That’s a great story - and the explanation of diversions makes sense. Thanks for sharing that.
From what I understand, FlightAware relies on volunteers who set up ADS-B receivers in their homes to get that data. If they can’t get ADS-B data, like you say, they try to extrapolate based on the flight plan and last known position.
If a flight diverts, if they’re lucky one of their volunteers is nearby and can pick up the plane’s new track. If not, FlightAware might get confused.
I’m wondering about the legality of listening to ADS-B signals, too. In the US it’s perfectly legal, but I think it might not be in some other countries. So maybe their ADS-B coverage is more spotty or nonexistent outside the US.
It’s really trivial, too. Takes about $30 in equipment if you already have a computer running. If not, a Raspberry Pi is enough to run a receiver. I have one going now (though not plugged into FlightAware) and it’s neat to see all the data from SJC.
While I couldn’t say for sure, I’d imagine that most free countries allow one to listen in to ordinary, unencrypted radio traffic.
When was that? Something similar was a plot point in the radio show Cabin Pressure; I wonder if it was inspired by the real event.
2015-Sep-13 – it’s the yellow highlighted flight in the posted log.
Why do you think that was a Cessna? It was probably a C-17. And there’s no law that says you have to fly a flight plan to completion. You just refile in the air to wherever you want to go.
Must have been a brain-fart, I have no idea where ‘Cessna’ came from.
All B-17’s may be grounded by wing spar AD.
Hopefully the AD is financially doable.
One more brick in the wall. WW-II era warbirds are getting real long in the tooth and it won’t be that many more years before the last of them should be permanently grounded before they fall out of the sky on their own.
I don’t wish for this, but I recognize that, like an aging dog, their time will eventually come. They’re a bit too complicated to truly treat like Theseus’ Ship and replace every part piecemeal forever.
I’m here to tell you that stupid amounts of money are poured into these planes. We’re rebuilding one in in my area that might as well be built from scratch.
I don’t agree that old aircraft should be permanently grounded. I do think that any issues should be addressed to keep them airworthy.
IIRC, the Supermarine Spitfire once owned by Cliff Robertson, needed to be re-skinned to remain airworthy. Rather than undergo the extensive maintenance, this particular aircraft is on display at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. But if economically feasible, I’d rather see them airworthy.
Yes, they are being expensively maintained, barely.
What I’m suggesting is that as the WW–II generation finishes dying off, then next the folks (like me) who are young enough that WW-II lore was a big part of their childhood, the interest in WW-II airplanes will fade. As will the willingness of donors to pony up the ever increasingly insane amounts of money it takes to keep one flying.
IMO the warbird era is almost over. Another 20 years and there won’t be one in the air.
No, you! 
Ask a random 30 year old how excited he is about steam locomotives. Or even post WW-II passenger Diesels. They may not even know what you’re asking about.
Humanity is like that. Some day WW-II will be as quaint as the War of 1812 is now. There will always be a few history buffs hooked on whatever event or era. But enough, and equipped with enough money to indulge in major fantasy expenditures? That’s a very different thing.
I don’t celebrate the passing of WW-II era aviation enthusiasm. It was certainly a big part of my own formative years and the foundational advances it propelled in aviation serve all of us every day, even though almost all of them have long since been superseded by generations of subsequent progress.
But pass it will.
I disagree. the WW-II generation is gone and the Baby Boomer generation is retiring. The people with money who are restoring these planes are the generations that followed. It’s not people restoring WW-II planes, it’s people restoring any plane worthy of the effort. Some people are creating planes from scratch such as the Sikorsky S-38, S-39 or the Gee Bee racer. They dug “Glacier Girl” out of 250 ft of ice and restored it.
A B-17 wing spar doesn’t sound like much of a project in light of those aircraft.
Alas, the enthusiasm for General Aviation passed almost 40 years ago. 
When the most popular GA plane is almost 70 years old and costs almost half a million new, it’s not hard to understand.
Exactly why we’re in that situation is a little harder to understand, but I have some ideas…
My ideas:
GA manufacturers stopped making single-engine airplanes in the '80s until 1994. After 1994, production was lower. This caused the price of new airplanes and used airplanes to skyrocket.
While GA manufacturers were not building SELs, a lot of things happened. The Internet was becoming more popular. Video games became more sophisticated. Personal watercraft and quadrunners were becoming very, very popular.
In short, there were other distractions that were much cheaper and a lot easier than flying. Given the other distractions, people forgot about personal flying. Why go to all the trouble and expense of getting a pilot’s license, when you can ‘travel’ anywhere with Google, and can get visceral thrills cheaper and easier with a machine you don’t even need a license for? Why live in reality, when you have message boards and other social media sites?
I don’t think that’s quite enough to explain it. That should apply to cars too, but cars have gotten to be amazing in the past few decades, while GA aircraft have not. More power, better looks, way safer, etc. from the 70s to today. Every car now has a “glass cockpit” that added negligible cost, whereas a GA glass cockpit costs 6 figures.
I think it’s just stuck in an innovation death spiral. The FAA made it too expensive to certify new aircraft/engines/etc. So the machines get farther and farther behind, sell fewer units as a result, the prices go up, sales go down even further, even less money for innovation, and so on. And it hasn’t gotten any cheaper or easier to get a license in the first place. There’s no way out of the trap unless someone decides to spend a billion or five on a brand-new modern design, but no one’s going to do that unless it pays for itself, which it won’t.
Best hope is for personal drones or whatever we’re calling them. They’ve got some VC bucks behind them, they’re starting from a clean slate, and can avoid some of the licensing requirements via autonomy. But it’s just transport, not really “flying”.
You could argue that Light Sport Aircraft are one way out of the trap. Another is the homebuilt industry. These are not small - homebuilt sales are now about as high as factory built piston planes. In 2019, 1200 new homebuilts were finished and registered. There are about 28,000 homebuilts registered in the US, and probably an equal number or more than are still unfinished.
Homebuits are where all the innovation happens. Type Certificates are too expensive to scrap after just a few model years given the size of the market.
The other major thing that killed new light aircraft is the existence of old light aircraft, which fly just as well as the new ones, and many fly better and cost 1/10 the price. Required maintenance for aircraft and a robust aftermarket can keep those planes flying almost forever, good as new.
Why spend half a million on a Cessna 172 when you can get a perfectly good used one for $75,000, and a layman won’t be able to tell the difference between them? Or for that matter a Van’s RV-7 for $100,000 or so which will cruise 50 mph faster, use less runway and less fuel per mile than the 172 and fly much further because it’s a ‘homebuilt’ and therefore has a modern design. To be fair, it’s a two seater but it uses the same basic engine as the 172.