Spot off ...WTF?

[POPS]

http://sailinganarchy.com/

Go to - spot off -

Good to know?

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:55:06 PM UTC-4, POPS wrote:
> http://sailinganarchy.com/
>
>
>
> Go to - spot off -

Scroll down to spot off

Screen Shot 2014-03-28 at 11.20.28 AM
Alright, Class: Raise your hands if you would entrust your life and the lives of your crew to a SPOT tracker.

Those of you with your hands up: Grab a pair of scissors and give yourself a vasectomy.

There is good news for you, though - the widow of Aegean skipper Theo Mavromatis (or more likely, blood-sucking lawyers at her husband's insurance company) is fighting for your right to be stupid, too.

You'll likely remember the Hunter 37 Aegean as the cruising boat that allegedly crashed into one of the Coronado Islands off of San Diego during a 'fun race' down the coast. Long-running investigations determined the problem to be one of, let's say, software - the crew likely failed to zoom in far enough on a chart plotter to see the islands, and compounded their navigational error by not keeping a lookout as they motored through the night on autopilot. All hands perished after the wreck, and multiple lawsuits have been filed against Mavromatis' estate by families and insurance companies representing his crew - just as you'd see in any accident. But now, there's something new; Ms. Mavromatis and her three children are now plaintiffs against SPOT LLC and Amazon.com, and in a lawsuit filed last week, they contend that it was SPOT's failure to make sure emergency services got to the Aegean that was at least partially at fault for Mavromatis' loss.

The family is suing for wrongful death, negligence, and breach of warranty, seeking unspecified damages and burial costs, and probably seeks millions. Assuming (and hoping) that Mavromatis, an aerospace engineer, had decent insurance coverage for his boat and life, this all smells like an insurance company casting a net for deep pockets to help defray the millions they have already paid out in this case, and they may just succeed.

Why? Because, as you can see by the screen grab above and at SPOT's page her e, the company really is advertising "911/SOS Member Rescue Benefit" for just $17.95 per year. And according to the lawsuit and several investigators, the crew of Aegean pressed the SPOT rescue button at some point in the calamity, yet it took a day for anyone to come check on them. Is this some serious bull**** advertising that should absolutely be curtailed or even punished? Absolutely. Is it negligence, and did it contribute more to the death of the Aegean skipper than the fact that he ran into an island? Umm....no. Add to that the fact that SPOT requires you read and sign a dozen paragraphs on why SPOT is not really a rescue device before you sign up, and we don't think this one passes the smell test.

We're also pretty sure that Mavromatis, a longtime sailor and telecommunications/electronics consultant for Raytheon, knew the difference between a SPOT and an EPIRB, but then again, we'd be pretty sure a guy like that would know how to work a chart plotter. In the meantime, it's yet more litigation that will result in increased insurance premiums and more lawsuits down the road.

There's a thread on Aegean litigation here if you want to stay on top of it.

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:11:24 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

Do you have any actual proof that Spot was actuated in this incident? I checked my spot last month (tracking & OK functions) and it worked just fine.

Otherwise, you are just spreading rumors...

Kirk
66

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 2:51:13 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:11:24 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you have any actual proof that Spot was actuated in this incident?

I see that it is not obvious that I reposted the text of the originally linked article. It was buried deep in a blog off the original link. If you have problem with the content, take it up with the author of that blog. He was reporting the allegations made in the lawsuit.

[darrylr]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:51:13 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:11:24 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you have any actual proof that Spot was actuated in this incident? I checked my spot last month (tracking & OK functions) and it worked just fine..
>
>
>
> Otherwise, you are just spreading rumors...
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

Kirk, I understand the concern about rumors, but actually posting that article was a nice service for folks. Lots of good stuff to ponder behind this accident. Links were in that article and its trivial to find the pretty thorough report on this accident by US Sailing here... http://offshore.ussailing.org/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=19623

And yes it is absolutely accepted that the Spot SOS messages was sent, and more importantly was received (there is no way to know with Spot somebody tried to do anything unless a Globalstar satellite happen to receive the message).

As with many aircraft accident reports, reading that US Sailing report is a combination of sadness and frustration. Competing in an off-shore ocean race, no EPIRB, no life raft, a suspected failure to have (or failure of) a deck watch. Yes I know the family were/are upset with he report but there just is a lot wrong with the equipment level and action of this crew.

And there *is* also a lot wrong with how Globalstar/SPOT positions their devices and the SOS service. It frustrates me how Globalstar/SPOT seems to deliberately obfuscate the simplex nature of the service. e.g. I've seen users read the current v3 manual and be convinced the message LED going off means "message received". there is no excuse for that sort of marketing fluff when peoples' lives are potentially at risk. And the whole SOS service is overhyped.

Spot, and now InReach, are fantastic innovative tracking devices. Just wonderful innovation and likely better than an impact activated ELT for lots of reasons. But when the stuff really hits the fan I'd still want a EPIRB in a marine situation or a PLB (actually not an impact activated ELT) in a glider. Actually I want both an InReach and a PLB. The InReach tracking and 2 way messaging are fantastic. And when you really screw up and need a real rescue then the PLB helps SAR get to you. The 406MHz EPIRB/PLB/ELT get you straight to the NOAA/USAF/Coast Guard SAR coordination folks and at the other extreme the 121.5Mhz beacons they all still contain provide SAR teams with a local homing signal.

So I'd hope the sailing community learns by the mistakes made here, but on the other hand I'd hope the litigation at least chilled some of the marketing hype, from Spot and others in this space. And for the gliding community with all these SPOT and InReach trackers I hope all the pilots and crews and family of pilots etc. are lookign out for the pilots. Everybody understands the product capabilities, what different messages exactly mean, who/how to escalate concern to, etc. (which county is the glider in, what's that county sheriff's phone number... etc.) if you've not had that detailed discussion, and better yet left written instructions, now may be a good time to do that.


Darryl

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 5:59:08 PM UTC-4, darrylr wrote:

> Darryl

Darryl, thanks for clarifying that SPOT/IN_REACH are not equivalent to PLB in terms of reliability and in terms of who handles the emergency response (and how well and reliably they handle it).

The SPOT/IN_REACH marketing materials pander to the end-users' wishful thinking that these devices are equivalent in functionality.

[darrylr]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:48:17 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Saturday, March 29, 2014 5:59:08 PM UTC-4, darrylr wrote:
>
>
>
> > Darryl
>
>
>
> Darryl, thanks for clarifying that SPOT/IN_REACH are not equivalent to PLB in terms of reliability and in terms of who handles the emergency response (and how well and reliably they handle it).
>
>
>
> The SPOT/IN_REACH marketing materials pander to the end-users' wishful thinking that these devices are equivalent in functionality.

InReach is different from SPOT in several important ways. SPOT is simplex only, so has no idea if a satellite is even in sight, all it can do is just fires off messages and hopes it gets through, it repeats doing that to try to get messages out. And it can't do bidirectional messaging as there is no duplex link to the device. And for soaring use the big thing is InReach has altitude. With the capabilities of InReach, SPOT should effectively be of no interest in the soaring community.

The early operation of the SPOT "911"/"SOS" type services seemed pretty scary and literally GEOS seemed to be calling the local 911 service in some (many?) cases. They seemed to get their act together a bit better over time. The government, industry and others seemed to pretty worried about all this, and there was supposed to be work to improve things though minimum product specs and rescue coordination/procedures through NSARC (National Search And Rescue Committee). I've just not sure where all that currently is at.

[POPS]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:51:13 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
On Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:11:24 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:



Do you have any actual proof that Spot was actuated in this incident? I checked my spot last month (tracking & OK functions) and it worked just fine..



Otherwise, you are just spreading rumors...



Kirk

66

Kirk, I understand the concern about rumors, but actually posting that article was a nice service for folks. Lots of good stuff to ponder behind this accident. Links were in that article and its trivial to find the pretty thorough report on this accident by US Sailing here... http://offshore.ussailing.org/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=19623

And yes it is absolutely accepted that the Spot SOS messages was sent, and more importantly was received (there is no way to know with Spot somebody tried to do anything unless a Globalstar satellite happen to receive the message).

As with many aircraft accident reports, reading that US Sailing report is a combination of sadness and frustration. Competing in an off-shore ocean race, no EPIRB, no life raft, a suspected failure to have (or failure of) a deck watch. Yes I know the family were/are upset with he report but there just is a lot wrong with the equipment level and action of this crew.

And there *is* also a lot wrong with how Globalstar/SPOT positions their devices and the SOS service. It frustrates me how Globalstar/SPOT seems to deliberately obfuscate the simplex nature of the service. e.g. I've seen users read the current v3 manual and be convinced the message LED going off means "message received". there is no excuse for that sort of marketing fluff when peoples' lives are potentially at risk. And the whole SOS service is overhyped.

Spot, and now InReach, are fantastic innovative tracking devices. Just wonderful innovation and likely better than an impact activated ELT for lots of reasons. But when the stuff really hits the fan I'd still want a EPIRB in a marine situation or a PLB (actually not an impact activated ELT) in a glider. Actually I want both an InReach and a PLB. The InReach tracking and 2 way messaging are fantastic. And when you really screw up and need a real rescue then the PLB helps SAR get to you. The 406MHz EPIRB/PLB/ELT get you straight to the NOAA/USAF/Coast Guard SAR coordination folks and at the other extreme the 121.5Mhz beacons they all still contain provide SAR teams with a local homing signal.

So I'd hope the sailing community learns by the mistakes made here, but on the other hand I'd hope the litigation at least chilled some of the marketing hype, from Spot and others in this space. And for the gliding community with all these SPOT and InReach trackers I hope all the pilots and crews and family of pilots etc. are lookign out for the pilots. Everybody understands the product capabilities, what different messages exactly mean, who/how to escalate concern to, etc. (which county is the glider in, what's that county sheriff's phone number... etc.) if you've not had that detailed discussion, and better yet left written instructions, now may be a good time to do that.


Darryl


Thanks for that... I was starting to worry I did something wrong....

[son_of_flubber]

From the report on this accident by US Sailing.
http://offshore.ussailing.org/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=19623

My summary of the excerpts included below:

Spot Distress Message sent at 0143 PDT. Spot message DID NOT include a position fix. Distress message was relayed to US Coast Guard at 1120 PDT. Elapsed time 11 hours and 37 minutes.

Spot failed to transmit a position fix with the distress signal, so GEOS did not contact SARS. As Darryl pointed out, there are technical reasons why the transmission of the position fix (aka GPS position) by a PLB is more reliable than SPOT.

Excerpt:
Page 9

"A manually activated 911 message was received by GEOS via the SPOT Connect
at 0143 PDT on April 28. This transmission identified the SPOT Connect as belonging to
the skipper, but did not contain a position fix. Two voice messages were left with the
skipper's wife (Loren Mavromati) at 0144 PDT and 0145 PDT. (Shown in the call log in
Appendix 19) These messages included the time of the receipt of the information in UTC
(local time plus 7 hours), which may have lead to some initial confusion as to the time of
the emergency message. At 0901 PDT on April 28, Loren Mavromati called the race
organizers at NOSA and left a voice message identifying that a 911 had been sent and
she had been contacted by GEOS. NOSA Administrative team member, Judy Foster,
retrieved the voice message from Mrs. Mavromati at 0929 PDT. Foster contacted Toby
Jackson at NOSA Race Operations in Ensenada, Mexico at 0935 PDT. At 1100 PDT
Jackson relayed the information to PRO Mark Townsend. At 1114 PDT NOSA Race
official Joseph Baiunco contacted Loren Mavromati from Race Operations in Ensenada
to confirm the information about the 911 report from GEOS. The information of the
SPOT Connect 911 transmission was relayed to the US Coast Guard - Sector San Diego
by NOSA official Jerry Schandera at 1120 PDT on April 28, 2012. The USCG contacted
Loren Mavromati upon receipt of this information. "


Excerpted Geos call log from same report:

"Appendix 19
GEOS CALL LOG

0843 GMT 911 EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION RECEIVED. Call placed in pending. No GPS
coordinates received.
0844 GMT IERCC attempted to contact registered owner XXXX XXXXX at XXXiiiXXXiii
XXXX. Left Voicemail.
0845 GMT IERCC attempted to contact registered owner XXXX XXXXX at XXXiiiXXXiii
XXXX. Left Voicemail.
0847 GMT IERCC attempted to contact primary emergency contact XXXX XXXXX at XXXi
iiXXXiiiXXXX. Left Voicemail.
0849 GMT IERCC attempted to contact secondary emergency contact XXXX XXXXX at XX
XiiiXXXiiiXXXX. Left Voicemail. "


So if the skipper had used a PLB/EPIRB instead of a SPOT/GEOS, would things have turned out differently?

Excerpted from same report (Appendix 8):
"6. EPIRB signal goes directly to RCC centers who control the SAR resources, SPOT adds an
additional step (GEOS) adding the increased possibility of delay and human failure
7. USCG RCC assumes an EPIRB signal is positive until proven false. Upon receipt of a located
alert, the Coast Guard will start the process to deploy SAR assets to that known
position. These assets have 30 minutes (some are much quicker to get underway than
others, and many take much less than 30 min to get underway) to get underway to the
position, (and for the USCG it is viewed as easier to recall the assets rather than wishing
you had sent them out earlier). While the SAR asset is preparing to get underway, the SAR
controller attempts to gather more information about the alert (calling emergency contact
in the registration data base, perhaps having local police knock on doors if no answer at
contact or checking with marina, or looking at websites/blogs or doing other detective
work) If the alert is determined to be non distress, the asset is stood down or recalled. If
the received alert is unlocated but registered, the Coast Guard works with the emergency
contact provided in the registration database to narrow down a search area. Once a
reasonable search area has been determined, rescue assets are deployed. If the distress
alert is unlocated and unregistered, the Coast Guard will continue to evaluate and
monitor. Additional satellite passes may be needed to determine a location so that an
effective search area can be developed. While SPOT/GEOS has a narrower
commercial/profit mandate (to call the emergency contact, and if there is a lat/long in the
SOS signal to call the SAR/USCG). GEOS will continue to monitor an SOS signal until they
get location data that they can forward to the USCG/SAR.
8. The EPIRB communication protocol is technically more robust and less likely to have
dropped messages. You can see in the SPOT track that it regularly drops messages they
should be every 10 minutes but are not when a message gets dropped. "

[Ramy[_2_]]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:14:10 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> From the report on this accident by US Sailing.
>
> http://offshore.ussailing.org/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=19623
>
>
>
> My summary of the excerpts included below:
>
>
>
> Spot Distress Message sent at 0143 PDT. Spot message DID NOT include a position fix. Distress message was relayed to US Coast Guard at 1120 PDT. Elapsed time 11 hours and 37 minutes.
>
>
>
> Spot failed to transmit a position fix with the distress signal, so GEOS did not contact SARS. As Darryl pointed out, there are technical reasons why the transmission of the position fix (aka GPS position) by a PLB is more reliable than SPOT.
>
>
>
> Excerpt:
>
> Page 9
>
>
>
> "A manually activated 911 message was received by GEOS via the SPOT Connect
>
> at 0143 PDT on April 28. This transmission identified the SPOT Connect as belonging to
>
> the skipper, but did not contain a position fix. Two voice messages were left with the
>
> skipper's wife (Loren Mavromati) at 0144 PDT and 0145 PDT. (Shown in the call log in
>
> Appendix 19) These messages included the time of the receipt of the information in UTC
>
> (local time plus 7 hours), which may have lead to some initial confusion as to the time of
>
> the emergency message. At 0901 PDT on April 28, Loren Mavromati called the race
>
> organizers at NOSA and left a voice message identifying that a 911 had been sent and
>
> she had been contacted by GEOS. NOSA Administrative team member, Judy Foster,
>
> retrieved the voice message from Mrs. Mavromati at 0929 PDT. Foster contacted Toby
>
> Jackson at NOSA Race Operations in Ensenada, Mexico at 0935 PDT. At 1100 PDT
>
> Jackson relayed the information to PRO Mark Townsend. At 1114 PDT NOSA Race
>
> official Joseph Baiunco contacted Loren Mavromati from Race Operations in Ensenada
>
> to confirm the information about the 911 report from GEOS. The information of the
>
> SPOT Connect 911 transmission was relayed to the US Coast Guard - Sector San Diego
>
> by NOSA official Jerry Schandera at 1120 PDT on April 28, 2012. The USCG contacted
>
> Loren Mavromati upon receipt of this information. "
>
>
>
>
>
> Excerpted Geos call log from same report:
>
>
>
> "Appendix 19
>
> GEOS CALL LOG
>
>
>
> 0843 GMT 911 EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION RECEIVED. Call placed in pending. No GPS
>
> coordinates received.
>
> 0844 GMT IERCC attempted to contact registered owner XXXX XXXXX at XXXiiiXXXiii
>
> XXXX. Left Voicemail.
>
> 0845 GMT IERCC attempted to contact registered owner XXXX XXXXX at XXXiiiXXXiii
>
> XXXX. Left Voicemail.
>
> 0847 GMT IERCC attempted to contact primary emergency contact XXXX XXXXX at XXXi
>
> iiXXXiiiXXXX. Left Voicemail.
>
> 0849 GMT IERCC attempted to contact secondary emergency contact XXXX XXXXX at XX
>
> XiiiXXXiiiXXXX. Left Voicemail. "
>
>
>
>
>
> So if the skipper had used a PLB/EPIRB instead of a SPOT/GEOS, would things have turned out differently?
>
>
>
> Excerpted from same report (Appendix 8):
>
> "6. EPIRB signal goes directly to RCC centers who control the SAR resources, SPOT adds an
>
> additional step (GEOS) adding the increased possibility of delay and human failure
>
> 7. USCG RCC assumes an EPIRB signal is positive until proven false. Upon receipt of a located
>
> alert, the Coast Guard will start the process to deploy SAR assets to that known
>
> position. These assets have 30 minutes (some are much quicker to get underway than
>
> others, and many take much less than 30 min to get underway) to get underway to the
>
> position, (and for the USCG it is viewed as easier to recall the assets rather than wishing
>
> you had sent them out earlier). While the SAR asset is preparing to get underway, the SAR
>
> controller attempts to gather more information about the alert (calling emergency contact
>
> in the registration data base, perhaps having local police knock on doors if no answer at
>
> contact or checking with marina, or looking at websites/blogs or doing other detective
>
> work) If the alert is determined to be non distress, the asset is stood down or recalled. If
>
> the received alert is unlocated but registered, the Coast Guard works with the emergency
>
> contact provided in the registration database to narrow down a search area. Once a
>
> reasonable search area has been determined, rescue assets are deployed. If the distress
>
> alert is unlocated and unregistered, the Coast Guard will continue to evaluate and
>
> monitor. Additional satellite passes may be needed to determine a location so that an
>
> effective search area can be developed. While SPOT/GEOS has a narrower
>
> commercial/profit mandate (to call the emergency contact, and if there is a lat/long in the
>
> SOS signal to call the SAR/USCG). GEOS will continue to monitor an SOS signal until they
>
> get location data that they can forward to the USCG/SAR.
>
> 8. The EPIRB communication protocol is technically more robust and less likely to have
>
> dropped messages. You can see in the SPOT track that it regularly drops messages they
>
> should be every 10 minutes but are not when a message gets dropped. "

This should highlight also the advantage of InReach, since GEO can respond directly to the sender and request confirmation.

Ramy

[Mike Koerner]

This year the Newport to Ensenada race is requiring that all entrants have either an EPIR or PLB on board. Neither Spot nor InReach are acceptable alternatives.
My understanding, 2nd or 3rd hand, is that the crew of Aegean may have been drinking. That may explain why they were unable to successfully extract themselves from the vessel after it ran aground, and perhaps why there was apparently no watch on deck that night.
It may also explain a more fundamental error: the course line set in the autopilot intersected the North Coronados Island. The correct usage of the autopilot would have been to set a waypoint seaward of the outer island.
Mike Koerner










































































































































































































>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> POPS

[darrylr]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:14:10 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
[lots of amateur hour SPOT/GEOS stuff deleted)

Another point I don't the US Sailing report make about the whole transmit with no GPS coordinate issue... that could happen when the GPS in a SPOT or InReach, or an ELT/EPIRB/PLB GPS cannot get a good sky view (say inside a capsized yacht, under tree canopies, down in a ravine, there are always a possible scenario). Or the GPS has to do a cold start acquisition and is still doing that when you press "SOS", hopefully it will start transmitting with the coordinates if/as soon as a GPS the fix is acquired.

But here again an EPIRB/PLB/ELT wins.... if the 406 MHz beacon signal from that device gets out at all (and these devices use a relatively high power burst designed to do that) it is picked up by the geostationary satellites in the SARSAT/COSPAS constellation. If the EPIRB/PLB/ELT has a GPS unit and it has a fix that fix data is sent as well as the unique device ID that is registered to the owner. If the EPIRB/PLB/ELT does not have a GPS or the GPS cannot get a fix then the polar orbiting satellites in the SARSAT/COSPAS constellation start Doppler triangulating a fix on the 406 MHz beacon. A Doppler fix at 1 to 3 nautical mile accuracy is nowhere near as accurate as a GPS fix, but its pretty damn good if it is all you have... and SAR teams then RF direction find on the 121.5 MHz and/or 406 MHz beacon (all these devices do at least those two beacon frequencies, some also do the military 243 MHz). I hope all glider pilots know that, for even the 406 MHz ELT/PLB if you think somebody is in distress tune to 121.5 and listen for the 121.5 beacon, (at least in the USA) the 406 Mhz PLBs (but not ELT or EPIRB) have a morse code "P" dit dah dah dit, added to the 121.5 MHz beacon) -- becasue the FCC was really worried about idiot consumers tripping these things off accidentally.

Even if there was no GPS installed or GPS fix broadcast on 406 Mhz, the USAF coordination folks at least have the info that your unique beacon is signalling distress and can start calling around tryign to find out what is going on while the Doppler fix is being acquired. The Doppler fix takes around 30 minutes or so. Anyhow all a well proven shaken out system that if I was in real distress I'd want to be using, certainly over SPOT. As Ramy says the two way texting of InReach is also impressive/useful. Still I am biased and would want InReach in the glider (with a great sky view for tracking) and a PLB on my parachute harness. Yes a PLB not an ELT because they are too hard to install/properly mount the antenna and the automatic activation is very unreliable).

In this particular case the skipper and crew made many awful decisions, including not having a automatically deploying EPIRB aboard.

Darryl

[darrylr]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:06:29 PM UTC-7, Mike Koerner wrote:

> My understanding, 2nd or 3rd hand, is that the crew of Aegean may have been drinking. That may explain why they were unable to successfully extract themselves from the vessel after it ran aground, and perhaps why there was apparently no watch on deck that night.

Why go that negative speculation route when you have a report to read that covers this and multiple press reports easily findable online all that will show the coroner found no alcohol in the first four bodies found. One of those bodies did test positive for Marijuana (seemingly a low dose since it seems to have been dismissed as an issue). The skipper/owner's body was not found early enough to do an alcohol test. So no, certainly the "crew" was not drinking. And show me one yacht crew where the skipper is going to be drinking while the crew is not...?

[Brian[_1_]]

It is good to understand how these systems works.

The peice of information that seems to be missing It what kind of signal was recieved after the initial 911 button on the Spot.
Admittedly I didn't read the original report.

1. Did the Spot continue to send 911 signals after the initial signal?
if it did contnue to signal for more the 30 minutes it seems odd that it never sent a GPS Signal, Would seem to inidcate that it was in a postion that would not allow it to recieve a GPS signal. If it did signal for more than 30 minutes then the 406 PLB would have been a huge advantage due to the Doppler trianglation feature.
if it did not transmit for more than 30 minutes, Then it would seem likely that whatever stopped the SPOT signal would likely have stopped the PLB GPSsignal also(if it was a GPS equiped PLB), making doppler tracking at least limited if not useless, In which case it appears the SAR response would have been the same as the SPOT response, ie. attempt to notifiy the contacts associated with the device.

True the PLB signal is techically more reliable than the SPOT so it is possible it might have continued to signal when the SPOT could not, but I don't thnk we have any way to know this.

Of couse if the SPOT had been using the Tracking feature with the unit positioned in a good reception position it would have been a non issue, even if it had missed a few position reports it would have reported enough to initate a search once the 911 one initated.

Brian

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

(lost of detail about the incident snipped)

So basically, the crew DIDN'T have a required EPIRB, and relied on SPOT (which is a nice inexpensive TRACKING device with some backup 911 notification capability) to save their butts, then ran aground on autopilot due to bad navigation - and SPOT (while it gave the location of the crash and a message that something was wrong - a partial 911 message) didn't work as well as a dedicted EPIRB.

As I see it, SPOT pretty much worked as advertised. It showed position fixes up to the crash site. BUT IT ISN'T AN ELT, PLB, OR EPIRB! Neither is Inreach. I use my spot in my glider as a simple, reliable (and it has always been for me, YMMV) tracker. I also have an ELT. I don't care if others see my altitude or about a faster tracking interval, so Inreach's capabilities aren't worth the extra cost to me.

My problem with the original post is that it gives the impression that SPOT is an unreliable orange doorstop. In this particular example, it worked as designed until the boat was sinking - and then it only got a partial 911 message out - but was it still capable of sending position long enough after the crash to see satellites and get a position? THE BOAT RAN AGROUND AND SANK!

Is there data online about other "911" situations where SPOT/Geos has failed?

The technical aspect of this particular SPOT 911 activation that interests me is how long it takes to send a 911 message? That would be a useful bit of data.

What is the reliability of the SPOT system on the whole?

That is why I called BS on the tone of the original post.

Kirk
66

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:35:49 PM UTC-7, darrylr wrote:

> And show me one yacht crew where the skipper is
> going to be drinking while the crew is not...?

I have to agree that the Exxon Valdez doesn't count as a yacht...

Thanks, Bob K.

[darrylr]

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 8:29:45 AM UTC-7, Brian wrote:
> It is good to understand how these systems works.
>
> The peice of information that seems to be missing It what kind of signal was recieved after the initial 911 button on the Spot.
>
> Admittedly I didn't read the original report.

Well you kinda should.

> 1. Did the Spot continue to send 911 signals after the initial signal?
>
> if it did contnue to signal for more the 30 minutes it seems odd that it never sent a GPS Signal, Would seem to inidcate that it was in a postion that would not allow it to recieve a GPS signal. If it did signal for more than 30 minutes then the 406 PLB would have been a huge advantage due to the Doppler trianglation feature.
>
> if it did not transmit for more than 30 minutes, Then it would seem likely that whatever stopped the SPOT signal would likely have stopped the PLB GPSsignal also(if it was a GPS equiped PLB), making doppler tracking at least limited if not useless, In which case it appears the SAR response would have been the same as the SPOT response, ie. attempt to notifiy the contacts associated with the device.

Huh? You are you now talking PLB. They should have had an auto deploy EPIRB (dual beacon, GPS and strobe). That would (ideally) float free or be hand deployed by the crew and while floating around have time to get a satellite fix. Yes assuming it was not destroyed on the rocks etc. or stuck somewhere where signals can not get out/in. No way to know that, but I know which one I'd want as a distress beacon in a serious ship wreck. A PLB or Spot or InReach is likely to sink unless somebody is sitting on the wreck or on the rocks/beach or in a life raft holding onto it. And even if tied to somebody in the water is likely useless. This collision was clearly violent and they did not have a life raft anyhow, and nobody seemed to have managed to say get to shore alive, or aboard the non-existant life raft while carrying their non-floating, not very waterproof SPOT tracker. A total fail of choosing the wrong device for a marine distress beacon.

As an side note the SPOT 2 had a problem with its water proof design where when they went to about 5 feet or so underwater the pressure would push the neoprene buttons, potentially causing all sorts of problems. I hope that got fixed.

It is surprising the race organizers are allowing PLBs instead of EPIRBS in the upcoming races. It woudl be interesting to see EPIRB successful deploy numbers for small craft. But I know what one I'd want. Maybe an EPIRB on the yatch+PLB worn on my person. And absolutely I'd have an InReach for tracking/messaging. but then I'd also hope I'd have a proper deck watch and probalby a radar guard.

> True the PLB signal is techically more reliable than the SPOT so it is possible it might have continued to signal when the SPOT could not, but I don't thnk we have any way to know this.

We don't have any way of knowing the sun will come up tomorrow either. But I am planning it will. I'd also plan on carrying an EPRIB in an offshore yacht race. that is built to an entire different set of specs than the toy like SPOT or InReach products, at least it is designed to float and be really waterproof and be bashed around. Nothing these other products are designed to do. And sure have a SPOT or better an InReach and have it providing tracking (and two way texting in the case of the InReach), fantastic stuff but they are not good choices to replace an EPIRB in that situation. Why somebody who can afford an yatch of this class/cost woudl skimp and not carry a <$1k EPRIB in beyond me. And why somebody like the owner/skipper who has a technical/engineering background especially woudl not understand this is just weird.

> Of couse if the SPOT had been using the Tracking feature with the unit positioned in a good reception position it would have been a non issue, even if it had missed a few position reports it would have reported enough to initate a search once the 911 one initated.

You really ought to have bothered to read the report. They *were* using SPOT tracking before the crash. GEOS or the wife of the skipper or the race organizers (if they had access to the tracking web site). Should have pulled out a ruler and extrapolated the position and contacted the coast guard and others to get things escalated to try to start a search. It may not have changed any outcome of course. But what happened was a frigging mess. Starting with GEOS folks leaving voice mails the wife of the skipper did not immediately get. Total fail. SPOT and GEOS deserve to be sued here, if they tried to do more than in the US Sailing report it can come out in court. And I expect their breathless marketing of the whole SOS/GEOS capability is goign to be a problem for them. The stuff in the report about the EPIRB "assuming distress" escalation handling is important.

Darryl

[darrylr]

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 8:37:22 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:14:10 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
(snip)

> So basically, the crew DIDN'T have a required EPIRB, and relied on SPOT (which is a nice inexpensive TRACKING device with some backup 911 notification capability) to save their butts, then ran aground on autopilot due to bad navigation - and SPOT (while it gave the location of the crash and a message that something was wrong - a partial 911 message) didn't work as well as a dedicted EPIRB.

There was no requirement for an EPIRB. EPIRB carry requirements are really for commercial vessels. So like typical complex accident situation here with more than enough blame to go around. Owner/Skipper, crew, SPOT/GEOS, US Sailing, race organizers, etc. etc. A race like this not requiring an EPIRB (starting at prices <$500) is really surprising, but also think what could be done if they had SPOT and/or InReach tracking (in addition to EPIRB carriage) on the whole race fleet (I wonder how much "leeching" would be a concern there).

> As I see it, SPOT pretty much worked as advertised. It showed position fixes up to the crash site. BUT IT ISN'T AN ELT, PLB, OR EPIRB! Neither is Inreach. I use my spot in my glider as a simple, reliable (and it has always been for me, YMMV) tracker. I also have an ELT. I don't care if others see my altitude or about a faster tracking interval, so Inreach's capabilities aren't worth the extra cost to me.
>

But the overall SPOT service simply did not work as advertised. You might sensibly understand things and realize the real value of SPOT (and InReach) is as a tracking service. Just fantastic. But SPOT/Globalstar makes more marketing claims than that. They don't advertise just a tracking service, or a GEOS provided "SOS" service that flounders around when the SPOT can't get a GPS position.

> My problem with the original post is that it gives the impression that SPOT is an unreliable orange doorstop. In this particular example, it worked as designed until the boat was sinking - and then it only got a partial 911 message out - but was it still capable of sending position long enough after the crash to see satellites and get a position? THE BOAT RAN AGROUND AND SANK!

> Is there data online about other "911" situations where SPOT/Geos has failed?

Yes, you can look for them as good as I can. And some are not clear fails, just too disorganized/slow for my liking. I remember reading some where folks were injured (broken arm in motorcycle accident IIRC) and thinking the delay to get resources to them was too long.

> The technical aspect of this particular SPOT 911 activation that interests me is how long it takes to send a 911 message? That would be a useful bit of data.

RT*M. Seriously, its in the manual. When you you press "SOS" (aka "911") and the message is sent within one minute with or without a GPS fix. And is repeated at 5 minute intervals until the battery runs out. If it gets a GPS fix during that time (techncially within the first 4 minutes of each cycle) that then that is included in the next 5 minute transmission. Gen 2 and 3 manual numbers, I think gen 1 was the same.

> What is the reliability of the SPOT system on the whole?

Nobody can really know that, Globalstar can model it, but broad "reliability" numbers may not be that useful.

Users can guess for their own use by say looking at dropped track messages or go try sending OK messages in different situations. (but remember an OK message failure to go though is the failure of multiple (3?) send attempts to get out, or there was never a GPS fix). And you cannot tell by looking at OK or track messages if the problem was lack of GPS or lack of a Globalstar satellite in range, since (unlike an SOS message) in both those cases no GPS fix means no attempt to send a message. You can only tell if lack of GPS was the issue by watching the "GPS" LED on the unit. I'd much prefer SPOT devices light up the GPS LED if there is no GPS fix, like they do, but then also try to send an OK or private message or track report with an "unknown GPS fix" -- that is potentially getting out useful data, and a useful troubleshooting tool for say dropped track messages.

Success/failure in specific scenarios will vary enormously, and it is really only the failure rates for a situation that you are more likely to encounter that matters, e.g. push the SOS button and then jump into the ocean holding it in your hand (for this yacht scenario?) or be under a forest canopy while hiking, etc.

The Globalstar L-band simplex data service that SPOT uses is inherently unreliable, by definition, its simplex only. All a SPOT tracker can do is fire and hope there is a Globalstar satellite in range, which is why they repeat certain messages. I have absolutely no argument that SPOT is capable of being a very useful tracking device if installed/positioned with a little thought (but InReach is all around better).

> That is why I called BS on the tone of the original post.

The tone did get me too. I wish that original quoted article had used less goofy/stupid language, it is easy to dismiss it until you read the other media coverage (LA Times, etc.) or certainly the full US Sailing report.

Darryl

[Brian[_1_]]

-------Quote from Darryl-----------
You really ought to have bothered to read the report. They *were* using SPOT tracking before the crash. GEOS or the wife of the skipper or the race organizers (if they had access to the tracking web site). Should have pulled out a ruler and extrapolated the position and contacted the coast guard and others to get things escalated to try to start a search. It may not have changed any outcome of course. But what happened was a frigging mess. Starting with GEOS folks leaving voice mails the wife of the skipper did not immediately get. Total fail. SPOT and GEOS deserve to be sued here, if they tried to do more than in the US Sailing report it can come out in court. And I expect their breathless marketing of the whole SOS/GEOS capability is goign to be a problem for them. The stuff in the report about the EPIRB "assuming distress" escalation handling is important.
------------------------------------------

Thanks Darryl, Sorry I have been to lazy (so far) to read the actual report.. I agree if the Tracking was working meaning they had a reasonable location of the device, and it took them 11+ hrs to notify SAR then SPOT has a serious problem.

Brian

[son_of_flubber]

In fact, some current PLB models float. True that they do not float upright and continue to transmit like an EPIRB, but if the device slips out of your hand, it does not sink.

How it works:

http://www.acrartex.com/landing/search-and-rescue/

[glidergeek]

Bottom line weather the device was Spot or Delorm or any other kind of ELT the crew was negligent in their duties and all died of this as a result of it. The liability should lie with the captain of the ship. They plotted a bad course and we're not vigilant. I've been using a spot three since December, it has worked flawless for my mission. My people are informed of when and where I'm going to fly, anyone who cares has a link to my site. They all know that if I should not show up at the other end or where I'm supposed to be they can track my course. Whether I fly my glider or my plane and whether I crashed either it will not be the fault of my spot device.

God rest their souls, long live the tort

[darrylr]

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 9:18:30 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:35:49 PM UTC-7, darrylr wrote:
>
> > And show me one yacht crew where the skipper is
> > going to be drinking while the crew is not...?
>
> I have to agree that the Exxon Valdez doesn't count as a yacht...
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Stop it Bob, or you'll go blind. :-)

Darryl

[glidergeek]

Excerpt from the report on this accident:

"Based on all factors, the panel concludes that the skipper set a waypoint that took Aegean on a path that intersected North Coronado Island, that Aegean was motoring under autopilot as she approached the island, and there is no evidence of any intervention to prevent Aegean's running into the island".

The SPOT is not a navigation device, The captain F up he cost everybody their lives, none of them were wearing life preservers, This is speculation but his wife is probably being sued and her only recourse it to in turn sue everybody she can to try to off set her husbands tragic mistake.

This is also speculation, the captain was so ****ed off that the SPOT would not transmit a message conveying the emergency that he beat and killed all of the crew with the SPOT. As a report stated they all died of blunt force trauma, couldn't possibly have happened because they weren't wearing life preservers and there was 4 to 6 foot seas.

[Mike Koerner]

Darryl,
Thanks for correcting my post.
What I had heard was from people involved in the race. And that was quite a while ago, perhaps before the reports were issued.
The island is certainly rocky, and steep enough that you might hit the bow before the keel, but its still hard to picture all 5 adult males being disabled to the extent that they couldn't grab a life jacket or cushion and float clear. The waves would make it difficult to haul yourself out, especially at night, but the water is warm enough that you could stand off if you had to, at least until morning. Shipwrecks in much, much worse conditions have had survivors. Maybe the cabin was ripped open enough to flood quickly, but not allow them a way out. Maybe the mast, boom, or sails were blocking their way out. Maybe thats when they reached for the Spot's 911 button.
Mike Koerner

[son_of_flubber]

It was a terrible accident and my sympathy goes to everyone that it touched..

My take away is that due to there being several sars amateurs in the notification chain (the skipper's wife and the race officials), the SPOT distress signal took over 11 hours to reach SARS professionals (the US Coast Guard in this case). The skipper's wife did not have (or heed) clear instruction to forward a distress call immediately to the USCG (even in the case of a missing position fix). She made the wrong 'judgement call' to delay.

If the distress call had been made on a PLB, it would have reached the Coast Guard in minutes (and a rescue craft would have been launched within 30 minutes even without the position information).

The take away is that the friends and/or family who receive a SPOT/INREACH distress notification need to trained/instructed to immediately forward the message to SARS professionals (Coast Guard, Mountain Rescue Squad, Sheriff etc..).

I agree with Daryl that the best combo is SPOT/InReach with active tracking in the plane and a PLB on the parachute shoulder strap.

Base on this case, it seems that the GEOS personnel, or perhaps just the individual working at GEOS in this particular incident are/were not properly trained SARS professionals. (I hear that you get what you pay for. But ironically there is no subscription fee for PLBs.)

[Dan Marotta]

Why is it ironic that there's no subscription fee for a PLB? It does not
transmit anything unless turned on and then, the SAR process begins. It is
not designed to present your position or track to your friends. It's only
turned on when you need to say, "Here I am and I need help urgently. Please
come now to these coordinates." I have one attached to my parachute harness
and it's there should I ever need it. Why would I pay a fee just to have it
there?


"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...
It was a terrible accident and my sympathy goes to everyone that it touched.

My take away is that due to there being several sars amateurs in the
notification chain (the skipper's wife and the race officials), the SPOT
distress signal took over 11 hours to reach SARS professionals (the US Coast
Guard in this case). The skipper's wife did not have (or heed) clear
instruction to forward a distress call immediately to the USCG (even in the
case of a missing position fix). She made the wrong 'judgement call' to
delay.

If the distress call had been made on a PLB, it would have reached the Coast
Guard in minutes (and a rescue craft would have been launched within 30
minutes even without the position information).

The take away is that the friends and/or family who receive a SPOT/INREACH
distress notification need to trained/instructed to immediately forward the
message to SARS professionals (Coast Guard, Mountain Rescue Squad, Sheriff
etc..).

I agree with Daryl that the best combo is SPOT/InReach with active tracking
in the plane and a PLB on the parachute shoulder strap.

Base on this case, it seems that the GEOS personnel, or perhaps just the
individual working at GEOS in this particular incident are/were not properly
trained SARS professionals. (I hear that you get what you pay for. But
ironically there is no subscription fee for PLBs.)

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, March 31, 2014 7:37:07 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Why is it ironic that there's no subscription fee for a PLB?

iro·ny noun \ˈī-rə-nē also ˈī(-ə)r-nē\

(second definition)
: a situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected

Since PLB is better for notifying SARS than SPOT/INREACH, it is strange and funny that it has no subscription fee (of course the initial cost of a PLB is higher than SPOT and SPOT offers tracking).

[Dan Marotta]

So, you're saying that you'd subscribe to, say, DirecTV, but never turn it
on?


"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 31, 2014 7:37:07 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Why is it ironic that there's no subscription fee for a PLB?

iro·ny noun \ˈī-rə-nē also ˈī(-ə)r-nē\

(second definition)
: a situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that
seems to be the opposite of what you expected

Since PLB is better for notifying SARS than SPOT/INREACH, it is strange and
funny that it has no subscription fee (of course the initial cost of a PLB
is higher than SPOT and SPOT offers tracking).

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:55:06 PM UTC-4, POPS wrote:
> http://sailinganarchy.com/
>
>
>
> Go to - spot off -
>
>
>
> Good to know?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> POPS

Cmon guys - nothing is perfect, but SPOT sure worked well for me last summer in Moriarty. Read the report on Soaring Cafe (http://soaringcafe.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=20382&action=edit) and make your own decision.

Frank (TA)