Flight tracking technologies

[kiwiindenver]

Hi All,

For those of you wondering about glider flight tracking options this year. I suggest watching the Seminole Lake Gliderport activity so see an example of a number of technologies all in one place.

Here is the link http://glideport.aero/map?p=GlidePort:396


Pilots with Spot
AXC,FH,G1,F6,KM,N1K,U

Pilots with InReach
DK,nb?

Pilots with Cell phone data
U (Roman has both Spot and a Cell phone)

No single solution is perfect. I suggest you watch the traces and see the delays and information provided by each technology.


Some of my personal observations
* Spot doesn't have altitude
* InReach appears to be the most consistent regarding delays. It has altitude
* Cell has the richest data but can be highly variable in delays.

Alan

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:38:30 AM UTC-7, kiwiindenver wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> For those of you wondering about glider flight tracking options this year. I suggest watching the Seminole Lake Gliderport activity so see an example of a number of technologies all in one place.
>
> Here is the link http://glideport.aero/map?p=GlidePort:396
>
>
> Pilots with Spot
> AXC,FH,G1,F6,KM,N1K,U
>
> Pilots with InReach
> DK,nb?
>
> Pilots with Cell phone data
> U (Roman has both Spot and a Cell phone)
>
> No single solution is perfect. I suggest you watch the traces and see the delays and information provided by each technology.
>
>
> Some of my personal observations
> * Spot doesn't have altitude
> * InReach appears to be the most consistent regarding delays. It has altitude
> * Cell has the richest data but can be highly variable in delays.
>
> Alan

For those that missed it. Roman's cell trace was silent for about 1:20. That is a LONG time. IMHO that is also not typical, 30min is not unusual.

CORRECTION : Roman has InReach, not Spot. You can see the altitude trace.

I like watching Roman's cell trace. Compare the two traces for yourself to see the difference. BUT it can be VERY frustrating due to delays.

I like the cell data but I certainly would not trust my life to it.

Alan

[George Haeh]

Oudie Live is an app that sends position
data via Bluetooth to your phone which
then sends a data packet to a web service
such as Livetrack24, Soaring Spot or See
You Cloud. Note each service has its
differences.

XCSOAR can also work with Skylines.

Cell coverage over the Alberta foothills is
sparse on the ground, but at altitude Oudie
Live updates Livetrack24 just fine.

Our private owners use it along with
PowerFLARM which can also be used for
retrospective flight path reconstruction for
SAR, but Livetrack24 positions are
available within minutes.

I also have a PLB. Unless I end up on a
high ridge in line of sight of a tower
(there's quite a few that are not), the cell
phone won't help.

At 20:20 09 March 2016,
wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at
11:38:30 AM UTC-7, kiwiindenver wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> For those of you wondering about
glider flight tracking options this
>year. I suggest watching the Seminole
Lake Gliderport activity so see an
>example of a number of technologies all
in one place.
>>
>> Here is the lsuink
http://glideport.aero/map?
p=GlidePort:396
>>
>>
>> Pilots with Spot
>> AXC,FH,G1,F6,KM,N1K,U
>>
>> Pilots with InReach
>> DK,nb?
>>
>> Pilots with Cell phone data
>> U (Roman has both Spot and a Cell
phone)
>>
>> No single solution is perfect. I suggest
you watch the traces and see
>the delays and information provided by
each technology.
>>
>>
>> Some of my personal observations
>> * Spot doesn't have altitude
>> * InReach appears to be the most
consistent regarding delays. It has
>altitude
>> * Cell has the richest data but can be
highly variable in delays.
>>
>> Alan
>
>For those that missed it. Roman's cell
trace was silent for about 1:20.
>That is a LONG time. IMHO that is also
not typical, 30min is not unusual.
>
>CORRECTION : Roman has InReach, not
Spot. You can see the altitude trace.
>
>I like watching Roman's cell trace.
Compare the two traces for yourself to
>see the difference. BUT it can be VERY
frustrating due to delays.
>
>I like the cell data but I certainly would
not trust my life to it.
>
>Alan
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

In the West, notably Minden and Montague cell coverage at altitude is probably less than 50 percent (subjectively). On the ground it is worse, so not much in the way of emergency service. My wife follows me on In Reach and loves it. She hated spot. She knows more than we do.
Dale Bush

[George Haeh]

While cell coverage in a particular area
may not be enough to sustain a voice call,
it may be sufficient to transmit an ~100
byte data packet. Retries might be made
by the software.

The only way to find out for sure anywhere
is by flying the software and observation
of the updated flight path on the ground.

That said there's some giant coverage
gaps in the US West. We won't know until
somebody tries.

At 22:36 09 March 2016,
wrote:
>In the West, notably Minden and
Montague cell coverage at altitude is
>proba=
>bly less than 50 percent (subjectively).
On the ground it is worse, so
>no=
>t much in the way of emergency service.
My wife follows me on In Reach
>and=
> loves it. She hated spot. She knows
more than we do.
>Dale Bush
>

[[email protected]]

I fly in the Owens Valley area and find mobile text messaging is spotty at best. The iPhone will not retry a failed transmit, but will try for quite a while before reporting a failure. I'll sometimes text status to my wife and it might take a few tries to get it sent. I might see a response several hours later.

This year I upgraded my original inReach to a SE. So now she'll have the old one on a basic plan and I'll use the aviation plan. So no matter where we are, we can text each other via inReach.

Now that I've moved on from my ASH-26E to a ASW-27b, it's possible I might be landing out in some remote area. Having reliable comms with my crew is vital.

5Z

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 7:15:09 PM UTC-8, George Haeh wrote:
> While cell coverage in a particular area
> may not be enough to sustain a voice call,
> it may be sufficient to transmit an ~100
> byte data packet. Retries might be made
> by the software.

[2G]

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:24:03 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> I fly in the Owens Valley area and find mobile text messaging is spotty at best. The iPhone will not retry a failed transmit, but will try for quite a while before reporting a failure. I'll sometimes text status to my wife and it might take a few tries to get it sent. I might see a response several hours later.
>
> This year I upgraded my original inReach to a SE. So now she'll have the old one on a basic plan and I'll use the aviation plan. So no matter where we are, we can text each other via inReach.
>
> Now that I've moved on from my ASH-26E to a ASW-27b, it's possible I might be landing out in some remote area. Having reliable comms with my crew is vital.
>
> 5Z
>
> On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 7:15:09 PM UTC-8, George Haeh wrote:
> > While cell coverage in a particular area
> > may not be enough to sustain a voice call,
> > it may be sufficient to transmit an ~100
> > byte data packet. Retries might be made
> > by the software.

I originally had SPOT I and liked it, but decided to try Inreach because of the messaging capability (if you land out in the middle of Nevada you WON'T have any cell service!). I gave up on it after the first year when I found it next to impossible to suspend the monthly service, which costs $75 per month. Figuring a 6 month flying season, that works out to close to $500 per year. I went back to Spot, which costs me about $100 per year. Yeah, you don't get altitude, but who really cares? My crew only cares if I stop moving. Yes, the Inreach does keep trying if a message doesn't get thru, but with 99% reliability that has not been an issue IMHO.

Tom

[Surge]

On Thursday, 10 March 2016 00:01:52 UTC+2, George Haeh wrote:
> XCSOAR can also work with Skylines.

XCSoar also supports LiveTrack24.
LiveTrack24 support was added in XCSoar version 6.3 (2012/03/29)

[[email protected]]

In Reach now has a plan that allows you to suspend your tracking during the inactive months. Currently I am paying $5.17 a month. Their staff is very technical and their billing plans are complicated but if you persist with the right representative you can find a plan that works for our sport. DeLorme was just acquired by Garmin which will probably mean their products will become more user friendly. The ability to text from anywhere anytime is a huge advantage when landing in remote areas. The down side is that the text format is a virtual keyboard where you have to tediously select each letter from packets of three much as in an old telephone keypad. I have wondered how good I would be at that chore if agitated or injured after an outlandish.

[JS]

Alternatively you can connect InReach to a cell phone by bluetooth, and use the phone's texting features.
As Dale points out, you can buy in cheap - if you don't use tracking. There's a very usable InReach plan that includes tracking for $25 a month.
SPOT uses a less reliable satellite network than InReach.
APRS works well too. 3-minute intervals for Lat/Lon, Alt, Heading and Speed.
Like a GPS logger, if not mounted properly any tracker will be unreliable.
Jim


On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:50:30 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> The down side is that the text format is a virtual keyboard where you have to tediously select each letter from packets of three much as in an old telephone keypad.

[David Kinsell[_2_]]

Both SPOT and InReach use the Iridium sat phone network, but differences
in antennas and the unit's electronics may affect their relative
performance.

I've been clipping a SPOT Connect to a parachute strap, but that tends to
point the antenna more forward than upwards. Getting some dropped points
as a result.

InReach has a $35 monthly plan now that can suspended after N months,
which seems to be quite reasonable for most of our uses. Cheaper than
paying $25/mo all year long.

-Dave


On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:34:21 -0800, JS wrote:

> Alternatively you can connect InReach to a cell phone by bluetooth, and
> use the phone's texting features.
> As Dale points out, you can buy in cheap - if you don't use tracking.
> There's a very usable InReach plan that includes tracking for $25 a
> month.
> SPOT uses a less reliable satellite network than InReach.
> APRS works well too. 3-minute intervals for Lat/Lon, Alt, Heading and
> Speed.
> Like a GPS logger, if not mounted properly any tracker will be
> unreliable.
> Jim
>
>
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:50:30 AM UTC-8,
> wrote:
>> The down side is that the text format is a virtual keyboard where you
>> have to tediously select each letter from packets of three much as in
>> an old telephone keypad.

[Darryl Ramm]

No correct information here.

SPOT most definitely does not use Iridium, SPOT uses Glovalstar satellites, and is owned by Globalstar, having been developed by them and deployed in part to make use of their L-band simplex data capabilities in their satelites while their S-Band voice capabilities were failing with technical problems.

inReach uses Iridium, a competitor to Glovalstar, and which offers a significantly technically superior network to the Glovalstar L-band capability. Starting with it being duplex, which is why InReach can do two way messaging, and why the data transmissions are fundamentally more reliable.

[Darryl Ramm]

(repost due to typos)

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-7, David Kinsell wrote:
> Both SPOT and InReach use the Iridium sat phone network, but differences
> in antennas and the unit's electronics may affect their relative
> performance.

No that is completely wrong. Folks have already pointed out they use different networks and that affects reliability. Why not check before posting plain wrong "corrections" to other people's posts?

SPOT is owned by Globalstar, a direct competitor of Iridium.

SPOT uses the L-band simplex data link on the Globalstar satellite constellation. SPOT was developed by Globalstar, in-part to make use of their systems capacity while their S-Band voice data capability was failing on their satellites. SPOT was really just a shrink/consumer repackaging of asset tracking/logistics systems that Globalstar already had deployed. The L-Band network used by SPOT is not the Globalstar S-Band "sat phone network", it happens to share the same satellites that is all.

InReach uses Iridium's constellation. Clearly developed as a response to SPOT. The first InReach product actually used Globalstar's network but they quickly abandoned that (I suspect because they woke up that they were competing with their supplier in a battle they could never win, and Iridium is just technically superior). Iridium offers a superior *duplex* data link capability. Which is why InReach can do two way messaging and SPOT cannot. Iridium is inherently more reliable than the simplex (transmit blind and hope) messaging on Globalstar/SPOT.


>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:34:21 -0800, JS wrote:
>
> > Alternatively you can connect InReach to a cell phone by bluetooth, and
> > use the phone's texting features.
> > As Dale points out, you can buy in cheap - if you don't use tracking.
> > There's a very usable InReach plan that includes tracking for $25 a
> > month.
> > SPOT uses a less reliable satellite network than InReach.
> > APRS works well too. 3-minute intervals for Lat/Lon, Alt, Heading and
> > Speed.
> > Like a GPS logger, if not mounted properly any tracker will be
> > unreliable.
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:50:30 AM UTC-8,
> > wrote:
> >> The down side is that the text format is a virtual keyboard where you
> >> have to tediously select each letter from packets of three much as in
> >> an old telephone keypad.