Log data analysis results

[tarbat]

Tarbat, Silly question from someone who hasnt a clue, is this the fault of radarbox or duff info coming from the aircraft?.

That's the big question, and it could be either.  It could even be a combination of both factors - duff data not being filtered out by the Radarbox software.

[Runway 31]

Got an entry in my log today for G-JAKF an R44 with start altitude of 01700 ft and an end altitude of 18800 ft.

[shaun]

This might be related: on the 2010/05/16 I remember this plane alternating between flight ID 353 and TSO354 it might even be in the RBL i sent.

[DaveReid]

Got an entry in my log today for G-JAKF an R44 with start altitude of 01700 ft and an end altitude of 18800 ft.

Welcome to the club :-)

I'd hazard a guess that if you look in your log at around the same time as the R44 you will also find one of the following:

A320 G-MONX 400541
A319 G-EUOI 400941
A319 G-EZNM 400C41

[DaveReid]

This might be related: on the 2010/05/16 I remember this plane alternating between flight ID 353 and TSO354 it might even be in the RBL i sent.

No, it wasn't in the log that you kindly sent, but VP-BYP did visit LHR yesterday, arriving as "353" at 16:07 and departing as TSO354 at 18:54.

[shaun]

OK, thanks

Shaun

[Runway 31]

Dave, checked my log and the 3 aircraft you mentioned are not on it.

Alan

[DaveReid]

Dave, checked my log and the 3 aircraft you mentioned are not on it.

I missed one other possibility: BE20 G-MAMD 400F41.  That's assuming it was only a single-bit error, if it was 2 or 3 bits out there are lots more possibles.

[Runway 31]

Nope, G-MAMD not seen either, may just be an aircraft error.

Alan

[eggplant]

I have several Robinson R44 helicopters logged around 36 to 37000 feet. Although I'm no expert I think that is beyond their known ceiling. Perhaps the owners/operators had installed nitrous oxide systems or such like  :-)

[Marpleman]

I have several Robinson R44 helicopters logged around 36 to 37000 feet. Although I'm no expert I think that is beyond their known ceiling. Perhaps the owners/operators had installed nitrous oxide systems or such like  :-)

Safe limit is to 14,000 feet for the R44, so obviously JATO versions ;-)

rich

[DaveReid]

I have several Robinson R44 helicopters logged around 36 to 37000 feet. Although I'm no expert I think that is beyond their known ceiling. Perhaps the owners/operators had installed nitrous oxide systems or such like  :-)

Safe limit is to 14,000 feet for the R44, so obviously JATO versions ;-)

Slightly OT, but an interesting snippet from the R44 Type Certificate says that, although the Density Altitude Limit is 14,000ft, the aircraft isn't allowed to fly more than 9,000' AGL "to allow landing within 5 minutes in case of fire ".

Does the FAA know something about Robinsons that we don't ?  :-)

[Marpleman]

Slightly OT, but an interesting snippet from the R44 Type Certificate says that, although the Density Altitude Limit is 14,000ft, the aircraft isn't allowed to fly more than 9,000' AGL "to allow landing within 5 minutes in case of fire ".

Does the FAA know something about Robinsons that we don't ?  :-)

I noticed that also - not to good a sales pitch really is it? 

But then again , you know how quickly "hair dryers" can cut out from over-heating?

Rich

[DaveReid]

Our Professional customers (which we have quite a few Airlines, ATC and Agencies) do use the RadarBox but do not use the .rbl files or the 30003 port data. They use a different interface altogether and we haven't had issues with them regarding this.

That's good news.

If you are saying that there is an alternative way of getting data out of RadarBox that's reliable then I would welcome details and, if satisfied, will happily put RadarBox back onto the shortlist for use in developing professional solutions.

Still awaiting aforesaid details !

In the meantime it occurs to me that, if it's true what you're saying and you have other versions of RadarBox that don't suffer from the "hex code confusion" bug, then why on earth aren't you using the same data handling routines in the RB version that we're all running ?

It does seem strange, though, that you are blaming the external data output interface for the hex code errors, I would have thought that they originated further upstream, in the decoding process.

And are you absolutely sure that it's only the amateur version of RadarBox that has this bug ?  I can understand any vendor's reluctance to acknowledge defects in their software but, as any developer will tell you, honesty is always the best policy.

Anyway, taking your statement at face value, can you please tell me how can I obtain an evaluation copy of the bug-free professional version of the RB software to confirm that that's the case and to see if it would be suitable for my clients ?

I'm hoping that all the work I've done on analysis over the last couple of days won't turn out to have been a waste of time.  Having said that, pending a bug-fix I've at least saved myself the potential embarrassment of recommending a solution that I would later regret.

[AirNav Support]

DaveReid,

The Professional version costs extra as you can imagine and we will only provide the files etc if you are interested to purchase.

If you are please contact us directly, Professional trials etc are done via email and need agreements and we will not be forced into giving one over the forum.

Also just to clarify our clients have not come back with that issue regarding the Pro version that doesn't mean to say it is not there.

Lastly, if you want an answer from support or development please contact them directly. As I am sure you are aware the forum is not a guaranteed support forum for us, we get many posts and some get missed etc.. The support ticket system is assured a reply and that’s why its there.