Airworthiness question for the legal pros
It is absolutely ridiculous that the rules are written in such a way that I have to ask this question...but here goes...
Assume an older 172 that does not have a POH with an equipment list. This 172 has 3 position lights, a strobe on the belly, and a red beacon on the tail that has recently become INOP.
What is the consensus of this group as to the airworthiness of this airplane for day VFR based on the status of the lighting?
--
Some of my research...
91.205 - Not required
91.213 - Assume not a -R item on the equipment list for the sake of this hypothetical discussion
91.209(b) - Here is where things gets sticky.
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.
23.1401(b)
(b) Field of coverage. The system must consist of enough lights to illuminate the vital areas around the airplane, considering the physical configuration and flight characteristics of the airplane. The field of coverage must extend in each direction within at least 75 degrees above and 75 degrees below the horizontal plane of the airplane, except that there may be solid angles of obstructed visibility totaling not more than 0.5 steradians.
So...using the strobe alone does not satisfy the field of coverage requirements of an "anti-collision light system", and because it's installed it has to be operable (per 91.209)?
Any thoughts from the regulatory pros? Unfortunately, "who cares, just go fly" is not an option in this case.
It is absolutely ridiculous that the rules are written in such a way that I have to ask this question...but here goes...
Assume an older 172 that does not have a POH with an equipment list. This 172 has 3 position lights, a strobe on the belly, and a red beacon on the tail that has recently become INOP.
What is the consensus of this group as to the airworthiness of this airplane for day VFR based on the status of the lighting?
--
Some of my research...
91.205 - Not required
91.213 - Assume not a -R item on the equipment list for the sake of this hypothetical discussion
91.209(b) - Here is where things gets sticky.
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.
23.1401(b)
(b) Field of coverage. The system must consist of enough lights to illuminate the vital areas around the airplane, considering the physical configuration and flight characteristics of the airplane. The field of coverage must extend in each direction within at least 75 degrees above and 75 degrees below the horizontal plane of the airplane, except that there may be solid angles of obstructed visibility totaling not more than 0.5 steradians.
So...using the strobe alone does not satisfy the field of coverage requirements of an "anti-collision light system", and because it's installed it has to be operable (per 91.209)?
Any thoughts from the regulatory pros? Unfortunately, "who cares, just go fly" is not an option in this case.
Last edited: