ACK vs Airtex ELT

[lr172]

I am getting ready to order an ELT for the 10 and plan for either the ACK or Airtex $500 406 versions. I have read a fair amount here, but it's a good mix of opinions. Any toughts on which of these is least likely to give me trouble with false activation?

Larry

[Canadian_JOY]

Hmmm, nice to see that you're considering the false activation challenge, Larry.

At the moment I would say anecdotal evidence seems to support the ACK as having the higher false activation rate. That having been said, the ACK unit has been in the field longer and in larger numbers so there's definitely some sample size bias in this observation.

From a technical standpoint, I would run away from any ELT that uses telephone cord as its primary wiring interface. I've said this from the outset when ACK came out with their E04 as a carry-through from their E01. Telephone cord is not aircraft wire. It is not shielded from EMI/RFI. It is a nasty dog that's just waiting to bite.

[MS19087]

I had 2 false activations with ACK. One was enroute on a cross country trip - no turbulence, no reason for activation - it had the USAF calling my contacts and creating lots of stress at home . . . The second was sitting in my hangar - FBO came looking. Oh - by the way, i had to buy a new battery $$ because it was active for more than XX minutes (i dont recall the spec). My -14 will have an Airtex . . .

[BMC_Dave]

ACKs in all 3 of our club planes. Hundreds of hours since I've known them with some pretty heavy training, never had an issue.

[TShort]

I had a false activation with my ACK in the -10 this summer.
Out at the cabin with my brother and got a call from the CAP that they were standing next to the -10 on the ramp.

I?d taken a friend flying the day before, but it wasn?t bumpy and I didn?t make any terrible landings...

[RV7A Flyer]

I have a shutdown checklist item to tune 121.5 and check for ELT activation.

May not prevent all of those phone calls after you've left for home, nor the erroneous activation, but it's a bit of help...

[steve murray]

Question on the 406 Mhz type ELT's..... I am thinking when the unit is hooked to external GPS source and unit is activated it will transmit current GPS position with very good accuracy compared to 121.5 mhz beacon.

Question is, after the crash when GPS is no longer being fed to the unit, will it transmit last known GPS position?

[BMC_Dave]

Originally Posted by steve murray

Question on the 406 Mhz type ELT's..... I am thinking when the unit is hooked to external GPS source and unit is activated it will transmit current GPS position with very good accuracy compared to 121.5 mhz beacon.

Question is, after the crash when GPS is no longer being fed to the unit, will it transmit last known GPS position?

I recall reading this specifically in reference to the ACK ones, but their install manual doesn't seem to address it. Not doing this would border on criminal negligence IMO.

[rocketbob]

I put an old Ameriking AK-450 in my Rocket because the price of replacement batteries for all the new 406 ELTs is very unappealing. Better to carry a 406 PLB.

[F1R]

A bit of drift, but I don't understand why some ELT co. has not made a 406 that mounts on the main spar within the pilots eye and hand reach so that no remote switches or cables are required. So far rocketbob's solution comes closest.

Also really odd is that an ELT gets registered to a single AC. A pilot can only fly one AC at a time. They way the SAR works at the moment with the 406 system is that if a signal is detected they come and look in your hangar. If the AC is there, search is cancelled, even if the signal is coming from the remote reaches of the interior of northern BC. Has no one considered that someone might have taken the 406 out of one AC with them on a flight in a friends float plane just to have a 406 with them on that trip?