Hi all

I have been an admin for the past 6 months or so now working on getting the bizjets (& props) up to date as most have not been updated since the site went live unless an user has requested an update or addition. You may have noticed that recent changes and additions are now being kept up to date, though I am now 2 weeks behind as have been travelling and am working on my own logs & photos of 12 airports in 8 days...!

Once I am up to speed again, I will continue the rather large task of going through the production lists and making sure everything is updated. So far I have done the ACJ & Premier.

I have noticed there is some inconsistency in the way some types are logged, which affects your groupings and "top aircraft seen" lists on your sightings page. For example, a Bombardier Global is sometimes keyed in as a "BD-700-1A11 Global 5000" or just as a "Global 5000". Personally I find the full designation cumbersome and rather unnecessary for the purpose of a site such as this and would like to standardize on "Global 5000", "Global XRS" etc and that way you get cleaner groupings.

That being said, I am a bit of a "purist" when it comes to designations and I do like to make sure I have a log of unique sub types. A good example is the BAe 125 / Hawker series, as they are currently a mishmash of both in the database. To me it is either a BAe 125 (or HS prior to that) or a Hawker, not both. Do members feel OK to standardize groupings to "BAe 125-800", "BAe 125-1000", "HS125-400", "Hawker 800XP", Hawker 950XP" etc?

Another is the Citation family, I think we all know they are "Cessna's" so for recent changes and additions I have been updating them as "680 Citation (model) - Sovereign (type)" so it would read as "680 Citation Sovereign" on your log. So we would have basic families:

500 Citation - I (& 501 - 1A) 510 Citation - Mustang 525 Citationjet 525 Citationjet - M2 525A Citationjet - Cj2 (same for B/Cj3 & C/Cj4) 550 Citation - II / Bravo 560 Citation - Encore 560XL Citation - XLS 650 Citation - V/VII 680 Citation - Sovereign 680A Citation - Latitude 750 Citation - X

Then where applicable exact designators added to unique frames, like the XLS+ etc.

Then the Challenger families will be "Challenger 300", Challenger 350", "Challenger 604" etc etc, Gulfstream's would be "Gulfstream G-V" "Gulfstream G450", "Gulfstream G150" etc etc

I have decided that as a rule the LAAS logs are the most accurate and will match my designations to match theirs.

On the props side, obviously the Beech's historically have had a lot of different designators with 65-90 and the like. Any opinions on how to make those into the cleanest group, simple 90/100/200/350? Would we also like the PC12 to be just a plain "PC-12" across the board or to add sub types /45 & /47E etc?

If anyone has any other opinions or feedback, would be appreciated.

Obviously this will be a huge task and work in progress so appreciate everyone's patience in case they notice their logs are changing, particularly now its summer and I would prefer to spend evenings outside watching planes !! Obviously some peoples sightings will be affected too where they have logged a reg still posted to a previous incorrect operator. Particularly the US regs can pass through several owners while still keeping the same reg.

If anyone has any updates / changes or info as to operators (Mexicans can be hard to trace) feel free to let me know, either in this post and maybe we can create a new updates post for just bizjets.

Just a note too to the other admins I am around and to keep the designations uniform moving forward.

Best regards to all Vernon

Hey Vernon,

Would love to have the db consistent with LAAS, and the groupings as note. The current format(s) has so many iterations and unless there is real resistance, it would be beneficial to remove the cumbersome designations.

It would be great to also see the same done for other civil such as the ERJ's CRJ's, etc! I personally don't need ERJ-175LR (ERJ-170-200 LR) when ERJ-175LR would suffice.

Good work!

Stephen

Well Done job and a half there!

Hello Vernon,

I am happy with the changes you would like to make and the format you would like to use. I don't need to know the full name.

Great job, thanks

Hello Vernon, Thank you for undertaking this Herculean task on our behalf. I am preparing a detailed response for you since you requested feedback. In the meantime there are too many hyphens. The existing process of adding multiple sightings inevitably introduces extraneous hyphens. Even when the "type" field is left blank, we get hyphens. For example N478LX shows up as a "Beechjet 400A-" We may need Gavin to help us with this issue. Cheers, Jonathan

As to the Pilatus aircraft, I think it is worthwhile to note the PC-12/45 separate from the -/47, which is like the difference between the Citation 680 and 680A to some degree.

Sorry it took so long to draft my response. Busy building 737's here. Hello Vernon, Thank you so much for undertaking this Herculean project. Clearly, it will take quite a bit of time. Your post requested feedback. Thus, I have put together a detailed response with my personal preferences. Since you have responsibility for the task, I will accecpt your decisions. I have enjoyed uploading my sightings and flights into Planelogger and will continue to do so. Planelogger naming is random and capricious probably because the database sources that were assimilated understandingly lacked any consistency between their editors. Those databases seemed to have been focused primarily on airliners. The existing process of adding multiple sightings introduces extraneous hyphens. That method is only useful for Boeing and Airbus airliners which inherently possess hyphens. First, what are the LAAS logs? Were they some of the legacy databases assimilated by Planelogger before it went live? If they were in widespread use, people will want to continue using their format, as long as they are fairly consistent. You wrote that you are also doing props. Let’s start at the beginning. For light, general aviation aircraft I recommend make and model: Cessna 152 or Piper PA-28-140. Cessna Sovereigns in the civil aircraft registration database are listed as “680.” So, I’m perfectly happy to list them the same as light planes: Cessna 680. Following that pattern leads me to Cessna 650XL, Cessna 750 and so forth. I dislike the ones coming out with extraneous hyphens like “Citation-550 II” and “525B Citation-Jet III.” I recommend Cessna 550 and Cessna 525B. I don’t use Planelogger to identify what I’ve seen. I use the CAR mostly. Thus, my preference remains to follow the CAR. For example N500XP shows as a Raytheon Hawker 800XP in the CAR. That’s fine with me. However, Planelogger cooked up a fictitious model, “Raytheon/Hawker 125-800XP.” A Caravan is coming out as, “Cessna Caravan-208/A.” I would prefer simply “Cessna 208” or “Cessna 208 Caravan,” with no hyphens. I fixed my Sovereigns. They are all “Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign.” I like what you are doing with ERJ’s. Mine are all now “ERJ-175-LR (ERJ-170-200 LR). Placing “LR (ERJ-170-200 LR)” in Aircraft Type keeps the hyphen in the right place. Fixing Sovereigns and ERJ’s boosted then into my top 20. Thank you, Jonathan

There definitely does need to be more consistency, which I think is the first thing to address.

An example is the basic Cessna 525, which appears as:

525 Citation-Jet 525 CitationJet 525 Citation-Jet+ Cessna 525 Citation M2 Cessna 525 CitationJet CJ1 Cessna 525 CitationJet M2

There's a lot of duplication there. As long as the nomenclature is merged to be consistent, that's what matters. In this particular case, we should have at most 4 models of the 525, which I think are worth distinguishing. Whether you go with having "Cessna" there or not, I don't think is a big deal. Either way, you have 4 distinctive models which differ enough to deserve the distinction...

525 CitationJet 525 CitationJet CJ1 525 CitationJet CJ1+ 525 Citation M2

Those 4 are the official model names as marketed and certified. I think the database should reflect this, whether it says "Cessna" or not. The same should go for the whole series of CJ's. Luckily, the 525A is the only other jet in the series with multiple feasible models. It should just be the same...I have a lot of sightings for CitationJet-III and also a lot for CitationJet CJ3. It's the same model, but it's been entered two different ways.

I do agree with Jonathan here about the needless hyphens. He brought up the 550, which is confusing enough without having the hyphens in the way. You have a Citation II and a Citation Bravo. You also have the 551 Citation II/SP and the S550 Citation S/II.

It can quickly get to be a bit much. I'm glad you're working on it. Thanks!

Brian

I sure wish these forums didn't try to decide when my use of the "enter" key should be ignored.

I wanted to take a moment and address something Jonathan said here...

"For example N500XP shows as a Raytheon Hawker 800XP in the CAR. That’s fine with me. However, Planelogger cooked up a fictitious model, “Raytheon/Hawker 125-800XP.”"

That's not a fictitious model. The model is actually the Hawker 125, and the 800 series is just the last derivative of that long-running production. The airframe/design of the 800 is the same as the 400, and the same as the original 125's essentially.

It's not fictitious, not really. Now, it is true that 800XP is a derivative of the 125-800, and it's official moniker is not the same format, but it is more correct to list it as a 125 than to list it only as an 800. And for the sake of correctness, I would be a little disappointed if what is stated above there came to fruition. It would be like dropping "737", and just listing the -7H4 or whatever suffix happens to be there. That's why the official designator for that plane still is H25- when you're tracking it.

If CAR fails to note those distinctions, then I don't think that's the best source for determining how to list these aircraft. I think that all models of a particular airframe should be connected by that common airframe they derive from. I also think that all significant differences between models are worth designating as such. The particular aircraft you cited here (N500XP) was actually built before Hawker was building them...

However it is listed, I would hope that all 800XP's are listed the same way. I think that's the most important thing here...consistency over brevity is my opinion.

Hello Vernon,

It's been a while since I've been on here, but I just wanted to share my 2 cents. LAAS Data is probably the most up to date you will find, unless you work for a manufacturer. I say to stick with that.

I also applaud your decision on how you want to classify the aircraft, it is clear and concise and well thought out.

Thanks for taking on a huge task, and hopefully I'll be able to tie up a bunch of missing aircraft floating in my logs.

Thanks, Brian. Point well taken. Certainly yes, Vernon, you've hit the nail on the head with the CitationJets. Jonathan

I've been trying to get my brain around the Beech King Air models. I understand what you would like to do, in terms of reducing the sheer volume of different models. But it's important to remember that we are dealing with a 60-year evolution in those aircraft, over which time the 90 (as one example) is almost unrecognizable between the original model 65-90 and the current C90GTi. I think lumping a 1964 aircraft in with the current production aircraft would be a shame. I wouldn't like to see these aircraft overgeneralized to the point that all 3,200 or so aircraft built over that timeframe are listed as the same one.

To return to the 737 example, it would be akin to simply listing all of those simply as 737, without even separating them by series, which still would be a disservice. Imagine if we proposed lumping the old 737-200's in with the new 737MAX9!

To those of us who enjoy these smaller planes, I think the majority of us would prefer to keep track of these distinctions between the different aircraft we see. I'd be happy to provide you with a list of the distinctive models I think are worth designating separately...in fact, I think I may do that when I have a few extra minutes.

Anyways, thanks for listening to me ramble.

Brian

Should Reims-Cessna be entered as Reims-Cessna or just Cessna?

Reims-Cessna usually have an "F" in front of Model whereas Cessna do not

eg Cessna 172 (USA) Cessna F172 (Reims- France.)

Ron

King Air models worthy of separate designation:

65-90; 65-A90; B90; C90 (includes C90-1); C90A (includes C90B and C90SE); C90GT (includes C90GTi and C90GTx); Nextant G90XT; E90; F90; H90; 100; A100; A100A; A100C; B100; C100.

Military "Ute" models: U-21A Ute; RU-21A thru RU-21E; U-21F; U-21G; RU-21G; U-21H; RU-21H; VC-6A.

Navy "Pegasus" models: T-44A; T-44C

Note: the "65-" prefix is dropped after the 65-A90. There are quite a few later aircraft with that prefix in the database, which is not necessary. Once the aircraft proved feasible as a separate model, it was no longer treated as a derivative of the model 65 Queen Air.

I'm pretty sure that's comprehensive for the King Air models (though not the Queen Air or the Super King Air). I may have missed one or more though.

Brian

Super King Air models:

200 (including A100-1); A200; 200T; B200; B200T; B200 King Air 250; B200GT King Air 250; 300; 300LW; B300 King Air 350 (thru 2009); B300 King Air 350i (after 2009); 350ER; 1300 Commuter

cargo models: A200C; 200C; A200CT; B200C; B200CT; B200CGT; C-12F; B300C King Air 350C

The models beginning with "A-" are built for the military.

Thanks everyone for the comments, the goal overall is commonality. I agree with you Brian and will try to take it on board. As to the 125, there is a distinct marker when they went from BAe to Raytheon Hawker, so is fairly easy to distinguish in my mind. Others like the Falcon 2000, even the official docs & websites differ as to whether it is a LX or EX etc so there will always be some ambiguity.

It is a huge task, I am now really behind with even current updates as I have been travelling, have visitors staying and am generally busy with work and nice summer evenings...

There will be a bit of a transitional period as I update the changes as I go and it will probably be winter now with the wet dark evenings before I get into updating whole families again, I am starting with the jets, so will be a while before I get to the King Air...

On the way the - appears is somewhat down to the formatting, there are two fields and it is essentially designed for an airliner like the 737 where a dash is required to separate the type and model. You can leave the model field blank, but the - will still appear. So the key is commonality.

For those who were asking about LAAS, heres a link http://www.laasdata.com/corpjet/

I would again just like to thank Gavin (Nighthawk) and all the others who created and maintain this great site.