4 ms·

uh, no. Homebrew hacking is one thing on your dining room table, or for basic home automation, or whatever. Homebrew hacking in an airplane sounds like an awf

uh, no. Homebrew hacking is one thing on your dining room table, or for basic home automation, or whatever. Homebrew hacking in an airplane sounds like an awful idea.

zajio1am 5y ago
Homebrew hacking of ultralight airplanes (including homebuilt planes) is common here in Czechia, legislation is much less restrictive than for homebrew hacking of cars.
rrss 5y ago
why?
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  homebrew solutions generally don't have the excessive redundancy that keeps planes from crashing.
  - bityard 5y ago
    You mainly see "excessive redundancy" in larger cargo, passenger, and military aircraft. Small general aviation airplanes don't have as many redundant systems as you'd think. There is neither the space or weight budget. For safety, they mainly rely on well engineered systems, frequent inspections, required maintenance and updates, and failsafe design, such as the ability to pilot the plane as a glider if the engine cuts out.
  - samus 5y ago
    Not all systems are safety-critical though. Most hackers probably wouldn't mess with control surfaces, engine control, and instruments, and would err on the side of safety too. But planes don't immediately drop from the sky just because their radio is off or their navigation systems have a hickup.
krisoft 5y ago
> Homebrew hacking in an airplane sounds like an awful idea. These are not for commercial aviation. The only area where homebrew can "fly" is experimental airplanes. And in that application it kinda makes sense. Many of those airplanes were made in someones garage themselves, so why stop there and why not make the instruments yourself too?
bityard 5y ago
Uh, yes. There is a whole aviation subculture of experimental aircraft designers, builders, and hobbyist engineers. There are limitations of course (mostly to do with passenger safety) but the FAA grants a surprising amount of leeway once an aircraft is granted the "experimental" label.

uh, no. Homebrew hacking is one thing on your dining room table, or for basic home automation, or whatever. Homebrew hacking in an airplane sounds like an awful idea.

zajio1am 5y ago

Homebrew hacking of ultralight airplanes (including homebuilt planes) is common here in Czechia, legislation is much less restrictive than for homebrew hacking of cars.

rrss 5y ago

why?

adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
homebrew solutions generally don't have the excessive redundancy that keeps planes from crashing.
- bityard 5y ago
  You mainly see "excessive redundancy" in larger cargo, passenger, and military aircraft. Small general aviation airplanes don't have as many redundant systems as you'd think. There is neither the space or weight budget. For safety, they mainly rely on well engineered systems, frequent inspections, required maintenance and updates, and failsafe design, such as the ability to pilot the plane as a glider if the engine cuts out.
- samus 5y ago
  Not all systems are safety-critical though. Most hackers probably wouldn't mess with control surfaces, engine control, and instruments, and would err on the side of safety too. But planes don't immediately drop from the sky just because their radio is off or their navigation systems have a hickup.

krisoft 5y ago

> Homebrew hacking in an airplane sounds like an awful idea. These are not for commercial aviation. The only area where homebrew can "fly" is experimental airplanes. And in that application it kinda makes sense. Many of those airplanes were made in someones garage themselves, so why stop there and why not make the instruments yourself too?

bityard 5y ago

Uh, yes. There is a whole aviation subculture of experimental aircraft designers, builders, and hobbyist engineers. There are limitations of course (mostly to do with passenger safety) but the FAA grants a surprising amount of leeway once an aircraft is granted the "experimental" label.