Ameri-King in Trouble with FAA

[Dave S]

Herman,

To get a good background on how the Sarsat system functions (which works off the 406 ELTs) go to http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/ . Its the same system PLBs work off of.

Regarding the cost of the batteries, I installed an Artex unit (about $900 when I bought it) which was fairly new at the time and had an "official" battery life of 5 years. The Lithium batteries used with this unit have had pretty good service life and the replacements are now good for 7 years (Officially) and lists for $178. I found when I replaced the original battery at 5 years it was still healthy.

FWIW - My decision to go with the 406 from the start was based on the fact that the 121.5 - well...if nobody is home and the lights are out...what good is that?

Sincerely,

[herman pahls]

Dave and Phil
Thanks for the great info. and it makes total sense to not waste time with 121.5.
I will order a 406 as soon as the McDeans return my call from today.
I would appreciate the advantages regarding integrating the 406 with a GPS versus not integrating.
Is it a matter of more accurate pin pointing the Lat and Long in case of an incident?
Does it track like a SPOT does but continuously versus every 10 minutes like my current SPOT does?
Is there a yearly fee like the SPOT has?
I appreciate this forum for the readily available info..
Thanks again
Herman

[PapuaPilot]

Herman,

The GPS input gives a much more accurate location in the event the ELT is activated. They are not a like a SPOT and can't be used for tracking. They are just an ELT. There are not any fees, but you need to register them with SARSAT NOAA.

Many pilots and trekkers are carrying PLBs too, which also need to be registered. These use the same frequency as the 406 ELT and should be activated only in the event of an emergency. They are good to have but not a replacement for an ELT. A PLB won't do you any good if you are incapacitated in an accident.

[herman pahls]

I called Pacific Coast Avionics to order a ACK- EO4 for $445. and they suggested the Artex 345 which sells for $549.
They felt the Artex was a better install because it uses shielded wire instead of the phone cable to connect with the panel switch.
The Artex install sounds more complex requiring soldering the shielded wires versus pluging in a phone cable.
The local AP felt the Artex units were possibly better quality
but would chose the one that weighed the least.
Any opinions to help me make a decision?
Thanks
Herman

[jiott]

I've been using the ACK-E04 for almost 3 years now with no trouble and still on the original 5-year battery. Kitfox is a dealer for ACK and I believe it is what they put in the S-LSA. Have had no issues with the unshielded phone cable.

[jiott]

By the way, I have not hooked up the optional GPS input. I figure the standard accuracy is more than good enough to find me. A possible couple more minutes of searching to spot me is not that big a deal.

[PapuaPilot]

Herman,

Both the ACK and Artex are good products and have TSOs. They weigh about the same (2.0 lbs) and the replacement batteries cost about the same. The ACK is about $100 less expensive initially.

I don't feel there is a problem with using the phone cable for the ACK. The cable is for the switches that activate and test the unit from the remote switch. The shielded wire for the Artex may hold up a little better, but it serves the same function as the ACK phone cable. If you are paying a shop to install the ELT it may cost more for parts and labor for them to make this cable, whereas the ACK it more plug and play.

Do some research and see what customers are saying about the units.