Airworthiness question for the legal pos

P

Pappy

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
65
Display Name
Display name:
Pappy
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.
 
Last edited:
Pappy said:
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.
Click to expand...



I don't believe the older 172 was certified under the requirements of part 23. In other words, it doesn't matter what part 23 says. Were the lights original equipment? If so, look at the certification basis for that original equipment. Were the lights installed under an STC? If so, look for the certification bases for that STC.
 
dtuuri said:
Go here to get the certification basis: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/a9c23e984754258e86257acc0077095f/$FILE/3A12_Rev_83.pdf

Then go here to Table 3 and do like the Canadians (figr it oot):http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC20-30B.pdf

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Bob/dtuuri-

This is where I started, and, after reviewing both of these documents, I still wasn't able to arrive at a definitive conclusion. I will review again.

Murphey-

Thanks for that good link. That's what we have...I'm wondering if the aircraft is airworthy in daytime VFR with the beacon inop (placarded, deactivated, and logged). I believe the answer is not airworthy for daytime VFR.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Pappy said:
I'm wondering if the aircraft is airworthy in daytime VFR with the beacon inop (placarded, deactivated, and logged). I believe the answer is not airworthy for daytime VFR.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're right because I remember when the FAA finally relented and adopted the NTSB's long-standing recommendation to require the lights in order to put a stop to midair collisions. How well do you think that worked? Ever avoided a midair during daylight hours because you were able to see the lights before the airplane?

Anyway, mechanics had to contend with all that engineering mumbo-jumbo, wait 'till after dark and comply with the AC. Unless the certification basis was before CAR 3, your system needs to comply as per the table, IMO.

dtuuri
 
I have no idea what your answer is but I gotta say that your typo in the title is one of the funniest (and most apropos) that I've ever seen here!

:goofy:

(Except for those here...of course! :wink2:)
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
I have no idea what your answer is but I gotta say that your typo in the title is one of the funniest (and most apropos) that I've ever seen here!

:goofy:
Click to expand...

Hahaha...I must have noticed it while you were typing your message, as I just fixed it!

EDIT: Well I thought I had, but it seems it only applied to my first post...not what is showing up the forums. Let me know if you know how to fix it

For the record, it was intended to be PROs :rofl:
 
Last edited:
Re: Airworthiness question for the legal pros

Pappy said:
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?
Click to expand...
First, the strobe on the belly probably doesn't meet the legal requirements to be an anti-collision light system, but it doesn't matter. Since that plane was certified before March 11, 1996, there is no requirement that you have a working anti-collision lighting system for Day VFR. All you need do is comply with 91.213(d) by deactivating the inoperative red beacon (say, by removing the fuse or taking out the bulb) and placarding the beacon switch "INOP".

The rule in 91.209 only applies if you have a working anti-collision lighting system, which in this case you would not. That's not clearly stated in the regulation, but you can ask any FAA Airworthiness Inspector and be told it's the way I said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top