Incorrect Routes Shown

freddoair

New Member
Hi Gang,

At least three air ambulances operated by the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia are shown with incorrect route information.

Hex code: 7C3F61
Registration: VH-MSZ
Beechcraft B200C
Serial Number BL171
Operator: Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (South Eastern Section)

The flight information on Planefinder is incorrectly Torreon (TRC) to Mexico City (MEX)

Hex code: 7C01C2
Registration: VH-AMS
Beechcraft B200C
Serial Number BL168
Operator: Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (South Eastern Section)

The flight information on Planefinder is incorrectly Guadalajara (GDL) to Mexico City (MEX)

Hex code: 7C01C0
Registration: VH-AMQ
Beechcraft B200C
Serial Number BL166
Operator: Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (South Eastern Section)

The flight information on Planefinder is incorrectly Mexico City (MEX) to Mazatlan (MZT)

I'll report others as I see them.

Ray
 
Last edited:

Stealth

New Member
Its not just the South East flights. I have one here in WA apparently going from Pnom Penh to Don Mueang.

I should have added that in addition to what is going on in America, the exmaple I gave above is a result of callsign confusion due to the unsuitable allocation by Australia of the FD 2 letter prefix to the Flying Doctor which clashes with Air Asia's 2 letter IATA prefix.
 
Last edited:

freddoair

New Member
It looks like codes are a semi-formal free-for-all if the wiki is any indication, with two character IATA codes (introduced 1947) still being used despite the three character IACO codes being introduced in 1982.

I can see why the NSW Ambulance Service flights display incorrect Mexican flight information. They use the AM (for example AM242), AeroMexico IATA code. On radio they would use Ambulance 242, for example. The Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) have gone to the trouble of having an IATA code (FD) allocated, or so it seems according to the wiki. On radio they mostly use, for example, Flying Doctor 469. I say mostly because yesterday RFDS aircraft VH-MSZ was near Sydney identifying as Ambulance 231 (AM231).

Given that NSW Ambulance use an allocated IATA code that isn't theirs I'll probably need to keep seeing Mexican routes!
 

Lee Armstrong

Administrator
Staff member
It looks like codes are a semi-formal free-for-all if the wiki is any indication, with two character IATA codes (introduced 1947) still being used despite the three character IACO codes being introduced in 1982.

I can see why the NSW Ambulance Service flights display incorrect Mexican flight information. They use the AM (for example AM242), AeroMexico IATA code. On radio they would use Ambulance 242, for example. The Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) have gone to the trouble of having an IATA code (FD) allocated, or so it seems according to the wiki. On radio they mostly use, for example, Flying Doctor 469. I say mostly because yesterday RFDS aircraft VH-MSZ was near Sydney identifying as Ambulance 231 (AM231).

Given that NSW Ambulance use an allocated IATA code that isn't theirs I'll probably need to keep seeing Mexican routes!
We do plan to "fix" this but yes. They are really going against the norm here!!!
 

freddoair

New Member
Thanks Lee.

Using another organisation's IATA code sure is screwy. It's not as if we're dealing with a tin-pot organisation with one plane. The NSW Ambulance Service is a big government organisation that should know better!
 

Stealth

New Member
Thanks Lee.

Using another organisation's IATA code sure is screwy. It's not as if we're dealing with a tin-pot organisation with one plane. The NSW Ambulance Service is a big government organisation that should know better!
I think it's probably down to the misheld belief that as they don't leave Australian airspace it doesn't matter. At the other extreme the Australian military have actually registered a large number of callsings for ICAO flight planning purposes.
 

freddoair

New Member
The NSW Ambulance Service provides the emergency medical evac needs of Lord Howe Island, 600km East of here, but since it's officially a part of NSW their planes are still (mostly) in Oz airspace!

I hadn't thought about the military registering callsigns, even though I see their planes regularly. There's a RAAF base 200km south of here, and another 400km north. Off the coast from here is part-time restricted airspace for their activities, especially airborne refueling.
 

freddoair

New Member
Further to what I said yesterday, today there are six aircraft performing military maneuvers within ADS-B range of here - currently flights are out to 300km (162Nm) off the coast. Five aircraft are leased civilian aircraft carrying civil registrations and as such they appear on PlaneFinder. The sixth is from RAAF Amberly and does not appear in PlaneFinder.
 

Stealth

New Member
We do plan to "fix" this but yes. They are really going against the norm here!!!
I've looked at this a bit more recently. I can see a fix, i.e. drop IATA codes as primary reference and use ICAO flight planned call , but I suppose the dilemma is that some users will still be looking for the IATA coded flight numbers .

Planefinder seems to be inconsistent in that it displays some flights with the IATA code first (see capture file attached) then ICAO, but in the case of Capture2 it is showing the ICAO code only and 'flight number n/a', even though this would be operating as an IATA coded QF or QQ flight number on the airport departures board.

Both Flightaware and Flightradar24 appear to have adopted the ICAO flight planned callsign as the primary reference.
 

Attachments

freddoair

New Member
To me it would be logical for all clients to use the same standard, whatever that may be. Some users might get their knockers in a knot to see "their" favourite scheme changed, but uniformity would ultimately benefit the majority. As for what started this thread, until NSW Ambulance register their own IATA/ICAO codes instead of using those of another company in another country, the problem of their planes seemingly "flying in Mexico" will remain.
 
Top