Changing Landing Light?

[Homer Landreth]

I've decided to do some more bench testing and research on the new bulb before I install it. I read the AVWEB article and I am still confused on what the regs require for installing a landing/taxi light. According to the article, these lights don't even require PMA/STC approval. However, nav lights do which is weird. The replacement parts issue is perhaps the biggest hassle when owning an older CAR Part 3 certified airplane.

From Steve
That would be an interesting thing to research. For some reason I trust AvWeb over Wag Aero agaianst popular trends.

My main effort in my previous comment was to consider the fact that he AvWeb article was 6 1/2 years old and it's credibility and accuracy died on the vine with a single statement that is currently inaccurate. I doubt that Wag Aero is falsely advertising a PMA when they really have "no dog in the hunt" one way or the other.
Additionally, FAA Order 8110.42D is the "Holy Grail" for PMA stuff and it requires a PMA part to be marked as such or if marking is not feasible an identification tag has to be furnished telling the user where the applicable PMA information can be found.

Just as an editorial comment, when things like this come up, my painful experience has been that the FAA goes with FAA orders over CFR statements or manufacturers statements, or "cousin Vinny stories" every time. If you really want to know anything other than "Alternate Facts" then go to the FAA WEB site and look up the FAA Order and see what it says.

[Jim Hann]

Okay, I'm curious about something. PMA approvals are "replacement" parts for OEM if I understand this process correctly. So it follows that an OEM part existed at one time, right?

I know that Grimes originally made the Nav light fixtures (and bulbs I assume) that are on my short wing. Who is the OEM for the landing lights? If the GE brand is PMA'd, they must not be so who is?

[Gilbert Pierce]

My Grimes light bulbs in my Grimes nav lights have no FAA/PMA stamp on them. So are they now illegal?

[JPerkins]

So my understanding with bulbs is that they have a part number that is more or less universal regardless of manufacturer. A 4509 is a 4509 regardless if it's ge, Wagner, grote, or a J.A. Pan corporation that built it. So if the specs call out a certain number,wouldn't that make the whole pma thing irrelevant?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[bstoney]

The 4509 bulbs are available at any parts house or tractor dealer. They are the usual bulbs used for tractor headlights and rear spotlights.

[Homer Landreth]

My Grimes light bulbs in my Grimes nav lights have no FAA/PMA stamp on them. So are they now illegal?

Per my post above:

FAA Order 8110.42D is the "Holy Grail" for PMA stuff and it requires a PMA part to be marked as such or if marking is not feasible an identification tag has to be furnished telling the user where the applicable PMA information can be found.

[Homer Landreth]

The 4509 bulbs are available at any parts house or tractor dealer. They are the usual bulbs used for tractor headlights and rear spotlights.

I am sure they are not PMA parts at the Tractor Supply Store.

[Homer Landreth]

So my understanding with bulbs is that they have a part number that is more or less universal regardless of manufacturer. A 4509 is a 4509 regardless if it's ge, Wagner, grote, or a J.A. Pan corporation that built it. So if the specs call out a certain number,wouldn't that make the whole pma thing irrelevant?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

With all of the factual references given here it seems incredible for someone to advocate that the PMA process is irrelevant. Maybe you can write to Donald Trump and ask him to make an executive order to disregard FAA order 8110.42D.

[Steve Pierce]

When I get my router at the hanger working I will post the CAR 3 requirements for landing lights and nav lights.

[smcnutt]

Avoiding the is it legal discussion from those far more knowledgeable than I (thats pretty much everyone ) a concern with a $59 LED light would be is it rugged enough to last. Ive heard of lesser LED's that will rattle apart due to weak solder joints etc. Im sure that explains the reason one bulb is $59 and the other is $259. However, for $59 it wouldn't break the bank if it failed. I do like the idea of pulling less amperage thru those wires though.