Lost in America
Airplanes that go missing are often untraceable. Why is effective tracking technology being ignored?
- By Michael Behar
- Air & Space magazine, November 2011
When a Super Cub ran out of fuel and had to land on uninhabited Kayak lsland in Alaska last May, the pilot and passenger tried both low- and high-tech alerts. In addition to the “SOS,” they activated a SPOT beacon, and were rescued by the Coast Guard.
USCG/LT. Jon Bartel
The morning of December 9, 2009, began cool and clear. In Dorrigo, an Australian town about 300 miles north of Sydney, the pilot of a Bell 206L-1 LongRanger helicopter took off on his second flight of the day. The 29-year-old (officials did not release his name) was under contract with the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service to aid crews fighting bushfires. Also aboard was Aaron Harber, a 41-year-old park ranger being ferried to Cathedral Rock National Park, where he would help battle a blaze.
At 11:20 a.m., a few minutes after takeoff, the pilot flew into a thick fog. He immediately lost all visual reference points. For a split second he glimpsed a ridgeline and a cluster of trees, then nothing. He knew he was perilously close to the ground—perhaps just 20 feet above it—but had no idea what direction he was traveling in. “This is not good,” he told Harber. “I’m going to try to land.” When the pilot yanked the cyclic to flare the chopper and slow its speed, there was a loud bang, and the LongRanger went into a flat spin. The main rotor snapped and sliced through the cockpit canopy just as the aircraft slammed into the ground. In the impact, Harber’s seatbelt shoulder harness was severed.
Harber died in the accident, but the pilot survived. With severe injuries to his head, chest, and back, he used his cell phone to call for help, but couldn’t tell rescuers where he was. It didn’t matter. Search teams were already en route, having been summoned by a tiny device called a Spider S2. Not much larger than a bagel, the $1,800 Spider, affixed to the Bell’s cockpit dash, had powered up automatically on takeoff and transmitted its whereabouts throughout the flight, in two-minute intervals, to a constellation of Iridium satellites, leaving a digital trail—“breadcrumbs”—that showed its latitude, longitude, altitude, airspeed, and bearing. Its flight data was stored on computer servers operated by New Zealand-based Spidertracks, the company that invented the Spider.
When the device was destroyed in the Dorrigo crash, it stopped leaving breadcrumbs. The silence told the software on the Spidertracks servers to begin dispatching a series of e-mails and text messages to a list of emergency contacts compiled earlier. On the list was Mark Rogers, whose firm, Commercial Helicopters, owned the Bell 206. Rogers notified authorities, using the breadcrumb data to direct searchers to the exact location of the impact. Rescuers found the pilot in critical condition. He was airlifted to a hospital, and he eventually recovered.
The helicopter was also carrying an emergency locator transmitter, or ELT, which contains a G-switch (“G” for gravity). When it senses a hard impact, the G-switch transmits a distress signal. But ELTs rely on a sparse network of satellites that get crummy reception, and it took more than 90 minutes for the ELT to be heard and its position conveyed to monitoring stations on the ground. By that time, “the whole recovery operation was well under way,” Spidertracks co-founder and helicopter pilot Bruce Bartley says. The Spider’s early alert had likely saved the pilot’s life.
Adventurer-aviator Steve Fossett wasn’t so lucky when his Bellanca Super Decathlon plowed into a mountain near Mammoth Lakes, California, in September 2007 (see “Anatomy of a Search,” Feb./Mar. 2008). He carried an older-generation ELT, and if it sent distress signals, no one received them. More than a year later, searchers found his remains a half-mile from the crash site. The seat belts in the Bellanca had been unbuckled. Fossett appears to have survived the impact and staggered away from his airplane before he died. If he’d had a breadcrumb tracker, the distress calls, set in motion at almost the moment of the crash, might have alerted authorities in time to save him.
Under legislation passed by Congress 35 years ago and enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration, virtually every aircraft in the United States must have an ELT. But when an airplane with an ELT crashes, its location is transmitted only if the device calls for assistance. And there are any number of ways the device can be stopped from sending those alerts.
There are two types of ELT: the older models, which were introduced in 1973, transmit over 121.5 megahertz, an analog frequency, while newer beacons, which debuted in 1999, use 406 megahertz and broadcast digitally. The 406 ELTs are an improvement over the 121.5s because the digital signal can carry GPS coordinates, along with beacon registration data, such as the airplane’s owner and contact information.
Most organizations that are involved in aviation safety believe that 121.5 ELTs should be replaced with 406s. Searchers can get a fix on a 406 unit’s position in as little as five minutes (though gaps in global satellite reception can extend that to 15 minutes, and if the unit doesn’t have an optional GPS accessory, the delay can be as long as three hours or more).
The older ELTs are so unreliable that as of February 1, 2009, Cospas-Sarsat, the multi-national entity charged with monitoring ELT transmissions, stopped listening to 121.5 megahertz. If an airplane outfitted with a 121.5 unit gets in trouble, its cries will now almost always go unheard. The FAA had hoped pilots would swap their 121.5 units for 406s. But no federal law requires them to, and installation of a new unit costs of up to $2,000. Says agency spokeswoman Alison Duquette: “The FAA’s position is that 406 ELTs are superior, but their cost [to the pilots] would not justify mandating them.” To date, only about 25,000 general aviation aircraft have upgraded units. Translation: Of the 224,172 active general aviation aircraft in the United States, about 90 percent operate with an emergency beacon that transmits its distress signal over a frequency that is not listened to. If one of these aircraft should crash, hearing its ELT is a matter of pure luck. A passing pilot might pick up the signal—but only if he or she happens to be tuned to the frequency.
EMERGENCY BEACONS ARE USED in many environments: aviation, marine, and terrestrial. Cospas-Sarsat relays distress alerts to the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, which coordinates searches in the United States among various federal, state, and local agencies. In theory, ELTs should enable authorities to rapidly locate downed aircraft. In practice, they fail miserably. In the last five years, the AFRCC has been directly involved in 416 crashes in the United States that required some manner of search and rescue (often hundreds more occur, but are usually handled at the state and local levels). Each of these airplanes carried (or by law should have carried) an ELT. Yet in these accidents, just 124 ELTs activated. A five-year NASA study that analyzed the performance of 121.5 ELTs (comparable data from the 406 transmitters isn’t yet available) in 3,270 crashes shows that in 75 percent of accidents, the beacons are disabled on impact or destroyed in a fire, and never activate.
The units are installed inside the cabin near the tail, where they’re most likely to survive a crash. Their exterior antennas—mounted to the top of the fuselage, usually behind the wing, or forward of the tail rotor on helicopters—can easily snap. In 2005, 49-year-old New Zealand billionaire liquor baron Michael Erceg crashed his Eurocopter EC120B in a remote forest south of Auckland; he and a passenger were killed. The ELT antenna broke, so the distress pings went unheard. The ensuing hunt for Erceg would become one of the largest and most expensive search-and-rescue operations ever conducted in New Zealand.





Comments (14)
Wow! This confirms my membership in the geezer society. I remember(as a student pilot)when the ELT was cussed and discussed for some years before it was adopted by the powers that be. The cost was listed as the problem since at the time it was supposed to deny privae pilots the chance to fly due to the cost. At the time $1000 to $1200 was too much according to the pundits. Now that would be comparable to --- what? $7000 to $10,000. The items discussed here seem like no-brainers to me. It also seems there are those in the regulatory agencies that are too invested in old think to see the advantage of new technology.
Posted by Ed Sorrels on September 21,2011 | 06:46 PM
Nice article. I had to laugh about the comments on "lenticular clouds" on the way to Fort Collins -- I live in Loveland and those pretty "stacks of plates" clouds are an interesting sight. Pilot friends say: "STAY AWAY FROM THEM!"
Posted by Greg Goebel on October 12,2011 | 11:34 AM
The only issue I see with the Spider tracker is the 'Big Brother' aspect. I don't really like the idea of the government tracking me every time I takeoff to sightsee. I'm fine with the SOS mode but there's just something creepy about being tracked every time I leave the airport. Flying IFR is an expectation that my position is being tracked for the purposes of collision avoidance. Following my every move when VFR is just spying.
Posted by L. Walker on October 15,2011 | 03:47 AM
Good article. I like the idea of having the tracking technology. If I were in a plane wreck, I KNOW I would want such technology on the plane.
Posted by Angela Eisert on October 26,2011 | 04:46 PM
Your article did a great service in telling pilots what type of devices are on the market. My attitude to ELTs is that should something happen I want them to find ME.
I bought a pocket 121.5 when they came out, and will get a digital one.
Pilots need to work out what their life is worth? Is $1000 or even $2000 more than they are valued at. You should not wait for the authorities to mandate this, do this for your self and you loved ones.
Posted by John on October 26,2011 | 05:57 PM
I purchased a Spidertracks unit at AirVenture at Oshkosh, Wisconsin this past summer and installed it in my aircraft. I will no longer fly in remote areas without it or a SPOT messenger.
My track and location is displayed in real time on a website, and if I give you the URL you can look it up. In neither case is the government watching me. Who is watching are those I ask to watch. And if the SOS button is pressed (or the unit stops broadcasting, in the case of Spidertracks), help e-mail and text messages are immediately broadcast with my exact loacation.
In large parts of Canada and the USA there is no radar coverage, especially if flying at lower altitudes. These devices significantly increase the likelihood and speed of rescue if a crash occurs (or the pilot lands off-airport).
Posted by Chris Moon on October 26,2011 | 09:44 PM
The FAA really needs to be replaced and overseen by the NTSB. The latters recommendations often get ignored, or the airlines find excuses to sidestep them.
FAA is so far behind on their primary job that I had to notify them that they still listed a 747 as active and flyable, even though a Discovery Channel show had the plane dismantled 4 years earlier!
SHEESH!
Guess Congress of Clowns never bothered reading Mary Schiavo's book...
Posted by Alex van Luik on October 27,2011 | 01:52 PM
Big Brother "snooping" on you? Nothing compared to the cost of a search and rescue operation.
Posted by ErnestPayne on October 27,2011 | 02:24 PM
The government is already not only tracking and recording IFR flights, but selling the information ... in real time ... to anyone who cares to pay and install the software. This service is convenient for everyone from stalkers to business competitors trying to figure out marketing, and scheduling algorhythms. EDITORS' REPLY: Can you supply sources for these statements? We would like to look into them. Thank you.
Posted by Jason Binnes on October 27,2011 | 03:10 PM
Great article!
A very interesting company in this space is Guardian Mobility. Located in Ottawa Canada they have addressed these issues very well including solving the percieved "Big Brother" aspect.
Posted by Les Horn on November 1,2011 | 10:53 AM
After reading this article I was left wondering if it really was an article or a paid advertisement. To say it was skewed toward Spidertracks would be an understatement. I was also left wondering if there doesn't have to be another side to the story. If the ELT system is as time-wasting, taxpayer-money-wasting and essentially useless as the author portrays, then the rationality, if not the sanity, of those who continue to promote it must be questioned.
Everything in this article could ultimately be factually and fairly presented, but if there ever was a piece crying out for rebuttal, this is it. I'll look forward to seeing if anyone comes up with one. EDITORS' REPLY: The story has been out almost two months now and we have not received such a rebuttal. And the piece was not skewed toward Spidertracks or SPOT; those are the two largest suppliers of breadcrumb trackers. It would be like writing a story about running shoes and not mentioning Nike and Adidas.
Posted by Paul Marsh on November 16,2011 | 12:43 PM
I have done search and rescue training with Civil Air Patrol, we have finding the aircraft down to a science but there is one problem that I have found that typically causes us and everyone else a lot of problems- if there is metal (other than that of an aircraft) like a fence it will pick up on that signal and carry it. One time we were moving through a thick forest at midnight on a small road with an aluminum fence and the fence was transmitting the same friggen signal! We followed the fence in the wrong direction, double backed and found the ELT, I guess that is my only complaint about it, there are many times I can think of that the ELT was the only thing that guided CAP SAR teams to the disaster or other teams for that matter. Love the Article! Keep them coming!
Posted by Emery on November 24,2011 | 11:48 AM
As the Commander of the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, I would like to immediately clarify one of the inaccuracies in this article. Each member of the AFRCC takes the job seriously and immediately acts upon all distress reports/beacon activations received, including 121.5. It is our unwavering policy to treat all reports/activations as an actual distress situation
until either the mission is complete or it is determined that it is a non-distress situation (i.e., beacon test, accidental activation, etc.). When the call comes in for support, we rapidly connect with other agencies
to help saves lives and mitigate suffering. We NEVER ignore any distress notification for 18 hours.
It's important to me that the American public understands that the AFRCC has the watch, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. While our fellow citizens celebrate holidays, spend time hiking in the woods, hit the slopes
skiing, or travel the country, we stand ready at America's Air and Space Operations Center. There is definitely no policy in effect to "ignore" any distress notification for 18 hours due to false alarms. Our policy is to
respond immediately to any/all activations we receive--and we follow through until the situation is satisfactorily resolved. AUTHOR MICHAEL BEHAR REPLIES: This is exactly opposite of what several people told me there, and the opposite of what I witnessed happening in person while watching AFRCC personnel respond to ELTs in real-time, in front of me. Yes, every ELT is dealt with, but staffers told me, many, many times, that they wait 18 hours before responding to them unless there is a report of a missing aircraft or a crash witnessed.
Posted by Robert Russell on December 21,2011 | 03:03 PM
So you really think Steve Fossett survived and crawled away from a high speed wreck caused by a 400fpm downdraft that destroyed and fragmented his airplane into small pieces, after which the wreck was destroyed by fire? I suggest you research the NTSB report and consider this found in that report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20081007X17184&key=1
Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane was on a northerly heading at impact, indicating that the pilot had executed a 180-degree turn after radar contact was lost. Ground scars and distribution of the heavily fragmented wreckage indicated that the airplane was traveling at a high speed when it impacted in a right wing low, near level pitch attitude. A post-impact fire consumed the fuselage, with the exception of its steel frame. The wings were fragmented into numerous pieces. The ELT was destroyed. Damage signatures on the propeller blades and the engine crankshaft indicated that the engine was operating at impact. Examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any malfunctions or failures that would have prevented normal operation.
Posted by John Harjo on October 30,2012 | 01:29 AM