FALSE PING - VC-25A 82-8000 AF-1 E/B off SW Ireland ??? [PP]

[baz1]

it was supposed to be a B52 the other day at Fairford

[Yammer]

Let's not clutter Movements up with spoof hoax tosh - maybe move this thread to The Mess

[baz1]

Let's not clutter Movements up with spoof hoax tosh - maybe move this thread to The Mess

i note you claim to have a BCT15X does it actually work? as you never post any FRQs very strange

[POL]

Surely ADSB Ex can see the user thats feeding this data and just ban them? If they care, that is.

They don't care

[T_J]

Nothing on Live Loggs re this so could be a glitch as such ??

It's not a glitch. It's someone deliberately adding false data in to online tracking sites, presumably to see the reaction from people on places like this forum.

On the 19th August VC-25A 82-8000 was made to appear at Kabul, Afghanistan. The QAnon types were claiming that Trump was on it! As you say just someone adding false data.

[zero_gravity]

Could I just clarify that this did not appear on PlanePlotter please?

I assume it was just on the web trackers.


Seems to be a recurring theme on certain tracking systems with someone introducing erroneous data.

As a private tracking network we have full control over PlanePlotter and , as now well known , we are the only tracker
which allows users to locate Mode A [ and Mode C ] traffic.

Having said that , whilst I monitor the network 16 hours a day , I always welcome input from members if something
appears to be wrong.


ZG

PlanePlotter support

[POL]

It only appeared on ADS-B Exchange this time. I can only assume that 360Radar had already removed the feeder from their network.

They've never shown up on the commercial tracking sites, presumably they require a minimum number of receivers.

[zero_gravity]

Thanks for that.

[Malcolm]

One simple way to sort out of this sort of stuff is to stop sharers uploading ADS-B reports for aircraft more than (say) 250 miles from wherever their base-station is supposed to be located.

[page_verify]

The 'hobby' has changed over the last few years making this kind of disinformation a rouge state, a conspiracy theorist, or a prankster's dream. An increasing number of people in the AvGeek world seem to be happy to just post information or screenshots they've seen on a web-based tracker, or to share what they assumed they must have heard on a radio. I remember only a few years ago people were interested in what they saw or heard in a particular time or place, and had an element of self-doubt about something that didn't look or sound right, more often than not because it was usually wasn't. Usually their questioning was because they needed to decide whether or not to get in the car to try and see a tail number that was new to them. I'm sure today many still chuckle when someone suggests a B-52 has suddenly 'appeared' somewhere announced, but fewer than in the past is my observation.

[Nighthawke]

Non-internet days - less is more. Not so much info but what there was had more reliability

Modern day - more is less. Far more information but less reliability percentage-wise.

It seems that many accept what they see on a tracker as gospel, or read on Facebook. It's there on the screen so it must be true.

[Yammer]

I posted the following in relation to the earlier similar "Fairford B-52" nonsense - radio provides some sanity, aircraft talk to air traffic services.



"""We seem to have lost the ability to rationalise.

He says "landed" - who saw this with their eyeballs as it passed over Brize in descent - who heard this on a radio. What was the callsign. Which apron is it parked on.

No one saw it "land" - The OP saw a "ping" on ADSB or similar. No one saw it inbound either with their eyeballs or as a moving ping descending on the screens.

We need to stop, pause, think - apply a degree of sanity checking.

If a B52 arrived at Fairford, then it would have been in touch with air traffic for a good 30 minutes or more before hand as it entered UK airspace. It would have been passed from agency to agency and eventually onto Brize director and then Fairford and no doubt talking to base ops too. Some would have seen it in descent and many more would have seen it and heard it on finals.

This forum would have been busy with a thread about this aircraft, something like "GRIM 51" inbound, just saw it pass over my house etc etc

Ping is a wonderful tool but it's just a ping matched to a database that may or may not be accurate. We had several reports of those "ghost pings" a few weeks back - all stationary and static, appearing from thin air like the "Chepstow F-35". Maybe a glitch, maybe someone having a little fun and enjoying the reaction of screen watchers.

Just exercise a degree of caution and curiosity and apply a bit of realism too. """

[Malcolm]

There were always rumours - the 'art' of plane spotting was (and is) deciding which rumours to believe, and which to ignore. In the pre-internet days it was as much about who was telling you the rumours as what the rumours were. No-one was (or is) ever 100% right, but some were (and are) right more often than others. That's not really changed. Whilst we may not know each others real names on here, there are posters with what I consider a good track record, and those whose posts (how can I put this polietly) often require more validation.

Expecting what you see on t'interweb to be 100% reliable is about as realistic as expecting something you heard in the gen pen at Mildenhall to be 100% fact.

[page_verify]

This, however, looks real.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ae094a

[zero_gravity]

Indeed...interesting callsign too !

[zero_gravity]

As Malcolm touched on earlier , its all about the sanity check.

If something doesn't look right to the experienced enthusiast , then it probably is not.

Putting on my Support hat , at PlanePlotter HQ we have a number of ways a sharer can quickly check the validity of a plot , with 24 hour support
for anyone who discovers a possible error.

These processes include "sharer circles" "Beamfinder / plus/plus S " [using triangulation from official radar sites] manual mlat along with automatic mlat and of course Mode A.
For mil enthusiasts mode A is the cutting edge process.
All mil traffic within UK airspace will at intervals be interrogated by UKADR . Each flight will have a combination of Mode 1 ,2 and 3a
codes. This applies to full ADs-B and Mode -S flights , thus providing further confirmation of location.

Hope this helps

ZG

[page_verify]

I think it's too easy to become too focussed on just the data these days, although my assumption is that the people who share raw data do something with it in the background. Documenting the schedules for routine flights, calculating the frequencies between swapouts, and finding relationships between aviational observations and geopolitical events so they can develop orders of battle etc. etc. Or do some share just so they let people know they know?

[100arw]

Or do some share just so they let people know they know?

I think you may have forgotten one reason why most shares share. It's so they can help create the bigger picture. Unlike those who just look at tracker apps, and rely on others to provide the info.

P.