Fly-by-wireless?

[Dr Mordrid]

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn9176-flybywireless-plane-takes-to-the-air.html

Supposedly for planes and cars.

Upside: impact damage less likely to cause catastrophic control failure. Handy in a fighter.

Downside: ? jammable etc.

IMO not without EMP shielding, multiple redundency & STRONG encryption....

[VJ]

Interesting...

In planes, I wouldn't like it to be the primary system though. But a wireless secondary system seems very interesting (in case wires are damaged !).
I just wonder: in the event of a full engine failure (no fuel, ...), there are now workarounds to still provide power (Airbus folds out a windturbine ) to the elementary systems. Wouldn't wireless connections require more power as well?

In cars, the problem of intereference becomes bigger. And I don't think one would appreciate a lag in his brake-commands.

IMO, any wireless link is jammable (just keep the frequency occupied with random signals). For airplanes, possible hijackers wouldn't even need a bomb, they'd just need a signal generator (white noise ?). And I doubt any airline security would be able to distinguish this from a cell phone or laptop.


Jörg

[Marshmallowman]

A wave guide in the plane would make it unjammable, I don't know how practical that would be.

[Tjalfe]

I don't see a waveguide being more practical than a wire.. unless it is a fiber optic cable, which technically is a waveguide
Personally I think they should stick with wires. As vj said, maybe as a backup system, but not for the primary system.

[Dr Mordrid]

Airbus already uses fiberoptics, and as new designs come along so will others. Cars too are moving to optics.