Tweet
EX N150YR
YV3211
0D8260
BE100
Beech B100 King Air
BE-132
PRIVATE OWNER
YV3211
0D8260
BE100
Beech B100 King Air
BE-132
PRIVATE OWNER
-
-
845D77
JA110T
EC35
Eurocopter EC135T2+
0967
Tokushima Prefectural PoliceComment
-
To an admin....
Now that you can add details directly from the radar page, is this thread now to be closed?
Will the data actually be added to the DB bearing in mind how long some of these updates take or dont take!Comment
-
899050
B-16337
A333
Airbus A330-302
1767
EVA AirComment
-
Comment
-
I would recommend leaving it open as some additions require a note of explanation.Originally posted by apgphoto View Post
I think the design of the form could've been done better though. For the commercial operators there could've been a drop down list where you select the airline as that would then keep the format the same throughout the database. If not listed (new airline etc) then there could've been an option for "not listed above? enter details below" or similar. It could've been linked to the ICAO operator code table as well so that when you type in the 3 letter code it automatically populated the airline, or vice-versa.Comment
-
I think this is a move in the right direction however there would appear to be several problems.Originally posted by apgphoto View Post
1. The aircraft needs to be visible on the screen before you can select it to add data.
Does this then prevent the adding of data on new aircraft that have not yet been seen.
2. There is nothing to indicate that data may have already been entered and is simply awaiting validation.
Does this mean that another user can overwrite the original data.
Does this allow a user to enter data which is then simply ignored as its been previously added.
Can we have data added displayed as "Provisional" pending review.
3. Delete - for now
4. There are many operators who could not be classfied as "Airlines" yet that appears to be the only option other than "Private"
Could we perhaps have the option of Airline - Commercial - Military - Private.
Look forward to your responseLast edited by nomad77; 2017-02-08, 04:02.Comment
-
Some interesting points there, nomad77.Originally posted by nomad77 View Post
In reply :
1a. Good point. What happens if you briefly see a plane showing but then disappears from view before you get time to add the details? The new 737s on the ground at RNT often do this and only 'ping' for a very short time. Perhaps there should be a stand alone form for additions as well?
1b. I have mixed feelings on this. Whilst it would be nice to add details in advance, in some cases you risk getting your fingers burnt if it shows up with a miscoded transponder(s). For example, I could've added DLs new 739 N872DN from its allocated hex code ahead of it flying, but it's actually got both transponders miscoded and is sharing with N852DN.
2. Fair point, but unless you're a regular reader of this thread the same thing could happen here as well. However I do think that showing the submitted data against the plane icon as 'unconfirmed' (maybe as a red icon rather than yellow?) has merit, and then remains such until a db editor can confirm the frame details and tie-up. There would need to be a record kept of the user submitting the data though, as it's potentially open for abuse. Perhaps a system where once you've proved yourself to be a reliable contributor you move up a 'tier' and your additions are automatically approved?
3. Lost me. Give me examples.
4. Agreed, more options needed there.Comment
-
And back on topic :
899084
B-18667
B738
Boeing 737-8AL
61777
China Airlines
CAL
Brand newComment
-
ABB1C2
N8524Z
B738
Boeing 737-8H4
36970
SWA
Southwest
Brand newComment
-
863766
JA680N
C680
Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign
680-0526
PrivateComment
-
Just been playing with the new add data feature.
Its massively flawed
You add the reg, simple......... add the ICAO type (lets ignore the ones that dont even exist
) nothing like adding bad data from the off!
A simple task would then be to populate the "type" from the selected ICAO, or in cases where there is a selection to at least narrow down to possibles. At the moment you have to guess as to who ever entered the drop down data on their thinking as to how an aircraft type should be displayed, there is no consistency, an example would be Cessna Citation where types are just randomly assigned.
If you want consistent data you have to offer consistent data to the user in the first place at the moment this new system is just a joke and will make the quality of the database even worse.Comment
-
-
Comment