Type codes in the database

[jmhayes]

Why are the military type codes in the database still wrong?  It looks like ICAO codes are used for the civilian stuff, but "BC-A", "BKC5", "BKC3" etc. seem like they should have been fixed a long time ago.  I've seen a few references in the forum about this, but usually someone just says "You can change this with the Database Explorer" ...

Shouldn't this get changed in one place for everyone?

Airnav: if you need the real list, let me know; I'd be happy to give it to you.

Thanks!

[jgrloit]

Do you mean in the database table, or in the short-type on each aircraft entry?
It seems as though the Short to long type database table is a hang-over from a previous system.
The details including the short-type come from GAS.
Their data entry members could be using the wrong types!!!!
The tables within the database were asked about in another thread on the forum, and Allocator responded then.

Corrected from GATS to GAS - My Misunderstanding

[jmhayes]

Do you mean in the database table, or in the short-type on each aircraft entry?

I'm not sure of the distinction you're making.  Here's some SQL:

sqlite> SELECT * from Aircraft where AircraftTypeSmall LIKE 'BKC%';

This should produce zero rows :)

[Brian]

I agree with the first post on this topic! 
This should get fixed ASAP for everyone on the AirNav Database.
like the first post said.  This should have been fixed long time ago on the AirNav Database. So all AirNav RadarBox users can get the correct ICAO codes for those aircrafts.
If you go online where other users post the daily logs. You can see the errors he is talking about.

-Brian
RadarBox User Forum
http://radarspotters.eu/forum/

[jgrloit]

That table is populated from the GAS servers.
If the data is incorrect there then any New aircraft, or Mode-S ID's will contain incorrect data.    This is NOT under Airnav control.
The data that is shipped in the original database however IS under Airav control, and they can correct it there.   
If you load the new database, from a new download, then YES the data should have been corrected - I agree, but updates are automatic based on GAS!!!

[jmhayes]

That table is populated from the GATS servers.

I've been using GATS for many years, and I've never seen "BKC5" as a type code.  But taking an example AE04E0 in ANRB is "BKC5" and in GATS is (correctly) "K35R" ...

If the data is incorrect there then any New aircraft, or Mode-S ID's will contain incorrect data.

I believe that GATS is correct.

This is NOT under Airnav control.

Your emphatic NOT seems to be in conflict with Airnav's claim that this is a better alternative to SBS-1 because they take care of stuff like this "for you" ... :)

The data that is shipped in the original database however IS under Airav control, and they can correct it there. 

I don't know nothing 'bout the source of the data that comes with it, I only know that it's wrong.

If you load the new database, from a new download, then YES the data should have been corrected

Download a new database?  I thought the database was automatically maintained?  Isn't that the whole point of having a database supported by the vendor?

I agree, but updates are automatic based on GATS!!!

Are you saying that once a code gets in the database, it's there forever?  If the code gets transfered, tough luck?  If the aircraft gets upgraded to a new type code, tough luck?  If a plane gets sold and the Operator changes, tough luck?

I maintain my SBS-1 database, and I do it because that's what I bought.  The ANRB website "features" list says "Accurate Aircraft information from the Gatwick Aviation Society" ... as far as I can tell, this has never been accurate.

[jgrloit]

There is another thread on this forum where updates to existing database entries, due to changes in Operator or resulting from the reuse of Mode-S ID's is being discussed.
Airnav have put their comments in there!!!
The Point I was making was that IF GAS, or any other source used by Airnav is incorrect then the updates for NEW entries will propogate that data.
The Original Database IS supplied by Airnav, and should have been corrected prior to being shipped - the original source being unknown.
Another thread commented on NON-ICAO types being used by data submitters somewhere, but was not followed through for Corrective action!!!
Data vetting does I agree need to be added, probably at the RB servers, otherwise WE the users get supplied with incorrect information and GIGO occurs!!
It is hoped that in a version beyond 2.10 that updates to existing data will be implemented.     Airnav commented on this in one of the 2.10 new version streams.

[jmhayes]

The Original Database IS supplied by Airnav, and should have been corrected prior to being shipped - the original source being unknown.

So we agree.  Great!

[AirNav Support]

Send us the details on to what is wrong and we will correct it.

[jmhayes]

Send us the details on to what is wrong and we will correct it.

See the first post of this thread for details.

[AirNav Support]

Send us the real list you mentioned. Reality is folks the databases are massive and of course things will go through the net. If you think things need updating and you have the correct information send it us :)

(Before we get 100 messages about aircraft data, send those to GAS, we are trying to find out whats happening regarding there update page)

[ACW367]

Support from previous posts in the forums I have found some.  My experience is US Mil KC135s populate with BKC and a number, C17s and US Mil 737s as BC-A, Canadian C17s as BCC7 and Fokker F27s as FF-2.

This has been raised in forums as follows
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=2158.msg17946#msg17946

http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=2346.msg19737#msg19737
The examples below all show with the correct code on GAS and each time I have got one of these codes from your servers, I immediately checked GAS and found them to be showing the correct ICAO codes.

http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=2190.msg18238#msg18238
43C04E   ZZ175   Boeing C-17A Globemaster III   BC-A

A sample from radarbox logs on the mode S yahoo group, if you do a search for those codes on that site you will find many more.
AE0840 58-0058 BKC3 USA - Air Force
2009/03/18 10:25:00
* AE025F 61-0280 BKC3 USA - Air Force
2009/03/18 10:01:58
AE04E2 59-1446 BKC3 2009/03/16 11:21:49
AE0156 57-1456 BKC3 USA - Air Force
2009/03/12 14:06:28
C2B3EB CFC4050 177703 BCC7 Canada - Air Force
2009/03/12 00:48:40
AE04DB 165832 BC-A 2009/03/16 09:39:59
AE146A RCH7172 07-7172 BC-A USA - Air Force
2009/03/15 13:58:00
300131 I-MLQT  FF-2  Untitled (Miniliner)
2009/03/16 21:32:25
498422 CEF05B OK-AAB FF-2 ABA Air
2009/03/04 04:45:15

[cessna24v]

Gents,

First and foremost, if you have any questions or updates to the GAS (not GATS) database, please send them to modesinfo at the GAS address. A brief explanation has been posted on another part of this forum.

I am not the person to comment on the workings of the RB data model. However, I am the one to answer questions about GAS data and I see there are a lot of misunderstandings.

My answer to the specific problem of military ICAO codes is straightforward. These do not come from the GAS database and never have.

If you ever want to check, just do the obvious as ACW367 has, and others previously including Dave Reid, and look them up on the GAS website.

If any errors originate from GAS, please let us know via the above address and, given time, we will sort them.

In terms of data in general, let me say this...

There is no aircraft database I know that is 100% complete and accurate despite what any advertising says. If anyone knows of one, then please stand up and be counted, and please explain just how this is achieved bearing in mind the volume of daily worldwide changes/additions and the 'secrecy' of some registration authorities.

Add to that minor, but growing, problems like the military tactical allocations (German CL60s and LH F-15s, for example) and you begin to appreciate some of the gating factors.

The GAS data is extensive but obviously suffers from the above problems. It is actually very current with some registers refreshed 100% on a weekly basis. Even the US one with 500,000 plus entries is completely replaced monthly. In between individual updates are made as and when.

Add to all this, the clowns and idiots who wish to avoid work and constantly try to infiltrate, and you begin to appreciate the task we have.

Now back to RB specifics.

GAS provide an agreed PULL feed to Airnav. It is not a PUSH feed and, therefore we only provide data they request.

Airnav, for their part, try to minimise any impact on our server performance and, in the last couple of years this has worked well. This is important for us as we currently average around 12 transactions per second from direct desktop program and online accesses from other sources.

I am also of the understanding that the Airnav data has always been constructed from multiple sources, not just GAS.

I hope that answers a few questions. If I have missed any, I am sure you will tell me.

However, be advised I will not answer any more EMails telling GAS to get their act together with Airnav.

Gary

[jgrloit]

Q. AIrnav support - if GAS only supplies the Civ Airframe data - where does the RB Server system get the Military information from?
It looks as though the short-types on that system are incorrect!!!

[Brian]

as the above post is asking.

Maybe AirNav Systems support can add it to the FAQ(AirNav RadarBox FAQ) topic.
Just make a list of them.  And add a direct link to the lookup page for that source.

So other users can find it easy without finding this topic again in the future.