Knowing few things about electronics and lights (conventional, HID, LED) I wouldn’t say that it’s a complicated piece of equipment 
However, looking how much time is needed for companies to develop STC for e.g. replacement LED taxi light, one could think that it’s rocket science E.g. for DA42 there’s LED replacement for wingtip lights and strobes but there’s no replacement for (poor) landing and taxi lights. When I compare these lights with lights that we use in diving (both for communication and video lighting) I wonder if anybody in GA does anything seriously in lighting.
I can’t remember whether CS-STAN covers LED lamps (does anyone know?) but in the US market a lot of the “approvals” are not needed; you can fit the stuff as a Minor Alteration. It’s just that the majority of mechanics (everywhere) won’t read or can’t read the regs or don’t want to put their logbook signature under some interpretation which they do have the authority to make but which they are afraid to make. This is one of the advantages of being N-reg: there is no CAMO to pick things apart, and if your A&P/IA agrees then you can do it.
This is one of the advantages of being N-reg: there is no CAMO to pick things apart, and if your A&P/IA agrees then you can do it.
I’m aware of more relaxed regime on N-reg but owning DA42 in Europe and switching it to N-reg wouldn’t be a smart move. In my opinion it would immediately decrease ability to sell due to market specifics. On top of that any alteration done on N-reg would complicate possible return to EASA-reg if required by future owner.
I agree 100%. The market for N-regs is small nowadays. It is really for long term ownership. Also a DA42 has a reduced scope for Part 91, I am told by my A&P who used to work on them.
Emir wrote:
E.g. for DA42 there’s LED replacement for wingtip lights and strobes but there’s no replacement for (poor) landing and taxi lights.
…. but your landing and taxi lights are already LED. :scratch:
Peter wrote:
I can’t remember whether CS-STAN covers LED lamps (does anyone know?)
Yes:
CS-SC031b — 2
Standard Change CS-SC031b
EXCHANGE OF CONVENTIONAL ANTI-COLLISION LIGHTS, POSITION LIGHTS AND LANDING & TAXI LIGHTS BY LED TYPE LIGHT
1. Purpose
Exchange of anti-collision lights, position lights and landing & taxi lights by LED type lights.
2. Applicability/Eligibility
Aeroplanes not being complex motor-powered aircraft, rotorcraft not being complex motor-powered aircraft and not approved for NVIS and any other ELA2 aircraft.
3. Acceptable methods, techniques, and practices
The following standards contain acceptable data:
— FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-2B, Chapter 4; and
— FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B, Chapter 11, Section 15 (on bonding).
Additionally the following applies:
— anti-collision lights are authorised in accordance with ETSO-C96a or later amendments, or equivalent;
— position lights are authorised in accordance with ETSO-C30c or later amendments, or equivalent;
— the equipment is installed at the same location with identical light distribution angles and colours;
— the equipment is qualified for the environmental conditions to be expected during normal operation;
— instructions and tests defined by the equipment manufacturer have to be followed; and
— any modification of electrical wiring is performed in accordance with acceptable practices such as the aircraft maintenance manual or Chapter 11 of FAA Advisory Circulars AC 43.13-1B and Chapter 4 of AC 43.13-2B.
OK; very good. Thanks.
FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-2B
That’s a generic mod/repair manual.
anti-collision lights are authorised in accordance with ETSO-C96a or later amendments, or equivalent;
— position lights are authorised in accordance with ETSO-C30c or later amendments, or equivalent;
So they have to be ETSOd – that limits the options dramatically, surely? A US TSO would be better.
the equipment is installed at the same location with identical light distribution angles and colours
Somebody will argue that implies a PMA 
Otherwise, how do you show due diligence? So now you “need” an FAA-PMA plus an EASA TSO… This is a devil-advocate position but you know how this business works.
But in practical terms this means you can fit the LED lights and nobody will be able to say “he’s cheating” and report you to the CAA
Peter wrote:
So they have to be ETSOd – that limits the options dramatically, surely? A US TSO would be better.
I’d say “or equivalent” may well imply a US TSO.
But in practical terms this means you can fit the LED lights and nobody will be able to say “he’s cheating” and report you to the CAA
And also it says nothing about the landing/taxi lights, which means a $30 Chinese landing light off Aliexpress isn’t illegal… I have one, and it’s quite well-made and certainly more reliable than GE 4509.
That’s a good point, since they already refer to a US work manual for the general installation procedures…
I wonder how long before we get an E43.13 but with the paragraphs having the same numbers That was what JAA did with some stuff I saw many years ago.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
Emir wrote:
E.g. for DA42 there’s LED replacement for wingtip lights and strobes but there’s no replacement for (poor) landing and taxi lights.
…. but your landing and taxi lights are already LED. :scratch:
Maybe it’s wrong wording or sentence structure – the point was on “poor”.
