Subject: Re: [Drip] w/what part of an aircraft should its ID be associated?

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:39:42 +0200

Le 28/08/2020 à 18:16, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
> I am not an aviation expert by any definition of such.  But years ago I 
> was working with Boeing on use of HIP at the 777 manufacturing bay.  
> Then I learned that every part of a plane and how it was used in 
> assembly needs to be tracked in case NTSB needs the information. Pretty 
> much everything is serialized, it seemed.  I recall an crash (Air Alaska 
> MD80?) from somewhere in CA heading north over the Pacific coast.  It 
> was determined it what the screw controlling the aileron?  Because of 
> extensive data on all parts in the planes they supposedly were able to 
> pull all similar planes for repairs and avoid more loss of life.
> 
> I personally was involved in a bad engine problem on my company vehicle 
> when I worked at American Motors.  It was determined that the wrong 
> temperature was noted when the cylinder shafts were bored and the wrong 
> cylinder rings were used.  Because of data on my engine block (not the 
> VIN), they were able to pull the whole family of engines (49 others) and 
> replace the rings before they got in customer hands.  Expensive repair, 
> but cheaper than 49 more ruined engine blocks (I got a replacement engine).
> 
> We are surrounded by numbers and identities.  But what is important 
> here?  What can function as a UA Remote ID?  Can it be used for other 
> UA/UAS/Aviation Identities; but this is secondary.

The other day a year 2019 documentary on 'Internet and mobility' shown a 
Volocopter drone with a person oboard, whose frame was painted with an 
identification number of maybe 4 capital letters and digits, maybe a 
dash too.

But the Volocopter person said that they need 5G (a telecom technology) 
for these flying objects.

So probably there will be an issue in selecting an identifier between 
what the air industry likes and what the telecom industry likes.

Or maybe these 5G claims for drones are probably hard to realize because 
of obvious technicalities.  I have recently seen examples of how people 
stated that Bluetooth is best for COVID distanciation apps, large 
efforts to write and deploy apps in smartphones even though a few also 
said how Bluetooth is not good for localization (too approximate, too 
many falses); finally nobody uses these apps.

I dont know how this selection of identifier for drones will be.  Maybe 
build it and we'll see.

Alex

> 
> On 8/28/20 11:36 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 28/08/2020 à 09:11, Andrei Gurtov a écrit :
>>> I am sure they had such discussions in the context of cars and guns. 
>>> There are a couple of well-defined places where the serial number is 
>>> physically engraved. So as long as those parts are not changed, the 
>>> serial number and identity stays.
>>
>> In the context of automobiles, there are many IDs.
>>
>> There is this Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) engraved on a solid
>> part of the inner frame and under the windshield, and probably in other
>> places.  More:
>>
>> - the list is non-exhaustive, as I am not a specialist and dont know
>>   them all.
>> - the license plate number.
>> - the ID of the mandatory insurance and of additional complimentary
>>   insurances.
>> - potentially the number of belonging to a club.
>> - an anti-steal ID engraved on windows.
>> - an RFID tag hidden at a strategic point known only by owner, and read
>>   when crossing a border.
>> - an ID of the GNSS tracking device (GPS, Galileo, etc.) with their
>>   2G/3G/4G identifiers but also of other long range UHF that might
>>   penetrate better through or around concrete, such as underground
>>   parking).  A car might have several built-in GPS devices.
>> - the IDs engraved in some critical parts, that will last probably as
>>   long as the automobile core identity lasts.  Such part is the 'engine
>>   cradle' on which the engine sits.  In worst crashes this part is an
>>   indicator, because it would suffer least deforming, when all else
>>   bent, melt or fused.  It's used, among other things, during insurance
>>   analysis.
>> - the names the owner might give to this particular automobile to
>>   distinguish it from a set of things alike.  This name might be just
>>   in one's mind (car1, car2, car3; or the small, the large, etc.), but
>>   it might also be printed on tags on QR codes and glued in some
>>   place where a camera can read it.
>> - the color of it, or the color scheme.  Some legislation imposes a
>>   single color per car.  These colors have codes, such as 'Yellow 48'
>>   and also codes for the method of realization 'metallic blue' but also
>>   more familiar codes like 'Chartres Blue' which is a Blue from the
>>   stained window of a monument.  Exceptions are allowed; these
>>   exceptions are very complex.  For example, it could be a car that is
>>   red in front and yellow in back; it's two colors but still legal.  It
>>   could be a painting made of small black and white triangles
>>   arbitrarily arranged, which is not a color per se but admitted as a
>>   color in test cars.
>> - the way in which law enforcement personnel identify automobiles when
>>   reporting to one another about a potential target: e.g. "une 208 grise
>>   matriculée BR" means it's a Peugeot 208 of gray color whose licence
>>   plate starts with BR.  It is an approximate visual identification.
>>   Despite this approximation it works perfectly fine in a small
>>   radio geographical area and at a given time.
>> - a signature of the visual identification as provided by a camera.
>>
>> I guess for each of these ways to identifies automobiles there is a
>> similar way for drones or for flying taxis.
>>
>>> In the context of manned aircraft, there is a clear definition of 
>>> being airworthy. So in this case a serial number is like a 
>>> certificate given by authorities/manufacturer that the current 
>>> collection of components forms a capable aircraft. Any significant 
>>> change of components means a technical inspection and confirmation
>>> of the serial number&registration (although I am sure it is still 
>>> physically displayed somewhere on aircraft body).
>>
>> This airworthiness might have an equivalent in 'ratification' of
>> automobiles? ('homologation', fr.)
>>
>> Independent DEKRA organisation and a few others do this 'ratification'
>> before new models could reach the public roads.  But recently a growing
>> number of automobile testing is ignoring extensively this 'ratification'.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> br Andrei
>>>
>>> On 8/26/2020 6:29 PM, Card, Stu wrote:
>>>> This an attempt to kick off discussion on the list of a challenge we 
>>>> have been discussing in various other groups. My text below was sent 
>>>> to some but not all members of the International Civil Aviation 
>>>> Organization (ICAO) Aviation Trust Framework Study Group (IATF/TFSG) 
>>>> in the context of attempting to capture requirements for a 
>>>> harmonized digital identifier for _all_ aircraft (and
>>>> perhaps other entities in the aviation ecosystem).
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Stuart W. Card* 
>>>> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> Date: 
>>>> Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:52 PM Subject: morphing ID? (was: Digital 
>>>> Identity use case) ... Sounds like the serial number might be the 
>>>> _only_ part of the aircraft that can never change? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Molecules of matter, design into which those molecules are 
>>>> structured, resulting performance capabilities, all can evolve?
>>>>
>>>> So, it becomes a tautology: the ID # identifies _itself_ statically, 
>>>> and everything else dynamically?
>>>>
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>> This might sound pedantic or purely philosophical, but I am serious.
>>>>
>>>> Over time, we are likely to replace _every component_ in one of our
>>>> small UAS at the test site where I work (whether due to wear, damage 
>>>> or experimentation). If we replaced them all at once, everyone would 
>>>> agree it is a different UA that should have a different serial 
>>>> number; but because we replace them over time, incrementally, it 
>>>> remains the "same" UA and retains the same
>>>> serial number? I don't claim that is wrong, just that it is
>>>> curious, probably counter-intuitive and possibly not ideal.
>>>>
>>>> As long as the changes do not significantly alter the 
>>>> characteristics (major dimensions, mass, max climb rate, max air 
>>>> speed, maneuvering capabilities, payload capacity, wireless 
>>>> communications range, etc.), I see no problem with the aircraft 
>>>> retaining its identity and identifier; but if the aircraft is 
>>>> radically altered, it becomes a different aircraft, so perhaps 
>>>> should not retain its former ID.
>>>>
>>>> .... while making the ID # seemingly pointless, "the ID # identifies 
>>>> _itself_ statically, and everything else dynamically" might actually 
>>>> be the right answer, as registry lookups can return
>>>>  all the information of interest (IMO especially current aircraft 
>>>> characteristics, current nation-state of registration, current 
>>>> registration number, current registrant and current operator, albeit 
>>>> not necessarily all in the same registry so recursive lookups likely 
>>>> would be needed)? ----------------------------------------- Stuart 
>>>> W. Card, PhD, Principal Engineer AX Enterprize, LLC 
>>>> www.axenterprize.com <http://www.axenterprize.com> 4947 Commercial 
>>>> Drive, Yorkville NY 13495
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> Standard Robert Moskowitz
> Owner
> HTT Consulting
> C:248-219-2059
> F:248-968-2824
> E:[email-masked]
> 
> There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
> gets the credit

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:25:14 -0400

On 9/1/20 7:39 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>> I am not an aviation expert by any definition of such.  But years ago 
>> I was working with Boeing on use of HIP at the 777 manufacturing 
>> bay.  Then I learned that every part of a plane and how it was used 
>> in assembly needs to be tracked in case NTSB needs the information. 
>> Pretty much everything is serialized, it seemed.  I recall an crash 
>> (Air Alaska MD80?) from somewhere in CA heading north over the 
>> Pacific coast.  It was determined it what the screw controlling the 
>> aileron?  Because of extensive data on all parts in the planes they 
>> supposedly were able to pull all similar planes for repairs and avoid 
>> more loss of life.
>>
>> I personally was involved in a bad engine problem on my company 
>> vehicle when I worked at American Motors.  It was determined that the 
>> wrong temperature was noted when the cylinder shafts were bored and 
>> the wrong cylinder rings were used.  Because of data on my engine 
>> block (not the VIN), they were able to pull the whole family of 
>> engines (49 others) and replace the rings before they got in customer 
>> hands.  Expensive repair, but cheaper than 49 more ruined engine 
>> blocks (I got a replacement engine).
>>
> The other day a year 2019 documentary on 'Internet and mobility' shown 
> a Volocopter drone with a person oboard, whose frame was painted with 
> an identification number of maybe 4 capital letters and digits, maybe 
> a dash too.
>
> But the Volocopter person said that they need 5G (a telecom 
> technology) for these flying objects.
>

Since this is a manned aircraft, the owner had to certify the craft and 
get a tail number from their CAA.  Each one has their own rules about 
what a tail number is (FAA's start with N).

This is different from the airframe registration number.  The airframe 
number never changes.  The tail number changes for who is the operator 
(fun with leased airplanes).

> Or maybe these 5G claims for drones are probably hard to realize 
> because of obvious technicalities.

5G for a manned aircraft?  What for?  What air to ground 
communications?  Is the goal here UAM and so perhaps communicating with 
the landing services.  Or air to remote operation center?

> I have recently seen examples of how people stated that Bluetooth is 
> best for COVID distanciation apps, large efforts to write and deploy 
> apps in smartphones even though a few also said how Bluetooth is not 
> good for localization (too approximate, too many falses); finally 
> nobody uses these apps.

Many phones really do not give access to enough Bluetooth control for 
these controls.  This will also impact our plans for 
moskowitz-drip-crowd-source-rid.  Adam can discuss more of his experiences.

> I dont know how this selection of identifier for drones will be. Maybe 

That is why I am active in ICAO Digital Identity work.  Fortunately, the 
ICAO 24 bit Mode S airplane number is too small of a space to handle UA 
needs!  As are FAA tail numbers.

>>>> I am sure they had such discussions in the context of cars and 
>>>> guns. There are a couple of well-defined places where the serial 
>>>> number is physically engraved. So as long as those parts are not 
>>>> changed, the serial number and identity stays.
>>>
>>>>> This an attempt to kick off discussion on the list of a challenge 
>>>>> we have been discussing in various other groups. My text below was 
>>>>> sent to some but not all members of the International Civil 
>>>>> Aviation Organization (ICAO) Aviation Trust Framework Study Group 
>>>>> (IATF/TFSG) in the context of attempting to capture requirements 
>>>>> for a harmonized digital identifier for _all_ aircraft (and
>>>>> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> 
>>>>> Date: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:52 PM Subject: morphing ID? (was: 
>>>>> Digital Identity use case) ... Sounds like the serial number might 
>>>>> be the _only_ part of the aircraft that can never change? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> So, it becomes a tautology: the ID # identifies _itself_ 
>>>>> statically, and everything else dynamically?
>>>>>
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>> small UAS at the test site where I work (whether due to wear, 
>>>>> damage or experimentation). If we replaced them all at once, 
>>>>> everyone would agree it is a different UA that should have a 
>>>>> different serial number; but because we replace them over time, 
>>>>> incrementally, it remains the "same" UA and retains the same
>>>>> .... while making the ID # seemingly pointless, "the ID # 
>>>>> identifies _itself_ statically, and everything else dynamically" 
>>>>> might actually be the right answer, as registry lookups can return
>>>>> registration number, current registrant and current operator, 
>>>>> albeit not necessarily all in the same registry so recursive 
>>>>> lookups likely would be needed)? 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------- Stuart W. Card, PhD, 
>>>>> Principal Engineer AX Enterprize, LLC www.axenterprize.com 
>>>>> <http://www.axenterprize.com> 4947 Commercial Drive, Yorkville NY 
>>>>> 13495
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --