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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Crash site of missing plane found (North Las Vegas to San Diego)
"R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:20040303194733.3b99a3f5@fstop... An unfortunate end to a plane gone missing: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../23314333.html Interesting that they used radar signals to find the crash site. I thought they would always do that. It is extremely difficult to sort out the all those planes squawking 1200; even harder to pick out traces of airplanes with no transponders. They are analyzing the radar tracks to find an airplane that went missing in this area recently. It will probably take several days, if not weeks, with a poor chance of success. There are still large areas of the country without radar coverage of any kind, especially in the West in the mountain regions. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article 20040303194733.3b99a3f5@fstop,
R. Hubbell wrote: An unfortunate end to a plane gone missing: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../23314333.html Interesting that they used radar signals to find the crash site. I thought they would always do that. Doing a radar analysis to find a crash site isn't as easy as it sounds. It isn't just replaying the tapes until a plane disappears. The usual way to do it is to determine when the plane took off, and start tracking it from the departure airport. Even in the local area, there will be multiple radars tracking the plane. Over a longer distance, there are many more radar tapes to to synchronize, and there isn't 100% radar coverage. Determining the departure time is sometimes real detective work. I remember one search ~5years ago. A pilot flying from California to OSH wasn't reported missing until he didn't return from OSH. The folks in California thought he was having a good time at OSH, and his friends at OSH thought he decided not to go. IIRC, he didn't use credit cards, and refueled at non-towered airports. After a bunch of interviews with FBOs along the way, he was finally able to be tracked. The radar tracks showed the plane flying at 11,500ft, and ended at a 12,000ft mountain. The NTSB number for this accident is SEA98FA161 or follow the link http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X10951&key=1 I'm not involved in CAP any more, but the best ways to be found are in order of chance of success (IMHO): 1. IFR flight plan 2. VFR flight plan with flight following 3. flight following w/o flight plan 4. VFR flight plan 5. informal flight plan with friends/family (indicate route of flight/etc) 6. airband radio in survival gear 7. cell phone 8. land in someone's backyard 9. 406mhz ELT w/ GPS A 406mhz ELT is much better then 121.5 only ELTs, but is still not that reliable a way to find a plane. After countless false alarm searches for 121.5 signals, I consider 121.5 ELTs only to be useful as expensive ballast. ELTs have a 99%+ false alarm rate (of the times they go off, over 99% are false alarms), and have a 95%+ failure rate in actual crashes. A sizeable number of the crashes they do activate in are crashes were no search is needed (land in someone's field). I don't have current stats, so the numbers above are a few years old, but have been in that range for years. ELTs work in such a small number of crashes that it hard to get statistically significant numbers. John -- John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ya this was not to far from my house.
I saw it on the news the other night. I am surprised no one saw the plane, lots of training flights go out that way. the jean dry lake bed is the main training area the area around primm is a good over flow area. "R. Hubbell" wrote: An unfortunate end to a plane gone missing: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../23314333.html Interesting that they used radar signals to find the crash site. I thought they would always do that. R. Hubbell |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"R. Hubbell" wrote: Interesting how ineffective ELTs are, the FAA should be reminded of this often. It sounds really broken. I disagree. They're relatively cheap, as aviation items go, and they work often enough to be worth the trouble. Keep reminding the FAA, and soon we'll have mandatory flight plans and flight following. George Patterson A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you look forward to the trip. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
G.R. Patterson III wrote: "R. Hubbell" wrote: Interesting how ineffective ELTs are, the FAA should be reminded of this often. It sounds really broken. I disagree. They're relatively cheap, as aviation items go, and they work often enough to be worth the trouble. Keep reminding the FAA, and soon we'll have mandatory flight plans and flight following. The thing is ELTs don't work often enough. They don't work period. In 15 years of CAP SAR missions, I was never on a search were an ELT signal led to an actual crash site. I wasn't on all these searches, but trust the people that were. The false alarm 121.5 signals led to: - a plane on the ramp (many of these, including 3 on one search at SJC) - a boat at the dock (EPIRBs use 121.5 as well) - an ELT in a dumpster (Moffett) - a life raft on a 747 (SFO) - many UPS trucks (take the batteries out before shipment) - an FAA transmitter at SFO - the wreckage of a crashed aircraft that had been removed from the crash site (ELT did not go off in the initial crash) - an EPIRB with batteries that had expired 15 years previously - a fax machine - a pizza oven - a helicopter on the back of a truck EPIRBs work well for boats, since weight isn't an issue, and boats don't contact cumulogranite at 100+ knots. Making an ELT that would work better in planes would make it weight too much, unfortunately. The current ELTs have very little value. They are most likely to fail when you need them most, and work when you don't want them too. My last few years in CAP, I didn't even bother volunteering for ELT only searches, since they are just a waste of time. Unless there is an ALNOT (Alert Notice), it is pretty much guaranteed to be a false alarm. John -- John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article 20040304083811.6bfd1692@fstop, R. Hubbell
wrote: I think there is a lot more radar coverage than what you might think. Out west there's a lot of MOAs and that means radar coverage, I don't know if the military will share that data, but I suspect they would for SAR OPS. an MOA means radar coverage? btw - until recently, neither the FAA nor the USAF had a quick way to see enough radar plot/track history to be useful. That is different post 9-11, the reasons are left as an exercise for the student. -- Bob Noel |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"R. Hubbell" wrote in message I think there is a lot more radar coverage than what you might think. Out west there's a lot of MOAs and that means radar coverage, I don't know if the military will share that data, but I suspect they would for SAR OPS. I know a MOA not an hour's flight from here that is in class G airspace and has no radar coverage. Radar is very spotty in the mountains. Almost every long cross country that I make I spend some time out of radar contact. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:20040304204200.7c3e18f3@fstop... On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 20:25:06 -0800 "C J Campbell" wrote: "R. Hubbell" wrote in message I think there is a lot more radar coverage than what you might think. Out west there's a lot of MOAs and that means radar coverage, I don't know if the military will share that data, but I suspect they would for SAR OPS. I know a MOA not an hour's flight from here that is in class G airspace and has no radar coverage. None that you can use? Or none at all? MOAs often have radar for obvious reasons. It's not for civilian aircraft. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ And what would be the obvious reasons? Apparently they have escaped the military. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:20040304204327.504e1427@fstop... On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:31:54 GMT Bob Noel wrote: an MOA means radar coverage? MOA - military operations area He knows what "MOA" stands for. He's questioning your statement that 100% of all MOA airspace is under radar coverage. You wrote: "Out west there's a lot of MOAs and that means radar coverage" Please explain why it is that a MOA "means radar coverage" (those were your own words). Pete |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article 20040304234136.5e236ffa@fstop, R. Hubbell
wrote: an MOA means radar coverage? MOA - military operations area He knows what "MOA" stands for. So you are his interpreter? He specifically asked "an MOA means radar coverage?" answer is MOA - military operations area That was easy. Peter was spot on. I know what an MOA is. I want to know why you think every MOA has radar coverage. (after that, we can discuss how those plots/tracks can be recovered quickly to assist SAR missions). -- Bob Noel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | December 1st 03 06:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | November 1st 03 06:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | October 1st 03 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | September 1st 03 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | August 1st 03 07:27 AM |