Statements

[eggplant]

Airnav,

Recently I have noted many posts making statements with regard to progress on various issues. Naturally I consider any posts from yourself(AirNav Support) to be legitimate. There are many posts from other users in which announcements are made regarding progress. As this is a public forum we can't assume such posts are all officially endorsed by yourself.

Can you advise if other users are authorised to make announcements on behalf of AirNav systems ?

For example, I note that the updater team posts are clearly identified as such. Can we accept statements from the team to be authorised and officially endorsed by Airnav Systems ? I have full respect to the update team for their efforts and they are much appreciated , however I would like to know what is official and what is supposition, wishful thinking or otherwise.

Thanks

John

[ACW367]

Eggplant

We are volunteers, very much like Rod with the logos and tarbat with D008.dat files.  Any posts we make are not official and entirely our own opinions.  We are not employed by Airnav and Airnav has never ever suggested that our work means we should be always supportive of their aims.  We are free to post both positively and negatively about all subjects in the same way as any other user.  

For example, I for one disagree that Airnav are thinking of pushing ahead with MLAT development when there are big unresolved bugs with 3D and they currently have no way to update silhouettes, flags or the D008.dat file. And also logos and aircraft tie-ups are still being done by volunteer users.

The content of the tables of the Updater database is entirely the work of us updaters and Airnav is hands off on the updating process.   In exactly the same way as Airnav is hands off with Rod in how he designs and handles the presentation of logos.  Obviously our database updates do then become the official Airnav source data.  This is where we are slighty different from Rod's logos.  

Therefore posts that relate entirely to the formatting of data and progress made in the Updater database are used to inform our volunteer process.  Which in turn becomes, after our database manipulation, official Airnav data.

Regards
ACW367

[ACW367]

I should hasten to add that when the database update process was first set up, we did take broad advice from Airnav on how they wished the process taken forward.  Though dialogue with Airnav, they gained full confidence that as a team we were all capable of managing the task with Airnav hands off.  Airnav were happy that we had between ourselves gained agreement on standardisation of input (consulting all users on the main forum as necessary to achieve this); and that we can self-police any tie-up or aircraft ownership queries between ourselves and with users on the main forum.

Consequently the 'Database Update Requests' forum topic works in exaclty the same way as the 'logo's since 3.13' forum topic.  They both support the work of voluteers that have gained the trust of Airnav to support their product, whilst Airnav remain hands off in the individual inputs required.

Hope this all helps