All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:27 pm 
Offline
alsodon - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:01 pm
Posts: 4
One of the nearby receivers has cracked the code and is somehow pulling in 15,000 planes a day. Ref site 51904, most of them are showing up in one sector 250+ miles away. How is this possible?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:25 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Staff
obj - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:14 pm
Posts: 3557
It looks like a poorly-configured site that is aggregating data from more than one location.

(The majority of the aircraft are "other", i.e. no position data; however they _are_ reporting speed/heading, which means that the distance-from-receiver-location sanity check is throwing out the position data)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:16 am 
Offline
alsodon - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:01 pm
Posts: 4
No, I'd say it's a rather cunningly configured site. It's been in existence for all of 11 days and has climbed to #23 on the global listing. Unless he pulls the plug it'll be #1 in another day. Personally, I think he found a way to record a days worth of messages from his two radios and somehow inject it into the NW 250+ segment the next day while still collecting and recording messages for recycling on the following day. I watched the site ramp up and it seemed to increase in that pattern. I really don't understand that NW 250+ segment though. Is there a good explanation for why there are 250,000 positions in it? Is that something you recognized as a side effect of aggregating data?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:07 am 
Offline
softrax - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 10:53 am
Posts: 4
Feeling that cock-up should always be considered before conspiracy, is it possible that it could be achieved by accident - build the receiver and run it for a while without connecting to FA, then move to the target site, connect and it uploads the backlog?

This raises the question of whether the FA server(s) have sanity checking to eliminate absurd data and ignore rogue sites?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:22 am 
Offline
FlightAware Staff
obj - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:14 pm
Posts: 3557
I have been in touch with the site owner and it is legitimate aggregated traffic.

The northwest sector will probably be SFO traffic, which is close enough not to get thrown out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:13 am 
Offline
alsodon - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:01 pm
Posts: 4
"Cock-up ... before conspiracy", I'll have to remember that.
wOw, impressive! If he's really getting that much SFO I need to look into some upgrades myself. Thanks for following up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
rosen85 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:40 am
Posts: 50
Location: Kozloduy
Can that site owner post his hardware setup? I am more than curious about it.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline
davewill2010 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:24 am
Posts: 13
Curiouser and curiouser.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:32 pm 
Offline
SkeetMandeville - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:53 pm
Posts: 5
At what point did "legitimate aggregated traffic" appear on the table here? Seems to run contrary to the spirit of this community where one can stand up a receive site and watch its performance referenced to other like receivers. It appears there is another clown in the St. Louis area running the same aggregation con. He's #1 after a few days. There's a trustworthy stat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:42 am 
Offline
frankhanratty - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:33 pm
Posts: 6
It appears that these increases have not happened because of only Hardware Upgrades.
If that were the case, then many of us would be lining up for these Super Antenna Systems!
Looking at the history of #1 User: Two weeks ago his site was pulling in 9 positions at 200+ NM.
Today this position is pulling in Over 350,000 at that distance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:43 am 
Offline
FlightAware Staff
obj - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:14 pm
Posts: 3557
SkeetMandeville wrote:
There's a trustworthy stat.

It's accurate, it's just not telling you what you want to know.

As I said above, what you are seeing are sites that are aggregating data from multiple receivers into a single feed.
We'd rather have those as separate sites, if only because most of the data is being thrown away currently, but we're not going to refuse to accept the remaining data just because of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:33 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
joelwiley - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:46 pm
Posts: 858
obj wrote:
It's accurate, it's just not telling you what you want to know.

As I said above, what you are seeing are sites that are aggregating data from multiple receivers into a single feed.
We'd rather have those as separate sites, if only because most of the data is being thrown away currently, but we're not going to refuse to accept the remaining data just because of that.

Looking at the stats and standings, you appear to reward noise when you want signal.
Your system, your call.
It's all part of the cost-of-doing-business.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:39 am 
Offline
FlightAware Staff
obj - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:14 pm
Posts: 3557
Everyone has a different opinion about what stats should measure. I'm not getting into those arguments again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
joelwiley - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:46 pm
Posts: 858
obj wrote:
Everyone has a different opinion about what stats should measure. I'm not getting into those arguments again.
Good :!:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
ATTRIBUTION: LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:59 pm 
Offline
SkeetMandeville - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:53 pm
Posts: 5
obj wrote:
Everyone has a different opinion about what stats should measure. I'm not getting into those arguments again.


C'mon OBJ...I'm so disappointed in you! You are the recognized rockstar in this subject matter and you've chosen to run away from what would ordinarily be a slam dunk in your worldwide court. These data vandals are making a mockery of what has been a years long example of your pristine record keeping for thousands of contributors who correctly collect and transmit their information. Surely you can't sit back and accept that these new jokers practicing creative data routing and aggregation of (by your own admission) low quality data deserve the #1 spot in your authoritative list after only a few days of acceptable trickery.

So far, only one gentlemen in this thread has exhibited any sensibility on this subject (myself excluded, of course), and that is the original poster who correctly described this new phenomenon as bullshit. I hope it can be sorted out...I cast a vote of no confidence in the Top 10 today.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:46 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Staff
obj - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:14 pm
Posts: 3557
Uh, no, you have entirely the wrong end of the stick. There is no vandalism going on here, the data is fine. As I said above I'm not interested in revisiting arguments about what stats should show - past experience is that it's never going to please everyone and I have lost interest in trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

If you think something should change with stats, you could raise that with Eric or the ADS-B support team, but I'm the wrong person to try to convince.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:18 am 
Offline
alsodon - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:01 pm
Posts: 4
Nah. Still not buying it.

alsodon wrote:
If he's really getting that much SFO I need to look into some upgrades myself.


I don't think the upgrades exist that could bring KSFO hits in any significant quantity to my neighborhood. I get some KSFO-bound traffic along the coast and across my northern edge of reception but nothing crazy. This is typical of the range I get now:
Image
I have pretty good reach along the N to NE arc with 300+ pretty common and 324.5 the best I've witnessed. As you can see, not so much towards KSFO. 250 is about it.

Modeling it on HeyWhatsThat with a 1000' mast for my antenna still doesn't get me there. I tried 5000' too, saw that didn't make it either and threw in the towel. There are some mountains in the way that cause problems. I only see the high flyers past the Tehachapi's.
Image

This screenshot doesn't show the aircraft ID but the light purple track under Modesto is a U2 at 60000+ ft. This is the closest I've seen anything get to KSFO.
Image

Which leads me to this.
obj wrote:
The northwest sector will probably be SFO traffic, which is close enough not to get thrown out.

No, we're not getting that level of KSFO traffic anywhere around here (and judging from the kind of numbers I see the LAX locals get, they probably don't see that much KSFO traffic in San Francisco either). I checked the rogue site using HeyWhatsUp to see if there was anything occluding me but not him. No, it's pretty similar. I have a 400' altitude advantage that helps me a little but nothing significant. The airport is 345 miles away from me and perhaps 360 miles away from him. Consequently, I don't think your statement can be correct.

I'm not familiar at all with aggregating data for airplane tracking purposes but I can ponder the concept and make a few suppositions. I hope this logic holds up to scrutiny.

Aggregated data will have to reflect the site(s) the data originated at. Without getting into the philosophical debate, "legitimate aggregated data" should therefore show the arithmetic sum by heat-map location of the various data sets that were aggregated. If I combined two data sets and both contained 100 positions in the North 250+ sector I would expect to see 200 positions in that sector when looking at the aggregate. Aggregated data should look like regular data, just more of it. This does not look like regular data to me.
Image

I don't care how many sites you stack together, a KVCV locale won't see a 260k spike of hits in that location. I really question the validity of the data you're getting from your #2 (my neighbor) and #1 (Mr St. Louis) contributors. I get that you don't want to miss any data but this data is flawed. As I said earlier, I watched the site ramp up. The site operator had two radios, one with a good setup and one with a punk setup (as do I and many others, no disrespect for that). The good setup is still in operation and getting the same kind of numbers as always. The punk setup was punk for a couple of days and then appeared to get aggregated with the good one. Good numbers + punk numbers added together and were distributed properly across the heat-map. That caught my attention. After a few days of that tomfoolery is when it went completely rogue. The rest of the map kept the two-receiver aggregated numbers seen before but the NW 250+ sector started exploding. It sure seems like additional manipulation of the data began then and continues now. From my perspective, you're getting illegitimate aggregated data and your system is getting gamed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:09 am 
Offline
SoNic67 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:44 pm
Posts: 24
Can it be a high gain Yagi antenna? The directivity pattern is about right (for two receivers overlapped).
I saw a number of sites in the same condition.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:18 am 
Offline
FlightAware Staff
obj - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:14 pm
Posts: 3557
I've said this twice so far and I don't know how else to say it.

It is data aggregated from several receivers
One of the receivers is probably close to SFO. It is not just a bunch of receivers all at the same place!
The positions near SFO are close enough to the nominal "site location" that those positions are not thrown out.

Think of it as plotting all the positions received from many receivers on a map, then drawing a circle around one "site position" and only counting positions that fall into that circle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:50 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
chrisjohnston50 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:29 am
Posts: 172
Location: Fort Lauderdale
alsodon wrote:
From my perspective, you're getting illegitimate aggregated data and your system is getting gamed.


I agree 100%

This type of aggregation of data should not be permitted at least as far as applying to the running statistics.

JMO


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:49 am 
Offline
SoNic67 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:44 pm
Posts: 24
If there are multiple receivers showing as one, just to gain better score, it might upset others. Perception is all, and I think it is bad policy, even if in this case I don't really care.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline
BE35G - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:00 am
Posts: 17
Against my better judgment, I'm going to throw out a couple of observations:

The ultimate data aggregation is Flightawere, so they should list themself as #1.

Flightaware is located in Houston, so they would be #1 in the Houston area; but they get the data from all over the world, so the location in the statics/ranking means nothing.

I use the stats to judge how well my radio, antenna, filter, etc are performing. Will the stats continue to give me this information, yes but I will have to filter the data now.

Who does not like to be #1? Will I ever get there? No, and not now unless I figure out how to aggregate data, and have more friends than the other guy that knows how to aggregate data. (I assume that if you are smart enough that any system that has this data on it can be shared).

Will I loose any sleep? No, but if aggregate data is used for ranking and stats, the location of this data should be reflected, or that it's from multiple locations of the wolrld.

Maybe a new stat list can be created "Aggregate Data". Flightaware #1. They deal with a lot of data, allow us to see data, track our airplanes, give mlat data back to us, and more. It is Flightaware's sand box, so they can make the rules for the game they created. There are loopholes in rules, which create more rules. The ranking system is somewhat based on location, which is becoming grey, and will continue to darken with the aggregate data loophole.

I'm probably all wet on this one but...

Peace out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:36 pm 
Offline
SoNic67 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:44 pm
Posts: 24
I wonder if aggregating the data doesn't mess up the MLAT for neighbours.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:48 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
chrisjohnston50 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:29 am
Posts: 172
Location: Fort Lauderdale
If this practice of aggregating data is legitimate, then show all of us how to do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Calling BS on 15k airplanes / day
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:27 pm 
Offline
GeorgLichtblau - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:28 pm
Posts: 45
Location: Austria
chrisjohnston50 wrote:
If this practice of aggregating data is legitimate, then show all of us how to do it.



modesmixer2 with a feed from several receivers or better adsbexchange.com all over the world..... :)

I have 8 receivers, so I could also aggregate them.. Thought about to make a new account with an aggregated link just for fun and also climbing to the top :) But I am interested in how every receeiver performs to the neighbour receivers.. Also a bit of a challenge just to see how to improve the reception..

But it's all just for fun anyway.. So if somebody wants to be #1... Ok... They will get rich... sometimes, somewhere... maybe ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mamastega, pub778899 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: