Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 159 posts

Re: The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

#111

Post by makeitdouble »

SilverBirch wrote: post #88

This type of thing clearly just doesn't tweak me the way that it tweaks some people. I'm not convinced you could end up with a great way of assigning airport codes today, even if we completely started fresh and we assumed no new airports are ever created. In fact, in a lot of cases the weird corner cases are often situations where you can ask "Would it have been better to stringently apply the rule, or to bend the ru…

I’d argue if it was to be redone from scratch, we’d settle for hierarchical codes with country namespaces.

Probably something like us.lax, fr.cdg, ko.inc, or a combination of country + number HK02, GB231 etc.

Simple system get approved when there’s low friction in the ruling comitee, as it was the case when few countries were involved in the first place. Once more that 50 members need to agree on something restricting to 3 letters doesn’t work anymore and it becomes compromised after compromises until there is a hack to let each country deal with its own mess.

Re: The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

#112

Post by macintux »

makeitdouble wrote: post #111
SilverBirch wrote: post #88

This type of thing clearly just doesn't tweak me the way that it tweaks some people. I'm not convinced you could end up with a great way of assigning airport codes today, even if we completely started fresh and we assumed no new airports are ever created. In fact, in a lot of cases the weird corner cases are often situations where you can ask "Would it have been better to stringently apply the rule, or to bend the ru…

I’d argue if it was to be redone from scratch, we’d settle for hierarchical codes with country namespaces. Probably something like us.lax, fr.cdg, ko.inc, or a combination of country + number HK02, GB231 etc. Simple system get approved when there’s low friction in the ruling comitee, as it was the case when few countries were involved in the first place. Once more that 50 members need to agree on something restrictin…

Country namespaces would violate the implied (or maybe explicit) idea that the codes never change.

Re: The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

#113

Post by macintux »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #77
reaperducer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#3 has RFML - Refugee Meal. I wonder what that is.

RFML seems from United Airlines, and seems to mean: easy to digest. No egg, no dairy, probably no meat? Its for people from places where food isn't processed or where they had not eaten much for a longer time, so a change in diet content and quantity may be problematic for the passenger.

If you have a citation for that, you should add it to the article.

Re: The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

#114

Post by andromeduck »

macintux wrote: post #112
makeitdouble wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue if it was to be redone from scratch, we’d settle for hierarchical codes with country namespaces. Probably something like us.lax, fr.cdg, ko.inc, or a combination of country + number HK02, GB231 etc. Simple system get approved when there’s low friction in the ruling comitee, as it was the case when few countries were involved in the first place. Once more that 50 members need to agree on something restrictin…

Country namespaces would violate the implied (or maybe explicit) idea that the codes never change.

Maybe location hash? Something like what 5 words or plus codes.

Re: The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

#115

Post by ziml77 »

makeitdouble wrote: post #111
SilverBirch wrote: post #88

This type of thing clearly just doesn't tweak me the way that it tweaks some people. I'm not convinced you could end up with a great way of assigning airport codes today, even if we completely started fresh and we assumed no new airports are ever created. In fact, in a lot of cases the weird corner cases are often situations where you can ask "Would it have been better to stringently apply the rule, or to bend the ru…

I’d argue if it was to be redone from scratch, we’d settle for hierarchical codes with country namespaces. Probably something like us.lax, fr.cdg, ko.inc, or a combination of country + number HK02, GB231 etc. Simple system get approved when there’s low friction in the ruling comitee, as it was the case when few countries were involved in the first place. Once more that 50 members need to agree on something restrictin…

The downside to country codes is that countries can change (split, merge, or rename) even when the airports within them haven't.

And the idea that the system would fall apart into one where each country manages their own codes doesn't make sense. As stated in the video, the 3 letter codes come from the IATA. Their members are airlines, not countries. They can assign codes in whatever way works for them to communicate with each other where passengers and their bags need to end up.

Re: The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

#116

Post by alistairSH »

SilverBirch wrote: post #88

This type of thing clearly just doesn't tweak me the way that it tweaks some people. I'm not convinced you could end up with a great way of assigning airport codes today, even if we completely started fresh and we assumed no new airports are ever created. In fact, in a lot of cases the weird corner cases are often situations where you can ask "Would it have been better to stringently apply the rule, or to bend the ru…

The only part I find “maddening” is when a source intersperses the ICAO and IATA codes. Not a big deal for my local airports - KIAD/IAD and KDCA/DCA, but confusing for places where the codes don’t match (EGLL vs LHR). I’d need to look up EGLL every time, since the 3-letter is what I know from ticketing/baggage.

But, that doesn’t really happen much in anyplace that matters. Usually just in casual conversation about airports/flying.

Re: The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

#117

Post by sokoloff »

2143 wrote: post #29
SoftTalker wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also wondered why cryptically abbrevated things like NOTAMS are still the way they are. It made sense in a teletype/telegraph world where brevity was worth time and money. From wikipedia, this is a typical NOTAM: A1234/06 NOTAMR A1212/06 Q)EGTT/QMXLC/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5129N00028W005 A)EGLL B)0609050500 C)0704300500 E)DUE WIP TWY B SOUTH CLSD BTN 'F' AND 'R'. TWY 'R' CLSD BTN 'A' AND 'B' AND DIVERTED VIA NEW GREEN…

> Pilots have to know how to read and understand this stuff. Only justification I can think of is that like mathematical notation, this shorthand, once learned, is unambiguous and conveys meaning better than prose. I don't know if that's really true though. You're correct. It's straightforward for pilots. They can quickly read a NOTAM and understand everything. Also, it's pretty standard and unambiguous worldwide. As…

I prefer the encoded version of weather, TAF (Terminal Area Forecast). That makes it easier to visually scan down and see how the weather is forecast to change in the terminal area. (Is it improving? Getting worse? Is there a time when the winds change significantly [meaning a frontal passage is happening]?)

Same for a time sequence of METARs, especially when you cross-compare the METARs to the TAF (to know if the forecast is holding or was blown.)

Visually scanning the encoded text of weather is easier. (The entire NOTAM system is a mess, encoded or not.)

Raw TAF and Raw METAR for BOS below:

  KBOS 141129Z 1412/1518 31018G28KT P6SM SKC
    FM141400 31020G30KT P6SM SKC
    FM150200 34014G26KT P6SM SCT070
    FM151100 01009KT P6SM BKN050
    FM151500 04011G18KT P6SM BKN020

  KBOS 141254Z 29020G31KT 10SM FEW050 M05/M13 A3000 RMK AO2 PK WND 29031/1245 SLP157 T10501133
  KBOS 141154Z 31018G28KT 10SM FEW050 M05/M14 A3000 RMK AO2 PK WND 31030/1125 SLP158 60000 T10501139 10006 21050 53003
  KBOS 141054Z 32017G26KT 10SM FEW060 M05/M15 A2999 RMK AO2 PK WND 30028/1020 SLP155 T10501150
Here's Indy's METARs, showing generally good weather with broken clouds, developing into light rain-mist-solid overcast, then heavy rain-mist-overcast, then light rain-mist-broken clouds. (Read from bottom-up.) I'd quickly read that as improving and generally following the TAF (below it), meaning the forecast is probably a good one.

  KIND 141308Z 11013KT 2SM -RA BR BKN006 OVC011 06/04 A2989 RMK AO2 P0002 T00560044 $
  KIND 141254Z 11013KT 1 3/4SM RA BR OVC006 06/04 A2988 RMK AO2 SLP121 P0007 T00560044 $
  KIND 141233Z 11013KT 2SM +RA BR OVC007 05/04 A2989 RMK AO2 P0002 T00500039 $
  KIND 141154Z 11013KT 9SM -RA OVC007 05/04 A2988 RMK AO2 SLP124 P0003 60021 70021 T00500039 10056 20044 55011 $
  KIND 141054Z 09013G22KT 7SM -RA BKN009 BKN055 OVC095 05/03 A2987 RMK AO2 SLP120 P0003 T00500033 $
  KIND 141051Z 10013G22KT 7SM -RA BKN009 BKN021 OVC090 04/03 A2988 RMK AO2 P0003 $

  KIND 141311Z 1413/1518 11013G22KT 2SM -SHRA BR OVC006
    FM141500 13011G21KT P6SM BKN007 OVC015
    FM142200 12011G21KT 5SM -SHRA BR SCT003 OVC009
    FM150300 11013G21KT 2SM SHRA BR OVC006
    FM150700 20012G27KT P6SM OVC009
    FM150900 25010KT P6SM BKN016.

Re: The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

#118

Post by marcosdumay »

makeitdouble wrote: post #111
SilverBirch wrote: post #88

This type of thing clearly just doesn't tweak me the way that it tweaks some people. I'm not convinced you could end up with a great way of assigning airport codes today, even if we completely started fresh and we assumed no new airports are ever created. In fact, in a lot of cases the weird corner cases are often situations where you can ask "Would it have been better to stringently apply the rule, or to bend the ru…

I’d argue if it was to be redone from scratch, we’d settle for hierarchical codes with country namespaces. Probably something like us.lax, fr.cdg, ko.inc, or a combination of country + number HK02, GB231 etc. Simple system get approved when there’s low friction in the ruling comitee, as it was the case when few countries were involved in the first place. Once more that 50 members need to agree on something restrictin…

ICAO (the UN) set their codes this way. There are 4 letters, the first 2 are a country code.

It doesn't work any better than the 3 letter codes you see on your ticket. It's just different.

Re: The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

#119

Post by marcosdumay »

rippercushions wrote: post #3

You think airport codes are bad, try airline codes. The IATA standard is still only two (2) letters, leading to insanity like recycling codes after one airline dies, meaning the meaning of the code is time-dependent, and, even worse, "controlled duplicates" where two airlines are intentionally assigned the same code at the same time , since they fly in different parts of the world and pinky-promise to never overlap.…

The goal of those codes is to improve the communication, mostly between the airplane and air traffic controllers.

The one large issue with the IATA aircompany codes is that there aren't enough to every one in activity, even if you extend them with not allowed tokens (like numbers). Those codes were never meant to identify any entity in an atemporal matter.

Re: The maddening mess of airport codes [video]

#120

Post by marcosdumay »

SoftTalker wrote: post #23
woodruffw wrote: post #2

The entire world of airline coding (as in "encoding") is fascinating to me: there are all kinds of ancient semi-human-readable formats like ACARS[1] and IATA Teletype[2] that are still pushing data around. Not the mention standard meal codes[3], like BLML for "bland meal" and CLML for "celebration cake meal." [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_teletype_system [3]: http…

I've also wondered why cryptically abbrevated things like NOTAMS are still the way they are. It made sense in a teletype/telegraph world where brevity was worth time and money. From wikipedia, this is a typical NOTAM: A1234/06 NOTAMR A1212/06 Q)EGTT/QMXLC/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5129N00028W005 A)EGLL B)0609050500 C)0704300500 E)DUE WIP TWY B SOUTH CLSD BTN 'F' AND 'R'. TWY 'R' CLSD BTN 'A' AND 'B' AND DIVERTED VIA NEW GREEN…

It's because being standardized is more important than being easy to read.

Now that we can make clients that expand those codes for you, people are working towards a more standardized, more verbose language with a much larger lookup table and computer-friendly separators.

Post reply on HN