What's new
Van's Air Force

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

406 ELT Review Comparisons Opinions Prices

gmcjetpilot

gmcjetpilot

Well Known Member
There is no dedicated category on ELT and consider this (type) specific and safety related.

Since I started looking again at buying an ELT again, I see the market has caught up; it went from no 406 elts to many, thankfully most with a single antenna. I was planning the EBC elt pre 406. I want to mount both the transmitter unit and antenna internally in the cabin, cargo floor with antenna looking up at the sky through the back plexi. There has been massive threads about elt antenna mounting locations. That is NOT the intent of this thread. I just want input of what make and model you think is the best value: GPS input able or GPS built in, single antenna... small form factor.... battery pack replacement price....TX on 406+121.5 Mhz and of course price (under $1200 or less).

I called spruce ac and they suggested the new AK 04 model. Comments?
Ameri-King? AK? Artex? Kannad? EBC? Pointer? (they all have 406 models).

-Artex does not take GPS in any of their lower price GA 406 ELT's.
-"Emerging Lifesaving Technologies" sells for $1200 and has internal GPS.
-AK seems to have best price WITH ability to take external GPS position.
-EBC as usual has the form fit factor to easily mount in the cabin with antenna.
-Skyhunter (never heard of) has a GPS version like "Emerg Life Tech" above.
 
Last edited:
There is a thread started in March 2012 about service difficulties at AK. Sorry, I am having difficulty copying and pasting on this new tablet, so you will have to look for it. Bottom line, I will replace my 406 elt with one from another manufacturer before sending mine for service again. No more AK for me.
 
No to AK-451

I got an Ameriking AK-451 ELT. I was under the impression that I could hook up the GPS signal onto it, however, it turns out that I have to pay additional $$$ to get that feature (and send the unit in). I feel like an idiot for not reading carefully the fine print ... My advice stay away from Ameriking.
 
Last edited:
Can't speak to specific models but I will toss in a great big thumbs up to a 406 ELT with GPS input by relating a story from work.

All the airplanes at work have them. Our normal procedure on departure is to call back with an off message after passing 10,000' which in a jet that will climb at better than 3000FPM doesn't take long. One day I am standing in our scheduling office when the phone rings. It's the Air Force (or whoever is charged with the task. It's been long ago enough that I don't remember, anyway) they are picking up the signal from one of our airplanes. Everybody in the room looks at the scheduling board which says that airplane should have just departed. About that time the airplane checks in over the radio with their normal off message. We advise them their ELT is transmitting, they recycle it and everyone is happy.

Big picture? The system picked up the signal and somebody was looking for the airplane within three minutes. Not bad.
 
Everyone:
To avoid confusion please note that there is a company called ACK which sells a model E-04. There is also a company called Ameri-King, sometimes abreviated AK, which makes models AK 450 or AK 451
 
Requirements in Mexico, USA or Canada?

Hi ya'll,

I have an old 121.5 ELT and have forgotten what the various requirement dates. Can someone who has paid more attention than I tell me when 406MHz ELTs will be required in either the US, Mexico or Canada?

(I also have SPOT and APRS and I'm aware that sats aren't looking for 121.5 no more, so no need for that tangent). :cool:

Kevin
 
George,
The "best value" for me was finding a 406 unit that did not require any wiring or panel modification for remote control.

I only found one that meets this. It is an EBC 406AP.

It is not the cheapest by far, has no GPS but it met my requirements.
 
Wow... Lots of room for positive discussion here. So nice to see folks debating the topic posted by the OP rather than running off on the usual tangents about whether or not 406 is a good or bad thing.

I'll toss a few comments on the GPS issue for your consideration...

GPS or no GPS... It's helpful to keep in mind that ELT/GPS interfacing comes in a couple of different basic operational philosophies when it comes to how we get GPS position data to a point where it can be used by the ELT; the "store and forward" method using an external GPS, and the built-in GPS which turns on only when the ELT is turned on.

The "store and forward" style is likely the one which would serve GA airplanes best from a SAR standpoint as this technique takes data from an always-operational GPS receiver (like a panel-mount G430 or similar) and delivers it (often through a very expensive interface box) to the ELT. The ELT has access to this last known GPS position and in the event the ELT activates your first burst of 406 signal carries this position data. OK there are some very specific qualifiers involved in this transaction with respect to the allowable latency of GPS position data - after a certain age the data is considered too old to be helpful and it's turfed out into the bit bin. The beauty of this technique is that your ELT may have the opportunity to transmit GPS data on its first burst, and that data may be very fresh, as in only seconds before impact. The down-sides to this technique are very real. I've already mentioned the subject of data latency; you might think your ELT is transmitting position data when in fact it was too old and got turfed. Or you may not have turned on your GPS so there's no data being buffered into the ELT. It's these variables that make this "store and forward" technique less than perfect (but still pretty darned good).

The built in GPS method has some strengths and also some weaknesses. On the strengths side of the equation this technique overcomes the weaknesses associated with the ELT potentially not getting valid GPS data from a panel-mount GPS. This for some is a big plus. The down-sides are also worth noting; GPS as we know requires a clear view of the sky to function. If your airplane has flipped upside down your ELT's GPS antenna is likely going to be getting a good view of the forest floor rather than the sky above. The net result is that your ELT will be transmitting but without valid GPS data. The other factor that comes into play is the amount of time it takes that built-in GPS to get its first valid position fix. This may take a little while, particularly in extremes of temperature, vegetation cover etc, so if your airplane is burning it might be toast before a valid GPS position is available to the ELT.

So, with the strengths and weaknesses of these two different GPS interface methods known one can start to form an idea of how practical or impractical the whole notion of GPS interfacing might be.

And now for the biggie... The satellites monitoring ELT's have been able to obtain position information for the transmitting beacon by triangulating a position based on Doppler shift of the transmitted signal. This was true in the days of 121.5 and remains true today. BUT the advances in satellite technology, higher transmit frequency and more robust transmit signal of the 406 ELT's (5watts vs as little as 50mW for the 121.5 units) means that locating a 406 beacon, even without it having GPS position data encoded in its digital data transmission, means the search area for 406 ELT's is drastically reduced over that of the 121.5 units.

You have to decide for yourself whether or not having GPS data is worth the added complexity and additional failure modes introduced by the addition of a GPS interface, whichever method is used.

BTW, one company came up with what I considered the ultimate solution... Their ELT featured a built-in GPS receiver which was powered by aircraft power (wired to the battery bus). The receiver was always on as long as the aircraft master switch was turned on. Pretty much bullet proof. Unfortunately the regulatory bodies couldn't figure out how to approve the design because it didn't conform to the very limited range of ideas they had built into the ELT specifications and certification procedures. That manufacturer, Pointer, re-worked their Skyhunter ELT so that its internal GPS was only powered by the ELT's internal battery and only functioned after the ELT was activated. This is its current method of functioning. It's a shame the regulatory eggheads couldn't see this ELT's original design overcame many of the limitations inherent in their "approvable" methodologies.
 
Respnse time

Canadian_JOY said:
.....
And now for the biggie... The satellites monitoring ELT's have been able to obtain position information for the transmitting beacon by triangulating a position based on Doppler shift of the transmitted signal. This was true in the days of 121.5 and remains true today. BUT the advances in satellite technology, higher transmit frequency and more robust transmit signal of the 406 ELT's (5watts vs as little as 50mW for the 121.5 units) means that locating a 406 beacon, even without it having GPS position data encoded in its digital data transmission, means the search area for 406 ELT's is drastically reduced over that of the 121.5 units.
....
Click to expand...

I thought the real advantage of the GPS transmission from your avionics was more for a much decreased response time (like the 3 minutes of an earlier post) as well as improved accuracy.

It should be a case of if you need SAR, then you probably need them quickly...:)
 
Don't know if all the 406 MHz units are set up this way due to certification requirements, but the ACK E04 has a 50 second delay from activation until it broadcasts on 406 MHz. This is a real con to this unit IMHO.

Not sure what happens if you're in a crash and the GPS datastream to the ELT is interrupted or corrupted. Does it take the lat/lon 1 minute prior to 406 broadcast, or does it take the current, potentially corruped data and broadcast that?

To answer George's question, 1.5 years ago, the ACK E04 unit was the best value. Not sure what prices have done since then.
 
still no requirement for Canada eh?

kevinh said:
Hi ya'll,

I have an old 121.5 ELT and have forgotten what the various requirement dates. Can someone who has paid more attention than I tell me when 406MHz ELTs will be required in either the US, Mexico or Canada?

(I also have SPOT and APRS and I'm aware that sats aren't looking for 121.5 no more, so no need for that tangent). :cool:

Kevin
Click to expand...

Seems our fine regulators here are still thinking about thinking about requiring 406 universally. I could be wrong, but I believe there may be some requirement for commercial ops north of 60. I should surf around and find the latest facts for myself.
....and no, I haven't bought a 406 yet either. With 1.8 on the hobbs in 2012, I figured my risk exposure was pretty minimal! :(
 
OK, let's sort out a few facts...

Delay to first 406MHz burst... EVERY 406MHz ELT has a 50 second delay before the first 406MHz burst is transmitted. There's a transmission frequency accuracy spec that needs to be met and this delay was mandated partly to ensure the first burst would meet the necessary frequency accuracy requirements. The built-in delay also gives us some time to turn off the ELT in the instance of an "oops".

With respect to response times, GPS position data has little to no effect on response times. There may be some local variables that come into play with respect to how a particular SAR unit responds, but the short answer is that GPS position data encoded on the 406MHz ELT signal only provides the possibility for a reduced search area, not a faster response time. Because geostationary satellites are currently used for ELT monitoring there's a high probability that first burst of 406 will be heard by the satellite. This will raise the alarm which will be transmitted to your national SAR organisation for action. Normally this first notification starts the background actions like the launching of a communications search.

While non-GPS-enabled ELT signals will require a pass from a Low Earth Orbit satellite (LEOSAR) to get Doppler resolution of the beacon's location the initial communications search will already have started as soon as the GEOSAR bird hears and relays the alarm signal.

With respect to pricing of ELT's, unfortunately this is one of those games where ya get whatcha pay for. The low-end units don't have as good a reputation for reliability. On Saturday I had a conversation with an owner of an Ameri-King 406 unit. He hasn't yet flown his aircraft and already wishes he'd spent a few more bucks on a more reliable unit. I won't go into details here but suffice it to say he's not happy with the product and even less happy with the service provided by Ameri-King. I can't say the same about the Kannad product as so far they have shown a very solid track record for reliability. The Pointer Skyhunter doesn't yet have very much field experience through which to establish a track record but after meeting the company owner and his wife and having seen the diligence they applied to the design and testing of the product I have to believe it will be a solid product in the field. This company has an excellent reputation from a service perspective as well and is also the easiest manufacturer for local dealers to deal with. Artex has gone through a number of ownership transitions in the past few years and during some of those transitions their customer service was nothing short of abominable. I haven't had to deal with them lately but have read through posts here that it appears they're mending their customer service problems.
 
kevinh said:
Hi ya'll,

I have an old 121.5 ELT and have forgotten what the various requirement dates. Can someone who has paid more attention than I tell me when 406MHz ELTs will be required in either the US, Mexico or Canada?

(I also have SPOT and APRS and I'm aware that sats aren't looking for 121.5 no more, so no need for that tangent). :cool: Kevin
Click to expand...
Kevin right now as far as I know no FAR or law requiring you to install a 406 ELT is on the books, and there is no date certain as of now. To be sure 121.5 and 243 MHZ are either not monitored (by satellite) anymore or at least not monitored as it was in the past. Military I understand has some 243 Mhz satellites, but not sure what they would do about a signal. Part of the problem is chasing false signals might cost $10's or $100's of thousands. Also from what I read Canada and Mexico do not require planes to be 406 equipped to fly into their airspace (yet).

"It is important to note that after 2009, existing 121.5-MHz ELTs, although still legal from the FAA's perspective, will provide extremely limited assistance if an aircraft crashes, especially in a remote location."

The new 406 Mhz ELT is so precise it can get your location to a small area. The 121.5 Mhz is for local homing when rescue is close. Of course with GPS coupled they get your Lat-Long with in feet. I think your using the SPOT and ARPS is a real good idea and a resonable approach, in light of the fact a 406 ELT mandate for GA is in political limbo. Plus you can use them for hiking, boating, driving...
 
Last edited:
N42AH said:
While this is marketing propaganda... it does provide a quick reference to the major 406 ELT's for feature/function/price comparisons.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1epuFhPc0KZtPrBuuDAgy3KPCa1gDAPECNBvJvjiW5rU
Click to expand...

Thanks everyone... and nice chart N42AH (propaganda considered). I am thinking the ACK E-04 (not AK "AmeriKing) is a winner overall... It is a pretty new unit, out only a year I think, but then again they are all pretty new. The ACK is one of the cheaper, lightest 406 ELT's and has GPS input capability. Also the battery pack is cheaper.
 
Last edited:
az_gila said:
I thought the real advantage of the GPS transmission from your avionics was more for a much decreased response time (like the 3 minutes of an earlier post) as well as improved accuracy.

It should be a case of if you need SAR, then you probably need them quickly...:)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet on a rapid response from any ELT. Here's what happened to me a few months ago:

I accidentally acutated my 406 (no gps) while taxiing out and didn't notice it until I had been airborn about 10 minutes, when I turned it off. I called back to the airport and asked them to notify the SAR folks of my mistake when they called. They never called the airport.

When I landed after a 1.5 hr flight, I had numerous voice mails on my cell phone. One was from my wife telling me to call her in a obviously unhappy tone of voice. She had been called by the SAR folks to see if she knew if I had crashed. Another was from my adult daughter, who had received a similar call and had called my wife.. The third one (first received) was from an unknown number which turned out to be the folks who monitor the sattelite.

I called that last one back first and talked to a friendly Air Force Major. I explained what happened, and he didn't seem to be disturbed. He just requested that I call them at that number ASAP if it ever happend again. He also said that the information could be relayed through Flight Service and Ft. Worth Center.

Before I hung up I asked him if he had initiated any kind of SAR. He said he had not and, with that short an ELT signal period, they probably wouldn't until they found some corroborating indication that I had gone down. I also asked how accurately they had my position, and he said they only had a single sattelite "hit" and had been unable to get better than 50 mile accuracy. So don't expect a super quick response from an ELT alone.

I won't tell you what my wife and daughter said when I contacted them. They were not happy!

-John
 
ACK E-04

I installed an ACK E-04 last year. Last April while flying with my son he accidentally activated the unit (we figured this out afterwards). While in flight I noticed my cellphone vibrated a few times. Forty minutes later upon landing I noticed that SAR and Airforce have called. I called back and they wanted to verify that we landed at our airport. They knew we were still flying and did not send search and rescue.

I wired Garmin 300XL gps out to E-04 and have both ELT and antenna mounted in the baggage compartment. During the initial test I got three beeps to indicate low RF output. ACK asked me to send the unit back and changed one of the resistors (probably change the RF test sensitivity). The beep stopped. From my above mentioned experience I know the antenna installation worked fine.
 
boomer said:
....Before I hung up I asked him if he had initiated any kind of SAR. He said he had not and, with that short an ELT signal period, they probably wouldn't until they found some corroborating indication that I had gone down. I also asked how accurately they had my position, and he said they only had a single sattelite "hit" and had been unable to get better than 50 mile accuracy. So don't expect a super quick response from an ELT alone.....
Click to expand...

One hit on a relatively short duration on period, followed by a call from the authorities, sounds like good, prompt, appropriate response to me. I'd say, well done.

In an actual crash the ELT would have had time to broadcast long enough to generate more hits and a better location, and the longer broadcast period itself would have probably let to more action.

This is very encouraging. Money well spent, both for the 406 ELT and for the taxes that support the service.

Dave
 
A note to Canadians... I've witnessed a communications search conducted by Trenton RCC. This search took 8 minutes to ascertain, by telephone, that an AME had installed a 406 ELT and left it on too long during testing, producing a valid distress signal. He estimated it had been on more than 1 minute but less than 2 minutes, so the reality is that Canadian SAR took action on a transmission which was, at the most, two 406MHz transmit bursts. I was more than a little impressed with this response, as was the AME who was pretty astounded at the small number of minutes which elapsed between his ELT test and his cell phone ringing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top