What the FAA Doesn't Want You to Know

[@101jtag]

Seriously there are too many areas where FAA is doing more harm than good. Innovation is so slow in aviation, FAA killed Starship, killed Eclipse, ensures parts cost 20x what they should... and apparently no guarantee you actually quality products. A big shakeup of that agency may be long overdue.

[@sircrapalot9954]

Litigation is expensive. A certified aircraft essentially guarantees “if you operate this aircraft in accordance with these specified parameters and procedures, it will work as advertised.” When it doesn’t, the manufacturer gets sued. I’m paraphrasing but there’s a saying that ~10% of the cost of an aircraft engine is for the engine itself. The other 90% is to pay for liability coverage in case Lycoming gets sued for a crash caused by an engine failure.

[@bob38028]

No expert here- just kinda spitballing. Starship probably had it coming- a relatively novel airframe in terms of mass production. It just makes more sense from a safety perspective to keep airframes as standardized and conventional as possible.

[@101jtag]

@jimanderson1355 they didnt understand composites, so they delayed and asked for additional strenghtening which made the whole thing overweight. Anyway it was just 1 example.

[@bob38028]

@@101jtag The industry and FAA allows for quite a bit of innovation right now- they get a bit picky about old airframe types and big projects like SpaceX. The shakeup happened like a decade ago.

[@MonkPetite]

Now your full of your self . The faa didn’t kill the starship project. But Raytheon did. Not enough planes where on the market to keep warranty and progressive testing up. Also the frames did present problems at a constant rate. Basically Raytheon took all back except two or 3 that became experimental registered. Also the eclipse certification program did not make the grade. Its not the faa that failed here but the manufacturer. Yes the faa is understaffed but still not the source of all problems on aviation

[@SuperGenericUser]

I've missed this type of content, it's like old school Matt, just flying and talking

[@johndaniel6103]

Landing light failure on my Archer II when going into JFK at night caused me to add wing lights for redundancy and illumination. You’re right on in your judgements about FAA and Landing Light deficiencies.

[@brent1041]

I’m very happy with my Larson led tractor lights. Very bright, looks high quality and only $40. The joys of experimental aviation.

[@danblumel]

"very Bright" is quite relative, how about 1/3 mile of useful illumination ? "LOOKS" High quality, impossible for $40. this means much less than $10 (possibly only $5) to actually make in China. You are happy with the performance, that's what counts.

[@AlanSanderson-u4t]

The original GE sealed beam incandescent lamps had a rated life of 25 hours.

[@brent1041]

@@danblumelthe $40 Larson lights I bought illuminate easily 3-4 times farther distance than the original GE bulbs. While also having 4-5 times more spread for a broader area that is illuminated. For the money they are probably the best bang for the buck available. And probably equivalent to 5 year old aviation LED technology.

[@danblumel]

​​​@@brent1041 I know Larson Electronics well, they make nothing themselves. They relabel and resell other brands products where there is name recognition. The majority of what they sell is made in China, consolidating many products and brought into them by the container load.

[@danblumel]

​​@@brent1041 Yes 5 year+ antiquated technology, but great for your needs if they do the job you require. Also made in China.

[@davem5333]

The purpose of FAA certification is not to ensure quality but to protect the existing obsolete status quo.

[@robertlewis8773]

This is exactly why I love experimental aviation!…it was nice meeting you at OSH

[@rnordquest]

Having a TSO only means it meets the TSO standard. It doesn’t mean it’s compatible with any particular installation. I’ve certified TSO parts for aircraft installations before and whatever the TSO doesn’t cover has to be qualification tested. The TSO might not cover operating at Mach 7 for instance so you’d have to do your own testing to make sure it’s compatible with your intended use.

[@NeonsStyleHD]

-*Reciting the Checklist without actually doing it is a recipe for Disaster!*_ So many pilots have died from getting into bad habits relating to checklists.

[@jenniferwhitewolf3784]

It is the ALL IMPORTANT checklist.. I'm not even a pilot, and I used checklists when starting race cars and custom built street cars with complex systems.. Physical check of tires, tire pressures, lug tightness, play in suspension, all fluid levels, inspect oil visually for water incursion, check circuit breakers, function of all lights and fans, visual check of brake pads, leaks on brake lines, cooling lines... I learned how to write my lists from studying aircraft manuals and conversations with my pilot friends. From time to time, a fail was spotted...👋👌👌

[@NeonsStyleHD]

@jenniferwhitewolf3784 Yep. Pre-takeoff checklists is THE most important. Glad to see you take the same attitude toward your racing. In a race around I'm sure it's just as vital.

[@crazy10seven]

Yet the airlines have flows and memory items

[@NeonsStyleHD]

@crazy10seven As a pilot, we are trained and it's engrained to always follow the written checklists. That never goes away, even if company rules say different. Common sense prevails!

[@marknovak9310]

I have to agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am glad others noticed this pilot's caviler attitude towards his use (or no use) of checklists. Bad example for others when viewing his videos.

[@chuckmartin5773]

Nice to see N367HP again, sure miss those videos!

[@ldiver61]

TSO - Technical Standard Order - means it meets a minimum performance standard. Does not give you Installation onto an aircraft. That is accomplished by a TC, STC,Amended TC or if you are lucky ahem 337. PMA on the other hand is direct replacement - aka reverse engineered, means it works but MTBF may be better or worse.

[@DanFrederiksen]

I'm not sure I'd encourage FAA to implement a lot of procedures but a bare minimum criteria for a product could be that it actually works. Seems like a good baseline when someone submits a product for certification :) As I understand it FAA has moved to a more pragmatic performance based certification which is another way of saying it actually works and has proven itself. When someone then puts out a product that doesn't work that might be a good time to retract their approval and encourage them to tighten up their game. As the battery issue on the Boeing 787 showed where they used the only aviation certified lithium battery in the world by kokam which turned out to also be the most dangerous battery type in the world, paper work is not always the answer. There is a danish expression: freedom under responsibility, meaning you are free to roam provided you behave could apply such that players that have demonstrated quality products are trusted to make new ones and if they let down that trust there are some consequences. And FAA can do a bit of checking in, some sampling. A capable engineer at FAA asking a few choice questions when looking at some schematics. No elaborate bureaucracy but throw them a trick question like does it actually work? Kidding aside, a reasonably capable electronics engineer can look at a circuit diagram for an LED light and spot questionable design elements. And I happen to know some electronics engineering and it is not that difficult to make a stable LED light. It's not novel territory. LEDs are quite docile. For a safety critical product like aviation it might be good practice to use multiple high quality LEDs and run them well below their design limit so they run cool and last forever. Borrowing LED driver chips from the automotive world might be a good way to piggy back on heavily tested durable products.

[@2Phast4Rocket]

This is why I am flying an experimental Vans RV. I can buy the same alternator from Pepboys and don't have to pay the "aviation" markup

[@danblumel]

That's me too, but a Glasair, I don't like built in voltage regulators that can be electrically noisy. I bought my Alternator and linear voltage regulator for B & C, great people.

[@thengine7]

@@danblumel electronic noise is the devil. Causes insidious problems downstream for electronic parts that aren't robust. Not to mention the noise that bleeds into headsets.

[@DblIre]

Actually, the alternators aren't the same. Aircraft alternators have a different style of brushes that prevent arching at higher altitudes. There are also other differences that I can't recollect right now

[@miguelcpal2443]

This is all because of your culture of litigation. It’s that American philosophy where, if something goes wrong in high-risk fields like healthcare or aviation, the legal costs and payouts are so huge that your descendants could live for generations without working, or you could, if you survive. You can’t have it all-low prices, little bureaucracy, and tons of guarantees. In Europe, it's pretty much the same thing, almost a clone of the FAA, with the same problems. That’s why so many pilots are turning to ultralight and experimental aviation. Rigid laws, zero innovation, and ridiculous prices, while the compensation here is a joke. So, you take on the risk and responsibility, get more flexibility and options, and at least you're not getting ripped off. But, you’re still limited by airspace, no matter if you have a transponder, radio, ADS, TCAS, insurance, and more gear than any certified plane from 70 years ago.

[@miguelcpal2443]

​​@@thengine7But it's noise 100% certified! You pay for it!

[@jacksonmarshallkramer5087]

The FAA is the worst thing to happen to aviation since the wood fired pizza oven was installed on the Hindenburg. 😁

[@thebluegreengoose]

A friend pilot A&P showed me his voltage regulator. A $28 auto parts at the time. He said they put it in a different box, stamp "Faa" and no different thing about except the box and price of $400. That was around 1990.

[@danblumel]

Yes I've seen that same thing done by major aviation players.

[@mmayes9466]

@@thebluegreengoose who is “they?”

[@staymad7206]

@@mmayes9466 BIG BAD GUBMINT!!!!!

[@MaestroPdx]

Welcome back hotel papa and Matt's glasses. We missed you.

[@johnwight6041]

I agree with all that is said here. The manufacturing standard should be significantly higher

[@jb-qi8fz]

For filament bulbs, install it with the filament vertical. Horizontal filament will fail 10 times faster.

[@danblumel]

Yes that's a somewhat well known old "trick", it does change the beam pattern to a bit more narrow but last longer before failure, the filament vibrates less.

[@jakeclauson9863]

Ever tighten up the rigging in the yokes on them bonanzas? With a ground down wrench you still only get like .001° of rotation on the turn buckle. And only if you make a custom turn buckle holder that will slide in the slit they give access for. Which I did fairly easily with .050 sheet

[@jdbrinton]

FAA certification pisses me off so much. I few a GA airplane last week that entered service during the Vietnam War. It was held together by the shear will power of the aviation techs. But the only reason why we have to deal with shitty planes and parts is because no one can afford to innovate. I'm positive you could build a new 152 type aircraft for $20k in production if you were allowed to just grab parts from the auto industry or do a clean sheet industry 4.0 design. Instead, it costs $20k/year just to keep something running that's older than most people alive today.

[@mmayes9466]

Price the stamped aluminum in an RV-14. You’re at $20k, no FAA involved. $20k for a new 152 is comical.

[@suzukirider9030]

@@mmayes9466 Your pricing of aluminum is what's comical (-:

[@mmayes9466]

@@suzukirider9030 not my price. Anyone can buy a Vans kit. They will pay about $20k for a pile of stamped aluminum. The FAA is not involved.

[@jdbrinton]

@@mmayes9466 so how do you build a 1 ton car for $10k?

[@SoloRenegade]

@@jdbrinton steel is cheaper than aluminum, and cars are simpler

[@francoisdtoit7053]

So, how do you know that the new light is going to be so much better and longer lasting if you haven’t tested it for a year or two yet?

[@danblumel]

Valid question, The product's got a 15 year+ track record, and tested to RTCA DO160 with certified Lab testing. The reason the prior multiples failed early, an HID bulb designed for 35 Watts is driven to slightly over 70 Watts, the old ballasts run too hot for the internal electronics, ~15 watts of heat to be dissipated. Only lots of mass (weight) but not sufficient heatsink fins to dissipate the heat. Mass buys some time but not operational durability or sustained continuous operation. Large heat-sink surface area is required. A proper higher wattage rated Philips HID bulb is used for this installation. The ballast isn't made in China and marked up in fact way over 2000%.

[@SoloRenegade]

because OTHERS Have tested it

[@Triple_J.1]

3:40 this is how the FDA works for approving new drugs. The manufacturer who developed the drug provides the test data. The FDA will only look at it with a billion dollars tucked under the paperwork. They will approve it only after another 20 billion dollars follow. Every drug marketed on national TV, also had a class-action lawsuit on national TV. Except viagra.

[@pisymbol]

Hey Matt, what was the ultimate fix to your alternator in the sense that if your old one goes, then what? We are having the exact same issue as you describe. (gone through half a dozen alternators within 30 hours of putting them in, same style all Garmin panel in a 182).

[@danblumel]

That was resolved a couple of years ago, I don't remember the ultimate resolution. you can look back some years to specific videos he made about that.

[@pisymbol]

@@danblumel Just went through the playlist. Still no dice on what the ultimate solution was. Maybe I am just not watching the right one.

[@danblumel]

@@pisymbol I believe he went back to the original one and possibly purchase the older style again identical to that, not a "modern" one. The problem was absolutely the new type alternators.

[@pisymbol]

@@danblumel I’d like to understand more why. That is not a long term solution.

[@malcolmharvey397]

Hi Matt, really appreciate your view on the world of aviation. You should try flying in the UK, GAS £2.00 a litre and landing fees that make you feel they don’t really want your business. Well done!!

[@larrygreen8912]

I converted every light on my 172rg to led and the alt gauge hardly moves . I even replaced the instrument post lights with led and they illuminate the gauges so much better .

[@danblumel]

Low amperage LED's can't compare to any HID system for output performance. Need 100 watt LED with adequate and efficient active cooling to compete with this HID shown.

[@GeFlixes]

8:10 and THAT'S the issue here. If something is officially certified, you expect to not need to do due diligence, ss the certification process should be proof enough that dilligence has been done by professional "dilligencers".

[@mikevonbertouch]

I’m an Australian DER equivalent and also manufacture and supply products into the US, so have some first hand knowledge here re manufacturing and installation approvals. A TSO by itself is NOT an approval to install something new on your aircraft, there needs to be some other certification or approval basis that allows that. A good maintenance shop, mechanic or IA will be able to provide some good guidance on what you can and cannot do re minor replacements; there is some latitude (in the US) for swapping out parts the manufacturer hasn’t approved. There is a bit less latitude elsewhere in the world and I’m suggesting that’s probably not a bad thing. What is also interesting in my experience is there is a little more variation in how FAA rules are applied in the US…they seem to be ‘guidance’ at times rather than something to be ignored at your peril. Absolutely not always the case, but I have seen examples of that. For a change of aircraft configuration, ie a replacement or mod that is not called out in the MM, IPC, SB, AD or STC needs some form of authorisation. That can vary depending on whether a minor mod (and changing a globe type or alternator is a “mod”), or a major requiring field approval or STC. At the trivial change end of the scale, an authorised mechanic has means of making some changes. In Australia the Registered Operator, ie the owner of the aircraft, is legally responsible for ensuring the appropriate approvals are in place. I can’t specifically remember due to it being a while ago I investigated this, but I’m 99% sure the legal liability for ensuring the aircraft matches the Type Design requirements is also with the owner in the US. The DERs and maintenance shops provide the approvals to affect configuration change for the owner, but it’s up to the owner to ensure the appropriate approvals for change exist and are relevant. Finally regarding any implied approval to install any TSOd part to an aircraft as a form of “approval”. In a nutshell the TSO is not an approval to install. It is a way of making sure that part is manufactured to an appropriate standard and there is a release certificate the installer can rely on to say the part is manufactured in accordance with a standard that the INSTALLATION APPROVAL refers to. That installation approval, ie 337 or 8110-3, STC etc, is the thing that says an appropriately experienced and authorised person has determined that TSO item is ok for that aircraft when installed in some particular manner. Often, that manner is not simply ‘per manufacturer’s instructions’ as there will be other things/systems in the aircraft that are affected and require consideration. The point of this missive is that there is really no such thing as a TSO being some form of inherent approval. It’s more a manufacturing assurance issue the maintenance shop can rely on, when signing off a log book entry, but doesn’t confer anything about it being fit for purpose or whether other change is required to make a successful installation. By itself, a TSO does not imply a level of reliability or appropriateness in the intended application.

[@danblumel]

"By itself, a TSO does not imply a level of reliability or appropriateness in the intended application". Unfortunately that's not what so many think.

[@davidcostello637]

While you are correct that a TSO is not an approval on its own, replacing parts with TSO’ ones can in many cases be done IAW FAA AC 20-41a. LED lighting manufacturers will often refer to this one. There are other ACs, like 23-27, for the acceptable substitution of industry-standard parts when replacements aren’t available. Sometimes these ACs are like tools in a tool box and are useful for getting around needing a 337 or 8110-3, especially for rather innocuous alterations.

[@mikevonbertouch]

@@davidcostello637 absolutely agree, and noted that a maintenance shop has the ability (in the US at least) to make substitutions and changes. How that gets applied can be a little liberally interpreted at times 😊

[@davidcostello637]

@@mikevonbertouch yeah, for sure. When it’s a gray area, best to consult AC 43-210a.

[@christopherbordenave6955]

Great video and parallel story with the alternator.

[@johnleavitt1675]

Kerry took care of my Mooney 15yrs ago, great guy.

[@danblumel]

Yes, he's a Mooney and Cessna expert IA/AP, his Mooney customers come from all over the country, mostly western 1/2 of USA, for him to do their annuals.

[@planeswithperry]

Very nice video on the joys of "certified" parts for our certified airplanes!

[@HoundDogMech]

Had a 1977 C-172 and had it in the shop for a Bad Alternator. And Chuck Said it would be 3 days to get a Rebuilt in, BUT there is always a BUT. I didn't say this BUT if you tke it upto (Next City Over) an take it to this Alternator Shop and Pay CASH U can wait for it for About an hour, Bring it back here ans In a hour you can be flying back to KMWC. No Brainer. So the Log Book Read Removed Inspeced/TEST & Reinstalled/Checked Alt.

[@thomassheehan4193]

You tell the alternator shop it’s for an airboat they suspect it’s an airplane and won’t do it. Remember. Airboat.

[@coolranchluke]

Looks great! What made you choose an HID light? XeVision also makes LED lights.

[@jimallen8186]

Regulation definitely has a goldilocks zone aspect to it. Look into Sidney Dekker with his talks to Safety Differently and Drift into Failure. See Ron Butcher regarding survival vs safety. Try also “The Contrarian Aviator Sometimes Turns Right.”

[@Premier-Media-Group]

Even if we had a database for owners to report failures of "certified" parts, with some threshold that could prompt them to force the mfg to greater testing for parts exceeding some minimum baseline of MTBF etc.

[@danblumel]

Yes, that would be great, more accountability in the marketplace.

[@mattguthmiller]

I believe that exists for A&Ps but no one uses it because they all fail too often and it’s too much paperwork

[@chrisdaniel1339]

Do you still have the TBM? Have you ever thought of buying a large parcel of land and having your own landing strip with a large hanger that will fit all your airplanes with room to grow? I grew up across the street from somebody that had their own landing strip along a river and he would commute to an airport 45 min away go to his job and fly home. Cool guy.

[@deanwells2859]

The main question I have is how do we get what is truly reliable without having to spend a fortune on the crap that is “FAA certified”? There has to be a safe way to do this. There are way too many smart people out here who are actually flying safer than most. I realize you can’t “advertise” because the “gestapo” might show up at your door.

[@maddogintheair]

I worked for an operator for several years with a fleet of almost 100 aircraft. Most of their fleet had Lopresti “Boom Beams” Installed in them. Almost never had a problem with the lights and we left them on continuously in flight. Big difference from your Bonanza is that their lights were all installed in the wings and not on an engine cowling.

[@danblumel]

How long ago was that ? The early Lopresti systems used a Philips branded (relabeled Lopresti) 35 watt output ballast actually made in Japan by Matsushita. It was extremely reliable. About 12 or so years ago, they switched to a China made series of ballasts and dramatically increased the output power (with this also ballast internal circuitry temps) ballast output increases to about 70 watts and still to this day use a 35 Watt rated bulb for it.

[@martinanidjar]

Hi, thanks! I would not say you are arguing for more regulation. I would frame it as 'more accountability for the big guys, levelling the playing field for the newcomer innovator that wants to compete with the big guys'. More fairer competition is what we want. And yes, that should help reduce the 10x mark up certificated products have.

[@7728abbott]

Looking great! Always such excellent information!

[@Premier-Media-Group]

The auto industry has had this problem with new parts coming in already inop (before they're ever installed on a vehicle). The 10x "certified tax" would just piss me off if I had parts constantly failing. The Wehlan light issue sounds electrically like they're over-deiving the bulb to achieve brightness, instead of actually using better components and a better power circuit.

[@danblumel]

Yes they drive a 35 Watt rated HID bulb at claimed "85 Watts" but actually ~70 Watts. Double what's it's designed for. The ballasts depend mostly on ballast aluminum case mass to thermally absorb the ~15% efficiency losses which result in internal circuitry heat. Their heat sink fins are more cosmetic than effective to dissipate the heat effectively. Note the fins size difference on the replacement ballast and higher rated replacement HID bulb made for much higher driven power.

[@RoderickBodden-j6m]

Hi Matt what happen to the Tbm 850

[@clarencewiles963]

Information and a flight Thumbs up 👍

[@rickwiggins283]

This appears to be a case where "legacy" manufacturers use the TSO process as a form of protectionism so they have to worry less about producing quality and/or innovative parts. And, like you said, you also get to pay 10x for the "privilege" to buy their crappy stuff.

[@Samalyzer45]

Did the TBM become too much of a pain in the ass, and just go away?

[@n085fs]

Drawing 15A from a 15Ah battery means that battery should last for 1 hour without the alternator. In theory. In reality though, a battery deteriorates with age.

[@danblumel]

Yes, but EarthX LiFePo batteries are now the way to go if they have an STC now for your airframe. Also, AGM is much better than standard Lead Acid batteries. Odyssey brand is the way to go for that intermediate improved technology at least for Experimental aircraft.

[@suzukirider9030]

As an engineer, and one with a truly technical, physics mindset - I find it deeply funny how much people care about certification of aircraft. Certification is a legal construct - it comes from people who are lawyers and/or regulars, most likely ones who have never seen the vehicle or part being cetified. They might be 2-3 handshakes away from anyone who had any hands-on with the aircraft of part being certified. In a nutshell, at least as I see it - it has next to NOTHING to do with how a physical mechanism actually performs in a world ruled by laws of physics. Instead of asking "is it certified?", or "is it legal?" - I tend to ask "How well does it perform?", "show me the tech specs", etc. Seen (and preflighted, hoping to rent) - multiples of airplanes which were legally airworthy but I would not fly even if they were free. The opposite is probably true as well - some of the ones flown probably had SOMETHING that would make them not airworthy from a legal standpoint. "Looks good to me" as the PIC is the final call, not some AMP's signature from months ago or some cabinet legislator from decades ago.

[@Subgunman]

At what voltages are these lights available for? Approximate cost?

[@danblumel]

Just search XeVision for all details.

[@danblumel]

Do a Google search for the brand he mentioned numerous times.

[@crustypilot7627]

Matt...is there a screw missing at 1 o'clock on the flange or is it just my geezer eyes?

[@danblumel]

Nope not missing see additional close up images.

[@AaronT-ot2co]

Just a question, why stay with a ballast base light with the advancement of LED I know that you have to deal with FAA regs. I’m in the marine business and LED is the way to go.

[@danblumel]

NONE of the "mainstream" aviation LED makers offer outputs and performance remotely close to or compared to 75 watt HID. Candela (Candlepower) Lumens or Lux metrics.

[@saldun2603]

Thank you and appreciate you. Wonderful products be safe and let's eat! Your always hungry looks fabulous. Your always great Matt. Onward 🌈

[@TakingOff]

I have XeVision lights. Amazing. I've got them in my wingtips.

[@danblumel]

He has the LED versions shown closer to the end of this video, held in his hand.

[@ArmAmericaFTG]

Love the Videos!

[@Rockajaw]

When's 8flight coming to android os?

[@danblumel]

Unfortunately IOS is the predominant OS being used in aircraft, this is to a great extent due to Foreflight.

[@okflyer777]

Very nice light. Could you tell us the cost? Thanks Matt...

[@danblumel]

Check their website XeVision

[@danblumel]

Just search XeVision

[@danblumel]

Do a Google search, he mentioned the brand many times.

[@josemgomez3740]

LED light is better than filament light. Drain less power ….in general the way to go 😊

[@danblumel]

This isn't a filament light, it's HID, an arc between electrodes. Dramatically Brighter than any mainstream LEDs currently on the market. Bulbs good for about 800-1000 hours, ballasts 3000+ hours. This same technology used by USA military and NATO on 50 cal and other machine guns, even on Abrams Tanks.😅

[@dustinpward]

great content again. Thanks!

[@peterrobinson6107]

Why not replaces with LEDs?

[@mattguthmiller]

Not bright enough

[@darrylday30]

Why not use LED to keep power requirements at a minimum? I’ve got fantastic HID in my wing tip landing lights and I’m considering using LED to upgrade my old fashioned dim cowl landing light that burns out every 25 hours.

[@danblumel]

For ANY LED to even try to compare to the OUTPUT of HID (His ~75 to bulb watts), the LED will need to be about 100 watts or more. LOW power, most typical aviation LED's can't compare to HID output performance. Even with about 50 Watts, they get too hot and pull back the power to about 1/2 in short order, self preservation to prevent Thermal runaway.

[@anthonyrstrawbridge]

​@@danblumel Do you know what HID means? If so, then you'll take note as to what your writing: Your comparing HID to LED by drawing a comparison to the Circuit Current Draw Expressed in Watts of an Led Appliance in Comparison to a Gas Discharge Tube. Then you confuse the matter further by drawing another comparison between Lumens and Brightness and PAR which have nothing to do with tbe Bulb Type nor the Power Supply type. 1) THEY ARE BOTH CAPACITIVE DISCHARGE SYSTEMS. 2) BOTH ILLUMINATION ELEMENTS PULSED CURRENT 3) BOTH OPETATE WITHIN A FREQUENCY RANGE 4) BOTH FLICKER 5) ONE HAS TO BE POWERED ON LONGER TO MAINTAIN THE GAS ARC ONE CAN BE POWERED OFF MORE FREQUENTLY TO MAINTAIN A COMPARABLE MAXIMUM BRIGHTNESS WITHOUT DAMAGING / MELTING THE LED's in the Cob's. They both can do exactly the same work with the final argument only being QUALITY AND LONGEVITY. That said, the single most important consideration to both designs is: FAILURE MODE POTENTIAL. 😊

[@RJ1Reed]

Great info Matt thank you sir! I have an LED that’s supposed to last way longer than the legacy bulb on my Saratoga lol pos!

[@danblumel]

"Good luck" with that claimed longevity.

[@RJ1Reed]

@@danblumel hence the last part of my statement “pos”. I still have bulbs in my house from 20 yrs ago that still work.

[@mouse6173]

You said something about the FAA and not wanting wore regulations, but even with all the regulations, the biggest players in the game*cough*boeing, kills people who try to call them out for the things

[@FlyingWildAZ]

At one time I believed the BS about why aircraft parts are so expensive...cost of certification. Then I tried buying parts from a salvage yard, guess what, their parts are ridiculously expensive as well! What is their excuse?

[@Rio_Seco]

They are still certified parts are are competing against new certified parts, so all they have to do is charge a little less (which is still a lot) and people will still buy them.

[@timmholzhauer3342]

I have that Lo Presti Boom Beam on my A36 as well. Upgraded to the new 85W ballast in 2019. So far no complaints at all (knock on wood!!!). Light is on all the time. I fly around 80-100 hrs per year. Guess you fly way more than that? But still 2 years is way too short. Maybe it doesn’t like those gravel strips… ;-)

[@danblumel]

That newer BB you've mentioned is actually 70 Watts, not "85", by the international industry std. metrics for all HID types. The rating std. is based on watts to the bulb, not watts to their ~84% efficient ballast. The model you have is exactly what he took out, still current. The bulb used in the BB is only rated 35 watts,they removed it covered the original label and indicated "modified for aviation use". The only modification is their replacement label. The bulb used for Matt's new install is rated for the higher power. For continuous ballast operation the heatsink fins are far too short, minimal additional surface area to dissipate its ~15 watts of internal heat. Fortunately your ballast location is not mounted in an especially hot zone. Lopresti was bought out by Whelen in early 2019. Since that time their prices have basically doubled to about $2500 for a single light kit. Their ballast is made in China, passing 2 other sets of hands before theirs with about a 30X insane final markup to the end-user buyer.

[@timmholzhauer3342]

@@danblumel Wow, sounds like you have some very specific knowledge. That price increase is indeed insane! Terrible!! Unfortunately there was (is?) no PAR 46 LED STC for the A36 nose cowl as far as I know, so I decided for the upgrade of the existing BB. My Bonanza has the Atlantic Aero conversion. Maybe that helps running cooler than factory engine.

[@danblumel]

​@@timmholzhauer3342 Tim, when it finally gives out, please give us a call.

[@rogersmart1766]

Matt, I am a Private pilot who lives in Pensacola Fla (PNS). Been in General aviation for 50 years and frexip at the local airport since age 5.Do you know what “FAA stands for ? FEDS AGAINST AVIATION”

[@yesrevyesrev3444]

This guy flies like i drive to the grocery store. Respect 🙌🏿

[@mikercflyer7383]

He soloed around the world when he was a kid.

[@RogerFleischer-p3f]

@@mikercflyer7383 And also started and sold a successful tech company when he was a kit, then graduated from the top tech universtiy in the US (MIT) with a degree in aeronautics.

[@gtr1952]

I think I missed something? Where is the new (to you) TBM? Or are you rocking both? I thought the TBM was really cool, I'm a fan. Great info on the light. Seems like everything is LED these days 8-/ --gary

[@danblumel]

Matt still prefers HID to LED at least for now, familiarity and known performance.

[@missymyers7439]

Great video! Thanks 😊

[@kpdvw]

Matt, what do you do for a living? How do you earn all the money needed for a airport residence location such as hoity toity Alpine wyoming let alone a airplane?

[@danblumel]

He's a smart MIT graduate and has developed a few profitable endeavors, that he sold.

[@GerardoRodriguez-cg8em]

Hello, its Good to see The Bonanza is Back but what happened to the Huge Upgrade, The Mighty TBM

[@CraigKeenan-lp8tk]

Ive had many similar experiences, Rapco vacuum pumps, lucky to last 250 hours (new or overhauled) Weldon fuel pumps (I have a continental IO 360, C R172K) crap design within the pump, my brand new one poured fuel out the lower fuel drain, a puddle about a yard round in only a few seconds (no seal in the pump body - manufacturing fault) I sent it back but Weldon didn't want to know, returned it to me unopened - crap pump, crap service!

[@danblumel]

Wow a pathetic story on the fuel pump.

[@shaunswett6684]

Interesting. As the plastic lens loses clarity over time, the internal temperature may increase, leading to reduced bulb life. A glass lens seems like a no-brainer!

[@RaySmith-x6x]

Looking seriously at getting a PPL. I would like to buy a 20 year old 182 but I,m not going to pay the prices Cessna wants for parts. As a former machinist I can make damn near anything and will probably be better. $2,500.00 for a door handle, what a ripoff. Textron may get their military prices from the government but not me. Therefore I am going to build a Rans S-21.

[@danblumel]

Yes, by all means go experimental.

[@KTWardlaw]

Nice Video Matt! XeVision is a GREAT Choice! I’ve known XeVisions’s Founder/Owner Dan Blumel for 30+ years and he’s 2nd to none in details and quality work in whatever project he’s involved in. I’ve said many times, if I was going to trust and fly a home built aircraft, it would be one that Dan built! Congrats on your upgrade! 👍🏼

[@warped-sliderule]

Opportunity for "Amazon Aviation" or "Ebay Aviation" where reviews and documentation of failures helps pilots buy the reliable stuff and avoid the unreliable stuff. Thus Matt's alternator failures, and yellowing bulb issues would be available to other pilots making similar purchases...

[@n085fs]

The aviation industry needs a ProjectFarm for testing products.

[@danblumel]

Paul Bertorelli of Avweb and Aviation Consumer fame, used to make a reasonable attempt at that, but he's been retired now a couple of years. They've yet to find a competent replacement for Paul, he was simply amazing.

[@VoluntaryPlanet]

Lol.... 8Flight... is it twice as good as Foreflight?

[@danblumel]

It's getting there, it will be MUCH better eventually.

[@Aerogamer158]

TSO means it costs more. I knew an old pilot years ago that owned a C150. He used to work for lycoming and was an electrical engineer in the army during WW2 before that. He found the same alternator, phase, output, signal clarity, etc.. for a common car brand in the USA. For 90% less cost. Now, I’m not saying that it’s ok to do that, just that that is what he did. And he never had an electric failure or fire.

[@Rodeo32145]

Hartzel is becoming a problem. Buying up all the accessories mom and pop builders, raising prices so we have fewer companies. Not good.

[@danblumel]

Hartzell also recently bought out my prop maker Whirlwind. Whelen bought out Lopresti Aviation in early 2019 (HID was much of Lopresti's "Bread and butter"). Whelen then formed a new Aviation division - WAT (Whelen Aviation Technologies), now they also bought out AeroLED's in early to mid July 2024, their main aviation competitor. Now, they control maybe 80-85% (maybe even 90%) of their aviation market space, specifically for LED aircraft lighting. One could call that almost a "monopoly".

[@anthonyrstrawbridge]

I'm overly impressed by the quality of the electronic circuits being designed into the HID illuminaire. Admittedly, early on I felt that the gas discharge tube failures would prove to be more acceptable than the potentially catastrophic failure of the LED Cob's and HID power supply. I erroneously assumed that as the Cobs eventually pass and recieve the stray voltage and current from randomly failing single LED components that carbon tracking, bridging, and or Arc fault jumping would eventually result in excessive heat failure of other materials. Apparently not at all but I'm on tbe fence regarding where any potential leaking voltage/current can end. I think that the great anodic capacitance of the.metal aircraft is excellent but not so sure about composite structures and electrical capacitance. 🕊

[@danblumel]

For at least 10 years people have been told and believed that LED was the panacea for every application of aviation lighting. For landing applications, Both HID and LED each have performance advantages in varied beam distance and angle illumination situations as well as sustained intensity without dimming, LED's typically have thermal dimming issues as they "warm up". One thing's for sure, for a wide taxi beam for close in illumination, LED is the best answer now every time.

[@mts982]

wheres the tbm?

[@44hawk28]

I've been working on automobiles since 1964. I have worked on aircraft. What would the troubles I've seen with hid systems on cars, I have no idea why anybody would think that they should ever be on an aircraft??? Given the fact that you can make diodes that are more durable. Why in the world do you not have LED lights on it. Or even an old-school halogen bulb which will give you well over a quarter of a mile of very Clear Vision. I would have been using halogen bulbs since I first started driving legally in 1974. My dad has been using them since about 1960. At that time you could buy a halogen bulb for $2.25 and it would last the life of the car. You buy a halogen bulb today and you're lucky if it lasts more than three or four years. So don't tell me they aren't doing things to make sure these things do not last. But if you're going to use it on an aircraft the FAA should be crawling down the throats of anybody manufacturing a part that doesn't work for at least 5,000 hours

[@nathanwildthorn6919]

Thanks, Matt. This was a _very_ enlightening video that's also a bit scary. It's a shame that manufacturers can get away with providing pilots with substandard parts, which can compromise our safety, and the FAA doesn't provide oversight over certain replacement parts like your landing light and ballast. Clear skies!

[@shyammohabir8283]

"What the FAA Doesn't Want You to Know?" sounds like a conspiracy ..

[@HongyaMa]

FAA are regulatory NOT experts . . .per an ex FAA employee friend.

[@danblumel]

Yes, you got that right, regulation without any responsibility, just "shuffle" paperwork. Sounds about like "taxation without representation". At least require RTCA DO160 testing for performance and quality.

[@Isaacmendonca1973]

Você tem dois aviões? Parabéns pelos vídeos.

[@danblumel]

Yes he does, also L39 Jet.

[@ryanawilson8549]

Sounds like FAA is dropping the ball 🤔

[@danblumel]

Truth is, in this specific regard they never had the ball.

[@JosephOlson-ld2td]

Due to FAA, aviation only makes advances "accidentally"

[@okflyer777]

@@danblumel Oh, they very much DO have "the ball". And its better described as a WRECKING BALL. FAA is absolutely incompetent.

[@PilotDaveLI]

Lopresti... ouch lol

[@Brian_C_]

Doing the run-up on the go all alone??? Was a standard practice for many years, but I got scolded by someone recently for doing that... FML, can't win with the new gen of FAA/CFIs. The FAA has effectively killed GA by making it so difficult and expensive to deal with an aging fleet of GA aircraft. Honestly, I've considered buying a cheap certified aircraft with the explicit goal to modify it as an experimental. We all know they need a serious overhaul in power plants, avionics, and other systems. They've made it ridiculously mired in red tape.

[@danblumel]

That's not quite so easily done, converting a certificated airframe to experimental. The FAA isn't often keen on this approach.

[@Brian_C_]

@@danblumel Perhaps. There is also the issue of the repairman's certificate. The experimental market is frankly where it's at these days because of the stranglehold on GA. It would be nice to be able put a UL Power 520i in a 172 and re-plumb it for auto gas. Sure, you could argue that homebuilt/experimental is inherently dangerous; but when we talk about safety, that is often a frustrating endeavor. I'd argue that the age of some of these airframes poses a larger risk then updating the powerplants - case in point: the PA28 series wing spars. I've worked in inherently dangerous environments most of my adult life and I've seen lots of well intended people bring things to a screeching halt for ridiculous reasons about something they didn't even understand in the name of safety. Rather than take a more common sense approach, it incentivizes people to work around the system instead of with it. The other side of the coin is also true: some people just can't help but be trainwrecks; but I'd argue those are mostly outliers.

[@ronduval5815]

Before you complain any further maybe you should clean your windscreen!

[@passthetunaporfavor]

I held several STC's and built PMA'd parts for certified aircraft. It got so it wasn't worth it. I could not keep raising the price to offset FAA mandated changes to documentation and drawings. Every time a vendor changed a part number called out on a drawing changes needed to be made. Every time a metallurgy test was superceded by a newer modern test I had to change documents and drawings. If I bought some new gauges to improve QC the FAA would then ask what I used to qualify the new gauges. I would point out that the new gauges have closer tolerances than what was called out for in the drawings and documents. Mind you this was going on aircraft that many times were 4 decades old. I've seen parts placarded as being made by me that were not built by me. I have trouble shot for days with mechanics over the phone with them swearing it was my stuff because that is what the logs state and finally get a picture of what they are looking at and again, it's not my STC or parts. I would venture to say your repetitive alternator problem was probably a wiring problem or a 40 year old circuit breaker , or battery relay.

[@danblumel]

I believe that was all tried, with no long term success, the old one and maybe a new or his rebuilt of the same old style was the the solution.

[@n085fs]

Well, there's your problem: 6:22 Those lights are designed to be on for maybe 15 minutes. Of course if you keep it on for the whole flight it'll crap out. Use your actual recognition lights, they're bright white strobes designed to be switched on for an entire flight.

[@danblumel]

No these are HID, the replacement just installed is designed so to be on indefinitely without any issues. The bulbs are good for about 1000 hours, the ballasts about 3000 hours use rated. You are thinking more of the common LED's from MOST aviation related manufacturers.

[@MaShcode]

Manufacturers gaming the regulators gaming the owners.

[@norcalben2001]

Please explain "The FAA doesn't want you to know." The FAA, as you know, is not a flight test organization. There is an application process for a PMA (Parts Manufacturer Approval). The manufacturing process from design to storage and handling is assessed. The FAA, like the FDA, relies on manufacturer testing data much like the manufacturers rely on the subcontractor data to ensure parts are manufactured to their standards. I see a comment below where the "FAA killed the Starship & the Eclipse...by ensuring parts cost 20x what they should." Don't cry about lack of oversight and then cry about the cost of oversight at the same time. I'm not sure if your statement is clickbait or paid political advertisement. FAA orders 8110.42 & 8120.22 describe manufacturer & production approval procedures and can be accessed by anyone who's really interested.

[@mnleber]

Safety is not present. The pilot is only person on board and giving a U-tube monolog when he should be flying and saving the monolog for the hangar

[@danblumel]

Pretty much all KZbinrs do that, they can repeat or reuse footage and edit as needed.

[@matsfrisk3653]

👍

[@NovackNGoode]

The answer to his problems came out his own mouth at 6.43. As always the problem is down to his poor procedures of with his landing light on permanately. It is a Landing light. For landing/ take-off. If you want lights on during daylight get Recognitikn lights fitted or if you are that worried about it paint a high visibility color scheme on your wingtips at least instead of cloud colour white

[@danblumel]

This product/system is made to leave on all the time, for collision avoidance and bird avoidance benefits. Especially so for hazy, humid and high aircraft and or bird density areas. These bulbs are good for about 1000 hours of ON TIME use, the ballasts (power Supply) about 3 000 + hours. Engines are typically overhauled every 2000 hours or so. A replacement bulb itself in this instance is about $200 (75 Watts to the bulb HID), the other bulbs used for 35 to 50 Watt HID are about $165. not expensive compared to the benefits.

[@dzurisintube]

I really enjoy your content Matt and have for a bunch of years. Clickbait title and not one but two product placements seems pretty transparent though. It's your channel though and it's free so none of my business.

[@danblumel]

He, Matt is developing the Foreflight alternative product.

[@dzurisintube]

@@danblumel yeah I know and that's what I guess I'm commenting on. "What the FAA Doesn't Want You to Know" really doesn't indicate that the video is about advertising for landing lights and apps but again, I'm not the KZbin police.

[@YankeeinSC1]

You wouldn't believe how much happier I am, NOT maintaining a 50 year old complex high performance single engine. I can buy and throw out new paramotor gear every year cheaper than what keeping my 210 airworthy used to cost.

[@danblumel]

Yes true but you can't really go anywhere. The C210 is a traveling machine.

[@YankeeinSC1]

@@danblumel a different view on life this way for sure, I've actually been to and flown at hundreds more destinations with a paraglider/paramotor than I ever visited with the 210. My current setup with the motor, packs easily in the trunk of a sedan, While my free flight paragliding rig fits in a 22" roll aboard suitcase. Been around the country in a motorhome a bunch and can fly from somewhere nearby at almost every stop

[@saldun2603]

Why and Who knows any of this thank you. Could be a critical and should life and death situations.

[@maxj0930]

FAA motto: “We’re not happy ‘til YOU’re not happy.”

[@manfredstrappen7491]

Get a wing mounted landing light(s). Less vibration=longer lasting.

[@danblumel]

For the most part, vibration isn't the killer of the systems in question. We have HID's mounted on 50 caliber Machine guns. The HID bulb has no filament to vibrate.

[@grundyb]

Hi, vibration is what’s breaking them. I have a 4WD truck with stiff shocks and my headlights go out every couple of years. I was replacing them every year just before winter. The original sealed beam’s headlights broke more often than my replacement halogen Hella. The new ones are a square lamp housing made out of glass and a replaceable light. I think they are lasting longer now. The only thing I can come up with is vibration breaking the filament when they are on and hot. Definitely different manufacturers makes a big difference.

[@danblumel]

There is no filament in the HID light systems, its an arc between electrodes, it is the electronic Power supply (ballasts) that's been failing