Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Beacon vs strobe anticollision question

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5

    Beacon vs strobe anticollision question

    Ok, a question came up during today's hangar flying session. Does a GA airplane operated not-for-hire at night need a beacon? 91.205 just says:

    "(2) Approved position lights.
    (3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems initially installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type certificate was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter, as applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the color may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of any light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made"


    The airline pilots use a red beacon before engine start and strobes on the runway, but for GA we believe all you need is strobes and the beacon is optional. We did agree it's poor form to taxi around at night on the ramp with the strobes on blinding everyone, but the debate is about what's legal minimum equipment on the aircraft.


    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Does a GA airplane operated not-for-hire at night need a beacon?
    Why wouldn't you put one on there?

    Personally, there's a reason why when I fly aircraft that can do it, I head for above FL180 as fast as I can and try to stay under IFR as much as possible to add an additional layer of security to avoid collisions. There's a reason why I also really want to put a TCAS I system into my design. Honestly, if I could afford it, I would put a TCAS II system in there as well.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Cirrus aircraft don't have a beacon. And Cirrus pilots taxi around with the strobe lights on all the time.

  4. #4
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    Cirrus aircraft don't have a beacon. And Cirrus pilots taxi around with the strobe lights on all the time.
    But they're Cirrus pilots...

  5. #5
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Cirrus aircraft don't have a beacon
    I don't think there are many things on the Cirrus worth emulating honestly.

    And Cirrus pilots taxi around with the strobe lights on all the time.
    But they're Cirrus pilots...
    Bingo....and that's the nicest thing you can possibly say about them doing this sort of thing.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    I didn't realize that Cirrus did not have any beacon. I've also seen them start and taxi with the strobes on, even in daytime, but I just thought they were probably new to aviation and just didn't know any better. I think Diamond pilots do the same thing.

    I have had a few flights is a friend's SR-22. It has got some good things,like the parachute, but some of it just seems to be done only for the sake of being different, and certianly not better like the side stick or yoke.

    It seems a good plane for long distance cross country trips, he often flys out to San Diego.

    I leave my rotating red beacon on all the time in my Bonanza. It not only warns anyone else that I am starting up , but by leaving it on, it should warn me if I leave the master on. The 24 volt battery in my plane is about $500 to replace, plus labor if I ruin it. I've seen a lot more plane run on 12 volts, but not Beech.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 03-04-2012 at 09:07 PM.

  7. #7
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    I didn't realize that Cirrus did not have any beacon. I've also seen them start and taxi with the strobes on, even in daytime, but I just thought they were probably new to aviation and just didn't know any better.
    No one new to aviation has any business flying what amounts to a high-performance aircraft. That is the biggest reason for Cirrus' miserable safety record.

    It has got some good things,like the parachute, but some of it just seems to be done only for the sake of being different, and certianly not better like the side stick or yoke.
    It's more of a case where they didn't think the design through all the way, certainly not if they were planning on marketing it as an aircraft for low-hour pilots or for use as a trainer.

    The CAPS/BRS really isn't that great of an improvement because it's useful in such a narrow set of circumstances (in-flight breakup, high-altitude spatial disorientation, mid-air collision) and the fact that a lot of pilots will try to recover an aircraft that might have best been saved by pulling the handle all the way to impact. I'm not arguing against it, just pointing out that it's not the end-all, be-all of saving your ass if you get in over your head like a lot of Cirrus pilots have been brainwashed into thinking.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    A recent issue of Aviation Consumer magazine had a study of accidents for the Cirrus and other gen av similar type planes.
    The Cirrus safety record is not "miserable" , in fact it is average, it fits in the middle of all the planes. One weakness that stood out was fire after impact.
    The chute can and has saved some pilots who would almost surely been lost otherwise.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Actually, Steve, the BRS useage historically has been at low altitude (500-1000' AGL) to save a pilot during the infamous turn-to-final spin.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  10. #10
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    The Cirrus safety record is not "miserable" , in fact it is average, it fits in the middle of all the planes.
    When you look at crash survivability, it's pretty miserable (see below). This from an aircraft that was described by Aviation Consumer as “one of the most crashworthy airplanes in GA history" but has probably better personified the old "smoking hole" analogy better than any other single GA aircraft since that one that was built using the wings and tail of a Cessna 337 and a Ford Pinto.

    One weakness that stood out was fire after impact.
    Here's the problem with that analysis....well one of them. In Cirrus crashes, no one survives long enough to die from the effects of the fire generally. Over 90% of the deaths are due to traumatic injury; in a series of 800+ fatalities from GA aircraft that we looked at it for other aircraft it breaks out to about a 70/30 trauma-smoke and fire as cause of death spread.

    The higher rate of traumatic injury is one reason why the fatal crash rate (number of crash that killed someone/total number of crashes) is right about 50%. Compare that to about 25% for a Mooney or 12-13% for a Cessna 172. The difference seems to stem from the lack of occupant protection in longitudinal impacts. In purely vertical impacts on land (read as "CAPS deployment"), you have a reasonable chance of survival because most of the energy absorption is built not into the fuselage or seats but the landing gear. There's some but not enough there to do much in a lot of these crashes...take a look at the crash here in Indy where they landed in water which negate the ability of the landing gear to do their job. You wound up with multiple spinal fractures and a fatality (the latter being a friend of mine).

    In a longitudinal crash (a "standard crash" if you will), you wind up with the fuselage fracturing, the seats breaking loose and the occupants being scattered about or directly exposed to impact forces that they need to be protected from. This is the problem not only with the Cirrus but with most composite designs. Composites can and do stand up to some unbelievably tough forces (look at F1 and Indy cars) but they have to be designed and built to do that. We don't do that today because we have been falsely led to believe that the limits of human tolerances are low and it's the luck of the draw if we survive a severe crash. It's been known for 50+ years that the standards in the FAR are well below what the data indicates is survivable. That's what happens when you base the numbers off of the limits of voluntarily human tolerance.

    My point here is simple: This is an area we- especially in the homebuilt community- need to work on improving for ourselves and our passengers.

    The chute can and has saved some pilots who would almost surely been lost otherwise.
    I agree. It has it's place but I strongly suspect that it deployed "Wile E. Coyote style" (to quote an NTSB investigator friend of mine) on impact is one reason for the Cirrus series earning the nickname "Ronsons" after the lighter brand with the slogan "It lights the first time, every time." Wet wings and a solid fuel rocket in a crash scenario are not a good thing.

    This is one of those cases where we need to look at what has been done before us and learn from it. Sitting here arguing that "Well....so and so says it has a decent record...." (when comparing anything but the fatal crash rate is hard to do for comparative purposes due to lack of background data like actual hours flown, etc) isn't going to improve anything and regardless of whether they have a miserable record in your eyes or not, we can look at that design or any design and go "This works..." or "That needs improvement" or in a few select cases "What the **** were they smoking to make them think THAT was a good idea?" (the Pinto/337 hybrid anyone?).
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •