Online Community of Zenith Builders and Flyers
See FAA Unapproved Parts Notification #No: 2016-20110831001
Information discovered during an FAA suspected unapproved parts investigation revealed that Aveo Engineering Group, s.r.o. (Aveo Engineering), located at Dobříš, Obory č.p. 98, PSČ 263 01, Czech Republic, and at Pribam Airport, Drasov 202, 261 01 Drasov, Czech Republic, advertised the above listed aircraft exterior LED lights on their websites as approved to FAA TSO No. TSO-C30c Aircraft Position Lights or FAA TSO No. TSO-C96a Anticollision Light Systems. However, Aveo Engineering did not hold FAA design approval in the form of an FAA letter of TSO design approval (LODA) for these models. Therefore, these models are not FAA TSO approved articles, as Aveo Engineering advertised.
Aveo flat out lied about the TSO listing of a number of their lighting systems right up until they got caught by the FAA this past February.
Having just installed a set of Aveo lights that I purchased through Aircraft Spruce, I'm more than a little pissed. To be clear, Aircraft Spruce does not sell the specific lights that Aveo lied about. However if Aveo lied about the TSO listing of some of their lights - how can you trust anything they produce???
It's not that I care whether my lights are TSO approved or not - it's the simple fact that if Aveo is willing to flat-out lie about their products in order to sell them - then what kind of garbage are they actually producing? What kind of crap do I know have in my plane that was produced by a company that is basically an internet scam.
I was concerned about buying a Chek made product but the fact that they were sold through Aircraft Spruce lended a level of credibility to the product. I have written to Aircraft Spruce and asked them to reconsider selling Aveo Lighting Systems. I just don't see how they could continue to sell aviation related products from a company that has no qualms about flat-out lying about their products in order to sell them. How could you ever trust this company after this?
Yes, I am pissed. You just don't expect this kind of scam at this level in the aviation industry.
I will be contacting Aveo and let them know how I feel about their product that I just registered with them last week.
It's always disconcerting to have just purchased a product and then find that the company is involved in a controversy. As you point it out, the TSO is of little concern to the experimental crowd - it's the ethics of the company that is concerning!
That being said, and in no way is it a defense of the company, I purchased the "Powerburst" LED nav/strobe/positon lights about 5 years ago and found the quality and performance to be excellent. I've had 4 years/380+ hrs of flight experience with them and never a problem. All that is to say I hope you have a similar good user experience should you keep them. (Perhaps Spruce might accept a return?)
Is it just possible that maybe Aveo simply failed to navigate completely and properly the convoluted and labyrinthian FAA regulations?
The FAA notification said they "advertised the products as TSO approved when they weren't".
I'm not sure there's a lot of grey area in TSO approvals. Stranger things have happened, I guess.
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.
Aveo Engineering Southwest
Zenith 601XL/B N64KP
Yes I have similar posts on multiple websites because of the FAA Unapproved Parts Notification raised concerns over your companies policies to the extent they issued a formal UPN.
Having recently bought an installed one of your systems, the UPN raises concerns over your companies business practices. So yes, this is personal for me, but also affects everyone who has ever installed one of your systems. Such is the reality of the aircraft parts business.
I did review the documentation on the Aveo website but it's hard to know if the documentation is factual or relevant to the FAA's UPN, or the timeline in question.
Until the FAA retracts the UPN I'll stick with my personal belief that the FAA is not an irresponsible rumor mill that casually issues UPN's without justification.
The pair of lights that you purchased from Spruce (Aveo PowerBurst Plus) are not even remotely mentioned in the UPN, as they are experimental only, intended primarily for the low and slow market such as powered parachutes and under 90 knot fixed and rotary wing aircraft. Obviously, the FAA has no quarrel whatsoever with our experimental line of lights. And yet you've still claimed profound concern as if you've been made to suffer in some regard from your purchase.
Which still has me wondering, why you are pressing this issue in the absence of any direct impact upon you or any other person operating any aircraft in any of the experimental categories. You have suffered no injury from your purchase whatsoever, and you have already been offered a full refund if you are in any way dissatisfied with your purchase.
However, your repeated and continued denigration of the Aveo product line via multiple aviation forums remains suspect. If you believe that the FAA can never make a mistake, you have my sympathies.
Again, I urge you to preform your own due diligence prior to engaging in maligning any aviation manufacturer. As always, I remain available via email or phone if you have specific certification questions you'd like answered.
Aveo Engineering Southwest
Rick, I DO NOT have a dog in this fight. However, FWIW, I applaud your willingness to address an individuals concerns in the realm of public forum(s). All the while being courteous, respectful and 'leaving the door open'. I am not familiar with any of the facts in this case from either side (FAA or Aveo). Just felt compelled to comment as I have seen responses from other manufacturers in regards to complaints/concerns in the past that tell me to avoid them. Hope the facts come to light and we all enjoy clarity........
Thanks, Jon! I appreciate your kind note, and your assessment.
I wish I were at liberty to disclose more of the details pertaining to this issue, as it's quite interesting. Let me just say that there's much more than currently meets the eye, and I will be happy to provide more specifics once we've worked completely through the UPN issue to final resolution.
After being a KITPLANES contributor for almost 20 years, writing product reviews and feature stories, I came across the Aveo product line in its infancy. I was stunned by its elegance and efficiency, and quickly became involved as a West Coast reseller.
I've seen the phenomenal growth of Aveo up close, in a very short time, going from experimental only lights to high performance airframe lighting products being eagerly adopted for installation on all manner of aircraft. This includes helos, certified fixed wing small and large, and even military UAVs that operate in extreme environments. This rapid growth and industry acceptance sometimes has outpaced the aviation regulatory world's comprehension, resulting in occasional confusion about product suitability, certification, and acceptance at the international level among ICAO member countries. The best we can do is address each issue as it comes up, and work to get everyone on the same page.
Aveo's rapid growth and success has also not set will with some legacy lighting companies, and that's a whole story in itself. Someday, I hope it all comes to light. No pun intended!
Thanks again for your post, it's greatly appreciated!
I am using wing tip position / strobes with a strobe as well on the aft end of the rudder from Aveo on my 650 and have been absolutely pleased with the product.
They are bright, quiet with my Dynon radio and in spite of being manufactured early in Aveo history, continue to work beautifully.
I for one, am totally pleased with my choice of Aveo during my build.
I will be interested in the final story, but continue to believe Aveo and its crew to be trustworthy.
Time will tell where the issues final outcome lies.
I'm happy to hear that your Aveo lights continue to provide good service to you and your 650.
The whole UPN issue revolves around how and where previous approvals have been obtained for Aveo certified products, and how new products are now certified with regard to international acceptance.
Loosely interpreted, I read the recommendation as "hang tight until this is all straightened out." Of course, this does not apply to any of the Aveo products sold into the experimental community.
Thanks again for your continued trust in our crew and our products.