ELT Replacement schedule
- Thread starter saracelica
- Start date
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
I was paraphrasing their ad. To quote them, "Standard D Size Alkaline Batteries for Future Convenience and Cost Saving."
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
My point in all this, is that you don't remove your 406 ELT and shake it as you would a 121.5/243.
Sorry, INCORRECT at least for my AK unit. The ICA instructions for the unit clearly state that the DURACELL expiration date *IS* the ELT expiration date.
No need to divide by two.
Personally, I don't use Duracell batteries anymore after the fiasco of leaking cells a few years back...... Just a sign of the times.. A company builds a fine product and then cuts the quality to increase the profit margin.... As they say in the crib... "Homey don't play that ****".
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Point taken.. You are an Aircraft Mechanic, I am a homebuilder.
FTFY
When you buy one, best read the paper work that comes with it.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
I understand, just pointing out what they left out of the ad.
As the builder and holder of the repairmens certificate of that airframe I will take that paperwork " under advisement".. I make the determination of what is safe on MY plane..
Thanks for the feedback sir.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
You'd best be advised that the FAA has no control of the ELT usage, the FCC does, and when you inspect the ELT as required, you won't be shaking it like you would a 121.5/243, if you do you will get phone calls you are not going to like. because when the "G" switch is activated the signal goes directly to the Sat. not other pilots, and the hunt for you starts then. there isn't any oops, it is not a fun thing.
denverpilot
Tied Down
AIM 6-2-5 - How hard is this?
Sheesh.
-----
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.
Sheesh.
-----
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.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I have read 1 set of test procedures..... and it says a dummy load is required.
I have neither a screen room or a dummy load. so, I don't test them. I have an Avionics shop near by and I send them there.
I do the 121.5s as a matter of an annual task.
I have been testing my ELT's for 30 years.... At any tower controlled field I am on when doing the annual /conditional inspection I wait till the top of the hour, + or - 5 minutes,, I call the tower and tell them of the upcoming ELT test and keep the test to less then 3 sweeps.... It really is not that hard... When I do get a 406 unit the avionics shop gets paid to perform the required test....
Ben.
Ben.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Way to go Ben, never stand in the light. specially when every one is looking.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I guess I remembered that wrong.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Fair enough. They're just trying to keep it from radiating very far.
My last dummy load purchase was a Bird 500W for $20 at a local hamfest.
100W rated dry loads usually go for about $10. I'll watch for one for you, if you want.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
To do 1 406 ELT once per year, no I'll pass.
I'd have to find out what it requires and see if there is a part number requirement
denverpilot
Tied Down
Fair enough. Just trying to be helpful. They actuall call out part numbers for such a common piece of RF test gear? For the power levels from a typical ELT, a "button" style dummy load from a calibrated 50 ohm lab set would be nicest, with the appropriate connector on it. Disconnect cable to ELT antenna, put "button" on ELT.
Normally they're used for taking up the tower to disconnect an antenna and then properly terminate a feedline so you can sweep it with a tool like an Anititsu SiteMaster or if you're old-school, a Time-Domain Reflectometer, but many of them can handle a few watts for the short period of time an ELT is undergoing a test.
You're on your own for a good set of double-shielded coax cable jumpers with whatever connectors are needed for the ELT and the dummy load end, though.
Mine stay with my service monitor but it goes to sites to test things, and too many have been used to "temporarily" patch up busted RF systems, so now I'm short a few again and need to order up some nice double-shielded cable and silver-plated connectors and make some new test cables that I trust.
I'm sure I won't get around to it until the night before the next site trip. Sigh.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
don't know for sure, but we must comply with 43.13-15.
Last edited:
Personally, I don't use Duracell batteries anymore after the fiasco of leaking cells a few years back...... Just a sign of the times.. A company builds a fine product and then cuts the quality to increase the profit margin.... As they say in the crib... "Homey don't play that ****".
Duracells are the ONLY battery approved in that unit.
Have the FCC come talk to me...
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Don't think the FCC would care, the FAA might not like you not following the ICAs for the ELT, but as an EAB operator probably not a big deal, but I don't play with any EABs at this time so I don't keep up on the regs there.
Don't think the FCC would care, the FAA might not like you not following the ICAs for the ELT, but as an EAB operator probably not a big deal, but I don't play with any EABs at this time so I don't keep up on the regs there.
I have been over this with them.... All they want for me to comply to the language in 91.52 is to use a D cell battery that has a date on it and Duracell is not the only manufacturer to provide that dating option. TSO is not required in an experimental and the warranty for the ELT ran out years ago.
My reasoning for not using Duracell.
1- The first year I did my conditional inspection I removed the battery cover for the ELT and there was evidence that 4 out of 6 of the MN1300 were leaking.... So , I called Ameri-King and told them what I found.. Their comment was " yeah, we have seen that happen lately". Being concerned, as they should be, they sent me 6 more MN1300's..... The problem was they didn't have the same ( best used by ) date on the batteries and according to their manual you CANNOT mix batteries with different dates.... So, I call them back. It just went down hill from there. Ps, they did want me to send the bad Duracells back to them... I sent back the new ones and kept the leaking ones, which I still have here along with pictures of them I took in the 450 just as I removed the cover.
2- I had purchased a high end Laser Transit for my construction business a year or so earlier and by shear coincidence it was needing new batteries too as I was getting ready to start a 7 figure commercial project,,, So, I take the battery cover off that device and low and behold the 4 MN1300 Duracell batteries that came in the Laser from the factory had leaked and basically ruined the 2,300.00 unit...... That would lead me to make my second phone call that week to an entirely different manufacturer with the exact same problem.... Those guys knew about the problem and had me ship the laser back to them with the Duracells still in place...
They got it a few days later and their engineer called to say my unit was trash, that it was Duracells problem and that they would fight it out with them.. They sent me a brand new laser with a different brand of batteries in it... Now that is great customer service.
Google "leaking Duracell batteries" and watch what comes up...
Seems Duracell had switched the manufacturing process and location of the plant and didn't do any QC.. I have heard they lost millions in paying out for damage claims... Since then I have lost all faith in them as a supplier of batteries for anything I own. YMMV.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
I would have imagined that the ICAs would carry different weight for you.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
FWIW, just pulled an ELT-10 a few min ago. The plane has been out of annual for a bit and the battery pack expired last July. Inside that battery pack the individual cells are rayovac Ds with December 2016 expiration tags.
However they've leaked and eaten away the ELT and left a nice smear for several feet along the inside of the belly.
However they've leaked and eaten away the ELT and left a nice smear for several feet along the inside of the belly.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,940
- Location
- hopefully not at work
- Display Name
Display name:
Meet the Fokkers
I'm going to resurrect this thread again instead of starting a new one.
I called to rent a plane but it was down. The reason was:
ELT started going off sometime around noon all by itself, and ran the battery down, so the plane won't start. They are putting in a new battery for $300.
That confused me somewhat...but only about the plane not starting.
Does the ELT connect to the starting battery?? I thought not.
Does it connect with any type of wiring that could corrode or short, etc., and cause a draw down of the starting battery?
I called to rent a plane but it was down. The reason was:
ELT started going off sometime around noon all by itself, and ran the battery down, so the plane won't start. They are putting in a new battery for $300.
That confused me somewhat...but only about the plane not starting.
Does the ELT connect to the starting battery?? I thought not.
Does it connect with any type of wiring that could corrode or short, etc., and cause a draw down of the starting battery?
I've never seen an ELT that touched the aircraft's electrical systems. I think someone was mistaken. It would take a long time for the ELT to kill the main battery. It only takes an hour of ELT transmission to make its own battery unserviceable.
Both the ACK and Amerikings C91 elts take Duracel D cells. The AK is an absolutely horrid unit by the way. There's also a small battery in the remote unit. The only thing it does is power the LEDs (the circuit is pretty simple. One common return, one for each of the two LEDs (the other end is connected to the remote battery) and one for the button. The battery and the button are connected to the common.
Note that I got into an argument over the "50% of the useful life" reg with regard to this ELT. The manual for the unit is quite clear. The date you write down on the case as the expiration date is the date that's stamped on the D cells, not halfway between now and then (whatever meaning that would have as you don't know when the batteries life STARTED).
Both the ACK and Amerikings C91 elts take Duracel D cells. The AK is an absolutely horrid unit by the way. There's also a small battery in the remote unit. The only thing it does is power the LEDs (the circuit is pretty simple. One common return, one for each of the two LEDs (the other end is connected to the remote battery) and one for the button. The battery and the button are connected to the common.
Note that I got into an argument over the "50% of the useful life" reg with regard to this ELT. The manual for the unit is quite clear. The date you write down on the case as the expiration date is the date that's stamped on the D cells, not halfway between now and then (whatever meaning that would have as you don't know when the batteries life STARTED).
Last edited:
So if they what time the ELT went off, why didn't they just go turn it off then?
Sounds more like someone left the battery switch on "around noon" and is looking for a convenient excuse. And no, have never installed a Part 91 type ELT that tied into the aircraft electrical system.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,940
- Location
- hopefully not at work
- Display Name
Display name:
Meet the Fokkers
I wondered too, and also made a joke about bad landings, but apparently no one had flown or even been around the plane in over 5 days.
More of the story was that the tower called and alerted the FBO. So maybe it's a 406mhz if they had ID on the plane?
weirdjim
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,171
- Location
- Grass Valley, CA (KGOO)
- Display Name
Display name:
weirdjim
This thread ought to generate some interesting heresies and a lot of bamfoozlement.
OK, so I've got an ELT that uses Duracell D cells. Thirty years ago they were the stars of the market. Relatively expensive, but their code dates were golden. And, as FlyingRon said, the date stamped on the battery WAS the 50% of charge date from the getgo. Then Duracell QC went to hell and they started leaking WAY before the code date.
So, now I can buy lots of D cells with varying technologies...lithium and all the rest of it. Including rechargeables. I don't mind taking thirty year old Continued Airworthiness manufacturer documents and bending them to fit current technology. HOWEVER, I'd like some discussion of how we can honestly meet the requirements without using three decade old technology. Notwithstanding that my aircraft uses 1940s 80 year old technology to stay aloft.
Jim
OK, so I've got an ELT that uses Duracell D cells. Thirty years ago they were the stars of the market. Relatively expensive, but their code dates were golden. And, as FlyingRon said, the date stamped on the battery WAS the 50% of charge date from the getgo. Then Duracell QC went to hell and they started leaking WAY before the code date.
So, now I can buy lots of D cells with varying technologies...lithium and all the rest of it. Including rechargeables. I don't mind taking thirty year old Continued Airworthiness manufacturer documents and bending them to fit current technology. HOWEVER, I'd like some discussion of how we can honestly meet the requirements without using three decade old technology. Notwithstanding that my aircraft uses 1940s 80 year old technology to stay aloft.
Jim
FWIW: Back when the D cell ELTs were the all the rage, to include some ELT OEMs that disguised them in heat shrink and plastic boxes, we would swap out those pesky Duracells as a minor appliance alteration as it didn't quite fit the definition of an appliance major alteration in 43 App A(a)(4). But fast forward to 2017 when the AD came out on the Ameri-Kings, I doubt I'd take that route now given how the AD is written.
As to using Lithium batteries, I wouldn't go there either as current FAA guidance indicates swapping any Lithium battery of more than 2 watt-hours falls anywhere between a FSDO level evaluation up to an STC requirement. And my crude calculation of a basic D cell shows it puts out more than 2Wh. I think if the rechargeable technology was better back then like today the ticket would have been to replace the Duracells with a good non-Lithium type rechargeable D cell via the same minor alteration method as 91.207 states the recharge option. Be interesting to know if they still use camouflaged D cells in today's 406 ELTs.
Last edited:
kshaw
Pre-takeoff checklist
I help my IA do annual inspections. The ELT, whether 121.5 or 406, will have to be removed and subjected to a shock test to see if the ELT shock switch activates. Then you have to check the battery date with expiration date. It the manufacturer requires other tests, then do those as well. Example, the old ACK 121.5 had a voltage test when you replaced batteries; the new ACK 406 has an internal diagnostic check.
Stewartb
Final Approach
FWIW (not arguing) my original had a 5 year life. The replacement battery says 6 years. My latest 406 is also 6 years. The easy one to miss is if your panel switch has a battery.
Stewartb
Final Approach
I'm surprised anyone still uses AmeriKing junk!
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ng-corporation-emergency-locator-transmitters
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,940
- Location
- hopefully not at work
- Display Name
Display name:
Meet the Fokkers
I'm about to look at the log books and see if that's what they had. It's a '79 Cessna 172.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,940
- Location
- hopefully not at work
- Display Name
Display name:
Meet the Fokkers
Just as a thread update..
Finally got to speak with the mechanic.
The unit is an Artex brand.
He sent the unit, and battery off for testing, as it went off due to battery being low in his opinion, but he put a spare battery they had on it, and it did not work correctly still...low signal power, I believe he said.
Anyhoo, he stickered the panel with NO ELT and said we have 90 days to get it back/installed.
Finally got to speak with the mechanic.
The unit is an Artex brand.
He sent the unit, and battery off for testing, as it went off due to battery being low in his opinion, but he put a spare battery they had on it, and it did not work correctly still...low signal power, I believe he said.
Anyhoo, he stickered the panel with NO ELT and said we have 90 days to get it back/installed.