Jump to content

Talk:Avionics: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 25: Line 25:


This article strikes me as far too technical and skewed to latest-and-greatest avionics. For example, the "Monitoring" section points to the "Glass Cockpit" article as the main section. Nowhere is there a general discussion of avionics, starting with "In a traditional (pre-computerized) airplane, you have six main instruments: Airspeed Indicator, Attitude Indicator, Altimeter, the Turn and Slip Indicator, the Heading Indicator, and the Vertical Speed Indicator. You also will typically have some navigation instruments, such as VORs or ADFs." It seems to me that this article would be better written as the history of avionics, covering the evolution of instruments over time, and from there pointing to all the specific articles. 1 Oct 2009 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Edmund Blackadder|Edmund Blackadder]] ([[User talk:Edmund Blackadder|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Edmund Blackadder|contribs]]) 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
This article strikes me as far too technical and skewed to latest-and-greatest avionics. For example, the "Monitoring" section points to the "Glass Cockpit" article as the main section. Nowhere is there a general discussion of avionics, starting with "In a traditional (pre-computerized) airplane, you have six main instruments: Airspeed Indicator, Attitude Indicator, Altimeter, the Turn and Slip Indicator, the Heading Indicator, and the Vertical Speed Indicator. You also will typically have some navigation instruments, such as VORs or ADFs." It seems to me that this article would be better written as the history of avionics, covering the evolution of instruments over time, and from there pointing to all the specific articles. 1 Oct 2009 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Edmund Blackadder|Edmund Blackadder]] ([[User talk:Edmund Blackadder|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Edmund Blackadder|contribs]]) 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

This article needs its refences marked.

Revision as of 10:52, 16 July 2010

WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
B checklist
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

This material is very helpful, my thanks to the authors. But I have a further need. Can the experts please edit to include an explanation of the signal interconnection between the various components in modern a/c, particularly autopilot, fms, transponder, gps source and the displays. Can they talk to each other ? Reg nim 19:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Avionics are usually interconnected in aircraft-specific avionic-networks and routinely communicate with each other using very strictly standardized data buses and protocols, such as for example ARINC.

A further question. We know that a/c fly by wire. The Concorde had an analogue signal modifier to give good flight handling. From inception Airbus had flight envelope limitation "to stop the pilot making a mistake, although the pilot can turn it off". Comment : the Indian crash was blamed on pilot error. Presumedly all modern passenger a/c have a digital computer between the pilot and the control surfaces. The issue is can the pilot switch all the digital systems off, or to fly must control still pass through a computer ? In anticipation, thanks.

Fly-by-wire isn't a protection against pilot error necessarily; in most passenger aircraft, it is the only way to control the surfaces because they are hydraulic or electronic rather than directly rigged to the pilot controls. The pilots can still make mistakes, and the fly-by-wire system will faithfully transmit those mistakes to the control surfaces. The digital computer is only there to translate the pilots' desires into control surface movement. —Cleared as filed. 00:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the above paragraph is correct, protection from pilot error can be considered to be an optional (but more and more common) software asset, which is most often referred to as "flight envelope protection", which is supposed to ensure that the aircraft's technical/structural limits are not exceeded during certain phases of flight or aircraft configurations (so called flight regimes). However, on many modern FBW aircraft this has indeed become a more and more mandatory facility which can -at least to a certain degree- indeed be disabled to maneuver the aircraft even outside of said flight regimes, i.e. in order to implement an emergency maneuver such as a rapid change in altitude or heading (respectively bank).

I have done a 'little' revamp of this page. There are lots of red areas caused by me now needing to write sections on airborne comms and nav etc etc. There are tonnes and tonnes of article out there on different aspects of avionics, but I thought it would be good to start bringing them under one umbrella!!

If folks think that this is too radical a change or I have gone in the wrong direction then please feel free to tell me. (I am sure you won't hold back). Being an engineer I can't spell, grammar or write for toffee... so please can this be parse edited at the very least.


I hope that this is okay Apacheeng lead 11:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say, that this is the building block upon which to grow the subject area. It is very mucha work in progress!! Apacheeng lead 11:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article strikes me as far too technical and skewed to latest-and-greatest avionics. For example, the "Monitoring" section points to the "Glass Cockpit" article as the main section. Nowhere is there a general discussion of avionics, starting with "In a traditional (pre-computerized) airplane, you have six main instruments: Airspeed Indicator, Attitude Indicator, Altimeter, the Turn and Slip Indicator, the Heading Indicator, and the Vertical Speed Indicator. You also will typically have some navigation instruments, such as VORs or ADFs." It seems to me that this article would be better written as the history of avionics, covering the evolution of instruments over time, and from there pointing to all the specific articles. 1 Oct 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmund Blackadder (talkcontribs) 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs its refences marked.