Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

["Robert L Bass" <Sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Gordon Burditt" wrote:
>
> I seem to recall that there are FAA regulations that you have to
> have at least two independent methods of measuring <something> (I
> forget, this may have been altitude or airspeed) but if you add a
> GPS unit, you now have three methods of measuring <something>.  But
> you can't take off unless *all* of them are working, so adding the
> GPS just added another point of failure.

It's been a long time since I read the FARs but I can tell you this much.  It's
a lot more "interesting" making a anding without electrical power to the
instrument panel.  On a flight with my CFI years ago we were returning to SRQ
(Sarasota) when a fuse blew.  Then we noticed a faint smell of somethying
electrical burning.  There was no visible smoke and everything that doesn't need
electricity worked.  Strangely, the radios also worked.

In order to land at SRQ you usually approach from the North and have to fly
briefly into Tampa International's airspace.  Tampa's controllers get pretty
busy and often tell GA pilots to stand by.  That afternoon was no exception.

After a couple of minutes I called them again.  Same answer.

I replied "Cessna ***** standing by with electrical failure and odor of smoke in
airplane."

They took care of us really fast.  We landed without incident, taxied to the
shop and walked away (definition of a good landing).  The A&P guy found a short,
fixed it and said all was well.  Next time we flew that airplane, we lost
electrical power to the panel again.  Shortly after that I had to stop due to
health issues.  I assume they finally got things straightened out.

> Assume that a tail light setup was certified to be 25% more than
> sufficiently bright with 100 LEDs.  It is likely to be ticket-worthy
> if there's one dead light...

First the cop has to see the one dead LED.  Then he has to be the one moron in
twenty who would ticket you for it.  Of course, with my luck... :^)