Talk:Avionics

This 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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Untitled

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 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs its refences marked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.185.144.10 (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police and Air Ambulances

Just one comment: I would suggest that this section should mention that the priveledges of the pilot's licence will be the ultimate limiting factor as to whether the aircraft can operate in the conditions that could make these additional devices that allow the helicopter to fly in difficult conditions useable - however good these devices are. Longfinal (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paid COI Contributions

{{request edit}} I have a paid COI with Honeywell. I'd like to suggest changes to the Avionics article that include expanding on the glass cockpit, general word-smithing, adding citations, some information about auto-pilot and so on. You can see the suggested edits in a diff here with the revised here. King4057 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better now I think. Thanks for the contribution. Woz2 (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How big part of total cost is avionics?

Article says 20% of total cost of a fighter is avionics. Believable. Text below picture of a fighter says 80% of cost is avionics which is hard to believe. Also, for a helicopter, it is hard to believe that 60% of total cost is avionics. Someone is pulling your leg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.204 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where 8.33 spacing is used..

you wrote 'in Europe'. But there are non-european countries also inside the Eurocontrol - controlled area: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/European_Organization_for_the_Safety_of_Air_Navigation_members.svg

and finally: so many US-related peoples don't make a shit about what it is - geographically the continent Europe ? (that's from the Ural up to island, from Spitzbergen to Gribraltar.. - the European Union ? (there aren't some of the here present most important countries on this planet) what else?

By the way: Australia and other countries are struggling wether or not to also change the spacing.. 213.230.57.2 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds of WP:TOOLONG. Klbrain (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose moving the content on Astrionics into this article, Avionics.

NASA refers to the systems on the Space Launch System as "Avionics" (https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/avionics.html). The term "Astrionics" has limited use as far as I can tell, so I believe it would be better to included it as a quick blurb ("Avionics systems on spacecraft are sometimes called Astronics") rather than its own article. DeklinCaban (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge:

Assuming that the information at Avionics would also come over, at least in abbreviated form. Joyous! | Talk 01:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my intent for the Astrionics content to be ported over - sorry if it wasn't clear. DeklinCaban (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DeklinCaban: After some months with no opposition, I think you're clear to proceed with a merge. Joyous! | Talk 23:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The resulting article might be too long. Geysirhead (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge:;

As Joyous alludes to, and as Geysirhead more specifically describes, the combined page would be longer than might be ideal. It does seem that Avionics in spacecraft is a topic distinct from the general avionics page; the current structure works for readers, in my opinion, so I see no need for a change. Klbrain (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my oppinion it's better to have avionics and astrionics as a distinct topics. Also I had just done the Atrionics in Spanish Eloypripan (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please define ATM.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean Automatic Teller Machine.

Burressd (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the abbreviation was added by BilCat in Avionics#Modern avionics, ATM Efficiencies – Improving the air traffic management (ATM) process. Klbrain (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Does avionics include electrical power supply/generation

Does avionics include electrical power supply/generation (as implied by aircraft) ? How do different types of aircraft power their avionics ? What voltage AC? do most avionics modules require ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]