validate_identifiers

com.airsidelabs/aviation-tools · Verify this server

Do these aviation identifiers describe the same thing on this date? Give any combination of a registration (tail number), a Mode-S 24-bit address, an ICAO type designator, an operator name, an airline designator (IATA or ICAO), a callsign and a flight designator, plus `as_of`. Each pair that can be checked is checked, and every check comes back with a verdict -- `consistent`, `contradicted` or `unverifiable` -- the detail, and the rule that decided it. `contradictions` lists the failures on their own so an agent can act on them without reading everything. The top-level verdict is `consistent` ONLY when every check verified. When some checks passed but others could not be checked it is `consistent_where_checkable` -- a different answer, because an absent record silences exactly the checks that would catch a false claim about that airframe. `unverifiable_count` says how many checks were silent; treat anything above zero as partial coverage, not a pass. Use it before acting on identifiers assembled from more than one message: a movement message's registration against a surveillance track's address, a schedule's flight number against the operating airline, a type in a load message against the airframe's record. One contradiction is a contradiction; the top-level `verdict` never averages it away against the checks that passed. What the rules are: the registration record on the date (address, type, operator); a *previous* holder of a re-issued mark is named as such rather than reported as a mismatch; the FAA allocation arithmetic for N-numbers (an address decodes to exactly one N-number, so a wrong pairing is provable without any second source); a military or government airframe is said, not judged; the airline's callsign against its record and the FAA contractions order; the carrier inside the flight designator against the airline given; and whether the type designator exists at all. `unverifiable` means this dataset cannot say -- there is no record, or the record lacks the field -- and is a different answer from `consistent`. Do NOT read it as a pass. It does not check hex-to-country for non-US addresses, performance plausibility (range, block time) or anything live, and it does not resolve identifiers you did not give it: call the resolve_* tools for that. Pass `as_of` for any historical question; marks and designators are reused and an undated check is silently wrong for past data.