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.

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

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

"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.

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

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

"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.

"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.

"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

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