Is there a reason why Alaskan airport codes don’t register in the “View Airport Activity” area? The four-letter designators will show up on flight tracking, but the airport information is not available when I click on the designator. Am I simply entering them wrong?
THe problem is that the program prefixes a “K” to the 3 letter code (e…g ANC becomes KANC). Unfortunately, the airports in Alaska and Hawaii have 4 letter codes that begine with PA and PH respectively. The 4 letter code for Anchorage is PANC.
You can get some of the flight data if you use the 3 letter codes.
See the discussion on Alaska and Hawaii airport codes at discussions.flightaware.com/view … port+codes (Alaska/Hawaii Airport Codes).
We’re receiving data with the wrong airport codes and are just beginning to work on correcting the majority of Alaskan and Hawaiian codes. The major airports (e.g., PHNL, PANC, etc) have worked correctly for a long time.
It appears only a very few Alaska airports are either identified correctly or show traffic correctly. The PANC traffic for departure info is still showing YDT as the time zone which is not correct. PAFA doesn’t show any traffic correctly.
The “help” pop up to find airports when you don’t know the designator seems to be sorely lacking when it comes to airports in Alaska.
Since your message is over a year old, I guess FA is not putting much importance on correcting the Alaska mess. Frustrating.
I second the request to get Alaskan airports working. The major airports may work, but they still (at least PANC) have the time zone wrong (YDT). And it’s a shame to see more minor airports return almost nothing. Is this being actively worked on at all?
As far as I know, YST/YDT is the same as AKST/AKDT (UTC-9/UTC-8 ). Please let us know if that’s not true.
The Alaskan airports should work when filed correctly (PAFA, PASN, etc), but many operators or ATC continue to file incorrectly (KFAI, etc).
Thanks for the quick reply. You are correct that the time offset is the same for YST (YDT) and AKST (AKDT), but as far as I know, the name Yukon Standard Time hasn’t been in use since 1983. The Yukon itself has been on Pacific time since 1975.
I see what you mean about the different codes, but since say, FAI is the IATA/FAA code, shouldn’t those be recognized in addition to the ICAO code? I don’t know a lot about the codes, but it seems like there is no prohibition in the US against using IATA codes in flight plans.
I notice some of the San Juan Island airport don’t show up on FA. The flights to and from show up but the codes don’t work. Also in the above example and other remote airports such as Driggs Idaho (DIJ) the time always shows up as GMT instead of local time zone. Can that be fixed?
FHR works normal but it also has airline service. I think Roche Harbor (WA09) is sometimes normal or shows ‘result unknown’. Lopez Island shows GMT
http://flightaware.com/live/airport/S31
Another example is Blakely Island. It shows arrival time in GMT but FA shows no record of the airport (38WA). There are airports on all the islands with alot of traffic (turbine/IFR traffic).
YST/YDT is the same as PST/PDT with UTC-8/UTC-7 offsets. AKST/AKDT are UTC-9/UTC-8.
As far as I know, YST/YDT is the same as AKST/AKDT (UTC-9/UTC-8 ). Please let us know if that’s not true.
The Alaskan airports should work when filed correctly (PAFA, PASN, etc), but many operators or ATC continue to file incorrectly (KFAI, etc).
First, why can’t you just change the time zone names to correctly reflect what real people in the real world call them, i.e. AST and ADT (or AKST/AKDT, if you prefer)?
Second, Your explanation that people/ATC are filing flightplans using the wrong Alaska identifiers just doesn’t wash. I know firsthand of an Alaskan airline that files all their plans using the correct identifiers, yet their flight tracks
still show up numerous airports with the ridiculous “K” prefix. “KDLG”??? “KAKN”??? I can’t imagine it would be too hard to write some code that would recognize these identifiers for what they really are, and list them correctly, regardless of the source of the incorrect prefix.
Seriously, this is clearly an FA bug, and one that should have been fixed a long time ago, especially if you want the aviation community at large to take your service seriously.
What do you mean by “correct identifiers?” The three letter codes such as “ANC” or the 4 letter codes like “PANC?” Be specific - which Alaskan airline does this?
FlightAware does a damn good job of presenting flight data, especially when you consider that it is offered to the public for a grand total $0.00.
They will eventually get to writing the “easy” code to convert Alaskan and Hawaiian to the proper 4 letter codes.
Oh now that is a good one. Has the cold up in Alaska frozen your brain? (Eh, not worth coming up with something better) YOU obviously don’t know jack crap about how much this site is used by the “aviation community at large”, plus MAJOR media outlets.
Go smoke some whale blubber or something, or better yet, find the guys from “Deadliest Catch” and see if they can find a nice iceberg for you to float away on, or volunteer to be bait for the crab.
Sorry mduell and dbaker. You know my feelings about @$$#0!3$ like that who claim that this site is not near what those of us know it is, and don’t take the time to either research for themselves (what a concept) a little more before either complaining or chastising, ask, or thing that the FAA is perfect in the information that they send out to FA.
Suggest locking thread before the flamefest gets out of hand. Sorry Douglas, you are way outnumbered on this one.
Wow, people bring up something they see as a weakness for the site, on the public discussion forum “Feature Requests and Ideas,” and you jump all over them for it pika? And then you denigrate the 49th state and it’s residents. I can’t believe you’re then the one suggesting the thread be locked to prevent flames, when you seem to be the one making this personal.
I agree it’s great that FlightAware provides the services they do, and most for no charge. And I’d never claim that running such a site is without difficulty. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t be improved. This forum’s description asks for folks to “post… observations and ideas” about the site. And it certainly seems like a good idea to make a few fixes that could greatly improve access to data for all flights in the United States.
I agree with Pika. The subject of Alaskan and Hawaiian airports has been brought up before. I don’t think this thread should have even been started. The FlightAware staff is working on the problem. In the meantime, just chill out. After all, it’s doubtful the number of flights in Alaska that could be tracked by FlightAware (i.e. IFR flights) even approaches 2% of the flights in the rest of the nation. In other words, concentrate on the bigger problem areas first then get to the smaller ones.
Thanks damiross for showing it’s not just pika who will attack other users, instead of trying to make a point on its own merits. For the record, you should really read up on nonessential clauses before you attack people’s grammar, not to mention the fact there is no real rule against the use of conjunctions to start sentences. Nonetheless, I really don’t see the point of you stating perceived style issues, as you seem to be able to understand what I’m saying and this isn’t a formal essay.
Anyhow, perhaps the original post subject has been brought up before, in which case someone could have just said that. I think the reason this is being brought up again is simply because it has been a while (original post is dated over a year ago), and folks are wondering why it seems like there hasn’t been any progress. I realize there are other things to work on, but judging by the fact that there are a few users asking about it, it seems like a number of people would like to see it working.
You might be right about Alaska’s IFR flight volume being relatively small (though PANC is the 3rd busiest cargo airport in the world), but I don’t think that makes it unimportant. If Alaskan airports are what a user primarily deals with, then it doesn’t matter if there are just a handful of flights. I think what might be more important than flight volume would be potential user base (which might be small as well, who knows).
Point of Clarification…
OP’s first, and only post was an attack on FA (see the ONE part I quoted). Had he/she taken the time to SEARCH, the original Alaska/Hawaii issue would have been found. Notice, I do not fault him/her for not doing that.
I did not do anything to the “49th state and it’s residents”, just returned fire to one specific individual.
The OP obviously does NOT know the extent this site is respected in the aviation community, and how often you can find the “FA gurus” quoted by various news sources across the country. Had he/she known this, the comment of wanting “the aviation community at large to take [FA’s] service seriously” would one, not be warranted, and two, would have no basis for that argument.
If you would see my other posts to those that, instead of asking in a polite way, or even wonder if what the progress on a feature/bug fix, basically said that FA is a joke and is not that good, I take great offense to that because the other posters that say those things come across as if FA owes them something. Sorry, don’t see that in any way, shape, or form, since FA is free. Personally, if it is free, expect a few bugs/issues/etc, and roll with it. If I am paying good money for it, yes, I would hope that things would work a little better, but I’m not paying, so I let the FA gurus take care of the part of their company that people do pay for.
One of my pet peeves in life are people that complain and make uninformed statements about a service that is free.
By the way, dami was just being a smart a$$. It is one thing he excels at.
Thank you. Thank you very much.</elvis accent>
