ELT Checks

[Kevin Chandler]

I know that I am allowed to replace the ELT battery of my airplane. At the
same time, I performed an ELT check as stated in FAR 91.207. Not being an
A&P or an IA, am I allowed to perform this check and sign off on it?

Thanks in advance for any responses,

[G.R. Patterson III]

Kevin Chandler wrote:
>
> I know that I am allowed to replace the ELT battery of my airplane. At the
> same time, I performed an ELT check as stated in FAR 91.207. Not being an
> A&P or an IA, am I allowed to perform this check and sign off on it?

I certainly hope so. I've been doing that for years.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Kevin Chandler]

I thought so too.

A designated examiner was reviewing our log books for a commercial student.
He flagged that as being a problem. He also felt that it was wrong for me
to remove a radio, get it repair and reinstall it. The radio complaint was
resolved through the AOPA website. They gave that exact example as
something that the pilot could do. Maybe I should ask them about and ELT
check.

Kevin

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Kevin Chandler wrote:
> >
> > I know that I am allowed to replace the ELT battery of my airplane. At
the
> > same time, I performed an ELT check as stated in FAR 91.207. Not being
an
> > A&P or an IA, am I allowed to perform this check and sign off on it?
>
> I certainly hope so. I've been doing that for years.
>
> George Patterson
> The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a
gay
> bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful
that
> the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon,
and his
> wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of
Cleves,
> and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no
longer
> here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian
marriages.

[rip]

Nope. The list of things an owner/operator is allowed to do is very
specific. Replacing, testing, or logging the replacement or testing of
an ELT battery is not on the list. (Appendix A to Part 43 -- Major
Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance).

Kevin Chandler wrote:
> I know that I am allowed to replace the ELT battery of my airplane. At the
> same time, I performed an ELT check as stated in FAR 91.207. Not being an
> A&P or an IA, am I allowed to perform this check and sign off on it?
>
> Thanks in advance for any responses,
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"rip" > wrote in message . com...
> Nope. The list of things an owner/operator is allowed to do is very
> specific. Replacing, testing, or logging the replacement or testing of
> an ELT battery is not on the list. (Appendix A to Part 43 -- Major
> Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance).

Item 24 on 43xA.vc is "Replacing and servicing batteries."

[G.R. Patterson III]

rip wrote:
>
> Nope. The list of things an owner/operator is allowed to do is very
> specific. Replacing, testing, or logging the replacement or testing of
> an ELT battery is not on the list.

Yes, it is. The only question is whether the owner is allowed to perform the
functional test of the ELT. I do it and log it anyway. If my IA also performs
the test at annual, hey - I'm covered.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Jim Weir]

And the hell of it is, we can't even use the "natalie exclusion" because it is
the ONLY thing in the airplane that isn't connected to the bus that turns on the
landing light {;-)

Jim




->A designated examiner was reviewing our log books for a commercial student.
->He flagged that as being a problem.


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> And the hell of it is, we can't even use the "natalie exclusion" because
> it is
> the ONLY thing in the airplane that isn't connected to the bus that turns
> on the
> landing light {;-)

it uses the same ground, doesn't it?

--
Bob Noel

[Russell Kent]

Is the ELT ground tied to the plane's ground? :-)

Russell Kent

Jim Weir wrote:

> And the hell of it is, we can't even use the "natalie exclusion" because it is
> the ONLY thing in the airplane that isn't connected to the bus that turns on the
> landing light {;-)
>
> Jim
>
> ->A designated examiner was reviewing our log books for a commercial student.
> ->He flagged that as being a problem.
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[dave]

Mine isn't!
Damn expensive AA batteries

Dave

Russell Kent wrote:
> Is the ELT ground tied to the plane's ground? :-)
>
> Russell Kent
>
> Jim Weir wrote:
>
>
>>And the hell of it is, we can't even use the "natalie exclusion" because it is
>>the ONLY thing in the airplane that isn't connected to the bus that turns on the
>>landing light {;-)
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>->A designated examiner was reviewing our log books for a commercial student.
>>->He flagged that as being a problem.
>>
>>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>>http://www.rst-engr.com
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article <Xpzub.182485$9E1.956311@attbi_s52>, dave
> wrote:

> Mine isn't!
> Damn expensive AA batteries
>
> Dave

what about the antenna? isn't that grounded? hint hint hint.



>
> Russell Kent wrote:
> > Is the ELT ground tied to the plane's ground? :-)

--
Bob Noel

[dave]

Nope,
Its one of those little self contained units.
It has one of those wire antennas that poke you in the eye when you go
into my baggage compartment.

Dave

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article <Xpzub.182485$9E1.956311@attbi_s52>, dave
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Mine isn't!
>>Damn expensive AA batteries
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> what about the antenna? isn't that grounded? hint hint hint.
>
>
>
>
>>Russell Kent wrote:
>>
>>>Is the ELT ground tied to the plane's ground? :-)
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"dave" > wrote in message news:Xpzub.182485$9E1.956311@attbi_s52...
> Mine isn't!
> Damn expensive AA batteries
>
AA's? Who uses AA's. The ACK and AK both use D cells.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> what about the antenna? isn't that grounded? hint hint hint.

Mine isn't.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Kevin Chandler]

One additional thing I thought of is.....

Why do ground schools teach all of the rules of when you can test the ELT
( first 5 minutes of each hour ) if you are not authorized to test it?

Anyone else find this curious?
Kevin

[rip]

Interesting point! I think the original intent there was lead-acid
starter batteries, but it does indeed just say "batteries".
And I should correct my statement to say that while the owner/operator
can replace the battery (hell, he can replace the entire engine), he
can't make the logbook entry for return to service.
My reasoning goes like this:
The preventive maintenance section deals in particular with either
easily replaceable parts, or SPECIFIC examples of life limited parts
that the owner/operator can replace or repair. Given that the ELT
battery is a life limited part (like an air or oil filter), to what
extent is the owner allowed to dismantle an object to effect the
replacement? Can he open a GPS to replace a memory back-up battery?
If not, why not? It's a battery after all. I think the answer lies in
what must be done after the replacement to declare that the item is
airworthy, and just flipping the switch on the ELT and listening for a
few sweeps doesn't qualify (IMHO). The all important g-switch must also
be exercised (and probably the output power too), and neither of these
falls under the purview of the owner/operator.
Just my view; as always I'm looking forward to seeing reasons why I may
be wrong!

Rip
Navion 5186K

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "rip" > wrote in message . com...
>
>>Nope. The list of things an owner/operator is allowed to do is very
>>specific. Replacing, testing, or logging the replacement or testing of
>>an ELT battery is not on the list. (Appendix A to Part 43 -- Major
>>Alterations, Major Repairs, and Preventive Maintenance).
>
>
> Item 24 on 43xA.vc is "Replacing and servicing batteries."
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Kevin Chandler" > wrote in message ...
> One additional thing I thought of is.....
>
> Why do ground schools teach all of the rules of when you can test the ELT
> ( first 5 minutes of each hour ) if you are not authorized to test it?
>
Who says you're not authorized to test it? The question is whether your testing
satisfies the annual inspection requirement. There's more to the test than just
turning it on.

[Ron Natalie]

"rip" > wrote in message . com...

> Just my view; as always I'm looking forward to seeing reasons why I may
> be wrong!

I'll argue two things here. First, for TSO-91c ELT's the instructions for
the continued maintenance are spelled out specifically in the manual,
including how to change the batteries. There's no requirement to do the
G switch test (nor any overriding need to do so). That only has to be done
every 12 months.

However, even if such testing were required, I argue the the owner-pilot is
still authorized to return it to service. After I replace my main aircraft
battery you can be danged sure I'm going to test it before returning the aircraft
to service.

You're making requirements that don't exist in the regulations. As for changing
internal batteries in things not designed to be easily accessible, that is covered
by the initial phrase in 43xA.c "Preventive maintenance is limited to the following
work provided it does not involve complex assembly operations."

[rip]

If it's not spelled out in the ICA, that's good enough. Thanks, Ron!

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "rip" > wrote in message . com...
>
>
>>Just my view; as always I'm looking forward to seeing reasons why I may
>>be wrong!
>
>
> I'll argue two things here. First, for TSO-91c ELT's the instructions for
> the continued maintenance are spelled out specifically in the manual,
> including how to change the batteries. There's no requirement to do the
> G switch test (nor any overriding need to do so). That only has to be done
> every 12 months.
>
> However, even if such testing were required, I argue the the owner-pilot is
> still authorized to return it to service. After I replace my main aircraft
> battery you can be danged sure I'm going to test it before returning the aircraft
> to service.
>
> You're making requirements that don't exist in the regulations. As for changing
> internal batteries in things not designed to be easily accessible, that is covered
> by the initial phrase in 43xA.c "Preventive maintenance is limited to the following
> work provided it does not involve complex assembly operations."
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

rip wrote:
>
> Interesting point! I think the original intent there was lead-acid
> starter batteries, but it does indeed just say "batteries".
> And I should correct my statement to say that while the owner/operator
> can replace the battery (hell, he can replace the entire engine), he
> can't make the logbook entry for return to service.

According to a Wings seminar I once attended, not only is allowed to log what
he/she did, the owner is *required* to log it.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
be learned no other way.

[gross_arrow]

"Kevin Chandler" > wrote in message >...
> One additional thing I thought of is.....
>
> Why do ground schools teach all of the rules of when you can test the ELT
> ( first 5 minutes of each hour ) if you are not authorized to test it?
>
> Anyone else find this curious?
> Kevin


'cuz that's what the aim says: 6-2-5:

b. Testing.

1. ELT's should be tested in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions, preferably in a shielded or
screened room or specially designed test container to
prevent the broadcast of signals which could trigger a false
alert.

2. When this cannot be done, aircraft operational testing is
authorized as follows:

(a) Analog 121.5/243 MHz ELT's should only
be tested during the first 5 minutes after any
hour. If operational tests must be made outside
of this period, they should be coordinated with
the nearest FAA Control Tower or FSS. Tests
should be no longer than three audible sweeps.
If the antenna is removable, a dummy load
should be substituted during test procedures.

(b) Digital 406 MHz ELT's should only be tested
in accordance with the unit's manufacturer's
instructions.

(c) Airborne tests are not authorized.



you can do this test, but this doesn't satisfy the requirement of
91.207(d), which includes a test of the "crash sensor". the ai
must do this test (i think he drops it on the floor or something).
anyway, that's my take, fwiw.

g_a

[Paul Mennen]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote

> You're making requirements that don't exist in the regulations.
> As for changing internal batteries in things not designed to be
> easily accessible, that is covered by the initial phrase in 43xA.c
> "Preventive maintenance is limited to the following
> work provided it does not involve complex assembly operations."

Those distinctions always make me chuckle. One man's
complex is another man's simple. (Kind of like the
distinction they make between major and minor alterations).

For instance I changed the internal battery in my NorthStar M2
GPS. Given my skills I did not find this particularly complex,
although many would. (The battery was soldered into a board
that couldn't be removed without also removing dozens of screws,
cables, connectors, etc).

Yet I still usually err on the side of caution. For example
I would be perfectly legal changing my brake pads, but in my
airplane I find this complex (given my skills - or lack thereof :)
So I feel more comfortable relegating this task to my mechanic.

~Paul

[Ross Richardson]

gross_arrow wrote:
snip


You do not have to drop it. I good swing of the unit in the correct
direction will set it off.
>
> you can do this test, but this doesn't satisfy the requirement of
> 91.207(d), which includes a test of the "crash sensor". the ai
> must do this test (i think he drops it on the floor or something).
> anyway, that's my take, fwiw.
>
> g_a

[G.R. Patterson III]

gross_arrow wrote:
>
> you can do this test, but this doesn't satisfy the requirement of
> 91.207(d), which includes a test of the "crash sensor". the ai
> must do this test (i think he drops it on the floor or something).

Not mine. You move it rapidly in the direction in which it faces when in the
airplane and stop it against some object. I just smack the thing against my
other hand.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
be learned no other way.

[gross_arrow]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> gross_arrow wrote:
> >
> > you can do this test, but this doesn't satisfy the requirement of
> > 91.207(d), which includes a test of the "crash sensor". the ai
> > must do this test (i think he drops it on the floor or something).
>
> Not mine. You move it rapidly in the direction in which it faces when in the
> airplane and stop it against some object. I just smack the thing against my
> other hand.
>
> George Patterson
> A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
> be learned no other way.


i _knew_ i should have put the smiley in......

g_a

[James M. Knox]

Russell Kent > wrote in :

> Is the ELT ground tied to the plane's ground? :-)

It is in my Piper Arrow. It uses the airplane's ground both for the
antenna groundplane, and also as a return path for the remote switch.

In fact, if you unhook the fuselage antenna from the ELT then the remote
switch no longer works. [Questionable design, but that's the way it came
from Piper.]

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[James M. Knox]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in
:

> I'll argue two things here. First, for TSO-91c ELT's the
> instructions for the continued maintenance are spelled out
> specifically in the manual, including how to change the batteries.
> There's no requirement to do the G switch test (nor any overriding
> need to do so). That only has to be done every 12 months.

Very true. More specifically, the ELT battery life limit has been
around for many decades. The G-switch test requirement is what, 10
years old?

> However, even if such testing were required, I argue the the
> owner-pilot is still authorized to return it to service. After I
> replace my main aircraft battery you can be danged sure I'm going to
> test it before returning the aircraft to service.

I think we all agree that you can clearly test the ELT (within the other
limits set forth as to when and how such testing should be done). I
would recommend it.

Unfortunately, my reading (and this is purely my reading, nothing I have
seen from the FAA) is that this testing does NOT replace the required
yearly test of the ELT. That, it would appear, must be done by an A&P
and or IA.

> You're making requirements that don't exist in the regulations. As
> for changing internal batteries in things not designed to be easily
> accessible, that is covered by the initial phrase in 43xA.c
> "Preventive maintenance is limited to the following work provided it
> does not involve complex assembly operations."

Lots of the Part 43.13 regs have that "complex assembly" phrase. I have
never seen a definitive statement on what that means. To my mother it
should probably include changing batteries in a flashlight. But I
replace surface mount components on multilayer PCB's all the time.
Pulling the cover of my ELT (six screws) and one molex connector hardly
constitutes "complex" in my book.

I would love for the definition of complex assembly to be "assemblies
involving tools and techniques not familiar to the operator" - but
somehow that seems entirely too reasonable. Has anyone ever seen an FAA
definition?

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Jim Weir]

You mean prior to the incident/accident?

{;-)

Jim



"James M. Knox" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->I would love for the definition of complex assembly to be "assemblies
->involving tools and techniques not familiar to the operator" - but
->somehow that seems entirely too reasonable. Has anyone ever seen an FAA
->definition?

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Scott Morgan]

"Kevin Chandler" wrote in message ...
One additional thing I thought of is.....

Why do ground schools teach all of the rules of when you can test the ELT
( first 5 minutes of each hour ) if you are not authorized to test it?

Anyone else find this curious?
Kevin


'cuz that's what the aim says: 6-2-5:

b. Testing.

1. ELT's should be tested in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions, preferably in a shielded or
screened room or specially designed test container to
prevent the broadcast of signals which could trigger a false
alert.

2. When this cannot be done, aircraft operational testing is
authorized as follows:

(a) Analog 121.5/243 MHz ELT's should only
be tested during the first 5 minutes after any
hour. If operational tests must be made outside
of this period, they should be coordinated with
the nearest FAA Control Tower or FSS. Tests
should be no longer than three audible sweeps.
If the antenna is removable, a dummy load
should be substituted during test procedures.

(b) Digital 406 MHz ELT's should only be tested
in accordance with the unit's manufacturer's
instructions.

(c) Airborne tests are not authorized.



you can do this test, but this doesn't satisfy the requirement of
91.207(d), which includes a test of the "crash sensor". the ai
must do this test (i think he drops it on the floor or something).
anyway, that's my take, fwiw.

g_a


I am the former commander of the Air Force Coordination Center (AFRCC) and I now work for ACR Electronics. As already implied, you can't test the 406 MHz ELT at the top of the hour like the 121.5 without getting a call from the AFRCC. When I left active duty, a small group of us got together and came up with a testing site that allows you test the 406 ELT like you did with the 121.5 called 406Link.com. We recently launched a new website called 406Test.com which satisfies the requirement for initial and annual testing of the ELT. Plus, it doesn’t require any expensive ELT testing equipment. If you want to make sure the 406 MHz ELT is installed correctly and the ELT is transmitting to the satellites use www.406Test.com service. You receive a confirmation SMS text message when you perform a self test of an installed 406 ELT, seconds after you perform the test. By using the service you know (1) that the beacon is transmitting with enough power, (2) the antenna is working and properly installed and (3) the satellites have picked up the signal. Also, you don’t need a screen room because you do it onboard the aircraft. If you have any questions please contact me.