Redundant info in new automated flight alerts


Any chance of trimming down the redundant info in the new automated flight alerts. When sent to the mobile e-mail address, it creates a bit of a mess.
Other than that I find the new feature extremely nice.



What do you mean by redundant? You can pick what information you want (arrival, departure, flight plan filed, etc.)


Ok here is an example of what appears :

1 of 3
SUBJ:RAX999 Just
departed KBHM en
route to KS
MSG:Your tracked
aircraft RAX999
has just taken off
from KBHM en
route to KSTL.

For more
information on this
flight, visit the
website at

manage your
personal Flight
Alerts, visit

Please do not reply
to this message.

Perhaps now you can see what I mean about redundant info.

It would look much better if it could be trimmed to:

RAX999 Departed KBHM
enroute to KSTL


I don’t think that’s redundant information.

You start off with your subject line, which EVERY email should have and it should NOT be a replacement for the body of the email.

Then the body of the message gives the flight information

Next is a link to get more information

Then you have a handy link to the place to manage your flight alert.

Finally, you have something that says don’t reply to this.

There’s nothing special about the mobile email address. It can be received on a phone or a computer. Not wanting to clutter up my main address, I use the mobile device address to receive flight alerts at one of my secondary addresses.


I guess you and I differ on what information we find useful. I for one don’t need to be given a link on each and every alert to go manage my alerts. Nor do I need a crutch for finding out more information. And I certainly don’t need to be advised not to reply.


Unfortunately, on the last item, there are people who will try to reply to the message.

To me, it’s a great convenience to be able to just click on a link to be able to manage the alerts, especially if it’s a flight I just want information on for today. It makes it easier to deactivate the alert.


Your phone appears to be dumping the sender, subject, and body of the e-mail all into the body.

We’ll have a light version of the flight alerts for phones and other devices before the service leaves beta.


I like the link to the Live traffic but it will show arrived so many days ago even when that flight number just filed a flight plan…
Do you guys have they flight “planned” route information available i.e. PTK to SPRTN to LAN to GRR i think that would help the “aircraft arrived 21 days ago”, at least include that information in the email notification.
The reason also for this request, one route is filed, then FSS (computer) gives out a different route and then you might be cleared as filed just to find out that is not true.
Also very helpful if you depart VFR to pick up your IFR clearance in the air and have your route already given to you. (you know the route you filed and the route you received from FlightAware if it not the same - now you can confirm routing with ATC).

Thanks again for a very cool and helpful new feature!!!



I’d suspect for legality sake, that I wouldn’t use information from Flight Aware for flight planning purposes, especially if you want to use it to “confirm routing”.

Check out the FAQ. Specifically



I didn’t say to use the information from FlightAware as the correct information! but it is coming from a source that had to get it from somewhere and it doesn’t hurt to compare.
So if you file one Route, The Alert tells you a different route and then you get Cleared As Filed (which means they don’t read the full route to you) I would clearify the routing before I accept it.

Never rely on a non FAA approved source for flight planning purpose.

But I found it helpful though, to have multiple sources of information.
It could be as simple as having spelling on intersections or VOR id’s.
I would find it very helpful to have the routing included in the Alert…



Bear with me Mike as I live in the “land of direct” where I live, but I honestly cannot imagine the above happening.

If I file GPS direct, and get cleared as filed, then that is what I do. No need to question it, as the controller releasing me has my flight strip.

Even if I file the airways, and I get cleared as filed, then I will launch and fly what I filed. It’s on the tapes, and if there is a routing change, I am sure the controller will advise on my clearance callup or enroute.

I surely won’t question what routing I got when I get cleared as filed.

Naturally, if a routing change happens enroute, the text message you receive probably won’t have that change anyway.

Once, my Garmin 430 went belly up before I launched, and when I called clearance, I had to amend my own flight plan since I didn’t have /G capability. Talk about a mess, pulling out the IFR enroute and winging it. Thankfully, the controller was patient with me, and even suggested a slightly different route to cut corners. I didn’t have a DME, so all I could do was file VOR to VOR.

Now I can’t comment on the feasiblity of receiving such information via cell as I haven’t tried it myself, but non pilots may not be interested in the nitty gritty of routing, so hopefully there would be an option to include or exclude routing for our non pilot audience, or it would only add clutter to the text message.



I’ve had it happen a couple of times. Basically ATC says cleared direct so-and-so and we look for it for a second and reply thats not on our route. They say “you weren’t given xyz-abc-JAMES-and the JAMES1 arrival?”
“Ok, well then you’re now cleared for yadda yadda…”

(by the way, what does not having DME limit you to flying VOR-VOR? You can still identify lots of intersections with 2 VORs. Or is that simply what you meant?)


Flying intersection to intersection would take me off the Victor airways, which would not be permitted based on a /U (transponder altitude encoder only) equipment suffix. (from what I UNDERSTAND).

I’d have no to / from indicator to show I passed an intersection. Through triangulation, I could do so I guess… espcecially when NAV two indicator would swing through the second VOR radial that the intersection rests at.

Since I was drafting my route, literally on the fly (just did my runup, then called in for my clearance with me quickly coming up with an amended fligth plan). I wasn’t sure when putting my flight plan together whether intersections are acceptable points since I never have filed intersection to intersection, only VOR to VOR via Victor routes.

As it turned out, when I flew out of Altanta Centers airspace, Memphis Center saw I was going 75 NM out of my way to stay on the airways, they asked if I wanted vectors, and needless to say, I gratefully accepted, considering my wife was using Flight Aware to track me, and she would have been really confused that I went clear up to Columbus MS from Bessemer AL to come home. Because I had already filed an OROCA altitude, obsticle clearance wasn’t an issue, nor was radar coverage.

For me, I enjoyed the old fashion navigation to keep in tune of what I was trained to do as I got my IFR ticket prior to me getting my Garmin 430, so it turned out to be a non event for me.

I do have to say, GPS does make an IFR pilot lazy :slight_smile: when the situational awareness is laid out so simply on the screen.



See above, you weren’t “cleared as filed” then (as indicated by Strom).

If I understand you, you got an amended clearance on your call up which you question, not the magic words cleared as filed.

I can see your situation happening quite often, not Stroms though, unless I mis-understood his post (easily done!).



All I ask for, is to add the route that is given to FlightAware (that is already available when tracking a Live Flight) into the Flight Alert.

I know by experience that sometimes Clearence Delivery doesn’t know the route has been altered by the FSS system when it arrives to the local airport.

I agree if you are cleared as filed you can assume to use what you filed.

If you ever fly out of the east coast you know that what ever you file more than likely is not what you will receive in your clearence. (or any congested areas depending on that days surface winds, active runways…)

It would be nice to have heads up what is coming, i.e. unknown intersections, they might say “arthur” how do you find that in your GPS it has to many letters, so if you had arthr in the Flight Alert message it would make it much easier to the pilots out there…


I still don’t understand. You don’t need a to/from flag to identify the interesection. Take a look at this approach:
Say you’re coming in from CYN from the east and need to get to PONDE so you can do the procedure turn. You tune the second VOR to the RBV 232 radial while flying the CYN 319 radial. (you can even do this approach with ONE NAV radio if you want, it just requires a lot of switching back and forth)

Or this:

Say you’re coming from RBV (off screen to the right) on V276. You want to take V162 when you get to DUMMR. You intercept the ETX (unlabeled) 260 radial and fly that down to BOBSS where you intercept the HAR 102 radial inbound (the 282 radial inbound) and continue on V162. So you flew between two interesections, DUMMR to BOBSS, but never left the airway. And you don’t need DME.


You got me curious in which I hope one of the ATC folks will chime in…

Who actually approves the flight plan? I know it’s has to be cleared through point A to point B, but lets say, I file a standard airway route and when I get my clearance, it’s changed.

FSS doesn’t change it, that I do know, but who actually makes the amendment. Does Clearance and Delivery contact controllers down the flight path to see that what I file is good based on conditions / traffic?

I can see things changing as you trundle along in your flight (I.E weather conditions warranting runway changes or popup TFR’s), but if a routing change is declared when I receive my clearance, who actually makes the routing change decision.

Obviously my guy in Jackson MS doesn’t care what route I take after leaving his airpspace, so he must hear from someone further down my flight path to make amendments to my proposed flight plan?

Inquiring minds want to know…



See my second sentence, I agree with you!

I think my mind was thinking GPS waypoints rather then intersections as when you really get down to it, all intersections are on a victor highway.

So, yes, agree, no DME is needed, but now that we are at this point, what’s the point of a DME when you can identify distances from a VOR via intersections. Why the different equipment suffix in filing the plan?



K, sorry for being obtuse. We agree then. Roger.
To answer" because not all “intersections” are intersections at all, they’re fixes. You’ll see fixes on that chart excerpt above that are not intersections. ATC can ask you to be at a certain altitude at ___ fix, or X miles from a fix. (I.E. Descend and maintain 4 thousand, cross 10 miles north of ETX at or below 7 thousand.)