Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Where are you going? Breaking the airport codes
Laura Daily explains the history and selection of airport codes. (www.dallasnews.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Interesting on how she only went through IATA codes, but didn't touch on ICAO codes. That would have been a good comparison topic to also get into.
The ICAO codes in the contiguous United States and in Canada are boring - just add a K or a C to the front. Otherwise, it can be really confusing to most people how the ICAO codes are generated (it makes sense to me, since it's kind of like a grid system).
Not entirely true. Those in the pacific region start with a P. PANC=ANC for anchorage, yet PAFA=FAI for Fairbanks. PGUM for GUM.
N is for the south Pacific, where NTSU is for American Samoa. Finally, T for the Caribbean, where TJSJ=SJU for San Juan, Puerto Rico. All of those in the US.
There is a lot more that ICAO codes offer than slapping a P or C in front of the IATA code, especially like when what is used when.
N is for the south Pacific, where NTSU is for American Samoa. Finally, T for the Caribbean, where TJSJ=SJU for San Juan, Puerto Rico. All of those in the US.
There is a lot more that ICAO codes offer than slapping a P or C in front of the IATA code, especially like when what is used when.
Like I said - the contiguous US (aka - the "Lower 48") and Canada get a K or C slapped on the front. All others are based on a sort of grid system with the first letter designating the region, the second letter designating a smaller area within that region, and the last two designating the airport. Most people would not understand it.
It is not always the case that the ICAO identifier in the continental US is the IATA code with a K in front. Hilton Head, SC is an example. The IATA code for Hilton Head is HHH. The ICAO code is KHXD.
But you never stated the contiguous US, so how were we to know exactly what you were saying?
Anyway, you're right. Most people would not understand it, which goes to prove my point that the author could/should have gone through ICAO codes to explain how they are used, where they are used, when they are used, and how they compare to what the IATA uses. Thank you for proving my point so easily.
Anyway, you're right. Most people would not understand it, which goes to prove my point that the author could/should have gone through ICAO codes to explain how they are used, where they are used, when they are used, and how they compare to what the IATA uses. Thank you for proving my point so easily.
my fault. you did say contiguous US. but you still prove my point about ICAO vs. IATA and needing a good comparison.