Questions if you are bored

[stardog]

As a followup to the slipping entry to spin posted above, this is what I was able to deduce. In a slipping entry, the high wing will have the aileron down increasing it's angle of attack, thereby aggravating the stall. Similarly, the rudder use in a slip will cause the airplane to yaw into the high wing. This reduces the wing's speed through the air, further aggravating the stall on that wing.

 

[Deftone45075]

I believe that the strobes and the anti-collision lights are considered two seperate systems. If you read 91.205(b)(11) again, you will see that it says you must have "an approved aviation red OR aviation white anticollision system." Therefore, if your strobe (or your beacon) fails and you still have the other system operating, you're legal.

The way I understand it is that the anticollision light system means either beacon or strobes. Since the regs do not specify "beacon" or "strobes," if my beacon became inop my strobes make me legal.

According to the reg., no your not legal. Your right that either strobes, or the beacon are an anti collision light system, however if your beacon fails. It is still a "failed" anti collision light. And 91.205 say that if ANY of the lights fail, you may only fly to a point where repairs can be made.

Just because the strobes add redundancy doesn't mean you can fly with the inop. beacon. It is installed and falls under the minimum required equipment as per the above reg. If any of those items are inop., the airplane is not legal, unless you have a MEL to defer the item.

 

[lucky2Bflyin]

Reg says "approved red OR white anticollision light system." If my RED rotating beacon is inoperative prior to flight, and I had an operating WHITE anticollision light system, such as the strobes, you had better believe that I am going to fly. Personally, I think it is for this reason that the FAA decided not to use the words, "beacon" or "strobe." Once again, I think common sense dictates this question. The purpose of the "anticollision light system" is to rapidly alert other people, aircraft, etc of an aircraft starting up, operating on the ground, or in the air. From personal experience, I have discovered 2 beacons inop prior to flight with students. I like these occurences because they provide a "real-life" application of the regs. Neither time did we ground the airplane.

Hope that helps.

 

[Deftone45075]

It says red OR white because you are allowed either. If your aiplane only has a beacon and no strobes, the "red OR white" covers you. If you have strobes without a beacon, the same reg covers you. That is where the "OR" comes in.

If both are installed, they TOGETHER form the anti-collision light system. If your beacon is inop. it is STILL a failed component, and you cannot fly except to a place where repairs can be made.

I like these occurences because they provide a "real-life" application of the regs. Neither time did we ground the airplane.

Well, if something is installed in the airplane, it mustbe operative to be airworthy. If you have an MEL that says you can defer the light, than you can go. Otherwise your teaching a "real life application of the regs" incorrectly to your students.

 

[lucky2Bflyin]

From 91.205:

"In the event of failure of ANY light of the anticollision light system..."
Deftone, I can see your point and it is a good one based on the way the reg is worded. Personally, it just does not make sense to me why you must ground the airplane if you have operating strobes, but your beacon is inop or vice versa? Think about it this way. Suppose your beacon IS working, but your strobes are not....does this mean you must ground the airplane?

There is no logic to this at all since neither strobe nor beacon is a required item on the type certificate data sheet. I am fully aware that when consulting 91.213(d) for inop equipment that you must refer to 91.205, but where is the logic here? (Maybe that's my mistake is trying to search for logic in a goverment document???)

My last point regarding "ANY light of the anticollision light system." Suppose your aircraft has two strobe lights, one on each wing (typical if you are flying a new C-172), and ONE of the two lights becomes inop. To me, the way the reg states you could not fly based on this situation as well?

Deftone, I am all for following the regs as strictly as possible, but the reasoning behind this one just does not follow...anyone agree with me?

P.S.....I propose those members who post more than 100 on the FAR discussion should qualify for an aviation law degree....can we just make this policy?!!!

BEB

 

[cocknbull]

I'm looking at the equipment list for a 2000 C172R and they do not list either the storbe or the beacon as required. They list it as "S" or standard. According to their list this means it was not required by FAR or FAA certification. Interesting..... Since we all know 91.205 and we can see according to that reg. that it is required. I don't know what to tell you. Typically when dealing with inop equipment you would use a flow..

Required by type certification on equipment lists?

Required by AD?

Required by 91.205?

If yes you can't fly. If No, you can fly however it must be deactivated and placarded or removed and a new weight and baklance be made.

In this case I would say Fly day VFR only. According to Cessna's Operating hand book the aircraft was not required by certification to have an operable collision light system. Infact after reading the manual the aircraft was more then likely typed before March 1996. The manuals first edition came out in December of 1996.

 

[Mickey]

We have two white position lights on the tail of The ERJ. If either one of them is out we cannot fly at night. Regs are regs and this is a real life application. (yes, I know this is not an anti-collision light but, I just brought it up because it's amazing how a little light can ground an aircraft). I think the focus here for discussion should turn turn to the date of certification and what the feds are referring to.
Take care.

 

[501261]

I might have some insight on the Beacon vs. strobe debate. A couple of years back an airplane I was flying had 3 strobes (wingtips and tail) and 2 beacons (upper and lower). During a preflight at an outstation I realized that the upper beacon had burnt out. I went to MEL it when a friendly Fed came up to do a ramp check (he actually was very friendly and gave us a ferry permit to bring us home).

To make a long story short, we couldn't MEL the beacon because in the airplane equipment list the beacon is labeled the Anti-collision lighting system. As we know by now the "anti-collision lighting system" is required by 91.205 and can not be MEL'd.

In conclusion beacons and strobes are both acceptable anti collision lighting systems, which is why you see airplanes with one and not the other. However, 1 of them has to be considered the "anti-collision" lighting system in the POH or equipment list. In our case the beacon is considered the anti-collision (according to the MEL, equipment list, and switch label) and both beacons are required to be working for flight. Strobes are just other lights in our case, just like the recog and logo lights and are not required for flight.

 

[groundpointsix]

Also, maybe someone has looked this one up (not saying this is fact, but don't want to take the time to research it): Where does it say in the FAR's that if you have the collision light system installed that you have to have it turned on? I know it is implied, but is it mandatory?

FAR 91.209 (b): No person may 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.