Equipment type now showing "?"

[Danny Moore]

Did something change on Vatsim after the server update that effects vatspy? Under equipment type L is now replaced with ? and M.

I'm using Vatspy 1.2.0 beta 1 as suggested in this thread as the pilots rating takes up too much real-estate and you can't resize or remove the columns. 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 at 08:21 PM by Danny Moore

[Ross Carlson]

It's likely caused by recent changes on the servers having to do with flight plans and equipment codes. The latest version of VAT-Spy is not affected by this issue, so it doesn't make sense for me to spend any time troubleshooting it. I'll let the server devs know in case it's a bug.

[Ross Carlson]

They are aware of the issue. It has to do with converting between FAA and ICAO formatted flight plans. When the wake turbulence category identifier is not present, it puts a question mark. This will be fixed in a later version of the server. As I mentioned above, the current version of VAT-Spy is not affected by this because it uses a different field in the data feed which does not contain the wake turbulence category. (It contains the FAA equipment code instead.)

[Danny Moore]

Thanks for the reply and explanation. 

[Alistair Thomson]

1 hour ago, Ross Carlson said:

It has to do with converting between FAA and ICAO formatted flight plans.

I assumed that this might be the issue. Despite the fact that the FAA have already converted to ICAO codes, we still apparently have US VATSIM folks using what I beieved were deprecated FAA codes, like /L.

Is it the case, in FAA land, that the old FAA flight plan codes are still in use? And, therefore, am I wrong to assume that the FAA had wholeheartedly accepted the ICAO format, superseding their own legacy ones?

 

[Ross Carlson]

I'm not sure how fully the US has moved to ICAO equipment codes. We're doing the same on VATSIM, but there are still places where flight plans can be filed with FAA codes, so we're not there yet.

I'm currently working on an ATC client that will replace VRC, vSTARS, and vERAM. This client will have a flight plan amendment form that supports ICAO equipment codes and other ICAO fields. I'm not sure what the deal is with other ATC clients, but I imagine they are already supporting ICAO equipment codes.

As for vPilot, I will be removing the flight plan form completely, and users will use the website to file a flight plan, and that form is already using ICAO format. I can't speak for what the other pilot client authors will do or have already done.

[Don Desfosse]

Yep, RW I still very much can (and do) file all my flight plans with the old FAA format.  Just about every place you can file a flight plan, you can use either format.  Though I imagine at some point in time the FAA will discontinue the old format, as of now you are free to use either.

[Lars Bergmann]

I mean the FAA does state that "The FAA prefers users to file ICAO format flight plans for all flights." (Source)

Regardless, I thought this whole "have the conversion happen on the server" idea was only a temporary fix until Ross finds the time to have the conversion happen in his clients.

Edited October 1, 2021 at 07:33 AM by Lars Bergmann

[Sean Harrison]

I see this is posted as a Vat-Spy issue, however it is much wider than that in my experience.  I use Swift, and ATC have been asking lately what equipment type I am.  Only been asked in last couple of weeks.  ServInfo also is displaying ? and M.  So it is server side I believe not VATSpy centric.

SWIFT only allows one letter equipment codes, so I can’t test, but I think the server is seeing the first letter as wake turbulence only.

[Christian Kovanen]

1 hour ago, Sean Harrison said:

I see this is posted as a Vat-Spy issue, however it is much wider than that in my experience.  I use Swift, and ATC have been asking lately what equipment type I am.  Only been asked in last couple of weeks.  ServInfo also is displaying ? and M.  So it is server side I believe not VATSpy centric.

SWIFT only allows one letter equipment codes, so I can’t test, but I think the server is seeing the first letter as wake turbulence only.

So you didn't bother to read the responses from Ross Carlson that explain this is a known server side issue with converting between FAA and ICAO formatted flight plans? A fix is also in the works already: "This will be fixed in a later version of the server."

Edited October 3, 2021 at 10:52 PM by Christian Kovanen

[Sean Harrison]

Yes I did read Ross’ comments.  He is an extremely knowledgeable and likeable man, I have never found reading any of his posts to be a bother. 👍