LED Nav Lights

[GMascelli]

I have to replace a nav light on 08Romeo, I'm thinking of switching to the LED's, brighter, cooler and less draw on power. Anyone have these on their plane? Comments ?

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/lednavlightsreplacement.php


Update-

I found a good link to info on the AOPA forum with some install pictures http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=54296&highlight=led+nav+lights&page=3

 

[tonycondon]

I think Matt Michael has those on his Flybaby. very low power draw, he runs them on a 12V sealed lead acid battery.

 

[ntbjounin]

a buddy of mine has them on his RV6. They work great! He has halogen landinglights. They are fine.

 

[Geico266]

I use them on my RV-10. Work great, power draw is WAY less.

 

[wby0nder]

Yes, company in FL makes them. I bought directly from them. I'm very happy with mine mainly due to the low power draw on my battery system giving me hours more endurance.

 

[timwinters]

There was a very lengthy discussion about these on another board. The final consensus was that they aren't legal to install in a certified aircraft.

Here's one quote from that discussion:

In researching this (which I should have done before shooting from the hip) I found out quite a lot. Aviation lighting is currently controlled through two source documents SAE 8017A and SAE 8037. In reference to this two documents the FAA wrote FAR 23.1387-FAR 23.1397. All aircraft lighting has to conform to these standards. I believe these LED bulbs fail on two fronts. First, they do not conform, or do not have a C of C for conformance to any current standard. The Mil-spec they give is no longer current. All through the SAE documents the standard for aviation red, green, and clear lights are specified.

Secondly, The light systems in your aircraft were approved to a TSO. To install these lamps in those systems degrades the system and takes them out of their TSO approval specs. It changes the specs on light output, amp draw, chromaticity values, and heat dissipation. So if you put these lamps in your Whelen or Grimes parts, they become unairworthy for failing to meet the TSO. Chromaticity is the color and intensity value. Tests must be done to ensure no bleed over into any other light spectrum so as to not cause confusion to pilots on what aspect they have on an approaching aircraft.

I concluded that these LED bulbs fail to meet any current spec. And if they did they would need their own mounting system and a TSO to be used on a certified aircraft.

All the above is just how I read it. Your viewpoint may be different.

 

[ntbjounin]

There was a very lengthy discussion about these on another board. The final consensus was that they aren't legal to install in a certified aircraft.

Here's one quote from that discussion:

i assume that's only in reference to certified a/c then. since experimentals dont have to conform.

 

[timwinters]

i assume that's only in reference to certified a/c then. since experimentals dont have to conform.

...that's the way I understand it.

 

[tdager]

And if that IS the correct analysis....it just highlights another lunacy of the FAA when it comes to certified airplanes and their rigid, ignorant "airworthiness" stance. They are more concerned about paperwork than they are actual cost or safety of aviation.

 

[N801BH]

And if that IS the correct analysis....it just highlights another lunacy of the FAA when it comes to certified airplanes and their rigid, ignorant "airworthiness" stance. They are more concerned about paperwork than they are actual cost or safety of aviation.

That sir is the main reason experimentals are becoming a greater % of the GA aircraft fleet.

Ben
N801BH / Experimental <G>

 

[tdager]

That sir is the main reason experimentals are becoming a greater % of the GA aircraft fleet.

Ben
N801BH / Experimental <G>

You build it, certify that it is built to standards, and then sell it to me.

I have no time, or desire, to build an aircraft and I am frustrated and a bit angry that the bureaucratic crap the FAA puts out makes it such a trial to get things for "certified" aircraft.

 

[Trapper John]

I have no time, or desire, to build an aircraft and I am frustrated and a bit angry that the bureaucratic crap the FAA puts out makes it such a trial to get things for "certified" aircraft.

What would you advocate, no standards whatsoever for anything? Or just standards for certain parts?


Trapper John

 

[Geico266]

That sir is the main reason experimentals are becoming a greater % of the GA aircraft fleet.

Ben
N801BH / Experimental <G>

+1.

Burn what ever fuel you want, do your own repairs legally, add what ever equipment you want legally. Go faster, farther, cheaper. Why would anyone own certified anymore?

 

[N801BH]

What would you advocate, no standards whatsoever for anything? Or just standards for certain parts?


Trapper John

Hmm.

Faa Standards were met for Lycoming cranks, That didn't work out.

Faa Standards were met for ECI cylinders, that didn't work out.

Faa Standards were met for current King software, Didn't work out either.

Ya see where I am going with this ????

 

[flyingcheesehead]

i assume that's only in reference to certified a/c then. since experimentals dont have to conform.

I assume experimentals DO have to conform to some of the things talked about here - For example, just because you have an EXP doesn't mean you can put the green light on the left wing and the red light on the right wing.

Certainly some of the standards apply to experimentals?

 

[N801BH]

I assume experimentals DO have to conform to some of the things talked about here - For example, just because you have an EXP doesn't mean you can put the green light on the left wing and the red light on the right wing.

Certainly some of the standards apply to experimentals?

You are correct sir.
Lighting needs to meet minimum output of lumens and direction of the actual beam of light. Its the TSO thing that saves us homebuilders money. Someone could build any lighting devise and if you can demonstrate it meets the FAA specs the DAR or Faa inspector should pass it..... Key word there is "should"

Ben

 

[el con]

Bought the Whelen Led tail beacon for the Cherokee and I am very pleased with the extreme brightness
The added bonus was to get rid of the old rotating beacon and it's annoying grinding noise over the radio.
A lot less power draw.
I will put on the position lights when they get them approved.
Maybe even the landing light.
Led's seem to be the way everything is going.
I lik'em alot

 

[RotorAndWing]

There was a very lengthy discussion about these on another board. The final consensus was that they aren't legal to install in a certified aircraft.

Here's one quote from that discussion:

In reference to this two documents the FAA wrote FAR 23.1387-FAR 23.1397. All aircraft lighting has to conform to these standards.

In the event of the OP question, his airplane is a CAR3 certified airplane, not a FAR 23 plane.

Here is what CAR3 says:

POSITION LIGHTS

§ 3.700 Position light system installation.

(a) General. The provisions of §§ 3.700 through 3.703 shall be applicable to the position light system as a whole, and shall be complied with if a single circuit type system is installed. 1 The single circuit system shall include the items specified in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.

(b) Forward position lights . Forward position lights shall consist of a red and a green light spaced laterally as far apart as practicable and installed forward on the airplane in such a location that, with the airplane in normal flying position, the red light is displayed on the left side and the green light is displayed on the right side. The individual lights shall be of an approved type.

(c) Rear position light . The rear position light shall be a white light mounted as far aft as practicable. The light shall be of an approved type.

(d) Circuit. The two forward position lights and the rear position light shall constitute a single circuit.

(e) Flasher. If employed, an approved position light flasher for a single circuit system shall be installed. The flasher shall be such that the system is energized automatically at a rate of not less than 60 nor more than 120 flashes per minute with an on-off ratio between 2.5:1 and 1:1. Unless the flasher is of a fail-safe type, means shall be provided in the system to indicate to the pilot when there is a failure of the flasher and a further means shall be provided for turning the lights on steady in the event of such failure.

(f) Light covers and color filters . Light covers or color filters used shall be of noncumbustible material and shall be constructed so that they will not change color or shape or suffer any appreciable loss of light transmission during normal use.

§ 3.701 Position light system dihedral angles . The forward and rear position lights as installed on the airplane shall show unbroken light within dihedral angles specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.

(a) Dihedral angle L (left) shall be considered formed by two intersecting vertical planes, one parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane and the either at 110° to the left of the first, when looking forward along the longitudinal axis.

(b) Dihedral angle R (right) shall be considered formed by two intersecting vertical planes, one parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane and the other at 110° to the right of the first, when looking forward along the longitudinal axis.

(c) Dihedral angle A (aft) shall be considered formed by two intersecting vertical planes making angles of 70° to the right and 70° to the left, respectively, looking aft along the longitudinal axis, to a vertical plane passing through the longitudinal axis.

[§3.702 Position light distribution and intensities.

(a) General. The intensities prescribed in this section are those to be provided by new equipment with all light covers and color filters in place. Intensities shall be determined with the light source operating at a steady value equal to the average luminous output of the light source at the normal operating voltage of the airplane. The light distribution and intensities of position lights shall comply with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Forward and rear position lights. The light distribution and intensities of forward and rear position lights shall be expressed in terms of minimum intensities in the horizontal plane, minimum intensities in any vertical plane, and maximum intensities in overlapping beams within dihedral angles L, R, and A, and shall comply with the provisions of subparagraphs (1) through (3) of this paragraph.

(1) Intensities in horizontal plane. The intensities in the horizontal plane shall not be less than the values given in Figure 3-15. (The horizontal plane is the plane containing the longitudinal axis of the airplane and is perpendicular to the plane of symmetry of the airplane).

(2) Intensities above and below horizontal. The intensities in any vertical plane shall not be less than the appropriate value given in Figure 3-16, where I is the minimum intensity prescribed in Figure 3 -15 for the corresponding angles in the horizontal plane. (Vertical planes are planes perpendicular to the horizontal plane.)

(3) Overlaps between adjacent signals. The intensities in overlaps between adjacent signals shall not exceed the value given in Figure 3-17, except that higher intensities in the overlaps shall be acceptable with the use of main beam intensities substantially greater than the minima specified in Figures 3-15 and 3-16 if the overlap intensities in relation to the main beam intensities are such as not to affect adversely signal clarity.

NOTE: Area A includes all directions in the adjacent dihedral angle which pass through the light source and which
intersect the common boundary plane at more than 10 degrees but less than 20 degrees. Area B includes all directions in the adjacent dihedral angle which pass through the light source and which intersect the common boundary plane at more than 20 degrees.

Figure 3-17.--Maximum Intensities in Overlapping Beams of Forward and Rear Position Lights. ]

§ 3.703 Color specifications . The colors of the position lights shall have the International Commission on Illumination chromatically coordinates as set forth in paragraph (a) through (c) of this section.

(a) Aviation red.
y is not greater than 0.335,
z is not greater than 0.002;

(b) Aviation green .
x is not greater than 0.440 - 0.320y,
x is not greater than y - 0.170,
y is not less than 0.390 - 0.170x;

(c) Aviation white.
x is not less than 0.350,
x is not greater than 0.540,
y - yo is not numerically greater than 0.01, y o being the y coordinate of the Planckian radiator for which x o = x.

Now the question is what constitutes a "individual lights shall be of an approved type".

CAR 15.20 gives specifications for position lights and the minimum intensities. Have the mechanic that would be installing read the applicable regulations and make the determination if he would install the newer LED type.

 

[Dean]

Instead of replacing the light assembles, why not just replace the standard bulbs with LEDs?

 

[tdager]

What would you advocate, no standards whatsoever for anything? Or just standards for certain parts?


Trapper John

Honestly? Standards that seem to work for MILLIONS of cars and trucks on the road that do not just "go up in flames" due to a light bulb.

In other words, general standards that are adhered to across the industry. Hell many GA aircraft use a Ford alternator but have to have it specially stamped for aviation, with the resulting cost increase. Why?

Also...if it IS true that EXP's and LSA's might soon out number certified pistons built, what do we gain in safety if they can follow common standards but certified aircraft cannot?

 

[tdager]

Instead of replacing the light assembles, why not just replace the standard bulbs with LEDs?

That is what this is....and some are saying it is illegal.

 

[Ted]

What would you advocate, no standards whatsoever for anything? Or just standards for certain parts?

I'd advocate that for Part 91 operations, the rules for certified aircraft be roughly equivalent to experimental. Perhaps state that to work on it yourself you need to take a test of some sort, but not get the entire A&P training.

For Part 135/121 I don't have the answer, and I can understand that since it's someone besides you on the line, I can see the point to having some increased regulation/oversight.

Obviously no rule is perfect, and problems will occur at some point or another (as a friend of mine used to say "Manure Occurreth"). The FAA does not believe that its rules are perfect (at least, nobody there who I work with does), and it is a continual evolution. There is a lot of beaurocracy, as we all know, and that gets in the way of rules changing and progress happening, but most of the employees there I have not found to be opposed to it, it's just a matter of getting it done.

Back to the point: I actually would really like to get LED nav lights and also some of the wing-tip strobes. It does a lot for visibility, plus it makes the plane look newer.

 

[Geico266]

That is what this is....and some are saying it is illegal.

The only people who are claiming it is illegal is Whellen, and other OEM's.

 

[Trapper John]

Hmm.

Faa Standards were met for Lycoming cranks, That didn't work out.

Faa Standards were met for ECI cylinders, that didn't work out.

Faa Standards were met for current King software, Didn't work out either.

Ya see where I am going with this ????

Were the standards really met for the cranks and cylinders? Just curious, since I really don't know what those standards are.

I guess you could argue that since parts fail in spite of standards, that we ought to just forget about standards altogether. But I'm not sure that's a very good argument, either. In the absence of standards, you could end up with a Chinese pot-metal cylinder, for instance.


Trapper John

 

[Trapper John]

I'd advocate that for Part 91 operations, the rules for certified aircraft be roughly equivalent to experimental. Perhaps state that to work on it yourself you need to take a test of some sort, but not get the entire A&P training.

Interesting idea, but I wonder if the cost savings would really result in more people flying, or more people keeping flying or whatever. And then what happens if you cut into the A&P/IA's income streams? Maybe a bunch go find something else to do for a living, leaving you high and dry when you need a repair that you can't do yourself.

Back to the point: I actually would really like to get LED nav lights and also some of the wing-tip strobes. It does a lot for visibility, plus it makes the plane look newer.

I haven't really looked into this, but how difficult can it be to show that these led lamp assemblies meet the applicable standard(s)?


Trapper John

 

[RotorAndWing]

I haven't really looked into this, but how difficult can it be to show that these led lamp assemblies meet the applicable standard(s)?


Trapper John

For a CAR3 airplane I don't think it's difficult.

 

[Trapper John]

Honestly? Standards that seem to work for MILLIONS of cars and trucks on the road that do not just "go up in flames" due to a light bulb.

In other words, general standards that are adhered to across the industry. Hell many GA aircraft use a Ford alternator but have to have it specially stamped for aviation, with the resulting cost increase. Why?

Probably the most obvious argument for more rigorous standards for aircraft versus surface vehicles is that you just can't pull over on the side of the road when something goes wrong.

Also...if it IS true that EXP's and LSA's might soon out number certified pistons built, what do we gain in safety if they can follow common standards but certified aircraft cannot?

I think you might be surprised how little information there is in ASTM F2245 which the LSA people use to self-certify LSA design and performance.


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

Interesting idea, but I wonder if the cost savings would really result in more people flying, or more people keeping flying or whatever. And then what happens if you cut into the A&P/IA's income streams? Maybe a bunch go find something else to do for a living, leaving you high and dry when you need a repair that you can't do yourself.

I think the bigger issue would be lower parts costs, as I've yet to see A&Ps generally cost much more per hour than auto mechanics, but the parts costs are astronomical. Remember that most of the cost of parts is not just the low volume, it's also in the high inspection standards that manufacturers have to put in. Similar to welding oxygen vs. medical. When I talked to the guy at my local shop about it, he said the two came from the exact same tank, but the reason you paid more for medical was because of all the FDA standards for the medical oxygen regarding storage, isolation, and testing. Look at the cost of many experimental parts vs. certified. I believe that deregulation in that regard would likely result in much of a similar practice. Companies would sell identical products, one being "certified" (say for 135 and 121 ops) and one being "experimental" (for 91 ops). The "experimental" version would not have undergone the high-cost inspections and such, but provided a good manufacturing process (yes, that is an assumption that is not always good), you'd be getting an identical part.

Many people I think either aren't capable or don't want to do work on their planes themselves. Those that do already are through "owner assisted" maintenance. An increase in aviation I would argue will result in increased business for A&P/IAs overall.