Great News! L.E.D. Lights are now L.E.G.A.L. !!

[GAHorn]

Well, now it's happened! The plans I had to make my fortune are in the dumpster now that the aviation world has awakened to my L.E.D. navigation light substitution experiments. Once they apparently heard I'd found a way to do it with inexpensive autolamps, they dropped the price of genuine aviation L.E.D. lamps! No longer several hundred dollars EACH... Now they're about $33 each color.

If you want to increase longevity, reduce electrical demands, and be legal to boot.....:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/e ... cement.php

[hilltop170]

It sounds good but what is the basis of approval for installation on an airplane?

23.1391 only covers "Minimum intensities in the horizontal plane of position lights".

§ 23.1391 Minimum intensities in the horizontal plane of position lights.
Each position light intensity must equal or exceed the applicable values in the following table:
Dihedral angle (light included)
Angle from right or left of longitudinal axis, measured from dead ahead Intensity (candles) L and R (red and green) ....
0° to 10° ..............40
10° to 20° ............30
20° to 110° ..........5
A (rear white) ..................... 110° to 180° ........ 20

[Doc. No. 4080, 29 FR 17955, Dec. 18, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 23–43, 58 FR 18977, Apr. 9, 1993]


Wouldn't they also have to meet § 23.1383?

Sec. 23.1393 Minimum intensities in any vertical plane of position lights.

Maybe they do meet all the other regs but it's not easy to tell from the ad.

[GAHorn]

Actually they need to meet several qualifications regarding intensity, color, etc.., however those regs applicable to angle of departure, etc. are already covered under the navigation lights already certificated and installed.

According to Spruce (Michelle) the mfr (PSA Enterprises) claims these are "Standard Parts" mfr'd under FAR 21.303(4) and do not need any other basis of approval. I have a call into them and am awaiting confirmation of this info.

[GAHorn]

UPDATE:
I just got off the phone with the owner of PSA Engineering who makes this product and we discussed the gamut his company has run to meet the requirements of a "standard part". Lots of numbers, regulations, MIl-Specs etc etc later I am satisfied that his product is legal to install.

However.... having said that... it also appears that the LEDs I previously wrote about also meet those standards we discussed,..however the PSA L.E.D.s do not have "indexing" issues which were problematical with the ones previously written about here.

Anyway, it's all a very interesting topic and still places the onus upon the owner/pilot as to ultimate responsibility for approval basis. Personally, I have them on my airplane and am enjoying them.

Also, be advised the product referred to above is being "superceded" with an improved version which PSA Engineering promises to bring to my attention as soon as it is available. One might wish to wait a while before rushing out to buy the ones presently available. The new lamps promise to provide even greater illumination.

[jrenwick]

Are they working on reasonably priced L.E.D. landing lights, too?

[GAHorn]

Are they working on reasonably priced L.E.D. landing lights, too?

I don't know what could be more "reasonably priced" than 4509 lamps from anyone other than G.E.

Bob (owner of PSA Engineering) was not happy with this subject. The power of illumination (LUX or Candelpower rating systems) do not provide well for illumination far from the output source. LUX/Candlepower is typically measured at one-meter from the lamp...but as everyone knows, landing/taxi lights are intended to illuminate objects at far greater distances than that.

In my workplace, there are pilots who have reported to me that their employers had spent considerable money ($10K plus) converting the corporate jet to L.E.D. landing/taxi lights and that, despite the pride with which such conversions are discussed in polite company,.... they simply do not light up the runway/taxyway like incandescents do. They leave an unsatisfactory "dim, blue, glow" which although effective on reflective objects, do not illuminate unlighted/un-relectorized objects well.

[DWood]

Why wouldn't they need a PMA? My fear would not be that they will last longer and draw less power, it would be that they do not appear to be standard on the 170. If not a PMA, what is the method of conveying that you can use these on any airplane?
Just curious

[DWood]

Going thru the Spruce catalog, Whelen has similar position lights that are TSO'd

The Model 70875 Series, are fully FAA TSO’d forward position lights.

[GAHorn]

Why wouldn't they need a PMA? My fear would not be that they will last longer and draw less power, it would be that they do not appear to be standard on the 170. If not a PMA, what is the method of conveying that you can use these on any airplane?
Just curious

The mfr'r states they qualify under the provisions of Standard Parts per FAR 21.303(4) and per AC 23-27 and also that they meet the Mil-Specs for such lamps (Mil 45208A, Mil-STD 45662 and Fed. STD WL 00111, and they are made per ISO-9000. Like AN bolts and other standard parts they do not require additional approval.

Going thru the Spruce catalog, Whelen has similar position lights that are TSO'd

The Model 70875 Series, are fully FAA TSO’d forward position lights.

Yes, and the Whelen units cost $205 EACH versus PSA's $33 each. TSO'd nav lights are not required for our airplanes. PSA pointed out that they are, and have been, an aircraft parts manufacturer/supplier for years. They make the actual colored lenses for other mfr's (such as Whelen, Grimes) which are probably already on your airplane.

[DWood]

George:
Richard asked a very good question

It sounds good but what is the basis of approval for installation on an airplane?

[GAHorn]

DWood.... are you reading the responses to the questions being posed? Or are you merely posting messages and moving on to other things? (Please don't make me feel I am wasting my time.)

[DWood]

I am sorry if you think I am wasting your time. I don't mean to.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Dan, George answered your question just above in the first half of his post. Perhaps you missed it somehow through the misterious ways of the internet and browser updating or lack thereof. Here is what he posted.

Why wouldn't they need a PMA? My fear would not be that they will last longer and draw less power, it would be that they do not appear to be standard on the 170. If not a PMA, what is the method of conveying that you can use these on any airplane?
Just curious

The mfr'r states they qualify under the provisions of Standard Parts per FAR 21.303(4) and per AC 23-27 and also that they meet the Mil-Specs for such lamps (Mil 45208A, Mil-STD 45662 and Fed. STD WL 00111, and they are made per ISO-9000. Like AN bolts and other standard parts they do not require additional approval.

George is relaying what the manufacturer told him. Each one of us would have to determine if we believed the manufacturer and decide if we the owner/operator then think these are standard parts and a direct replacement without further approval. Of course you most likely would want to involve whom ever is inspecting your airplane as they might not come to the same conclusion as you do.

[DWood]

Bruce:
I understood all the comments, but when the subject is "Lights are now L.E.G.A.L, I am not convinced, based on what I have seen. I was trying to understand if George was saying to go get them and put them on your airplane with a log entry, no 337 required, or what.
Honestly, I am very sorry I asked!
Dan

[GAHorn]

OK..(shades of Jack Nicholson)..."Heere's the deel..."

Standard parts do not need any additional basis of approval. Example: You have a rusty bolt on your airplane and want to replace it. You buy another aircraft bolt (AN hardware) and install it. You log the work. No additional basis of approval needed, per FAR 21.303(4) ...(standard parts do not require PMA.)

The mfr of these lights have stated their parts meet the definition of "standard parts" per FAR 21.303(4). They state that their L.E.D. lights meet every requirement of the definitions of a "standard part" by virtue of their meeting FAR 21 subpart K which states that PMA is not required for parts that are "standard parts", i.e. parts that conform to established industry or U.S. specifications. The specifications for the incandescent lamps which their parts purport to replace are established by certain other bodies and are defined in the Mil-Specs, Federal Specs, etc which they quote their products as meeting. Therefore, by reference, they sell them as "standard parts".

You don't have to buy them or install them. You don't even have to like them. You may disregard this entire subject and proceed to some other area of interest. But if you want L.E.D. lights instead of incandescent nav lights, and if you prefer to spend $33 instead of $205 for each light, I thought they might interest others, so I posted this message thread when I saw a very reputable aircraft parts supplier like Aircraft Spruce offer them for sale as "approved" for installation on a certificated airplane.

I hope this explains things a little better.

Forgive me if I seem a little silly over this, as it's only cost me about a half a day of my time to research what you asked me about, and as you appeared to repeatedly ask basically the same question over and over I thought perhaps you weren't listening, but only giving me "busy work". I'll go do something else now. (WINK)