FAA issues UNAPPROVED PARTS NOTIFICATION on Ameri-King products

[Canadian_JOY]

While I truly feel sorry for those who have purchased Ameri-King products, I have to admit that, upon reading this news, my first reaction was "it's about time". From many of my posts here I may have developed a reputation as a bit of a proselytizer for ELT's. Ameri-King has been producing the worst, most unreliable ELT in the business for too many years. Sure, they were cheap. In many posts here I've warned that you get what you pay for. I'm so very glad to see Ameri-King products officially condemned.

Before anybody says it's fine for me to talk, but where's the colour of my money, let me say that I have been bitten by being an early adopter of 406MHz ELT technology and took a $1,000 hit to replace an early 406 ELT that did not perform reliably. Been there, done that, got the bill to prove it!

BTW, with respect to the question about our homebuilt airplanes, the wording of the regulations requires the ELT to be TSO'd (completely different than, for instance, the requirement for ADS-B to meet TSO performance levels). If the Ameri-King ELT in our aircraft was touched by Ameri-King after 28 December, 2015, it is officially an unapproved part and MUST BE REMOVED/REPLACED with an approved part.

This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances for owners of Ameri-King ELTs, however it is far better to have to bite the bullet and replace an unapproved part than to have that unapproved part fail to perform when you need it most.

Good bye and good riddance to Ameri-King and their awful ELT's.

[Greg Arehart]

The notice says anything manufactured prior to December 28, 2015. Anyone have any clues how far back this goes? To the beginning of time (that's what it looks like from the 2-page document)? If so, it would affect virtually every Ameriking device out there.

Greg

[fl-mike]

Read the third sentence in the "Recommendation" paragraph.
Later they mention that they are looking for information about parts manufactured prior to that date, but the current notice only affects parts made after that date.
Since this affects all products, I am assuming that they were building product in violation of the processes contained In their quality system description (see any TSO) i.e. Moving manufacture offshore and not informing the FAA, etc. You can't change how you build a TSO'd product without FAA blessing. It is unlikely it is a performance issue, otherwise it would be limited in scope. it may be related to the whistleblower lawsuit and that investigation.

[RVDan]

I noticed that their website is now closed.

In my experience in dealing with the FAA as a production approval holder, you get warnings before they take an action like this, unless the problem that they identified is egregious or the company management is not cooperative in resolving the problem.

The only aspect of this that really affects the experimental homebuilders has to do with the ELT's meeting TSO and the altitude encoders meeting TSO as part 91 references TSO for those items.

[erich weaver]

Although I don't see either the acronym or the full word version in the linked document, I figured Id save everyone the trouble:

SAFO = Safety Alert For Operators

That's a new one for me at least.

erich

[RVbySDI]

Originally Posted by GalinHdz

Great question. IMHO if the requirement is the equipment must "meet the TSO standard" and the FAA decided they do not, then we can't use them. However if there is no "meet the TSO standard" requirement for the equipment then we as experimental can use them since we are not type certified aircraft.

Not addressing whether we can or cannot use these items but to correct a concept, you stated:

. . .we as experimental can use them since we are not type certified aircraft.

We indeed do fly "certificated" aircraft. They are certificated as Experimental.

[ArlingtonRV]

Originally Posted by RVbySDI

Not addressing whether we can or cannot use these items but to correct a concept, you stated:

We indeed do fly "certificated" aircraft. They are certificated as Experimental.

It is true that our experimental aircraft are certificated, they are not, however, type certificated, that is a whole different term. A type certificated aircraft is one that conforms to a type certificate. RV's and all other experimental Amateur Built aircraft do not have a type certificate.

[scsmith]

Thus the difference in words certified and certificated. Experimentals are certificated. They are not certified. Certified implies conformance to a type certificate (and a production certificate). As the previous post says, the term type-certificated also makes the appropriate distinction.

Oh, and I kind of have to agree with Canadian_JOY, I have an Ameri-King AK-350 Encoder and it really is a poor piece of equipment. It was pretty hard to get it adjusted to meet the conformance requirement to my altimeter over a wide range of altitudes. When I got the bill from the avionics shop, I realized I could have bought a new encoder for less than the labor cost to try to get the AK-350 to conform.
I'll be pulling out soon to install ADS-B anyway, so if the FAA does issue an AD on prior-built products, it will hasten that activity.

[sblack]

A friend got one of their elts from spruce and it was DOA out of the box. He had to send it to the mfg, not back to Spruce and pay shipping both ways! I made a mental note not to buy one.

I hope ACK doesn't jack up their price.

[rv7boy]

Since this is a SAFETY ALERT, I moved this thread to the SAFETY Forum. I also spelled out the acronym in the Title.