Database Update Requests

[CarlosAbreu]

Alan

02-12-2017 Updated file in attach.

Carlos

[X]

Alan

   424164                           VP-CFF     EC55  Bayside Systems      2017/12/02 20:55:19 
   424164  SDM5696           VP-CFF     EC55  Bayside Systems      2017/11/29 12:31:30

Like ffa1978 I have picked up 424164 about 30 times in last month, and as stated populates as VP-CFF EC55 with more than 50% of the time Rossiya f/n and up to 800 pings. There have been others doing the same as I posted a while back and we put most of this down to local interference.

Today I had 42411A showing up as a likely corrupt package but no f/n and about 30 pings only, It was likely actually 424118. Yesterday I had three such cases where it appeared to be corrupt as I had another aircraft at same level at the same time with only one digit difference. I seems to be worse with snow clouds around so Atmospherics must play a part!

But 424164 is a clear double coder as some others. In db there are other Rossiya double entries against  VP-BIU, VP-BWG and VP-BWH only one digit difference between correct and wrong hexes.

X

[X]

PS Aeroflot VQ-BEI A321 is also down twice in db, once as correct hex 424946 and secondly as miscode 42494E

[Runway 31]

Thanks X.  We have 2 options.  Add the correct allocated details to the database or have each code in the database with the registration as VARIOUS and detail the aircraft using the hex in the CO field.

I normally state the correct user of the code in the database and allow local users to amend the database as they see fit.  Known miscodes are recorded in the database where there are no conflictions with the correct tie up.  Some codes are unfortunately used by 3,4,5 or more aircraft usually coding errors or manufacturers hex codes which are not recoded when they are reregistered to new owners, these are added in with VARIOUS as the registration details and are recorded as being used by Numerous Aircraft in the CO field.

Miscodes are normally recognisable as they are normally seen regularly while decode errors/corrupt packets are not seen regularly.  Also one transponder can be correctly coded while the other is miscoded, these are usually able to be noted and recorded pretty accurately.  For one offs like your SDM flight, this could have been given off by any one of the fleet and this miscode/corrupt packet/decode error may be different next time picked up.  424164 is allocated to the EC55 while I have no idea what member of the SDM fleet you picked up sending the code but it should be easy for local user to determine if it is the SDM aircraft transmitting wrongly or if it is the helicopter using it correctly.  It would appear to me that the SDM has a one box error and it should be relatively easy for a local user to determine which one of the fleet is sending it out and amend their database as they see fit.

Where assumptions are made by users on which aircraft is giving the false data and I dont usually add this information to the database until we are 100% sure on the details.

Regarding VQ-BEI see my comments regarding miscodes where there are no conflictions.  There are plenty of known miscodes in the database in fact if we didnt record these some parts of the world such as South America we would have plenty of unknown aircraft.  The correct user of a code will however have precedence.

Alan

[X]

Alan

I have no real issues on how you handle it but it is certain that ffa1978 is correct about VQ-BJX double coding as 424164 on one box as it is too regular to be otherwise, unfortunately it is also used by VP-CFF.

X

[Runway 31]

I dont doubt that X and try to deal with these however its not easy when the aircraft are both ADSB equipped and are liable to be in the same area at the same time.  424164 is liable to be being sent out by the SDM and the helicopter in the Moscow area for example at the same time, what can I do other than I have stated?

Alan

[Runway 31]

Thanks Carlos, I will add the details later today as per previous replies

Alan

[neroon79]

Nothing but asking Rossiya and others to fix their boxes or to take more care while setting up their hex addresses. But somehow I think that this won't work either.

BTW: I checked my Logs and found flights which were, with no doubt, caused by VQ-BJX in miscoded state. Other possibilities are rouled out in that cases. We all have consensus with the fact that VQ-BJX is flying around in a miscoded state on a regular bases. Seems that we need a column KM in the database.
KM: known miscodes using that hex

Ingo

[ffa1978]

424164 not EC55 on 100 %.It VQ-BJX

[ffa1978]

Hi all! X:42411a its fake hex -corrupted adsb packets.VP-BIU, VP-BWG and VP-BWH AND VQ-BEI not have misscode hex.Your seen corrupted adsb packet
VQ-BQK S7 AIRLINES also have true and miscode hex (424571-true) and (424171-misscode).During flight hex not change.it confirmed ON 100.It used miscode on regular base

[Runway 31]

ffa

Correct hex for VQ-BJX is 424964 and was using it when it landed at URMM earlier.  Will try and see what it is using when it takes off later

Alan

[Runway 31]

ffa

VQ-BJX is using hex 424964 inbound UUWW as SDM6120 this time

Alan

[ffa1978]

Alan: Very Good example for VQ-BJX .To URSS -true hex 424964.From URSS -misscode 424164!!

[X]

Alan

To take of us of the subject of VQ-BJX I have a new Russian with ex an factory code!

 * 1EFA38  CTA100A                                                        2017/12/03 12:37:17

1EFA38 (14FA38) should be Tu204 No prefix 64056 or RA-64056! c/n not 100% known possibly 145074 ??64056

Perhaps ffa1978 can help get the full c/n
X

[X]

Alan

Now back onto VQ-BJX using miscode 424164....according to FR24 it also operated SU flights on 26/27/28 November as an EC55! Dam fast chopper :):):)

Where is VP-CFF these days anyway......Malta, seems Mediterranean Yacht based?

X