Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by endymi0n | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

endymi0n

...a Raspberry PI, some COTS sensors, a USB power bank and an old iPad:

http://stratux.me/

(or: less than the cost of a usual 100h overhaul ;-)

source: PPL applicant and fellow hacker

View on HN

Doesn't that need to be FAA certified to be relied upon in an aircraft? That's generally what adds all the expense between "homebrew" and "commercial", isn't it?

It needs to be certified to be permanently installed in a non-experimental aircraft, or to be relied upon for IFR use, but for VFR use powered from a cigarette lighter and suction cuped to the window, you can do whatever you want.

It's classed as "pilot carry-on" equipment and doesn't need to be certified. Only stuff permanently installed gets that treatment.

Just as I don't have to have my pen and pad (or indeed my iPad) certified either :)

I wonder how many aviate with a big-ass “portable” lithium ion battery to power it all instead of paying $100 for a flight-certified cigarette lighter receptacle:

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/cigrecept.php

I have a pair of 13aH Anker batteries I use, rather than dealing with the lighter plug. The electrical isolation is a feature.

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.

why?

homebrew solutions generally don't have the excessive redundancy that keeps planes from crashing.

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.

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.

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

> 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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com