AirNav RadarBox
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 


Author Topic: Database Updater Team progress report  (Read 17142 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Southwest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
Re: Database Updater Team progress report
« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2010, 10:34:19 AM »

Airvav did post their list a few months ago if i remember right, now stop your whingeing and look for it.
from pat

Swordfish - Didn't you have any toys as a child?
Rich - Thanks for taking the time to answer in a civil manner.
Air Nav team - You know what I want, it's better route information but I do appreciate there are other things that will come before that.


loophunter

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Database Updater Team progress report
« Reply #31 on: June 24, 2010, 07:30:37 PM »
Hello,
I run Airnav suite 4 with PC-HFDL and Posfix. Unfortunately most of the plots I receive & process do not indicate neither routes nor registration. So my plots show mostly flight numbers only.
When I check the supplied Airnav data base for these details these flights & details simply lack there. I receive mainly Russian flights - AFL & SU.
Does AirNav intend to update soon its data accordingly doing justice to the fact that surely a  good many German users with the same problem are among its customers ??
If unable or unwilling to do so soon
is there the possibility to carry out the necessary updates to its data base by myself ?
If so, how is this done ?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
R. Fechter

Runway 31

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33509
Re: Database Updater Team progress report
« Reply #32 on: June 24, 2010, 07:40:52 PM »
Loophunter, we are working on it.  Please forward on the hex code of any fllights with no registration and we will apply them.  AFL and SU are definately on the database but forward the hex code of the aircraft concerned and we will add them.

Alan

54901 - Jim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
    • N9JHB.com
Re: Database Updater Team progress report
« Reply #33 on: June 24, 2010, 10:23:11 PM »
Attached is a file containing my blanks received since June 3rd when I made my last submission.

Thanks!

Jim

KOSH - Oshkosh, Wisconsin USA

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: Database Updater Team progress report
« Reply #34 on: June 24, 2010, 10:39:25 PM »
Attached is a file containing my blanks received since June 3rd when I made my last submission.

Thanks!

Jim



Cheers Jim

Appreciate your efforts

Rich

freqhopping

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Database Updater Team progress report
« Reply #35 on: June 24, 2010, 11:58:51 PM »
I did a very involved import of the FAA database.  I'd say it's better than 95% complete/accurate at this point.  The only data lacking or incorrect would be aircraft that have been newly registered since I downloaded the FAA data; de/re-registrations; and aircraft using the incorrect code for their registration.   Any of these things get updated as I log them. Every day I typically log 4 to 6 N-reg codes that I need to enter the details for. 

Often though they are unassigned codes/registrations.  For these I just enter the code and matching reg, "unk" for AT, and "Not Assigned/Reserved", "Reserved by SBS Program Office" or "Reserved by (so and so)"
 for AN and AC.   For non N-reg I just enter Unknown for AN and AC unless they are display a flight ID that gives a possible identification.  I currently have 315 logged N-regs classfied with an 'unassigned' or 'reserved' entry.

There have been a few aircraft using the wrong codes that I have identified except for the registration.  Comparing flight IDs and altitudes to what is showing on Flightaware has allowed this.

In my database I also included all the reserved registrations but have not entered all the mode-s codes for them.  Many of the logged planes with no details are now using their previously reserved registrations.

Some other data is sort of missing because of how the FAA makes the database available.  Generally this is only for less comon aircraft. For 'AN' some have an FAA code that corresponds to a particular airframe. I update this with the actual make and model when I log them.  An example from today is 138527H.  This is the code for Boeing 777-FS2.  There are currently only four of these, all operated by Fed Ex.  At the time of my import the FAA data listed Boeing Company as the owner.  Another example is 05623YO for N311RV.  It's listed as a Testement J/Dobb PA Vans RV-10.  There is one one of these.  I updated all these records in my DB today.

If someone would like my data to work with let me know.

Marpleman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Proper aeroplanes!
Re: Database Updater Team progress report
« Reply #36 on: June 25, 2010, 10:31:11 AM »

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