[Sir Morley Steven]

Is there a way I can get traffic onto the 540?

[Dave W]

It's got WiFi and is capable of showing traffic, so perhaps not impossible.

Unfortunately the manual (on page 1-46) has a broken link to a list of supported devices.

Edit: Here is the list, I think. uAvionix products are not on it in the 'Traffic' section, but it does say up front:

The following list represents proven interfaces. There may be other devices that can be configured the same as one on the below list but Avidyne has not tested it and can therefore not make any compatibility claims.

Worth an experiment or two?

[Iceman]

The short answer is no as you need to go in to the IFD via a certified interface (ARINC / RS232). The IFD will not receive traffic / weather, etc., via WiFi / Bluetooth.

Iceman

[Paul_Sengupta]

Avidyne say you can't officially feed it with traffic from an unapproved device.

They also say they don't see why feeding it via RS232 from a PilotAware shouldn't work but I don't know anyone who's tried it.

Yet.

[leemoore1966]

Apparently GDL90 over RS232 at 38400 baud will do the trick

With software 10.2 to the IFD540, the 540 is compatible with the GDL-90 protocol, which means the IFD will display weather and traffic information from the NGT-9000. The wiring interface involves the RS-422 out connected to the RS-232 in at the IFD

Thx
Lee

[GAFlyer4Fun]

Original question was about SkyEcho providing the traffic.

The IFD100 App will display traffic from the SkyEcho. The IFD panel mount units will not.

If you want traffic on the actual IFD panel mount unit, the Avidyne website will say which units can provide the traffic without breaking the IFD certification. (No cheap options)
https://www.avidyne.com/product/ifd540-fms-gps-navigator/#tab-id-3

[neilmurg]

Avidyne say you can't officially feed it with traffic from an unapproved device.
They also say they don't see why feeding it via RS232 from a PilotAware shouldn't work but I don't know anyone who's tried it.
Yet.

Apparently GDL90 over RS232 at 38400 baud will do the trick

With software 10.2 to the IFD540, the 540 is compatible with the GDL-90 protocol, which means the IFD will display weather and traffic information from the NGT-9000. The wiring interface involves the RS-422 out connected to the RS-232 in at the IFD

Thx
Lee

I can lend you a PAw to try Steve!

[GAFlyer4Fun]

... and if that PAW/RS232 suggestion does work, it is only useful in a non-certified aircraft as it will invalidate what was a certified IFD540 installation in a certified aircraft.

[PaulSS]

...........if that XXX/RS232 suggestion does work..................it will invalidate what was a certified IFD540 installation in a certified aircraft

What a sad and pathetic state of affairs. Something works and we can't use it because some genius has labelled another piece of tin as 'certified'




Sauvignon blanc in case you were wondering

[GAFlyer4Fun]

PaulSS this is nothing new.... the higher costs and regulation of anything in a certified aircraft is a much repeated forum comment over the years as to why some people prefer to fly LAA aircraft.

The IFD units are aimed at the IFR market so that and their high price tag probably means wont find many fitted to LAA aircraft types.

The 'genius' that comes up with anything new has to decide whether they are aiming at the certified or uncertified market. If aiming at the certified market, which is where the money will be in a worldwide market, they have to play by the certification rules of the FAA/EASA etc.

[PeteSpencer]

Sauvignon blanc in case you were wondering

Not the famous N Z Sauvignon 'Cats Pee on a Gooseberry Bush' I hope?

[PaulSS]

@GAFlyer4Fun Yes, I understand the system but just think sometimes they need to apply much more common sense, instead of just a black & white judgement. This is a classic case where a non-certified bit of kit (be it PAW or Stratux or whatever) can receive ADSB and could be piped to a certified display via RS232, thereby improving safety. I get the whole certified transmission thing but receiving just seems daft. A certified receiver doesn't do anything more and will use the same RS232 protocol, so it really is just jobs for the bureaucrats

@PeteSpencer

Not the famous N Z Sauvignon 'Cats Pee on a Gooseberry Bush' I hope?

I don't think it was that refined to be honest

[Dave W]

@PaulSS, There's already a precedent with the connection of uncertified GPS to a transponder for ADS-B OUT in Certified aircraft under CS-STAN.

Perhaps that would be a route for those interested to explore?

Technology is outpacing the regulatory environment again.

[GAFlyer4Fun]

Technology is outpacing the regulatory environment again.

It has been for decades. As technology becomes more advanced and sophisticated the certification gets more complex for all the advertised functionality and all the failure modes.

In the modern world of the general population wanting easy open connectivity for everything, the failure modes also extend from malfunction to misbehaviour and cyber attacks.
Only a matter of time before someone tries to hack/attack avionics remotely.
There will be those that think why would anyone want to do that? The same could be said for car systems where the designers either never considered it or decided nobody would want to do that,... until a few very public examples in the media several years ago.

With that in mind, does the aviation safety case really want an open door for plugging in any old uncertified thing into certified avionics? Whilst the overhead of certification can be a burden to progress, it is intended to provide some safeguarding for the pilot and passengers and the people on the ground below the flight path.

[Dave W]

It's not either/or - there's a balance to be had.

Otherwise functionality will stagnate - arguably it already has.

The provision of traffic data ADDS to safety - where does the balance lie?