Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1519912
Indeed and that could result in it remaining VFR, or us going back to Oratex. :D

And they say a Permit aircraft is easier to operate than a C of A! :wink:

Or maybe it would be more accurate to say sole ownership is easier to manage than a syndicate. :lol: :lol:

Many thanks Ian. :thumleft:
User avatar
By foxmoth
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1519937
rf3flyer wrote:Whimsical thought. If you have a transponder...do you need lights? :wink:

If you want to fly at night even an A380 needs lights! ( and you need lights inside the transponder to set it!! :lol: )

As for which ones, look at marine ones, MUCH cheaper, the angles are slightly different from aviation but AIUI they are going to be lenient on this and marine ones will be allowed.
User avatar
By Grumpy One
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1519942
<Pedantic Mode ON>
Strictly speaking the arc of visibility of the sidelights differ from Marine to Aeronautical by a matter of 2.5degrees

Marine - For each sidelight the arc of visibility is 112.5degrees from right ahead to two points (22.5degrees) abaft the beam. on their respective sides.

Aeronautical - Each sidelight arc has an arc of visibility of 110degrees from right ahead to 20degrees abaft the beam on their respective sides.
<Mode OFF>

Sorry ......... Going to take my anorak off now....
User avatar
By foxmoth
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1520114
That is why I put at the end of my post
the angles are slightly different from aviation but AIUI they are going to be lenient on this and marine ones will be allowed.
:roll:
User avatar
By Grumpy One
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1520156
foxmoth wrote:That is why I put at the end of my post
the angles are slightly different from aviation but AIUI they are going to be lenient on this and marine ones will be allowed.
:roll:

That being said, if, heaven forbid, there is a night-time mid-air collision involving an LAA aircraft and it was found that the LAA aircraft had only fitted 'marine' standard lights, then I, as an insurer and/or relative of the poor unfortunate injured/maimed/deceased, would go for the throat of whomsoever allowed the fitting and use of these 'incorrect' navigation lights.

Sorry - But as an ex investigator of marine incidents the turning-of a-blind-eye, with a nod and a wink, would raise some eyebrows :D
By cockney steve
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1520164
^^^^^^^ Ah, but, the exact angles seem to be driven by little more than pedantic empire-building bureaucracy. Both forms of transport are "navigating a passage through a fluid medium" The arc of visibility is visible to the navigator long before a collision is imminent.

In the Motor Insurance world, Insurance Engineers led me to understand that precedents have long been set that an un -roadworthy aspect of a vehicle will not invalidate a claim if it has no contributory effect.
2 night flying aircraft, fast one on same track as slow one......fast one hits slow one up the rear.....try claiming it was because the victim's forward-facing lights had beams a couple of degrees too narrow!
User avatar
By Grumpy One
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1520173
Ahhhh! But you don't rely on a road vehicle's headlights for collision avoidance.
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.
I would argue very strongly in a law case that if someone had cheaply and improperly fitted a marine light system in an aeroplane - against the regulations, simply 'cos it's cheaper, is worthy of the electric chair :? :D ....

Hasty retreat - whilst the writer whips off to aeroplane to check that all is pukka!! :clown:
#1520177
Grumpy One wrote:That being said, if, heaven forbid, there is a night-time mid-air collision involving an LAA aircraft and it was found that the LAA aircraft had only fitted 'marine' standard lights, then I, as an insurer and/or relative of the poor unfortunate injured/maimed/deceased, would go for the throat of whomsoever allowed the fitting and use of these 'incorrect' navigation lights.

Sorry - But as an ex investigator of marine incidents the turning-of a-blind-eye, with a nod and a wink, would raise some eyebrows :D


How so Grumpy One, if the marine lights offer 2.5 degrees greater visibility?

On what grounds would you go for the throat? :?
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1520189
LAA says in 5.4.2 "External lights shall comply with the applicable sub-paragraphs of paragraph 23.1385 to 23.1401 of CS23."

CS23 para 23.1387 (a) and (b) require dihedral angles of 110 degrees.