Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 107

Thread: Should I upgrade my ELT to 406 mhz?

  1. #41
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    4,995
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Any suggestions as to the most cost-effective 406 elt's?
    This question always starts a fight! lol.

    My go to is the Artex ELT-345.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.
    Likes Farmboy liked this post

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am always amazed at the number of pilots who fail to comply with NOTAMs... for years it has been mandatory to listen to 121.5 when able.....

    !FDC 4/4386 SPECIAL NOTICE
    NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE.
    WIE UNTIL UFN
    !FDC 6/8818 FDC ...SPECIAL NOTICE...IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL
    SECURITY AND TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, PILOTS AND UAS OPERATORS
    ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO AVOID THE AIRSPACE ABOVE OR IN CLOSE
    PROXIMITY TO CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER SENSITIVE
    LOCATIONS SUCH AS POWER PLANTS (NUCLEAR, HYDRO-ELECTRIC, OR
    COAL), DAMS, REFINERIES, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES, MILITARY
    FACILITIES, CORRECTIONAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES UNLESS
    OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED. PILOTS AND UAS OPERATORS SHOULD NOT CIRCLE
    AS TO LOITER IN THE VICINITY OVER THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES.
    1603231538-PERM
    Thanks mixer thanked for this post

  3. #43
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    22,674
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by wireweinie View Post
    This question always starts a fight! lol.

    My go to is the Artex ELT-345.

    Web
    Yea, we have been down this road before.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes wireweinie liked this post

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ö
    Posts
    8,336
    Post Thanks / Like
    Currently the ACK E-04 is around $100 less than the ACR ELT345. They meet the same TSO. Last I looked the ACK 6-year battery was less expensive, too. I find the decision pretty simple.

  5. #45
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    4,162
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by wireweinie View Post
    ...My go to is the Artex ELT-345.
    From the Spruce website page on this elt:

    Built-in GPS Navigational Interface (NMEA 0183 or RS 232)

    So I guess no internal GPS.
    Which would be the go-to if you wanted it to have the gps built-in?
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ö
    Posts
    8,336
    Post Thanks / Like
    You don’t have a portable GPS in your plane? Pretty much all of them can feed an ELT position data.

  7. #47
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    13,021
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    From the Spruce website page on this elt:

    Built-in GPS Navigational Interface (NMEA 0183 or RS 232)

    So I guess no internal GPS.
    Which would be the go-to if you wanted it to have the gps built-in?
    From the horse's mouth.

    https://www.acrartex.com/products/elt-345-transmitter/
    " The ARTEX ELT 345 transmits on 406 MHz and 121.5 MHz frequencies while providing positon accuracy thanks to the built-in GPS navigational interface. "
    NX1PA
    Likes BC12D-4-85 liked this post

  8. #48
    frequent_flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    From the horse's mouth.

    https://www.acrartex.com/products/elt-345-transmitter/
    " The ARTEX ELT 345 transmits on 406 MHz and 121.5 MHz frequencies while providing positon accuracy thanks to the built-in GPS navigational interface. "
    There is huge difference between having a built in GPS INTERFACE and having a built in GPS RECEIVER. The interface depends on an external GPS. The internal GPS receiver only needs a clear view of the sky.

    Some 406 ELT have an NMEA-183 interface and an internal GPS. Some have interface capability only. There may be some 406 ELT with no interface and no internal GPS receiver but I don't know of any.

    Another factor to consider is that an internal receiver may not be powered until the ELT is activated. It will take some time to acquire a signal and get a position fix.

    I was pleasantly surprised to find that ACK E-04 has provision for a GPS interface and it can keep that GPS interface alive with ships power. That should mean the GPS position is internally buffered and is available if the exernal GPS connection is severed in a crash.

  9. #49
    frequent_flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Which would be the go-to if you wanted it to have the gps built-in?
    Kannad (Orolia) has ELT models that have an internal GPS and optional provisions for interfacing an external GPS. I have the AF Integra in my FX-3 Carbon Cub.

  10. #50
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    12,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    FYI, a few years ago there was a company called “Emergency Lifesaving Technologies” (abbreviate the company name, get it?) that offered an ELT with on board GPS integrated with the ELT and antenna. That unit was expensive and I was never sure how battery life and gps would play. I much preferred a connected GPS providing updated location data constantly.

    In any case, I did a search and can’t find that company’s web site now, so don’t know if they’re still around.

    But in any case, I’ve used ACK 406 beacons for some time now, they easily connect to a portable or panel mount GPS, and they work. And they’re about the best price.

    MTV

  11. #51
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    4,995
    Post Thanks / Like
    Unlike most here, I routinely open up ELTs and do the 91.207 inspections. This is why I recommend the Artex products. I've observed that the internal quality of the circuit boards and general assembly is better than the others. In my book, this is more important than price. Also keep in mind that some brands like Skyhunter and Kannad require that the unit be sent to a designated repair station for battery replacement. Compare this to you handing me one of the other brands and I can inspect it and replace the battery in about 30 minutes.

    Whatever unit you install, be sure to read ALL of the details before you buy. And remember that 406 mhz ELTs are still subject to annual inspections as per FAR 91.207.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.

  12. #52
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    22,674
    Post Thanks / Like
    I didn't know some brands had to be sent in for battery replacement. Have not run into that.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  13. #53
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    4,995
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    From the horse's mouth.

    https://www.acrartex.com/products/elt-345-transmitter/
    " The ARTEX ELT 345 transmits on 406 MHz and 121.5 MHz frequencies while providing positon accuracy thanks to the built-in GPS navigational interface. "
    That is correct that they have a GPS interface. The interface is just a couple of wires that allow RS232 data to be input to the ELT from almost any GPS, whether panel mount or portable. I've come up with a diagram for the -345 harness that is so simplified that all you have to do is tell me the total length you want from ELT to the panel switch. At the connector for the panel switch, I stub out a small connector that allows the owner to plug in the RS232 data lines from his existing GPS.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.
    Thanks soyAnarchisto thanked for this post
    Likes DENNY, skywagon8a, BC12D-4-85, bcone1381 liked this post

  14. #54

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,567
    Post Thanks / Like
    When deciding on an ELT, initial cost, battery cost and life, ease of installation, and requirement for special test equipment should all be part of the equation. Lots of the 406 units require special test box or jumper to do the annual 91.207 test. That will add cost as not all IAs will have that equipment. The ACK E-04 seems to be about the most cost effective and doesnít require any special equipment to test (in the USA). Donít forget that you have 3 batteries to track, the main battery, the PX28L in the remote and the CR2 in the audio alert box.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  15. #55
    gdafoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Castle Well Airpark SE of Wickenburg AZ
    Posts
    940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mvivion View Post
    FYI, a few years ago there was a company called “Emergency Lifesaving Technologies” (abbreviate the company name, get it?) that offered an ELT with on board GPS integrated with the ELT and antenna. That unit was expensive and I was never sure how battery life and gps would play. I much preferred a connected GPS providing updated location data constantly.

    In any case, I did a search and can’t find that company’s web site now, so don’t know if they’re still around.

    But in any case, I’ve used ACK 406 beacons for some time now, they easily connect to a portable or panel mount GPS, and they work. And they’re about the best price.

    MTV
    Googled it and their web site came right up. https://www.eltechnolgies.com/
    Gerald

  16. #56
    frequent_flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gdafoe View Post
    Googled it and their web site came right up. https://www.eltechnolgies.com/
    An intesting restriction is included in the installation manual for that unit -

    "Emerging Lifesaving Technologies 406 ELT with GPS can be activated while still in the air but is currently prohibited by Cospas/Sarsat. After the system is activated the data is only updated each 5 minutes per Cospas/Sarsat requirements. In 5 minutes you can be miles from you initial activation point and reduce the capabilities of SAR"

    The manual is dated 2016 so the restriction may not be current. I think it is generally assumed that activating a bit before the crash is a good idea.

    I also noted that this ELT has no 121.5 MHz output.

    The designers were smart enough to provide ship's power so the internal GPS has a valid position when the ELT is crash activated.
    Thanks mixer thanked for this post
    Likes mixer liked this post

  17. #57
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    4,995
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dgapilot View Post
    When deciding on an ELT, initial cost, battery cost and life, ease of installation, and requirement for special test equipment should all be part of the equation. Lots of the 406 units require special test box or jumper to do the annual 91.207 test. That will add cost as not all IAs will have that equipment. The ACK E-04 seems to be about the most cost effective and doesn’t require any special equipment to test (in the USA). Don’t forget that you have 3 batteries to track, the main battery, the PX28L in the remote and the CR2 in the audio alert box.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    That's part of this ELT fight. All ELTs are still subject to the inspection requirements of 91.207.

    (1) Proper installation;
    (2) Battery corrosion;
    (3) Operation of the controls and crash sensor; and
    (4) The presence of a sufficient signal radiated from its antenna.

    With the programmed codes present in the signal of a 406 ELT, I like to add 'checking for proper codes' in 91.207, (4). If you believe that any built in test function meets all these requirements, then, if challenged, where is the proof? Where is the measurement of signal power? And if the ELT is programmed incorrectly (country code, N number, etc) how do you know. It's very common to find incorrect country codes on newer aircraft and incorrect codes on aircraft recently bought/sold.

    But If the ELT is tested on the correct equipment, all codes read out for verification, signal strength is measured (406, 243, and 121.5 mhz), and the time elapsed on battery usage is read out.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.

  18. #58
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    12,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gdafoe View Post
    Googled it and their web site came right up. https://www.eltechnolgies.com/
    Thanks, I was using my phone while stuck on the interstate behind a couple semis that decided to crawl up on top of each other. Must not have had good coverage.

    One of the interesting things about that unit is it does NOT incorporate a 121.5 pinger.

    MTV

  19. #59
    frequent_flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by wireweinie View Post
    (4) The presence of a sufficient signal radiated from its antenna.
    The regulation does not define a required field strength or a distance at which the field strength should be measured.

    A test that has been considered acceptable for many years is to listen for a detectable signal using a separate VHF COMS receiver. The regulations impose no new requirements for 406 MHz ELT.

    I don't fault anyone for asking for a comprehensive signal evaluation using expensive calibrated test equipment. However, they should understand that it's not required by 14 CFR 91.207.

  20. #60
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    4,995
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by frequent_flyer View Post
    The regulation does not define a required field strength or a distance at which the field strength should be measured.

    A test that has been considered acceptable for many years is to listen for a detectable signal using a separate VHF COMS receiver. The regulations impose no new requirements for 406 MHz ELT.

    I don't fault anyone for asking for a comprehensive signal evaluation using expensive calibrated test equipment. However, they should understand that it's not required by 14 CFR 91.207.
    All manufacturers have a minimum signal strength spec for both 121.5 and 406 signals.

    The squak test where a 121.5mhz signal is checked by using an AM radio, tuned of channel, was never codified but was considered acceptable. It was acceptable simply because a 121.5 signal would bleed over onto an AM radio only if it is above a minimum strength level. 406 mhz signals DO NOT bleed over onto an AM radio so that test is not applicable.

    The use of test equipment may not be specified, but if you cannot meet the requirements of an FAR without, then it goes without saying that it is needed.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.

  21. #61

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,567
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by wireweinie View Post
    That's part of this ELT fight. All ELTs are still subject to the inspection requirements of 91.207.

    (1) Proper installation;
    (2) Battery corrosion;
    (3) Operation of the controls and crash sensor; and
    (4) The presence of a sufficient signal radiated from its antenna.

    With the programmed codes present in the signal of a 406 ELT, I like to add 'checking for proper codes' in 91.207, (4). If you believe that any built in test function meets all these requirements, then, if challenged, where is the proof? Where is the measurement of signal power? And if the ELT is programmed incorrectly (country code, N number, etc) how do you know. It's very common to find incorrect country codes on newer aircraft and incorrect codes on aircraft recently bought/sold.

    But If the ELT is tested on the correct equipment, all codes read out for verification, signal strength is measured (406, 243, and 121.5 mhz), and the time elapsed on battery usage is read out.

    Web
    Kind of a catch 22. The ELT provides instructions on how to test (instructions for continued airworthiness) to comply with the 92.207(d) requirement. Since the 406 mhz ELT is not required by 91.207, there is no requirement to test that portion of it, only the 121.5 part.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Thanks stewartb thanked for this post

  22. #62
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    4,995
    Post Thanks / Like
    91.207 does not call out frequencies. Therefore the same test requirements apply to any ELT.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.

  23. #63
    Farmboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Glens Falls, NY & Middlebury, VT
    Posts
    3,099
    Post Thanks / Like
    I believe the Kannad ELT is available with built in GPS.

  24. #64

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,567
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by wireweinie View Post
    91.207 does not call out frequencies. Therefore the same test requirements apply to any ELT.

    Web
    Unction 91.207 calls out a requirement to install a TSO C126 ELT, they canít require you to test the 406 mhz output. Iím not saying it isnít a good idea, but Iím not running out to buy test equipment for something that (a) isnít in the ICA published by the manufacturer and (b) is not a requirement of the regulation. The manual produced by the manufacturer is part of the TSOA, and FAA has found that the ICAs sufficient for the continued use of that equipment.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  25. #65
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    4,995
    Post Thanks / Like
    (4) The presence of a sufficient signal radiated from its antenna.

    This is the requirement for measuring out put power. It's required for all ELTs. There is no wording in 91.207 that allows 406's to not be tested for this. I agree that some of the ICAs allow testing that is in contradiction with these requirements but it's a hollow argument. Sooner or later someone is going to get called on the carpet and forced to explain why they did not follow 91.207.
    And I'm not trying to get owners to go out and buy their own test equipment. But all avionics shops have these boxes by now and it only takes about fifteen minutes to to run the test.
    As far as trusting the ICAs, I don't on this one for the above reasons. I think the ones that allow a self test in contradiction of 91.207 requirements are ill advised, at best.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  26. #66
    frequent_flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can we at least agree to use the correct units for frequency. The base unit is Hz (upper case H and lower case z). The multiplier mega is M (upper case M). Lower case m means "milli".

    121.5 MHz please.
    Last edited by frequent_flyer; 03-06-2023 at 09:33 AM.
    Thanks EdH, dabridgham thanked for this post

  27. #67
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    4,162
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    From the horse's mouth.
    https://www.acrartex.com/products/elt-345-transmitter/
    " The ARTEX ELT 345 transmits on 406 MHz and 121.5 MHz frequencies while providing positon accuracy thanks to the built-in GPS navigational interface. "
    As pointed out by someone else,
    a "gps interface" would seem to require an external gps signal.
    They kinda gloss over that, probably not by accident.

    Quote Originally Posted by stewartb View Post
    You don’t have a portable GPS in your plane? Pretty much all of them can feed an ELT position data.
    All I have is my android tablet, running the Avare app.
    Pretty sure there's no RS232 output to route to an elt.
    I do have an old garmin 196 but I haven't used it in several years.

    I also have a Garmin G5 in the panel.
    It has a built in gps, but maybe only for direction of travel not location.
    I need to read the (close to 200 page) user's manual to see if it has the RS232 output.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Thanks EdH thanked for this post

  28. #68
    txpacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Iowa Park, TX
    Posts
    880
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wired up a Garmin 18x PC GPS Navigator Unit to my ACK E-04 ELT, tested it with the LED tester. Works great, as near as I can tell.
    Thanks Just call me Al thanked for this post
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  29. #69
    frequent_flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    I also have a Garmin G5 in the panel.
    It has a built in gps, but maybe only for direction of travel not location.
    I need to read the (close to 200 page) user's manual to see if it has the RS232 output.
    Probably easier to use a text search function as most Garmin documents are searchable PDF.

    The G5 has one RS-232 serial data port. According to the installation manual it can be configured to provide NMEA-183 output -

    "Supports the input and output of standard NMEA 0183 version 3.01 data at a configurable baud rate of either 4800 or 9600. The G5 outputs GPS data via
    NMEA sentences. This input format is used when interfacing a portable GPS navigation unit like a Garmin Aera 660."

  30. #70
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    13,021
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    As pointed out by someone else,
    a "gps interface" would seem to require an external gps signal.
    They kinda gloss over that, probably not by accident.
    Yup! Likely to confuse those of us who are not so electronically inclined. It sure did confuse me.
    NX1PA

  31. #71
    frequent_flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by frequent_flyer View Post
    Perhaps you should push for a correction to the Aeronautical Information Manual which currently states -

    "121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz. Both have a range generally limited to line of sight. 121.5 MHz is guarded by direction finding stations and some military and civil aircraft. 243.0 MHz is guarded by military aircraft. Both 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz are guarded by military towers, most civil towers, and radar facilities. Normally ARTCC emergency frequency capability does not extend to radar coverage limits. If an ARTCC does not respond when called on 121.5 MHz or 243.0 MHz, call the nearest tower."
    It seems that AIM update is required.

    During a simulated engine failure in yesterday's flight review my instructor mentioned a NOTAM that advised 121.5 was no longer monitored at local control towers. I was unable to find that NOTAM but I have confirmed that 121.5 is not monitored at KDVT and KGEU.

    Today I called Prescott FSS and was told they had stopped monitoring 121.5 about 2 years ago. The two briefers I spoke with believed that monitoring of 121.5 had been dropped by FSS and towers and that 121.5 was now monitored only by Center (ZAB or LAX for my area).

    I asked two different briefers where I could find any official notification of the change and neither could provide any reference.

    I called ZAB and they confirmed they monitor 121.5 and that LAX does too. My contact was unable to provide any information on any FAA policy document.

  32. #72
    frequent_flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by frequent_flyer View Post
    My contact was unable to provide any information on any FAA policy document.
    It took a while but I eventually found this document -

    https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...b_feb_2023.pdf

    Which pointed me to FAA Order JO 7210.3CC -

    https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...td_11-3-22.pdf

    This extract is one of the references to requirements for monitoring 121.5 -
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	121.5 -1.PNG 
Views:	33 
Size:	146.9 KB 
ID:	65325  

  33. #73
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    13,021
    Post Thanks / Like
    I see the "must have" words in there.
    NX1PA

  34. #74
    kase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Billings MT
    Posts
    1,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    I asked a guy here from the tower if they still monitor 121.5 and 243.0 and he said yes. Only thing they use it for is airliners looking for the next center frequency.

  35. #75

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    75
    Post Thanks / Like
    Do you like ADSB, and liked renewing your registration every 3 years, and like spending money and doing tedious tasks every annual? If yes, follow your governments recommendations.

  36. #76
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    12,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Skysurfer View Post
    Do you like ADSB, and liked renewing your registration every 3 years, and like spending money and doing tedious tasks every annual? If yes, follow your governments recommendations.
    More to the point, if you are unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident, particularly in remote terrain, would you like to see one of those government black helicopters overhead fairly soon after arrival?

    MTV

  37. #77
    Cardiff Kook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Sisters, OR
    Posts
    488
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am still lost here as to what unit to get.

    I don't have GPS in the Cub- other than Foreflight. I do have a transponder- but don't think that has GPS.

    The Artex 345 is $850. The ACK E-04 is $750.

    Only option I see with a built in GPS is the Kanaan Integra. That unit is $1758- so $900 more.

    Would I be better of getting one with an interface and buying a GPS source with the $900 savings?

  38. #78
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    4,995
    Post Thanks / Like
    What is the cost of a portable GPS with RS-232 data lines? Add that to the cost of the ELT and you have your answer.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.

  39. #79
    Cardiff Kook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Sisters, OR
    Posts
    488
    Post Thanks / Like
    Garmin Aera 660 is $849 on Aircraft Spruce. 760 is $1560

    Is the math that simple?

  40. #80
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    4,995
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can make a harness for the ELT 345 for about $75 or $80 dollars. Plug and play. If you do the work yourself you can have an updated ELT for about $1785. That would be cheaper if you already have a portable GPS.

    Keep in mind that the portable GPS can be battery powered or wired to the aircraft bus, or both. If you have a battery pack in the unit, you can pull it out of the wreck and carry it with if you need to walk out.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.
    Thanks soyAnarchisto thanked for this post

Similar Threads

  1. hp upgrade for pa-12
    By buckeye in forum Modifications
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-18-2009, 10:08 PM
  2. !50 hp to 160 hp upgrade
    By cub_driver in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-13-2009, 09:58 AM
  3. C65 to C90 Upgrade
    By Lost Coast in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-24-2004, 11:10 PM
  4. PA-18A-135 upgrade
    By airweld in forum Modifications
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-28-2002, 01:10 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •