Virtual Radar getting a lot of flight info wrong

[kc2klc]

I haven't gotten my dedicated ADS-B antenna up yet, but am receiving signals out to 20+ miles with my roof-mounted discone

I am observing a lot of discrepancies between what Virtual Radar (on Windows, using an RSP1A), FlightAware's online Live Flight Tracker, and the FlightRadar24 app on my iphone - with FlightAware appearing to be the most reliable. Twice this morning Virtual Radar told me I was receiving data from Delta commercial flights, but FlightAware disagreed. For example, I received data from a flight identified by Virtual Radar as a Delta flight from ATL to PBI, which is clearly wrong (departure and arrival are in Florida; I'm in upstate NY) - FlightAware correctly identified it as an Endeavor Air flight from LGA to YYZ (and FlightRadar24 showed nothing).

I guess these different apps use different databases? Is there a way for me to improve Virtual Radar's identifications? Thanks!

 

[n6hgg]

My preference is to use globe.adsbexchange.com for its pilot oriented interface and aeronautical charting, and to use flightaware next to it if I want more flight on to than adsbexchange offers. Adsbexchange seems to be closer to real time than some of the others. They are all amazing though.

What will they think of next?

 

[littona]

What will they think of next?

I'm sure there's some Chinese web site that will sell you a complete radar set

 

[ATCTech]

The discrepancies between carrier names is to do with whether or not the web site is using the actual ICAO flight plan data for the flight ID (EDV - Endeavour for example) or the IATA-based data that the flight was sold as to the paying customer, which would be a Delta flight number so it appears online as DL or DAL. It's very common on these sites and is annoying, but technically neither is wrong for public consumption. Cargo operators can be even more misleading as they will sub-contract aircraft, or capacity, in various ways both short and long term.



Also, and people here sometimes have a hard time remembering this, is that what's displayed in the ADBS data we see on our local receivers and that sometimes makes it to the ADSB web sites is whatever the crew enters into the FMS on the aircraft which can be virtually anything. ATC does not see this field. The controller radar display and processed flight plan data that creates the tag will always use the ICAO identifier as filed by the operator/airline and the tag is correlated solely by the transponder code received and processed by the ATC system whether mode C or mode S. As an example, on FR24, try selecting both ADSB and M-LAT as a decoding option and you'll see some aircraft appear twice with two different ACIDS (aircraft IDs) or one with a tag and one with nothing displayed. For that reason I rarely use multiple decoding methods on the same web page as it can be very confusing if not downright misleading. In the ATC world globally ICAO databases are updated every 56 days like clockwork.

As to the flight plan versus actual flown route, again these online services use the official OAG published semi-annual list as a baseline and when their systems see a flight number that matches it assumes the route is still as-published. I suspect the updating of their internal databases lags behind the OAG releases, sometimes drastically. FWIW, most of the web sites solicit updates for data like aircraft type, flight routes etc. from users like you and me.

Aircraft type is also a very fluid thing and can lag way behind on the ADSB websites. There are lists in some of these programs/apps that still show Mode S transponder codes against airframes that were de-registered many, many years ago and in many cases have been re-registered to a new airframe since. (There aren't anywhere near the number of DC-10-10s, B727s and B747-100s/200s flying around than they'd have you believe!)

In a perfect world ICAO standard 3 digit codes would apply to all things ATC and 2 digit IATA codes would only be used for non-aviation public and in-airport displays. The online world mixes them together constantly.

THE ONLY official list globally is ICAO document 8585 and it will give the 2 and 3 digit code for all registered operators.

 

[ATCTech]

It was too late for me to add to the message above - ICAO 8585 is also the official list of radio telephony callsigns for all operators.

 

[n0nhp]

I have had to laugh when my ADSB setup reported a Barnes hot air balloon flying at FL350 around 400kts...
The registrations don't always keep up
I currently have a Schleicher glider flying at FL470 at 400kts with a Mexican registration...
Fun stuff

 

[GlobalNorth]

Flightaware edits a lot of aircraft.

 

[ATCTech]

Yup, I've "seen" C172s doing M.82 at FL410 too.

 

[kc2klc]

Thanks for the detailed explanation ATCTech! That totally explains the apparent discrepancies I see regarding flight information. I'm still a bit in the dark as to how the departure and arrival information can be so out-of-whack in Virtual Radar. Someone on another site suggested that I might be able to maintain my own database, but I have no clue how I'd set that up in Virtual Radar - and how difficult it would be to keep it up-to-date (I'm guessing it's not as easy as pushing the "update Keplers" button in my satellite tracking & astronomy apps).

 

[ATCTech]

I hear you! I run a receiver for FR24 here and port a local feed off of it directly into virtual radar server while also watching the web FR24 display. And just like you I still find myself turning to sites such as ADS-B Exchange as a triple cross-check method for some of the weirdness that pops up. It was waaaaaaay simpler pre-retirement when I could make note of the anomalies then pull up the actual radar track and flight plan data at work the next day to see what it "really was".

Bottom line to your remaining confusion is likely the combination of wickedly out of date databases supplied with any locally installed programs we're using on our personal devices, the constantly changing world the airlines are having to deal with to stay in business mixed with sprinkling of the ADS-B websites not being able to stay on the same page at the same time when updates are made to the official databases. For you and me at the end of the day it's just a hobby. If you want the real deal, working for the FAA (or equivalent in my case) I guess is the only answer.

 

[ATCTech]

Another glaring example of "it's not as it appears". Here's an Endeavor flight that's got EDW in the box instead of EDV and this is the result. EDW is and has been for a very long time Edelweiss from Switzerland. And yes, the data tag displayed on FR24 as the flight progressed towards KBUF was indeed EDW4847. I can promise you that ATC is not seeing this.

 

[776]

I just tryed the globe.adsbexchange.com and the flightaware side by side. The globe.adsbexchange was showing a helicopter that flightaware did not show and when I ran the tail number in flightaware I got this.
This aircraft (N112FD) is not available for public tracking per request from the owner/operator.


776

 

[15plus1]

deleted