What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

FAA Unapproved parts notification for Aveo Engineering lights

This is truly disturbing and pi**** me off

I just installed a set of Aveo lights in my plane (not the ones listed). I bought them through Aircraft Spruce.

The FAA is very clear about the fact that Aveo flat out lied about the TSO listing on a number of their products right up until this past February when they apparently got caught.

You just don't expect lying scammers in this industry at this level.

If Aveo lied about the TSO listing what else are they misrepresenting? What kind of products are the producing? Since they have no qualms about lying - how could you ever trust any product from them?

The simple answer is, you can't.

Since I just last week registered my lights with them I'm going to contact them and let them know I feel totally ripped off my their internet scam.

I will also post the FAA notice on every aviation forum I can think of.

I am also contacting Aircraft Spruce and suggesting they reconsider re-selling Aveo products in light of their mis-representation of their products and deceptive advertising methods.

Color me - pi**** in Cloverdale.

Gary
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wrote about this over 2 years ago.
http://www.teamaerodynamix.com/shop/articles/MinesBrighterThanYoursv5.pdf

Independent tests showed they did not meet the standard. It was a head scratcher then. Not so much today.

lightgraph.jpg
 
Interesting. I use an Aveo product in my wings. It was already installed when I purchased the plane. Seemed fine until one strobe stopped working. They were very good to me about replacing it out of warranty. The odd thing is that the new strobe was multiple times brighter than the old one in the other wingtip. The difference in levels bothers me enough to contemplate trying to buy a replacement for that side. But I don't fly at night so I haven't bothered. Now I am curious to go back and look at what kind of claims they made for the particular ones I own.

PS. Aveo has a full page of EASA TSO photos on their homepage

http://www.aveoengineering.com/

It seems like they are saying that there is an agreement that an EASA TSO is valid as an FAA TSO while in the US...a sort of reciprocal agreement.

I didn't study this but that would seem to indicate in the mind of Aveo Engineering that the are TSO'd by virtue of the fact that they meet the home country standard.

I am not too excited or concerned from my own standpoint. I like my lights and they were never advertised as TSO'd as far as I know. But it will be interesting to see how this evolves.
 
Last edited:
Don Jones said:
Found this in their news page

http://www.aveoengineering.com/aveo...roduction-approval-for-tso-lighting-products/
Click to expand...

According to that, Aveo Florida would hold the TSOs ... but Aveo Florida is a distinct company from Aveo Engineering, at least according ot one page of their web site, hence the issue (Assuming Aveo Florida indeed does of course ...).

So Aveo Engineering sells a product, claiming TSO compliance. Maybe they're not entirely wrong, it's just not *their* TSO. I mean when AS sells something that says its TSO compliant, no one presumes AS holds the TSO ... it's the manufacturer.

That being said, in the TSO database, there's no "Aveo Florida" listed.

If you go the Aveo Florida web site, it says its "Aveo Engineering". And if you dig some more, you see there's "Aveo Engeneering USA" and Aveo Engineering America".

So yeah, some funny, odd confusing things going on here ...

Heck, the FAA letter says Aveo Malaysia holds the TSO, but their own database lists Aveo Engineering with a florida address ... but the products in question are not there.

what a mess ...
 
I have installed two of AVEO's Ultra Embedded Aurora in my wingtips and one PosiStrobe XP in the tail. I hope that nothing comes to bite me.
 
219PB said:
I have installed two of AVEO's Ultra Embedded Aurora in my wingtips and one PosiStrobe XP in the tail. I hope that nothing comes to bite me.
Click to expand...

None of this makes a statement on the quality of their products, merely questions business practices and legal matters.

Unfortunately, even if one makes the best "thing" in the world does not mean they necessarily have the best business sense ...
 
AndyRV7 said:
Interesting. I use an Aveo product in my wings. It was already installed when I purchased the plane. Seemed fine until one strobe stopped working. They were very good to me about replacing it out of warranty. The odd thing is that the new strobe was multiple times brighter than the old one in the other wingtip.
Click to expand...
I had the same experience with my non TSO'd AVEO Powerburst lights. When one failed they replaced them both and the new ones are significantly brighter than the old ones. But being experimental I wasn't that concerned.

My 2 cents. :cool:
 
GalinHdz said:
I had the same experience with my non TSO'd AVEO Powerburst lights. When one failed they replaced them both and the new ones are significantly brighter than the old ones. But being experimental I wasn't that concerned.

My 2 cents. :cool:
Click to expand...

I was so close to getting the second at the same time but in the end, I Gave up trying to support the brightness claim. I have the Powerbursts too. Nice and quiet.
 
Aveo Lights

I have the Aveo Ultra Embedded Galactica and the PosiStrobe XP lights. They are light and bright. I had a minor issue with one of the lights and Rick Lindstrom, Aveo Southwest, helped me with good technical advice. When I could not resolve the issue, Rick replaced the light quickly. I spoke with Rick today and there is more to the story about the TSO lights. I hope he adds a reply to this thread with the rest of the story.
 
[email protected] said:
I have the Aveo Ultra Embedded Galactica and the PosiStrobe XP lights. They are light and bright. I had a minor issue with one of the lights and Rick Lindstrom, Aveo Southwest, helped me with good technical advice. When I could not resolve the issue, Rick replaced the light quickly. I spoke with Rick today and there is more to the story about the TSO lights. I hope he adds a reply to this thread with the rest of the story.
Click to expand...

It's always great to get both sides of the story for sure!
 
Dean, you're sure welcome to post a correct version of the graph, identifying the dates or serial numbers to which it applies, and the test company that supplied the results you post.

Respectfully,
Dave
 
You might want to discuss that issue with the lab that did the testing, not with the man reporting the results.
 
The data posted is not accurate, even for the date claimed. Whelen filed a complaint with the FAA several years ago, and was pushing that exact graph at that time. The FAA did an audit of our lights in our manufacturing facility, with optical measurements, and found that the Whelen claims were not valid.

We sent a cease and desist letter to Whelen at that time, and they removed that graph from their website.

Now Kahuna is trotting out the same graph and making the same false claims.

I am well aware that Aveo has been making TSO claims for many years, and am aware of the FAA letter that just came out. We at AeroLEDs have been very careful to only claim TSO when we have an actual TSO letter issued from the FAA granting TSOA.

I am more than happy to post a graph showing the actual NSP performance.

Dean Wilkinson
CTO, AeroLEDs LLC
 
Dean, I see that the graph that you object to identifies the Aeroleds light data as applying to an NSP, and the graph that you just provided is for a different model, the NS.

Does the NSP have the same performance?

What serial numbers of light do the graphed data apply to?

I have not yet bought wingtip lights for my RV-3B project, but I have an Aeroleds Microsun landing light that I've installed. As I intend to fly day VFR in congested airspace, brightness is important to me.

Dave
RV-3B, wings built, now on fuselage
 
The NS and NSP are identical except for the rear position light. The graph applies to the 01-1180 and 11-1180 part numbers, but the older 01-1080 and 11-1080 part numbers aren't a whole lot lower, and all of them are above the 400 candela mark.

David Paule said:
Dean, I see that the graph that you object to identifies the Aeroleds light data as applying to an NSP, and the graph that you just provided is for a different model, the NS.

Does the NSP have the same performance?

What serial numbers of light do the graphed data apply to?

I have not yet bought wingtip lights for my RV-3B project, but I have an Aeroleds Microsun landing light that I've installed. As I intend to fly day VFR in congested airspace, brightness is important to me.

Dave
RV-3B, wings built, now on fuselage
Click to expand...
 
Clarifying ...

Dean, your NS and NSP and are two almost identical 'products' where the NS is a package (pair) of NAV/POS/Strobes for the wingtips, and the NSP is the 'addition' of the Tail POS/Strobe to make wingtips & tail package. And, the NSP and NS are using the identical WINGTIP components and the Tail POS/Strobe is simply adding the 3rd component of equal intensity.

Therefore, the graph is applicable to the NS and NSP regarding the intensity of the products in both packages. Is that a fair clarification of your comment?

" The NS and NSP are identical except for the rear position light. The graph applies to the 01-1180 and 11-1180 part numbers, but the older 01-1080 and 11-1080 part numbers aren't a whole lot lower, and all of them are above the 400 candela mark."

I'm glad to see you step in to comment on your products. LED lighting is such an important area of safety for us all, with lower power consumption, and extreme product life, not to mention other benefits. Use of daytime recognition lighting is possible, and with all the glass panel power requirements the low power requirements of LED lighting is a bonus.

The biggest contention I see here is the EAB community trying to satisfy government regs, and compliance of products to meet the standards. The DAR I contacted specifically asked me if I intend to fly 'night' and whether the aircraft lighting was "TSO'd". He was interpreting the EAB lighting standard as 'must comply' and was not about to accept anything less as the threshold. Neither his judgment nor mine were sufficient to accept anything less for him to approve night VFR. All about paperwork.

Possibly fodder for a different discussion thread.
Thanks
 
I find it interesting how some DAR's get caught up on the TSO'd lighting during the initial certification. For one, the Phase one testing has to be completed in Day VFR conditions. After I leave, anything can really get changed. It is up to the owner operator to insure that the operating limitations are met. The current limitations from the Order specifically state that they must meet the requirements of FAR 91.205 (c) for night flying, meaning the position lights and anti-collision lights must be approved.

Vic
 
vic syracuse said:
I find it interesting how some DAR's get caught up on the TSO'd lighting during the initial certification. For one, the Phase one testing has to be completed in Day VFR conditions. After I leave, anything can really get changed. It is up to the owner operator to insure that the operating limitations are met. The current limitations from the Order specifically state that they must meet the requirements of FAR 91.205 (c) for night flying, meaning the position lights and anti-collision lights must be approved.
Vic
Click to expand...

I don't get "caught up" in the lighting discussion, but I do remind the applicant that to fly at night, the lighting must meet 91.205.
And I do check whatever lighting they do have, primarily to make sure the correct colors are on the proper side. You'd be surprised!
 
Didn't figure you would get caught up either, Mel. :) Yes, I have found the nav lights reversed, and the trim as well.

Vic
 
vic syracuse said:
Didn't figure you would get caught up either, Mel. :) Yes, I have found the nav lights reversed, and the trim as well.
Vic
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, almost 50% of the aircraft I inspect has one or more trim tabs and/or indicators reversed.
 
Hi, Dean.

Our Letter of Design Approval for the Ultra Galactica series of lights was issued by the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office and dates back to September, 2012. This was followed by LODAs for the Red Baron Galactica beacon and PosiStrobe CP position / strobe light.

Subsequent international approvals have been issued to newer products, but it appears that this data has not quite made it to all of the individual FAA offices quite yet. Aveo does not claim certification status when it does not exist.

Best,

Rick Lindstrom
Aveo Southwest
Livermore, CA
 
[email protected] said:
I have the Aveo Ultra Embedded Galactica and the PosiStrobe XP lights. They are light and bright. I had a minor issue with one of the lights and Rick Lindstrom, Aveo Southwest, helped me with good technical advice. When I could not resolve the issue, Rick replaced the light quickly. I spoke with Rick today and there is more to the story about the TSO lights. I hope he adds a reply to this thread with the rest of the story.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words, Peter.

Mr. Welch has certainly been busy posting in every aviation forum imaginable, I fail to understand what motivates this response. The UPN recently issued by the NY MIDO is not accurate in content, and a little bit of research might have helped significantly before he set out to demean Aveo products. Here's the text of my reply from the Zenith forum:

"Hi, Gary.

Attributed to both Mark Twain and Winston Churchill: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." I think this applies perfectly in this situation.

I can't help but notice that you've made this same, identical post on various aviation forums, including this one, in response to a recent Unapproved Parts Notification from the Farmingham MIDO in New York. This UPN was released with no prior notification to any Aveo office worldwide, and without any due diligence by the FAA to confirm accuracy of its contents. Needless to say, this UPN is not accurate.

All Aveo lights that are listed as certified are indeed so. Aveo also builds experimental versions of our TSO'd products that are not certified, have different part numbers, and sell for considerably less. This UPN has a bit difficulty with this distinction.

The Nebulons, Pegatron, and SmartStrobe products mentioned have earned international certification, absolutely required for installation in the extensive line of civil jets for which they were initially designed.

Without getting into further specifics, due to a possible legal response, let me direct you to the main Aveo website for clarification regarding this UPN. There you'll find copies of certification and acceptance documents that correct the assertions made in the UPN, and repeated online. (www.aveoengineering.com)

And as always, please feel free to contact my directly if you'd like further clarification.

Rick Lindstrom
Aveo Engineering Southwest
Livermore, CA

925.443.9999

[email protected]

Zenith 601XL/B N64KP"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top