Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by lownslow »

AirFrame wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:47 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by AirFrame »

lownslow wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:36 amThe 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by CpnCrunch »

AirFrame wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:43 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by AirFrame »

CpnCrunch wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:20 amIt'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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by CpnCrunch »

AirFrame wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:18 pm
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by lownslow »

AirFrame wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:43 am 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.
AirFrame wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:43 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by AirFrame »

lownslow wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:41 pmA 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by AirFrame »

CpnCrunch wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:39 pmNot 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by lownslow »

AirFrame wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:26 am
lownslow wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:41 pmA 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by CpnCrunch »

AirFrame wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:35 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by AirFrame »

CpnCrunch wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:31 amNo, 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by AirFrame »

lownslow wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:32 amI 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by CpnCrunch »

AirFrame wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:14 am 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...
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Alav
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:20 am

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by 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...
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by AirFrame »

CpnCrunch wrote: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:55 am...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...
True, they will... Usually. The catch is that they don't *have* to, and when it gets busy, VFR traffic is the first to get ignored. This isn't usually a problem, but what it does is reinforce the (incorrect) assumption that they are watching out for you at all times.
---------- ADS -----------
 
charrois
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:15 pm

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by charrois »

AirFrame wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:47 am 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.
Actually, it does. Or at least it can. I fly VFR all the time, and when I sign in (free account), it gives me access to "position only" flights. All my flights have position data recorded by them, sent by ADS-B ground stations feeding Flightaware, about once every 20 seconds (a lot more frequent than every 5 minutes). If I get flight following (which I usually do on longer cross countries), it also shows my position as resolved by ATC radar if I'm in an area without ADS-B ground station coverage. If you're not seeing VFR ADS-B flight information on Flightaware, you probably just have to turn on "position only" flight viewing. From what I can see, the only thing missing as opposed to an IFR flight is it doesn't know your flight plan.
AirFrame wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:47 am 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.
Now, if this is a plan to "emulate" the US traffic and weather uplink in Canada that would be a really cool idea, and I'd definitely be interested in contributing. Do you have a name for the project?

Though I imagine there might be some hurdles - collecting ADS-B out data from aircraft is one thing with receive-only hardware - to transmit on the UAT uplink frequency would probably require station licenses, etc.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Its What I do
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:23 pm

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by Its What I do »

Its very sad when these episodes happen .
With modern technology it shouldnt happen.

WWW.SPIDERTRACKS.COM

Real time tracking .

Condolences to all effected ..
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by pelmet »

"C-GFPK, a privately registered Van’s RV 6 A aircraft, was conducting a flight from Edmonton/Parkland (CPL6), AB to Chilliwack (CYCW), BC with 2 persons on board. The aircraft departed CPL6 at 10:03 Mountain Time (MT) with a flight planned route from CPL6 to Hinton/Jasper-Hinton (CEC4), AB, Valemount (CAH4), BC, Kamloops (CYKA), BC, and finally CYCW. The last known position was calculated using a cellular phone location that was received at 12:29 Pacific Time (PT) in the vicinity of Blue River (CYCP), BC. The aircraft had approximately 4 hours of fuel onboard. The 121.5 MHz ELT did not transmit a signal. The aircraft was reported overdue at the destination airport. A search was initiated, and was discontinued by the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC) after seven days. The aircraft's location remains unknown at this time"
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Plane with 2 aboard missing between Chilliwack and Edmonton

Post by AirFrame »

pelmet wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:40 am... The last known position was calculated using a cellular phone location that was received at 12:29 Pacific Time (PT) in the vicinity of Blue River (CYCP), BC. ...
That's a little misleading. They didn't get a cell phone *location*, they received a ping from a cell phone tower. Which means that a cell phone tower in the vincinity of Blue River received a check-in from the phone, which would put it somewhere within range of that tower. That could be a rather large circle. The towers don't receive a lat/long from the phone.

Sadly, that airplane now is lost at least until the spring thaw.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”