Legit question - Fly by wire(less)

[traveyb 0]

With the new wireless technologies do you think Boeing/Airbus would ever consider putting in some kind of fly by wireless system? I know it sounds mad but maybe having the wires there as a backup system would work also. I don't know the failure rate of the fly by wire, but possibly removing the cable could be something for the future?

[pfflyers 7]

I agree with you about the "it sounds mad" part. If you are going to keep the wires as a backup what would you gain by going wireless?

[traveyb 0]

True, ok so maybe without the backup wire, backup units. Wonder how much weight they could save?

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

I could see a system like this to save on the many miles of wires they run in an airliner. No reason to run a backup wire system as the point of it would be to save manufacturing and material costs.

 

It is an 'Outside the box' idea that could potentially save Aircraft manufactures billions in manufacturing & Materials costs, so I think it would be worth it for them to at least study the feasibility of it.

 

May take a lot to prove it's safety and reliability and get FAA approvals but might be worth it someday. As you say the technology is there to be used.

[Raindance 25]

You couldn't replace wires carrying power with wireless, and they would be the heaviest ones. Signal wires could maybe be replaced. Optical cable is another, lighter, possibility.

[japascoe 98]

The only way you can prevent a computer from being hacked with 100% certainty is to not attach it to a network. As soon as you have a receiver attached to your flight control system it can in principle be hacked. To hack a wired control system you need to physically plug your computer into one of the wires, which is hard to do without being noticed. A wire-less system can be hacked by anyone with a (possibly modified) wi-fi equipped laptop. It's also a lot easier to jam or otherwise disrupt a wire-less system than it is to disrupt a wired system.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

The only way you can prevent a computer from being hacked with 100% certainty is to not attach it to a network. As soon as you have a receiver attached to your flight control system it can in principle be hacked. To hack a wired control system you need to physically plug your computer into one of the wires, which is hard to do without being noticed. A wire-less system can be hacked by anyone with a (possibly modified) wi-fi equipped laptop. It's also a lot easier to jam or otherwise disrupt a wire-less system than it is to disrupt a wired system.

 

Very true...especially true for Millitary Applications. Something to consider...

 

It is a system that cannot be completely secured

 

Cheers

[Airbus Commander 563]

I can hardly keep my laptop or smart phone connected to my wifi at points in my home, with only 5 devices in the building, never mind an aircraft with 200 PAX on smartphones or laptops. I wouldn't trust my life depending on that signal remaining connected.

Just imagining a situation 5 seconds before the flare. "Sidestick cannot connect to elevators. Diagnose connection problems?" :mellow:

 

Ró.

[pfflyers 7]

Not sure about Airbus, but I'm pretty sure that in Boeing jets the "fly-by-wire" signal "wires" are, in fact, already fiber optics.

[CoolP 283]

Just imagining a situation 5 seconds before the flare. "Sidestick cannot connect to elevators. Diagnose connection problems?" :mellow:

Even worse. 'Row 12, seat 3 steers your plane now.' :lol: You don't wanna see who's sitting there.

[japascoe 98]

Not sure about Airbus, but I'm pretty sure that in Boeing jets the "fly-by-wire" signal "wires" are, in fact, already fiber optics.

 

I would guess the same holds true for Airbusses, at least the newer ones. Glass is lighter and more corrosion resistant than copper, and it's probably easier to shield an optical signal against interference than it is to shield an electrical one.

[Raindance 25]

I would guess the same holds true for Airbusses, at least the newer ones. Glass is lighter and more corrosion resistant than copper, and it's probably easier to shield an optical signal against interference than it is to shield an electrical one.

Yes, optical is way better than copper for data transmission. Far higher bandwidth, no crosstalk or other interference, lighter weight. It's rather more vulnerable to minor fire damage, but I guess if you have that problem in a plane, you're in deep trouble already.

[Great Ozzie 101]

I can hardly keep my laptop or smart phone connected to my wifi at points in my home, with only 5 devices in the building, never mind an aircraft with 200 PAX on smartphones or laptops.

 

But think of it Ró...

 

Hollywood would have a gazillion new movies based on this theme... for example:

 

"Boy RC'er inadvertently interferes with pilot control of 747"... "Russians wirelessly hijack Airforce One" and the obligatory spoof movies.

 

"Amazing hard core simmer / boy RC'er safely lands 737 from ground after crew incapacitated."

 

-Rob O.

[CoolP 283]

Keep in mind that any flight simmer connected might notice the missing wing flex. Just saying. ^_^