2 ms·

> Sweeny himself said that it did indeed have a PIA ICAO number and that Sweeny de-anonymized it I read that too, but haven’t been able to find any source that

> Sweeny himself said that it did indeed have a PIA ICAO number and that Sweeny de-anonymized it I read that too, but haven’t been able to find any source that wasn’t Sweeny on that. Without another source, I’m more inclined to believe that the plane is part of LADD, but not PIA (or isn’t anymore). And that the plane from the Sweeney tweet from February 2022 may have been another plane entirely. Maybe Musk’s plane was enrolled at one point, but it honestly doesn’t make much sense to me to have a plane enrolled in PIA. I mean, if I had a private plane, I’d like to keep the option of flying it internationally, which you couldn’t do with an anonymized ICAO (again, according to my limited reading). Also, given the limited number of PIA planes, it would be trivial to look for ICAO numbers that disappeared at one airport and then for a new private ICAO number to appear at the same airport. The system only makes sense from a privacy perspective if you don’t have continuous monitoring of the ADS-B transponders. As things currently exist, with a small number of PIA planes, it would be obvious to find new codes.

mlindner 4y ago
That would certainly be an interesting twist on the story if it wasn't actually covered by PIA and only LADD. I haven't heard this variant before, but it would make a lot of things make sense, but it would give me more questions than answers. Even if you have PIA though, I don't thing you're restricted from flying internationally. I don't see any comment on the PIA page that says you can't fly internationally with it. Wouldn't you just revert to your original ICAO when doing international trips?
- mbreese 4y ago
  > Wouldn't you just revert to your original ICAO when doing international trips? The FAA site made it seem like changing the codes was a non-trivial “process” that wouldn’t want to do regularly. You’d have to reprogram the transponder back to your canonical code, because other countries don’t have access to the private PIA conversion lookup tables. The private ICAO numbers might also conflict with other countries “number space”. Maybe this is an easy thing, but most changes in aviation don’t seem “quick”.
  - tass 4y ago
    It might be possible that you’re not allowed to do this on your own as a pilot of a certified plane (and require to pay someone who is certified to do so) but I can change mine very easily from a setup screen in about 30 seconds. It could be a procedural thing where after switching, the FAA won’t recognise your canonical one? That’s seems a little strange, though.

mlindner 4y ago

That would certainly be an interesting twist on the story if it wasn't actually covered by PIA and only LADD. I haven't heard this variant before, but it would make a lot of things make sense, but it would give me more questions than answers. Even if you have PIA though, I don't thing you're restricted from flying internationally. I don't see any comment on the PIA page that says you can't fly internationally with it. Wouldn't you just revert to your original ICAO when doing international trips?

mbreese 4y ago
> Wouldn't you just revert to your original ICAO when doing international trips? The FAA site made it seem like changing the codes was a non-trivial “process” that wouldn’t want to do regularly. You’d have to reprogram the transponder back to your canonical code, because other countries don’t have access to the private PIA conversion lookup tables. The private ICAO numbers might also conflict with other countries “number space”. Maybe this is an easy thing, but most changes in aviation don’t seem “quick”.
- tass 4y ago
  It might be possible that you’re not allowed to do this on your own as a pilot of a certified plane (and require to pay someone who is certified to do so) but I can change mine very easily from a setup screen in about 30 seconds. It could be a procedural thing where after switching, the FAA won’t recognise your canonical one? That’s seems a little strange, though.