Has a glider ever been found using the transponder radar track?

[Eric Greenwell]

I'm wondering if a transponder-equipped glider would be an aid to search
and rescue people. I've heard that the radar tracks can be obtained from
ATC, but not if S&R people actually do that, and if it can be done in a
timely fashion (less than 24 hours, say).

What are people's experience with this use of transponders for location
of downed aircraft, especially gliders?

If their job isn't any harder than it would be searching for an
ELT-equipped glider, people with transponders could be exempted from
also installing an ELT; people with neither might decide the money is
better spent on installing a transponder.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Centurion]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> I'm wondering if a transponder-equipped glider would be an aid to search
> and rescue people. I've heard that the radar tracks can be obtained from
> ATC, but not if S&R people actually do that, and if it can be done in a
> timely fashion (less than 24 hours, say).
>
> What are people's experience with this use of transponders for location
> of downed aircraft, especially gliders?

Unless the aircraft has gone down in a relatively flat area with good
primary and secondary radar coverage, the final resting place of a missing
aircraft is only marginally easier than guesswork. I have flown SAR
missions for missing aircraft west of Sydney, Australia and in one case
after a week of sorties the search was called off. The aircraft was found
1 month later by bush walkers almost 80nm from the last radar return in
heavily wooded and mountainous terrain. Both pilots survived the impact
but died (probably within 2-3 days after impact) of burns and other
injuries sustained in the accident. The ELT was also destroyed in the
post-impact fire, which obviously wouldn't be likely in a glider.

> If their job isn't any harder than it would be searching for an
> ELT-equipped glider, people with transponders could be exempted from
> also installing an ELT; people with neither might decide the money is
> better spent on installing a transponder.

Modern digital ELT's have some major advantages over transponders:
1. they only activate when needed (usually)
2. they have an internal power source
3. they have global coverage (Australia has bugger-all radar coverage)
4. many have built-in GPS to transmit exact location to SAR authorities
5. digital ELT's can also be programmed to transmit registration/owner
details to SAR authorities too.
6. when an ELT/EPIRB transmission is received, it is considered "real" until
*verified* a false +ve. A radar blip that disappears wont initiate an
emergency response until much later (compared to ELT transmission).

In short, if I'm a downed pilot requiring assistance, I'd much rather be
relying on an ELT/EPIRB than some boffin starring at a radar console :)

Cheers,

James
--
Kerr's Three Rules for a Successful College:
Have plenty of football for the alumni, sex for the students,
and parking for the faculty.

[Mark Zivley]

The increasing number of self launching and sustaining powered gliders
means there is more chance of a post crash fire fed by the gas on board
and then thereafter by the composites and other materials.

[Eric Greenwell]

Centurion wrote:

>
> In short, if I'm a downed pilot requiring assistance, I'd much rather be
> relying on an ELT/EPIRB than some boffin starring at a radar console :)

I wasn't thinking that ATC would notice the lost signal, but that search
and rescue would contact them when they were notified that a pilot was
missing. The trail would be there (presumably), even if the crash was
bad enough to destroy an ELT.

In our relatively flat area, we have complete radar coverage. Perhaps if
a contest official, pilot, etc could determine that the trail end could
be easily, transponder equipped pilots wouldn't need the ELT. Of course,
our relatively flat and treeless area makes searching easier anyway. I
don't recall a pilot being lost in 30 years of contest flying here
(Ephrata). Sometimes they don't call in when they are together with
their crew, but an ELT won't help with that. This situation is improving
as so many people have cell phones now.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Centurion]

Mark Zivley wrote:

> The increasing number of self launching and sustaining powered gliders
> means there is more chance of a post crash fire fed by the gas on board
> and then thereafter by the composites and other materials.

A very good point. Thanks.

James
--
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
-- Dr. Who

[Eric Greenwell]

Centurion wrote:
> Mark Zivley wrote:
>
>
>>The increasing number of self launching and sustaining powered gliders
>>means there is more chance of a post crash fire fed by the gas on board
>>and then thereafter by the composites and other materials.
>
>
> A very good point. Thanks.

The possibility is there, but I don't know of any gliders that have
burned after crashing. Does anyone know someone that had a post-crash fire?

I do know of at least a couple gliders that caught on fire on the ramp
due to the canopy, and some electrical fires in the air, but none from a
crash. I think there was 2-22 or 2-33 that ignited the skid during a
landing, and at least started smoking. True?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[John Giddy]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:00:10 -0800, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> The possibility is there, but I don't know of any gliders that have
> burned after crashing. Does anyone know someone that had a post-crash fire?
>
> I do know of at least a couple gliders that caught on fire on the ramp
> due to the canopy, and some electrical fires in the air, but none from a
> crash. I think there was 2-22 or 2-33 that ignited the skid during a
> landing, and at least started smoking. True?

Not sure if you meant pure gliders or motorgliders.
I cetrainly know of an RF5 which hit a power line durimg low flying
and burned when it hit the ground.
John G.

[COLIN LAMB]

I am a member of Search and Rescue - on the ground end of things. I have
been involved in a number of missing aircraft searches and have my own ELT
tracking equipment. We regularly practice searches in mountainous country.

My experience has been that when we have a report of a missing aircraft and
begin the search, that the sparse information we get is ambiguous and
incomplete. By the time information gets to us, it has been through a
number of relays. Our area is the Coast Range of Western Oregon.
Transponder tracking is undependable and late at best. In most cases we get
no information at all. In one case, involving a fatality, the only useful
information we had was from a "last seen" report from a fellow pilot. We
picked a spot on the map that was likely and sent in ground teams on logging
roads to do a visual search. Weather was bad. We found the aircraft after
2 days, before either the National Guard or the CAP. The aircraft was
destroyed. After searching the wreckage, we found an orange piece of
plastic - similar to the color used in ELTs - the size of a quarter dollar.
In a second fatality, our ground team was out searching when a logger
reported a plume of smoke by his cell phone. In both cases, the aircraft
had ELTs and transponders. In both cases, the aircraft was found by luck
and/or good guesswork.

The ELT is not bullet proof. I believe it is likely to survive a crash if
the pilot does, but no more. The installation is also critical. For
example, with a remote antenna, the coax cable could be severed in a crash,
rendering the entire system useless. I suppose the best solution would be
to have an ejection system and ballistic parachute for the ELT, so that just
before a crash the pilot hits a button to eject the ELT and bring it down to
safety, But I can tell that idea will never fly.

Colin N12HS (Yamhill County Sheriffs Search and Rescue)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04

[COLIN LAMB]

I might mention that the most useful questions for the searchers are: where
was the pilot going; where did he depart from and when was he last heard
from.

Sailplanes would be much more difficult to find, because most of the time
the pilot has no idea where he is going and does not know when he will get
there. Never having searched for a sailplane pilot, I suppose the questions
would be: where is the best lift; where did he hang out and where and when
was he last seen. Would probably ask if there was any areas of turbulence
and the skills of the pilot. From that point on, it is something like
looking for a needle in a haystack.

Colin N12HS




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04

[For Example John Smith]

I'm beginning to wonder if the problems associated w/ELTs don't approach the
level of problems associated with a much lower cost and far more ubiquitous
option--GPS enabled cell phones.

No, a GPS phone won't send out a signal if you crash and yes, we do fly in a
lot of places where a cell phone conversation composed mostly of "can you
hear me now?" is considered a good connection. That said, the standard of
comparison isn't perfection--the ELT is an unreliable piece of equipment.
If a sailplane goes down, a 'last sighted near' report and a call to the
phone operator would be effective in some cases. Less often than with an
ELT?--that's anybody's GUESS. Do I remember correctly that the cell phone
company was able to provide some information to the teams searching for
Peter Masak, eventhough his phone was not GPS enabled?

This new rule looks a bit to me like a "we've gotta do something" response.
I'd buy a $300 ELT to comply with the rules but would have a hard time
spending $2k, eventhough from the disucssion it seems like that's the
pricepoint where the product works well enough to be somewhat useful. We
each (should) decide for ourselves what the value is. I look at the
situation and say "this is a low occurance problem with a 'solution' that
only has a 50% chance of helping'. Others say "if it only saves one life it
is worth it".

YMMV

Brent

"COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message
. net...
> I am a member of Search and Rescue - on the ground end of things. I have
> been involved in a number of missing aircraft searches and have my own ELT
> tracking equipment. We regularly practice searches in mountainous
country.
>
> My experience has been that when we have a report of a missing aircraft
and
> begin the search, that the sparse information we get is ambiguous and
> incomplete. By the time information gets to us, it has been through a
> number of relays. Our area is the Coast Range of Western Oregon.
> Transponder tracking is undependable and late at best. In most cases we
get
> no information at all. In one case, involving a fatality, the only useful
> information we had was from a "last seen" report from a fellow pilot. We
> picked a spot on the map that was likely and sent in ground teams on
logging
> roads to do a visual search. Weather was bad. We found the aircraft
after
> 2 days, before either the National Guard or the CAP. The aircraft was
> destroyed. After searching the wreckage, we found an orange piece of
> plastic - similar to the color used in ELTs - the size of a quarter
dollar.
> In a second fatality, our ground team was out searching when a logger
> reported a plume of smoke by his cell phone. In both cases, the aircraft
> had ELTs and transponders. In both cases, the aircraft was found by luck
> and/or good guesswork.
>
> The ELT is not bullet proof. I believe it is likely to survive a crash if
> the pilot does, but no more. The installation is also critical. For
> example, with a remote antenna, the coax cable could be severed in a
crash,
> rendering the entire system useless. I suppose the best solution would be
> to have an ejection system and ballistic parachute for the ELT, so that
just
> before a crash the pilot hits a button to eject the ELT and bring it down
to
> safety, But I can tell that idea will never fly.
>
> Colin N12HS (Yamhill County Sheriffs Search and Rescue)
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

COLIN LAMB > wrote:
>had ELTs and transponders. In both cases, the aircraft was found by luck
>and/or good guesswork.
>
>The ELT is not bullet proof. I believe it is likely to survive a crash if
>the pilot does, but no more. The installation is also critical. For
>example, with a remote antenna, the coax cable could be severed in a crash,
>rendering the entire system useless.
>
>Colin N12HS (Yamhill County Sheriffs Search and Rescue)

One of the reasons I wear my ELT across my chest and activate it before
outlandings is for all of these reasons. Plus I can take it in any
aircraft. I also carry handheld radio and cell phone.

Installed ELTs and radios seem really much more delicate than
the personal ELT or handheld radios. And certainly seem
somewhat more delicate than humans. I'd rather have a more
surviveable ELT with my little tiny battery and antenna than
an installed one that will have the coax severed and battery case
crushed.

If my personal ELT is destroyed, then it means my harness broke and
my body is dismembered and obliterated. Yes, it may take
a month for some hiker to wander over my body, but hey, I
wouldn't be in too much of a hurry anyway.

Like I said, I'm interested in cases where an installed ELT
would make the difference between life and death. Beyond that,
I'd like to know how many of these cases wouldn't be
just as solved by a personal ELT activated right before an
attempted outlanding.

I'm not so concerned about the midair/parchuting out cases.
I have yet to hear of any case where someone parachuting out
with a handheld or cell phone would have been better off
with ELT or not...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Centurion wrote:
>
> The possibility is there, but I don't know of any gliders that have
> burned after crashing. Does anyone know someone that had a post-crash
fire?
>
Not a crash, but in the early 60's a pilot dropped his cigarette in a 2-22.
The ship started burning on final. The guys got out immediately on landing
and all the fabric burnt off the 2-22.

Duane

[BGMIFF]

To my knowledge, no cellphone information was used in the Peter Masak
search. He was in mountains with little to no service, and very rugged. The
ELT was the saving grace here!


"For Example John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> I'm beginning to wonder if the problems associated w/ELTs don't approach
the
> level of problems associated with a much lower cost and far more
ubiquitous
> option--GPS enabled cell phones.
>
> No, a GPS phone won't send out a signal if you crash and yes, we do fly in
a
> lot of places where a cell phone conversation composed mostly of "can you
> hear me now?" is considered a good connection. That said, the standard of
> comparison isn't perfection--the ELT is an unreliable piece of equipment.
> If a sailplane goes down, a 'last sighted near' report and a call to the
> phone operator would be effective in some cases. Less often than with an
> ELT?--that's anybody's GUESS. Do I remember correctly that the cell phone
> company was able to provide some information to the teams searching for
> Peter Masak, eventhough his phone was not GPS enabled?
>
> This new rule looks a bit to me like a "we've gotta do something"
response.
> I'd buy a $300 ELT to comply with the rules but would have a hard time
> spending $2k, eventhough from the disucssion it seems like that's the
> pricepoint where the product works well enough to be somewhat useful. We
> each (should) decide for ourselves what the value is. I look at the
> situation and say "this is a low occurance problem with a 'solution' that
> only has a 50% chance of helping'. Others say "if it only saves one life
it
> is worth it".
>
> YMMV
>
> Brent
>
> "COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > I am a member of Search and Rescue - on the ground end of things. I
have
> > been involved in a number of missing aircraft searches and have my own
ELT
> > tracking equipment. We regularly practice searches in mountainous
> country.
> >
> > My experience has been that when we have a report of a missing aircraft
> and
> > begin the search, that the sparse information we get is ambiguous and
> > incomplete. By the time information gets to us, it has been through a
> > number of relays. Our area is the Coast Range of Western Oregon.
> > Transponder tracking is undependable and late at best. In most cases we
> get
> > no information at all. In one case, involving a fatality, the only
useful
> > information we had was from a "last seen" report from a fellow pilot.
We
> > picked a spot on the map that was likely and sent in ground teams on
> logging
> > roads to do a visual search. Weather was bad. We found the aircraft
> after
> > 2 days, before either the National Guard or the CAP. The aircraft was
> > destroyed. After searching the wreckage, we found an orange piece of
> > plastic - similar to the color used in ELTs - the size of a quarter
> dollar.
> > In a second fatality, our ground team was out searching when a logger
> > reported a plume of smoke by his cell phone. In both cases, the
aircraft
> > had ELTs and transponders. In both cases, the aircraft was found by
luck
> > and/or good guesswork.
> >
> > The ELT is not bullet proof. I believe it is likely to survive a crash
if
> > the pilot does, but no more. The installation is also critical. For
> > example, with a remote antenna, the coax cable could be severed in a
> crash,
> > rendering the entire system useless. I suppose the best solution would
be
> > to have an ejection system and ballistic parachute for the ELT, so that
> just
> > before a crash the pilot hits a button to eject the ELT and bring it
down
> to
> > safety, But I can tell that idea will never fly.
> >
> > Colin N12HS (Yamhill County Sheriffs Search and Rescue)
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04
> >
> >
>
>

[[email protected]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> T o d d P a t t i s t >
> wrote:
>
> >can you verify for
> >me whether Peter's ELT was a 121.5/243 MHz unit or one of
> >the newer 406 MHz units?
>
> In case others want to know the answer to this, I've been
> informed it was a standard C91a 121.5/243 MHz unit. That
> gives me some comfort, since that is the type of ELT I have
> in my Ventus. In fact, the reason I bought it was after
> getting low in a remote area on the same ridges where
> Peter's accident occurred.

Additonal Info:
Peter's ELT is one of the later style that uploads info to satellite so
there was a positive ID. Very useful in knowing it was a real event.
UH

[[email protected]]

I got it wrong. Have since found out Peter was using older style 121.5
ELT. I was there and still had the wrong info.
Sorry for the misinformation.
UH