What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

FAA Acts To Preserve ADS-B Data Privacy (1090 ES)

Yep, it's a good start. I thought something like this was in the works and it's why I finally broke down and decided to use the 330ES transponder on my Rocket and the GNX375 in the -8.

Many will scoff at the privacy issue, but it continues to be a big issue with me.
 
I agree. I don't mind family and friends tracking my flights, but don't want the rest of the world following my every move. I'll be taking advantage of any option available to maintain my privacy. Thanks for your post Carl. John
 
It's a good start, and a huge initial step by the FAA in overcoming their own bureaucracy. The business aviation and RTCA have been pushing 1090 privacy for awhile and it's nice to see some payoff.

ds
 
It will be interesting to see how this works in practise. When everything is broadcast on open airways, there's not much to prevent the FlightAware's of the world from just receiving that data and posting it. *Your* ADS-B system will still broadcast your identity, I suspect (apart from the Anonymous mode).
 
It will be interesting to see how this works in practise. When everything is broadcast on open airways, there's not much to prevent the FlightAware's of the world from just receiving that data and posting it. *Your* ADS-B system will still broadcast your identity, I suspect (apart from the Anonymous mode).

Right. It's going to come down to "convincing" the various 3rd party groups to play ball with the anonymous guidelines. Anybody with enough receivers under their own control effectively sidesteps the effort.
 
The solution is on the back-end, not the front, but it's probably too late for this: stop publishing in the open all the information about a plane's ownership, address, etc., or the pilot's personal information. Think of this data like auto licenses and license plates...I can set up all sorts of cameras and install license plate ID software, but if all I get is a plate number, and I can't get to the owner info (and from there to owner's address, etc.), it's no good to me.
 
Private ICAO Address

Right. It's going to come down to "convincing" the various 3rd party groups to play ball with the anonymous guidelines. Anybody with enough receivers under their own control effectively sidesteps the effort.

I think the idea here is that the 1090ES transponders will be programmed with a "private" ICAO code that can't be translated into or traced back to an N Number. Obviously, if someone can get a visual or radio ID on an aircraft (and N number) while tracking it's ICAO code, this system can be defeated unless the codes change periodically. An aircraft owner can chose to have their identity removed from the public aircraft registration database if you really want privacy.

The 3rd party flight tracking vendors have already cooperated with the FAA for a number of years regarding requests to block N-Numbers from flight tracking providers. In the pre-ADSB days, N-numbers were not typically broadcast to flight tracking websites if you were not "in the system" with ATC, i.e. squawking 1200 and not on a flight plan or on flight following. However, if you were flying with a mode S transponder (even non ES) your N number would be visible on some tracking websites even while squawking 1200.

I put the pre-ADSB ID blocking system to test starting back in 2014. The reason for this was that an eccentric anti-aircraft resident near my local airport started sending threatening letters to aircraft owners telling us that we were flying over his neighborhood and would we please fly elsewhere or he would “elevate” the complaint. He indicated the street intersection location of the neighborhood but signed the letters under the name of a non-existent home-owners association and used a fake return address. Since this person's "neighborhood" was 2 miles upwind of the departure end of our field's runway, I figured that I was typically over 2000' AGL anytime I did a straight out departure, which is pretty rare because normal noise abatement practice is to make a right 45 departure from this runway which puts me well north of his area. Nevertheless, there was absolutely no way that he could be getting a visual ID on my 3 inch N-numbers so I figured that he must somehow be obtaining the registration info from a flight tracking website. As it turns out, our airport's Noise Abatement Office web page has a link to a real tracking site called "WebTrak" to display active aircraft and the noise monitor measurements. However, on the flights that I supposedly received the letters for, I was flying VFR and squawking 1200. Then I discovered that the other VFR folks that were receiving these letters all had mode S transponders and the real time flight tracking sites could display N numbers for “not in the system” aircraft squawking 1200 if they had MODE S transponders. After this discovery, I made a request through the FAA (they have a website for it) to have my N number blocked from flight tracking services. It turns out, the FAA doesn’t actually block the broadcast of N-Numbers to flight tracking web sites (actually, they can with a higher level request), but they have an agreement with these sites that in order to have access to the FAA tracking data, they must honor N number blocking requests. Nevertheless, since I made the request, I’ve no longer been able to find my N number on the tracking sites and I also stopped receiving the threatening letters. I realize that someone could also just listen to a radio to determine the ID of aircraft which is why some with a bigger privacy needs than me use anonymous call sign services like fltplan.com “dot com” call signs, but I think this is only available for turbine aircraft.

Skylor

RV-8
 
Last edited:
I think the idea here is that the 1090ES transponders will be programmed with a "private" ICAO code that can't be translated into or traced back to an N Number. Obviously, if someone can get a visual or radio ID on an aircraft (and N number) while tracking it's ICAO code, this system can be defeated unless the codes change periodically. An aircraft owner canchose to have their identity removed from the public aircraft registration database if you really want privacy.
Exactly. Rotating random 1090ES codes won't fix the problem but it'll make it harder for the casual airplane tracker to specifically identify us.

The hard reality is that if you're flying around and blasting out a unique transponder signal, whether it's your Mode S address or just a discrete four-digit transponder code, you can be tracked by crowd-sourced flight tracking websites even without ADS-B or data from the FAA.

Dave
 
I An aircraft owner canchose to have their identity removed from the public aircraft registration database if you really want privacy.

How does one do this? I know you can have your *pilot* license information made non-public, but I have not found any way to make the *aircraft* information private (other than have the FAA not distribute ADS-B-derived information to outside sources, like Flightaware, Flightradar24, etc.).
 
One way big corporations or owners with deep pockets hide the aircraft information data is to have a third party, like a bank, actually own the aircraft and then enter into a lease agreement for the exclusive use of the aircraft to operate it.

There is what I would call a parallel system to the FAA radar system that identifies aircraft by receiving Mode S data and markets the information to FBOs and others. It is run by a company called Passur. Check out Passur.com for more info. The key element here is that Passur collects the data with there own equipment independent from the FAA. From what I learned from one of their reps some years back, they had been at it for over 10 years at that time. They're still going strong from what I can tell. Even when aircraft were in the BARR program, FBOs, subscribers like Signature, always knew who was inbound to an airport to park at their ramp or a competitors.
 
There is what I would call a parallel system to the FAA radar system that identifies aircraft by receiving Mode S data and markets the information to FBOs and others. It is run by a company called Passur. Check out Passur.com for more info. The key element here is that Passur collects the data with there own equipment independent from the FAA. From what I learned from one of their reps some years back, they had been at it for over 10 years at that time. They're still going strong from what I can tell. Even when aircraft were in the BARR program, FBOs, subscribers like Signature, always knew who was inbound to an airport to park at their ramp or a competitors.

Products such as this, go away or become diminished with the measures proposed here. The FAA will allow you to keep your ICAO number private (today it is public record). Then tools such as the one you describe, can no longer associate your squawk detail with an aircraft owner.

Larry
 
I hope the FAA does not allow anyone to monetize the third-party call signs in Phase 2, like third parties do now for special N-Numbers!
I can't find anything when I google "third party callsign." Anybody else have luck with that?

But apparently you *can* buy your own callsign from ICAO for the bargain price of $4,000... :eek:

ds
 
I can't find anything when I google "third party callsign." Anybody else have luck with that?

But apparently you *can* buy your own callsign from ICAO for the bargain price of $4,000... :eek:

ds

google "dot com call sign" (one example)

Skylor
 
The solution is on the back-end, not the front, but it's probably too late for this: stop publishing in the open all the information about a plane's ownership, address, etc., or the pilot's personal information. Think of this data like auto licenses and license plates...I can set up all sorts of cameras and install license plate ID software, but if all I get is a plate number, and I can't get to the owner info (and from there to owner's address, etc.), it's no good to me.

Precisely.

I asked the FAA about this years ago. Their complete response, misspelling and all, was "Are databases are public for safety."

:rolleyes:
 
ICAO and N number

The ASDI subscribers (those getting the FAA ads-b data) have reason to respect the privacy of those who have requested blocking. But, when you look at ADSB exchange, they have a network of crowdsourced ADS-B feed, so they do not rely on FAA feeds. The story they tell, they don't see reasons to suppress any of it. It is out there on the airwaves, no encryption at all, so they are just harvesting and sharing. The net result is, ASDI blocking has worked with Flightaware, but it wouldn't with adsbexchange.

The rotating ICAO code should change all that. A temporary code (as long as it doesn't cause the N number to correctly populate), will give anonymity. Someone could hang around airports with a ADS-B receiver and binocs- link the ICAO's to N numbers, but that is a lot of work and the link would only be good for a month or so.

Step in the right direction. Maybe I should have done ES.
 
The reality is that the technology genie is out of the bottle on this one, and it's going to be **** near impossible to put it back. You've been legislated to install systems that have unique identifiers built into an open-air broadcast stream. Calls to ATC are also done on open-air broadcasts. Correlating ATC calls to your unique identifiers probably isn't a difficult task for some combination of voice recognition and other software.
 
Need to know...

The reality is that the technology genie is out of the bottle on this one, and it's going to be **** near impossible to put it back. You've been legislated to install systems that have unique identifiers built into an open-air broadcast stream. Calls to ATC are also done on open-air broadcasts. Correlating ATC calls to your unique identifiers probably isn't a difficult task for some combination of voice recognition and other software.

Yes, a positive, albeit surprising step.
Their real adventure will be trying to track (and penalize) Non-ADSB compliant flyers who simply refuse to install it and operate on the fringes of "required airspace" anyway.
Land of the free right?

Happy Vets day BTW, brothers in arms...:)
V/R
Smokey
 
Well, I have the 375 installed and now have a clean PAPR thanks to a recent cross country. I didn't talk to anybody during this flight to nowhere, and requesting the report was an afterthought.

Yet here was all the details of my journey, available to anybody with an internet connection, in spectacular detail.

Now that I've lived it, I don't like it one bit.

Bring on the anonymous mode, please!
 
Also interesting, the outbound leg of the flight was in formation with another newly equipped ADSB aircraft and ATC asked wing (me) to "go to standby" for the flight.

It was my understanding that once equipped, it was a violation to disable the ADSB out if the aircraft is in motion. When asked, the Approach guy (Joshua Approach) indicated that he "had no ADSB capability".

I wonder if he is aware of the deadline looming?
 
It was my understanding that once equipped, it was a violation to disable the ADSB out if the aircraft is in motion. When asked, the Approach guy (Joshua Approach) indicated that he "had no ADSB capability".

There was a rule in July that fixed that.
 
Last edited:
I really enjoy calling up various RVs that I'm aware of and seeing where they are and what they're doing, via FlightAware or FlightRadar24. It's the only flying I get to do anymore.

I'd miss it if everyone went invisible.
 
And it's that very fine line between benign (though still creepy) snooping and nefarious intent that some of us find so disturbing.
 
And it's that very fine line between benign (though still creepy) snooping and nefarious intent that some of us find so disturbing.

Creepy? Ouch!. To me it's not much different than virtually hanging out at the airport and watching planes. I like to look at N numbers and google who they are and where they're from.

Or sitting on the deck, seeing a plane going overhead and calling up FlightAware because I fly vicariously know and I wonder who it is and where it's going.

But maybe I'm alone in being transfixed by such things. Wouldn't surprise me.

I'd be curious to know what sort of nefarious things people have been doing with FlightAware/FlightRadar24? I get the competitive/security concerns of the corporate types, I'm just unfamiliar with what's happening with GA types.
 
Last edited:
Creepy? Ouch!. To me it's not much different than virtually hanging out at the airport and watching planes. I like to look at N numbers and google who they are and where they're from.

Or sitting on the deck, seeing a plane going overhead and calling up FlightAware because I fly vicariously know and I wonder who it is and where it's going.

But maybe I'm alone in being transfixed by such things. Wouldn't surprise me.

I'd be curious to know what sort of nefarious things people have been doing with FlightAware/FlightRadar24? I get the competitive/security concerns of the corporate types, I'm just unfamiliar with what's happening with GA types.

Ok, let's try the scenario in a different context:

A guy is hanging out in the Walmart parking lot and is watching cars come and go. Let's pretend he has the ability to Google license plates and see where the cars are from and who the owner is. This guy spots your wife or daughter and takes an interest. He decides to track her movement for the rest of the day on his iPad because he is transfixed by such things.

Even if the Walmart guy takes no action, is such behavior creepy or acceptable? And if you think it's acceptable, certainly you can imagine a nefarious next step, no?
 
Last edited:
The 1090ES privacy solition from the FAA includes:

1. Never anonymous from any all trackers, including the FAA itself.

2. 1090ES call sign solution entails paying a private party to issue and manage call signs with fees and subscriptions

Currently available UAT 978 anonymous option has neither of those drawbacks.

Jim
 
Ok, let's try the scenario in a different context:

A guy is hanging out in the Walmart parking lot and is watching cars come and go. Let's pretend he has the ability to Google license plates and see where the cars are from and who the owner is. This guy spots your wife or daughter and takes an interest. He decides to track her movement for the rest of the day on his iPad because he is transfixed by such things.

Even if the Walmart guy takes no action, is such behavior creepy or acceptable? And if you think it's acceptable, certainly you can imagine a nefarious next step, no?

Yeah, stalking. I get it. I presume it's done all the time in Walmart parking lots (I stay away from Walmarts). I'm just not aware of how this is being done with FlightRadar24 etc. Is this a problem? I mean, yes, there are lots of things that could happen. I tend to think many scenarios are not significant or credible risks.

But in using the same word that I do -- transfixed -- you've obviously made the connection between me watching planes on FlightRadar24 and your creep in the Walmart parking lot.

It seems a bit over the top to me. But I suppose this is why they invented places like Idaho.
 
Last edited:
I'm not suggesting you are a creep Bob. I'm just pointing out that following a person's progress as they go about their day does not become more or less acceptable based upon the vehicle they happen to be in at the moment.

Let's say you overhear a conversation at the FBO and find out that a 17 year female student is going on a solo cross country in a rented 150. Is it OK to track her progress on your iPad? When she lands and jumps in her Honda to leave the airport, is it OK to track her progress for the rest of the day?
 
Last edited:
Screen shot of my Pi-Aware desktop browser homepage that displays whenever the computer is running (weather is low today, not much local activity). I can click on any of the targets to get ID and route info....and often do just for grins...especially when it is one of the local flyers. I've never considered myself as a stalker or intruding on someone's privacy.

Sure is fun to watch that Atlas 747-800 freighter arriving from Mexico as it is aimed for a flyover at 2900' over my house while entering the pattern at HSV....man, that thing thunders! But now I'm reading that this is some sort of deviant behavior.... :(

pi-aware.jpg
 
Last edited:
Let's not get pedantic. There is a big difference between watching airplanes (things), and taking an uninvited interest in where specific people are, and what they are doing. Both behaviors have been described in this thread.
 
Let's not get pedantic. There is a big difference between watching airplanes (things), and taking an uninvited interest in where specific people are, and what they are doing. Both behaviors have been described in this thread.

When I see my airport neighbors headed for breakfast on Saturday morning I am watching specific people and I have a good idea what they are doing..... ;)

And since my RV-6 has been equipped with an APRS transmitter for over ten years I've been informed several times that I've been watched!
 
Last edited:
Im one of the few people left on the planet who actually stops and looks up when a plane flies over. I find it magical and do not think being interested in it's travels is any weirder than being interested in the trip reports that people post.

It's all part of the magic to me.

I probably learn more about you looking at your VAF bio than I do seeing your plane is over a latitude/longitude and heading east.
 
Public disclosure of personal information should be up to the individual. I have no issue with Facebook, trip reports, or even if you have your own tracker and WANT to be watched. But people forget that not everyone feels the same way. Just because you don't mind being tracked does not transfer over to others.

Perhaps I was brought up in a different era. I respect others privacy and will preserve my own as much as possible. To that end, even though I have the capability to track a neighbor (for example), I won't do so without explicit permission. Tracking a neighbor's car is wrong, and so is tracking their airplane. Their business is their own.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the invite Sam. I hope you are not offended that I cant extend the same to you.

No offense, Michael--just would appreciate not having behavior being labeled as detrimental to society just because it conflicts with your sensibilities.

Oops...gotta run...just heard something fly over....might be an RV I recognize! :)
 
Last edited:
I'm not in a position to determine what behavior society seems unacceptable - I just live here. I just don't think pilots get a "pass" on an activity that, in in virtually any other circumstance, would be highly offensive and or borderline criminal.

If they put transponders on cars and allowed the public to determine ownership and track movement in real time there would be an immediate public uproar - and with **** good reason.

It's hypocritical to apply a different privacy standard because of our chosen mode of transportation.
 
I'm not in a position to determine what behavior society seems unacceptable - I just live here. I just don't think pilots get a "pass" on an activity that, in in virtually any other circumstance, would be highly offensive and or borderline criminal.

If they put transponders on cars and allowed the public to determine ownership and track movement in real time there would be an immediate public uproar - and with **** good reason.

It's hypocritical to apply a different privacy standard because of our chosen mode of transportation.

Michael, I was willing to cut you some slack.....then you go and imply watching aircraft tracks is "highly offensive and or borderline criminal" and "hypocritical"....sorry...that crossed a line for me. But I realize your beef isn't with me but with the entire ATC universe. If putting transponders in cars would eliminate nearly all traffic collisions and deaths I suspect a huge portion of the general population would be on-board.

We'll have to just go our separate ways on this one.
 
Last edited:
The reality (alternately, MY reality) is that I value privacy and see no need for the 7 (?) billion people on earth to know where my airplane is at any given time. Certainly, ATC has a need to know, but beyond that, I only see downsides to that information being public. I can come up with dozens of scenarios (and I guarantee some will come to fruition) where the information can and will be used for less than beneficial purposes.
 
Sam it's clear we are a million miles apart on this and that's just fine. But there is one point I need to clarify. You and others in this thread have discussed taking an interest in the goings on of PEOPLE (through the aircraft information) - that's where it crosses the line. I often look up at airplanes and wonder where they are going, but that's where it ends. If you know (or can find out) who those people are, then track them, that's a whole new can of worms.

Watching/trackng PEOPLE (even pilots) without their consent is socially unacceptable.
 
I'm not in a position to determine what behavior society seems unacceptable - I just live here. I just don't think pilots get a "pass" on an activity that, in in virtually any other circumstance, would be highly offensive and or borderline criminal.

If they put transponders on cars and allowed the public to determine ownership and track movement in real time there would be an immediate public uproar - and with **** good reason.

It's hypocritical to apply a different privacy standard because of our chosen mode of transportation.

Here, here!

I'm installing an echoUAT unit and, based on this thread, plan on making it "removable." Reg says "must be on if installed," I say uninstall it unless absolutely needed.
 
Here, here!

I'm installing an echoUAT unit and, based on this thread, plan on making it "removable." Reg says "must be on if installed," I say uninstall it unless absolutely needed.

Once the FAA has generated a performance report after your initial installation they know your aircraft is a 2020 ADS-B installation.......suspect your logic would be sketchy if push came to shove. Then there is that pesky logbook entry....... :)

Privacy is a touchy subject, but privacy is pretty much a thing of the past in our current technological culture.....way to many breadcrumbs being dropped to stay totally anonymous.
 
Last edited:
If putting transponders in cars would eliminate nearly all traffic collisions and deaths I suspect a huge portion of the general population would be on-board.

Well if some is good, more is better eh? Why not just put everyone in jail cells? Then there would be no shootings or stabbings!

A lot of things sound like a great idea on the surface, I'm not busting on you. Well maybe a little - I think you just haven't thought it through. However, everything government does has unintended (or "undisclosed") consequences. Life has risk, and the sort of people who are addicted to power (read, "The Prince" - only 61 pages) do not ever have your best interests at heart. Statistically, that is the sort of person attracted to a career in politics...

Our Constitution guarantees us an unlimited Right to travel among the States without papers as one of many guarantees against tyranny. A license to operate a motor vehicle was an understandable compromise, but you don't have to broadcast it on radio everywhere you travel. For comparison, just consider that it is a felony to place any kind of tracking device on an individual's car or person without a warrant (it is a violation of our Civil Rights) - punishable by up to 10 years in jail for each offense.

Americans are slowly forgetting why we first utterly denied any BUT enumerated rights to government, then enumerated these individual rights to reinforce the fact that government cannot simply do what it wants. People who crave power work tirelessly to help that process along, because they know a simple truth: If you don't know what your rights are, for all practical purposes you don't have any.
 
A lot of things sound like a great idea on the surface, I'm not busting on you. Well maybe a little - I think you just haven't thought it through.

I thought it through before I posted. :)

Moderator hat pulled on; Let's not get too political, VAF rules will become a factor.
 
Last edited:
The reality (alternately, MY reality) is that I value privacy and see no need for the 7 (?) billion people on earth to know where my airplane is at any given time. Certainly, ATC has a need to know, but beyond that, I only see downsides to that information being public. I can come up with dozens of scenarios (and I guarantee some will come to fruition) where the information can and will be used for less than beneficial purposes.

Agreed. There is a reason why it is a felony to place a tracking device on any person or their vehicle without a warrant. The regs say that my ADS-B must be turned on if installed. I'll be installing my echoUAT so that it is "un-installable" in 10 seconds or less.
 
The reality (alternately, MY reality) is that I value privacy and see no need for the 7 (?) billion people on earth to know where my airplane is at any given time. Certainly, ATC has a need to know, but beyond that, I only see downsides to that information being public. I can come up with dozens of scenarios (and I guarantee some will come to fruition) where the information can and will be used for less than beneficial purposes.

As much of a problem of ADS-B data being public is that it's linked to open, publicly-accessible registration databases. Any fool with an internet connection can look up an airplane, see who owns it and where they live. From that it's pretty simple to get up to all manner of misdeeds. On the mild end, imagine someone who despises "those ****ed little airplanes" and uses a tracking website to pick out airplanes flying near their house, then sends threatening letters to the owners and makes reports to the FAA of reckless flying.

Imagine for a moment what havoc would descend on society if cars were equipped with always-broadcasting transponders, visible to anyone on the internet, and anybody could look up your home address and driver's license information just off your license plate. Someone decides to take "revenge" for you cutting them off, someone decides to stalk you (or a family member) with real-time location data, extortion/blackmail/etc...

This sort of thing going on even before widespread GPS and internet led to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act:
The DPPA was passed in reaction to the a series of abuses of drivers' personal information held by government. The 1989 death of actress Rebecca Schaeffer was a prominent example of such abuse. In that case, a private investigator, hired by an obsessed fan, was able to obtain Rebecca Schaeffer's address through her California motor vehicle record. The fan used her address information to stalk and to kill her. Other incidents cited by Congress included a ring of Iowa home robbers who targeted victims by writing down the license plates of expensive cars and obtaining home address information from the State's department of motor vehicles.

Senator Barbara Boxer, who sponsored 103 S. 1589, a version of the DPPA, cited other examples where stalkers were able to find victims by simply visiting a DMV. She argued that in "34 States, someone [could] walk into a State Motor Vehicle Department with your license plate number and a few dollars and walk out with your name and home address." Senator Boxer also said:

"In Tempe, AZ, a woman was murdered by a man who had obtained her home address from that State's DMV.

And, in California, a 31-year-old man copied down the license plate numbers of five women in their early twenties, obtained their home address from the DMV and then sent them threatening letters at home.

It bothers me that there's no true anonymous option on a 1090 system. It bothers me more that all this information is published openly. It's one thing to show "here's where airplanes are" and identify public air carrier flights, but private flights should be anonymized and the registration data should be need-to-know only. Of course, even if all that changed tonight, it would be years (decades?) before all that data turned over.

I'm looking into an LLC for registration simply to hide my personal information, not for liability purposes. Anyone know of a 978 solution that plays well with Dynon? Or a 978 box with built-in Mode C (i.e. not requiring a separate box)?
 
On the mild end, imagine someone who despises "those ****ed little airplanes" and uses a tracking website to pick out airplanes flying near their house, then sends threatening letters to the owners...

I don't have to imagine it...been there, lived it. That's why you won't find my N-Number on Flight Aware, MyRadar, etc. See post #8 in this thread.

Skylor
 
Yep. I know of several people who have been through the same thing. It's ugly.

My only hope is that once the fleet is fully equipped, enough people (or maybe one, with enough pull) are going to get unfairly violated that there will be a public outcry to lock this data down.

I just hope it doesn't take a murder to make people realize how crazy it is to have our info out there.
 
Once the FAA has generated a performance report after your initial installation they know your aircraft is a 2020 ADS-B installation.......suspect your logic would be sketchy if push came to shove. Then there is that pesky logbook entry....... :)

Privacy is a touchy subject, but privacy is pretty much a thing of the past in our current technological culture.....way to many breadcrumbs being dropped to stay totally anonymous.

I may have to research a bit. I know avionics may be "removed for service" and placarded even though the logs show them "installed." Maybe a red streamer installed in its place clearly saying, "Inop - removed for service" or some such...
 
Back
Top