Beacon vs strobe anticollision question

[Osprey]

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?

[steveinindy]

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.

[martymayes]

Cirrus aircraft don't have a beacon. And Cirrus pilots taxi around with the strobe lights on all the time.

[Dana]

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... :rollseyes:

[steveinindy]

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.

[Bill Greenwood]

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.

[steveinindy]

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.

[Bill Greenwood]

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.

[Frank Giger]

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.

[steveinindy]

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?).

[steveinindy]

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.

If you look at the use in Cirrus though, that's not the case. It is in the ultralight community but among the larger aircraft the numbers seem to be different probably because under nearly perfect conditions it takes nearly a thousand feet to get the CAPS deployed.

http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CAPSHistory.aspx

(http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CAPSHistory.aspx)There was the case here in Indy (deployed at 528 feet and according to some it did not fully deploy) and the one in Deltona, Florida (both occupants killed; chute deployed immediately prior to impact after spin/stall). The CAPS is not a reliable "out" for a spin/stall scenario at low altitude (<1000') in a standard GA aircraft based on the data currently available. That said, it's a g-dsend in cases where you need it at a higher altitude. There is a reason why I am putting such a system on my designs (although with a compressed gas propulsion system rather than a solid fuel rocket).

[WLIU]

I will suggest that no system can help you if you do not employ it in time. I think that the previous posts have veered away from solid ground into some speculation based on incomplete anecdotes.

If I may offer some info provided in another thread by a member of the board of directos of BRS, maker of the parachute emergency systems, Tom Adams reports as follows.

"My back ground on the sublect comes from 19 years of being on the Board of directors of BRS, Inc of South St Paul, Minnesota.

Here are some recorded statistics about the use of this type of unit:

1.) The FAA has issued Suplimental Type certificates for these units on, C-150 / 152, C-172, C-182,
Cessna "Skycatcher", Piper "Sport"( Both of which can be ordered as options) .

2.) The Cirus has had the BRS produced recovery system installad as standard equipment starting at the first production aircraft.

3,) The various units produced by BRS Inc. have been installed on many of the Kit A/C, LSA as well as ultri-lights as well as the Standard category aircraft previously mentioned.

4.) To date BRS inc.( the A/C recovery Parachute) has been responsable for saveing 268 ( as in two hundred sixty eight) lives by thier use.

5.) Some additional facts are: sucessfull deployments in in Supplimental certificated, experimental and ultra light A/C are ..26 from surface to 100', 53 from 101' to 500' 14 between 501 and 1000' the rest above 3000'. Sucessful deployments in Cirus A/C are, 4 from 101' to 500', 11 from 501' to 1000', and 13 above 3000'

6,) The rest of the saves were in the Ultra-Light family of aircraft which as we know do not often get very high"


I think that item 5 addresses the factual data for the Cirrus.

Now back to the discussion about strobes and beacons.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[FlyingRon]

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.

Rotating beacons and strobes are both approved anticollisison lights. You'll find some planes with stobing red lights on the tail rather than beacons as well. The certification requirements for anticollision lights changed several times over years and older planes are grandfathered under their original certification. My plane isn't required to have them at all and didn't come with them. I've got integrated position and strobes embedded in my tip tanks.
Frankly, I believe strobes to be superior. Most rotating beacons are too feeble to be really useful. I was considering putting a whalen red strobe in my tail as there's no visibility of the tip tank mounted strboes from the rear.

The premise by the way is wrong. There are airlines without rotating beacons at all. Anticollision lights are not necessary for taxiing, and there are explicit exemptions to turn them off when they would be problematic. In fact, such lights have been pretty much shown to be not very useful on the ground anyhow. Even airliners with all their lights (including anti collision, position, and the various logo lights) have been shown to be pretty hard to spot at night on the ground.

I burn the strobes all the time except ground ops in darkness. They come on with the transponder as I cross the hold short line at night.

If people want to argue Cirrus accident rates and/or BRS efficacy, I suggest they find another thread rather than drifting this one all over the place.

[martymayes]

"Rotating beacon" is a misnomer as not all beacons rotate. For example, the beacon used on 1000's of Cessna's is just a bulb that turns on/off, no mechanical rotation involved. Also, not all beacons are part of an anticollision light system. I fly a plane that has a red beacon on top and bottom of the fuselage, they are actually strobe lights but the switch is labeled beacon light, and the airplane flight manual specifically says the beacon lights are not to be used as anticollision lights. Same is true in the MEL, beacon and anticollision are separate systems.

[Bill Greenwood]

To "Flying Ron" , this topic was about gen av beacon vs strobe, and not about airlines.
If you want to write about airlines, why don't you do "find another thread rather than drifting this one all over the place."

Does that sound pretty rude as I write it?

It did when you thought it was your place to tell other people what to write or not on this EAA forum.

[FlyingRon]

It wasn't my intention to be rude, and rudeness in response to rudeness isn't reasonable behavior in any event. But just as those who hijacked the thread had their opinions about Cirrus aircraft and pilot, I am entitled to mine.

It was purely a suggestion that people had hijacked a thread to dredge up some vendetta about Cirrus or Cirrus pilots.
My comments on the airlines were specifically addressing the comment on the airlines in Osprey's initial post where he solicited opinions on his statements.

[Mike M]

the debate is about what's legal minimum equipment on the aircraft.

night flight. the AIM says in 4-3-23 that aircraft equipped with an anti-collision light system are required to operate that system during all types of operations. not all aircraft are required to have anti-collision lights for day ops. CFR14 pt 91.205 requires approved anti-collision lights for ALL U.S.-registered civil aircraft operated at night. all, not just for-hire. does not mention beacons. some beacons may fit the legal definition of anti-collision lights, depending on when they were installed and when the aircraft was certificated. approved strobes fit the definition for all the included dates. 91.209 says the anti-collision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off.

so. yes, you're right, the minimum is an approved anti-collision light system in operation on all N# aircraft (all, including pt 91, 135, 121, etc) unless the PIC determines it's safer to turn it off. which may be the case on a crowded ramp during taxi. or not.

[FlyingRon]

Eh? There's no requirement for older planes to have an anticollision light, so I don't know what "minimum" you are setting.
You need position lights for night in all planes.

If you have anticollision lights you are expected to use them (DAY OR NIGHT) except as stated when the interest of safety mandates otherwise.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ron, I will try to be as polite as possible, but using your own words. You write that you are entitled to your opinion, whether it is about airlines or Cirrus . I agree.
However, you also write that others ought not to use these topics on this forum.
And you don't even consider that's rude. I think this is an public forum, open to all and to all opinions, and should not be subject to you or any other self appointed censor. I am a bit old fashioned about freedom of speech. And it is not reserved for your exclusive use or approval.
I think that when you try to restrict someone else's speech or writing, you should realize that it is rude.This forum is not a tea party meeting.

I have noticed both Cirrus and Diamonds starting and taxiing with strobes on and not red beacons, so I wrote that. Someone wrote that Cirrus had a "miserable" safety rating. I had just read the AVIATION CONSUMER report, that analyzes actual accident and fatal statistics, not just someones opinion or propaganda, and puts the Cirrus rate as pretty much average, not the best nor the worst. I am not selling any Cirrus or any system, but there are a lot of Cirrus flyiing and they have a lot of safety claims, and I think the results are of interest or should be to many people on this forum, which is about gen av (EAA) more so than airline lights at night.

You have the right to agree or disagree and post raw opinion or backed up by facts, and so does anyone else.

If you want a forum where only the opinions which the owner of the private website agrees with are allowed, I can refer you to it.

[Jim Hann]

Ron, I think he is just paraphrasing this. Look at an old DC-8 or 727-100 they do not have, nor are required to, a WHITE (i.e. strobe) anticollision light system. Even though many of them have been converted to strobe systems under their red lenses, because those old Grimes type oscillating beacons are ridiculously expensive to repair

As far as usage goes, I'm not touching that one, I usually use the ICAO standard for my beacon, and strobes go on when cleared for takeoff at night in good weather. Everybody has their own idea of what is best. YMMV

Jim
ATP/MEL, COM/SEL
B747-4, B757, B767, BA-4100, EMB-145, LR-JET
CFI-A/I/ME

14CFR91.205(c)(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.

[Hal Bryan]

Guys, this topic has wandered off the rails a couple of times - the original poster's question has been answered, so let's move the talk about Cirruses (Cirrii?) and the like to a new topic if you want to keep it going.

Thanks!