Wireless interaction

[brien23]

Years ago their was talk of avionics boxes talking to each other without wires to interconnect them or wireless, just a power connection. It would be great to upgrade without having to go through a wire maze to connect the boxes and time required to make the wire harness, just let them talk to each other with wireless connection. With the cost of avionics shop labor to install new radio parts the extra cost of wireless connection should be less than the labor to make and run a wire harness.

 

[Jesse Saint]

I agree that would be nice, but there is a warm fuzzy feeling I get knowing things are hardwired together. Much less chance of interference or broken connections. I would never trust critical items to a wireless connection, personally.

 

[Morgan3820]

I’m still waiting for that promised colonoscopy camera capsule that you just swallow.

 

[Martin Pauly]

I would never trust critical items to a wireless connection, personally.

You are a smart man, Jesse!

- Martin

 

[Darryl Snover]

I dunno....As much as I like the portability of 'wireless' devices, they're flakey enough that I still prefer my computer hard-wired to a proper ethernet switch, when reliability counts.

That being said, there's just not enough volume in avionics to come up with something like 'ethernet' for all the goodies. The closest I'm seeing to anything 'simple' is the Approach Fast Stack, which is at least an attempt to make wiring 'simple'.

 

[DaleB]

I dunno....As much as I like the portability of 'wireless' devices, they're flakey enough that I still prefer my computer hard-wired to a proper ethernet switch, when reliability counts.

That being said, there's just not enough volume in avionics to come up with something like 'ethernet' for all the goodies. The closest I'm seeing to anything 'simple' is the Approach Fast Stack, which is at least an attempt to make wiring 'simple'.

There's enough volume, I think. It would not be a big challenge to just packetize everything, audio included. Ethernet would be an appropriate physical layer, but there are others that the automotive industry uses.

I think there are two problems here. The first is that it would take a redesign to put your avionics device on a bus like that. The redesign would involve both hardware and software, so the cost of certification would be... staggering. Then you have the fact that using something like Ethernet or CAN or whatever means an open standard, and certain companies are really, really fond of making everything proprietary to avoid opening the door to interoperability with other vendors.

 

[asicer]

Then you have the fact that using something like Ethernet or CAN or whatever means an open standard, and certain companies are really, really fond of making everything proprietary to avoid opening the door to interoperability with other vendors.

There's enough OSI layers that it only has to be partially open. Pretty sure if you plug an Apple AirPort to a GTN650's via Ethernet that they won't know how to talk to each other.

 

[DaleB]

There's enough OSI layers that it only has to be partially open. Pretty sure if you plug an Apple AirPort to a GTN650's via Ethernet that they won't know how to talk to each other.

Very true. But if you don’t want your protocols reverse engineered and used, you’re going to need to invest even more time, money, and resources into encryption.

But in the end, I think the avionics manufacturers quite simply Do Not Care about the wiring, and indeed make a bit of extra coin selling harnesses and such.

 

[asicer]

But if you don’t want your protocols reverse engineered and used, you’re going to need to invest even more time, money, and resources into encryption.

Looking at Garmin's history, I'd estimate that protecting their protocols from reverse engineering is a somewhat low priority for them.

 

[Llewtrah381]

I’m still waiting for that promised colonoscopy camera capsule that you just swallow.

Getting a bit nerdy here, but capsule endoscopy has been around for a while.

In my experience I don’t even remember the colonoscopy procedure itself and had zero issues afterwards - but I definitely remember the prep. You’d still need the same basic prep for the capsule endoscopy. Bottom line, it’s the prep that’s un-fun more than the procedure these days, especially with “milk of amnesia” (propofol).

 

[Albany Tom]

I wouldn't do wireless within the aircraft, no significant advantage and lots of pita and risk.

NMEA has a couple of really good standards for GPS data exchange. The old one is based on or uses RS-422, I think the new one is based on CAN bus. Both of those are solid, but probably too slow for real time flight information - guessing. I'd say something on top of high speed CAN could work, but it would require a new standard. Don't think Ethernet is fault tolerant enough for certified aircraft, and the overhead and packet sizes seem to high.

If someone does it, I'd hope they'd leave the audio, entertainment, and Internet separate, and also just use it for flight data information, not direct flight control.

 

[donjohnston]

I’m still waiting for that promised colonoscopy camera capsule that you just swallow.

From what I understand, it's been around for a while. I did it about six months ago. You still have to do the prep though. But even that's easier. Now it's a few of pills instead of the liquid prep.