Date
1 - 12 of 12
[c-a] Change Day VFR only op limitations, was LED lights
|
Tim Andres
Read your operating limits, it probably says “ unless properly equipped” limited to day vfr. Tim Andres
On May 12, 2020, at 7:31 AM, Del Schier <cozypilot@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Tom Smith
You don't need landing lights to fly at night! You do need position lights. That's it. Look it up when you need to get to sleep! Tom Smith A&P/IA
Long-EZ N12TS Cell-707-592-0869 KVCB KJ6PZN
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Andres <tim2542@...> To: canard-aviators@canardzone.groups.io Cc: members@canardzone.groups.io Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 6:37 am Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] [c-a] Change Day VFR only op limitations, was LED lights Read your operating limits, it probably says “ unless properly equipped” limited to day vfr.
Tim Andres
On May 12, 2020, at 7:31 AM, Del Schier <cozypilot@...> wrote:
All this stuff about landing lights made me realize my Cozy is limited to day VFR only. Since I have landing, position, strobe and panel lighting how to I get the day VFR only changed to day or night VFR?
Del Schier
Cozy IV N197DL
Cannon Creek Airpark 15FL
|
|
|
|
Marc J. Zeitlin
Tom Smith wrote:
This is correct.
This is correct.
This is not correct. You also need anti-collision lights, which implies either a rotating beacon or strobes.
|
|
|
|
Del Schier
Thanks Marc and all,
I knew you didn’t need a landing light but all this talk about it made me look at operating limitations indications as I have never flown the Cozy at night.
They say: (8) This aircraft is to be operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), day only.
(9) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or Instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.
Sounds like I am legal to fly at night except 91.205 says: (6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight. My fuses are only accessible with nobody in the right seat as they are under the seat, LOL
The real issue I have for flying at night is, even though my airpark runway has lighting, there are trees 60’ off my wing tips on short final. I wonder if my new LED lights will let me see where the trees are. I guess there is only one way to find out 😊
Del Schier Cozy IV N197DL Cannon Creek Airpark 15FL
From: members@canardzone.groups.io <members@canardzone.groups.io> On Behalf Of Marc J. Zeitlin
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:57 AM To: members@canardzone.groups.io Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] [c-a] Change Day VFR only op limitations, was LED lights
Tom Smith wrote:
This is correct.
This is correct.
This is not correct. You also need anti-collision lights, which implies either a rotating beacon or strobes.
--
|
|
|
|
Marc J. Zeitlin
Del Schier wrote:
Keep your spare fuses in an accessible place. I do - then you're legal. It says nothing about whether a blown fuse is accessible, or whether or not you can replace them in flight, or the intelligence of doing so when the airplane has already attempted to set you on fire once. Just make sure you can wave a spare fuse at the guy ramp checking you if that every happens and he asks about your fuses.
If you're 60' off the runway centerline, I'd have to ask you why you're still trying to put the plane on the ground, and not going around. From short final, 60' off the centerline, you're not getting on the ground on that approach...
|
|
|
|
Tom Smith
I was only refuting to the landing light question Marc. There is more to it for other type of planes but for HB thats it.
Tom Smith A&P/IA
Long-EZ N12TS Cell-707-592-0869 KVCB KJ6PZN
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc J. Zeitlin <marc.j.zeitlin@...> To: members@canardzone.groups.io Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 8:57 am Subject: Re: [Canard Zone] [c-a] Change Day VFR only op limitations, was LED lights Tom Smith wrote:
This is correct.
This is correct.
This is not correct. You also need anti-collision lights, which implies either a rotating beacon or strobes.
|
|
|
|
Marc J. Zeitlin
Tom Smith wrote:
And I agreed with you there - no requirement for LL's unless operated for hire, which EAB aircraft are not permitted to do.
Unless I"m misunderstanding what your'e saying here, "that's it" isn't correct - see below:
While the wording has changed a bit over the years, this is the controlling paragraph, and indicates that for night and/or instrument flight, 91.205 compliance is required. Paragraph (C)(2) of 91.205 requires position lights, as you indicate, but paragraph (C)(3) requires anti-collision lights (which, in our case, is almost always strobes). There is nothing in the OL's or 91.205 that absolves EAB aircraft from this requirement, as it flows from the OL's to 91.205. Maybe we're saying the same thing and I'm just misunderstanding you.
|
|
|
|
Gene
That is my understanding about not needing landing lights also but you must have a way to power the position and anti-collision lights so you are going to be using an electrical system capable of powering them; the new self contained self powered position lights are an interesting option. Also you need some sort of panel lighting to make your instruments visible at night, extra fuses (if used instead of circuit breakers) conveniently located in flight, and an extra source of light (flashlight or light that clips to your hat) on board.
As for legality, once the aircraft is equipped with the required equipment, then at least in Central Texas a logbook entry modifying the restriction for VFR day use to allow night VFR operations suffices. Of course you have logged the installation of the night flight equipment and electrical equipment as needed before this entry. Remember, entries for work on experimentals can be done by anyone competent, I was always told to enter my pilot lic number when I sign the logbook entry. Only conditional inspections need be done by an A&P. A DAR requiring TSO equipment on an experimental simply does not know his business.
|
|
|
|
Marc J. Zeitlin
Gene wrote: Also you need some sort of panel lighting to make your instruments visible at night... While it is certainly reasonable to have lighting to see your instruments, 14 CFR Part 91.205(C) says nothing about requiring instrument lighting. extra fuses (if used instead of circuit breakers) conveniently located in flight 91.205 does require this. and an extra source of light (flashlight or light that clips to your hat) on board. and 91.205 says nothing about extra sources of light, however reasonable having one might be. As for legality, once the aircraft is equipped with the required equipment, then at least in Central Texas a logbook entry modifying the restriction for VFR day use to allow night VFR operations suffices. Only the federal government determines what is and is not required to legally fly an aircraft at night, or what might be logged. I'd be very interested in hearing what jurisdictional organization in Central Texas believes that they can tell someone what they need to put in their aircraft logbook. Unless your Operating Limitations (as issued by the FAA, an arm of the federal government (see the "F" in "FAA") state that a logbook entry is required to allow the plane to be used at night/IFR (and there may very well be some OL's that state this, depending upon what year they were issued), no logbook entry is required. Remember, entries for work on experimentals can be done by anyone competent... There is no requirement for competency - only a signature and a date in the maintenance logs, and a certificate # is one is available. Only conditional inspections need be done by an A&P. They are "condition" inspections, not "conditional" inspections - they are not conditional on anything - they inspect the "condition" of the airplane. A DAR requiring TSO equipment on an experimental simply does not know his business. Some equipment does need to be TSO'd, and some just needs to meet the TSO specification, which some non-TSO'd equipment does. For lighting, a TSO is not needed, but the specifications of the TSO are, and unless the non-TSO MFG is willing to supply documentation that the non-TSO'd equipment meets the requirements of the TSO, a DAR may not be willing to accept your word for it.
|
|
|
|
Joe Dubner
Marc J. Zeitlin wrote on 5/13/2020 11:19:
... I'd be veryOh, oh -- I know. The Lubbock FSDO. Remember, each FSDO is individually owned and operated. Yes, like most on this forum I obviously have too much time on my hands. -- Joe
|
|
|
|
Marc J. Zeitlin
Joe Dubner wrote: Marc J. Zeitlin wrote on 5/13/2020 11:19: Franchise, like McDonalds, eh? :-).
|
|
|
|
Gene
Howdy Joe, you mean the Sweetwater FSDO?? I'm right on the border between what used to be the SA and the Fort Worth FSDOs before they went to the N. Texas / S. Texas setup they have now. There was a LOT of difference between those two FDSOs in the past and I assume this applies all around the country..
Now, as for TSO equipment required in an experimental aircraft, this is about the same as the FAA enforcing an AD compliance on an experimental, it can't be done and I do have this on a very good source who wishes he could do something about the VE/LE nosegear fork. If I had a DAR (and I have assisted DAR airworthiness inspections) start to invent requirements like requiring TSO parts on an experimental I'd certainly find someone else and at least put the word out about that particular DAR.. For that matter there are some certificated aircraft that don't require TSO parts.
|
|
|