91.205???

[midlifeflyer]

I am still interested in a definition.

I looked in the POH and it says that the beacon is optional. I also found out that its a 1971 model (c-150).

Does the list tell you whether the "beacon" is red or white? If red, this would suggest that the red beacon, not the belly strobe, is the airplane's "anticollision light". I would expect a pre-1976 model to have it listed as "optional"

(the Cessna anticollision light is usually the red beacon, even on older models)

The other way is to go back to that A&P and ask whether either of the lights meets Part 23 anticolission light standards (if one were installed after August 1971, it would have to).

 

[ThunderRun]

I have to add my two cents and state, in my opinion, that the rotating beacon on most aircraft (pre-March 11, 1996) can by inop for day VFR flight. The intent of 91.205 doesn't necessarily require the lights, just that they be turned on if installed. Besides, if the FAA wanted to require the rotating beacon for day VFR flight, why does their Master Minimum Equipment List issued for single-engine aircraft (dated Feb 2, 1998) state the anti-collision beacon light system "May be inoperative for day operations" (Page 33-1). I know MELs don't apply to most of the planes operated under part 91 but it goes to show the attitude of the FAA.

 

[ThunderRun]

Sorry for the typo in previous post. I meant to reference 91.209 as the requlation requiring the rotating beacon to be turned on--not 91.205 which requires the beacon in the first place.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The intent of 91.205 doesn't necessarily require the lights, just that they be turned on if installed.

Correct (with your 209 correction). If you're flying an airplane that doesn't have any, you're fine. You are not required to install them and you can fly all day without them.

But the question talks about an aircraft in which they =are= installed. So they must be turned on. (at least that's what 209 says). And it's pretty tough to turn them on if they don't work.

Besides, if the FAA wanted to require the rotating beacon for day VFR flight, why does their Master Minimum Equipment List issued for single-engine aircraft (dated Feb 2, 1998) state the anti-collision beacon light system "May be inoperative for day operations"

Because a piece of equipment being generally required does not automatically preclude it from being listed in a MEL.

Perhaps this blurb from the FAA comment that revised the requirements will help clarify what the FAA "wants"

Federal Register: February 9, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 28), Page 5151-5171] (Eff 3-11-96)
==============================
Section 91.209 Aircraft Lights

Proposed new Sec. 91.209(b) would require that airplanes equipped with an anticollision light system be operated with the anticollision light system lighted during all types of operations, except when the pilot determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off.

One commenter believes that the proposal is unacceptable to aircraft operators. This commenter contends that the midair collision statistics are purely conjectural and that any safety benefits are merely guesswork. The commenter also notes that this change would affect an aircraft's dispatch capability, and questions why an airplane that is perfectly capable of being flown should be grounded from daytime flight because something, such as a lamp, is defective.

The FAA agrees that there will be incidents where an airplane will be temporarily grounded from daylight operations until a failure in the light system can be repaired. However, the additional safety cue provided to pilots by operating anticollision light systems will outweigh the cost of maintaining the light system.

The proposed revision of Sec. 91.209 is adopted as proposed.
==============================



Is it any wonder the FAA removed discussions of MEL from the Private PTS?

 

[Tug Driver]

Does the list tell you whether the "beacon" is red or white? If red, this would suggest that the red beacon, not the belly strobe, is the airplane's "anticollision light". I would expect a pre-1976 model to have it listed as "optional"

(the Cessna anticollision light is usually the red beacon, even on older models)

Quote from my 1971 C-150 POH:

Exterior Lighting.

"Optional lighting includese a single landing light in the cowl nose cap, a flashing beacon on the top of the vertical fin, and a strobe light on each wing tip."

However, the aircraft does not have the wing tip strobes. Instead it has just one on the belly that is visable from 360 degrees on the underside at least.

 

[puddlejumper]

Piper Strobes

When the only anticollision lights installed are strobes, what do ya all think about using them all the time during the day? I don't, but I'm not sure if that's technically legal. I used to fly a Tomahawk a lot and if the strobes were on, the radio transmissions were noisy. That didn't seem safe to me, so "in the interest of safety", I left them off. There was no beacon on that plane.

On the Archer 3 I used to fly and on the Cheyenne I currently fly, there is no beacon, just strobes on the wing tips. I don't turn them on unless I'm on a or crossing a runway or airborne. The way I see it, I would always give students a hard time when they were taxiing with strobes on. That would add stress, and that's not safe. In the interest of safety, I leave my strobes off on the ramp and taxiways.

Obviously, at night strobes are a legitimate safety concern, also in clouds and precip. I'm not so sure of my theories of CFI intimidation. But, that's what I'm thinking when I'm operating my aircraft on the ground with no anti-collision lights lit.

-pj

 

[ThunderRun]

Is it any wonder the FAA removed discussions of MEL from the Private PTS?

Actually, MELs are still in the Private PTS (Area of Operation: Preflight Preparation Task B: Airworthiness Requirements 1.b.)

B. TASK: AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: 14 CFR part 91; AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25.

Objective. To determine that the applicant exhibits knowledge of the
elements related to airworthiness requirements by:
1. Explaining—

a. required instruments and equipment for day/night VFR.
b. procedures and limitations for determining airworthiness of the
airplane with inoperative instruments and equipment with and
without an MEL.
c. requirements and procedures for obtaining a special flight
permit.

In fact, our local designated examiner covers MELs to some extent during his practical tests.

 

[nosehair]

MEL

Mark, you said the FAA removed the requirement to "exibit knowledge of the elements related to...procedures and limitations for determining airworthiness of the airplane with inoperative instruments and equipment with and without an MEL."
That's a quote from my Private Pilot PTS. Dated August 2002. Is there a newer one with this task removed?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: Piper Strobes

When the only anticollision lights installed are strobes, what do ya all think about using them all the time during the day?

Neither 91.205 nor 91.209 doesn't talk in terms of approved or unapproved anticollision light systems in terms of the requirement to have them on (if they did, you would be prohibited from flying at night with an "unapproved" system even with them on).

If all you have is wingtip strobes, then they are the only "anticollision light system" you have and 91.209 says they should be on whenever you are operating the airplane (subject to turning them off for safety reasons, which is pretty much the pilot's call).

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: MEL

Mark, you said the FAA removed the requirement to "exibit knowledge of the elements related to...procedures and limitations for determining airworthiness of the airplane with inoperative instruments and equipment with and without an MEL."
That's a quote from my Private Pilot PTS. Dated August 2002. Is there a newer one with this task removed?

No. You and ThunderRun are correct. Brain fart. As I recall, the PTS used to discuss MEL a little more heavily and what stuck with me after the 2002 change was how it seemed less important rather than how it was incorporated into the general airworthiness requirement task.