OK, so where are all the Flybe aircraft ??? (Radarbox nr Exeter, Devon)

[klm]

If RB users could deliver raw data in the correct format , then they too could become PP MLat Ground Stations and Master users for free [ no annual 12 euro fee ]
Their own data would then be included in Mlat fixes providing increased accuracy and coverage.

Think this is not going to happen, as far as i can tell airnav don't want to see a big piece of there income (sub for network)get lost.
Don't understand why there is so much quarrel between the 2  user groups (RB + SBS).
i alway tought that forums are intentional to help eachother, but i only see struggle and allegations.
For people like me who are not so technical and only join boards like these to learn more about the products and what we can expect from it, we got completely lost
in this war.
if i read on other forums how bad the RB is, i wonder why they all so eager to get the network option for free.
(must be something they missing  with the other software).

If there is a topic started with a simple question it allways ended up with the same old story and always started by the same people

[AirNav Development]

Again, for those forum members that don't understand what's going on behind the scenes here:

1- MLAT is a way of tracking aircraft which don't send their position using ADS-B (typically mode-s only aircraft);

2- PP (Planeplotter) is an addon software that receives data from the 30003 port of both RadarBox and SBS (our competitors product);

3- Our competitor is well known for being extremely weak in terms of software development. They ship their units with a  software called Basestation which didn't have a major upgrade for the last 4 years. It doesn't have internet data sharing, doesn't show photos of received aircraft, doesn't have alerts, mylog, worldwide map coverage just to name a few features. To be direct it looks like a Spectrum 48K application.

More details at:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=606.0

4- Facing this they now totally rely on external addon applications developed by enthusiasts which don't guarantee a continuous development and support for their products (they appear and can suddenly disappear - just read the beginning of this thread with PP author mentioning problems in maintaining its servers). One of this applications is called PP. The only thing that PP does that RadarBox doesn't is, MLAT.

5- So our competitor (and their followers strategy) is to focus on MLAT, day after day, week after week to argue "We have MLAT and they don't". But,  MLAT is already on our to-do list, so this keeps them nervous.

It is easy to understand this taking in account conversations from other internet forums, some of them that were created by our competitors behind the scenes, managed by their top posters and support people but that still guarantee to be independent (where 90% of their posts are direct or indirect attacks on Airnav Systems - who knows why...).

Anyway let's move forward: we are not here for this kind of discussions, we are here to work and innovate like we've been doing for the last 2 years - and that's what will be doing with MLAT and other features - that will make our customers even more happy and stay with us.

[viking9]

So... where were all the Fybe aircraft?

[satcom]

Anyway let's move forward: we are not here for this kind of discussions, we are here to work and innovate like we've been doing for the last 2 years - and that's what will be doing with MLAT and other features - that will make our customers even more happy and stay with us.

Excellent....well I for one look forward to an imminent relase of RB Mlat and can't wait to see how it works....

Congratulations to all concerned at Air Nav for responding so quickly to the market and introducing their own Multilateration Network.

BTW ...... when does it start ?

[klm]

@airnav

If this was a reaction on my topic, let me first say i know what mlat is and also know what PP is.
What i try to say is there are people on these forums who are not realy intrested in this all but just simple users who not care abbout the technical aspect.
what must these folks think if every topic ended with the same squabble.
if you read the so called "nutral" forums all the topics about the RB ending with the same conclusion and always by the same persons.
its a shame that people run forums this way

BTW see endig above post exactly what i mean

[Allocator]

Give it a rest satcom.  I think that we can all read between the lines are see where you are coming from :-(

[bratters]

MLAT is already on our to-do list.

we are here to work and innovate like we've been doing for the last 2 years - and that's what will be doing with MLAT and other features - that will make our customers even more happy and stay with us.

I think - I hope - I speak for the majority of RB owners whan I say I am NOT interested in the politics and the infighting between this and that product and this and that company.

I'm very content with my RB and if, as the above quote indicates, it's going to be made even better (and won't cost me too much in the process!) then I for one can't wait for it to happen.

Let's get on with it Airnav - the sooner the better :)

[Frank]

If RB users could deliver raw data in the correct format , then they too could become PP MLat Ground Stations and Master users for free [ no annual 12 euro fee ]
Their own data would then be included in Mlat fixes providing increased accuracy and coverage.

Think this is not going to happen, as far as i can tell airnav don't want to see a big piece of there income (sub for network)get lost.
Don't understand why there is so much quarrel between the 2  user groups (RB + SBS).
i alway tought that forums are intentional to help eachother, but i only see struggle and allegations.
For people like me who are not so technical and only join boards like these to learn more about the products and what we can expect from it, we got completely lost
in this war.
if i read on other forums how bad the RB is, i wonder why they all so eager to get the network option for free.
(must be something they missing  with the other software).

If there is a topic started with a simple question it allways ended up with the same old story and always started by the same people

I good not agree more with you; it sometimes ruins my temper and stops me from asking questions in these groups at all. Pity.

[AirNav Development]

klm: you are absolutely right. You just have to understand that there are a few forum members that are here with hidden purposes/objectives and our users have to understand what happens. Simple users (99% of the forum members) have nothing to do with these games and we are here for them.

And finally let's focus on the database errors: which solutions are there that our customers would like RadarBox to have an interface to (to get flight data from them directly)? Let us know, we will contact them directly and see what we can do.

Regarding MLAT: one more time expect the technical best solutions from us - we have always release what we promised.

[AirNav Development]

Adding again, no one has answered the database question yet...

[Allocator]

I certainly haven't found any one completely accurate and comprehensive database.  That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but why would one country/operator/organisation what to spend time on this.

The CAA G-INFO database is going to be fairly accurate and I'm sure that the FAA has a similar database, but what about all the other licensing authorities around the world!  It all comes back to the enthusiast databases like GAS and airframes.org and these depend on unpaid contribution.

I'd like to be proved wrong here, but I won't hold my breath!

[DaveReid]

The CAA G-INFO database is going to be fairly accurate and I'm sure that the FAA has a similar database, but what about all the other licensing authorities around the world!

AirNav have already dismissed my suggestion of using the ICAO International Register, which covers official data from most of the world's registration authorities.

Perhaps the proposal coming from you instead is less likely to get the standard shoot-the-messenger response.

[AirNav Development]

"AirNav have already dismissed my suggestion of using the ICAO International Register, which covers official data from most of the world's registration authorities."

Please copy-paste our statement where we dismiss it.

[Horsham Spotter]

I set the quick filter to altitude and set that below 5000ft I can then follow the Flybe aircraft as they arrive and depart by flight number and altitude.
Thats what this thread is about is it not.
Happy RB owner.
Steve.

[ACW367]

2- Databases: what is the most used/common third-party aircraft registration information currently available (for spotters, etc)?

Airnav

Another long one, I am sorry. My beef is more about clearing out the aircraft that are departed and the glaring errors which stick out like a sore thumb to us users that access Database explorer daily.  Sort the DB3 by field AC and you will find aircraft of many defunct airlines like Pan Am, TWA, ATA, Zoom, EOS, Maxjet, Braniff.  

I use http://www.airlinerlist.com/ They have downloadable spreadsheets which are kept very up to date.  It covers commercial and bizjet types aircraft types down to Otter/Cessna 208 size.  

To edit, I filter my database explorer AT field for one old aircraft type, then find the registrations one-by-one in the appropriate airlinerlist spreadsheet to ascertain if it is still current or not. Unfortunately it is a manual process which is why I recommended a vacation job would be the best way to do it.

For example just now I sorted the C500 list.  I started with 212 DB3 entries.  Comparing each one to the production list, I was able to identify and remove 58 airframes that were either scrapped or reregistered (around 1/4). In all it took me around 20 minutes to review all entires for  that type.  

I also found N501GB. It is a current C500 Citation C/N500-0231 registered in 2002.  Your released NavdataDB3 database given to users ascribes it to a Lockheed Tristar of Nordic European Airways deregistered 13 years ago.  It is these obvious items that could be seen and cleared up by one of your developers just by scanning through the list.  It appears to us users that you trusted the computers to populate the NavdataDB3 and have never cast a human eye on it to find even the most glaring errors.

Other examples of what can easily be cut away. Since 2001 the major US carriers have retired 727s (united, american), B742 (northwest), A306 (american), B737s (united), JS31 (every major feeder airline) etc.  Simple sorts by airline name and aircraft type could remove hundreds of these airframes that are still in the DB3. You could use the fleet lists at http://www.ch-aviation.ch/aircraft.php to confirm which full fleets have been put to grass.

I am not suggesting that you need to fully manually review all 82,000, just pass a manual eye over airline names for defunct airlines and the older fleets like 707s, 727s, Tristars, DC9s, 737-200s, sabreliners, jetstars etc.   Through this manual review & deletion process, solely using the delete button on Database explorer, I have got my personal Navdata file under 50,000 entries with less than circa 2 weeks work.