Database Update Requests

[Runway 31]

Cheers Steve. BTW 43C50F is actually XZ616 .  XZ617 is 43C510.

Alan

[Horsham Spotter]

Hello Alan.
Thank you. I will change XZ617 to XZ616 in my database.
Steve.

[tarbat]

Again part of another ongoing reported bug I am afraid.  If we have the same registration for many codes, in this case 'TACTICAL' the current software cannot cope with that.  Even though the record you saw will have correctly transferred to your Navdata as a CL60.  When the software tries to display that on the screen it appears that it is currently looking for the first occurance of the registration 'TACTICAL' in your Navdata.  Which often appears to be ones we have identified as US F-15.  We are putting into the DB a type (CL60, F15 etc) in the AT field for these if they are not used by more than one type.  Of course the other bug prevents that reaching users.

We spotted it and reported it to Airnav on 15 September. But as you know, airnav are not looking to undertake bug fixing until after the Shiptrax project is mature.  I attach a screenshot which we also passed to Airnav Dev in September that explains the issue.

Althouth the screenshot you provided correctly shows a GAF aircraft showing the correct German military flag (derived from the D008.dat file).  I'm a bit confused what the problem is here.

[ACW367]

Again part of another ongoing reported bug I am afraid.  If we have the same registration for many codes, in this case 'TACTICAL' the current software cannot cope with that.  Even though the record you saw will have correctly transferred to your Navdata as a CL60.  When the software tries to display that on the screen it appears that it is currently looking for the first occurance of the registration 'TACTICAL' in your Navdata.  Which often appears to be ones we have identified as US F-15.  We are putting into the DB a type (CL60, F15 etc) in the AT field for these if they are not used by more than one type.  Of course the other bug prevents that reaching users.

We spotted it and reported it to Airnav on 15 September. But as you know, airnav are not looking to undertake bug fixing until after the Shiptrax project is mature.  I attach a screenshot which we also passed to Airnav Dev in September that explains the issue.

Althouth the screenshot you provided correctly shows a GAF aircraft showing the correct German military flag (derived from the D008.dat file).  I'm a bit confused what the problem is here.

You can see in the screenshot I have the record selected for the German hexcode.  On the open database explorer window you can see that the details in the Navdata for the German hex are correctly for the CL60.  However the data showing next to the photo for that selected German hexcode does not match the data contained in Navdata for that hexcode.  

Therefore the info next to the photo is not the info contained in the Navdata for that hex, the info next to the photo is the Navdata info from another hex that has the same registration 'Tactical', IE info from one of the AE**** USAF tactical hex codes.

[tarbat]

You can see in the screenshot I have the record selected for the German hexcode.  On the open database explorer window you can see that the details in the Navdata for the German hex are correctly for the CL60.  However the data showing next to the photo for that selected German hexcode does not match the data contained in Navdata for that hexcode.

My understanding is that the details next to the photo are derived from the aircraft's registration, in the same way that photos are retrieved from airliners.net using their registration.  So if you put duplicate registrations in the aircrafts table, you will see this type of problem.  AFAIK, the aircrafts table was designed to hold CURRENT details of aircraft, so there should be NO duplicate registrations (in theory).  Looks like the database team may be causing this problem themselves by using "dummy" registrations in this way.  Using duplicate "dummy" registrations will also cause problems with photo lookups.

However, this doesn't seem to relate to Rod's original question/problem, which was about the wrong FLAG being displayed.

[ACW367]

I wondered about that - but it did come up as a German AF CL60 Tactical code, but shiowing a US flag.

Rod

Rod

Just to confirm as this seems to have generated quite alot of confusion.  This is a new (September 2010) identified bug.  Seperate from other issues regarding the ICAO code and photo display.  

In my experience I have never seen the wrong flag displaying and it appears to be correctly interogating the D008.Dat file for the selected Hex.  This purely in my opinion relates to the info displayed next to the photo not being the information in the Navdata for the selected hex but instead being the info in the Navdata for another hex.

Tarbat
You state that we should not use duplicate dummy IDs, but how else can you identify tactical codes.  If we leave the registration field blank it also does not work.  There is the case in places like Malaysia and Afghanistan the same hex being used by more than one aircraft, due to poor national administration or miscoding, we currently use 'VARIOUS with an expanation in the other fields.  I think it is vital we can use 'TACTICAL' 'VARIOUS' and '<GND>' for ID.   


This is also unrelated to the photos issue where against our correct updated aircraft details it could display a photo of another aircraft that wears or wore the tailnumber.   That issue relates to the fact that Airnav still have it set up to individually interogate ANet for photos with the search criteria being 'Most popular image for given tailnumber'.  Obviously in some cases the most popular image is of a different or old airframe.  This is currently is not in the control of the updaters. Although Airnav set up a system in our updater to alleviate this, the other bug currently prevents this getting to users.

Regards
ACW367

[ACW367]

AFAIK, the aircrafts table was designed to hold CURRENT details of aircraft, so there should be NO duplicate registrations (in theory).  Looks like the database team may be causing this problem themselves by using "dummy" registrations in this way.  Using duplicate "dummy" registrations will also cause problems with photo lookups.

Some hexes are used by multiple aircraft through miscoding or tactical use; or belong to unidentified ground stations.  The system needs to be set up so we can identify them as such.  It is no longer as simple as one hex=one current registration, especially when it comes to tactical codes.

Whilst my posts above try to clarify in users minds the nature of this new bug.  I am not in a position to give anymore information as to its cause or fix timescales.  That of course can only be provided by Airnav.

I have only identified to them the problem.  I expect Airnav to come on here shortly and update you all on what they have done over the past 3 months in the background to identify the cause of the issue and their way ahead to provide the required fix.  

[tarbat]

You state that we should not use duplicate dummy IDs, but how else can you identify tactical codes.  If we leave the registration field blank it also does not work.

What does not work?

In my opinion, we should not be using a field for something it wasn't designed for.  The AR field should contain the aircraft's registration, if known.  If it's not known, then leave the AR field blank.  Anyone can see from the design of the aircrafts table that AR is not a UNIQUE field, so putting mutliple records into the table with duplicate AR values is going to cause problems.  I don't think Radarbox was designed to cope with duplicate registrations in the aircrafts table.

[Horsham Spotter]

Good afternoon update team.

One found in mylog from today. Info from the GAS site.

43C5F8/ZH901/H47/Boeing CH47 Chinook HC3/Royal Air Force/M4480

Hope of use.
Steve.

[54901 - Jim]

From the overnight log -->

A8AAF4 / N658FE / A306 / Airbus A300F4-605R / Federal Express / 752


Thanks!

[Runway 31]

Cheers Steve, I thought that one was in months ago, but it wasnt.  Thanks again

Alan

[Runway 31]

Thanks Jim, now added.

Alan

[Horsham Spotter]

Hello Alan.

One that I have found that is not populating from mylog.

43E88F using callsign MAMAS.

Hope of use.
Steve.

[RodBearden]

ACW - thanks for your explanations. Tricky problem - we'll have to see what AirNav can do about it.

Rod

[Runway 31]

Steve

43E88F is a PC12, new into Bournemouth, reported as M-AMAN on mode-s forum

Alan