Can you legally fly a 1981 Cessna with the beacon missing?

Skid

Skid

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
195
Display Name
Display name:
Skid
This came up in another thread and I can't quite figure out if it's legal or not.

I don't need it per the March 11, 1996 remark in 91.205(b), but 91.209(b) is saying that if the plane has an anticollision system it all must be operative (or at least that's how I read it).

So let's say the plane is a 1981 Cessna with strobes and a rotating beacon, and some unfortunate bird tore off the beacon the previous flight.

What's the right way to approach this?
 
You can replace it in less time than it takes to read this thread.

Last year I had a wingtip strobe lens break. Of course that kills the flash tube, too. I replaced it with the correct current part, which doesn't fit the shroud cutout well. Recently I noticed the lens was gone and the flash tube was broken again. It didn't stop me from flying and honestly it may have been like that for a couple of previous flights. No biggie. When the parts house opened on Monday I bought more replacements but this time I fashioned a retainer from .032 aluminum so it doesn't wiggle out again. It's been a nuisance, not something that I'd cancel a flight over. Just address it at the first opportunity.
 
Skid said:
91.209(b) is saying that if the plane has an anticollision system it all must be operative (or at least that's how I read it).
Click to expand...

Well if it's "missing" then you are not equipped with an anticollision light system anymore.
 
Stewartb said:
You can replace it in less time than it takes to read this thread.
Click to expand...

Yea the plane in question is a rental and its been that way for as long as I can remember. Would love to go out and just put a new one on.

dmspilot said:
Well if it's "missing" then you are not equipped with an anticollision light system anymore.
Click to expand...

So does that mean since the beacon housing was removed the plane no longer is equipped with an anticollision system and can go on its merry way?
 
Armed with what you already knew you should ask the rental place how they signed it off as airworthy. It's a fair question.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Funny how 91.205 & 91.213 were mentioned though.
Click to expand...
91.205 was listed in the question. 91.213 is the general "stuff doesn't work" reg that even certification people know about because it points you to certification rules.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Wonder why they ignored 91.209 in their response?
Click to expand...
They probably didn't. One of the problems with these types of unofficial sites is you don't know how old the information is. I don't know when that was written but the few copyright notices I saw on the site say 2007. The Murphy opinion was 2011.

The APs and probably a few older aircraft owners here can (and probably will) correct me, but I recall correctly at least at one time, there were anticollision light systems that consisted only of a rotating beacon or only wingtip strobes. I'm pretty sure I've flown one or two.

Since each type could be installed separately, many thought of them as separate systems even when they were packaged together. What Murphy actually says is, no, if the approved anticollision light system on your aircraft was a single package consisting of both wingtip strobes and a red rotating beacon, they are both part of the same "system" and both need to be operating.
 
midlifeflyer said:
They probably didn't. One of the problems with these types of unofficial sites is you don't know how old the information is. I don't know when that was written but the few copyright notices I saw on the site say 2007. The Murphy opinion was 2011.

The APs and probably a few older aircraft owners here can (and probably will) correct me, but I recall correctly at least at one time, there were anticollision light systems that consisted only of a rotating beacon or only wingtip strobes. I'm pretty sure I've flown one or two.

Since each type could be installed separately, many thought of them as separate systems even when they were packaged together. What Murphy actually says is, no, if the approved anticollision light system on your aircraft was a single package consisting of both wingtip strobes and a red rotating beacon, they are both part of the same "system" and both need to be operating.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to see how the manufacturers looked at it when they certified the airplane...is it one system or two?
 
Oh, and on some airplanes it might be required - the Commander singles had a limitation that position lights and anti-collision lights were required for night operation, but not for day VFR. There is an equivalent of an MEL in the airplane POH and certification.
 
Skid said:
So does that mean since the beacon housing was removed the plane no longer is equipped with an anticollision system and can go on its merry way?
Click to expand...

No. At that point, the airplane is not airworthy because it does not conform to the type certificate.
 
PPC1052 said:
No. At that point, the airplane is not airworthy because it does not conform to the type certificate.
Click to expand...

When you say "type certificate" is that referring to the TCDS? When I looked that up it only states "The basic required equipment as prescribed in the applicable airworthiness requirements"...which I guess is 91.205?
 
Skid said:
When you say "type certificate" is that referring to the TCDS? When I looked that up it only states "The basic required equipment as prescribed in the applicable airworthiness requirements"...which I guess is 91.205?
Click to expand...
Nope..."airworthiness requirements" are the regs under which the airplane was certified...see "certification basis" in the TCDS, but most likely CAR 3.
 
Skid said:
When you say "type certificate" is that referring to the TCDS? When I looked that up it only states "The basic required equipment as prescribed in the applicable airworthiness requirements"...which I guess is 91.205?
Click to expand...

The type certificate is held by the manufacturer. You can find the type certificate data sheet on the FAA database.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Nope..."airworthiness requirements" are the regs under which the airplane was certified...see "certification basis" in the TCDS, but most likely CAR 3.
Click to expand...

I missed that this was a 1981 Cessna.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Nope..."airworthiness requirements" are the regs under which the airplane was certified.
Click to expand...
Actually, the definition of "airworthy" is two parts 1) the aircraft is in condition safe for operation, and 2) in conformity with the type design. 14 CFR § 3.5.
 
midlifeflyer said:
They probably didn't. One of the problems with these types of unofficial sites is you don't know how old the information is. I don't know when that was written but the few copyright notices I saw on the site say 2007. The Murphy opinion was 2011.

The APs and probably a few older aircraft owners here can (and probably will) correct me, but I recall correctly at least at one time, there were anticollision light systems that consisted only of a rotating beacon or only wingtip strobes. I'm pretty sure I've flown one or two.

Since each type could be installed separately, many thought of them as separate systems even when they were packaged together. What Murphy actually says is, no, if the approved anticollision light system on your aircraft was a single package consisting of both wingtip strobes and a red rotating beacon, they are both part of the same "system" and both need to be operating.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a POH that describes strobes and beacons as the same line item. Not even the 2012 182T I fly regularly. THAT one is real interesting. The KOEL requires strobes for all operations, and requires the LED beacon for nothing.
 
PPC1052 said:
Actually, the definition of "airworthy" is two parts 1) the aircraft is in condition safe for operation, and 2) in conformity with the type design. 14 CFR § 3.5.
Click to expand...
True...but the "airworthiness requirements" are the certification regs.
 
MAKG1 said:
I've never seen a POH that describes strobes and beacons as the same line item. Not even the 2012 182T I fly regularly. THAT one is real interesting. The KOEL requires strobes for all operations, and requires the LED beacon for nothing.
Click to expand...
Agreed...that's why I'd challenge the Murphy letter if I had the money and desire to operate without one or the other.
 
Could an operator get field approval to remove a beacon in place of strobes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the 1980-series Cessnas (P models) originally had strobes. I used to fly one that had its beacon removed with a strobe light kit installed. Nobody ever really questioned it, and we had several people do CFI checkrides in that plane with FSDO inspectors.

Diamond, Cirrus, and a whole host of others don't put beacons on their new planes. Their LED strobes are way better anyway.
 
wsuffa said:
Oh, and on some airplanes it might be required - the Commander singles had a limitation that position lights and anti-collision lights were required for night operation, but not for day VFR. There is an equivalent of an MEL in the airplane POH and certification.
Click to expand...
What you're probably looking at is a "Kinds of Operation Equipment List". That's one of the documents 91.213 tells you to check if you don't have an MEL authorization.

Speaking of MEL's, the generic single engine MMEL also differentiates between beacon and strobes.
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=M SE Airplane R1
 
MauleSkinner said:
I would be interested to see how the manufacturers looked at it when they certified the airplane...is it one system or two?
Click to expand...
How about looking a the replacement unit? Let's say it's called the ACS-23. The ACS-23 has two components, wingtip strobes and a belly rotating beacon. Then both are part of the same system both must be operating.

Silliness is a matter of opinion and I can see it both ways. There have been a couple of posts on the "they are separate" side. Here's one possibility on the "one system" side. Anticollision light systems have to meet criteria for visibility from different angles. It is a 3-light system to cover all the bases. With one or two out, there are gaps in required coverage.
 
midlifeflyer said:
How about looking a the replacement unit? Let's say it's called the ACS-23. The ACS-23 has two components, wingtip strobes and a belly rotating beacon. Then both are part of the same system both must be operating.

Silliness is a matter of opinion and I can see it both ways. There have been a couple of posts on the "they are separate" side. Here's one possibility on the "one system" side. Anticollision light systems have to meet criteria for visibility from different angles. It is a 3-light system to cover all the bases. With one or two out, there are gaps in required coverage.
Click to expand...
true enough, but let's say the replacement units are AC-23 for the beacon and AC-24 for the strobes, they'd potentially be different systems. And if the coverage of each system meets the visibility requirements, they're redundant.
 
Harold Rutila said:
Could an operator get field approval to remove a beacon in place of strobes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the 1980-series Cessnas (P models) originally had strobes. I used to fly one that had its beacon removed with a strobe light kit installed. Nobody ever really questioned it, and we had several people do CFI checkrides in that plane with FSDO inspectors.

Diamond, Cirrus, and a whole host of others don't put beacons on their new planes. Their LED strobes are way better anyway.
Click to expand...

The Cessna 172P POH equipment list has strobes as a line item. It's a "-A," which means optional equipment in addition to required items. See http://ilwg.cap.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/C172P_IM-82.pdf p. 6-18.

I've certainly seen 172 N and P models both with and without strobes.
 
MauleSkinner said:
true enough, but let's say the replacement units are AC-23 for the beacon and AC-24 for the strobes, they'd potentially be different systems. And if the coverage of each system meets the visibility requirements, they're redundant.
Click to expand...
I agree, and that might be a different situation than the one in the Murphy letter. My WAG - it depends on the specs.
 
MauleSkinner said:
What you're probably looking at is a "Kinds of Operation Equipment List". That's one of the documents 91.213 tells you to check if you don't have an MEL authorization.

Speaking of MEL's, the generic single engine MMEL also differentiates between beacon and strobes.
http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=M SE Airplane R1
Click to expand...
Correct. But the Commander doesn't distinguish. It calls out the position lighting and anti-collision separately, but not strobes vs beacon. I don't think Part 23 distinguishes and the Commanders were certified under Part 23.
 
wsuffa said:
Correct. But the Commander doesn't distinguish. It calls out the position lighting and anti-collision separately, but not strobes vs beacon. I don't think Part 23 distinguishes and the Commanders were certified under Part 23.
Click to expand...
The beacon and strobes are on separate electric circuits with separate switches on my PA-28. I tend to think that makes them separate systems.
 
Unless you want to dig into the certification rules, I would go off the equipment list provided above. Cessna wouldn't build an aircraft unless it was legal would they?
The beacon system is optional. As are the strobes.
BUT, by the operation rule, you need to have at least one of them operational in order to fly at night legally.
The beacon can be deferred until doomsday as far as maintenance is concerned. It is up to the pilot accepting the aircraft for each flight to determine if the aircraft is equipped correctly for the flight, with the beacon deferred or operational.
Same idea with deice boots, landing lights, instruments, etc.
 
How about another "what if".
What if a 172 has a fuel gauge that reads zero when full. Can you legally fly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top