Hey Y'all! So I have been working on a project at work adjusting aircraft types and callsigns in the Air Traffic Control Simulator Scenarios at an Air Traffic Control Center in the US to update old scenarios to more accurately reflect the traffic that is currently flying through our airspace. Through this process I have been trying to add in more of the Embraer 175 among the likes of Skywest, Envoy, Compass, Mesa, Republic, etc. I have noticed through Flightaware (I know it's not the most accurate of sources) that the Embraer 170 Embraer 175 had for a long time been filed under the same equipment type, the "E170". However, since the introduction of the E175 Advanced I have noticed the equipment type "E75L" (E175 long wing) coming up more and more, and now the "E75S" (E175 short wing) come more into the fold. It still seems that the "E170" type out numbers both of these substantially. Which leads me to my questions...

Are there really that many more E170s than E175s flying in the US? I had thought the E175 outnumbered the E170 by a fair margin.

Is this a filing error on the part of Flightaware?

Are there airlines who have not yet switched over to the "E75S" equipment type when dispatching an E175 and still file under the "E170"?

Thanks for the help folks!

Peace

E175s do indeed outnumber E170s these days. It's relatively common for Flight Aware to have filing errors, some of which are completely ridiculous. It's a nice tool, but hardly an accurate one.

I can't remember the specifics offhand at this time but recent we were given a memo referencing a change in these equipment designators. I'll try to dig it up. But I know I'm flight plans we don't show E170 as a type anymore even though it's the same plane.

atcsundevil wrote:

E175s do indeed outnumber E170s these days. It's relatively common for Flight Aware to have filing errors, some of which are completely ridiculous. It's a nice tool, but hardly an accurate one.

Given that it pulls data from what the pilots / airline has filed; would it not be more accurate to say that what the pilots / airline filed is often not correct? Or does FR24 / Flightaware not match up the data correctly?

I do realize the extrapolated tracks and so on are, obviously, prone to error.

77west wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

E175s do indeed outnumber E170s these days. It's relatively common for Flight Aware to have filing errors, some of which are completely ridiculous. It's a nice tool, but hardly an accurate one.

Given that it pulls data from what the pilots / airline has filed; would it not be more accurate to say that what the pilots / airline filed is often not correct? Or does FR24 / Flightaware not match up the data correctly?

I do realize the extrapolated tracks and so on are, obviously, prone to error.

Pilots filed? Hahaha, that's rich. Dispatch would be the responsible party.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

77west wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

E175s do indeed outnumber E170s these days. It's relatively common for Flight Aware to have filing errors, some of which are completely ridiculous. It's a nice tool, but hardly an accurate one.

Given that it pulls data from what the pilots / airline has filed; would it not be more accurate to say that what the pilots / airline filed is often not correct? Or does FR24 / Flightaware not match up the data correctly?

I do realize the extrapolated tracks and so on are, obviously, prone to error.

Pilots filed? Hahaha, that's rich. Dispatch would be the responsible party.

I think they're referencing the source in general that Flightaware pulls from. If you're GA or work for an outfit that does not have a dispatch then the pilot is infact the one filing.

Peace

The online flight tracking sites get their advance flight information from ETMS. The ETMS gets its advance flight information from OAG. Remember that OAG uses IATA coding which does not necessarily match up with ICAO coding (used in flight plans). As an example, ERJ could be EMB-135, -140, or -145. When the OAG gets loaded into ETMS, the IATA codes have to be converted to ICAO codes, but this isn't foolproof. ERJ seemed to default to E135. CRJ went to CRJ1.

When the airline flight plan came in, a match would (hopefully) be made with the ETMS data, and the airline flight plan would overwrite what was in the ETMS (with the correct ICAO ID). For some reason, the online services don't seem to match the flight plans in the same way, and they're stuck with what was in ETMS.

Originally E170 was the ICAO identifier for 170 and 175. But current IATA IDs are E75 and E7W, neither of which definitively convert to E75L and E75S.

MO11 wrote:

The online flight tracking sites get their advance flight information from ETMS. The ETMS gets its advance flight information from OAG. Remember that OAG uses IATA coding which does not necessarily match up with ICAO coding (used in flight plans). As an example, ERJ could be EMB-135, -140, or -145. When the OAG gets loaded into ETMS, the IATA codes have to be converted to ICAO codes, but this isn't foolproof. ERJ seemed to default to E135. CRJ went to CRJ1.

When the airline flight plan came in, a match would (hopefully) be made with the ETMS data, and the airline flight plan would overwrite what was in the ETMS (with the correct ICAO ID). For some reason, the online services don't seem to match the flight plans in the same way, and they're stuck with what was in ETMS.

Originally E170 was the ICAO identifier for 170 and 175. But current IATA IDs are E75 and E7W, neither of which definitively convert to E75L and E75S.

Very good explanation, thank you. I always assumed it must be something like this.


But I'm wondering, why don't these flight tracking apps just pull the aircraft type from the data they receive live? They get all that information like altitude, speed, sometimes even exact routes live from the transponder data, why not the aircraft type?

CARST wrote:

MO11 wrote:

The online flight tracking sites get their advance flight information from ETMS. The ETMS gets its advance flight information from OAG. Remember that OAG uses IATA coding which does not necessarily match up with ICAO coding (used in flight plans). As an example, ERJ could be EMB-135, -140, or -145. When the OAG gets loaded into ETMS, the IATA codes have to be converted to ICAO codes, but this isn't foolproof. ERJ seemed to default to E135. CRJ went to CRJ1.

When the airline flight plan came in, a match would (hopefully) be made with the ETMS data, and the airline flight plan would overwrite what was in the ETMS (with the correct ICAO ID). For some reason, the online services don't seem to match the flight plans in the same way, and they're stuck with what was in ETMS.

Originally E170 was the ICAO identifier for 170 and 175. But current IATA IDs are E75 and E7W, neither of which definitively convert to E75L and E75S.

Very good explanation, thank you. I always assumed it must be something like this.


But I'm wondering, why don't these flight tracking apps just pull the aircraft type from the data they receive live? They get all that information like altitude, speed, sometimes even exact routes live from the transponder data, why not the aircraft type?

For that matter, why do some ATC units want to know your aircraft type by voice? I understand if a flight tracker doesn't have all the info, but we are on a flight plan and these guys are following us on SSR...

Starlionblue wrote:

For that matter, why do some ATC units want to know your aircraft type by voice? I understand if a flight tracker doesn't have all the info, but we are on a flight plan and these guys are following us on SSR...

It's only a shot, but a hint that could go towards expected performance. It's important to know speeds, climbs, so you can properly adjust. Is the plane behind on the exactly same route for next couple of hours flying faster, or slower? Will it climb fast, or slow, both in terms of vspeed and hspeed? How will that affect separation? Should I issue climb/descend or stop above/below other traffic?

Knowing the plane type helps greatly.

Cheers,
Adam

gloom wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

For that matter, why do some ATC units want to know your aircraft type by voice? I understand if a flight tracker doesn't have all the info, but we are on a flight plan and these guys are following us on SSR...

It's only a shot, but a hint that could go towards expected performance. It's important to know speeds, climbs, so you can properly adjust. Is the plane behind on the exactly same route for next couple of hours flying faster, or slower? Will it climb fast, or slow, both in terms of vspeed and hspeed? How will that affect separation? Should I issue climb/descend or stop above/below other traffic?

Knowing the plane type helps greatly.

Cheers,
Adam

I understand why they want to know which type we're flying. I don't understand why they need to ask us, since it is on the flight plan and (I assume) being transmitted by the transponder.

CARST wrote:

Very good explanation, thank you. I always assumed it must be something like this.


But I'm wondering, why don't these flight tracking apps just pull the aircraft type from the data they receive live? They get all that information like altitude, speed, sometimes even exact routes live from the transponder data, why not the aircraft type?

If tracking data is coming from Mode S, then airplane type is not transmitted, just the Mode S code. A separate computer routine would have to match the Mode S code against the registration and extract the airplane type.

MO11 wrote:

If tracking data is coming from Mode S, then airplane type is not transmitted, just the Mode S code. A separate computer routine would have to match the Mode S code against the registration and extract the airplane type.

Correct, and sometimes it's not working as intended. Squawk recycling, last minute plan amendment, you know, the things that happen.

Cheers,
Adam

Thanks for that explanation MO11, I've often seen AMX B732's on flight aware, I'm guessing some sort of conversion issue. Still strange though.

Would it have anything to do with the E175 not actually being a real airplane from a certification standpoint?

Technically it's the E170-200, correct?

Peace

Which is why it was originally always E170 on flight plans. Similarly, FedEx MD-10s show as DC-10s (although they didn't at the beginning).

MO11 wrote:

Which is why it was originally always E170 on flight plans. Similarly, FedEx MD-10s show as DC-10s (although they didn't at the beginning).

Isn't the MD-10 and DC-10 dimensionally the same aircraft? This is what confused me about the E170 and E175 is that dimensionally they're different. I was under the impression this is the reason for the different identifiers for the 777-300ER and 777-200LR. The wingtips on these aircraft increased the wingspan by a descent margin and therefore created the need for the 77W and 77L identifiers we see today for these aircraft vs the 773 and 772 identifiers for their predecessors.

I had assumed it was this reason that a new identifier was needed for the E175 enhanced version. The enhanced version has a 9ft longer wingspan with the newer winglets. I guess it just doesn't make sense to me why the E175 didn't have it's own identifier previously despite being a different aircraft dimensionally.

Peace