What's new
Van's Air Force

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

ELT Test fails

Flying Canuck

Well Known Member
Patron
I'm just wrapping up my first annual and tried the ELT test yesterday. I have an ACK E-04 121.5/406MHz ELT that is about 3 years old (battery good to 2021). I installed the batteries in the audio module and the remote in January 2017, those batteries expire in March 2024. The ELT was initially armed about this time last year. I cannot recall if I tested it back then and don't have my log books nearby. Anyways, back to this test. I pressed the test/reset button and nothing happens at all. I tried again after checking the main unit behind my baggage wall. Still nothing. I checked all of the phone cord connections from the ELT to the audio module and then to the remote. I'm going to pick up a new battery for the remote and try that, but does anyone have any ideas on what could make the simple test fail? I can try turning the ELT on from the main unit while my baggage wall is down, but haven't done that yet.
 
You did use the cord supplied with the unit right. If I remember correctly they are not wired the same as a phone cord. I seem th remember the plugs are reversed.
 
Check the batteries in the switch and audio module. I had the one in the audio module self destruct in under 2 yrs.
 
You did use the cord supplied with the unit right. If I remember correctly they are not wired the same as a phone cord. I seem th remember the plugs are reversed.

That?s true, but the unit will detect it and give both an audio and visual warning. The ELT does a self test when switched from OFF to ARM on the main unit. One beep means all is well. More than one beep means look in the manual to decipher the fault code.

FWIW, I just installed one of these units in my plane and had to deal with this issue.
 
You did use the cord supplied with the unit right. If I remember correctly they are not wired the same as a phone cord. I seem th remember the plugs are reversed.

Yes I did. I was referring to the connector type. I could have been more clear, but the thought of using a plain phone cord never entered my mind. For good reason it appears.
 
A bit more testing tonight. Checked and replaced the remote battery. The original was reading 5.75V the new one 6.5V. This didn't resolve the issue. I crammed myself into the back before the 5 minute test window ended and turned the main unit off and back to arm. This resulted in a short burst alarm on 121.5 so the ELT is working. Upon further examination I found that I had reversed the cords through the audio module from what the manual shows. I reversed them back and tried testing again at the top of the hour. Still no joy.

I'm going to send an email to ACK to see what they suggest. But maybe someone here has an idea.
 
Claude - please don't take this as "raining on your parade" as I hope you get this fixed up and running with a minimum of fuss and effort.

The multiple connections involved in the ACK E-04 installation is one of the reasons why I do not recommend this ELT. Too many points of potential failure. Too many telephone connectors. Too many external "warts". Too many batteries. ELT's should be engineered to represent the finest example of "KISS" design. ACK missed the boat on this one.

Again, I hope you get up and running in no time flat, and that the ELT gives you good service in the long term.
 
ELT test fails

I agree this ELT thing is too complicated. My ELT has a 100+ page manual. BTW, do we even need ELTs if we have ADS-B out and cell phones also? Isn?t this an excessive regulatory burden?
 
I agree this ELT thing is too complicated. My ELT has a 100+ page manual. BTW, do we even need ELTs if we have ADS-B out and cell phones also? Isn?t this an excessive regulatory burden?

Neither ADS-B nor a cell phone give you "activation on crash" like an ELT. Carrying an ELT is hardly a burden if you happen to be the guy hanging from your seat belt, bleeding out...
 
Isn?t this an excessive regulatory burden?

It helps understand the government mentality if you know the history. No one gave a da.. if GA pilots went missing. But then, a congressman went missing in Alaska (never found, BTW). "This is terrible" said Congress. Thus, ELTs were born. Delivered prematurely, the first ones used early-generation Li+ batteries and caught on fire! The next generation gave so many false alarms, they were nearly useless. Worse - searchers died in crashes while looking for non-existent downed airplanes. We'll see how the newest incarnation of ELTs do. I'm not hopeful.
 
I just ordered an ELT tester that tests the ELT's for their yearly re-certification. The owner of the company I bought the tester from told me not to be surprised if the ACK units like your fail the test. He claims many or most ACK 406 ELT's fail.
 
Please provide an update when you resolve the problem. I'm seeing a similar issue with my ELT install. A check of the pins shows correct wiring/soldering.
 
ACK got back to me with this

Plug the remote directly into the ELT cable if it works it is the cable or audio alert unit.

That's all they wrote. I guess it's worth trying, I could even plug it into the first cord coming out of the ELT and bypass the extension cord they supply. I'll test this tonight and post my results.
 
Hi Claude,

My new ELT tester will hopefully show up by the end of the week. If you are bored and looking for an excuse to fly somewhere, you could fly up to EE6 and we to hook yours up to the tester and see if it passes or fails? I always enjoy seeing RV's here!!
 
Coincidence???

I'm just wrapping up my first annual and tried the ELT test yesterday. I have an ACK E-04 121.5/406MHz ELT that is about 3 years old (battery good to 2021). I installed the batteries in the audio module and the remote in January 2017, those batteries expire in March 2024. The ELT was initially armed about this time last year. I cannot recall if I tested it back then and don't have my log books nearby. Anyways, back to this test. I pressed the test/reset button and nothing happens at all. I tried again after checking the main unit behind my baggage wall. Still nothing. I checked all of the phone cord connections from the ELT to the audio module and then to the remote. I'm going to pick up a new battery for the remote and try that, but does anyone have any ideas on what could make the simple test fail? I can try turning the ELT on from the main unit while my baggage wall is down, but haven't done that yet.

Pierre,
Strangely, I did the exact same thing within the past 48 hrs.
I also changed both batteries (front and in the rear by the unit), re-did the telephone wire and it worked.
Daddyman
 
Hi Claude,

My new ELT tester will hopefully show up by the end of the week. If you are bored and looking for an excuse to fly somewhere, you could fly up to EE6 and we to hook yours up to the tester and see if it passes or fails? I always enjoy seeing RV's here!!

Interesting proposition Phil. What does that hook up to? And how's the grass at EE6? I haven't done a grass field landing before and my first will need to be in great shape. Of course the rain is going to have to let up.

I'm planning a big trip to the east coast, leaving here on the 29th weather permitting. I would like a shorter cross country warmup, especially after my annual.
 
i had the same issues with my remote/switch until i looked closely at the 'phone' cable supplied with the unit. It is not a standard phone cable! Standard phone cables have the wires on the opposite ends of the cords reversed - ie. Brown/Red/Green/Yellow at one end and Yellow/Green/Red/Brown at the other. The cable supplied with the unit has the same pinout colours at either end and are not crossed. Once I made proper cables the same way everything worked just fine. You can also purchase a crossover coupling if you use a standard phone cable to reverse the pins back before they connect with the unit. i ended up doing this with the cable from the audio unit back to the ELT in the rear. Needed a coupling anyway back here to connect the extension with the unit so i just had to use a crossover unit instead of a standard coupling. If you do use a standard phone cable just make sure it has wires connected to all four pins as some cables are intended for single line jacks and only have the middle two pins wired.
 
i had the same issues with my remote/switch until i looked closely at the 'phone' cable supplied with the unit. It is not a standard phone cable! Standard phone cables have the wires on the opposite ends of the cords reversed - ie. Brown/Red/Green/Yellow at one end and Yellow/Green/Red/Brown at the other. The cable supplied with the unit has the same pinout colours at either end and are not crossed. Once I made proper cables the same way everything worked just fine. You can also purchase a crossover coupling if you use a standard phone cable to reverse the pins back before they connect with the unit. i ended up doing this with the cable from the audio unit back to the ELT in the rear. Needed a coupling anyway back here to connect the extension with the unit so i just had to use a crossover unit instead of a standard coupling. If you do use a standard phone cable just make sure it has wires connected to all four pins as some cables are intended for single line jacks and only have the middle two pins wired.

And all of this sort of begs the question...*telephone cord*? (Or telephone-cord-like stuff)? In an aircraft? What the...?

Yeah, I have an Ameriking, uses the same stuff, but I just shake my head at this...to me, it's up there with using RG-54 TV cable for coax. Yeah, it'll work, but it just ain't right.
 
I had the same problem about a year ago. The audio alert unit was bad. I went around it as they suggested to you to isolate the problem. They quickly sent a new alert unit which solved it.
 
I had the same problem about a year ago. The audio alert unit was bad. I went around it as they suggested to you to isolate the problem. They quickly sent a new alert unit which solved it.

This may well be what's going on with mine. The bypass test worked perfectly. I had a look at the short cord that I took out for the test and it is indeed wired straight through and looks to be in good condition. This leaves the audio alert unit itself. I've emailed ACK with my findings. At least now I can feel comfortable flying knowing that I can activate my ELT remotely.
 
ELT Test Fails

@Canadian Joy

Neither ADS-B nor a cell phone give you "activation on crash" like an ELT. Carrying an ELT is hardly a burden if you happen to be the guy hanging from your seat belt, bleeding out...

Yes, that may be true, but allow me to expand some on this.
The fact remains that 100s of false alarms happen for each real alarm.
This gear is too complex with multiple failure modes, burdensome wiring requirements, testing requires ?5 minutes after the hour? timing (phase of the moon anyone?, RF proof screen room? ), it?s easilly triggered unintentionally, requires multiple batteries, etc.
Don?t fall into the trap of thinking ? if it only saves one life it?s worth it?. That criterion would make most everyday activities too risky to do, if safety measures were carried to that extreme. At some point a reasonable compromise needs to be made. IMO a simple battery powered and manually operated personal (portable) locator beacon is sufficient. Just push a red button and it works. Surely if a plane is going to crash, there is usually time to push a button.
But if not, it might be pushed after the crash; then there are still the other 2 options of cell phone and ads-b. We are talking about very low probabilities. If all this fails, then nothing is perfect and we shouldn?t expect it to be. And note this was imposed by Congress, not the FAA. It?s A badly thought out system imposed by politicians.

OK off my soapbox. Now an actual question: What precisely is the annual testing requirement? The self test? Self test with signal detected at 121.5? Signal measured quantitatively and decoded using sophisticated test gear? ? Is certification by avionics shop required, or is owner self test sufficient ? Etc.
 
Every 12 months, the requirements of 91.207(d) need to be done, along with the ELT manufacturers instructions for continued airworthiness. The ICA?s will be in the manual for the ELT. Also any battery replacement requirement.

Typically, the ICA?s specify a g switch test along with other requirements.
 
@Canadian Joy



Yes, that may be true, but allow me to expand some on this.
The fact remains that 100s of false alarms happen for each real alarm.
This gear is too complex with multiple failure modes, burdensome wiring requirements, testing requires ?5 minutes after the hour? timing (phase of the moon anyone?, RF proof screen room? ), it?s easilly triggered unintentionally, requires multiple batteries, etc.
Don?t fall into the trap of thinking ? if it only saves one life it?s worth it?. That criterion would make most everyday activities too risky to do, if safety measures were carried to that extreme. At some point a reasonable compromise needs to be made. IMO a simple battery powered and manually operated personal (portable) locator beacon is sufficient. Just push a red button and it works. Surely if a plane is going to crash, there is usually time to push a button.
But if not, it might be pushed after the crash; then there are still the other 2 options of cell phone and ads-b. We are talking about very low probabilities. If all this fails, then nothing is perfect and we shouldn?t expect it to be. And note this was imposed by Congress, not the FAA. It?s A badly thought out system imposed by politicians.

OK off my soapbox. Now an actual question: What precisely is the annual testing requirement? The self test? Self test with signal detected at 121.5? Signal measured quantitatively and decoded using sophisticated test gear? ? Is certification by avionics shop required, or is owner self test sufficient ? Etc.

John - to each his own. If you were to see how far it is between where you're flying and where there's any sign of a human being in Canada you might arrive at a different conclusion than the one which you favor. Not to mention that much of this country has zero cellular coverage.

Irrespective of one's own opinion regarding ELTs, we are mandated to carry them, so if complying with a legal mandate, why not do everything possible to stack the odds of survival in one's favor?

With respect to your comment about ELT's needing multiple batteries etc, there are few that require multiple batteries. I've never been a fan of the ACK product for this very reason. The ELTs in my aircraft require one battery which has a six year lifespan. These ELTs are wired using MIL-C-27500 TEFZEL wire. No phone cords for this kid.

Your question concerning ELT testing gets an answer that's highly dependent on nationality of the aircraft. In Canada we are required to return the ELT to an approved shop for annual testing. These tests look at a number of different performance parameters.

Reference CAR Standard 625 Appendix C
http://www.tc.gc.ca/en/transport-ca...tions/sor-96-433/standard-625/appendix-c.html
 
ELT test fails

91.207(d) doesn?t seem to answer some of my questions. It says nothing about who (owner, A & P, avionics shop ?) can perform the tests, nor documentation requirements for the tests. At least I didn?t see anything on this; maybe it?s spelled out elsewhere ?

Also, I?m not sure how one tests the ?crash sensor?, or antenna radiation. I suppose the manufacturer?s instructions govern these.
 
The Artex 345 can be installed and operated with no remote switch, providing it is within reach of the pilot. Although it is supplied with a remote switch, if you have a suitable mounting location within arms reach it eliminates the time and trouble of making a wire harness.
 
John - to each his own. If you were to see how far it is between where you're flying and where there's any sign of a human being in Canada you might arrive at a different conclusion than the one which you favor. Not to mention that much of this country has zero cellular coverage.

I want to stack the deck as far in my favour as possible, that won't include spending money on an "upgraded" ELT that in its base installation doesn't address any of the issues of the 121.5 ELT. I'll carry a Spot (or equivalent) instead, that has a full-time GPS connection (not one that has to "find itself" after an accident), near "instant" reporting, and can provide family and friends with a track to follow if I so desire.

The cost, installation requirements, and servicing requirements of ELT's are ridiculous in this modern age. Batteries are trivial to replace, hitting an emergency button before you hit the ground is well within our capability. If you don't have time to manually hit the emergency button before you hit the ground, you probably don't need an ELT anyway, you need a coroner.
 
The cost, installation requirements, and servicing requirements of ELT's are ridiculous in this modern age. Batteries are trivial to replace, hitting an emergency button before you hit the ground is well within our capability. If you don't have time to manually hit the emergency button before you hit the ground, you probably don't need an ELT anyway, you need a coroner.

Rob - your opinion is one that seems widely held - that the all-seeing, all-knowing steely-eyed super-hero pilot will flip the big red emergency switch before spearing into the ground. Accident statistics unfortunately tell a completely different story.

I agree that we have come up with a technological solution, in the form of the ELT, which is sub-optimal in many ways, and clearly far too expensive for what it is. Having to pay upwards of CAN$400 for a replacement battery pack is ridiculous. Likewise for the mandated annual return to a shop for a functional test. There's a CARAC report that's been on the table for over two years in which many updates and improvements to our current legislation are recommended. Transport Canada has done NOTHING to implement these recommendations. If you really want some action, petition your MP and the Minister.
 
"There's a CARAC report that's been on the table for over two years in which many updates and improvements to our current legislation are recommended."

Any chance you can post a link to the report, please. I have been searching on their website in vain. Not much wonder nothing has been done as it is not easy to find or print a copy for your local MP.
Unless a number of MP's light a fire under TCs backside they are not likely to move.
 
I, too, would like to see the CARAC report, especially if it recommends alternatives to a 406MHZ ELT.

They've been trying to legislate installation of 406MHZ ELT's for 10 years, and it looks like it will be another couple before anything will happen. Think how far technology has advanced in the 12-15 years since the 406 setup was first proposed.
 
ELT Battery dead?

Doing my condition inspection and fail my ELT test in accordance with 91.207. I install a Rubber Duck handheld antenna to ELT before starting the test. ELT did not activate on the "G" test. Shop radio is tuned to 121.5 and I heard a beep but not enough to be an actual ELT alarm. I can hear the "G" switch making noise but no activation.

The ELT is just over 1-year old and it worked last July when I tested it. Battery has a Manufacture Date / Lot number: 04/22/2019 00069
Battery is suppose to be good till: APR/22/2024

Taking the battery off, I read 11.4 Volts on my Fluke 79III multimeter. Battery is suppose to be 12V.

Looks like I need to wait till Monday to phone ACK and see if they can do anything. At almost $200 from Aircraft Spruce, I do NOT want to be replacing the battery this often.
 
The big issue that COPA (cold ex version of AOPA) is that ELTs activate successfully in about half of all crashes. A PLB broadcasts your position every few minutes leaving the proverbial trail of bread crumbs. If the elt fails then SAR people have your flight plan and that's it. With a PLB they have you worst case within your max distance traveled in the transmission interval of the device. However, in Canada the military SAR SAR people convinced the minister that no airplane should fly without being equipped to transmit to the satellite system that monitors 406mhz whether you are a light biz jet or a j3 cub. So we have to lug this expensive maintenance intensive thing around that works half the time.
 
The big issue that COPA (cold ex version of AOPA) is that ELTs activate successfully in about half of all crashes. A PLB broadcasts your position every few minutes leaving the proverbial trail of bread crumbs. If the elt fails then SAR people have your flight plan and that's it. With a PLB they have you worst case within your max distance traveled in the transmission interval of the device. However, in Canada the military SAR SAR people convinced the minister that no airplane should fly without being equipped to transmit to the satellite system that monitors 406mhz whether you are a light biz jet or a j3 cub. So we have to lug this expensive maintenance intensive thing around that works half the time.

Scott - sorry to be persnickety on this point, but we do need to be careful with terminology. A PLB, a Personal Locator Beacon, does NOT broadcast a breadcrumb trail. It is "off" and not transmitting until the user turns it on in the case of an emergency. There is no cost to operation of a PLB, save for acquisition and battery replacement costs. There is no "subscription" or "tracking" cost as those costs are borne by our national SAR agencies via their participation in the COSPAS-SARSAT network.

In your description I believe you are referring to a satellite tracker which should not be conflated with a PLB or ELT. Examples of satellite trackers are SPOT, Garmin InReach, Spidertracks, etc. These devices do indeed provide a bread crumb trail. They also require users to pay subscription fees for that tracking service.

With respect to ELT's, you refer to them as being maintenance-intensive. That might be a bit of an inaccuracy simply because we're required to perform an annual inspection; in Canada that incurs cost. We also check our magnetic compass annually but don't incur costs to do so. Neither one of these would ring most people's bells as being maintenance-intensive.

I strongly believe that we can do better than we are doing. Having the ability to have a "tracker" that also provides the critical "crash alerting" function is not something we currently have available as an approved device for the aviation market. If we could improve our tracking algorithms on satellite tracker services we might be able to be smart enough to detect a "crash" through monitoring lack of beacon movement, thus potentially providing "crash alerting", supplementing or replacing the ELT.

The internal spat between Transport Canada and Department of National Defense has cost us greatly in terms of lost progress and lost lives. It truly is shameful.
 
Last edited:
Doing my condition inspection and fail my ELT test in accordance with 91.207. I install a Rubber Duck handheld antenna to ELT before starting the test. ELT did not activate on the "G" test. Shop radio is tuned to 121.5 and I heard a beep but not enough to be an actual ELT alarm. I can hear the "G" switch making noise but no activation.

The ELT is just over 1-year old and it worked last July when I tested it. Battery has a Manufacture Date / Lot number: 04/22/2019 00069
Battery is suppose to be good till: APR/22/2024

Taking the battery off, I read 11.4 Volts on my Fluke 79III multimeter. Battery is suppose to be 12V.

Looks like I need to wait till Monday to phone ACK and see if they can do anything. At almost $200 from Aircraft Spruce, I do NOT want to be replacing the battery this often.

I emailed ACK shortly after posting this. They already responded and requested that I send them the unit. Much faster response than I expected considering that today is a national holiday.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top