ETHERNET Connectivity of devices

[RV6ARoger]

I have worked on a number of aviation installations and systems, and it appears as if there is some interest in using RJ-45 connectors (hopefully a more industrial connector) to interconnect all of the radios, EFIS, engine systems, etc. Some are discussing just putting an Ethernet hub under the dash and just plug everything in so everything talks to everyone else.

To me, this sure makes sense, where you have to deal with ARINC-429, RS-232, Ethernet connecting mulitple monitors together, etc. I would like to get some idea as to what others in this group think about this, as well as Dynon personnel. It sure would be easier to get everything working and talking, without special ARINC-429 to RS-232 converters, at really high costs, etc. I would like to just assign IP addresses or have standards set for device IP addresses by an aviation electronics manufacturer's group. Simple connections with a good industrial type of Ethernet hub. Digital data is digital data. Why can't we simplify the wiring and get rid of the serial messes on the back of radio racks and other devices?

 

[RV6ARoger]

My brain thought of one possible problem with this. This is the issue of "Single point of failure" If the hub went down, all communication would be lost. I am sure this could be figured out, though.

 

[mmarien]

How about ARINC-429 protocol over bluetooth.

 

[PhantomPholly]

I think Bluetooth is a better idea, if only because the chips are cheap; it doesn't require a physical connection; and because there is some line of thinking that perhaps they would eliminate some of the wiring in the cockpit (perhaps bluetooth for the ADHARS and for the GPS?). Ultimately short range wireless is ideal in an airplane, because unless you are someplace you really shouldn't be you probably aren't near anyone else anyway - and if you are, it's either taxiing or really dangerous.

Too, bluetooth is already set up for de-conflicting with anyone else's network through named devices and networks. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any unintentional event would cause cross-talk between two planes. Jamming maybe, but such would require an intentionally targeted jammer since the distance between devices is feet inside and miles outside.

 

[johnsteichen]

Ugh. Who wants their life depending on a Bluetooth connection?

 

[dabear]

I agree that Bluetooth is not how I'd want the devices to communicate. I fly within 20 feet of someone else frequently and don't want any issues. Also, I'd much rather have a wired solution. Wireless isn't for me.

Ethernet chip sets are cheap and the protocals work. However, changing the current version to ethernet would require redundant switches to keep the system from having single points of failure.

I wonder how they would work it.

 

[PhantomPholly]

I agree that Bluetooth is not how I'd want the devices to communicate.  I fly within 20 feet of someone else frequently and don't want any issues.  Also, I'd much rather have a wired solution.  Wireless isn't for me.

Ethernet chip sets are cheap and the protocals work.  However, changing the current version to ethernet would require redundant switches to keep the system from having single points of failure.  

I wonder how they would work it.

Formation flying is not an issue with Bluetooth. People walk past one another with BlueTooth earpieces all the time (which transmit a lot more data in the form of a voice stream than, say, an AHARS does) and don't lose any data.

BlueTooth does not interfere with GPS or other aviation broadcast EM frequencies. The receiver can be made "fault tolerant," meaning that it doesn't die if it misses a few packets of info.

MUCH easier to troubleshoot than a faulty wire.