ACK is an interesting product - here. Especially the price.
However I don't believe Adams sell to anybody but trade customers. I used to have an account with them but they cancelled it when they discovered I had just 1 aircraft 
No matter; I buy stuff from the USA. There are loads of outlets there.
In this case, the UK installer would buy from Adams, and get a reseller discount which contributes towards his profit, so you should pay less for the installation than if you free-issued the ELT to the installer.
I read some bad reports about the AK products and the after sales support. On the other hand the reports about ACK were very good, seems that their price is also very keen. See ACK website
http://www.ackavionics.com/products.htm
Ben
We have 2 people here looking for ELTs.
Fenland Flyer is looking for one for a Dutch registered plane.
Piper Archer is looking for one for a US registered plane.
The Dutch position will be according to what one can get approved for a Dutch reg plane (i.e. an EASA Minor or Major mod) and what is required in EU airspace.
The US position seems to be that no action is required to be legal according to the State of Registry (121.5 only is legal, if not sensible), the ELT installation would in any case be a Minor mod, and what is required in EU airspace remains applicable.
Does anyone know the EASA requirements for ELTs, in terms of
Most of the popular ELTs have an EASA approval, which would help greatly.
Thank you Peter for putting the question succinctly. One thing that I had not anticipated was that the Dutch require an ELT in all aircraft whereas the British CAA do not. And I thought EASA was meant to be so that we all operated under the same rules!
Does anyone know the EASA requirements for ELTs, in terms of required approvals airspace requirements (if any)
There are no EASA requirements as such because EASA OPS rules are not in force yet. When they do come into force (in about a year, with a further 2 year derogation period), the requirement will be for an ELT (for aeroplanes and helicopters), but with the possibility of substituting a PLB for aircraft of 6 seats or less.
Some states currently have requirements for ELTs, others not, or have exemptions like the UK. There is an issue as to whether the carriage of an ELT is an airspace requirement or an equipment requirement (which depends on the state of registry).
When I was reviewing the cost-benefit aspects of ELTs, I talked to the ARCC at Kinloss. That persuaded me of two things:
The ELT came about because of a crash that involved a US Congress critter. The technology was forced on the FAA by congress and isn't particularly good. The number of nuisance alerts outstripped actual alerts by 99 to 1. The 406 ELT addresses the nuisance alerts, but is not very effective in SAR. The main problem is that they don't activate reliably and when they do, the ELT is often not connected to the antenna after the crash or is under the airframe. A few years ago, we lost ex Senator Stevens in Alaska and the airplane had one of the 406 ELT's, but it separated from the airplane and the antenna cable was severed. It was not detected by SARSAT. There were survivors, but they were found the old fashion way. So, in my opinion, the 406 ELT is not much of an improvement. At best if you know in advance you are going to crash with a 406 ELT on board that is interfaced to a GPS, for example an over water flight where you have an engine failure, if you have at least a minute before ditching or off airport landing, SAR will know where to look. The 406 ELT uses a digital transmission and much higher power than the 121.5 ELT, but the activation takes about a minute before the first transmission. Transmission is not continuous once activated, it occurs briefly at approximately once a minute intervals.
@Bookworm: may I then assume that, once EASA OPS rules are effective, my 2-seat craft would be legally OK in all EASA member states with a PLB? I feel disenclined to install a "full" ELT for reasons of cost and weight. But ISTR that today an ELT is legally required in all planes flying over or into Austria
(EDIT: and got this confirmed elsewhere, with a reference to http://www.austrocontrol.at/jart/prj3/austrocontrol/data/dokumente/qnf66LTHLFAACE_002.pdf). Apparently the Austrians require automatic activation, though we have been told this is not yet working very reliably.
And a further question: it seems all 406 devices must be registered with one's national authority, can I still buy one abroad? Or must it pass through an "official" importer/agent?
Jan under EASA rules I believe you have to register your address, date of birth, ID number, A/c registration and your inside leg measurement. There may be others but it is still secret in EASA land!
Thank you, FF, but I was rather thinking of registering the device as a radio transmitter, just like a transponder and a NAV transceiver. This has (legally) nothing to do with aviation, and, AFAIK, remains national i.e. non-European matter.
I have registered buth UK- and US-purchased products (one fixed and one haldheld) with the Falmouth EPIRB registry in the UK, no problem. But see below.
IMHO, a handheld device is most worth having, because it covers the ditching scenario. And the GPS ones are good price nowadays. A GPS-connected fixed ELT is a lot of work for many people, with the front-to-rear wiring etc.
As I describe in my writeup, my Kannad ELT was purchased from the USA and despite very explicit instructions to the US vendor it turned out to have been coded for the USA, not the UK. The UK Falmouth registry would not accept the registration so I registered it using the US NOAA registry. They were happy with a non-US address, for a US registered aircraft. So what seems to matter is what country the device was coded for.
