Hybrid test systems are gaining more and more significance in the aerospace industry. The heart of such a system is a standardized communication infrastructure. It forms the basis to combine test equipment of different suppliers and (re-)use laboratory test means of different aircraft programs. This not only improves modularity and scalability, but allows to use the best equipment for a particular task. There are many challenges when designing such a communication infrastructure. To give but one example, before the different parts of a hybrid test system can exchange simulation data, there is the need for a controlled startup and configuration. But how can this be done when every system has completely different startup behavior, communicates its status through vendor specific interfaces and can be controlled only through vendor specific control software? It would require lots of specific knowledge to boot up each test system, manage its configuration process and start and stop the execution of applications, like simulations, panels or recorders. In a very heterogeneous environment, a tester cannot commit himself too much to every single test mean and its specialties. On the other hand, he must always be able to monitor and control every test system. I.e., he must be able to find out its present overall status and the present status of its components and parts (e.g., hardware like real-time processors and I/O boards as well as software, like real-time simulations models on the test system) then use this knowledge to efficiently control the test bench and react to error situations accordingly. For the hybrid test system, this means that each of its modules must follow a common concept of status monitoring and control. Naturally, this is not the case as every supplier has own custom ways and concepts for these tasks. The aim of this paper is therefore to present such concepts. These concepts are based on the idea of the communication infrastructure, which supplies the standardized transport mechanism required for interoperability. In this paper, we first analyze the requirements for a cross vendor status monitoring and control. We focus on the development of a common base. We then present basic concept for both, status monitoring and control. The goal is to find mechanisms that can be used to establish a standard.