What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

AD on Ameri-King ELT?????

Ameri-King ELT Batteries

Ralph Inkster said:
AK450 will be toast anyway when the battery expires, as Ameri King isn't supplying replacements.
Click to expand...

In the AD, the last sentence of paragraph g states:

"Operators are not required to get replacement batteries from Ameri
-King Corporation. "

The lithium batteries used in the Ameri King ELT's can be obtained through other sources.

Skylor
 
Last edited:
AD More Than Just Batteries

Here is a link to the Federal Register:

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ng-corporation-emergency-locator-transmitters

Here is a link to AOPA synopsis https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/september/20/faa-issues-ad-for-ameriking-elts

I had the AK-450 in my RV-6. It uses 6-D cell batteries. Rather than the testing required decided to opt for a new Artex 345 (406). Cost was double the first inspection for the AK-450. ($545 local).

I like to fly the Alaska mountains, feel better knowing that the ELT is not failure prone.

Best regards,
Mike Bauer
 
Last edited:
As far as the AK-450 (only) this AD requires the tests that we should be doing anyway during the condition inspection, nothing more. The batteries are off-the-shelf alkaline D-cells. The expiration date on the battery package is noted in the logbook at installation. The AD really changes nothing if you were complying with the manufacturer's continued airworthiness instructions. If the ELT passes the tests, the only issue now is, given the reported rate of failures, do I trust this ELT? Your A&P shouldn't be making that decision for you. If the ELT passes the tests and the batteries are not expired he can return the aircraft to service with the recurring part of the AD complied with and noted in the AD listing in the logbook.
 
Read.

The above post is correct. If you read the AD, it just tells you to refer to the installation manual and use the instructions for testing the unit out of that section of the manual to comply with the A.D.. If you replace the battery, do the set-up test and it all work, then make the log book entry you have complied with the A.D. Yes we have one and it work just like it should. I try to replace the battery a little ahead of time and test it on the ramp or in the hangar every three or six months to be sure. You don't need an A&P to do that for you. Hope this helps, Yours, R.E.A. III # 80888
 
I have been complying with this AD and signing it off using my repairman certificate every year in conjunction with the regular elt inspection.
Just wondering what the FAA might think about that?
The AD directs you to the normal inspection procedure, so I don’t see a reason why I can’t sign it off myself, but I’m interested in other opinions.
Thanks
 
Coastflyer said:
I have been complying with this AD and signing it off using my repairman certificate every year in conjunction with the regular elt inspection.
Just wondering what the FAA might think about that?
The AD directs you to the normal inspection procedure, so I don’t see a reason why I can’t sign it off myself, but I’m interested in other opinions.
Thanks
Click to expand...

What makes you think there's anything wrong with this?
 
The reason for my question is that I’m not sure what the FAA would say about a non-A&P signing off an AD.
In this case there is nothing special about the AD that would seem to require an A&P, but I don’t know if there is precedent for an amateur builder signing off an AD.
For what it’s worth, this is how I sign it off: “complied with the language and scope of AD 2017-16-01”
Thanks
 
Suggest you look at FAA AC 39-7D, Airworthiness Directives, para 13 for guidance. Typically, the FAA expects an A&P with Inspection Authorization to perform AD compliance, but that isn't set in stone. Some ADs will include persons also authorized to comply with the AD, such as the owner/ operator or pilot, when allowable.
As a Repairman, you are authorized to perform the inspection on your non- TC airplane. But, are you authorized to perform compliance on type certified or TSOd components? It gets fuzzy. For example, a propeller has an AD on the hub, and it requires eddy current. You can forgo the AD inspection while it is in Experimental use, EXCEPT if the AD specifies "installed on any aircraft", then you'll need someone eddy current qualified, not you, or the average A&P, or IA.
just one of many examples...
The one distinct difference is that a TSO'd ELT is required by rule, so it can't be put into experimental status, unlike an engine or prop.
 
Last edited:
Well, unless and until the FAA says my Repairman Certificate is insufficient to comply with the Ameri-King AD, I'm going to be the one continuing to sign off on it every annual condition inspection.

I'm pretty sure I can change batteries, inspect the terminals for corrosion, and bang on the ELT to set it off myself.
 
OKAV8r said:
Suggest you look at FAA AC 39-7D, Airworthiness Directives, para 13 for guidance. Typically, the FAA expects an A&P with Inspection Authorization to perform AD compliance, but that isn't set in stone. Some ADs will include persons also authorized to comply with the AD, such as the owner/ operator or pilot, when allowable.
As a Repairman, you are authorized to perform the inspection on your non- TC airplane. But, are you authorized to perform compliance on type certified or TSOd components? It gets fuzzy. For example, a propeller has an AD on the hub, and it requires eddy current. You can forgo the AD inspection while it is in Experimental use, EXCEPT if the AD specifies "installed on any aircraft", then you'll need someone eddy current qualified, not you, or the average A&P, or IA.
just one of many examples...
The one distinct difference is that a TSO'd ELT is required by rule, so it can't be put into experimental status, unlike an engine or prop.
Click to expand...

Actually, the AC says an AD "may be met by ensuring that properly
certificated and appropriately rated maintenance person(s) accomplish the requirements of the AD and properly record this action in the appropriate maintenance records."

Even your example on the prop doesn't eliminate the option for someone other than an A&P to do the work to comply with the AD.

ETA: Reading the AD in question, it doesn't specify *any* particular requirements for the person doing the compliance check, so in accordance with everything else about an EAB, *anyone* can do the compliance (which basically consists of doing what the manual for the ELT says, plus a visual check).

Repairs might be a different matter, in order to maintain the TSO. But inspect, test, and replace batteries per the manual? Pshaw.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the discussion guys! I don’t see “Installed on any aircraft” in the AD. It has a list of aircraft types that may be effected.
 
Rather than going down the worm hole of FAA regulations, why not zoom back out to the 10,000 foot level and look at the bigger picture?

The Ameri-King ELTs were junk the day they were made and haven't improved since then. You might get a good one that lasts a few years, or, like many, you might get one that silently goes south in the night, leaving you thinking you've got an ELT when in fact all you have is a useless paperweight.

Do yourself and your loved ones a favor - spend the money on a good 406MHz ELT, if for no other reason than so your family can find your body and collect on your life insurance.

The days of justifying keeping an Ameri-King ELT should be in our collective rear view mirrors. It's time to move on.
 
Canadian_JOY said:
...thinking you've got an ELT when in fact all you have is a useless paperweight.
Click to expand...
To be fair, every ELT on the planet became a useless paperweight when the Aireon satellite network went online. All aircraft need now is an impact switch that sends a crash indication to the ADS-B network.
 
Snowflake said:
To be fair, every ELT on the planet became a useless paperweight when the Aireon satellite network went online. All aircraft need now is an impact switch that sends a crash indication to the ADS-B network.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with this - we depend on our (worn) PLB’s for rescue out in the untracked vastness of Nevada - the ELT’s are there because they are required, not because we depend on them. While ADS-B might be 100% reliable, it is probably statistically better than all the ELT’s ever built….
 
Canadian_JOY said:
Rather than going down the worm hole of FAA regulations, why not zoom back out to the 10,000 foot level and look at the bigger picture?

The Ameri-King ELTs were junk the day they were made and haven't improved since then. You might get a good one that lasts a few years, or, like many, you might get one that silently goes south in the night, leaving you thinking you've got an ELT when in fact all you have is a useless paperweight.

Do yourself and your loved ones a favor - spend the money on a good 406MHz ELT, if for no other reason than so your family can find your body and collect on your life insurance.

The days of justifying keeping an Ameri-King ELT should be in our collective rear view mirrors. It's time to move on.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more!!!!!!!!!!
 
I regard the elt as required ballast, and as such I want it to cost me as little as possible. I have a Spot for getting rescued, and a survival/camping kit while I wait. One can always rationalize the need for newer/better/more electronic gadgets. I’m not one of those people, but I do appreciate the discussion. I was looking for more of a conversation on how to save money while staying out of trouble and I did get some of that, so thank you.
 
Coastflyer said:
Thanks for the discussion guys! I don’t see “Installed on any aircraft” in the AD. It has a list of aircraft types that may be effected.
Click to expand...


Does this help?
“This appliance is installed on, but not limited to, aircraft identified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.”
 
OKAV8r said:
Suggest you look at FAA AC 39-7D, Airworthiness Directives, para 13 for guidance. Typically, the FAA expects an A&P with Inspection Authorization to perform AD compliance, but that isn't set in stone...
Click to expand...

This is not the case. The AC (and regs) state "Means of Accomplishment. This responsibility may be met by ensuring that properly certificated and appropriately rated maintenance person(s) accomplish the requirements of the AD and properly record this action..."


This was a point of discussion in the IA school I took a couple months ago. Most AD's can be signed off by an A&P (or Repairman for Experimental) unless the AD specifically specifies otherwise. It means a Powerplant only mechanic can sign off engine AD's but not airframe AD's, etc. I would argue that <anyone> can sign off an AD on an Experimental since typical Operating Limitations only specify an A&P or Repairman for the Condition Inspection, nothing else. Like a lot of things, it may not be smart but it's legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top