In aerospace, the tolerance is on the part and the consequence is on the program. Your data layer has to be as disciplined as your floor.
Precision machining of turbine and structural components beside test cells and balancing rigs. FANUC, Siemens, and Mazak controllers next to direct test-cell instrumentation. Elpis collects from all of it over native protocols, normalizes every signal to one vocabulary, watches the rotating equipment that can't fail, and retains a traceable per-part history — without replacing a single machine. Operating across India and the Middle East. Deployed in defense and space-agency programs.
Live integrations: FOCAS2 · MTConnect · Brother HTTP · Modbus TCP · OPC UA Client · Siemens S7. FANUC MT-LINKi REST on the roadmap.
When the tolerance is microns and the record outlives the part.
An aerospace floor lives at two extremes at once. On one side, precision machining of turbine and structural components — five-axis cells holding tolerances where a single bad pass scraps a high-value blank. On the other, test cells and rigs where engines, turbines, and balancing assemblies are run, instrumented, and signed off. FANUC, Siemens, and Mazak controllers sit beside direct test-cell instrumentation that never spoke to a controller at all. Every one of them produces data that someone will eventually be asked to account for.
The cost of a gap here is not a slow line — it is a high-value rotating asset failing on a rig, a quality escape that surfaces a build later, or a traceability question that no one can answer because the signal was on the floor and never retained. Maintenance hears about a spindle or a bearing from the operator who felt the vibration change, not from a trend. And the per-part record that procurement and quality both need gets reassembled by hand, after the fact, from systems that were never asked to keep it in the same vocabulary.
Replacing the equipment is not the answer — it is qualified, depreciated, and trusted for the parts and tests it runs. What needs to modernize is the data layer. The aerospace operations that get there put one protocol-agnostic runtime in front of every controller and test cell, normalize every signal at the edge, instrument the consequence-heavy rotating equipment, and retain a timestamped per-part history the existing quality and MES systems can draw on — without taking a single machine offline.
"The record outlives the part — so the data layer has to be built to keep it."
The data layer modernizes. The qualified equipment stays.
The data layer modernizes. The qualified equipment stays.
The outcomes an aerospace line reaches for.
Built for floors where the part is high-value and the record is scrutinized.
Elpis is deployed across precision manufacturing and high-consequence rotating-equipment monitoring. Operating across India and the Middle East. Deployed in defense and space-agency programs. The platform runs offline-first: the license validates locally with no phone-home, and per-route store-and-forward is built to preserve every reading through a network or broker drop — queuing locally and replaying in source order on reconnect. Every configuration change is captured in a hash-chained, tamper-evident audit trail.
Full operational trust posture → /security · Anonymized deployment patterns → /customers
What aerospace teams ask first.
Which precision controllers and test-cell instrumentation can you actually collect from?
FANUC over FOCAS2, Siemens over S7, Mazak and other open-standard machines over MTConnect, machines and instrumentation fronted by a PLC over Modbus TCP, plus Brother HTTP and OPC UA Client where it's exposed — all shipping today. Where a test cell or rig exposes nothing useful to a controller, mDAQ acquires the sensor signal directly. FANUC MT-LINKi REST integration is on the roadmap. Bring the controller and instrumentation list to the architecture review and we confirm the collection path per asset.
Can you monitor our engines, turbines, spindles, and balancing rigs for early failure?
Yes — that's what VAS is for. VAS reads vibration signatures on precision rotating equipment — engines, turbines, spindles, and balancing and test rigs — and gives early warning when a signature crosses a threshold your reliability team defines. It is an early-warning trigger ahead of failure, not a guarantee against every failure.
Can we defend a traceable per-part production history?
Yes. EdgeConnect normalizes every machine and test-cell signal to one canonical vocabulary and timestamps it at the edge; those signals are retained, so the per-part record holds the same meaning across a precision cell and a test rig. That is an architectural fact about how the data is captured and kept — it is not a compliance certification, and we make no certification claim.
We run more than one plant and MRO site. Does this aggregate?
Each site runs its own EdgeConnect with a per-gateway identity; EREMOS V2 aggregates across plants and MRO sites for a fleet view. Multi-site visibility comes from aggregation — never from one runtime stretched across sites. → /solutions/multi-site-operations
Does this replace our SCADA, MES, or quality systems?
No. Elpis sits beside them. EdgeConnect publishes canonical signals (MQTT, OPC UA Server); EREMOS V2 exposes OEE, alarms, and the per-part history via API. Your SCADA keeps operator HMIs and control; your MES keeps scheduling and work orders; your quality system keeps the system of record. → /architecture
Looking for the same thing from another angle?
Bring us your line and your test cells.
A controller and instrumentation list, the rotating equipment that worries you, and an OEE and traceability definition — that's enough to scope an architecture review. We run it on your real protocols against your real signals.