If someone would like my data to work with let me know.
Hi freqhopping
Interesting post,and thanks for the insight
We've deliberated over the FAA database within the updater team with, if I'm being totally honest some differing opinions and some obvious concerns,some of which you've commented on above (operaters/owners etc).
Although we've been undertaking the updating task now for several weeks (but what seems like an eternity!) we have primarily focused on dealing with ADS-B equipped aircraft as a starting point, and dealing with other specific "one-offs" as and when requested.
This doesn't mean we underestimate the requirements for other aircraft (military,biz jets, light aircraft)
One of the problems we're faced with, as several other forum members have commented on, is that there is a wealth of information "out there" giving us the info we need, and I think from memory Dave Reid (sorry if it wasn't you Dave?) has made reference to certain members "unknown" hex code listings , as not being unknown, but just not on the database!
Problem is, at the moment we don't have the facility to upload bulk info, however it is being worked on.
When we have access to this, we will be in a much better position to utilise this sort of data, together with other reputable sources out there.
We do however need to undertake this process in a carefully considered manner so as not to "undo" a lot of good work already completed.
Personally, I'd much rather have a central database with as many records on as possible, even if not checked/verified, as at least this would result in fewer blank populations of fields on peoples screens. We could still undertake the checking/validation, and carry on accordingly.
Members would then be able to continue advising us of errors etc in the normal process, and in the intervening period, we'd get far less requests for checking of fields not populating.
We also have some issues in the process by which the updated info on the central database is pulled through to peoples de's - it clearly isn't working as we'd like it to at present.Again, this is being looked into.
I'm hopeful we can revisit this scenario soon, but I'm sure you'll appreciate we need to get other areas and improved functionality into our process before we look at this sort of usage.
Would be interested to get feedback on peoples constructive views on this, as at the end of the day, what we're doing will hopefully benefit all users?
Regards
Rich