AirNav Bug Fixing Started?

[Anmer]

Looks like AirNav is starting work on fixing some bugs.  Or is just asking questions as this takes little effort and gives the impression work has started?

"We would like to have the feedback of our users on the bug listed below:
"Data (callsigns, altitudes, squawks, routes, etc) being assigned to the wrong aircraft."

This bug is also discussed at:
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=6532.msg73788#msg73788

This is caused by having a single bit error in the transmission/receiving process and can be avoided from reaching the flight grid using software. The same error happens with any ADS-B decoder.

We our ideas on how to prevent this from happening.
Basically we will only show on the Grid (actual valid and correct received aircraft) data that has been received from a single aircraft twice.

For example if we have:
hexcode1,flightID1

The aircraft will be put on hold until:
hexcode1,flightID1

is received again and at this time it will be shown.
As usually we would like to know your feedback on this one and f you agree with this approach."

The link in the post was started by AirNav in November 2011 with the following statement:

"Fortunately ShipTrax is almost finished and as promised many times by our team we will soon be ready to start improving the RadarBox client application again."

True, it has been promised many times.

This bug has been around for ages and competitor products have managed to cope with this situation.  It's a pity that customers who could offer useful suggestions have been banned from posting.

http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7256.msg85246#msg85246

[Sun Worshipper]

Smoke and mirrors.  More Brandao bullshit in the light of posts, both here and on other websites, about their uselessness in doing what they promised to do post Ship Trax launch.

Anything I now see taken from the Air Nav site, I think lies.  It's such a shame because, deep down, Radarbox isn't a bad product.   

[Anmer]

Good product with some decent features.  Let down by *iss poor customer support and broken promises.

I will never give that company a penny or dime.  It lies and steals our data.

If AirNav disputes this, I'm happy to see it in Court.

[Sun Worshipper]

Good product with some decent features.  Let down by *iss poor customer support and broken promises.

I will never give that company a penny or dime.  It lies and steals our data.

If AirNav disputes this, I'm happy to see it in Court.

For sure a +1 from me too!

[Anmer]

This Runway 31 must be Entwistle's brother?

Even when AirNav admits it's a bug, Runway 31 sees it differently.  How much is AirNav paying him?

"I would think the flight ID problem is coming from the equipment on the aircraft itself and nothing to do with Airnav software.  I have on occasion seen maybe over 20 different flight ID's in a very short space of time from the one aircraft, how would the receiver be able to identify which if any of these flight Id's is the correct one."

As DaveReid has posted elsewhere, other suppliers have overcome this issue.  AirNav hasn't so to me it's a bug.  Or the RadarBox isn't fit for purpose.

http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7256.msg85259#msg85259

[Brian]

"Anyone" ?

Again it leaves out other RadarBox users from talking about it on that forum.
It should open more forum access to all RadarBox users using the product.
It would be nice to see DaveReid & all Radarbox users post some feedback on that forum thread about those fixes.

AirNav Systems is still blocking RadaBox users from communicating as a team on the forum.

post by tarbat on  October 25, 2012 at 03:18:33 pm »
I did suggest they open this up to the forum in case anyone could see any flaws in my suggested approach.

AirNav Development on  October 24, 2012
We would like to have the feedback of our users on the bug listed below:
As usually we would like to know your feedback on this one and f you agree with this approach.

http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7256

[Anmer]

AirNav Systems is still blocking RadaBox users from communicating as a team on the forum.

Their loss Brian.

In all honesty, since banning DaveReid and others, including me, AirNav's reputation has gone further downhill and from what I hear, sales of the RadarBox have all but dried up.

Martyrs are not to be messed with.   

[mhm]

I thought the idea of a forum was to hold conversations about a product?.

All people allowed to pass comment on the item purchased or ask questions about ,said item. With an intention to buying the product. Airnav dont seem to hold to this, i was banned for asking a question about the database. As a person who would have bought the item, Airnav have lost a customer with me. I would never ever dream of buying a product without being able to ask questions on its forum.

As this is the only Forum totally free from any product i praise Anmer for letting us all pass comments about them here. Also for giving help to all who bought one.

[Anmer]

Thanks Mike.

But the one we must thank is Hamish who started a forum back in March 2009 to give RadarBox customers a channel to air their grievances.  Hamish, a RadarBox customer, noticed AirNav was deleting posts and banning customers who complained, usually with good reason.

Following Hamish's "retirement" due to poor health, I've continued his pioneering work on a new forum.

I'm only the facilitator.

[Anmer]

Interesting post with observations on the "data being assigned to the wrong aircraft bug":

"Not so sure about the proposed solution to this problem being to show information on the grid after only two or three messages with the same hex code have been received.
Have a look at the attached piccy, MyLog.jpg

Last Sunday, the 21st, I picked up Shuttle 7P from EGPF to EGLL with the code 40105C, correctly relating to G-AVGA, a Piper24 which was showing as operating this flight in My Log
You will see that it was being logged from 1546 to 1605 with a message count of 111. With so many messages over a period of 19 minutes it must surely have transmitted its code more than two or three times.

When AirNav opened this thread I dug a bit deeper into this flight and took a look at:-   http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba1489/
BA1489 is the flight number for SHT7P.  I found that the 'plane actually operating SHT7P on the 21st was of course an A321, G-EUXL code 4010DC, - one character different. If you take a look at the above site you'll see that at 1555, SHT7P was overhead Blackpool, only thirty miles from my home in East Lancashire.  As MyLog shows it was between levels 27000 and 32000+, well within reception range, (100 miles approx in that direction), so the false data was not caused by the flight being at the extreme edge of my coverage.
My first thoughts were that the aircraft must have been continuously transmitting an incorrect hex code and the glitch was not in the AirNav software because, on checking today, not once in the 19 minute period did G-EUXL appear in the log, But it would appear the plane must have been sending correct info or the data produced at the above site would have been wrong too.

One more point on this problem which has been in my mind me for quite some time.
If one hex code character difference can cause so much confusion in a flight at such close range, just how often does it happen without us realising it?
I wonder if RB owners who use it for spotting, regularly log the wrong plane where the data isn't so obviously incorrect as the SHT7P one
For example, BA A319s  G-EUPE and G-EUPF have the codes 40083B and 40083C.
If one of these was affected by 'the bug', unless the user actually read off the registration, at an airport for instance, I very much doubt they would question the validity of the  registration data produced in MyLog  if they had seen it as an overflight from their window."

My understanding is that most FR24 feeds are from the SBS family and other, approved receivers. I don't see the RadarBox listed?

http://www.flightradar24.com/hardware

http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7256.msg85295#msg85295

[Anmer]

Accoding to AirNav, the "Data being assigned to wrong aircraft" bug has been fixed and fully implemented.  Implemented where is the mystery?

"This is now fully implemented.
Mode-s Hex code, Squawk and Callsign will only be accepted when received fro (sic) the third time.
We are working on other issues right now."


http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7256.msg85307#msg85307

[tarbat]

Accoding to AirNav, the "Data being assigned to wrong aircraft" bug has been fixed and fully implemented.  Implemented where is the mystery?

V4.04 beta I presume.

[Anmer]

Perhaps the following wording would be more informative.

"A solution has been adopted and, hopefully, will be available in a future software release"

[Anmer]

Interesting viewpoint:

"Corrupt can mean two different things:
1. The aircraft transponder can send out incorrect data - this cannot be handled by any receiver
2. During the transmission the original message gets corrupted (e.g. due to interference with other signals) - this can be identified using the parity check.

With the RadarBox I realised that sometimes information for one aircraft has been assigned to another aircraft maybe due to transmission errors. For example an aircraft that landed at an airport suddenly showed the same altitude that a high flying aircraft with a close by mode-s hex address had. And I never realised this happening with the other receiver.

But again: I assume that AirNav does not use the parity bits to check the integrity of the messages. But I cannot say if this is really the case.

Anyway, my comment was posted to give AirNav more information of how they can easily improve their product. Whether they wanna use this information or not is their choise.

At the moment I do not use my RadarBox at all as I am very disappointed because there are still no updates or bugfixes after years of waiting.
I also own a different receiver now and with that one I am quite happy at the moment. Although the UI does not look as nice as the RadarBox one. But a pretty interface does not help me if the data is not correct.

But if there will ever be an update of the RadarBox software I will definitely check it out. But that needs to be really good then after this long period of waiting for it. And not full of hacky workarounds.

Btw. are there any news about the exiting project which was announced to be released early September? It's nearly November now... "

http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=7256.msg85410#msg85410

[Sun Worshipper]

I doubt the September release will make it before the end of October, making it yet another pile of donkey pooh spouted by the liar that is Brandao.