Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

[Heliian]

No matter what kind of safety equipment you have, being able to make a good decision whether to fly or not will always evade some.

Someone once said that "No one has ever been killed by my decision not to fly."

[charrois]

SPOT may be great, but subscriptions aren't "a few dollars". Looks like the minimal package is $200/year. I most certainly would oppose putting a requirement for something like that into the CARs. For those who want it, it's a great option. But I wouldn't want to see it as yet another legislated requirement.

Of course, people will use the "flying isn't cheap" excuse. I don't mind one time costs, but I for one do everything I can to get rid of monthly bills.

I agree fully that ELTs or any device that hopefully activates in an accident isn't anywhere near as effective as something providing a breadcrumb trail. That's why I personally prefer to invest in ADS-B out. We need it anyway to fly into controlled US airspace in a couple of years, and as ground stations continue to expand, coverage will improve (of course, when/if NavCanada implements satellite-based ADS-B, the era of being somewhere without service will end. Though having to have two ELT antennas for that to work properly will be problematic...). When I'm flying, friends just follow my progress along on FlightAware, and I don't have to pay subscription fees for them to do so. Plus, I'm visible to other aircraft with ADS-B in hardware, which certainly can't hurt. I know I appreciate seeing them.

Of course, ADS-B position reports aren't as reliable as SPOT yet - we need more ground stations.. particularly along the east side of BC where the peaks are tallest. If anyone living in the Golden, Revelstoke, Sicamous area is interested in expanding the global network of ADS-B receiver ground stations, check out a web site like https://flightaware.com/adsb/piaware/build

Dan

[5x5]

The added benefit of a "personal beacon" device is that it's portable and can be used in all sorts of other outdoor/"removed from civilization" situations - quadding, snowmobiling, hiking, boating, etc.

Not sure that Flightaware is the answer for most of us since we are talking VFR flights. Here are a couple of excerpts from their Q&A...

Can FlightAware track VFR flights? What about a VFR flight with a flight plan?

VFR flight tracking is not officially supported although some aircraft flying VFR with flight following or aircraft that are ADS-B equipped, tracking is available by turning on position-only flights on your account. Origin, destination, departure, arrival, and flight plan data may not be available. In Australia, VFR flights are fully supported by FlightAware as long as they have been assigned a transponder code.

VFR flight plans are irrelevant and only used by FSS for search and rescue. We suggest ensuring that aircraft are on an IFR flight plan from wheels up to wheels down for proper tracking.

What is a position-only flight?

A position-only flight is a flight for which FlightAware has not received a filed flight plan, for example a VFR flight. In those cases, if we receive position reports via ADS-B or another source, the flight can be trackable as a position-only flight.

Note that position-only flights are by nature less accurate, since FlightAware has not received a filed origin, destination, or route, and the aircraft may enter and leave areas of coverage throughout the flight.

[cncpc]

As is known, the ELT didn't work on the Mooney in the Pass.

As this cropped photo shows, quite a lot of damage right around the area where it probably was located.

tailonly.jpg (120.4 KiB) Viewed 2657 times

[AirFrame]

SPOT may be great, but subscriptions aren't "a few dollars". Looks like the minimal package is $200/year. I most certainly would oppose putting a requirement for something like that into the CARs. For those who want it, it's a great option. But I wouldn't want to see it as yet another legislated requirement.

Keep in mind that you're getting a lot for that $200 though, compared to the ELT system that does *nothing* until you activate it, in an emergency that you hope never happens. My SPOT runs every time I fly, broadcasts every 5 minutes, and is posted to a website live. That can't be done without a cost. If Flightaware was doing that for every VFR ADS-B aircraft, it wouldn't surprise me if their costs go up... Someone has to pay them.

That's why I personally prefer to invest in ADS-B out. We need it anyway to fly into controlled US airspace in a couple of years, and as ground stations continue to expand, coverage will improve (of course, when/if NavCanada implements satellite-based ADS-B, the era of being somewhere without service will end. Though having to have two ELT antennas for that to work properly will be problematic....

Exactly. ADS-B in the US is a useful system. ADS-B in Canada is incomplete, conflicts with the US system (antenna diversity requirement), and doesn't offer any of the incentives the US system does (weather, notams, radar). It's not even *capable* of providing the freebies the US gets, because the system they've chosen doesn't have the bandwidth for it and can't be expanded without great cost. And no, we haven't heard about what the Canadian system will cost... Keep telling yourself it'll be free, and don't be surprised if your annual NavCanada fee goes up to cover it.

Of course, ADS-B position reports aren't as reliable as SPOT yet - we need more ground stations.. particularly along the east side of BC where the peaks are tallest. If anyone living in the Golden, Revelstoke, Sicamous area is interested in expanding the global network of ADS-B receiver ground stations, check out a web site like https://flightaware.com/adsb/piaware/build

I don't know if it's part of that project or not, but there is a project to build ADS-B ground stations based on the Stratux hardware... Shorter range (30-70 mi) but with a few distributed around metro areas and some points along major routes we could grow a system as useful as the US one.

[lownslow]

Keep telling yourself it'll be free, and don't be surprised if your annual NavCanada fee goes up to cover it.

It's possible that the system will be free right up until it isn't, at least we haven't been billed for it yet and it's not like it will get more expensive once we have to have our end installed. The satellites are already up there (sixty six of them plus ten spares, IIRC) and they're switched on. Somebody somewhere within Nav Canada can see us with our ADS-Bs though since our antennae are installed on the bellies of our planes to comply with upcoming US regs the reception is a little spotty. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the announcement for capability in Canada came out immediately following the completion date for compliance in the US.

[AirFrame]

The satellites are already up there (sixty six of them plus ten spares, IIRC) and they're switched on. Somebody somewhere within Nav Canada can see us...

If that's the case, they're getting a data stream back from the satellites that's not accessible to the rest of us. Otherwise, we'd be able to pick up traffic everywhere in Canada and not just near a US border. If NavCanada can see us without letting us see everyone around us, that meets NavCanada's need to have better visibility of air traffic. Sending the data down another path so we can all see it is a bonus that does nothing for them. Hence, expect to be charged for that service as it's value add is to you.

[CpnCrunch]

Sending the data down another path so we can all see it is a bonus that does nothing for them. Hence, expect to be charged for that service as it's value add is to you.

It's valuable to them because if we can see other traffic there would be less conflicts and less for ATC to do.

[AirFrame]

It's valuable to them because if we can see other traffic there would be less conflicts and less for ATC to do.

In controlled airspace, they're already managing us (sort of, VFR don't get positive separation) and yet conflicts are few. In uncontrolled space they aren't talking to us and don't want to, yet that's where we'd benefit most from it.

[CpnCrunch]

In controlled airspace, they're already managing us (sort of, VFR don't get positive separation) and yet conflicts are few. In uncontrolled space they aren't talking to us and don't want to, yet that's where we'd benefit most from it.

Not sure where you fly, but around Vic/Van conflicts are a regular occurence in class C terminal airspace, whether VFR or IFR. Every flight you'll almost certainly get a number of vectors for traffic. If we could see the traffic ourselves, I suspect they could change a lot of that airspace to class E (other than the extended takeoff path from YVR of course, but that's a relatively small area compared to the massive class C terminal area).

And in uncontrolled class E with FSS there are constant traffic alerts from FSS of somewhat dubious value ("12 oclock" when it's actually at 3 oclock)...I can never trust them, and it's always a huge panic when there's someone at almost the same altitude. Having a traffic display would make it much easier and safer for everyone (providing people keep looking out the window, of course). The class E zones around here are MUCH busier and denser than the class C terminal airspace.

[lownslow]

If that's the case, they're getting a data stream back from the satellites that's not accessible to the rest of us.

A presently unreliable data stream, unless you're inverted.

Otherwise, we'd be able to pick up traffic everywhere in Canada and not just near a US border.

I thought ADS-B boxes also talked to each other too. I pick up the other ADS-B planes in places I assume are well out of range of the US ground stations. The 'OUT' is a sort of more capable transponder and the 'IN' function as I understood it was basically a next-gen TCAS.

[AirFrame]

A presently unreliable data stream, unless you're inverted.

To be fair, that's not a complete given. My Stratux lives on my glareshield, and picks up traffic, weather, etc. from that position. Antennas point straight up, effectively from the "top" of my fuselage. I suppose there's no reason it a bottom-mounted antenna wouldn't do the same if satellites weren't *directly* overhead, which they probably almost never will be.

I thought ADS-B boxes also talked to each other too. I pick up the other ADS-B planes in places I assume are well out of range of the US ground stations.

Only ADSB-OUT capable systems are broadcasting. So you're picking up US aircraft, or you're picking up Canadian aircraft broadcasting on 1090ES. If I understand the TXPR systems well enough, A Mode S transponder does that if its coupled with a WAAS GPS. Most of the commercial carriers have it, and some of the private aircraft as well.

The 'OUT' is a sort of more capable transponder and the 'IN' function as I understood it was basically a next-gen TCAS.

Pretty mucuh.

[AirFrame]

Not sure where you fly, but around Vic/Van conflicts are a regular occurence in class C terminal airspace, whether VFR or IFR. Every flight you'll almost certainly get a number of vectors for traffic. If we could see the traffic ourselves, I suspect they could change a lot of that airspace to class E (other than the extended takeoff path from YVR of course, but that's a relatively small area compared to the massive class C terminal area).

A VFR aircraft getting vectors to avoid traffic would be a last resort if they start to think a collision is imminent. I've never been given vectors for traffic in Terminal class C between the lower mainland and the island. Never within Tower class C either for that matter.

And in uncontrolled class E with FSS there are constant traffic alerts from FSS of somewhat dubious value ("12 oclock" when it's actually at 3 oclock)...I can never trust them, and it's always a huge panic when there's someone at almost the same altitude. Having a traffic display would make it much easier and safer for everyone (providing people keep looking out the window, of course). The class E zones around here are MUCH busier and denser than the class C terminal airspace.

Agreed. Having ADS-B would be a great benefit to us, the pilots.

[lownslow]

A presently unreliable data stream, unless you're inverted.

To be fair, that's not a complete given.

I meant from the Nav Canada point of view. They won't make it official unless they know they can reliably see you (from above), which would mean mandating antennae on top. Plane-to-plane signals are good enough regardless of the antenna position since we're not specifically using them as our only means of conflict resolution.

[CpnCrunch]

A VFR aircraft getting vectors to avoid traffic would be a last resort if they start to think a collision is imminent. I've never been given vectors for traffic in Terminal class C between the lower mainland and the island. Never within Tower class C either for that matter.

No, it's not a last resort thing, it's to keep the slow VFR plane away from faster IFR traffic. I've certainly had VFR vectors a number of times crossing the strait, and if you're IFR you'll get vectored all over the place coming in/out of YYJ if you're in a 172 or similar slow plane.

[AirFrame]

No, it's not a last resort thing, it's to keep the slow VFR plane away from faster IFR traffic. I've certainly had VFR vectors a number of times crossing the strait, and if you're IFR you'll get vectored all over the place coming in/out of YYJ if you're in a 172 or similar slow plane.

For VFR aircraft, it is a last resort, as VFR aircraft are responsible for their own conflict resolution even when in Class C airspace. You'll get passed traffic right up until impact but there is no requirement to provide conflilct resolution. The VFR pilot has to decide that on their own. IFR aircraft are already provided positive conflict resolution in Class C, and as you've said, they'll get vectored all over to avoid the VFR (and other IFR) traffic.

[AirFrame]

I meant from the Nav Canada point of view. They won't make it official unless they know they can reliably see you (from above), which would mean mandating antennae on top. Plane-to-plane signals are good enough regardless of the antenna position since we're not specifically using them as our only means of conflict resolution.

I agree, but the point was that i'm getting reliable communication from a top-mounted antenna to the ground-based stations (where Wx, Notam, etc. come from). So it's not inconceivable that reliable communication could be ensured with a bottom-mounted antenna talking to a satellite that's off to one side as well. With 60 satellites, that at least seems possible.

For VFR aircraft, where it is *not* our only means of conflict resolution, leaving antennas on the bottom may be adequate. For IFR, where you are relying on it for conflict resolution, mandating that it be on top would make sense. It would still pick up local VFR aircraft with a bottom-mounted antenna via line-of-sight, with no satellite communication.

[CpnCrunch]

IFR aircraft are already provided positive conflict resolution in Class C, and as you've said, they'll get vectored all over to avoid the VFR (and other IFR) traffic.

The slower VFR or IFR traffic will generally be vectored out of the way of the faster IFR traffic. At least that has been my experience. And just because they don't have to provide conflict resolution for VFR to VFR traffic in class C doesn't mean they don't. Generally they will...

[CpnCrunch]

Aireon is introducing a free service which will provide the last known co-ords of any aircraft that is missing:

https://aireon.com/services/aireonalert/

Their FAQ says it will work with any 1090ES transponder of 120W or more. It doesn't say whether or not it requires an antenna on top.

[Alav]

Sorry for continuing the OT discussion...

I run a SDR on my tablet to listen to approach at CFX2. I've watched the ADSB on it a few times (it's kinda boring here, there's 2-3 we occasionally see transiting to/from CEN4)

Flightaware PIA is same principle...

Every cockpit seems to have a iPad in it. 10$ SDR 20$ antenna... Pretty much everyone has a data connected phone if not that tablet.

Couldn't flightaware just enable the GPS on the tablet, acknowledge it moves, and act as a relay?

Get adsb-in live... Cache those details and relay on when connected to server? Fill in some of those missing coverage zones? So in theory - you're getting adsb-out just maybe not real time?

Not ideal - not a replacement for a proper adsb system - but a nice interim solution...