Vibration Monitor (Hyde, Wanttaja?)

Pete Schaefer wrote:
Cool. Maybe we should do entire airplanes around bluetooth. That way, any
geek with a PDA can hack our planes when we fly by. Yeah, **** all these EMI
worries!

Sorry, but that idea sounds like an awfully inviting drive-by target.

The idea that some sensors sending their signals via bluetooth to a data
recorder instead of cabling could be "hacked", whether from a PDA
standing outside the plane or from 5,000 feet AGL is silly. The EMI
argument is an open one, but the FAA rule says...

"a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow
the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following
U.S-registered civil aircraft:


(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--

(1) portable voice recorders;
(2) hearing aids;
(3) heart pacemakers;
(4) electric shavers; or
(5) any other portable electronic device that the operator of the
aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation
or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

It's coming to aircraft. In fact, it's already there via people that
don't turn off their cell phones and laptops etc., just uncontrolled.
Good article.

http://developer.intel.com/technolog...cles/art_4.htm

I've always wanted 100T ethernet thru the entire avionics stack.
Adding Bluetooth to the portable devices makes perfect sense!

OK, if all you want is to record data, then yeah, whatever you want to use
is just fine as long as you can keep it from interfering with any critical
functions on your plane. However, debugging all the potential EMI stuff
could be hell just to get things to work. I was being sarcasting about the
hacking comment....yeah, it was silly.

There are already enough other decent options that will work just fine
without the hassles of dealing with radio frequency stuff. Look at the
aviation versions of CAN. Well supported, cheap, and really easy. There's
also 1394, which is used a bunch in some new aviation systems.


"nafod40" wrote in message
...
It's coming to aircraft. In fact, it's already there via people that
don't turn off their cell phones and laptops etc., just uncontrolled.
Good article.

http://developer.intel.com/technolog...cles/art_4.htm

Pete Schaefer wrote:
OK, if all you want is to record data, then yeah, whatever you want to use
is just fine as long as you can keep it from interfering with any critical
functions on your plane. However, debugging all the potential EMI stuff
could be hell just to get things to work.

I hate cables. They are a gawdawful pain to manufacture, install, even
worse to troubleshoot, and hell to fix. Installing new ones to odd
points on a plane is sometimes impossible. I flew the E-2C (whistling
s%$# can) and most of our class alphas were due to cables abrading and
causing shorts, wandering signals, fires, etc. Obviously the bad things
came from the power-carrying cables failing, but everything in the
bundle went south when they did.

EMI is obviously an issue, in ways I don't understand since I'm not a
tron-bender, but the idea that you could plunk down a sensor and have
*no* additional wiring whatsoever appeals to me. I wonder how much wire
weighs and costs in the typical airplane? What are the EMI issues for
your Mark I Mod 0 homebuilt? Nav system, obviously. What else? Sounds
like an experimental airplane kind of thing to me.

A company a friend of mine owns is developing the self-powered sensors,
so I'm familiar with the work. The ones they sell now are bigger and (I
think) battery-powered, but they are installing them on Navy ships,
which have emmisions and EMI concerns too.

http://www.rlwinc.com/