406 ELT's.....

C

CT Arrow

Line Up and Wait
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
785
Display Name
Display name:
Adios!
While it is not mandatory yet in the US, for those that have taken the plunge and installed a 406Mhz ELT, what unit did you buy? Rough cost? Any pro's / con's? Thanks!
 
CT Arrow said:
While it is not mandatory yet in the US, for those that have taken the plunge and installed a 406Mhz ELT, what unit did you buy? Rough cost? Any pro's / con's? Thanks!
Click to expand...

Artex ME406, $1115 from Aviall (in Canada). Biggest hassle was running the remote cable under the floor to the panel. This was in a 2006 172S, and I followed the G1000 cable snake through its various contortions, attaching the remote cable all the way, and got myself scratched up good doing it. Our older 172s and R182 should be easier. The Citabrias will be another hassle, since the TSO requirement for the 406 says that the ELT mounting base or bracketry can't move more than 0.1 inches in any direction when subjected to a 100-lb pull. The old 121.5 ELT mounts aren't nearly that rigid in the Citabrias. One is screwed to the 1/4" plywood floorboard and the other has a light aluminum tray fastened to some structural tubing with Adel clamps. Going to have to come up with something better.

I wanted the Pointer that has the built-in GPS but it ain't certified yet.
http://www.pointeravionics.com/product.php?pid=39

And I thought the ACK E-04 would be a better deal too, thinking that it would still use the Duracell D cells like the E-01, but it doesn't. Has a lithium battery now. And it doesn't appear to be certified yet, either.
http://www.hawkinsassoc.com/ack_e_04.html

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
Artex ME406, $1115 from Aviall (in Canada). Biggest hassle was running the remote cable under the floor to the panel. This was in a 2006 172S, and I followed the G1000 cable snake through its various contortions, attaching the remote cable all the way, and got myself scratched up good doing it. Our older 172s and R182 should be easier. The Citabrias will be another hassle, since the TSO requirement for the 406 says that the ELT mounting base or bracketry can't move more than 0.1 inches in any direction when subjected to a 100-lb pull. The old 121.5 ELT mounts aren't nearly that rigid in the Citabrias. One is screwed to the 1/4" plywood floorboard and the other has a light aluminum tray fastened to some structural tubing with Adel clamps. Going to have to come up with something better.

I wanted the Pointer that has the built-in GPS but it ain't certified yet.
http://www.pointeravionics.com/product.php?pid=39

And I thought the ACK E-04 would be a better deal too, thinking that it would still use the Duracell D cells like the E-01, but it doesn't. Has a lithium battery now. And it doesn't appear to be certified yet, either.
http://www.hawkinsassoc.com/ack_e_04.html

Dan
Click to expand...

I'm still going to wait for the new ACK E-04. IMO upgrading to 406 MHz w/o adding GPS position just isn't cost effective. The TSO requires more battery capacity so I'm not surprised that they went with lithium. That Skyhunter unit looks a lot like the Kannad ELT and doesn't have a GPS interface (I think you can add one for another $1400).
 
I installed the Artex ME406 unit (without GPS interface) in the Malibu. I'm holding out for the ACK unit for the 172. I've used the Artex units on more PA46 airframes because many already have the Artex 110-4, 121.5 units installed (I don't have to run wires from the rear up to the front).

The Artex unit has the advantage of being available now.

Kevin
 
Here's a question. If the 406 ELT doesn't have a GPS in it but does have the interface does it have to be connected to a certified GPS or can it say be connected to a x96?
 
GigG601XL said:
Here's a question. If the 406 ELT doesn't have a GPS in it but does have the interface does it have to be connected to a certified GPS or can it say be connected to a x96?
Click to expand...

I'm uninformed. What's an x96? I'd think that a certified ELT installation would require connection to a certified GPS source, if the "x96" isn't TSO'd.

I would have installed the GPS-capable Artex if the airplane was going to be in the mountains a lot, but the ELT itself is about $500 more and the installation, here in Canada, becomes a "Specialized Maintenance" task that has to be certified by avionics techs. Total cost I was quoted at about $3000. Transport Canada has issued an exemption to the regs that allows the AME to install and certify the 406 without GPS interfacing. They did that because so many aircraft will need switching over, and the cost is high enough already. And the installation isn't that big a deal.

The one advantage of the GPS-connected unit is the coordinate feed so that the unit has the last known position. The ELT with the built-in GPS has to fire up when the ELT is triggered, figure out where it's at, and then transmit that position. If the GPS antenna is in a bad spot or if the airplane sinks or burns before that, no position info is sent.

Dan
 
I sincerely doubt that the GPS feeding position information has to be certified.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I'm uninformed. What's an x96? I'd think that a certified ELT installation would require connection to a certified GPS source, if the "x96" isn't TSO'd.
Click to expand...

x96 = Garmin 196, 296, 396, 496 or 696. Just a bit of shorthand.


I see the vote on my question at this point is 1:1.
 
I dunno - you're allowed to feed data from a "certified" transponder or GPS to the 496 (TIS from the Mode S transponder, and flight plan from the 430).

I don't think that feeding the GPS data from a portable GPS to the position input on an ELT would render it "unairworthy", but I guess it's possible. I imagine it would be described in the STC or install documentation.
 
SCCutler said:
I sincerely doubt that the GPS feeding position information has to be certified.
Click to expand...

I checked the Artex install manual for their GPS to ELT interface and there is no mention of any requirements for the position source except for the data format. That said the FAA generally gets real unhappy about feeding any signals from an unapproved source to certified equipment in certified aircraft. Their brochure does state that the interface is intended to connect to the aircraft's "FMC or GPS receiver" which implies (to me) that they don't mean handhelds.

BTW I found an article describing the SAR response time and area for non GPS 406 ELTs vs GPS equipped ELTs. The difference is substantial.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/innovation/tdc/summary/13700/13782e.htm
 
Last edited:
I think they are here, too. It's hard to argue that the Same ELT is somehow less airworthy when it's fed by the same handheld GPS in the 182 as it is in the RV-7.

It's hard to imagine how feeding data to an ELT from a handheld is somehow more dangerous than not feeding any data at all.

But I know, I'm trying to use logic in the FAAniverse. Let me go drink the koolaid some more... There are days I feel like McMurphy in "Cuckoo's nest", I just need my voltage and all will be well.
 
Latest update on the ACK:

ACK E-04 406MHz ELT RELEASE UPDATE 3/04/2009
We have been pushed back by the COSPAS/SARSAT military electronics proving grounds again. We were re-scheduled for March 9th back in February, and now we have just been re-scheduled again. Here is the quote from the lab we received today.
"We are having difficulties in getting our test equipment back to working order. Mid-March is not possible for us to support your testing. Right now it looks more like mid-April. We will keep you posted."
Besides this hold-up we are currently finished with the environmental testing and data submittal packet for the TSO approval on our lithium battery pack for the 406MHz ELT. We are at the final stages of TSO testing for the complete ELT. The last phase consisting of COSPAS/SARSAT testing at the U.S. ARMY electronic proving grounds is now expected to be complete by the end of April. The U.S. ARMY lab will submit a application for COSPAS/SARSAT approval. After that we are ready to submit the final TSO application to the FAA which they have 30 days to approve or reject. We expect to be in production and shipping product by May of 2009. Our apologies for any inconvenience.
We will also be submitting a high speed blade type antenna for COSPAS/SARSAT approval along with our standard 250 knot antenna.
Click to expand...

I am waiting on the ACK because it is a slide-in replacement for my E-01 model - should only require an antenna change I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top