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
(Page 2 of 4)
Four years after Erceg died, Spidertracks enlisted the support of his widow, Lynne, in a marketing effort to help subsidize the price of Spiders for New Zealand pilots. The pitch to aviators: Breadcrumb trackers like the Spider don’t use an external antenna. Instead, they affix to the dash and transmit through the windscreen.
Even if the crash leaves an ELT and its antenna intact, the unit can’t transmit if the aircraft is upside down, under water, or concealed in dense foliage. And if the pilot, trying to lessen the crash’s impact, lands too gently, the G-switch can fail to arm.
When ELTs do work properly, rescue is virtually guaranteed. “There are no open [accident] cases in the U.S. that I’m aware of where an ELT activated but for whatever reason we haven’t found the wreck site,” says Shawn Maddock, a Cospas-Sarsat operations support officer.
But when ELTs transmit improperly—and that’s the majority of the time—the result is a lot of wasted labor.
I’m standing next to Dan Conley, the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center’s chief of operations, inside Tyndall’s Air Operations Center. At the front of the room is a $3.5 million data wall—a 90-foot-long assembly of 16 screens that displays a real-time map of U.S. airspace, extending several hundred miles into Canada and Mexico and over international waters. I’m here to learn how the AFRCC handles an incoming ELT distress alert.
Since aviation accidents are rare, I’m not expecting much activity. But the two AFRCC controllers on duty are frenetically making phone calls, sending e-mails, scribbling notes, and tapping on keyboards. It’s 11 a.m. and already there are seven ELT distress signals. A Learjet is sending a 406 alert. A call to the phone number associated with the ELT’s registration reveals that the airplane was sold after the unit was installed and the new owners never bothered to update the contact information. Another 406 ping arrives, lacking any registration data whatsoever. A commercial jetliner cruising at 33,000 feet over Washington state reports hearing a 121.5 signal but cannot get a fix on its location. The controller in charge of the case employs a computer program to plot a potential search area, which encompasses Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and parts of British Columbia.
AFRCC controllers field endless ELT distress calls. They meticulously log the details of each incident, then begin investigating to determine whether they’re dealing with an actual emergency. Since its inception in 1975, the AFRCC has saved more than 15,000 lives. But it has also had to spend a hefty part of its budget chasing phantoms: 97 percent of ELT activations are false alarms, usually caused by a hard landing or a careless mechanic. The units can also be triggered while they are still on the delivery truck, on the way to the purchaser. So to avoid wasting resources, the AFRCC has taken drastic measures. When the organization receives 121.5 distress reports, it ignores them for at least 18 hours after they are first reported. Air traffic control monitors the frequency, but disregards 121.5 alerts for the same reason the AFRCC does: The signal-to-noise ratio is untenable. “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve called an air traffic control center and told them to turn the volume up on 121.5,” says Conley. “I’ve had a guy tell me it had been going off for two hours and it was driving him crazy, so he ignored it and turned down the sound.”
Investigators do succeed in tracing 406 devices to their owners (who sometimes have no idea their ELT is chirping). But 60 percent of pilots who have purchased the newer beacons have never bothered to register them, and of the units that have been, the information in the registration database is sometimes out of date, and investigators then have to track down the new owner. “It’s garbage in and garbage out,” says Conley.
COLONEL EDWARD PHELKA is the wing commander for the Civil Air Patrol in Colorado. He has been with CAP for 24 years, participating in dozens of searches for airplanes in seven states. But he hasn’t had much experience with breadcrumb devices. When I meet him at the Boulder Municipal Airport, it’s the first time he has seen a Spider. I’ve brought along the S3, a newer, smaller model that runs about $1,000. Our goal is to test the tracker’s performance.
It’s early March, and the winter sun is strong—“perfect flying weather,” declares Phelka. He completes his preflight of our Cessna 182 Turbo Skylane and we get airborne. There’s barely a jostle as we climb and then bank north along the Rocky Mountain foothills, flanking snowbound summits that pierce 12,000 feet. Stacks of saucer-shaped plumes hover above the Continental Divide. “Lenticular clouds,” notes Phelka. “A sign of turbulent air. We’ll keep our distance.”
Before departing, I had logged onto the Spidertracks Web site and entered my brother and wife as emergency contacts. (Users can add local first responders, who then get notified along with your loved ones that your aircraft has had an emergency.) My brother and wife are in on the experiment, but they have no clue when and where I will manually set off the Spider’s SOS. They have been told that if they receive an alert, they should phone my mobile number.
A few miles north of Horsetooth Lake, I activate the SOS. Within a minute, my phone rings. It’s my brother, in Seattle. He received my SOS, along with a URL that linked him to a Google Map showing our exact location. “You’re near Fort Collins,” he informs me. Another incoming call: my wife. She dittos the data.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »





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