Shuttle Flights

[Jeremy]

Who are you going to moan to when VHF FM radio goes digital in 2015, the radio manufacterers?
J.

[bratters]

Who are you going to moan to when VHF FM radio goes digital in 2015, the radio manufacterers?
J.

Nope - just buy a new radio. (Truth is it's looking less and less likely now!)

[bratters]

Now back, as you said, to the original topic. In the unfortunate event of some airlines being naughty and changing things, that is a problem for the manufacturer of the equipment. It may be unexpected and it may be tough but it's their problem and it's got to be solved

Even if it’s impossible and can't be done by websites (tracking aircraft or route lookup sites) whose main job are to track flights?
What do you suggest we do?

To a degree you have my sympathy in that changes beyond your control are reducing the accuracy and effectiveness of your product. What I am saying is that if the volume of number changes increases, the situation will deteriorate until it reaches a stage where the viability of the box itself is threatened.

Since you ask, I would address the problem with a clean sheet of paper. What can we do if airlines continue to change flight numbers on a regular basis? Whether you obtain information from commercial sources or from squads of volunteers, I think it is incumbent on you to prepare and offer regular "batch" updates by means of downloads to your customers.

It's a bit like Jeremy's radio analogy. As the changes progress so existing equipment will pick up less and less until it become useless. So you have buy a new one.

Sorry to be pendatic though where in our leaflets, information etc did we say the route data is 100% accurate for the whole world?

Nowhere as far as I know but then I doubt if any of your customers is seeking 100% accuracy for the whole world. Most will be more interested in the %age accuracy for their own little patch.
On which note what would you consider an acceptable figure for here in the UK for instance? 50%, 55%, 60%?  What number would you be prepared to state in your information?

Not easy but no point in blaming the customer who is merely pointing out that things ain't what they was.

[AirNav Support]

We are not blaming anyone, we just think "It may be unexpected and it may be tough but it's their problem and it's got to be solved" is a tad harsh.

I don't think we state anywhere that we have an extensive accurate route database either which updates.

At present using Flightstats, other than aplhanumeric flights it does pull through the data fine and the vast majority of those are accurate. As mentioned before we are hoping Flightstats will rectifty the issue otherwise if lookup tables are around we will put them in place.

[bratters]

quote author=AirNav Support link=topic=5190.msg52225#msg52225 date=1278593321]

I don't think we state anywhere that we have an extensive accurate route database either which updates.

[/quote]

Maybe not - I guess I sort of expected it had to be part of the deal. You're certainly not going to say you haven't got an extensive routes database, that's for sure :)

Anyway, let's plod on and see what happens.

BTW I assume that this problem affects your ocmpetitors too or have they developed a work-round?

[BlinkNFG]

Surely the ideal solution is to come up with an automatic way of working out where flights originate and land.  If callsign EZY5592PZ is seen climbing from 0ft to 2,000ft close to Stansted and then descending from 15,000ft to 0ft at Amsterdam it is clear that EZY5592PZ is EGSS to EHAM.

Dave mentioned in another thread that it is possible to automatically work out if planes are landing/taking off or merely passing high overhead - would this not offer a potential solution?

Jon

[AirNav Support]

bratters,

Our ADS-B comeptitors do not even provide a solution for routes themsleves. They pass this on to the customers or add-ons. Furthermore we have not promised a updated route database in our features list.

Thats the point we are getting at, some flack from some customers and yourself saying we paid xyz and we expect this. The reality is we have provided that and we go beyond by this linkup with FlightStats. Those of you who are saying this should calm down for a second and realise the task in hand and what we have done so far.

BlinkNFG,

That solution will work if we have enough stations covering that area. This by no means a easy process to make, regardless confirming whether its correct. Furthermore with some people saying some airlines are added the alphanumerics at random depending on what sector they are then this method would not work for very long.

[tarbat]

BTW I assume that this problem affects your ocmpetitors too or have they developed a work-round?

It certainly does affect the addons used by SBS-1 owners to get route details.  See http://www.kinetic-avionics.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=12581

[DaveReid]

Our ADS-B comeptitors do not even provide a solution for routes themsleves. They pass this on to the customers or add-ons. Furthermore we have not promised a updated route database in our features list.

I think the problem is that people read (in the RadarBox vs SBS-1 competitive comparison) that RadarBox lets you "see route details for aircraft with valid Flight ID's".

Maybe that statement needs some qualification in order to manage customers' expectations.

That solution will work if we have enough stations covering that area. This by no means a easy process to make, regardless confirming whether its correct. Furthermore with some people saying some airlines are added the alphanumerics at random depending on what sector they are then this method would not work for very long.

Nobody is saying that the process is easy, but I think you exaggerate the difficulty.

Alphanumeric flight number = callsign = Flight ID as entered on the flightplan. 

Since most airline operations would grind to a halt if they were not able to file repetitive flightplans, it's perfectly reasonable to expect a tieup between a flight number and an alphanumeric callsign to last for a season, if not longer.

[tommyg]

Dave.
Just to confuse things further, the new flight planning systems dont use RPL's anymore, we at BA file all our flight plans automatically everyday and I am sure EZY do the same as we both use the same flight planning system. These new systems are so dynamic that RPL's are becoming a thing of the past and it is very easy to change the callsign on a daily basis if we wanted to.

[DaveReid]

These new systems are so dynamic that RPL's are becoming a thing of the past and it is very easy to change the callsign on a daily basis if we wanted to.

Out of interest, how do you coordinate your callsigns with other airlines to ensure that you avoid conflicts ?  I'm assuming that you wouldn't change an alphanumeric callsign unilaterally unless you were sure that there would be no scope for confusion en route.

And would you be the person to complain to about the BAW580 to LIMC departing on two occasions this week with BAW850 (to EPWA) as its Mode S Flight ID ?  :-)

[bratters]

These new systems are so dynamic that RPL's are becoming a thing of the past and it is very easy to change the callsign on a daily basis if we wanted to.

Hmm. That doesn't sound too good for those of us interested in routes.

Would changing the callsign on a daily basis mean that there was absolutely no way that the route could be ascertained?

[tommyg]

Dave

Flight numbers are allocated to flights by our commercial dept. If we have a callsign confusion ASR (Air Safety Report) they are then allocated an alpha numeric callsign. We do not take into account any other carriers callsigns unless they are reported as a possible conflict by ATC. In the good old days flight numbers in BA were allocated by geographical regions, but now we seem to have a real mix BA253 to Nassau, BA255 to Lusaka and BA257 to Delhi. When we plan long and shorthaul flights these days the ATC plan files as soon as released. All callsigns are generally allocated for the whole or rest of the season.
As for wrong callsigns on Mode S this is either down to finger trouble by the crew or faulty Nav unit.

[tommyg]

To confuse things further if there is an adjustment to the schedule i.e. a different airport slot (these are different to ATC slots) then we either put a 1 or 2 on the callsign if no alpha numeric is allocated. This can be the BA1038 instead of the 038 and currently we have the BA2248 from GIG to LHR which is the BA248.
As you can see just from BA alone AIRNAV dont stand a chance to have routings 100pct let alone all the other airlines doing the same.

[DaveReid]

If we have a callsign confusion ASR (Air Safety Report) they are then allocated an alpha numeric callsign. We do not take into account any other carriers callsigns unless they are reported as a possible conflict by ATC.

I'm having trouble getting my head around this.

For example, last Saturday at Heathrow alone there were 109 BAW movements where an alphanumeric callsign was used in lieu of the commercial flight number.

Clearly we're not talking about each of these 109 callsigns having been generated as a consequence of a previous Air Safety Report.  

When you say "reported as a possible conflict by ATC", that seems to be a failure in the system if it has got to the stage where an ATC unit is working two flights with confusingly similar callsigns at the same time.

Surely there must be callsign coordination taking place at a higher, wider level - isn't Eurocontrol involved ?