[Miscellaneous]

My point is that it would be difficult to argue a greater angle of visibility was a contributory factor in a mid air.

[Waveflyer]

G1,
Do the same rules apply to the new electric lights that they use now?

[patowalker]

My point is that it would be difficult to argue a greater angle of visibility was a contributory factor in a mid air.

I agree. But the issue is not the angle of visibility, it is knowingly fitting non-compliant equipment, which raises questions on the validity of the permit to fly. In my view, it is just not worth fitting marine lights.

[Miscellaneous]

A valid point, pat, however I don't believe that's Grumpy One's argument? I read it that he is arguing visibility is the issue.

The ability to see a green (or Red) sidelight can be a matter of deciding whether one is a crossing vessel/aircraft or an overtaking one, a give-way one or a stand-on one

Although I have no knowledge I'd question the inferred inferior quality assumed of marine lights.

Can you explain Grumpy One?

[Joe Dell]

You could remove the offending 2.5° with a bit of black sticky tape. Though I doubt if anyone would bother.

[peter272]

There seems to be some sort of pattern emerging here.

The LAA have spent a long time working towards permitting night and IFR flight in Permit aircraft. They have to show that this is safe and compliant with existing rules

The fact that some LAA owners seem to be trying to circumvent these rules, using cheaper and non-compliant equipment is a touch worrying and could lead to a crackdown on, what I believe to be, a sensible alleviation.

[foxmoth]

The fact that some LAA owners seem to be trying to circumvent these rules, using cheaper and non-compliant equipment is a touch worrying and could lead to a crackdown on, what I believe to be, a sensible alleviation.

AIUI it is the LAA themselves that have essentially said that marine lights will be within tolerance - and as JD says, you could always blank out the additional few degrees with tape or black paint, of course if someone produced aviation angled ones at anywhere near the cost of marine ones this would be unnecessary!

[User72]

From what I know, the LAA have said if lights from a recognised aviation supplier are fitted then they will not look much further. If not then they will have to satisfy themselves the lights fitted meets the rules (and I'm assuming the owner will have to pay any investigation charges). Doesn't seem much to be gained by fitting non aviation lights.

[patowalker]

I think someone has misread TIL 2.28, 5.4, where it refers to measuring angles.

Exterior lighting Exterior lighting shall be installed as follows: 1. A landing light 2. External lights shall comply with the applicable subparagraphs of paragraph 23.1385 to 23.1401, of CS23.

Lighting is required by the ANO (schedule 4), CS-VLA and CS23. Lights consist of position lights and anticollision lights (strobes). It is strongly recommended that commercially available lights are installed that have previously been shown to comply with these requirements. Note that during the evaluation there is no intention of measuring angles or intensities unless a visual inspection indicates a gross non-conformance.

It seems to me that refers to measuring whether the first vertical planes (of the 110 degree lights) are parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aeroplane. After all, it will not be easy to achieve absolute accuracy when fitting light on wingtips.

Would the LAA admit in print that it has no intention of checking that the lights conform to C23.1387?

[Grumpy One]

OK.
My pedantic contention was firstly, knowingly using a navigation light in contravention of the precise regulations would, if the same parameters exist in the aeronautical world as in the marine world, be cause for some attributed blame .
Secondly, as I implied, the perception of one party (the bloke in the marine lit machine) might be different from the bloke in t'other aerobeast.
I'm not sure I can put this into words without recourse to a diagram!! Sorry ... but here are the words..... S'cuse grammar.

"A"= Bloke in the incorrect navigation lit machine
"B" = The other bloke .

"A" - Heading, say North, thus his arc of green light would be showing from North round to 112.5deg (2.5deg short of EastSouthEast)
"B" Heading, say Northwest

"B" is over on "A"'s starboard side on about the 112.5 deg vector (ie bearing ESE from "A")

"B" Sees a green sidelight over on his port side (1/2 past 10)
"B" thinks to him/her self - "Ah! I can see his green. He's a crossing a/c & should give way , it'll probably come round my stern".

"A" Maybe doesn't see "B" - A potential close quarters situation arises. Or....
If "A" has seen "B", he/she possibly thinks, "Ah! It's an overtaking a/c - It is "B"'s responsibility to keep clear".
An unlikely scenario maybe, but nevertheless not impossible.
It happens lots of times at sea, even if the navigation lights are correctly fitted!)

The cut off for the navigation lights is well laid down. When undertaking a marine survey for renewal of ones Ship Safety Certificates - The surveyors check the arc of visibility of the lights. Many a time , whilst in drydock, I've had the surveyors walk round the dockside, asking for the various lights to be shown to check & verify the arc of visibility.
If the Board of Trade surveyor didn't like it he'd get us to adjust accordingly (Heavy weather, worn fittings did cause slight misalignments on a number of occasions). Either we fixed the problem by tightening bolts, hammering the brackets! or even replacing the, usually, wooden, 'blinkers' ,to enable an accurate arc to be displayed.

The navigation lights of an aircraft are similarly designed, with or without 'blinkers' to ensure correct arcs of visibility. Aircraft which fly at night should have had their navigation light fittings surveyed and inspected in order to confirm acceptance. Which I'm sure they do. - Mine hasn't got any, so I'm OK!

Now my point remains - IF a machine has been fitted with a marine navigation light , and there's an accident, then one of the ambulance chasing litigant's weapons will be that the user deliberately flouted the regulations. If the user of these very important illegal lights knew they were illegal, what else did he/she choose to ignore?

[cockney steve]

Sort of lost track, a bit, on this thread, but we're arguing about 2.5 degrees are we not?, At the extreme perceptible range of visibility that tiny slit of light is pretty insignificant. In the case of your ship, the natural pitching and rolling of the vessel would surely give a greater variation than that.

This tiny amount is little more than a production tolerance, compared with the "wooden blinkers" and "hammering brackets" to satisfy some pedantic jobsworth.
which brings us to the incompetent , useless oxygen- thief who felt it was a good idea to take a perfectly good specification for a marine visual aid , reduce it's visible field by 2 1/2 degrees and sit in smug satisfaction that they'd re-invented the wheel.

Line the lot of them against a wall and shoot them with balls of their own excrement

As, to my knowledge, there has never been an accident that can be attributed to this field of visibility issue....therefore , as I stated before, it's an irrelevance. not a getout for insurers.

I'm struggling to see how that 2 1/2 degrees of extra visibility can have mote than a couple of seconds relevance to 2 aircraft moving in relation to each other...Indeed, if there's any relevance whatsoever, a campaign should be started immediately , to consolidate the regulations for both Marine and Aviation so they both have the same level of safety WRT Nav. light fields of visibility.

[Grumpy One]

You don't have to agree - We are democratic

[Paul_Sengupta]

Sort of lost track, a bit, on this thread, but we're arguing about 2.5 degrees are we not?

Could 2.5 degrees mean the difference between ending up over Cranfield or over Newport Pagnell, possibly inverted?

The standard instrument glideslope is 3 degrees.

Mind you, separation is 6 degrees if I read it correctly...

In the case of your ship, the natural pitching and rolling of the vessel would surely give a greater variation than that.

Yeah, my flying's the same...though it tends to be a bit calmer at night!

You don't have to agree - We are democratic

Do you think we could take a vote/poll/referendum on everything EASA comes out with and then abide by our democratic decision rather than what we've been asked to do?

Sorry, not adding much to the discussion. Carry on.

[patowalker]

This predates EASA by a very long time. CS 23.1387 is CFR 25.1387 word for word, so we can blame the Americans.

[golfcharlie]

A silly question, but Miscellaneous does not say whether the intention to fit lights is to render the Jodel suitable for night flying, or more conspicuous in daytime.

In the first case, as another contributor has pointed out, he will need panel lighting, so this might require a lot of additional work. Presumably, the Jodel will also need a landing light. Location? Wing leading edge or spat? Certainly added weight and expense.

In the second case, I would like to see any well-founded technical report that may be available from an authoritative source ( e.g. a National civil aviation authority, a University Engineering Faculty) demonstrating that nav lights or even strobes are an effective anti-collison aid for the conditions in which light aircraft are normally legally operated: good VFR day.

The only report I was able to dig up 20 years ago was from Australia, which said that such lighting made no difference in day VFR.

Can someone prove otherwise?