There are two profiles for this bird. The second profile was made due to a disagreement with the FAA c/n. Here is info from a data base of all of this type:

25229/NA752 1A/731 N48BH N914BD N61MS N61MX N731HS N700PL N700FA N602JR

The number 2522/NA752 is listed as the c/n. 1A/731 is the Mk. Number. Then there is the listing of the registrations this bird carried.

The link to N700FA from the 2nd profile is proper, but it made an identical profile based on the disputed c/n. I linked to my old photo of N61MS from the FAA-based profile.

The bottom profile information should be transferred to the top profile, with FAA c/n taking precedence, and then both other aircraft linked from there.

Glenn.

I have yet to action your request as I believe there to be a principle which needs some discussion.

I do not agree that a second profile of an airframe should be raised in order to display corrections to the data contained in the FAA documentation.

I find this may cause confusion and images are also divided between the two profiles.

It is already an established practice that the FAA profile leads and I believe that any corrections/deviations should be entered as comments in the FAA profile.

I have in fact already instigated this with a number of other registrations.

Is this something that can be agreed upon? (Ken, Walt, Chris?)

I would also take this opportunity to make further comment.

From the work I, along with my fellow admin staff, have been involved with within the database, there has been and maybe still is some misunderstanding of linkage.

Linkage is a means of connecting different registrations/profiles of the same airframe, i.e. one cn.

What I have found, with some frequency, are numerous "linkages" to aircraft of the same type. This has the effect of allocating the same cn to all of these airframes, only one of which is likely to be correct. Unfortunately, the only way to correct these, is to delete all but one and re-enter the remainder anew, not exactly much fun when as many as 10 different airframes have been connected in this way.

Included in Glenn's list are some six registrations for this airframe which are not currently in the database.

Should we add profiles for each of these?

Malcolm.

I agree that new profiles should not be raised just because the FAA-based profile has errors. As noted, with this one, I think the profile Nick Dean made should be deleted as the FAA-based profiles have been taking precedence. The difference is the c/n. As you note a comment could be placed on the FAA profile with the c/n, line number as Nick shows.

As for all the old numbers a plane carried, I don't think it is necessary to make profiles for all of them. Two of them have photos associated with them, which is why profiles were made. If we try to make profiles for every number a plane carried, you can see how many there will be for some. In my research trying to find where my civil birds are now, I have found several corporate birds which have changed registrations almost a dozen times. Some of the choppers I'm looking at now have had six or seven different registries, and one has even gone overseas and back (some corporate birds have too). So unless there is a photo of the plane in the old registration, I don't think we need to do profiles for all of them - that would take lots of work.

One problem with linkages which I have noted is that if there is no c/n entered, all aircraft of the same type with no c/n will link automatically. I don't know how to fix that without putting in a bogus c/n

Thanks Glenn.

I won't action your post as others may wish to comment.

Regarding the lack of a cn, the easiest thing is to enter the reg as the cn.

When editing lists having missing cn's, I list them as Not found (1), Not found (2), etc.

Clearly you need to make an entry which anyone following behind will not duplicate.

Malcolm.

As for all the old numbers a plane carried, I don't think it is necessary to make profiles for all of them. Two of them have photos associated with them, which is why profiles were made. If we try to make profiles for every number a plane carried, you can see how many there will be for some. In my research trying to find where my civil birds are now, I have found several corporate birds which have changed registrations almost a dozen times. Some of the choppers I'm looking at now have had six or seven different registries, and one has even gone overseas and back (some corporate birds have too). So unless there is a photo of the plane in the old registration, I don't think we need to do profiles for all of them - that would take lots of work.

personally I think we only need a profile for an aircraft if a photo of it appears in the database. I have recently added a photo of a Boeing 767 which was linked to four other reg numbers of which only two had photo's.

Also because the details were incomplete because the FAA-based profile and members have added new profiles with the complete details, there were several duplicate profiles for each reg number, all of which have now been fixed

One thing that continues to surprise me is that people will add a photo without a profile existing within the database, then not contribute by completing a profile. With a small amount of research, most of the info can be found on the internet

personally I think we only need a profile for an aircraft if a photo of it appears in the database. I have recently added a photo of a Boeing 767 which was linked to four other reg numbers of which only two had photo's.

Not sure I agree with you Chis as there are undoubtedly some reg's worthy of mention but lacking images. However there are long lists in the database of ex military UK airframes which I doubt flew in their civilian guise. These I certainly have ignored and was even tempted to delete.

Malcolm.

Sorry, pressed the button prematurely!

Also because the details were incomplete because the FAA-based profile and members have added new profiles with the complete details, there were several duplicate profiles for each reg number, all of which have now been fixed

"Fixed", well I guess that's another word for it, Chris. , I'm already taking the same action.

One thing that continues to surprise me is that people will add a photo without a profile existing within the database, then not contribute by completing a profile. With a small amount of research, most of the info can be found on the internet

I absolutely agree and if the info doesn't come readily to hand, why not ask for assistance!

personally I think we only need a profile for an aircraft if a photo of it appears in the database. I have recently added a photo of a Boeing 767 which was linked to four other reg numbers of which only two had photo's.

Not sure I agree with you Chis as there are undoubtedly some reg's worthy of mention but lacking images. However there are long lists in the database of ex military UK airframes which I doubt flew in their civilian guise. These I certainly have ignored and was even tempted to delete.

Malcolm.

That doesn't mean I remove profiles without photo's, just my personal opinion is that we only need a profile for an aircraft with a photo.

A lot of the profile's without photo's contain the incorrect data and/or are duplicates, so they will be dealt with in the correct manner and get 'fixed' : :

Glenn.

I have deleted the duplicate profile, added a comment regarding the true identity under the title "Manufacturers data", and linked the three N numbers involved.

Malcolm.

First off-KUDOS to all the spotters and fixers of aircraft registration and other database issues.

Our FAA has announced that they have misplaced 119,000 aircraft in their files, so every U.S. registered aircraft owner has to pay the piper, ($5 fee) and re-register on the schedule that the FAA has established. Aircraft of the ENTIRE database must be re-registered according to a monthly schedule established by the FAA, because the FAA now admits they don't know who owns most of these aircraft. The schedule is posted at SZP's Airport Office window, so I suspect it has been provided to all known public airports, at least.

The possibility the misplaced aircraft are in use for drug running or other illegal import of who knows what is driving the re-registration of EVERY U.S. aircraft, some 375,000+. The issue is compounded by owners moving and not notifying the FAA, so the every three year checkup fails to update the database. Therefore, the FAA doesn't know whether these aircraft are still flying, crashed or junk.

There have been cases of drug traffickers using false U.S. registrations as well as cases of mistaken identity (and false arrests of legitimate pilots).

Meanwhile, thank you again for your recognition of, and work on the faulty database. Ken's database here will be updated regularly as before of the updated records as they are re-registered.

Doug, thank you and the other members who call attention to misaligned details. The Admin Team would not be able to locate and handle all the information without members like you and many others. As a member of the Team, I thank each and every one who has contributed and I especially thank Ken for letting us try to help make this Great Site even better

Walt

Photographs uploaded without a profile can be irritating. I just uploaded a picture of D-ECOH, a Klemm KI-107C Sn 129 and on entering the registration found no record. I filled in the profile as usual and confirmed the details. My picture duly appears with the info I input, plus a picture of D-ECOH, a Mooney M20J Cn 24-3011 for which no profile had been completed.

Can this be transferred to it's own profile? I don't appear to be able to do it myself.

Many thanks.

Bob

Photographs uploaded without a profile can be irritating. I just uploaded a picture of D-ECOH, a Klemm KI-107C Sn 129 and on entering the registration found no record. I filled in the profile as usual and confirmed the details. My picture duly appears with the info I input, plus a picture of D-ECOH, a Mooney M20J Cn 24-3011 for which no profile had been completed.

Can this be transferred to it's own profile? I don't appear to be able to do it myself.

Many thanks.

Bob

Thanks Bob

profile for the Mooney has been added and the photo moved

regards

Chris

A further comment on this situation.

It's difficult to understand why anyone would not take the time to create a profile to go with their image but it has been a fairly regular occurrence, and Chris and I have both tried to seize upon those that appear in the new upload list (they stand out in having the reg in bold black) and do the job for the lazy souls concerned.

But I am hoping to take things a bit further.

I have asked Ken if he could prepare a list of all the images in the database which are not connected to a profile. Then some poor souls - guess who? - will have the opportunity to create the appropriate new profiles.

Malcolm.