Glider crash at Moriarty

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 1:06:59 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 7:52:36 AM UTC-4, David Kinsell wrote:
In the Stu Kissel crash, CAP put out a nice press release taking credit
for the find. Let's just say it was found in spite of CAP, certainly not
because of them.

Well since we all to some extent depend on CAP for SAR, is there any chance that CAP training/procedures might be improved based on this incident? Does anyone at CAP recognize the press release as inappropriately self-congratulatory, or are they clueless?

Is the problem that CAP lacks knowledge of glider flight practices and how to use things like Powerflarm data to find downed aircraft? That seems fixable.

My experience( limited) is that you can't teach the CAP much of anything. They know it all.
That said, it isn't surprising that they self promote which can help funding and enthusiasm for what is a volunteer group. I'm glad they are willing to try to help us.
UH

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 12:34:00 PM UTC-5, wrote:

My experience( limited) is that you can't teach the CAP much of anything. They know it all.
That said, it isn't surprising that they self promote which can help funding and enthusiasm for what is a volunteer group. I'm glad they are willing to try to help us.
UH

My understanding is that there will be a face to face meeting with several of the local authorities and organizations involved to discuss the events as they played out. Everything from inappropriate release of information to the public, to cutting out those involved with initiating the search. Knowing the person that will be involved from "our" end, it will be handled very politely and very firmly. So, yes. An attempt will be made to improve CAP and others procedures.

Steve Leonard

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 7:06:26 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
The aircraft was found very close to locations indicated by SPOT and FLARM, even though there was only one SPOT fix in the general area. The wreckage was difficult to find because it consists of very small pieces and is on a slope. The initial search also only started in late afternoon a few hours before sunset. We do not know if more location data would have helped.

Mike

I'm interested in the comment about FLARM; did the search use the procedure described in "FLARM® as an additional tool when searching a missing aircraft" on the flarm.com website? If yes, I'm curious how close their last known position (LKP) was to the crash site. If no, I wonder if the .igc files of those flying could be sent as described, and the LKP determined.

There used to be a direct link on flarm.com to the document, now it's buried a bit (found it at http://flarm.com/french-gliding-fede...tegy-on-flarm/ ).

There is a lot of data in the flarm messages that might locate a downed friend more quickly, if used...

Dan,
Regarding FLARM data, files were sent to FLARM for review, but the wreckage was found before the data was analyzed and the effort was then suspended. Efforts to use a portable PowerFlarm to help pinpoint the glider were unsuccessful due to the fact the glider's FLARM and transponder were, we believe, without power. We will have to wait until the investigation is complete to verify the power issue, but the only hits we received on the PowerFlarm, as we flew near the suspected crash area were (as best we can tell), transponders from the search aircraft...
Thx - Renny

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 12:42:43 PM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 7:06:26 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
The aircraft was found very close to locations indicated by SPOT and FLARM, even though there was only one SPOT fix in the general area. The wreckage was difficult to find because it consists of very small pieces and is on a slope. The initial search also only started in late afternoon a few hours before sunset. We do not know if more location data would have helped..

Mike

I'm interested in the comment about FLARM; did the search use the procedure described in "FLARM® as an additional tool when searching a missing aircraft" on the flarm.com website? If yes, I'm curious how close their last known position (LKP) was to the crash site. If no, I wonder if the .igc files of those flying could be sent as described, and the LKP determined.

There used to be a direct link on flarm.com to the document, now it's buried a bit (found it at http://flarm.com/french-gliding-fede...tegy-on-flarm/ ).

There is a lot of data in the flarm messages that might locate a downed friend more quickly, if used...

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 10:34:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:
My experience( limited) is that you can't teach the CAP much of anything. They know it all.
That said, it isn't surprising that they self promote which can help funding and enthusiasm for what is a volunteer group. I'm glad they are willing to try to help us.

We glider pilots had a good idea of where to search, but local CAP pilots were being directed to search pretty much the whole state, and our please for a more concentrated search failed. Late in the afternoon they finally let us join the search, but still not where we wanted to be. They finally called it a day and headed home, so we made a beeline for our assumed crash site and saw the wreckage on the first pass. Took several more passes to confirm the initial glimpse.

They really need learn to involve "subject matter experts". Soaring has very little in common with airplanes except for the takeoff and landing.

5Z

My experience with CAP in SAR mode has been uniformly negative, from the Appalachians to the Rockies to the Sierra Nevada.


CAP threatened my Dad and a family friend with arrest after Dad located a missing aircraft and orbited in his Super Cub while coordinating with a friend in a helo to land near the site to check for survivors. According to CAP, they were "interfering with a SAR operation". State Troopers who were summoned to the scene declined to arrest and had a pretty "vigorous" discussion with the CAP commander. As discussed above, CAP took credit for the find and and totally refused advice from pilots with several hundred years of collective experience in finding wrecks in that area.

Rumor has it that CAP has wrecked more airplanes than they have found crashes. I tend to believe it. They are pretty much the laughingstock of aviation in the southern Appalachians.

Robert's point is very good. No matter what the naysayers say, having a chance is better than having no chance, which is exactly what you have if you don't have a good 406MHz ELT onboard. Relying on SPOT, a low transmit power device, to get through when you need it most just doesn't seem smart to me.

The Kannad Integra has a built-in GPS, GPS Antenna, and 406 MHz antenna. If the external antenna is damaged in he accident, it can sense the damage and switch to the internal. A remote control on the control panel can be immediately engaged by the pilot before the aircraft impacts. The lithium battery lasts for five years between replacement. I have one in each of my aircraft. The cost, weight, and install hassle is minimal, so I really don't understand why every glider doesn't have one.

A SPOT is a good idea in addition to an ELT, but shouldn't be considered a primary emergency device in my opinion. SPOT is for realtime tracking when some inaccuracy is acceptable, no more, no less.

The expectation that S&R can find you immediately without accurate positioning information is misplaced. This is a hard job and I intend to make it as easy as I can for them should the need arise.


Mark Lenox

Let's cut through the fog and quit kvetching about irrelevancies such as CAP arrogance.
406-mHz ELT or PLB: location accuracy 100 meters
ELT cost: $650+
PLB cost: $250+
(If you can afford to fly, you can afford one)
121.5 mHz ELT: location accuracy 12000 meters
ELT cost: your life

If you don't put a GPS-equipped 406 mHz ELT in your aircraft or PLB on your straps, don't complain about the CAP, your spouse, or God when you're lying broken and cold and in pain in the wreckage. Blame yourself.

References:
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/406vs121.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 10:56:44 AM UTC-7, danlj wrote:
Let's cut through the fog and quit kvetching about irrelevancies such as CAP arrogance.
406-mHz ELT or PLB: location accuracy 100 meters
ELT cost: $650+
PLB cost: $250+
(If you can afford to fly, you can afford one)
121.5 mHz ELT: location accuracy 12000 meters
ELT cost: your life

If you don't put a GPS-equipped 406 mHz ELT in your aircraft or PLB on your straps, don't complain about the CAP, your spouse, or God when you're lying broken and cold and in pain in the wreckage. Blame yourself.

References:
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/406vs121.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html

+ Spot/Inreach
Certain places wouldnt tow you without one, and I agree.
It is the only device which automatically send you location every 10 minutes.
ELT is the most accurate *if* it gets activated. PLB only useful if you can activate it yourself.
Bottom line, if you can afford only one device, or dont want to deal with installation, get a spot/InReach. If you can afford more, get all the devices you can afford. The more the better.

Ramy

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 1:18:00 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
+ Spot/Inreach
Certain places wouldnt tow you without one, and I agree.

Which places won't tow you without one?