PlaneBase

[Keef]

Mod Edit. I've split this topic so we can continue discussing PlaneBase and leave the original topic to discuss s92driver's populated sqb file.

Hi s92driver,

My experience with planebase is not positive.

The homepage has this:

Due to the enormous popularity of PlaneBase we have now become a member only database
A decision has been made primarily due to the increased administration required to support the growing number of users
Unfortunately not all users engaged and contributed to PlaneBase which inevitably has resulted in increased overall workload
We have therefore decided to keep our user base to those that support PlaneBase and help us grow and develop

New users will only be considered if introduced and sponsored by an existing PlaneBase user
The sponsor must be a current user and should contact us at support with details of the person they wish to sponsor.

However, as I wrote in a previous post:

I was interested in their software and despite them saying a sponsor is necessary I thought I'd use their contact form to get in touch.

I sent quite a detailed message saying how long I had been active in the hobby, the equipment I have and all the software I use with it.
I included that I am a member of this forum with my user name so they could check up on what I was saying.

They never replied, not even to say a polite no.

I think you can probably guess what I think of them now...
Well actually I just don't care, life is too short. But I did think it was rude not to reply to me.

Could you please ask around inside the walled garden and let me know why I wasn't even worthy of a reply?
Given we are all hobbyists in this but some seek to abuse the system I understand the walled garden.
A reply would be common courtesy, to refuse me access would be an acceptable reply, but no reply is rude.

I welcome your contributions to the forum and hope you could shed some light on why nobody thought it necessary or even polite to reply to my enqury,

[s92driver]

Hi Keef,

I'm just a simple end user, so not in a position to add any clarity about why your request to become a member was not progressed or why you never received a reply.  If you have an issue with those who run the database, I suggest you try and contact them directly.


Steve

[Anmer]

Hi Keef,
I suggest you try and contact them directly.

Surely that's what Keef has already tried?

I too share his concerns.  But here we are, redistributing the Planebase data with due credit and its prior approval.

Is there no one there to whom you can pass on Keef's message and maybe, ask to explain it's policy?  Getting a sponsor doesn't guarantee all users are "engaged and contribute to PlaneBase".

We are in the same "community" afterall.

[s92driver]

Hi Keef,
I suggest you try and contact them directly.

Surely that's what Keef has already tried?

I too share his concerns.  But here we are, redistributing the Planebase data with due credit and its prior approval.

Is there no one there to whom you can pass on Keef's message and maybe, ask to explain it's policy?  Getting a sponsor doesn't guarantee all users are "engaged and contribute to PlaneBase".

We are in the same "community" afterall.

OK, I'm feeling railroaded into doing something I really don't wish to. 

Keef - tell me your name and email address as well as a full description of how you applied e.g. did you have a sponsor, have you only applied once, did you receive any communication either automated or personal.  I will pass on whatever you tell me and see what response I get.

[Anmer]

OK, I'm feeling railroaded into doing something I really don't wish to. 

Thanks Steve.  If it's any consolation, my wife does that to me everyday.

[Keef]

Hi Steve,

Please don't feel pressured, that wasn't my intention. I'm just curious as to why I didn't even get a response and incorrectly assumed as you were sharing a database based on planebase's you might be in a position to help me get an answer.

As I wrote, I sent quite a detailed message saying how long I had been active in the hobby, the equipment I have and all the software I use with it.
I included that I am a member of this forum with my user name so they could check up on what I was saying.

I did not have a sponsor so just took a punt on using the contact form and supplying quite a lot of detail on my background.
I can't recall when I submitted the request, probably early this year.

I'll send you my details by PM, but if you're not comfortable following up on my behalf then don't.
Sorry if there was any pressure, I could probably have worded my first post to you better than I did.

Cheers,

Keef.

[s92driver]

Keef,

No hard feelings 

So I've been in touch, and the lack of response was primarily because you didn't have a sponsor.  That coupled to the fact that the database is aimed at users that want to utilise it as a spotting database, so they try to filter out those that simply want to join to get a "one off" dump of data to populate an SQB file and then never use it again.  This has happened hundreds of times and simply places a huge administrative burden on the few volunteers that run everything behind the scenes.

As this has become somewhat public, I have posted this information here.  If you'd like to ask some more questions offline then simply send me a pm or email.


Cheers,
Steve

[Keef]

HI Steve,

Thanks for getting back to me.

I know I didn't have a sponsor and think I made that clear in my submission (as far as I remember).

I honestly wouldn't know how to go about getting a sponsor as I don't personally know anyone who is a member.
I could openly post asking if anyone was willing to sponsor me but that didn't seem right.

if I turned out to be a leech getting a one off dump of the database it could reflect badly on whoever I could have got to sponsor me.

I thought the direct approach was the most appropriate but it failed and I'll leave it at that.

Thanks very much for your help and taking the time to make the enquiry on my behalf and update the forum post.

All the best,

Keef.

[Anmer]

This is a personal and, I hope, objective opinion.

1. It appears PlaneBase has an updated aircraft database, possibly based on the BaseStation.sqb structure?  I can't be sure as the PlaneBase website doesn't give much away:

Home to Quality Aviation Software for Windows since 2013
Available for Windows 7 - Windows 8 - Windows 10

Due to the enormous popularity of PlaneBase we have now become a member only database
A decision has been made primarily due to the increased administration required to support the growing number of users
Unfortunately not all users engaged and contributed to PlaneBase which inevitably has resulted in increased overall workload
We have therefore decided to keep our user base to those that support PlaneBase and help us grow and develop

New users will only be considered if introduced and sponsored by an existing PlaneBase user
The sponsor must be a current user and should contact us at support with details of the person they wish to sponsor

Existing users can find the user portal here

Previous users should contact us directly and if you require further information then please use the contact form.

2. Why have a contact form if no one bothers to reply?

3. Why would I want a sponsor?  I'm not sure what I'm gaining by becoming a PlaneBase "user"?  What's expected of me?  How do I "engage and contribute"?  Is there a minimum "pass mark" as sponsored users will only be "considered"

4. If PlaneBase is "enormously popular", what's the problem?  To me that sounds like a great opportunity.  Gary Jones was able to harness the demand for aircraft data by launching SBS-1 Populate and Active Display Lite/Professional.

5. PlaneBase says its database is aimed at "users that want to utilise it as a spotting database".  Fine, but surely Keef and others meet that criteria?  What other use is there for the database?

6. I've been using an SBS-1 for 15 years.  I'm adding and updating records each and every day.  I'm sure the vast majority of those who get a copy of the PlaneBase database would be doing the same, updating it on a regular basis.  What else are they expected to do?

7. Since the PlaneBase website doesn't tell us anything useful, I can't understand why there's a "massive administrative burden" in handling users who want a copy of the database.  If there is, something needs improving as sponsored users will be adding to the workload.

8. I may be wrong, but PlaneBase's key asset is the database which, understandably, it wants to protect.  But, and I did mention this to to Steve (s92driver), he's making it freely available to all members of this forum, old and new.  And one doesn't need a sponsor to join!  And my workload hasn't increased either.


If we have any members who are PlaneBase "users", I'd welcome feedback.  Maybe we can understand more about the challenges it faces.

By restricting new users, I fear PlaneBase will slowly decline in "popularity".  Us "spotters" tend to old with a short life expectancy.

[Triple7]

As a PlaneBase user for several years – I must say I am very impressed and very happy with their package. It's based on MS Access and is a neat and fully featured app.

I won't do a blow by blow response to your points Mike, as I don't have all of the answers, but I will make some further comments which I hope will be taken in the spirit they are meant:

The structure (schema?) of the SQB is identical to the BaseStation one, it uses some of the fields for its own use (UserString4 and 5, I think) as you have mentioned in the past on this forum, that made it incompatible with ADPro, but since that is no more, that becomes a moot point.

The change to require a sponsor was covered in my post here:

https://radarspotting.com/forum/index.php/topic,3088.msg35050.html#msg35050

Reading that again you can see that perhaps "contributing" meant "donating". An annual plea was made for donations which helped to run the show and keep the editors in beer for a few days / months! – see below.

The references to a spotting DB are possibly related to the logging capabilities of PB / PB Link. It is first class at that and allows you to analyse what you have seen, where and when (should you wish to).

The SQB creator app is very good, it uses the logs of your seen aircraft data and imports that so that those aircraft are shown as "not interested" and any new aircraft are shown as interested. Taking a bulk dump of their DB will mean any amendments you have made, including the ones you've seen, will be lost, so unless you just want it as a database of all aircraft, it won't be much use as a "spotting" tool for your own use as each new version resets any changes you have made.

You mentioned in post 25 – the one above the one in the link above, that operating costs can become unsustainable going forward. Well, you are 100% correct, from March next year there will be a £40 annual subscription fee to continue to use PB. Currently the sponsorship thing will still be required. That does seem strange to me, as if you are charging for something, surely you want to attract as many folk as possible otherwise your revenue stream is capped and will dwindle over time as members "leave / depart". That said, I'm happy to pay £40 per year as it makes keeping my DB up to date easy.

Just my thoughts,

Tim

[Anmer]

You mentioned in post 25 – the one above the one in the link above, that operating costs can become unsustainable going forward. Well, you are 100% correct, from March next year there will be a £40 annual subscription fee to continue to use PB. Currently the sponsorship thing will still be required. That does seem strange to me, as if you are charging for something, surely you want to attract as many folk as possible otherwise your revenue stream is capped and will dwindle over time as members "leave / depart". That said, I'm happy to pay £40 per year as it makes keeping my DB up to date easy.

Thanks Tim for the helpful feedback.

£40 a year may be excellent value for money, it seems to have at least one "happy customer". 

Perhaps a subscription will change PlaneBase's current "recruitment" policy and update the website to explain what one gets for the fee?

I'm more than happy to invest in a year's subscription, if only to assess the product.  But it would be good to first get an idea of what one can expect.

[Keef]

Interesting to read the comments, they help to shed some light on things, thanks to to all for updating the thread.

I used to pay the subscription for GAS Active Display so am not averse to paying for something if I find it useful.
As an aside, I spoke to Gary on the phone when I had AD issues and he was such a nice chap.

I'll wait and see what happens with PB, I may take out a subscription to try it out if that is made an option.

Thanks all,

Cheers,

Keef.

[G4UMW]

I would echo Tim's comments about PB, having been a user since the very early days. The databases are comprehensive and updated regularly (at least once a week, some twice) and the response to customer problems and queries is, in my experience, exemplary.

The hope was that the program would be free at the point of use and supported by donations on an annual basis. Sadly, this proved to be unsustainable as only a small proportion of users made donations. This has led to the change of policy and PB becoming a subscription-based program. I would say that the cost compares favourably with similar programs. PB offers a wide array of options - I only use a few and am nowhere near using the program to its full capability.

Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection with PB, other than being an extremely satisfied user.

[boro]

I would like add my two pence worth of opinion of Planebase.

I've been using  SBS1e/3 for about 12 years and I've been using Planebase for about the last 5 years, originally just using Planebase for my logs. I was updating my BS database with Active Display and dbpop which as we all know neither of them are now operating, so I now use PBlink to update my BS database.

As already been mentioned in other posts there are a number of bells and whistles on Planebase that can be used but I also only use a few of them but for me, for what I use it for, Planebase suits its purpose as does PBlink. Although I am now retired, I don't have the time, or inclination, to trawl the internet or databases to keep my BS database up to date.

As has been mentioned as from next March the voluntary subscription will change so maybe having to pay to use Planebase the recruitment policy might change although I still don't know how you can get someone to sponsor you if you didn't know anyone who was is using Planebase willing to sponsor you, any venture needs new blood in it to keep it going.

Peter

[IanH]

Another happy user of PlaneBase.

Actually I only use PlaneBase to update the PBLink SQB data so that it can update PlanePlotter.

For example in PlaneBase, N453PA was a Boeing 707 long before it was a Boeing 747. Supposedly old data can be imported on an individual basis but I can't be arsed to request that.

Nevertheless (as mentioned previously) £40 pa will be worth not having to manually search for updates.