Glider crash at Moriarty

[Tim Taylor]

Very sad news. Any details on what happened?

By Journal North Staff
UPDATED: Friday, June 5, 2015 at 5:30 pm
PUBLISHED: Friday, June 5, 2015 at 4:30 pm
SANTA FE -- New Mexico State police have identified the deceased pilot of a downed glider aircraft found Thursday afternoon southeast of Santa Fe in the Lamy area as 72-year-old Joseph Shepard of Illinois.

According to police, the glider was reported missing Wednesday, after it left the Moriarty Municipal Airport. Satellite and cell phone data, along with a sighting by a pilot who'd been following the glider, led authorities to the Lamy area.

Starting early Thursday, crews from New Mexico Search and Rescue, the Civil Air Patrol's New Mexico Wing, the Army National Guard and the U.S. Border Patrol made searches on the ground and from the air. At about 3 p.m., wreckage was found and confirmed as the missing glider.

The Federal Aviation Administration will investigate the cause of the crash.

[Robert M]

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 7:53:13 PM UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:
> Very sad news. Any details on what happened?
>

Speculation only so far. Perhaps an autopsy will reveal if medical issues were a factor.

What I find most alarming is that in this time of so many electronic gadgets available why it took about 24 hours to locate the crash site. Granted it was in a very remote area but for electronic signals that should not matter.

Spot up dates set at even 5 min. can have a crashed glider quite some distance away from the last update.
At low altitudes in remote areas radar coverage is likely non existent.
A medical emergency can preclude activating a PLB.
What solution remains?

I have been told an ELT is not the answer because in a crash the antenna can be torn off. Maybe, maybe not. The violence of the crash may render the ELT unit inoperative or it may not. Is the chance 50/50? I'll take that over zero percent. At least this is a device that is designed to operate as the result of a crash. What else is there?

The new 406Mhz units may be too difficult to mount in many gliders, that is a big drawback and they are not low cost. I believe rescue organizations can still monitor the older 121.5 Mhz ELTs.

Is there an answer to my question of what device would have allowed this glider to be located in a few hours instead of about 24 hrs?

Robert Mudd
Moriarty, New Mexico

[Bill T]

A SPOT transmits ever 5-10 minutes depending on how the owner sets it up. Even after a crash the spot should keep broadcasting its position. So yes, if moving it can be some distance from its last report, but then the next number of reports will be where the glider is. But someone needs to monitor the spot track or the pilot needs to be registered on the ssa web for spot tracking. Even then, no one may look at it until he is over due coming back. Spot and Delorme can have faster refresh rates.
BillT

[disc...@gmail.com]

Sad News, hat a nice guy.
W

[Steve Leonard]

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 12:05:08 AM UTC-5, Bill T wrote:
> A SPOT transmits ever 5-10 minutes depending on how the owner sets it up. Even after a crash the spot should keep broadcasting its position. So yes, if moving it can be some distance from its last report, but then the next number of reports will be where the glider is. But someone needs to monitor the spot track or the pilot needs to be registered on the ssa web for spot tracking. Even then, no one may look at it until he is over due coming back. Spot and Delorme can have faster refresh rates.
> BillT

A few observations. In a situation like this,SPOT will only broadcast its position if:
1. It is on and in track mode.
2. It is intact after the accident.
3. It can see the sky properly.

Joe did have his SPOT registered on the SSA page. The wonderful Press can't spell his name correctly, so if you looked on the registered trackers with his name spelled that way, you won't find him. And from what has been reported, the accident was within just a few miles of the last SPOT report, even though the previous report was 50 minutes prior to the last report (that whole, seeing the sky thing). There was not a series of reports from the same place, indicating the SPOT did not survive the crash.

Joe was a wonderful man and will be missed. He was a friend of my family for over 40 years. His wife, Jane, passed away a few years ago. One of my all-time favorite Jane and Joe stories was related by Jane of a typical landout. When she arrived with the trailer, Joe said "Oh, thank you again for coming to get me. I am amazed at how quickly you got here...." Then, as soon as the plane was in the trailer and they were in the car, Joe said, "Where is the map? There has to be a faster way back to the airport..."

Godspeed to you, Joe!

Steve Leonard

[Renny]

Robert expressed the frustration that many of us felt at Moriarty that we could not find Joe for approx 24 hours. In addition to SPOT, InReach, Flarm files from other gliders, radar tracks (if transponder equipped), cell phone data perhaps, is there any other device or technology out there that we are missing to help find a missing pilot & glider?

PLBs and hand-held radios can work if the pilot is conscious and can hit the "button," but if the pilot is incapacitated that obviously will not work. Steve mentioned that the SPOT (or a Delorme InReach) needs to be operational, in tracking mode and in a location to transmit to a satellite(s), for it to work. Unfortunately, if it is under debris, for example, it will not help and we would have to rely on the last SPOT or InReach transmission (which is what we did in this case).

So, with its limitations, is an ELT the only other possible answer? At Moriarty we hope this never happens again, but if it does, we want to make sure that we are using the proper methodology and every bit of modern technology to help find a missing pilot and glider quickly.

All ideas and suggestions are welcome...

Thanks,
Renny Rozzoni
Moriarty, NM

[Auxvache]

Heartbreaking news. Joe and Jane (and Joe and Shirley Emmons) were very kind in welcoming me into Silvercreek Soaring during a year I spent in St. Louis, and I had enjoyed seeing Joe again in recent years at Fairfield, Nephi, and Seminole. My thoughts are with him, his family, and all of his soaring brethren. Especially you folks at Moriarty right now.
Erik

[charli...@gmail.com]

APRS is a very viable tracking option. It does require you to have at least an Amateur Radio Technician class license. A few hours of on-line study and a fairly simple written exam are all that's required.

You can use anything from a simple transmitter that ties to a GPS to a full hand held that would also allow voice communications. Most of the country is covered by APRS repeaters that would provide coverage on the ground. 1-2,000 AGL and you should be covered in almost all areas. Depending on the model, you can send and receive email and even make calls through a phone patch. Also, the signal is not blocked as easily as satellite.

[Bill D]

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 9:10:08 AM UTC-6, charli...@gmail.com wrote:
> APRS is a very viable tracking option. It does require you to have at least an Amateur Radio Technician class license. A few hours of on-line study and a fairly simple written exam are all that's required.
>
> You can use anything from a simple transmitter that ties to a GPS to a full hand held that would also allow voice communications. Most of the country is covered by APRS repeaters that would provide coverage on the ground. 1-2,000 AGL and you should be covered in almost all areas. Depending on the model, you can send and receive email and even make calls through a phone patch. Also, the signal is not blocked as easily as satellite.

APRS - Cheap, reliable, effective. Any data one wishes can be transmitted at any interval one wishes. Data is fed to the internet for anyone to see.

[Steve Koerner]

When I've looked at other pilot's Spot tracking output, the majority are quite unreliable in the sense that a significant portion of the transmitted track points are not being received by the Globalstar satellite network. I think this largely stems from a failure to appreciate what a 'clear view of the sky' really means. It is not the overhead sky that matters. IT IS THE 360 DEGREE VIEW OF THE HORIZON THAT IS IMPORTANT.

Catching a Globalstar satellite is a statistical matter. There are only so many satellites whizzing around in low earth orbit. The satellite that you need at any given time will almost always be very near to the horizon; having a satellite anywheres near overhead is a very rare occurrence. The significant consideration is that a mounting strategy that gives only a partial view of the horizon, will result in a statistically similar proportion of tracking messages that don't get out. To have a view of the 360 degree horizon, the unit needs to be mounted flat and high.

Common practice these days is to mount Spot on ones parachute. There is a certain logic to doing that. But there is also a serious flaw in that parachute mounting is frequently not giving reliable tracking mode performance. The problem relates to signal lose through the human body and surrounding airplane parts and the difficulty in keeping the unit flat to the horizon.

Consider the searcher's paradox when a downed pilot uses a Spot which is not transmitting reliably. Searchers will sensibly examine ones past Spot unit performance. If they see that it is not uncommon that your Spot unit misses two or more 5 minute transmits in a row, then the search area becomes something like a 15 minute assumption; that would be like a 25 mile search radius which equals 1900 sq miles. You may never be found. Spot owners should consider this trade-off carefully. My own opinion is that it is much better to have reliable tracking operation than it is to have the unit attached to my parachute.

The other significant point to be made is that Spot is obsolete technology now. InReach is much superior. Tracking interval can be easily set down to whatever you'd like (and willing to pay for); available settings include 5 minute, 2 minute, 1 minute and 30 seconds. InReach communication is fundamentally more reliable because it is a two-way protocol. InReach reports altitude with GPS position which in a search situation is likely to be invaluable. InReach provides two-way text messaging so you can (hopefully) communicate with potential rescuers regarding your situation.

Of note is the fact that Globalstar has said that they will offer a two-way Spot unit pretty soon too. Hopefully that will result in pricing competition with DeLorme.

My condolences to Joe's friends and family. All of us feel great pain when a pilot is lost. It's a bit incongruous to discuss finer points of technology in the face of such a lose. Yet we do need to sort out the problems when we loose one of our own.

[Renny]

Steve,
Thanks for the excellent comments. I have been thinking about InReach and it sounds like it is definitely the better choice. We all know that it is more expensive and that one must weigh the pros and cons of any technology, but it is "there," readily available, and it is a real option for pilots to consider.

Regarding Joe I've known him for perhaps 20 years as he flew at Moriarty many times. He was a very good man and he is gone now. We cannot help him now, but perhaps we can better help the next pilot who goes down on a flight out of Moriarty....

Thanks again - Renny

[Renny]

Thanks for the comments about APRS. It is not something we use out here in NM, but something we probably need to take a look at...

Thanks again,
Renny

[charli...@gmail.com]

Took a fast look and there are 35 APRS digipeaters in NM. Think of them as cell towers with a very long range. They are networked together and connected to the Internet.

I'd suggest Googling "Amateur Radio Clubs" in your area. I'm sure you wouldn't have much trouble finding someone to give you a demonstration.

[Mike the Strike]

The aircraft was found very close to locations indicated by SPOT and FLARM, even though there was only one SPOT fix in the general area. The wreckage was difficult to find because it consists of very small pieces and is on a slope. The initial search also only started in late afternoon a few hours before sunset. We do not know if more location data would have helped.

Mike

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 5:06:26 PM UTC-6, Mike the Strike wrote:
> The aircraft was found very close to locations indicated by SPOT and FLARM, even though there was only one SPOT fix in the general area. The wreckage was difficult to find because it consists of very small pieces and is on a slope. The initial search also only started in late afternoon a few hours before sunset. We do not know if more location data would have helped.
>
> Mike

Indeed. Local search efforts did not find the wreckage despite hours over the area. This CAP article will show why. http://www.capvolunteernow.com/news/?nm_wing_aircrew_spots_glider_wreckage&show=news&newsID=20326
A few years ago, local pilots did find the wreckage of Stu Kissel's glider, but had they missed it, a little more than a day later it would have been hidden by winter snows for months.

Condolences to Joe's children and grandchildren.

Frank Whiteley
SSA Director, Region 9

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 8:40:52 PM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:

> Indeed. Local search efforts did not find the wreckage despite hours over the area. This CAP article will show why. http://www.capvolunteernow.com/news/?nm_wing_aircrew_spots_glider_wreckage&show=news&newsID=20326

Now that opens a whole new can of worms. Distributed wreckage as described in that article is strongly indicative of in-flight breakup.

[Mike the Strike]

I would take the CAP report with a pinch of salt since there was no cellphone data to analyze and the location of the site was identified by FLARM and not by radar.

The disposition of the wreckage has not been confirmed, but photos I have seen appear to show most in one location.

Most of the factual data I have seem to conflict with the CAP report!

Mike

[howard banks]

To reinforce what Mike the Strike says, the CAP report says that some of the wreckage is "miles" away from the main site. Mmmm. The CAP claims total responsibility for finding anything too. Double mmmm.
Our hope is that the loss of Joe will not be in vain and that some system to use existing electronics to locate downed gliders will be devised. Please let us concentrate on that and not speculate on what happened.

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 7:53:13 PM UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:

[Papa3]

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 12:39:06 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> When I've looked at other pilot's Spot tracking output, the majority are quite unreliable in the sense that a significant portion of the transmitted track points are not being received by the Globalstar satellite network. I think this largely stems from a failure to appreciate what a 'clear view of the sky' really means. It is not the overhead sky that matters. IT IS THE 360 DEGREE VIEW OF THE HORIZON THAT IS IMPORTANT.

I recently purchased a Delorme Inreach. I was in a hurry to leave for a contest, so I just signed up for one of the mass-market plans (there are special, aviation plans that offer more frequent fixes). I've been very impressed.

- The device itself has rechargable battery that seems to offer many hours worth of transmitting.
- It's easy to tell that it's working.
- It's worked very reliably on every flight I've made.
- Not only that, it's worked quite reliably tucked into my electronics box in the back of the car on the ride home (have forgotten to shut it off several times).

Looking at some of the log files from Mifflin for example, I'm confident that in the worst case, folks would know within a reasonable area where to start looking. Hopefully my old ELT would be working or better yet I'd be in a position to activate the PLB attached to my parachute, but the Delorme seems to be much more reliable than the Spots that my friends use.

As for Joe, I can't say enough how much I enjoyed meeting him a few years ago. I was the CD at Fairfield and we had a pretty significant ridge task. As is sometimes the case for people new to the ridge country, Joe ended up on the wrong ridge late in the day and landed out... way out. When he got back well after dark, instead of being annoyed or frustrated, he was as happy and excited as could be. He was a very nice man, and I'm greatly saddened by this news.

P3

[Brian]

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 10:39:06 AM UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:

<snip>
>
> Common practice these days is to mount Spot on ones parachute. <snip>

>
> Consider the searcher's paradox when a downed pilot uses a Spot which is not transmitting reliably. Searchers will sensibly examine ones past Spot unit performance. If they see that it is not uncommon that your Spot unit misses two or more 5 minute transmits in a row, then the search area becomes something like a 15 minute assumption; that would be like a 25 mile search radius which equals 1900 sq miles. You may never be found. Spot owners should consider this trade-off carefully. My own opinion is that it is much better to have reliable tracking operation than it is to have the unit attached to my parachute.
>

><snip>

Thanks Steve,

I tend to prefer to mount my spot on my instrument panel rather than my parachute, in part because I still use the old larger SPOT 1 which is a bit bulky on the parachute, but also because I like the more reliable tracking when it is mounted on the panel.

Also one needs to be careful when evaluating the reliability of the new spots as they will back fill the past few points if it misses them. Meaning that it may appear to be updating more reliably(often) than it is.

Brian

[George Haeh]

There are a number of technologies, each
with advantages and weaknesses. ELTs
seem to issue more false alarms than
real ones. In a crash, the G switch or the
antenna connection can fail or the
airframe masks the antenna.

With a PLB, you have to have the ability to
erect the antenna and push 1 or 2
buttons. Hopefully the PLB is in reach
when you need to use it.

Flarm has assisted in a number of cases
to locate missing pilots including the odd
live one.

SeeYou Mobile and XCSoar offer
tracking. Bluetooth to your phone allows
it to send texts with your position as long
as there's a cell tower in view. So far it's
worked in my car, but not yet in my glider.

At 21:08 08 June 2015, Papa3 wrote:
>On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 12:39:06
PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
>> When I've looked at other pilot's Spot
tracking output, the majority are

>=

>quite unreliable in the sense that a
significant portion of the

>transmitted=

> track points are not being received by
the Globalstar satellite network.

>=

>I think this largely stems from a failure
to appreciate what a 'clear view

>=

>of the sky' really means. It is not the
overhead sky that matters. IT IS

>=

>THE 360 DEGREE VIEW OF THE

HORIZON THAT IS IMPORTANT. =20

>
>I recently purchased a Delorme Inreach.
I was in a hurry to leave for a

>co=

>ntest, so I just signed up for one of the
mass-market plans (there are

>spec=

>ial, aviation plans that offer more
frequent fixes). I've been very

>impres=
>sed. =20

>
>- The device itself has rechargable
battery that seems to offer many

>hours=
> worth of transmitting.=20
>- It's easy to tell that it's working.=20

>- It's worked very reliably on every flight

I've made.=20

>- Not only that, it's worked quite reliably
tucked into my electronics

>box=

> in the back of the car on the ride home
(have forgotten to shut it off

>sev=
>eral times).=20

>
>Looking at some of the log files from
Mifflin for example, I'm confident

>th=

>at in the worst case, folks would know
within a reasonable area where to

>st=

>art looking. Hopefully my old ELT would
be working or better yet I'd be

>i=

>n a position to activate the PLB attached
to my parachute, but the Delorme

>=

>seems to be much more reliable than

the Spots that my friends use. =20

>
>As for Joe, I can't say enough how much
I enjoyed meeting him a few years

>a=

>go. I was the CD at Fairfield and we had
a pretty significant ridge

>task.=

> As is sometimes the case for people
new to the ridge country, Joe ended

>u=

>p on the wrong ridge late in the day and
landed out... way out. When he

>go=

>t back well after dark, instead of being
annoyed or frustrated, he was as

>h=

>appy and excited as could be. He was
a very nice man, and I'm greatly

>sa=
>ddened by this news.=20
>
>P3
>

[cliff...@gmail.com]

I am saddened for our loss of Joe, I met him a few years ago as a scorer at a SCOH contest, very nice gentleman.

As for spot vs Delorme or other means of location ID, I have an original Spot and it has great reception on my parachute left shoulder. Cost is my main reason for not changing.

[David Kinsell]

I still use a Spot Connect on the parachute strap, it seems reliable in
transmitting points. If there's an option for faster than 10 minute
resolution, I haven't found it. Unfortunately, to turn on tracking, you
need data on your phone, which occasionally is quite inconvenient.
Stupid design. Probably time to upgrade to something better.

[David Kinsell]

In the Stu Kissel crash, CAP put out a nice press release taking credit
for the find. Let's just say it was found in spite of CAP, certainly not
because of them.

[Ramy]

There are multiple advantages on strapping the spot to your parachute rather than attaching to the glider. Not only you will have it with you if you bail out, but also in a crash it will be easier to activate the sos button when it is near you. I did some test early on and found no disadvantage when strapping to my parachute. In a reclined position it is 45 degrees which is good enough. I urge everyone to strap spot/InReach to their parachute.
I think this unfortunate accident proves how well our electronics improve the chances to be found quickly. Without it, it could have taken weeks or months to find Joe, not 24 hours. I don't know if it was flarm or spot which pinpoint his location, but I think it did great job. Of course there is room to improvement, such as InReach , but we are already ahead of the airline industry which still can't find MH370 after more than a year.
My condolences to Joe's family and friends.

Ramy

[Dan Marotta]

Yes, condolences to all who knew Joe.  Though I did not know him, I feel the loss whenever one of our own passes on.

I carry my Spot on the chest strap of my parachute out of the inability to attach it to one of the shoulder straps due to the short length of the mounting clip.  My PLB attaches nicely to the right shoulder.  If I should some day need to depart my aircraft, and am successful, I'll have good resources to be located.  Those plus my cell attached to my belt.  At least one of them should remain with me all the way to the ground.

--
Dan Marotta

[Papa3]

A jump instructor friend of mine cautioned that having too many things attached to the top end of the parachute webbing is a recipe for hiding the one thing that matters when you're under the gun, and that's the ripcord. I have my PLB attached to the thigh straps. My phone is in my pants pocket (which is synched shut by the thigh straps). Right now I have my Delorme Inreach clipped into the pocket of my flying shirt (Columbia fishing shirt).

Interested if anyone agrees or disagrees with the jump instructor's comment.

P3

[JS]

It is always sad to hear of such a loss.
But in my opinion, we yet have little idea about nor do we achieve much speculating on the cause of Joe's accident.
Compared to the loss of Steve Fossett and many others, the search for Joe took very little time. Steve was using an ELT, Joe had modern tracking devices. We wish they were all still with us, but at least for Joe it was no longer a mystery for friends and family.
From personal experience with SPOT1, SPOT2, InReach and APRS, InReach SE works well on the parachute harness. SPOT works but just doesn't compare. APRS works well in the baggage compartment, even using a horizontal "stubby" antenna surrounded by a mostly carbon fuselage. No unit is absolutely perfect, but nor is cellular data, FLARM, many pilot's vision/scan, etc.
Any parachute rigger can construct a SPOT or InReach pouch and a hard point on the riser cover of a parachute harness that will not interfere with finding the ripcord or parachute deployment. The cost for those is only about $50, so no need to improvise/compromise.
In the big picture, InReach is not expensive. As mentioned earlier, the amateur radio license is easy to get too.
Jim

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 7:52:36 AM UTC-4, David Kinsell wrote:
> In the Stu Kissel crash, CAP put out a nice press release taking credit
> for the find. Let's just say it was found in spite of CAP, certainly not
> because of them.

Well since we all to some extent depend on CAP for SAR, is there any chance that CAP training/procedures might be improved based on this incident? Does anyone at CAP recognize the press release as inappropriately self-congratulatory, or are they clueless?

Is the problem that CAP lacks knowledge of glider flight practices and how to use things like Powerflarm data to find downed aircraft? That seems fixable.

[Tango Eight]

I think your jump instructor friend has a good point!

I wear my spot 2 on the chest strap of my parachute, where it isn't in the way of anything and it doesn't drop fixes any more than it would on the glare shield. This seems like the best overall compromise. Phone goes in a pocket with some sort of positive closure (zipper, etc.).

Unfortunately, the weakest component of our in flight tracking capability seems to be the SSA/glide port aero tracker....

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

My experience( limited) is that you can't teach the CAP much of anything. They know it all.
That said, it isn't surprising that they self promote which can help funding and enthusiasm for what is a volunteer group. I'm glad they are willing to try to help us.
UH

[Steve Leonard]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 12:34:00 PM UTC-5, uncl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> My experience( limited) is that you can't teach the CAP much of anything. They know it all.
> That said, it isn't surprising that they self promote which can help funding and enthusiasm for what is a volunteer group. I'm glad they are willing to try to help us.
> UH

My understanding is that there will be a face to face meeting with several of the local authorities and organizations involved to discuss the events as they played out. Everything from inappropriate release of information to the public, to cutting out those involved with initiating the search. Knowing the person that will be involved from "our" end, it will be handled very politely and very firmly. So, yes. An attempt will be made to improve CAP and others procedures.

Steve Leonard

[Dan Daly]

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 7:06:26 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
> The aircraft was found very close to locations indicated by SPOT and FLARM, even though there was only one SPOT fix in the general area. The wreckage was difficult to find because it consists of very small pieces and is on a slope. The initial search also only started in late afternoon a few hours before sunset. We do not know if more location data would have helped.
>
> Mike

I'm interested in the comment about FLARM; did the search use the procedure described in "FLARM® as an additional tool when searching a missing aircraft" on the flarm.com website? If yes, I'm curious how close their last known position (LKP) was to the crash site. If no, I wonder if the .igc files of those flying could be sent as described, and the LKP determined.

There used to be a direct link on flarm.com to the document, now it's buried a bit (found it at http://flarm.com/french-gliding-federation-bases-sar-strategy-on-flarm/ ).

There is a lot of data in the flarm messages that might locate a downed friend more quickly, if used...

[Renny]

Dan,
Regarding FLARM data, files were sent to FLARM for review, but the wreckage was found before the data was analyzed and the effort was then suspended. Efforts to use a portable PowerFlarm to help pinpoint the glider were unsuccessful due to the fact the glider's FLARM and transponder were, we believe, without power. We will have to wait until the investigation is complete to verify the power issue, but the only hits we received on the PowerFlarm, as we flew near the suspected crash area were (as best we can tell), transponders from the search aircraft...
Thx - Renny

[t...@serkowski.com]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 10:34:00 AM UTC-7, uncl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> My experience( limited) is that you can't teach the CAP much of anything. They know it all.
> That said, it isn't surprising that they self promote which can help funding and enthusiasm for what is a volunteer group. I'm glad they are willing to try to help us.

We glider pilots had a good idea of where to search, but local CAP pilots were being directed to search pretty much the whole state, and our please for a more concentrated search failed. Late in the afternoon they finally let us join the search, but still not where we wanted to be. They finally called it a day and headed home, so we made a beeline for our assumed crash site and saw the wreckage on the first pass. Took several more passes to confirm the initial glimpse.

They really need learn to involve "subject matter experts". Soaring has very little in common with airplanes except for the takeoff and landing.

5Z

[mark...@aol.com]

My experience with CAP in SAR mode has been uniformly negative, from the Appalachians to the Rockies to the Sierra Nevada.


CAP threatened my Dad and a family friend with arrest after Dad located a missing aircraft and orbited in his Super Cub while coordinating with a friend in a helo to land near the site to check for survivors. According to CAP, they were "interfering with a SAR operation". State Troopers who were summoned to the scene declined to arrest and had a pretty "vigorous" discussion with the CAP commander. As discussed above, CAP took credit for the find and and totally refused advice from pilots with several hundred years of collective experience in finding wrecks in that area.

Rumor has it that CAP has wrecked more airplanes than they have found crashes. I tend to believe it. They are pretty much the laughingstock of aviation in the southern Appalachians.

[mark....@lenoxengineering.com]

Robert's point is very good. No matter what the naysayers say, having a chance is better than having no chance, which is exactly what you have if you don't have a good 406MHz ELT onboard. Relying on SPOT, a low transmit power device, to get through when you need it most just doesn't seem smart to me.

The Kannad Integra has a built-in GPS, GPS Antenna, and 406 MHz antenna. If the external antenna is damaged in he accident, it can sense the damage and switch to the internal. A remote control on the control panel can be immediately engaged by the pilot before the aircraft impacts. The lithium battery lasts for five years between replacement. I have one in each of my aircraft. The cost, weight, and install hassle is minimal, so I really don't understand why every glider doesn't have one.

A SPOT is a good idea in addition to an ELT, but shouldn't be considered a primary emergency device in my opinion. SPOT is for realtime tracking when some inaccuracy is acceptable, no more, no less.

The expectation that S&R can find you immediately without accurate positioning information is misplaced. This is a hard job and I intend to make it as easy as I can for them should the need arise.


Mark Lenox

[danlj]

Let's cut through the fog and quit kvetching about irrelevancies such as CAP arrogance.
406-mHz ELT or PLB: location accuracy 100 meters
ELT cost: $650+
PLB cost: $250+
(If you can afford to fly, you can afford one)
121.5 mHz ELT: location accuracy 12000 meters
ELT cost: your life

If you don't put a GPS-equipped 406 mHz ELT in your aircraft or PLB on your straps, don't complain about the CAP, your spouse, or God when you're lying broken and cold and in pain in the wreckage. Blame yourself.

References:
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/406vs121.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html

[Ramy]

+ Spot/Inreach
Certain places wouldnt tow you without one, and I agree.
It is the only device which automatically send you location every 10 minutes.
ELT is the most accurate *if* it gets activated. PLB only useful if you can activate it yourself.
Bottom line, if you can afford only one device, or dont want to deal with installation, get a spot/InReach. If you can afford more, get all the devices you can afford. The more the better.

Ramy

[marc....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 1:18:00 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> + Spot/Inreach
> Certain places wouldnt tow you without one, and I agree.

Which places won't tow you without one?

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 1:56:44 PM UTC-4, danlj wrote:
>
> 406-mHz ELT or PLB: location accuracy 100 meters
> ELT cost: $650+

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannad406compact.php $943

[Ramy]

I am pretty sure Fossett had an ELT. Imagine how quickly he could have been found with a Spot.
And I am even more sure that MH370 had an ELT...
ELT/PLBs are good addition to Spot/Inreach. But it will be totally silly to invest in those instead of Spot/Inreach.

Ramy

[son_of_flubber]

A full compliment of ELT, PLB, InReach etc.. would keep the SAR costs down (aside from the fact of finding you sooner). Has anyone ever gotten a bill for a soaring related SAR?

http://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/news/rescue-of-the-week/paying-for-wilderness-search-and-rescue-private-cost-or-public-obligation/

[David Kinsell]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:32:16 -0700, mark.lenox wrote:

> Robert's point is very good. No matter what the naysayers say, having
> a chance is better than having no chance, which is exactly what you have
> if you don't have a good 406MHz ELT onboard.

I fly with a conventional transponder, a 406 MHz PLB with GPS, and SPOT.
And according to you, that gives me "no chance". I don't suppose you're
prone to wild exaggeration, are you?

The SPOT in this case unfortunately didn't perform well, but still
narrowed the search down to a few square miles. Mine works a lot better
than that. In a survivable crash, the odds are quite good that a SPOT or
InReach will survive also.

>
> A SPOT is a good idea in addition to an ELT, but shouldn't be considered
> a primary emergency device in my opinion. SPOT is for realtime
> tracking when some inaccuracy is acceptable, no more, no less.

If I bail out, the SPOT is going to give extremely precise info on where
I land. Your ELT, if it survives and activates, is going to end up with
the wreckage. Which one do you think is going to give more accurate
information for recovering me?

>
> The expectation that S&R can find you immediately without accurate
> positioning information is misplaced.

In any case, someone getting to you quickly isn't going to happen, at
least where I fly. It is silly, in this day and age, not to have a GPS
sending data up to satellites. There's different ways of doing that,
they have their strengths and weaknesses. ELT's are fine, but they're
not the only solution as you seem to so strongly feel. Nothing is
perfect, and ELT's have certainly had their share of failures.

SPOT Gen3 can give 2 1/2 minute tracking, InReach can give 2 minutes if
you pay for it. Having a trail like that recorded before the crash can
be invaluable if the worst happens. In a mild crash, I'd certainly
rather have the messaging capability to direct the crew, rather than the
all or nothing signal from an ELT.

-Dave

[Bill T]

Some back country areas are published that cost of SAR are at the individuals expense.
Especially during the "off season" such as the middle of winter.
Some "back country permits" are not issued without a SAR plan published and in place.
That fits more the hiker and not the flyer, unless you are flying into very remote areas, off season.

BillT

[2G]

ELT measured effectiveness is less than 50% (they say 40-60%, why not be more specific?). If you are injured it may be higher because the damage is less, but not necessarily. 50% amounts "better than nothing", but not much more.

I tried inReach, only to switch back to Spot2 after spending over an hour on the phone with DeLorme to suspend service. They wanted me to do it thru the inreach so I wouldn't inadvertently cancel service, even tho I was on the phone with them!

Yeah, you could carry a Spot, Inreach, PLB, ELT, sat phone, cell phone, HAM radio, flare gun, etc., ALL ON YOUR PARACHUTE! After awhile one must reflect on how much protection you can stand. If that isn't enough maybe you should stay on the ground and go back to watching Gilligan's Island on TV.

Tom

[Bill D]

The whole ELT concept seemed wrong from the beginning. Only someone who had never seen a crash site (Congress) would expect a wrecked aircraft to transmit it's location.

Far better for the undamaged aircraft to send location data just before it crashes using a tracker.

[Jim White]

>The whole ELT concept seemed wrong from the beginning. Only someone who

>ha=

>d never seen a crash site (Congress) would expect a wrecked aircraft to

>tra=

>nsmit it's location.
>
>Far better for the undamaged aircraft to send location data just before
it

>=
>crashes using a tracker.


Has anyone installed a flarm tracker in the us yet? Works pretty well in
Europe

http://live.glidernet.org

[David Kinsell]

On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:40:58 +0000, David Kinsell wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:37:26 -0700, cliffhilty wrote:
>
>> I am saddened for our loss of Joe, I met him a few years ago as a
>> scorer at a SCOH contest, very nice gentleman.
>>
>> As for spot vs Delorme or other means of location ID, I have an
>> original Spot and it has great reception on my parachute left shoulder.
>> Cost is my main reason for not changing.
>
> I still use a Spot Connect on the parachute strap, it seems reliable in
> transmitting points. If there's an option for faster than 10 minute
> resolution, I haven't found it. Unfortunately, to turn on tracking, you
> need data on your phone, which occasionally is quite inconvenient.
> Stupid design. Probably time to upgrade to something better.

To update this, their phone app has now been changed so that internet is
no longer required on the phone to use the app. After changing info like
contact lists on the website, you're prompted to sync that info with the
phone. But in the field, no internet is now needed.

The faster than 10 minute tracking is available on their newest (Gen3)
hardware, but not older units. However, hitting the SOS button does give
5 minute updates. I hope it initiates a transmission as soon as the
button is pressed.

-Dave

[fred....@gmail.com]

Condolences to Joe's family. It is always grim to hear these reports.

As a Civil Air Patrol pilot, I think I'll weigh in on the search and rescue question. I have been the pilot on two real searches by the Douglas County squadron and participated (not as a CAP pilot, but in a private capacity) in the Steve Fossett search, and I have flown some half dozen S&R exercises as a CAP Mission Pilot. Perhaps my experience will be instructive to fellow glider pilots.

First, CAP is a volunteer organization. When we are called by the local sheriff we try to respond, but it is not always possible to field a team. And we do work as a team. We do not send an individual pilot out to do a search. He is accompanied by two trained observers who can help him operate the GPS so he flies an efficient search (covers the ground completely without overlaps or gaps) and have eyes on the ground as he flies the airplane. And the three people in the plane are not the only members of the team -- there is also an Incident Commander and radio operator, at a bare minimum, to keep track of the search team's flight to help them get a ground team in place quickly if they need one and so on. So it is not a small effort, but it is well planned and staffed, not just some pilot droning over uncharted desert without a clue of where he should be looking.

Secondly, we have well designed search patterns that are programmed into our GPS so we can cover ground thoroughly but without repeating unnecessarily. To start a search, though, we need to have a sense of where to look. It would be pointless to say "well I think Joe was headed southeast, so just head out that way and see if you see anything." Instead, we try to have a fix on the last known contact -- by SPOT or radar, whatever -- and to design a search based on that fix. If we have some reason to believe the plane we are searching for was last heard from at a given point and was heading south from there, we can perform a line search. If we have no sense of the direction of travel, we can perform an expanding square search from the last known point. And if the terrain is hilly, we can perform a contour search around the area of last contact. IOW, we have good search tools to put into use, but without knowing where to begin it's a huge task for one or two small planes. Oh, and BTW, when we send a plane into a search grid (we divide the US up into "grids" of a quarter section each) we don't assign another plane to the same grid until the first one has reported out of the grid. There is little to be gained by having two planes in the same block of air, trying to fly a careful pattern but looking out to avoid another plane in the same bit of sky.

So what we really need is a fix on the last known location. I have tracked glider pilots using SPOT, and know the technology has a bad habit of dropping one and sometimes two ten-minute reports. That means a fix from a SPOT tracker could be 10-20 miles away from where we think it stopped. That's a huge error when you're searching blocks of ground that are 5 by 15 miles -- the debris field might be three grids away very easily. So we try to have a pretty decent LKP (last known position) before we launch.

On the Fossett search no one knew which direction he departed or where he intended to go. Since the Hilton Ranch is at the foot of Mt. Grant, just over the hill from Hawthorne and Walker Lake, the search concentrated at first on Mt. Grant. For two days aircraft covered every square inch (and I mean that quite literally -- I looked at the combined GPS tracks of the search aircraft and there was no white space between ground tracks) of Mt. Grant without seeing anything. Since the Citabria he was flying held 4 hours' fuel, we then expanded the search to cover as much territory as we could inside a circle defined by 240 minutes of flight. That was a huge area and there were a lot of gaps in the ground coverage. And when the wreckage was finally found two years later we understood just how difficult our search really was -- the tube-and-fabric plane had crumpled so the largest piece was the engine -- something you could fit in the trunk of most modern cars. If we had known exactly where his A/C impacted the ground it is entirely possible we never would have seen it from 1,000' in the air. I've looked at a wrecked glider from 300' in the air -- a wreck where the wings detached but remained intact -- and it was not easy to spot. Steve's Citabria was vastly smaller.

I hope this gives some perspective on just how hard it is to search from a moving A/C.

Fred

[John Good]

> 121.5 mHz ELT: location accuracy 12000 meters

I'm not sure how to interpret this. An ELT (of any flavor) transmits a continuous signal, for as long as the batteries hold out. It can be received at a range much greater than 12 km, and can lead a searcher to within a few meters of the ELT. When an ELT signal correlates with a report of a missing pilot, a search commences promptly and continues until the crash site is located (or, possibly, until some time after the ELT signal quits).

I've been involved in 2 glider S&R missions for which a 121.5 MHz ELT signal was extremely valuable. In the first, the pilot crashed in a hard-to-access area and was killed on impact. He might still be there if not for his ELT, which continued to transmit until the crash site was located the next morning. (It's worth noting that a search - with its considerable attendant risks - continues whether or not the pilot has survived.)

The second was a successful search for a crashed (and seriously injured) glider pilot in another remote and difficult area. There's little question that his chance of survival would have been much lower without the ELT, which continued to operate for the 23 hours that he lay in the wreckage, in near-blizzard conditions.

The often-cited 50% rate of successful operation of 121.5 MHz ELTs deserves some explanation. According to an Air Force study, the four most common reasons for ELT failure are:
1. Destroyed in crash
2. Destroyed in post-crash fire
3. Bad batteries
4. Improper installation
#2 should be very unlikely in a pure glider - and probably uncommon even in a motorglider. #1 and #4 can be addressed by proper installation in the area behind the cockpit, which tends to stay reasonably intact even in serious crashes. #3 is under the control of the aircraft owner. So a moderately careful glider pilot can expect his ELT to perform properly at a rate much higher than average.

[Mike the Strike]

AFIK, searchers an hour or two after the crash could find no SPOT, FLARM or ELT signal.

It's my understanding that all the electronics on the glider were destroyed or disabled on impact, but this will only be known for sure after the final investigation.

Mike

[David Kinsell]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:54:37 -0700, John Good wrote:

>> 121.5 mHz ELT: location accuracy 12000 meters
>
> I'm not sure how to interpret this. An ELT (of any flavor) transmits a
> continuous signal, for as long as the batteries hold out. It can be
> received at a range much greater than 12 km, and can lead a searcher to
> within a few meters of the ELT.

I took that as how accurately the old satellites could locate a 121.5 Mhz
signal. Took several orbital passes.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 10:56:44 AM UTC-7, danlj wrote:

As other are pointing out the "121.5 mHz ELT: location accuracy 12000 meters" comment has no meaning. This is an old accuracy number from SARSAT/COSPAS Doppler ranging. But since SARSAT/COSPAS no longer monitors 121.5 MHz beacons at all the accuracy has no meaning. And the fact that it is not SARSAT/COSPAS monitored it the main reason you don't want to rely on just a 121.5MHz ELT. 121.5 is still monitored by airliners, etc. and can be homed to high precision (but that needs time) by just about every SAR organization. All 406Mhz ELTs and PLBs also include a 121.5Mhz beacon to make detection of and homing by SAR teams easier... which is important to remember, if you think a glider is down and they have any type of ELT or PLB you want to be checking 121.5 Mhz. PLBs (but not ELTs) in the USA also have more code "P" (dit dah dah dit) added to that beacon (that was an FCC idea to try to filter the expected onslaught of idiot consumers activating PLBs, but which did not happen...maybe because idiot (and smart) consumers brought SPOT and InReach devices instead :-)).

The issues with ELTs are they are hard to properly mount in a glider, hard to actually test (you can't drop the glider on the ground from height, break the glider in pieces, tip it on it's side and then see if the ELT actually worked and provided a good RF signal), and just do not reliably activate at all even in GA aircraft, let alone gliders. I think the ELT or PLB is best seen as an important/very useful back-up for InReach or Spot. And I'd do everything I could using modern technology to reduce any reliance on the weekend warriors in CAP... which today would start with InReach, high rate tracking and a savvy/well informed ground crew/club/FBO etc. with an agreed plan in case of concern/distress/loss.

[ifee...@hotmail.com]

Anyone out there managed to install a 406 ELT on a standard category C of A glider with the proper paperwork from the maintenance shop? Just wondering because they all seem to have specs for ground plane dimensions that are incompatible with non-metal gliders. The Kannad referred to earlier specifies a minimum antenna ground plane radius of 24 inches for example.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 12:52:41 AM UTC-7, ifee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Anyone out there managed to install a 406 ELT on a standard category C of A glider with the proper paperwork from the maintenance shop? Just wondering because they all seem to have specs for ground plane dimensions that are incompatible with non-metal gliders. The Kannad referred to earlier specifies a minimum antenna ground plane radius of 24 inches for example.

OK I'll play along, what would the "proper paperwork" be here? It should usually be a minor modification, installation of stand alone stuff, not required by regulation in a glider, and with installation requirements not provided for by any regulation. AFAIK the usual "required paperwork" would be a note in the maintenance log.

There is nothing really unique about a 406 MHz ELT... it's the 121.5 MHz beacon withing the 406 MHz ELT that gives the large ground plane and/or plane/awkward large antenna mounting requirement. Almost all installs of any type of ELT I've seen in gliders suck, especially the antenna location/distance from obstructions, ground plane etc.

[busha...@gmail.com]

Please give me the reference in the federal regulations that allows for a ELT to be installed as "stand alone stuff". That would be a valuable reference as we have been filing 337's

Lane

[Darryl Ramm]

I suspect you are one of few A&Ps who would file a 337 for an ELT install in a glider. There is no regulation that I am aware of that controls an ELT install in a glider or clarifies explicitly if an ELT install must be a major or minor install.... You have to make that call. In your case does the FSDO actually look at anything about the ELT performance? Antenna? Ground plane? ELT install orientation? switch location? Look at compliance with the install documentation? (Some of which will be mighty hard to meet).

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 9:34:03 AM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> I suspect you are one of few A&Ps who would file a 337 for an ELT install in a glider. There is no regulation that I am aware of that controls an ELT install in a glider or clarifies explicitly if an ELT install must be a major or minor install.... You have to make that call. In your case does the FSDO actually look at anything about the ELT performance? Antenna? Ground plane? ELT install orientation? switch location? Look at compliance with the install documentation? (Some of which will be mighty hard to meet).

And to add to that ACK for example promotes the instal of their ELTs being minor installs, e.g. see the FAA letter here http://www.ackavionics.com/pdf/E-04%20ELT%20FAA%20Install%20Data.pdf Of course there can be cases where it could need a 337.

[ifee...@hotmail.com]

What I mean is a logbook entry stating that the installation was performed using approved data - the ELT manufacturer's installation instructions, AC43-13, aircraft manufacturer's maintenance manual or TN etc. The sorts of things that the document you linked to talks about. I would like to find something like that that states an antenna installation that's practical in a non metal glider is OK. As yet I haven't and as far as I can tell it would be contrary to the ELT manufacturer's installation instructions and the linked AC seems to state that if one does that it is no longer a minor mod. There's a DG TN about 406's but it's not available online so I don't know what's in it.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 1:36:28 AM UTC-7, ifee...@hotmail.com wrote:
> What I mean is a logbook entry stating that the installation was performed using approved data - the ELT manufacturer's installation instructions, AC43-13, aircraft manufacturer's maintenance manual or TN etc. The sorts of things that the document you linked to talks about. I would like to find something like that that states an antenna installation that's practical in a non metal glider is OK. As yet I haven't and as far as I can tell it would be contrary to the ELT manufacturer's installation instructions and the linked AC seems to state that if one does that it is no longer a minor mod. There's a DG TN about 406's but it's not available online so I don't know what's in it.

First just a nitpick, an minor alteration does not need to utilize approved data, it may utilize acceptable data or be performed by elementary operations. There is clearly some gray area here. But to your point, maybe in say a silly case I could imagine an FAA inspector measuring an ELT ground plane and saying you made this 8 inches when the installation manual says it should be a minimum of 12 inches might cause a problem, but I'd hope everybody has better things to worry about that things like that.

I doubt any ELT manufacturer has really looked at what would be needed to get a really good practical ELT install in a glider, let alone wrote this up, there is just no market for them. Several glider manufactures have different documentation that mentions installing ELTs (sometimes just in the pilot/maintenance manuals), most are brief and mostly useless. e.g. Schleicher just says it's possible to install an ELT antenna in my ASK-26E in the luggage space extending into the canopy area.... ah right, totally impractical/useless. I don't know how much effort DG put into theirs, but it sounds at least like more than typical.

I don't understand the reference to "non-metal" part, a pure fiberglass fuselage might in some cases provide be an easier option as you might be able to install an anteena inside the fueslage, but given antenna lenths and desire to keep it away from conductive parts etc. even that may be hard.

Are you really willing to drill a hole in the upper fuselage on any metal or carbon fiber fuselage glider and bung an big ELT antenna there? Most glider owners are not. Which at an extreme results in things like ELT antenna installed somewhere inside the cockpit, or bent under the RF transparent area of a turtledeck etc. often not ideal. Sometimes with no ground plane at all. Installs are trade off and hopefully one the owner and A&P is well aware of. And that is all not a bad thing, working to do the best practically to get an ELT installed is likely better than not having an ELT. But with the poor activation results of ELTs (even if optimally installed in a GA airplane) as well as the difficulty isntalling the antenna in most gliders and the confidnce/testability provided by tracking solutions like InReach or Spot I would hope people are looking at ELTs only as a backup to InReach or SPOT devices used for tracking.

I just thin the bureaucratic process is the wrong thing to to think about here. Discuss that with your A&P. Look with them at what antenna installs may be practical and decide whether it is worth doing at all or not. This all needs some common sense applied to trying to install something that hopefully provides some SAR help. There is no regulatory requirement for gliders to carry ELTs, not requirement that any ELT installed in a glider must be TSO approved, installs in practice are usually not done as major alterations, and there are better options than an ELT in the fist place.

If you really wanted to get a 406MHz ELT installed as well as possible in a glider then it may be ugly and expensive. e.g. maybe cutting holes for an external antenna, and installing a ground plane or maybe going to a high-end ELT with dual-outputs and at least trying to do a really good external mount for a single band 406 MHz whip or blade antenna (therefore a short antenna that needs a small ground plane) and then going with a less optimal 121.5 Mhz antenna mounted in the cockpit or external with a sub optimal ground plane etc. It's only the 406 Mhz signal that is used to alert SARSAT/COSPAS. And keep the ELT solidly mounted in the correct orientation and all the coax cables as short/secure as possible. Think about carrying a collapsible portable antennas where you can remove the ELT and place it on the ground with that antenna (good idea if your glider ends up broken/on it's side etc and you are still alive enough to do so.

I had purchased a nice Artex 406 MHz ELT and spent much of a day trying to work out how it could be realistically/well installed in a new ASH-26E. I decided it was impossible and gave up and returned it and purchased a McMurdo 406MHz PLB (with GPS), I also had a SPOT tracker at that time. If doing this today I'd use an InReach (mounted on the glareshield/panel with good sat view) and a 406 Mhz PLB (on parachute harness). That combination is much better than a 406 MHz ELT. And if you bail out it is nice to have a PLB with you not with the glider. But if you also want/can manage some reasonable install of an ELT as backup beyond that then great.

[ifee...@hotmail.com]

When I specified non-metal I was merely referring to the fact that on a metal airframe you can just install an external antenna and rely on the structure itself being a ground plane. There would be no problem getting a 406 installed on our L23 for example.

I'm not arguing whether the installation of an ELT was worthwhile or not as I believe it is, I just wanted to find out if anyone had any luck finding data to refer to when making out the maintenance release in the logbook for an installation. If so, it would make things a lot easier.

I live in Canada so I'm up against a different agency than you are, though a lot of FAA things are considered acceptable here (the good old AC-43.13 for example). So far as I've been able to determine from Transport Canada, even though the ELT isn't mandatory the installation, if performed on a standard category aircraft has to be done in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, aircraft manufacturer's instructions, AC-43.13 or approved by a DER and subsequently maintained in accordance with the regulations regarding the ELT (regular testing, battery replacement etc.)

[Jim]

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 8:47:08 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 12:05:08 AM UTC-5, Bill T wrote:
> > A SPOT transmits ever 5-10 minutes depending on how the owner sets it up. Even after a crash the spot should keep broadcasting its position. So yes, if moving it can be some distance from its last report, but then the next number of reports will be where the glider is. But someone needs to monitor the spot track or the pilot needs to be registered on the ssa web for spot tracking. Even then, no one may look at it until he is over due coming back. Spot and Delorme can have faster refresh rates.
> > BillT
>
> A few observations. In a situation like this,SPOT will only broadcast its position if:
> 1. It is on and in track mode.
> 2. It is intact after the accident.
> 3. It can see the sky properly.
>
> Joe did have his SPOT registered on the SSA page. The wonderful Press can't spell his name correctly, so if you looked on the registered trackers with his name spelled that way, you won't find him. And from what has been reported, the accident was within just a few miles of the last SPOT report, even though the previous report was 50 minutes prior to the last report (that whole, seeing the sky thing). There was not a series of reports from the same place, indicating the SPOT did not survive the crash.
>
> Joe was a wonderful man and will be missed. He was a friend of my family for over 40 years. His wife, Jane, passed away a few years ago. One of my all-time favorite Jane and Joe stories was related by Jane of a typical landout. When she arrived with the trailer, Joe said "Oh, thank you again for coming to get me. I am amazed at how quickly you got here...." Then, as soon as the plane was in the trailer and they were in the car, Joe said, "Where is the map? There has to be a faster way back to the airport..."
>
> Godspeed to you, Joe!
>
> Steve Leonard

The new Spot Gen 3 stops broadcasting if it is not moving. This "improvement" was to save battery life.

[HGXC]

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 9:53:13 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> Very sad news. Any details on what happened?
>
> By Journal North Staff
> UPDATED: Friday, June 5, 2015 at 5:30 pm
> PUBLISHED: Friday, June 5, 2015 at 4:30 pm
> SANTA FE -- New Mexico State police have identified the deceased pilot of a downed glider aircraft found Thursday afternoon southeast of Santa Fe in the Lamy area as 72-year-old Joseph Shepard of Illinois.
>
> According to police, the glider was reported missing Wednesday, after it left the Moriarty Municipal Airport. Satellite and cell phone data, along with a sighting by a pilot who'd been following the glider, led authorities to the Lamy area.
>
> Starting early Thursday, crews from New Mexico Search and Rescue, the Civil Air Patrol's New Mexico Wing, the Army National Guard and the U.S. Border Patrol made searches on the ground and from the air. At about 3 p.m., wreckage was found and confirmed as the missing glider.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration will investigate the cause of the crash.

Is there any new information on the crash?

Dennis

[Renny]

Dennis - The prelim NTSB report is out there, but says very little. I am based at Moriarty and there really is little information available. I do believe we will all have to wait for the final NTSB report to come out (in a year or so?) before we learn more.
Thx - Renny