elt question

[Flyin Farmer]

I have an Ameri- King AK-450 ELT which came with my model 111 project I see there has been an AD issued on this model as well as the newer 451 what would be my best option as far as getting an safe operational elt? Take this one to a shop and have it gone over, or being rather old scrap it and lay out the money for a new one I do not have an antenna for this one and before spending money on one I would like to hear your opinions about it.Thanks Greg

[jiott]

I am not familiar with those models, but the first thing would be to determine if they use the old 121.5 frequency or the new 406. If they are the old frequency I would deep six them as not worth repair. The most popular one right now seems to be the ACK E-04. It is the new 406, probably the most reasonable in price, and works reliably with no issues. Kitfox will sell it and they also use it in their SLSA's. Comes with antenna and ability to tie into your GPS.

[jmodguy]

I went with an Artex 345. It supports 121.5 and 406. Comes with a whip antenna that can be hidden in the aft fuselage and a mount. Has a GPS input to support 406 mode. Mid $500 range.

[Dave S]

Greg,


Ameri King was gigged for using unapproved parts in their manufactured equipment. The company is out of buisiness last I heard and their stuff is totally orphaned. It is also a bunch of junk that may or may not work. I had an AK encoded which died a young death on me before the UPN (unapproved parts notification) came out so I replaced it with another....and you don't have to guess what happened to that - of course the UPN was out by then.



Check it out for yourself:



https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/programs/sups/upn/media/2016/UPN_2016-2013NM460018.pdf


AK was first found out on their ELTs (G switches in particular), but the UPN investigation found the encoders and pretty much anything they made was not complying with their approvals.


Personally if I had an AK encoder - I'd put it out on the 200 yard rifle range and test out my marksmanship skills.


Trust my hide to that junk?...no way

[DesertFox4]

L.E.A.F. has the ACK 406 complete kit for $475.00.

https://www.leadingedgeairfoils.com/

[Dorsal]

I also have the Ameri-King which will get replaced with a 406 unit (no rush). Given the 2020 ADS-B mandate coming I plan on using a Garmin GDL 82 ADS-B out which can also supply GPS info for the ACK ELT. I already have the GDL 39 for ADS-B in.

[HighWing]

Major coincidence! I needed to replace the battery on my Ameri-King AK-450 and discovered the issues with the FAA. Since mine was already installed and didn't want to re-invent the wheel, I went with the Kannad Ameri-King Retrofit ELT. The mounting plate has holes drilled that accommodate the original mount for the Ameri-King and the panel remote has accommodating electrical fittings that would make the replacement much easier using existing wiring. I attached the mount yesterday and today I will plug in the wiring for the panel remote switch and test. A little more than I wanted to spend, but worth it in effort. The Kannad is a bit smaller and lighter, battery exp. date - 8/2024

[Flyin Farmer]

Thanks for all the great responses Advice Taken ,ordered a new one!

[HighWing]

Quick Follow-up. Finished the Kannad install and the most difficult part was the exchange of the remote unit on the panel. Getting my hand back there to catch the nuts as I unscrewed the old one and replaced it with the new one was the only challenge. The ELT mounting plate fit precisely where the Ameri-King unit was and existing wiring connected quickly. All parts necessary for the exchange were included.

[Danzer1]

I have an Ameri- King AK-450 ELT which came with my model 111 project I see there has been an AD issued on this model as well as the newer 451 what would be my best option as far as getting an safe operational elt? Take this one to a shop and have it gone over, or being rather old scrap it and lay out the money for a new one I do not have an antenna for this one and before spending money on one I would like to hear your opinions about it.Thanks Greg

You can not repair the AmeriKing 450 and 451's. they must be continuously inspected and tested per the AD starting no later than October 24, 2018. If they fail, they must be replaced. They are 121 only so I would just replace it anyway - 121 is useless unless being ground tracked from real close.

The ACK E-04 can use the same remote and and wiring as the AmeriKing and has a harness that meets the new TSO 126b (not hook and loop) and includes an antenna.

Tha Kannad retrofit is about $400 more, has an integral backup 406 antenna, does not include an external antenna and uses the older hook and loop mounting.

The NTSB wanted the new TSO 126b to require replacement of all hook and loop fastening on all existing and new ELT installations. The FAA TSO though allows hook and loop on "existing" elts and only requires a better mounting for new elt designs (not to be confused with new elt installations) occuring since the TSO 126b effective date. Kind of defeated the purpose as the manufacturers can still make, sell and you can install the hook and loop type!

Also, if you replace an old 121 elt with a new 121/406 elt without replacing the antenna - you are assuming the old antenna will operate correctly on 406. Maybe/maybe not - that is why ACK sells their unit with the antenna and requires it to be used.

Just my take on it all, Greg

[HighWing]

3. REQUIREMENTS. New models of 406 MHz ELTs identified and manufactured on or after the effective date of this TSO must meet the MPS qualification and documentation requirements in RTCA Inc. document, RTCA/DO-204A, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs), dated December 6, 2007, sections 2.2 and 2.4. The 406 MHz ELT must include a 121.5 MHz homing beacon. We also require that you obtain a Cospas-Sarsat type approval certificate before applying for this TSO. Additionally, the use of hook and loop fasteners is not an acceptable means of attachment in complying with the Crash Safety requirements of section 2.2.5 of RTCA/DO-204A for automatic fixed (AF) and automatic portable (AP) ELTs.

g. Deviations. We have provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of compliance to the criteria in the MPS of this TSO. If you invoke these provisions, you must show that your equipment maintains an equivalent level of safety. Apply for a deviation under the provision of 14 CFR § 21.618.

This brings up the story a friend - former Model IV owner - told me two days ago. A year or so ago, he sold a pristine 1950-ish C-150 to a guy. Recently, due for an annual, the new owner takes it to an AI for the inspection. The AI checks every log book entry from day 1 and discovers that in 1955 it had a nose gear collapse repair that was documented in the log book, but never officially signed off. Now, this new AI is insisting that the nose gear repair be redone so the correct entry can be placed in the log book - $12,000. A law-suit was filed against my friend to cover the cost of this inspection (repair). This airplane has had regular Annual Inspections for 60 years and a professional nit-picker is insisting that every one of those inspections was defective and "HE" needs to make it right.

[Danzer1]

g. Deviations. We have provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of compliance to the criteria in the MPS of this TSO. If you invoke these provisions, you must show that your equipment maintains an equivalent level of safety. Apply for a deviation under the provision of 14 CFR § 21.618.

Lowell, They don't need a deviation and I don't believe they applied for one as the new TSO only applies to new models designed and submitted after the effective date of the TSO. So they can continue to make and sell hook and loop mountings on all their previously TSO'd ELT's.

However Kannad did issue a vague service bulletin: https://www.mcmurdogroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/S1800000-25-00_All-KANNAD-ELTs_Check-of-hook-and-loop-fasteners-for-mounting-mechanisms.pdf

It requires firmly strapping and pulling on the unit to see if it will come out and visual inspection for wear and tear. Whoopie!

My point was, the NTSB wanted all hook and loop mounts to be eliminated and still could push for that to happen as they didn't get it in the current 126b - as it only has to be implemented on NEW elt designs submited for TSO after 11/26/12. Part of the reason some elt manufacturers aren't improving and redesigning their products since 2012.

Why install a $400 more expensive product when the concensus (stated in the TSO and by the NTSB) states: the use of hook and loop fasteners is not an acceptable means of attachment.

BTW, a dedicated 121 tuned external antenna will not optimally (if at all, depending on the antenna) transmit a 406 signal.

Greg

[Guy Buchanan]

The AI checks every log book entry from day 1 and discovers that in 1955 it had a nose gear collapse repair that was documented in the log book, but never officially signed off. Now, this new AI is insisting that the nose gear repair be redone so the correct entry can be placed in the log book - $12,000.


An interesting business model. I wonder how long the AI can keep it up. Think anyone will risk taking their 40 year old aircraft to them?

[Danzer1]

3. REQUIREMENTS. New models of 406 MHz ELTs identified and manufactured on or after the effective date of this TSO must meet the MPS qualification and documentation requirements in RTCA Inc. document, RTCA/DO-204A, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs), dated December 6, 2007, sections 2.2 and 2.4. The 406 MHz ELT must include a 121.5 MHz homing beacon. We also require that you obtain a Cospas-Sarsat type approval certificate before applying for this TSO. Additionally, the use of hook and loop fasteners is not an acceptable means of attachment in complying with the Crash Safety requirements of section 2.2.5 of RTCA/DO-204A for automatic fixed (AF) and automatic portable (AP) ELTs.

g. Deviations. We have provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of compliance to the criteria in the MPS of this TSO. If you invoke these provisions, you must show that your equipment maintains an equivalent level of safety. Apply for a deviation under the provision of 14 CFR § 21.618.

This brings up the story a friend - former Model IV owner - told me two days ago. A year or so ago, he sold a pristine 1950-ish C-150 to a guy. Recently, due for an annual, the new owner takes it to an AI for the inspection. The AI checks every log book entry from day 1 and discovers that in 1955 it had a nose gear collapse repair that was documented in the log book, but never officially signed off. Now, this new AI is insisting that the nose gear repair be redone so the correct entry can be placed in the log book - $12,000. A law-suit was filed against my friend to cover the cost of this inspection (repair). This airplane has had regular Annual Inspections for 60 years and a professional nit-picker is insisting that every one of those inspections was defective and "HE" needs to make it right.

Of course you left off the immediately preceeding paragraph which states:

"2. APPLICABILITY. This TSO affects new applications submitted after its effective date.

a. All prior revisions to this TSO are no longer effective. Generally, we will not accept applications for the previous revision after the effective date of this TSO. We may do so, however, up to six months after it, if we know that you were working against the prior MPS before the new change became effective.

b. 406 MHz ELTs approved under a previous TSOA may still be manufactured under the provisions of its original approval."

The 1st sentence says "affects new applications submitted" and Sub paragraph b says they can continue to make the old ones. No "deviation" required.

Your analogy (story) would be make sense, if I were to simply replace an elt because it had hook and loop mounting. But if I'm going to spend $500 to 900 anyway to get 406 - I might as well do it for the $500 and meet the current requirements whether "required" or not.

[PapuaPilot]

An interesting business model. I wonder how long the AI can keep it up. Think anyone will risk taking their 40 year old aircraft to them?

That price seems a little over the top for a C-150, but I am an IA. All that to say, if I found incomplete or unsigned work on an aircraft I would want to look into it. In this case it may have required a complete teardown of the the nose strut and inspection of the mounting structure, etc. Also a red flag would be raised about a prop strike, which could happen even if the engine wasn't running (by definition from the engine mfg.). As an IA I am attesting to the airworthiness of the entire aircraft at the time I sign it off; both that it is in a condition for safe flight (the inspection) and that it conforms to its type design (the paperwork part, not just the last year but from day one). It is a big responsibility.

IF this IA is doing excessing or unneeded work the word will get around and people won't be coming to him.

[Dorsal]

This thread convinced me to go ahead and order the ACK E-04, if I'm going to get it eventually might as well get it now. Will be using the GDL-82 as a GPS source (just installed), will report back if there are any issues.

[jonstark]

I’ve got a new ACK-E04 that must be “tested”.

Looking into this it appears as though I am supposed to notify the authorities prior to testing if I don’t have the test equipment in house and need to do a “live” test. Who do I call? ATC, USAF, NOAA?

There is a company offering $30/year and $30/test verification.

What are you guys doing to verify proper antenna emission strength annually?

Jon

Edit to add...
Having just read the sarsat/noaa policy the fee for service noted above is the way to go. They are able to read the self test broadcast and will notify of successful transmission. No need to ask Mother may I of the powers that be.

[Dave S]

Jon,


The people who manage this is NOAA.



There is an answer to most questions on testing (from the horse's mouth) on their web site.


http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/Beacon%20Testing%20Policy.html


Also, you have to register the beacon with them when it is installed in the aircraft - I don't know if that is what you meant by notifying the authorities.


In any case, there is a phone number or two which will connect you with help for anything SARSAT; and, you should have these numbers in your plane and on your phone.



The numbers are 301-817-4515; and, too free, 888-212-7283


You will want these if ever there is an "oops" with the switch or test. These folks have no draconian proclivities - they are there to save our butts if we need it and there to contact if a false transmission goes off so they don't initiate SAR activities unnecessarily - when you register the beacon, there are several contact phone numbers you can choose to have them to call you or your emergency contact - this works for "oops" events too.


They will help you on the phone with with any unanswered setup or registration or use questions.:)

[jonstark]

There are a number of places offering advice on testing. It was confusing with some saying just call ATC or your tower where another said to apply for a live test to see if you qualify to send out a live emergency signal. Finally the application said to read the noaa policy before making application. Where I do believe after reading the policy that a new installation test would be authorized they recommend using the fee for service site. As previously stated instead of sending a real signal they can decode what is broadcast during self test and tell you if you’re ok. This prevents a real emergency that might be in progress concurrently from being impacted.

I will keep those numbers handy tho!

Jon

[Dorsal]

Jon,
I just registered my E-04 and expect to be satisfied with the self test that can be initiated by the pilot (first 5 minutes of the hour). BTW which airport are you based at, 0B5?

Dave,
Thanks for posting those numbers, just entered them into my phone.

[Danzer1]

There are a number of places offering advice on testing.

The best advice you should take is from the manufacturer, as the rule states something to the effect that all testing must be performed in accordance with the manufacturers requirements (or instructions) - can't remember which. Check your manual. If unclear, I would get clarification from ACK before listening to anyone else.

YMMV, Greg

[jonstark]

Upon initial installation and then annually we must check the installation, controls and signal strength of the ELT. Without $5000 worth of shields, receivers and antenna dummy loads the only way to test properly (not by initiating a false alarm) is to either apply to NOAA for permission to do a live test or pay a service to watch for your self test at a scheduled time.

Use of the service prevents the emergency system from being overloaded with false emergencies.

Just doing a self test and listening on your radio is insufficient to test signal strength properly.

Look at the NOAA ELT testing policy for this data.

Dave, I am at Turners Falls. You?

Jon

[Dorsal]

I read that policy as how to conduct tests not which tests are required (though I could be quite wrong). I believe the tests outlined in the ACK install manual should be sufficient, self test every three months, complete inspection each year including testing the G-switch.

I am based out of KORH, love to see your plane sometime.

[PapuaPilot]

I believe the tests outlined in the ACK install manual should be sufficient, self test every three months, complete inspection each year including testing the G-switch.

From what I understand this is correct. Once the 406 ELT has been installed you need to do what the manufacture says in the "Instructions For Continued Airworthiness" or similar section. For the ACK-04 this is found in section 10. The self test is part of this, an inspection of the ELT, mounting, antenna, plugs/cables and the G switch test.

Here is a good link on the subject:
http://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?51831-testing-a-406-mhz-ELT

If you want to check the signal strength you can still do the "AM radio" check, which tests the 121.5 signal and gives you an assurance that a decent signal is being transmitted from the antenna.

Here is a copy/paste from another site about the AM test:
"There are two ways to test for sufficient antenna signal on a C91a ELT. One is to evaluate the signal strength using a test box like those made by QCAvionix or Whiffletree. The other method is to listen to the signal using an AM-band radio receiver.

The FAA endorses the AM radio test and has codified this check in the most recent update of Advisory Circular 43.13-1B (CHG 1). The test for sufficient signal radiated from the antenna is as follows (Par 12-22):

"Active the ELT using the ON or ELT TEST switch. A low-quality AM broadcast radio receiver should be used to determine if energy is being transmitted from the antenna. When the antenna of the AM broadcast receiver (tuning dial on any setting) is held about 6 inches from the activated ELT antenna, the ELT aural tone will be heard."

"It has to be a cheap AM radio," said Bob Glorioso, president of QCAvionix. "It can't be too well shielded. You're trying to overwhelm the AM detector."

Many mechanics, perhaps unaware of the FAA's recommendations, listen the ELT signal on the aircraft's VHF radio, set to receive on 121.5 megahertz. But this isn't a good test, because the aircraft radio's receiver is extremely sensitive. The AM radio test, says AC43.13, "is not a measured check; but it does provide confidence that the antenna is radiating with sufficient power to aid search and rescue. The signal may be weak even if it is picked up by an aircraft VHF receiver located at a considerable distance from the radiating ELT. Therefore, this check [VHF radio] does not check the integrity of the ELT system or provide the same level of confidence as does the AM radio check."

[jonstark]

The AM radio test is NOT for the 406Mhz transmission. It is only for the 121.5 signal. That can only be done with a test set, actually activating the ELT or having a service monitor a self test transmission.

Now... We have to decide whether testing only the 121.5 signal is compliant with the FAA mandated signal strength test.

What say you all?

By the way, 406test.com is ONLY for ARTEX ELTs.

Jon

Edit to add...
An FAA Avionics Inspector out of Atlanta now says that the FAA knew it would be difficult to nearly impossible to test the 406 Mhz broadcast so the TSO was written so as to require the SELF TEST PROCEDURE to comply with strength test.
If your manufacturer has a selftest in the Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness that is all that is required.

[PapuaPilot]

There is an answer to this in the supercub.org link I posted. It mentions the Airman's Information Manual (also from the FAA) as the reference. It's always fun to use other FAA's information to show that FAR 91.207 doesn't make sense in regards to 406 ELTs.

6-2-5. Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT)
a. General. . . .
b. Testing.

1. ELTs should be tested in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, preferably in a shielded or screened room or specially designed test container to prevent the broadcast of signals which could trigger a false alert.

2. When this cannot be done, aircraft operational testing is authorized as follows:

(a) Analog 121.5/243 MHz ELTs should only be tested during the first 5 minutes after any hour. If operational tests must be made outside of this period, they should be coordinated with the nearest FAA Control Tower or FSS. Tests should be no longer than three audible sweeps. If the antenna is removable, a dummy load should be substituted during test procedures.

(b) Digital 406 MHz ELTs should only be tested in accordance with the unit's manufacturer's instructions.

(c) Airborne tests are not authorized.

[jonstark]

Dontcha just love this stuff Phil?
My DAR questioned the validity of self test so... I go round and round trying to find how to be in compliance with the mandate only to end back at the ICA I used in the first place.

Jon

[PapuaPilot]

You betcha. This whole 406 ELT inspection issue has been a nightmare since they first came out. I don't think I have ever heard anybody talk about this subject at an IA seminar. IMO the FAA needs to update 91.207 so we don't need to guess or go searching for this info.

I would show the AIM reference to your DAR if there are any questions. If he has further questions he should take it up the FAA. In all reality DARs are authorized to perform airworthiness certification of aircraft, that's all. He really can't deny you the C of A based on future maintenance and inspection requirements. If you have installed a new, approved ELT in an acceptable manner (including the registration with NOAA) that is all a DAR can ask for. If he wants to do a self test performed that would be OK.

[Danzer1]

I agree with Phil - or find another DAR. The requirement is to test within 12 months of installation - most do it at annual so as to simply inspections. Meeting the manufacturers requirements for testing as stated by ACK in the manual is all that is required. ACK says nothing about using a service or doing the test in a shielded room. ACK does however also require a "self test" be performed every 3 months - so don't forget those too and log them!

These "suggestions" to take it to an avionics service center that keep popping up are all propagated by the service centers to make them money.

YMMV, Greg

[rv9ralph]

Agreed the 406 testing issue is a conundrum.

There is a device, advertised in Kitplanes, to run these tests. It is designed to test 406 and 121.5 ELTs, the cost is $648. Pricey, but my last EAA chapter just bought one a few months before I moved. They were in the initial familiarization stage but it appeared that it would run the necessary tests. The website is www.beacon-tester.com.

It is something to look into. Too pricey for most as a once a year item, but cold be great to pool resources, like an EAA Chapter, for annual testing.

Ralph

[jrevens]

The AM radio test not only confirms the 121.5 transmission, but is also a valid test for the integrity of the common antenna. I'm not suggesting that this be done on purpose of course, but if the unit was accidentally triggered for an extended short period, sometime other than the allowed "5 min. after the hour" test period, you should soon receive a phone call and can admit to an accidental triggering event. It happens, and I understand that they are usually very nice & understanding about it. That would be a valid "test" of the transmission to the satellites. :o

[rv9ralph]

About unintentional activation. One of my EAA Chapter friends flies a Long EZ, he installed a Garmin G3, then he installed an ACK 406 ELT. Twice his emergency contact received a call from SARSAT, his ELT had activated in flight. After some investigation, he found the the transponder antenna coax was in proximity to his ELT test panel/buzzer lead and the transponder triggered the ELT. He had to reroute the transponder antenna coax to resolve it.

This wouldn't have shown itself during the initial test, but it does show that there can be unintentional activation of 406 ELTs also.

Ralph

[efwd]

Good Lord! All my wires run along side in relative proximity to the coax's. How else would everything fit through the center cowl up into the back of the panel?
This is why I hate electrical! :Dlol

[jrevens]

Don’t worry, Eddie... you’re probably fine. I’ve got everything in close proximity and it has all worked flawlessly so far. My transponder coax (RG400) runs parallel to & in the same bundle as my ACK wiring. Proper grounding and a well shielded coax like RG400 should be adequate to prevent what Ralph described.

To quote Bob Nuckolls, who was replying to a builder who said he was being diligent about separating antenna wiring from power wiring in a fiberglass airframe... all power wiring on the port side and antenna wiring & pneumatics on starboard, and he was running out of room in his port side conduit and worried about running some remaining wiring in with the antenna wiring -

“There is no demonstrable value in separating antenna coax wires and other ship’s wiring. The idea that ‘noise’ escapes ships wiring to invade the inner-sanctum of your coax is a popular myth morphed into sage advice.”

As I said, I haven’t had any problems with inadvertent ELT activation, nor any perceived noise in my headsets, etc. (knock on wood).

[Av8r_Sed]

Jason Miller had a short, ’The Finer Points’ podcast interview with a member of SARSAT who monitor ELT’s. He states to never, ever activate a 406 unit at 5 min past the hour and only use the manufacturer’s test mode. It was informative but may not address all the nuances you’ve all been discussing.

Go to: https://www.learnthefinerpoints.com/podcast and scroll down the list to the Jan 20th episode, ‘Staying Found’.

[PapuaPilot]

One of my EAA Chapter friends flies a Long EZ, he installed a Garmin G3, then he installed an ACK 406 ELT. Twice his emergency contact received a call from SARSAT, his ELT had activated in flight. After some investigation, he found the the transponder antenna coax was in proximity to his ELT test panel/buzzer lead and the transponder triggered the ELT. He had to reroute the transponder antenna coax to resolve it.

Ralph

I had the exact same thing happen once and have the same combo (Garmin G3X & ACK-04). My wife got the phone call from SARSAT while I was still flying. :( I called ACK and they told me the same thing. ACK said it wasn't their ELT but the Garmin GTX-23 transponder that causes this to happen. My transponder antenna cable was too close to the ELT remote switch cable. They said to move the two cables as far apart as possible. I ended up fabricating a four wire shielded cable for the ELT remote switch and have not had a problem since.

Eddie, as best I know this is only a problem if you have a Garmin GTX-23 transponder and a ACK-04 ELT. If that is what you have at least you know it before you install everything.

[efwd]

Thx, John and Phil. I don't have that ELT.
Headed to AS&S to get some wire connector tools. Wish me luck at getting these wire connectors apart safely.