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 3 of 4)
Time elapsed from sending the signal to receiving both calls: 57 seconds.
“Amazing, absolutely amazing,” Phelka says, then asks where he can buy one.
CURRENT FAA RULES STATE that pilots must carry an ELT or “other equipment approved by the secretary [of transportation].” To gain that approval, the equipment must have undergone testing that meets an established standard. The standard applied to breadcrumb trackers is the one used to certify ELTs; it requires stress tests that simulate what can occur during an impact. But a breadcrumb tracker’s performance is predicated on the device not surviving an impact. Unlike ELTs, breadcrumb trackers don’t have to weather a crash. In fact, that’s their strength. It’s when they stop tracking your location that your emergency is revealed.
The senior FAA official I interviewed, who asked not to be quoted, said that for the agency to consider breadcrumb trackers acceptable emergency transmitters, the manufacturers would have to devise appropriate standards, then persuade Congress to modify the existing legislation.
Presently, the FAA touts a technology called ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast), currently under development, as “bringing the precision and reliability of satellite-based surveillance to the nation’s skies.” ADS-B satellites capture positional data from aircraft, then relay it to other flights in the vicinity, or to ground receivers, which forward it to air traffic control. ADS-B gives pilots a three-dimensional awareness of their airspace, a view once available only to air traffic controllers. But ADS-B is designed primarily as a tool for managing scheduled commercial-flight traffic, and requires an onboard avionics suite that can total more than $12,000, a cost many general aviation pilots would find prohibitive. More importantly, it is not meant to hunt for missing aircraft. Says AFRCC program manager David Fuhrmann, the principal intermediary between his agency and Cospas-Sarsat: “The problem with ADS-B is it still uses a radio signal…. You can still have terrain masking. There are not going to be towers all over the U.S. So in remote areas, it won’t work. It will work at altitude, but if you descend, you could go many miles before crashing, and may not ever be visible by ADS-B.”
In an e-mail, FAA public affairs spokeswoman Alison Duquette, who agreed to speak on the record, says: “The FAA is investing in the infrastructure for ADS-B, which serves the entire U.S. aviation community. The FAA requires ELTs for general aviation airplanes. While breadcrumb tracking may have some applications for aviation, it is not a substitute for ELTs or ADS-B.”
Duquette’s assertion that ADS-B “serves the entire U.S. aviation community” is true only if the nation’s general aviation pilots pay for the pricey avionics needed to get the ADS-B’s full benefits. Without a breadcrumb tracker on board, the average private pilot whose airplane goes down in a remote area will remain at significant risk of going undiscovered.
I ask Duquette: “Can you tell me what specifically can ADS-B and ELTs do that breadcrumb tracking cannot?”
She answers: “We’ve already provided you an interview on the subject. I think we’re done.”
FROM A PRELIMINARY NTSB REPORT:
“On August 13, 2011, about 1940 [7:40 p.m.]…a Cessna 207 airplane, N91099, impacted mountainous, brush-covered terrain, about 37 miles west of McGrath, Alaska. Of the six people aboard, the pilot and one passenger died at the scene, and four passengers received serious injuries…. During a hospital room interview with the National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge, on August 16, a passenger related that the purpose of the flight was to transport a group of school teachers to Anvik…. His wife and two children were also aboard the accident airplane.
“The passenger stated that he was seated in the front, right seat, next to the pilot. He said that about 20 minutes after leaving McGrath…low clouds, rain and fog restricted visibility. At one point the pilot told the passenger, in part: ‘This is getting pretty bad.’ The passenger said that the pilot then descended and flew the airplane very close to the ground, then climbed the airplane, and then it descended again. Moments later the passenger said that the airplane entered “whiteout conditions.” The next thing the passenger recalled was looking out the front windscreen, and just before impact, seeing the mountainside suddenly appear out of the fog. He said that all of the survivors lost consciousness during the impact, and he was the first to regain consciousness.
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