Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: Ghostflights approaching EDDF (Frankfurt)

  1. #21
    Captain
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vergiate Italy
    Posts
    3,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    "actual data from receivers rather than external data" What data are you refering to? Can you give an example?
    "I have to use one of the same data suppliers that FR24 uses, their errors are exactly the same as the errors I see here" What data source? Can you give an example of an error?
    "reported in the DB error thread numerous times when one aircraft is doing two flights due to the mix of data sources" Can you give an example?

    "But any mention of it and the posts are usually deleted, as you well know Mike." The forum rules are quite simple. You are free to discsuss in 1000000 threads in the forum, just keep the discussion out of 2 threads.

    "one aircraft is doing two flights due to the mix of data sources" bug reports like this is like looking for needle in a haystack. Screenshots, links, flightid helps a lot in finding and understanding problems.
    Here is a post that you or your little monkeys didn't delete, rabbit from hat https://forum.flightradar24.com/thre...l=1#post109183

    Screenshot shows that if you had used your own data as a priority rather than external data the aircraft wouldn't be doing two flights at once. The external data supplier had the same registration allocated to two aircraft that's where the problem stems from, its happened multiple times, their issue not yours. External scheduling data gets confused and as a by product you end up with screwy flight history or ghost flights.

    Your probably stuck with this issue, unless the developers can find a way of separating the data feeds so that your propitiatory data takes precedence on actual flights and the external data is used for future scheduling.

    I also report the same errors to the supplier, that's how I solve your problems for you.

    Love and kisses

  2. #22
    Passenger
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Still waiting for the first bug report.
    Hi Mike,

    I reported the bug (also with incidentticket to FR24 on Dec/09). FR24 reacted very prompt (some hours later) and asked for more details, which I provided.
    Since Dec/10 (noon) these 2 ghostflights are not longer there until today and so I'am happy, that the issue has been solved by FR24.

    Thanks .

    Regards, R.

  3. #23
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    SBCT
    Posts
    519
    Here's another fantastic example of the bugs in your site as well as the complete lack of attention to detail by your 20 editors :

    Screenshots attached as I am all too familiar with the sneaky changes that quickly happen behind the scenes when these issues are raised so that you can reply that the database is correct and I must have been dreaming it all.

    SP-LVE 48AF05 was reported on the 'database errors' thread as having had a reg reallocation.

    I look at the database and find this :

    LOT97372.jpg



    Apparently 48AF04 was used on its delivery flight to Warsaw. News to me, so I did some research on other sites to confirm it. Nope, no evidence to be found anywhere of that hex code. Further investigations on the actual flights tell a different story :

    LOT97371.jpg



    LOT97373.jpg



    So why is it showing in the flight and reg history as having flown under hex 48AF04?

    And it seems that whoever is in charge of processing the corrections can't follow instructions either. The correction post stated that the only thing needing to be changed on 48AF05 was the reg, all other details remained the same, so why has the msn been omitted?

    LOT97374.jpg

    48AF04 shouldn't even be in the database because the hex doesn't exist and nor does SP-LVE.

    On a database of this size you should have an audit trail of editor IDs for every change that is made to it. Identify whoever these clowns are that are seemingly on some sort of crusade to turn the entire database into junk and sack them.

  4. #24
    Captain Anmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by rik130 View Post
    because the hex doesn't exist and nor does SP-LVE.
    It's possible that the repeated use of LOT9737 for delivery flights doesn't help but are you suggesting SP-LVE isn't an issued registration?
    Mike


    www.radarspotting.com

    Radarspotting since 2005

  5. #25
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    SBCT
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by Anmer View Post
    It's possible that the repeated use of LOT9737 for delivery flights doesn't help but are you suggesting SP-LVE isn't an issued registration?
    Your first comment has no relevance to the discussion here. SP-LVE is not registered.

  6. #26
    Captain Anmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by rik130 View Post
    Your first comment has no relevance to the discussion here.
    That's your opinion.

    But back to my question, maybe this will help:

    https://tykesaeroblog.blogspot.com/2...st-flight.html
    Mike


    www.radarspotting.com

    Radarspotting since 2005

  7. #27
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    SBCT
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by Anmer View Post
    That's your opinion.

    But back to my question, maybe this will help:

    https://tykesaeroblog.blogspot.com/2...st-flight.html
    I've no idea what your point is?? Did you even read the comments on the link posted? SP-LVE DOES NOT EXIST. Can you move on from this irrelevant nonsense please and if you wish to discuss the matter, stick to the matter at hand which is 48AF04 doesn't exist and hasn't ever existed, so why is it in the database against SP-LVE which also doesn't exist? It was fair that SP-LVE got an entry in the database because that was believed to have been its registration at the time of first flight, but that was for hex 48AF05 not 48AF04. The fact the Mike's database shows the delivery flight as flying with 48AF04 is clearly a complete fabrication and another bug in his coding, which can be proved when playing back the flight track history where it shows the hex code to be 48AF05. There shouldn't be any flight records logged in the database under hex 48AF04 at all as the physical data logs don't exist - it's nothing more than fabrication created entirely by FR24 staff and/or bad coding.

  8. #28
    Captain Anmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by rik130 View Post
    I've no idea what your point is?? Did you even read the comments on the link posted?
    In case you've missed it, this is a forum where members can post topics and replies, even if others don't agree.

    Unless you've been appointed a moderator, I'll carry on posting as I have been for the last 8 years.

    Mind you, with your undisputed database and inter-personal skills, FR24 might offer you a job as it's Executive Database Manager.
    Mike


    www.radarspotting.com

    Radarspotting since 2005

  9. #29
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    SBCT
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by Anmer View Post
    In case you've missed it, this is a forum where members can post topics and replies, even if others don't agree.
    If only those members bothered to check their facts before chiming in with their opinions ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Anmer
    Unless you've been appointed a moderator, I'll carry on posting as I have been for the last 8 years.

    Mind you, with your undisputed database and inter-personal skills, FR24 might offer you a job as it's Executive Database Manager.
    Or a far simpler solution would be for those members to not post irrelevant nonsense in the first place then they wouldn't get all butthurt when they're asked to pipe down and stick to the topic at hand.

  10. #30
    Captain Anmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by rik130 View Post
    Or a far simpler solution would be for those members to not post irrelevant nonsense in the first place
    I'll be monitoring your future posts very carefully.
    Mike


    www.radarspotting.com

    Radarspotting since 2005

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •