PDA

View Full Version : GPS Tracking devices for GA aircraft


betterfromabove
6th Jun 2009, 19:08
Hi

Has anyone had any experience of using GPS tracking devices such the SPOT PLB to keep track of their aircraft....?

From what I understand of its functionality & the rules governing transmissions from an aircraft (I'm talking GA specifically here), it is a different beast to your standard 406Mhz ELT. It also gets round any bar on mobile phone SMS transmission by transmitting its text messages via its own proprietary sat network, just like a satellite phone.

Have I read this right?

Price of complete package appears prohibitive, but wondering if any clubs/FTO have used it for tracking, or even post-flight analysis...??

Cheers
BFA

modelman
6th Jun 2009, 20:17
Used Spidertracks to track myself ( let friends follow my progress) on a visit to Glenforsa last year.You can set the transmission interval.It even showed me taxying from parking to pumps at Carlisle.
It's a web based device.
Quite pricey though....
MM

Rans Flyer
6th Jun 2009, 21:02
try could try:

Google Latitude (http://www.google.co.uk/latitude/intro.html#dc=gh4sla&utm_campaign=en_uk&utm_source=gh4sla&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=google%20latitude)

or
3d Tracking (http://free.3dtracking.net/)

Both are free and give real time position updates.


Using google latitude here's my current position. (http://www.google.com/latitude/apps/badge/api?user=3081764627809402998&type=iframe&maptype=terrain)

140KIAS
6th Jun 2009, 22:47
Ive got a Spot. I'd say its ok. Pretty basic but I guess could help save your life someday. Can take a while to send a message and a few can go missing. That said Ive never really used it in anger since I acquired it.

I put it on my windowsill this morning in track mode to make sure it works ok. You can see the results at SPOT Shared Page (http://share.findmespot.com/shared/faces/viewspots.jsp?glId=0BR9eLYZKE4Lq99x9xUWmFB0E6ojbIIj5). No idea how #18 ended up over there.

If you have mode S then I understand the guys at www.aircraftbooking.co.uk (http://www.aircraftbooking.co.uk) have developed a tracking feature as a no cost option for their online booking system.

Also its worth mentioning that the SPOT will let others track your whereabouts online. And summon help if you get into poo. However if all you want to do is review your own track once on the ground then a GPS is probably a better option and certainly more accurate. I have Memorymap and Garmin 296, both will log your track and let you download it to your PC.

betterfromabove
6th Jun 2009, 23:13
Wow - thanks guys for all the feedback.

There's quite good reviews of the SPOT device on: SPOT Satellite Messenger FIRST LOOK - EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) (http://www.equipped.com/SPOT_ORSummer2007.htm)

SPOT Satellite Messenger Personal Tracker Review (GPSmagazine.com) (http://www.gpsmagazine.com/2008/01/spot_satellite_messenger_perso.php)

One major concern has to be the fact this it's unclear when you send a 9-1-1 message that anyone has actually received it! Bit like transmitting a mayday on 121.5 & getting no response - you'd assume no-one heard, right?
All you get apparently is a bunch of flashing lights, much like any other transmission. Shame that - is it related to this "simplex" vs "duplex" network they use I wonder??

IO540
7th Jun 2009, 07:44
Any satellite phone I know of has a built-in GPS and can send text messages (not always reliably, especially with Thuraya) containing the GPS position which was current when you first entered the send text message menu (NOT the GPS position which was current when the message was sent).

Not aware of any which can do this automatically every x minutes, and only some satphones can be interrogated for their GPS position, but it is easy enough to program a satphone (using standard Hayes modem commands) to send any text message, from some kind of computer.

It's just not very cheap. Worth doing is flying over a hazardous area, perhaps. In which case one could have an "emergency location transmit" button which just sends the current position.

Satellite phones are much cheaper than most would believe (£300 for a Thuraya 7100, plus USD 160/year for the PAYG scratch card) and are standard equipment on expeditions etc. The main players are Iridium (worldwide coverage and pricey) and Thuraya (basically Europe / Mid East, and much cheaper).

englishal
7th Jun 2009, 08:28
The SPOT looks pretty good and is cheap. I saw it in the USA for $149 plus a $50 mail in rebate. In Europe it is about £150 then €90 / year for the satellite subscription which allows unlimited tracking.

I'm going to get one as although it is not an ELT, it is as good as and more useful in everyday life (i.e. hopefully an ELT will never be used). The 911 option goes to the nearest centre to your location who then inform the emergency services. The tracking allows anyone you choose to allow to be able to track you and the "check in" feature seems like a good option.

I was flying over the desert close to the mexican border a couple of days ago, no flight plan and no flight following. Sand dunes and nothing else there, we (stupidly) had no water on the aeroplane, no survival equipment, and were in shorts. It was 40C, and there was nothing for miles. Had we gone down we'd have been dead, unless picked up very quickly. Built in ELT combined with SPOT seems like a good investment (along with the $150 survival bag from REI ;) )

cats_five
7th Jun 2009, 09:59
<snip>
(along with the $150 survival bag from REI ;) )

You have a very expensive taste in survival bags! In the UK for mountain walking I carried a Karrimor survival bag - a large heavy-duty bright orange bag, big enough for a large man in a sleeping bag. They are no longer available but something just about identical is for about $7, and a cheap sleeping bag won't be expensive either.

However - if you really do have an accident - will you be able to leave the wreckage and clamber into all this gear?

L'aviateur
7th Jun 2009, 10:33
Survival equipment is probably more useful for a forced landing (i.e technical/weather).

EvilKitty
8th Jun 2009, 17:35
Another option is APRS. You'll need a ham license though. Theres a forum in the VAF site that has lots of info (APRS Tracking - VAF Forums (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=104))

betterfromabove
1st Jul 2009, 11:18
Have been experimenting with a Garmin eTrax this last couple of weeks in in the air & on the ground in the mountains.

Works a lot better in the air needless to say.

Does anyone know how to get a "Saved Track" out of the device when it hasn't generated a .gpx file??

Basically, for my first airborne sortie, I forgot to ask it to "Log Track to Data Card" (rather stupidly, but first go with device!), however can see the full details of the "Saved Track" in the main "Track Log" section (including altitude "Profile" etc).

Rather frustrating as information is in there for this one sortie but can't work out how to transfer it via the USB link!

Have EasyGPS, Garmin & ExpertGPS software.

Cheers
BFA

englishal
1st Jul 2009, 11:29
I have an eTrex which I just turn on and chuck in the back seat which I use as a data recorder. Battery life is 10 hrs plus, and I have put a load of waypoints in it so I can use it to navigate in an emergency. When I get home I download it to MemoryMap or Google Earth....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3356672121_2850bdb3dd.jpg

You have a very expensive taste in survival bags!
Just saw this ;) - I meant survival kit - with water, space blankets, food, medical supplies etc etc , not a sleeping bag type of thing!

asyncio
1st Jul 2009, 11:38
BFA,
You could try the free version of GPS TrackMaker (http://www.gpstm.com/)

That's what I've always used for getting the active track info out of my Geko, It should work with the eTrex as well.

hoodie
1st Jul 2009, 16:56
I'm going to get one [SPOT] as although it is not an ELT, it is as good as...

Maybe not - you may want to read this (http://www.equipped.org/blog/?p=82), ("What Price Your Life?") from the excellent "Equipped to Survive (http://www.equipped.com/)" website.

The same site has an interesting review of SPOT here (http://www.equipped.org/SPOT_ORSummer2007.htm). (Same link as in #5 above).

It's probably a viable alternative to a PLB for some scenarios, but I'm not sure that bobbin' in the Oggin after a GA ditching is one of them.

For example: How long, from initiation of SPOT alert to SAR on scene? As quick as a PLB? Last week's ditching was almost in the narrowest part of the Channel and yet it still took a good hour for help to arrive. It was late June, and yet hypothermia had already begun to set in. Is a potential additonal delay something you want to risk?

Also, SPOT doesn't have 121.5 transmission for terminal homing to you, as 406MHz PLBs do.

jeling
10th Sep 2009, 06:23
You could try this:

www.gpslogbooks.com (http://gpslogbooks.com)

Runs on a mobile phone, (Android only)
Updates every second,
Viewable on another mobile phone
Viewable on the web in real time in 3D.
FREE!

James

jeling
8th Dec 2009, 20:52
Hey everyone,

We have made some improvements with GPS Logbooks (http://www.gpslogbooks.com).

Now supports iPhone, Windows Mobile and Android. Andoird and Windows Mobile are working well, but there are the issues with GPS on the iPhone, which are known iPhone issues.

Some of the flights have been very detailed.

Some people are using it to log their flying lessons which is cool.

AirmanW8 - K2B7 - Lesson 5 by airmanw8 - GPS Logbooks (http://www.gpslogbooks.com/show/airmanw8-airmanw8_-_k2b7_-_lesson_5)

Cheers,

James

Gravytrain
2nd Jan 2010, 20:32
Does no-one here seem to care that untested transmitting devices such as Spot, Spidertracks, mobile phones, etc are prohibited from use in any aircraft, and particularly during IFR? Or is this just the "to-hell-with-aviation-safety-so-long-as-its-cheap" attitude still prevailing?

eharding
2nd Jan 2010, 20:41
Does no-one here seem to care that untested transmitting devices such as Spot, mobile phones, etc are prohibited from use in any aircraft? Or is this just the "to-hell-with-aviation-safety-so-long-as-its-cheap" attitude still prevailing?

Right then Gravytrain, time for a custard test.

Provide a link to the relevant piece of legislation, or get thee hence back to the Trollery.

Gravytrain
2nd Jan 2010, 21:55
Provide a link to the relevant piece of legislation, or get thee hence back to the Trollery.

Very well - I'll make sure to use small words for you.

Herewith the link to FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.21 effective as of 09/30/1963 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/5D4AEFD672582D15852566CF006135DC?OpenDocument) - similar legislation can be found under each local authority worldwide (JAR-OPS 1.110 for Europe)

Any piece of equipment that has not been tested to RTCA DO-160 standards is considered unapproved for aviation use, and for the systems we're talking about, would therefore be considered Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs). Furthermore, "determination" of interference actually means that if the manufacturer has not certified the equipment to DO160 standards, it is up to the operator to do so, before it can be used. Switching it on and listening for crackling over the comms is not sufficient (nor even likely to find) interference of the kind tested for. The high power required to transmit between the aircraft and satellite can and has been shown to cause subtle interference in GPS avionics (including loss of GPWS), as well as compass, recording and other essential systems.

The Spidertracks system mentioned above is in fact prohibited from use in their own country of New Zealand by http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Rule_Consolidations/Part_091_Consolidation.pdf - something that they're sure not to tell you!

Basically, unless a piece of electronic equipment has DO160 certification, it must be switched off as soon as the doors are closed - and please understand that this isn't just for commercial airliners, it applies to every aircraft. Yes, you still shouldn't be using your mobile phone, even though it "seems" safe.

The difference is that in GA it is left to individual pilots to make the "determination", which is the weakness exploited by SPOT and the rest. Some caution should be exercised by good pilots (as everyone considers themselves) and make sure something is safe for use before introducing it into the aircraft. The reduction of GPS accuracy in your nav due to some gadget could have catastrophic consequences in IFR, and you wouldn't know because the interference is subtle.

So whilst these gadgets are a fantastic idea, and will undoubtedly improve aviation safety, make sure that the one you're using is part of the solution, and doesn't make the problem worse...

LH2
3rd Jan 2010, 13:29
Furthermore, "determination" of interference actually means that if the manufacturer has not certified the equipment to DO160 standards, it is up to the operator to do so, before it can be used. Switching it on and listening for crackling over the comms is not sufficient (nor even likely to find) interference of the kind tested for.

I think you're extrapolating a bit there. This is the actual relevant paragraph from the FAA link you quoted above:

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

As you can see, it does not say a) that this "determination" must be made before operating (IFR or otherwise), and b) it does not specify how this check must be done, so you can't say that such an such approach would not suffice, as regards compliance with the rules.

Lastly, please note that the above piece of legislation refers specifically to IFR flights, so it does not substantiate your assertion above that these gadgets are "prohibited from use in any aircraft, and particularly during IFR".

My reading of that is more like "if it's causing your plane to flip upside down during an IFR flight, then you may not be entirely legal to use it". But of course you are free to switch off all your electronic gear (including your and your passengers digital wristwatches, I assume?) before flight anyway... even on a plane like the one I fly, which hardly has a radio and a compass. :)

dublinpilot
3rd Jan 2010, 16:13
You're allowed to use your mobile phone on a lot of RyanAir flights now.... I don't think anyone has tested my mobile phone....

liam548
3rd Jan 2010, 19:38
Anyone that is interested, GPSed is completely free and works well and on a number of platforms. However the live tracking might be an issue but you can download your tracks later whilst using your device in flight mode.

Map your tracks and photos, share your position from your mobile | free Mobile GPS Tracking Service (http://gpsed.com/)

Gravytrain
3rd Jan 2010, 22:07
I have had the pleasure(!) of finding out from the FAA exactly what "determination" means, and the explanation from them was as I described.

Granted, the rules are specifically for IFR at the moment, but with the increasing invasion of cockpits by new technologies, both the FAA and EASA are reviewing aspects of the PED regulations and a clearer certification required is expected in 2nd quarter 2010.

The point is that authorities recognize that there is potential safety issues, but have yet to take definitive steps to require manufactures to adhere to the DO160 (and other) standards.

Whilst the use of non-approved engine parts will have most operators and pilots agreeing on the safety risks, the potential risks of high-powered transmitting devices are not generally understood by the aviation public.

Basically:

1. there are standards which ensure that avionic equipment (including portable devices) don't compromise aircraft safety
2. some tracking systems have met these standards and some haven't (and probably couldn't)
3. there are real risks associated with using non-approved equipment in an aircraft (even a non-sophisticated one)
4. there will always be cowboys who try to bend or circumvent the regulations

Make an informed decision.

BTW, some of Ryanair's fleet has been upgraded with a mobile phone relay. It is a DO-160 approved piece of equipment that acts as a mobile phone receiver, and then relays the transmission to ground stations via satellite communication. The satellite comms are the reason for the additional pricing of €0.50 for text messages and between €2.00 and €3.00 per minute to make and receive calls. Your mobile phone operates on a lower transmission wattage due to the close proximity of the receiver, reducing the possibility of interference. Mobile phones are still prohibited from use in aircraft not equipped with a mobile phone relays.

IO540
4th Jan 2010, 04:04
Gravytrain - who do you work for??

27/09
4th Jan 2010, 06:31
GravyTrain
The Spidertracks system mentioned above is in fact prohibited from use in their own country of New Zealand

Best you tell these guys that it's prohibited since thay are sponsoring a programme encouraging New Zealand aircraft owners to install Spidertracks.
Media Releases - Investing in the safety of NZ pilots (http://www.airways.co.nz/about_Airways/_media/media_spidertracks.asp)


I understand that Spidertracks have a deal with Cessna to market the Spidertracks system. Kiwi safety device bought by Cessna > New Zealand (http://www.newzealand.com/travel/media/press-releases/2008/9/kiwiinnovation_spidertracks_pressrelease.cfm) Perhaps you better get on to Cessna and let them know there is a problem.

dublinpilot
4th Jan 2010, 08:43
BTW, some of Ryanair's fleet has been upgraded with a mobile phone relay. It is a DO-160 approved piece of equipment that acts as a mobile phone receiver, and then relays the transmission to ground stations via satellite communication.

The relay maybe approved, but is my mobile phone?

[...] Your mobile phone operates on a lower transmission wattage due to the close proximity of the receiver, reducing the possibility of interference.

Interesting one this...one that I've wondered about...I use two mobile phones. One of them does not have a roaming agreement with the company RyanAir uses, so instead of talking to the relay station, it continues 'searching' for a network for which it does have a roaming partner. I wonder how this is different than previous? Does it in some way still talk to the relay onboard instead of boosting it's own power to find a suitable network?

LH2
4th Jan 2010, 11:32
I have had the pleasure(!) of finding out from the FAA exactly what "determination" means, and the explanation from them was as I described

So could you give us a pointer to the legislation where this is set forth? In absence of that, any other public document with or without force of law which explains the enforcing agency's interpretation?

Granted, the rules are specifically for IFR at the moment

So for the avoidance of doubt, is it correct to say that nothing you have provided so far substantiates the claim that "untested transmitting devices such as Spot, Spidertracks, mobile phones, etc are prohibited from use in any aircraft"?

I'm not saying you are wrong, especially since I am not familiar at all with FAA regs, but given what you have posted so far, I think you may be a bit overzealous in your interpretation. Good for you, but please leave the snarky remarks out.

Lastly, in regards to your comment "similar legislation can be found under each local authority worldwide (JAR-OPS 1.110 for Europe)", allow me to quote the amended JAR-OPS 1.110 (word-for-word identical to EU-OPS 1.110):

Portable electronic devices
JAR-OPS 1.110
An operator shall not permit any person to use, and
take all reasonable measures to ensure that no person
does use, on board an aeroplane, a portable electronic
device that can adversely affect the performance of
the aeroplane’s systems and equipment.
[Ch. 1, 01.03.98]


Disregarding the fact that OPS 1 applies to CAT and if I'm not mistaken we are talking about private flights here, can you please explain where the requirement for DO-160 (or any other) certification emanates from? (You said: "Any piece of equipment that has not been tested to RTCA DO-160 standards is considered unapproved for aviation use")

Thanks & rgs
/LH2

chinch
5th Apr 2010, 23:34
New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations include AC43.14 Appendix 9 "Non Aeronautical Equipment" which can be found at Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (http://www.caa.govt.nz).

This AC allows for the installation of not only portable but also some permanently installed equipment such as satellite tracking devices without an STC or a 337.

It is incorrect to say that Spidertracks (or, indeed, any other tracking provider) are prohibited from doing what they are doing in New Zealand, in fact the New Zealand aviation community as a whole is well educated on the use of tracking, the tracking vs 406 debate, and the relative merits and shortcomings of these complimentary systems.

Airways Corporation (the NZ government entity responsible for airspace management) is a strong advocate of satellite tracking for the GA community as evidenced by their sponsorship arrangement with both TracPlus Global and Spidertracks (both New Zealand tracking providers).

CAA has adopted a more considered and appropriately cautious approach, waiting for the technology to mature and standards to emerge before making any decision. In light of the recent Transport Canada debate, that approach would seem judicious.