"certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter"

You keep ignoring the second part.

What if it said:
"certificated in accordance with part 23 of this chapter after March 11, 1996"

To me, those mean the same thing. The C172S was certificated in accordance with part 23 before 1996.

 

[Lindberg]

Yes, I know what it says:
"certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter"

You keep ignoring the second part.

What if it said:
"certificated in accordance with part 23 of this chapter after March 11, 1996"

To me, those mean the same thing. The C172S was certificated in accordance with part 23 before 1996.

Grammatically it doesn't mean the same thing. But the intent of those writing the regulation doesn't necessarily follow grammatical rules.

 

[dmspilot]

Grammatically it doesn't mean the same thing. But the intent of those writing the regulation doesn't necessarily follow grammatical rules.

From the NPRM: "Proposed new § 91.205(b)(11) would require that airplanes certificated under § 23.1401 of this notice be equipped with an anticollision light system for day VFR operations."

The proposed rule was "(b) (11) For small civil airplanes certificated after [INSERT DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT), in accordance with part 23, as amended by amendment 23-[INSERT AMENDMENT NUMBER], an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made."

The final rule states: "Proposed new § 91.205(b)(11) would require that airplanes certificated under § 23.1401 be equipped with an anticollision light system for day visual flight rule (VFR) operations. Day VFR operations are discussed under § 23.1401 of the notice. No comments were received on the proposed addition to this section, and that addition is adopted as proposed."

But somehow the notation of the amendment number disappeared in the final rule.

In conclusion, the anticollision light requirement in 91.205 was intended to apply to the version of part 23 to which the aircraft was certificated, not the version of part 23 that existed when the certificate was awarded.

 

[guest user]

In light of the NPRM and the text therein, I am willing to concede the point.