BAE 146

[Chris11]

Hi Chris

On the current server database, every record has a date stamp attached, and is automatically changed when one of the team amends/adds a record.

Rich

I assume this is in the same format as the route datestamp ie yyyymmddhhmss and is an additional filed in the aircraft table.

I think I will add the same to my database to cover where I add/correct data

[abrad41]

romdouk

So's mine, as my database is updated at least once a week by the ADU SBS/Radarbox Utility. (PLEASE NOTE: I have no connection or pecuniary interest in ADU).
All my aircraft types are correct in most cases (No BKC3/BKC5 or the dreaded ...).
The Operators have standard format (United States Air Force / USA - Air Force etc).
The only unpopulated items I've had in the last 3 weeks are Mis-codes and ground applications.
Regards
Terry

So what procussions to do take to make sure that Airnav does not overwite your data

[DaveReid]

We're limited to what we can achieve on this front as I'm sure you'll appreciate?

It certainly wasn't my intention to belittle the efforts of the updating team, by all accounts you're doing sterling work.

It's just so frustrating that AirNav seem happy to leave all of us (including you guys) with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that they still haven't got a clue how they are going to integrate your work with the day-to-day operation of RadarBox.

[tarbat]

So what procussions to do take to make sure that Airnav does not overwite your data

What I do is run a couple of queries each week to look for problems:
1. WHERE
  (aircraft."AT" = "...") OR
  (aircraft."AT" IS NULL) OR
  (aircraft."AT" = "")

2. WHERE
  (aircraft.AC LIKE "untitl%") OR
  (aircraft.AN LIKE "untitl%")

I maintain a separate field called GA1, which I use to indicate aircraft where I have auto-populated data from GAS.

I have another field called CH, where I put the date that I populated the data from GAS.

Over the last few months this seems to be working well.

[abrad41]

Sent you a PM Terry

cheers

Andy

[Marpleman]

We're limited to what we can achieve on this front as I'm sure you'll appreciate?

It certainly wasn't my intention to belittle the efforts of the updating team, by all accounts you're doing sterling work.

It's just so frustrating that AirNav seem happy to leave all of us (including you guys) with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that they still haven't got a clue how they are going to integrate your work with the day-to-day operation of RadarBox.

No worries Dave

If nothing more, then hopefully this thread will at least have stirred enough up to produce some answers?

Rgds

Rich

[AirNav Development]

One more time we underline that we are discussing all the possible solutions with the database updaters team.