Spot off ...WTF?

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

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

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...?

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

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

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.

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

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

-------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

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/