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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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
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?
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.
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).
