Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion about Flightradar24 database

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Replying to Vicenzo Caccamo :

    "Very easy to blame others for your mistakes instead of admitting them. even if I had guessed it (although I have photographs with proof of the correct registration) the registration in the first post is correct. it's you who can't even copy and paste the recordings. I have been registering aircraft with callsign PROVA for years and no one has ever complained. By the way they are all correct. why all these problems now? Congratulations on your consistency."

    The incorrect frame had been submitted by someone via the public form. The timing seems strangely coincidental, but if it was not you, I apologise. There have been no mistakes done my myself so there is nothing to admit.

    In response to your question "why all these problems now?" - the problems have always been there but rarely addressed as the submissions have been added to the database unchecked, resulting in the database getting into a bit of a mess with many errors, duplicates and other issues. There has recently been a push to improve the quality and attempt to check and verifiy submissions before adding them to the database. You will find that any submissions that are not supported with evidence and unable to be independently verified will often not get processed. The editors (as volunteers) do not have infinite time to spend researching them.

    As you wish to make sarcastic remarks about consistency, it's usually best to ensure your own house is in order first. It wasn't that long ago when you guessed the new GdF heli registrations incorrectly which later had to be corrected and even your post from just a few days ago contains errors :

    30089E
    I-TEAS
    AS50
    Airbus Helicopters H125
    9123
    Terna Group
    00-00-2021

    30089D
    I-TEAF
    AS50
    Airbus Helicopters H125
    9122
    Terna Group
    00-00-2021

    The operator is E+S Air S.R.L. as found in the latest official ENAC update: https://www.enac.gov.it/sites/defaul...braio_2022.pdf

    That aside, all submissions are welcome but priority is generally given to those which are quick to verify and process. As there is no official public register for Italy then if you can add your photo (or link to it on your own website, flickr etc) to prove the reg > hex tie-up from a visual sighting then that would be fantastic and cut down on processing time.

    Comment


    • Hello.
      I added the details of my aircraft on the 6th of March but it still cannot be found in the platform’s database.
      Usually how long does it take for someone from the admins to add an aircraft to the database? Or maybe I have done something wrong? The aircraft registration is HA-WAJ.
      Thank you in advance.
      Stephen

      473A21
      HA-WAJ
      C152
      Cessna C152
      15283188
      Private owner
      1979-00-00
      Last edited by alfa10530; 2022-04-02, 06:42. Reason: added the a/c details

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DB Editor View Post
        Replying to Vicenzo Caccamo :

        "Very easy to blame others for your mistakes instead of admitting them. even if I had guessed it (although I have photographs with proof of the correct registration) the registration in the first post is correct. it's you who can't even copy and paste the recordings. I have been registering aircraft with callsign PROVA for years and no one has ever complained. By the way they are all correct. why all these problems now? Congratulations on your consistency."

        The incorrect frame had been submitted by someone via the public form. The timing seems strangely coincidental, but if it was not you, I apologise. There have been no mistakes done my myself so there is nothing to admit.

        In response to your question "why all these problems now?" - the problems have always been there but rarely addressed as the submissions have been added to the database unchecked, resulting in the database getting into a bit of a mess with many errors, duplicates and other issues. There has recently been a push to improve the quality and attempt to check and verifiy submissions before adding them to the database. You will find that any submissions that are not supported with evidence and unable to be independently verified will often not get processed. The editors (as volunteers) do not have infinite time to spend researching them.

        As you wish to make sarcastic remarks about consistency, it's usually best to ensure your own house is in order first. It wasn't that long ago when you guessed the new GdF heli registrations incorrectly which later had to be corrected and even your post from just a few days ago contains errors :

        30089E
        I-TEAS
        AS50
        Airbus Helicopters H125
        9123
        Terna Group
        00-00-2021

        30089D
        I-TEAF
        AS50
        Airbus Helicopters H125
        9122
        Terna Group
        00-00-2021

        The operator is E+S Air S.R.L. as found in the latest official ENAC update: https://www.enac.gov.it/sites/defaul...braio_2022.pdf

        That aside, all submissions are welcome but priority is generally given to those which are quick to verify and process. As there is no official public register for Italy then if you can add your photo (or link to it on your own website, flickr etc) to prove the reg > hex tie-up from a visual sighting then that would be fantastic and cut down on processing time.
        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Asr...w?usp=drivesdk

        We start from this image in which you can see that I look in the topic for the post in which someone has suggested the wrong registration I-MVRR. Only my fix appears and no other posts. this means that no one has instructed you to enter I-MVRR. Since the first post in question I have always published the reg. correct. The error is absolutely not up to me.

        To conclude with this speech you will find the photo of I-MMRV with its flights with callsign. certainly the news that now you try to verify the information of the forum to improve the quality of the information is a big step forward.
        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AzVCXX_ssvoC9sQg9HANYJfTveN4Z4b6/view?usp=drivesdk

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B0B...w?usp=drivesdk

        I would really like to know how do you know if a user guesses the brands or is based on truthful information that leads him to add aircraft with a large degree of certainty. Now I ask you. how are you sure that i guess the brands? Please list me the mistakes I made adding new helis of the GdiF. to me there are no errors. If he doesn't, I'll take it as a lie just to avoid taking the blame.

        as far as the h125 of the backhoe loader in the following photo is concerned, the information I have taken is present. you can see that both companies are present, I decided to publish Terna because they will be operative for it and not for E + S. I don't know if E + S will be indicated as operator for bureaucratic papers. But in fact the heli will be for Terna.
        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B56...w?usp=drivesdk
        https://www.dgualdo.it/italy-new-current.htm
        Last edited by Vincenzo Caccamo; 2022-04-02, 09:36.
        Caccamo Vincenzo

        Comment


        • Said the Public FORM

          Not FORUM

          The FORM (I believe is still there) is for website submission that '+' appears on things flying but not in dbase.
          Last edited by Oblivian; 2022-04-02, 09:42.
          Posts not to be taken as official support representation - Just a helpful uploader who tinkers

          Comment


          • So form is different by forum?
            Caccamo Vincenzo

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Vroom View Post

              Is it possible to have an update on progress with this please? Many thanks.
              There's no registration

              http://hexlookup.epizy.com/hex.php?h...&submit=Search
              Posts not to be taken as official support representation - Just a helpful uploader who tinkers

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Oblivian View Post
                Correct. It is used on a paramotor which does not require a registration (same as wheeled single seat craft below 70kg empty weight). The CAA allocate us a hex code to our personal selves instead. I can forward a copy of the hex allocation to me from NISC if required. We assign ourselves a callsign as a means of identification and the CAA have been happy with this for years. When I say happy… I asked them directly and they said it isn’t causing an issue and they’d rather not have to go through legislation for such a small group due to unwanted costs at this time. They were happy enough that the current info in CAP509 was enough as that is what I use on the radio.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Oblivian View Post
                  In the UK there has been a CAA initiative to encourage use of EC by part subsidising device purchase. Consequently there is a rapidly growing number of paramotors, hang gliders, paragliders, etc that do not hold or require registration but are flying with ADSB capability. It seems that the link you sent is from a website that doesn’t have the ability to recognise that a device may not necessarily be linked to a registration.

                  Comment


                  • The site shows the correct range of a reg for the provided hex.

                    Flight tracker databases are built around.primary keys. HEX and a tied Registration. And correct country allocation/use of them preventing duplication.

                    So wouldn't be holding hope to see them added anytime soon if that's suddenly the case.
                    Posts not to be taken as official support representation - Just a helpful uploader who tinkers

                    Comment


                    • Continuing the discussion :

                      ===

                      "Correct. It is used on a paramotor which does not require a registration (same as wheeled single seat craft below 70kg empty weight). The CAA allocate us a hex code to our personal selves instead. I can forward a copy of the hex allocation to me from NISC if required. We assign ourselves a callsign as a means of identification and the CAA have been happy with this for years. When I say happy… I asked them directly and they said it isn’t causing an issue and they’d rather not have to go through legislation for such a small group due to unwanted costs at this time. They were happy enough that the current info in CAP509 was enough as that is what I use on the radio."

                      ===

                      This will need referring to the site owner & management for discussion and a decision, which will likely take some time.

                      My own personal opinion is that they should not be allowed simply for the reason that the hex codes are issued to an individual to basically do what they want with them. Without a fixed frame or registration there is no way of indexing them and I'm reasonably confident that the management will not allow personalised callsigns such as "FLYMO" to be used as a registration index. In addition to this, even if they were allowed, the coverage under 1000ft AGL away from the major airports is typically poor, rendering any live or historical flight track data worthless as it'll just be a mess of jagged lines.

                      Please standby for a response from management.

                      ===

                      Thanks for the reply. Please bear in mind that there is no obligation for us to stay below 1000’ AGL and that we are free to use the Open FIR as we choose. In fact I would estimate half of the time paramotors are used it is above that height and fully capable of being received. I also occasionally make ATZ and MATZ crossings in the UK and have also operated in ICAO Class D (with approval) so it would be a shame if the FlightRadar database decided to choose to be incomplete when the traffic still exists. This is a rapidly growing area adopting electronic conspicuity legitimately which would be completely missed!

                      ===

                      The height argument is moot as it doesn't alter the fact that the craft cannot be easily indexed as they have no registration mark. In my opinion these handheld conspicuity transponders are a non-starter for flight tracking websites simply for that reason.

                      What you are asking for in simplistic terms is for every family bicycle be given a personalised name by its owner and then asking the DVLA to add them to their vehicle licensing database alongside all the cars, buses and trucks that have official registration marks.

                      I'm looking at the historical hex data for the CAA Conspicuity hex range (425) right now, and I can already see some instances where people are using the same personalised callsign as other hex holders, notably with "PARAxxx" and "PPGxx" callsigns. As there is no regulation or control over how the holder uses his/her transponder device, there is nothing to prevent another holder from deciding to call his/her paramotor FLYMO as well, which would obviously cause a conflict with the data indexing.

                      I understand that you're clearly passionate about your paramotor hobby, but the primary focus and use of this site is tracking commercial passenger and cargo air traffic, The editorial team is mostly volunteers and just keeping up with the commercial jetliner changes takes up nearly all our time, ergo recreational add requests by default get low priority.

                      You might want to enquire with glidernet to see if they will add you to their tracking map. Looking through their database callsign list, there are plenty of "PARA" callsigns so it appears they also cater for paramotors.

                      Again, these are only my personal thoughts and I do not speak officially or unofficially for flightradar24.com.
                      Last edited by DB Editor; 2022-04-05, 13:42.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Oblivian View Post
                        The site shows the correct range of a reg for the provided hex.

                        Flight tracker databases are built around.primary keys. HEX and a tied Registration. And correct country allocation/use of them preventing duplication.

                        So wouldn't be holding hope to see them added anytime soon if that's suddenly the case.
                        While I understand this line has worked fine in the past it is going to leave your database very incomplete as we move forward and find that the drive to mandate electronic conspicuity results in hundreds (and potentially thousands in UK alone) ADSB devices in unregistered machines utilising the full expanse of class G in the middle of all the other traffic. It doesn’t really matter from our perspective as we will still have the device to device communication but it will leave a lot of unknown pain for users of your service. If you have no desire to include then that’s fine but it will be interesting to see what happens as the unrecognised contacts grow in numbers.

                        Comment


                        • I think you have possibly missed my earlier reply above.

                          Originally posted by Vroom View Post
                          While I understand this line has worked fine in the past it is going to leave your database very incomplete as we move forward and find that the drive to mandate electronic conspicuity results in hundreds (and potentially thousands in UK alone) ADSB devices in unregistered machines utilising the full expanse of class G in the middle of all the other traffic. It doesn’t really matter from our perspective as we will still have the device to device communication but it will leave a lot of unknown pain for users of your service. If you have no desire to include then that’s fine but it will be interesting to see what happens as the unrecognised contacts grow in numbers.
                          I think you are grossly overestimating the number of users that would care. Even if the hex codes were somehow added to the database, the number of users that would be bothered about a paramotor with a completely meaningless fake "registration" could probably be counted in single digits. If the number of contacts did ever reach the thousands that you anticipate, I expect 1 of 2 things would happen :

                          1. all hex codes in the 425 range would be given a generic ICAO like PARA and the rest of the fields blocked in the editor.
                          2. all hex codes in the 425 range would be blocked at source and simply not appear on the map.

                          Unless the CAA decides to give you proper valid registrations and changes the rules so that the transponders must be fixed to that registration and not be transferred to / used in other craft, my prediction is that #2 will probably happen at some point in the future, purely because they'll become too much of a pain in the ass to deal with.

                          Comment


                          • My reference to height was only as a response to a comment that was made almost implying a paramotor wasn’t going to be seen above 1000’ AGL. Also, where you say “what I’m asking for…” isn’t what I’m asking for, it’s what already exists. Unregistered craft with EC devices now number in there figures in the UK and growing. We didn’t ask for it, the CAA wanted us to take it up and incentivised us to do so.
                            I have no issue with not being on your database but had thought that it might be of interest for users of FR to know why that symbol that looks like a 737 has such an unbelievable groundspeed! I have what I want from my SkyEcho2 which is the direct communication with other aircrafts ADSB in so I show up on their display, that’ll just do fine.
                            Last edited by Vroom; 2022-04-05, 18:30. Reason: Edited to add the second paragraph due the wife calling for dinner halfway through.

                            Comment


                            • Serial Number (MSN) 510-0471 has changed from D-ISSS to N510RP.

                              Comment


                              • Be advised that Las Vegas McCarran Airport was renamed Harry Reid International Airport Las Vegas on December 14, 2021 but you are still showing the old name on the FR24 map and on any aircraft travelling to and from LAS.
                                Last edited by prospero; 2022-04-08, 15:03.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X