A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Spot off ...WTF?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 29th 14, 04:55 AM
POPS POPS is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Dec 2010
Posts: 76
Default Spot off ...WTF?

http://sailinganarchy.com/

Go to - spot off -

Good to know?
  #2  
Old March 29th 14, 02:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
son_of_flubber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,550
Default Spot off ...WTF?

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.
  #3  
Old March 29th 14, 07:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kirk.stant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Spot off ...WTF?

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
  #4  
Old March 29th 14, 08:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
son_of_flubber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,550
Default Spot off ...WTF?

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.
  #5  
Old March 29th 14, 10:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
darrylr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Spot off ...WTF?

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/AssetF...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




  #6  
Old March 30th 14, 12:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
son_of_flubber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,550
Default Spot off ...WTF?

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.
  #7  
Old March 30th 14, 01:42 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
darrylr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Spot off ...WTF?

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.


  #8  
Old March 30th 14, 02:25 AM
POPS POPS is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Dec 2010
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darrylr View Post
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/AssetF...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....
  #9  
Old March 30th 14, 04:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
son_of_flubber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,550
Default Spot off ...WTF?

From the report on this accident by US Sailing.
http://offshore.ussailing.org/AssetF...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. "




  #10  
Old March 30th 14, 05:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ramy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 601
Default Spot off ...WTF?

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/AssetF...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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spot vs Spot Connect guy Soaring 9 January 25th 12 04:48 PM
Spot deal, today only, buy service get a free Spot Tim Taylor Soaring 3 December 1st 08 11:30 PM
SPOT GPS jeplane Soaring 17 February 5th 08 06:23 AM
SPOT D.Rizzato Piloting 0 February 5th 08 01:42 AM
SPOT D.Rizzato Owning 0 February 5th 08 01:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.