What's new
Van's Air Force

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

ACK E-04 Replacement Batteries

N729LS

N729LS

Well Known Member
Patron
(Not sure where this post should go...)

Many of us upgraded our ACK E-01 ELTs to E-04 models for the 406 MHz. While the E-01 ELT used inexpensive Duracell D-size batteries, the E-04 uses a full pack replacement that costs $273 :eek: at AS&S.

After replacing mine recently, I decided to disassemble the old pack to see what was inside, even though there is a clear warning on the pack not to do so. :rolleyes: Here is what I found: The E-04 battery pack contains 4 easily extractable, button-top (unsoldered) SAFT LO26SX 3V 7750 mAh Lithium-Sulfur Dioxide D-size cells, in a robust foam carrier.

These SAFT (the brand name) batteries are readily found on-line in the range of $16-$25. If you believe that as operator of an experimental aircraft you are not bound by the warning, when your pack is due you could save >$150 by doing the swap yourself.

If so, you should be sure to get the fresh batteries from a high-traffic dealer, as they have a long but limited life. Also, be sure to take your used-up batteries back to said dealer for recycling, as they should not be disposed of in regular trash.

FWIW,
Andy Elliott
 
This question has a half life of about six months. It keeps coming back time and time again.

The answer is always the same and will not change. Use the manufacturer's approved battery pack and ONLY that battery pack.

While we all love being thrifty homebuilders, using that approach when it comes to an ELT will result in your aircraft no longer complying with the FARs.

Spend a bit of time with the search function and you'll find multiple threads of this nature, all coming to the same conclusion. There is no grey area in the FARs with respect to ELT carriage.
 
Let's add some detail not included in other threads.

Since the cost difference between cell replacement and pack replacement keeps getting larger, we should explore just what we lose if only the cells are replaced.

Is the void of the sealed pack filled with insert gas?

Are the cells individually tested and matched for capacity? How much degradation occurs in the process?

What is the manufacture date of the cells vs the pack? The cells are not marked and surely there is some delay.

How can the cells (or pack) be tested quickly to assess capacity?

Why does shipping of cells require hazmat handling, but the pack does not?

Surely, there are answers to these questions.
 
It seems strange that many are concerned about the TSO of the battery packs and that if you replace them your aircraft is now deemed not air worthy. But just about everybody doesn't pay any attention to the fact that if the antenna is not installed as per the TSO your aircraft is technically not air worthy also. Which could theoretically cause the insurance companies to deny you of any claims. Food for thought.
 
Here's a photo of the batteries for reference. I took this old pack apart the last time I had to buy a new one just to see what is inside.

i-rD3sXDG-M.jpg


I put a voltmeter on the batteries and they are still showing 3V. This pack expired in 2016.
 
Norman CYYJ said:
It seems strange that many are concerned about the TSO of the battery packs and that if you replace them your aircraft is now deemed not air worthy. But just about everybody doesn't pay any attention to the fact that if the antenna is not installed as per the TSO your aircraft is technically not air worthy also. Which could theoretically cause the insurance companies to deny you of any claims. Food for thought.
Click to expand...

The insurance wouldn't pay a claim because the antenna is mounted inside?
 
I apologize for not having checked the archives before posting. :cool: As many have said, "If it's RV-related, the answer is likely already here!"
Andy
 
RicoB said:
The insurance wouldn't pay a claim because the antenna is mounted inside?
Click to expand...

Insurance companies do their best not to pay claims and I am just saying that could be a reason. If the antenna is not mounted the way the TSO says it is to be then the aircraft is not really air worthy no matter who signed the plane off in the first place or there after.
 
I think the real solution to this problem, in this day and age of PLB's, cell phones, heck even the latest iPhones have satellite comms, is to push for legislation or rule changes to remove the requirement altogether, at a minimum for experimental, or non-commercial GA.

Paul Bertorelli made a video about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1YjGLwfYSQ
 
Norman CYYJ said:
Insurance companies do their best not to pay claims and I am just saying that could be a reason. If the antenna is not mounted the way the TSO says it is to be then the aircraft is not really air worthy no matter who signed the plane off in the first place or there after.
Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but in my experience this is just not true. Maybe someone from one of the carriers can chime in here, but to me this is just needlessly badmouthing them.

Or maybe you have a sh*tty insurance company. I've had two aircraft claims, neither was my fault, and both times they ponied up no questions asked. I've had several auto claims (again, none my fault), and everything was handled smoothly, promptly and efficiently.

At least for auto and aircraft claims, I've had nothing but good experiences. Now, medical...that's a different issue :).
 
Agreed - I had two claims (on a 172) and the insurance company couldn't have been easier to deal with. Maybe you just have the wrong insurance company.
 
I am just saying that if they want to get picky and the plane is flying in a non air worthy condition they could refuse to pony up. So far I have never had to make a claim.
 
Norman CYYJ said:
I am just saying that if they want to get picky and the plane is flying in a non air worthy condition they could refuse to pony up. So far I have never had to make a claim.
Click to expand...

IOW, you have no experience on which to base your negative comments about the business.

To add to my earlier comment, I was on the BOD for a flying club that had 6-8 aircraft on leaseback and 1 owned, for several years. Yes, we had claims, but never any issues with the insurance company. To quote our agent when working out the payment for repairs, "Hey, that's what insurance is for." Never a bad experience.
 
You are right I have no experience in the aviation insurance. But from past experience with other types of insurance denials and from people that work in the insurance industry claims departments they try their best not to pay out if they can find a reason not to. That is what I was basing my comments on.
 
bruceh said:
Here's a photo of the batteries for reference. I took this old pack apart the last time I had to buy a new one just to see what is inside.

I put a voltmeter on the batteries and they are still showing 3V. This pack expired in 2016.
Click to expand...

Li So primary batteries will maintain voltage but loose capacity over time.
 
anybody thinking of doing this had better have a repairmans certificate for the aircraft, because if you do it and bring the airplane to me for a CI its going out the door without a sign-off. thats a risk to my certificate that im not willing to take.

bob burns
 
n82rb said:
anybody thinking of doing this had better have a repairmans certificate for the aircraft, because if you do it and bring the airplane to me for a CI its going out the door without a sign-off. thats a risk to my certificate that im not willing to take.

bob burns
Click to expand...

Agreed. 91.207 requires an approved ELT. In this case the approval of the ELT is TSO-C126a. The use of unapproved parts in an approved device negates the approval, therefore such a modified ELT can’t be used to meet 91.207.
 
RVDan said:
Agreed. 91.207 requires an approved ELT. In this case the approval of the ELT is TSO-C126a. The use of unapproved parts in an approved device negates the approval, therefore such a modified ELT can’t be used to meet 91.207.
Click to expand...

The whole point of my post was if you have not installed the ELT as per the TSO requirement, the ELT no longer meets 92.207 so it won't matter if you replace the batteries with non approved ones. It isn't a TSO'd ELT any way and is not considered air worthy as a legal ELT.
 
RVDan said:
Li So primary batteries will maintain voltage but loose capacity over time.
Click to expand...

I have been searching for some method of measuring and have not found any. The TDS for the battery has some charts but nothing that would indicate a short load test of any sort. I tried on my 2016 and 2022 expired with a .5 amp load test, but both groups tested the same. Both under load and open voltage. No real difference. The new pack had the same voltage as the old packs.

Maybe it takes a digital scope and variable frequency load vs time. ?????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top