dogpilot wrote:Just to warn folks about the ACK 406 ELT. I was duped into thinking it was a good deal. We put one into a customer's aircraft last month. It turned out to be a nightmare. First off it requires three different batteries. The instructions for continued airworthiness requires tests every 90 days entered into the logbook. Then to dip that paper cut into a bit of lemon juice, if you interface it with a GPS, it requires a field approval for the 337. So it ends up as a 4 page 337, a visit by the FAA and a continuing nightmare to keep the bloodily thing legal. Buy a Spot and an ME406, which may be in trouble due to the velcro strap mounting…

Ah Fudge! I just ordered one. No way am I going to go through all that happy horsepucky. I wonder if I can send it back.

The installation in my airplane was a first one by the mechanic who did it, and he didn't think it was all that big a deal, including figuring out how to connect to GPS. It was all signed off, and no feds had to visit.

I BELIEVE that ALL 406 ELTS are supposed to be tested every 90 days. I could be wrong on that, but I was told that by one of the manufacturers other than ACK.

In any case, mine is in, and the only hassle was that the old mount really didn't meet the standards that have been in place for years, so my current mechanic decided it needed to be more securely mounted. He was right. It's solid now. That mechanic has installed a bunch of Artex ELTs in local sprayers and he said he thought the ACK unit was better designed. He's had several antenna failures on the Artex units. Artex has recently changed their antenna design, so hopefully that glitch is fixed.

I'd go with ACK again, no regrets.

MTV

The big deal is your mechanic didn't read the actual installation instructions. Replacing a 121.5 with a 406 is not a minor alteration, but a systems change, therefore requiring a 337. If your 406 does not have an STC, then you need an approval basis. The ATK states: no approval basis, so you must get your own, i.e.. field approval. Now the feds almost never actually read 337's sent to them, but if they do or if one gets a desire to look into your books, then you may be doing all this retroactively and filing for work previously accomplished. Really, I don't do paper cause I like to, only when I am forced to. Like their new stance on Mode S transponders, they are now a major mod and you need field approval for the installation as almost all of them lack an STC, even Garmin (the GTX 330 has an STC, for a Piper Cherokee Six only). I just did two field approvals for work previously accomplished for GTX 330's due to this new stance.

You may go for the rest of your life with no problems on this, or it may become a big deal when you try to sell it and the IA doing the Pre-Purchase knows a bit more than perhaps the guy that did the installation did. He may well have been acting on best data available to him at the time, but it does not change the here and now. The system is beginning to generate a vacuum.

dogpilot wrote:Just to warn folks about the ACK 406 ELT. I was duped into thinking it was a good deal. We put one into a customer's aircraft last month. It turned out to be a nightmare. First off it requires three different batteries. The instructions for continued airworthiness requires tests every 90 days entered into the logbook. Then to dip that paper cut into a bit of lemon juice, if you interface it with a GPS, it requires a field approval for the 337. So it ends up as a 4 page 337, a visit by the FAA and a continuing nightmare to keep the bloodily thing legal. Buy a Spot and an ME406, which may be in trouble due to the velcro strap mounting…

One more 406 beacon adventure. I have been trying to re-register my 406 to me, since I bought the 185 last March. It took six call to NOAA to make it happen. Only two calls actually netted humans. The others where message machines that told me to leave a number, they are all at meetings, but will return your call within two hours. Well, they never called back. It seems until they call the previous owner and get a release you cannot re-enter the information on the web page. I finally had to resort to threatening them with a call to the Ombudsman to get them to actually call the previous owner and return my call. Almost 13 months to get this done. I now remember why I left NOAA, it stands for No Organization At All.

Just a little clarity on the ACK-E04 is in order:

1. The 2 batteries that aren't supplied for the remote and son-alert total $13 if you buy the good ones. 5 or 10yr life.
2. The 90-day self-test is a 5 second affair and where does it say it has to be entered into a logbook? Remember what the FAA says about manufactures using the terms "shall" or "must" in absence of regulatory language? The 12 month check must be logged per the regs on all ELT's. Thats all. This ELT meets the same TSO-126b that the others use-
3. Where does it say the ELT's GPS interface requires a field approval? Reference please. You can actually interface it to a Garmin GPS puck for laptops if you like. Now if you interfaced this OR ANY 406mhz ELT to an IFR-Certified, panel mounted IFR GPS, who's installation required a 337 and conformity flights and now you change its installation/wiring.... then I could see the need for an approval. The FSDO decides that anyhows. My ACK was done by a radio shop/repair station in Twin Falls and no 337 was needed even though some other equipment we installed was placed on a 337 that same visit.
4. Oh, the ME-406 costs twice as much and doesn't interface with a GPS!!

MTV wrote:

That mechanic has installed a bunch of Artex ELTs in local sprayers

I'd be curious why the local sprayers chose to install ELT's: One of the notable exceptions to the ELT requirement of FAR91.207 is (f)(6): "Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident [sic]to the aerial application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes; and (9):"Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person." , which describes most ag aircraft I've been around. This is not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea, even if not required, but not an FAR as I read it. Remote operations, company policy, or insurance might dictate that, but....

Not tryin' to pick a fight here, just pointing out the FAR.

Thanks. cubscout

I'll dig it out and upload it in the next few days. Read the instructions for continuing airworthiness carefully. If you interface to a panel unit, it is a systems change on both sides. Interfacing to another handheld or puck is yet a decision to be made by your FISDO. As I said, just because your shop did it, doesn't mean it was correct at this point in time. I am just explaining what we have been forced to do as little as a month ago, so we are not installing any more of them. In the last year I have encountered a photoshopped CofA and a Twin Otter with the wrong certification basis on the CofA, approved by a DAR no less. Had to do that over again $$$$. The photoshopped CofA ended up as a DEA investigation of the Ferry Pilot, the buyer and the DAR who's signature was on the fake CofA. We also had a crashed helicopter, with a CofA signed by a DAR who was dead at the time he signed the CofA, actually two years dead. Just because you have paper doesn't mean it is correct. There is a grounded Westwind in Atlanta right now, with a new avionics install by one of the biggest, most respected shops in the country. Big issue with the certification basis, subsequent to the installation done three months ago. Its just a Garmin 650/750 panel with a GTX330.

I am a strong advocate of 406/GPS combo. But until the manufacturers and the FAA team up a bit more, I'm advising the 406 and handheld option at this point in time. The FAA is no longer a safety agency.

cubscout wrote:MTV wrote:

That mechanic has installed a bunch of Artex ELTs in local sprayers

I'd be curious why the local sprayers chose to install ELT's: One of the notable exceptions to the ELT requirement of FAR91.207 is (f)(6): "Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident [sic]to the aerial application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes; and (9):"Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person." , which describes most ag aircraft I've been around. This is not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea, even if not required, but not an FAR as I read it. Remote operations, company policy, or insurance might dictate that, but....

Not tryin' to pick a fight here, just pointing out the FAR.

Thanks. cubscout

I can't speak for the sprayers, but a lot of these folks work all over the Midwest with their airplanes. I am familiar with the regs,

Isn't it novel that someone apparently actually VALUES this technology?

And, Dogpilot, I THINK you may be mixing your metaphors, at least in my case. My installation is paired to a PORTABLE GPS, not a panel mount. If you interface one with a 430 you may be right.

You keep referencing the FAA , but I can cite cases where FAA types have said a LOT of things were "illegal" including some things that are clearly legal.

Again, ALL 406 GPS units require periodic testing and the remotes are powered, so more batteries.

As always, your mileage, particularly when it comes to the FAA may vary.

MTV

4. Oh, the ME-406 costs twice as much and doesn't interface with a GPS!!

True on the cost (close, anyway), not true on the interface. I had my ME406 installed as soon as they became available for purchase. One of the things that was done when I had the 430W installed last May was to interface it with both the ME406 and the EI fuel flow meter. The necessary interface module for the ME406 is on the Artex website.

Cary