Possible updates required in patterns.json about rs1090

[espinielli]

Reading ICAO meeting resolutions it looks like States do not fully comply with correct allocation of the blocks...

[espinielli]

ICAO docs only say for example for Malta

[xoolive]

About Malta: that's exactly 4d2000 to 4d23ff, but they obviously went over their limit already. I am wondering whether there has been an update in those documents that we are not aware of.

[espinielli]

Addresses are allocated (to my knowledge) in Annex 10 Volume III.
From ICAO page [1], the last Amendment of volume 3 is from 2021...

Are the examples above correct ones, or errors?

[1] https://store.icao.int/en/annexes/annex-10

[espinielli]

For 9H-VVI you can see it is in the list of the registered aircraft in Malta [2]...unfortunately they do not provide ICAO 24-bit addresses.
It is also possible that they are using a temporary address...this can be done for one year and eventually renewable...
Is this the only instance of a Maltese address beyond the allocated block?

For the others it is all reverse engineering, I guess.

[2] https://www.transport.gov.mt/aviation/aircraft-flight-standards/registration-of-aircraft-2663

[xoolive]

No I see many aircraft beyond the upper limit, with tail numbers associated to Malta.
I wonder how much reverse engineering is really necessary here... 😭

[espinielli]

Others are using the default ranges
https://github.com/Mictronics/readsb-protobuf/blob/dev/webapp/src/script/readsb/backend/flags.ts

[xoolive]

Well similar to my file here...