Vibration Monitor (Hyde, Wanttaja?)

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.

"nafod40" wrote in message
...
One useful technology that keeps getting more real are self-powered
sensors that communicate via bluetooth or other wireless, so you could
just stick them on various places and not have to worry about cabling
and all those other points of failure.

Are you suggesting that a bad engine will give clues to it's demise enough
in advance that you could actually do something about it? Clues that a
monitor could pick up on, but an experienced pilot wouldn't?


My company makes ~200MM/yr on this premies.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

oops... I meant "premise".

"mindenpilot" wrote in message
...
Are you suggesting that a bad engine will give clues to it's demise
enough in advance that you could actually do something about it? Clues
that a monitor could pick up on, but an experienced pilot wouldn't?


My company makes ~200MM/yr on this premies.

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

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.

Bluetooth has a limited range -- about 10m absolute max. Do you often
fly overhead geeks at 36ft AGL?

Not only that, but Bluetooth also allows closed networks to be set up --
no access to anyone outside the selected group of devices.

Sorry, but you shouldn't get all sarcastic about someone suggesting a
technology that you clearly don't have a clue about.

Frank

"mindenpilot" wrote in message
...
oops... I meant "premise".


Was that a Freudian slip?

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

Frank:

I do have quite a clue about EMI, and clearly have a better clue than you
about systems engineering in general. Here's a question for you:

Why bother?

If you're trying to cert bluetooth for aviation, maybe with the thought of
selling some other bluetooth product that you think you can make a big chunk
of cash with, then, yeah, maybe going off to play with bluetooth on your
airplane makes sense. Personally, I can't see it. Maybe it makes sense for
using it to reprogram boxes on your airplane, but to go to the extent of
making it useful/safe in flight....nah. Way too much effort for too little
return, given that the inclusion of an RS-232 port is so freakin' easy.

If you have some other goal in mind, maybe some other sensing or data fusion
tech (e.g. may you have a huge array of air data sensors for some advance
stall detection method), then you have to look at whether or not the tech
risk buys you something that you can't get otherwise. Why bluetooth rather
than the 1/2 dozen other wired data communication protocols (e.g. 1392, .
422, 232, 485, CAN, etc.) that are out there?

I get rather frustrated with people who get really !@#$ing enamored with
technologies for implementation and loose sight of what their goals are. All
too often, risk variables get introduced where none is warranted, resulting
in zero or negative value added. I beat on my guys daily about issues like
this. (Kelly Johnson (...yeah, I work at that place.....) had a lot to say
about where it was acceptable to take project risks..too bad so much of it
never got captured in "the rules").

So, back to Blue Tooth....

Why bother?

For data collection, I've already got a half-dozen options in my hip pocket
that I know will work just fine with very well understood EMI issues that I
know how to mitigate. What's my goal? Blue tooth airplane or getting the
data for some other purpose?

I have very little room for Geek Factor on any airplane that I'll ever
build. If it can't buy it's way on (I'd lump Blue Tooth in here), then !@#$
it.


Pete

P.S. I just got done with a 5 hour drive and am tired as all !@#$. I've got
4 beers in me to diffuse stress. Please forgive my abbrasiveness. I'm not
really that bad of a guy. I just don't want people to pursue ideas that
will get them killed.


"Frank van der Hulst" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but you shouldn't get all sarcastic about someone suggesting a
technology that you clearly don't have a clue about.

Frank:

P.S. Your're right...I don't know **** about the specifics of Blue Tooth.
I'm glad to admit it.

"Frank van der Hulst" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but you shouldn't get all sarcastic about someone suggesting a
technology that you clearly don't have a clue about.

Frank