Oakland ARTCC

Status
Not open for further replies.

mciupa

DB Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
6,892
Pick any ARTCC anywhere in the country and it is the same story. I just checked LA,Atlanta, Houston... they are all empty. :(

I've submitted a ticket for this bug to have this issue resolved.
 
Last edited:

kma371

QRT
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,190
From what I remember I think those were pulled direct from some sort of FAA database. At least the wiki looking part of how they were listed. Maybe there is an update coming?
 

ka3jjz

Wiki Admin Emeritus
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
22,083
Location
Bowie, Md.
Frankly I think it would be better if the FAA listings were dropped in their entirety and restore the DB entries. A link to the FAA listings would be appropriate, along with the warning about their accuracy.

If we're only supposed to have validated information in the database, it kinda flies against the process, as we all know those FAA listings are iffy in their accuracy....Mike
 

lotsofradios

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
119
Location
Ormond Beach FL
I have seen many people blast the FAA listings for the accuracy. I have been using the FAA listings from their 56 day database for years. Are they 100% accurate, NO. Are they very close, my scanner is receiving ARTCC comms on nearly all listed for the ZJX area. Have I found ARTCC frequencies still active that are not on the list, YES. Taking into account the number of frequencies the FAA lists verses the errors, what is the actual error percentage?

I have seen on this forum as well as others if someone lists a set of frequencies and just 1 frequency is in error they'll blast the entire list (or website) has being junk or outdated. I have seen this from experience. A website I use nearly everyday gets blasted all the time even though it contains frequencies that make my scanner sing with tons of comms just as that website said. I think when it comes to saying if a site is accurate or not, its not fair to blast an entire list because there might be a few errors. Its called Percent Error. I haven't seen any site 100% accurate, including RR. I haven't seen any site 100% in error. While I haven't been into scanning for a long time, I can see some people have axes to grind with some website. That hurts the entire scanning community.

I have used ARTCC frequncies that were submitted by other listeners. Again, while the scanner picks up a lot of comms on user submitted frequencies what I have found is that many people submitting ARTCC frequencies will submit an ATC frequencies thinking its an ARTCC, or they don't know the difference.

Which is better? User submitted ARTCC frequencies or FAA listed frequencies? To answer that question you need to look at the Percent Error. Sharpen your pencil, not your axe.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
317
Location
Out in the Sticks
It's like anything else, you need to gather data from several sources, then cross check and verify.

Example, and I'm not slamming or axing ARRL. ARRL's repeater directory comes out annually. Everyone knows it's full of dead pairs and other errors or omissions. But hey, that's what the repeater councils are sending them to publish, so you have to crosscheck with local club websites, coordination websites, operator reports, reapeaterbook.com, and alike. Repeaterbook.com is an interesting source. They have gleaned data from every source they can find, then us end users log in and confirm whether a site/freq is up or down.

Same for air band. It's not like we were paying money to Jeppesen and getting bad charts. After all, it's a hobby.
 

kma371

QRT
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,190
FWIW, the data is still there on our admin side, its just not visible on the public side. I'll ask around and find out what's up.
 

mciupa

DB Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
6,892
I just checked and you could download the reports for the ARTCC's, but only if you have a premium membership.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top