...unfortunately no, or at least not necessarily. And it's a national matter anyway, so no common rule over Europe. Here in tiny Belgium all fields do have an ICAO code, and I think the same applies to Holland though there are a few dubious situations like Venlo.
Again, France is the place that has it all organised, aerodromes have either an ICAO code like LF[A-Z][A-Z] or an ulmodrome code like LF4724 for the famous centre at Montpezat - the 47 indicating the département.
But there are plenty of fields in Germany, either microlight or glider, that to my knowledge do not have any official codification at all. Makes it no different to fly into them, but a bit harder to organise.
You'll not be surprised that Italy has several codificiation systems, none official, and sometimes contradicting.
PS if I sounded belligerent, I do apologise. Didn't I tell you how singled out I feel? As a microlighter with international ambitions, I seem to find no forum really fitting.
PPSS but I do have registered at this wikiAirfields site, and have already posted some updates there, but much remains to be done. It works poorly though, on my Linux environment, seems to rely heavily on Microsoft technology (ahum).
It works poorly though, on my Linux environment, seems to rely heavily on Microsoft technology (ahum).
I tried it out on the Macintosh (Firefox) and it works fine, so probably no Microsoft technology inside ;-) Haven't tried it on the iPad yet.
I updated some information on an airfield I am very familiar with. Strangely that worked anonymously without registration, which makes me somewhat suspicious regarding the information contents of this site. What kind of information can be supplied is limited by the forms provided. This may ensure some kind of common standard, but is a bit restrictive for example when entering hotel and restaurant reviews. But a good start certainly, let's see how it evolves.
Your grass strips must have some sort of code no?
I'm going to look at WikiAirports - with a name like that, and publicity here and elsewhere, it should hopefully take off in a similar vein to Wikipedia (though obviously not on such a grand scale). In the UK there are many decent airfields without an ICAO code - Cromer, Weybourne, Charlton Park. So hopefully WikiAirports at least allows entries for non-ICAO airfields in whatever country they are.
It works poorly though, on my Linux environment, seems to rely heavily on Microsoft technology (ahum).
Remember that it is a new site, and it could suffer from teething. It works nice for me, however...
If you would have done a
nmap -p22,25,80,443 -O www.wikiairports.com
on your Linux environment, you would have seen that wikiairports.com is running on Linux as well. Try to install Firefox, I'm sure it will work nicely in that browser.
I have added some airfields to wikiairports.com, and an ICAO code is not required. So you could add all your nice little microlight grass strips using their name and long/lat...
I like the site and have started populating it. Let's all join in and it could be a great resource. By the way the point of a wiki is that it can be edited by anyone but the group moderates changes. ie don't like what someone says in the description, change it.
Wikiairports is just what we need! Just need to advertise it so people will start filling in the airport reports.
JasonC: By the way the point of a wiki is that it can be edited by anyone but the group moderates changes.
Yes, and that's exactly my problem. Untrusted and unverified information from an unknown source is worse than no information at all. One well known news magazine here in Germany recently undertook a study regarding review portals on the internet (customer electronics products as well as restaurants and hotels). They found out that most of the entries were fake, either written by the manufacturer/restaurant owner to praise his product/service or by the competition to the contrary effect. Some large companies allegedly even employ staff to write "reviews" of their products on the internet.
If this thing stays anonymous, I'm not going to use it.
If this thing stays anonymous, I'm not going to use it.
I can see the argument, but do find the conclusion harsh. How about using it with caution?
I doubt the average GA field will employ staff to manage their online reviews like some dodgy hostels would do on tripadvisor etc.
How about using it with caution?
My caution may consist in only reading reviews with a user name attached. So I can build my own (unwritten) list of trusted users whose contributions I can rely upon. But without a name, that's not possible.
One other problem with this site seems to the data source from which the database was filled initially. I looked up a couple of airfields I am familiar with and all of them have incorrect data in their description part. One got everything wrong apart from coordinates and elevation: Opening hours, fuel types, IFR/VFR/Night, PPR all wrong. Even the weblink produced a 404 error. As I wrote above: No information at all is better than this kind of misleading stuff!
And regarding reviews: Another airfield has got "Excellent Italian restaurant on site" added by a user with a familiar name. Although I would classify it rather as "decent restaurant for a small airfield" (but living in Italy for 20 years may have changed my opinion regarding Italian restaurants a little) I now know who to read this user's restaurant reviews. Which is really all I need. Impossible with anonymous contributions.
Hi guys,
Interesting comments about the WikiAirports website! Keep in mind that the website is still very new, and still needs some time to grow to maturity. Of course, just like with Wikipedia, there is no guarantee about the content of the site, which is also why the site focuses only on sharing experiences and "unofficial, practical information". It will become an invaluable resources for the travelling pilot, once a reasonable amount of pilots start contributing their knowledge to it.
Now regarding the anonymous discussion. I agree with the risk of having anonymous users posting biased reviews. On the other hand, so far 50% of the contributions on the site have been from anonymous users, and you don't want to discourage these useful contributions either. To workaround this problem, anonymous users are not allowed to submit airfield reviews, but must first register. Everything else is freely accessible by all.
Cheers!
JP
