FAKE flights

[Wolli]

Not very often - but again here and there - I have the feeling that some radars feed
-> fake flight data
to FR24.

Here an example (screenshot from 23-DEC-2016 22:39 UTC):
FAKE.jpg
This one was not spotted by my equipment (a first indication - however: no proof, as my DVBT dongle - theoretically - may listen "beside" the frequency used by the AC).
BUT:
What makes me wondering:
1) AC's altitude is @ 30.000 feet, which is quite a "high" one. So I would think that - in most cases - an "F"-radar should be the "actual spotting radar", which is not the case here, although the area is brilliantly covered by "F"-radars spotting ACs flying even at much lower altitudes than this one. ACs with "high" altitudes in this area are spotted by at least 10 "F"-radars (my personal estimation).
2) "No Squawk" (see screenshot). Mhhh? Very strange...
3) From the same particular radar I saw at least 3 comparable "strange" AC-flights during the last hour. In the screenshot, however, I "blacked out" the number of the radar, because I do not want to declare this particular feeder as "feeding fake flights intentionally" - maybe it is just a technical problem of this particular feeder and the person behind it has no knowledge of the fake data "his" feeder is obviously producing.
4) No "GPS altitude" shown (see screenshot). This is - usually - the case for MLAT flight data. But: With MLAT flights we usually see "MLAT" (or "MLAT1" in this area) as the spotting radar, but not a particular radar (like in this screenshot).

Questions:
A) How come, that such (obviously fake) flights are published on the FR24 website? Is there no "cross check" of other radars' feed data within the FR24 system?
B) How should comparable obviously "fake flights" be correctly reported (in the future)? Intention is uppermost not to accuse particular feeders for delivering fake data, but making the FR24 system robust concerning fake data feeds.
C) After all: Maybe this is NOT a fake flight. If you think it is a real flight, please post this here including your arguments. I am willing to learn.

BTW: Happy Christmas days to everyone reading this posting.

-Wolli-

[arctic]

You are right on something.. they are "FAKE", the radar name is not real, it is injected by FR24, but they aren't fake because of the bad exception of the term, but because they are estimated position of a flight based on the previous observations. Some time those prediction are correct, some time (like it appear the case here, since the dense coverage) they are wrong.
You have a lot of this examples in the fat east where the coverage is less dense, and over the ocean, and you often see a "radar" (well, its "fake" name) moving around by several miles.
It may be not that accurate, but it's not malicious.
Merry Xmas!

[Wolli]

Hi arctic, and thank you very much indeed for your reply.

[...]the radar name is not real, it is injected by FR24, but they aren't fake because of the bad exception of the term, but because they are estimated position of a flight based on the previous observations.

My "complaint" is not focused to a "false radar name", but to a fake flight. I claim, that the flight shown in my screenshot did not happen to that time. And also not 15 minutes before or past the time reported by my screenshot.

You have a lot of this examples in the fat east where the coverage is less dense.

Well, sorry, West Germany is not the "far east" with less dense. I think the "far east" situation with "less dense" cannot be compared 1:1 with the West Germany situation (with plenty of "F"-radars being online 24/7).

It may be not that accurate, but it's not malicious.

No? Well, your opinion. Displaying fake flights - in my opinion - generally cannot be tolerated. In "less dense" areas other "rules" may be suitable, as you state. West Germany is - however - far away from "less dense" radar covering.

Merry Xmas!

Yep, and thank you very much indeed, although our both opinions may differ! Merry XMAS also for you and yours. Greetings, -Wolli-

[arctic]

Hi, as I tried to explain, they are "Estimated": if the signal for a specific plane is lost (it can happen because there's no receivers around or for any other reason, including the fact that he landed before..) it tries to estimate the position up to 120 minutes (2 hours).
I didn't said Germany is "far east", I said that you have a lot of this examples where the coverage isn't that dense and that happens often in those far east countries, but in some circumstances it can happen in a good covered country as well, for the reasons explained above. The system isn't perfect.
With "no malicious", I mean it's not a kid playing with the data injecting fake planes... it's how the estimation algorithm works.
If it annoy you that much, I believe you can turn it off by disabling this option: Option > Visibility > Estimations: Off.