Possible AD for certain NAVWORX ADS-B Units

[Radomir]

About the only bit of knowledge there, and I already knew this, was that the FAA looks at all threads on the Vansairforce site. Remember the S in ADS B stands for surveillance.

LOL... that was good :) But I should probably put the tinfoil hat back on... just in case

[flightlogic]

The Freedom of Information Act seems to have many exemptions. Much of what we want to see is simply black. I am mildly offended at being referred to as a costumer, not a customer. I only wear silly hats on the Queen's birthday.
Seriously though, the number of paid FAA employees that have spent hours sending each other memos, and setting up meetings is staggering.
They could have told Navworx to send a SIL of 2 for the next year or two, while they sort out their technical review. Safety would be enhanced, an American small business would have people working and no airlines would be in danger. So far, NEXT GEN has been seriously degraded by the actions of a limited number of men in costumes down in Fort Worth, Texas. I hope someone like Senator Inhofe takes a look at this and spotlights the issue. We only saw action on medical reform when congress over rode the FAA.

[MartySantic]

Per the FAA webpage, ADS-B Out will be required in the following airspace:

Class A, B, and C airspace
Class E airspace areas at or above 10,000 ft MSL over the 48 states and DC, excluding airspace at and below 2,500 ft AGL
Airspace within 30 nautical miles (nm) at certain busy airports from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL; airports listed in appendix D to part 91.
Above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area up to 10,000 feet MSL
Class E airspace over the Gulf of Mexico at and above 3,000 feet MSL within 12 nm of the coastline of the United States

I have a hard time understanding the FAA logic. Worried about "potential" inaccuracies and separation issues, yet, 90+% of the airspace, where GA operates does not require ADS-B out. Makes it obvious the FAA could care less about GA. Radar will never go away!

[jliltd]

And how could they possibly eliminate radar when there are hundreds of aircraft flying around that were originally certified without an engine-driven electrical system and have never had one added subsequent to manufacture? Those aircraft have a waiver to ADS-B "out" requirements equal to their current waiver to Mode C (at least alleged under the ADS-B rule). And they usually operate at lower altitudes in the range of Amazon drones etc.... Many of these non-electrical aircraft have installed transponders for interment use when operating in Class B or C or sometimes just to be "nice" in other areas. However, there isn't a practical way for these same aircraft to equip with ADS-B "out" equipment because unlike Mode C the continuous operation rule of ADS-B renders it operationally infeasible.

[kevin O]

I wrote the Faa the following.
To Michael Heusser. I hope I am addressing this to the right party. I have had the navworx 600b for years. Have followed the proposed AD closely. I have a garmin 430w that could be used as position source however My concern is whether navworx is a viable company. Certainly doesn't appear to be in business.
Decided that I would go ahead and make the change to the Dynon transponder which is rebate compliant. I am trusting that the navworx Faa action is a one off and not an issue with other manufacturers?
So thinking I could at least qualify for the $500 rebate, decided to go forward. Now I find that I am not eligible for the rebate because I have had "certified" equipment i.e. Navworx which is no longer certified. Talk about a catch 22.
I'd certainly appreciate hearing from you. To be dealing with the navworx mess and then be told my early compliance is now penalizing me is hard to swallow. Thanks.
Kevin Oshea
Got a quick response. They can't do anything until the AD is finalized. Will probably be several months.
Of course the rebate period will be closed by then. This navworx saga just keeps getting worse.

[DennisRhodes]

I exercised my 9 today after the snow and used the chance to honor the rule that says "if I have an ADSB installed "to be sure it's turned on"! I do and the 600EXP worked flawlessly. Spotted numerous traffic targets, allowed me to maneuver to avoid uncomfortable close positions and effectively enjoyed a great flight all in E airspace! If traffic ever gets within 3 nm and+- 500. I start looking for the target HOWEVER, being VFR you still have to look out the windshield and it is my responsibility as PIC to avoid the conflict. Doesn't hurt that the WX was clear below 12500 and Vis in excess of 10 nm ..Thanks Navworx.

[oaklandaviator]

Seems like the letter about the FAA destroying Navworx business has been removed from the Navworx website. Hopefully that's a good thing and they're starting to work out a solution!

[recapen]

I just sent them a note through their website portal.
I'll try the e-mail as well.

Will let the list know if I get a response!

Response - the e-mail didn't immediately bounce - and I did get an Out of office on vacation from 14 to 23 Jan notice from Bill's e-mail address....maybe someone from the support team will answer for real!

Hopefully, something's happening!

[roadrunner20]

I just went to the Navworx site after hearing the letter was removed.
The 600EXP price went up from $1399 to $1599.
This is probably a good sign that they may be close to resuming business.

Let's hope this all gets resolved.

[Bill Boyd]

My that was pretty much a waste of server space!!! About the only bit of knowledge there, and I already knew this, was that the FAA looks at all threads on the Vansairforce site. Remember the S in ADS B stands for surveillance.

Kind of makes you want to take all your operational/airworthiness/regulatory questions into a private chat room, doesn't it. Apparently Exemption #5 allows the concealing of anything from FOIA except prepositions, pronouns and indefinite articles. Our best hope to learn what is in these documents is the admittedly remote chance they were cached on a bathroom server being mirrored by a pedophile congressman's MacBook and somehow caught the attention of Julian Assange.

Browsing VAF on the public payroll? Obviously, FAA has put their top men on this.

Top. Men.

Meh, I want my ten minutes back.

[maus92]

I wrote the Faa the following.
To Michael Heusser. I hope I am addressing this to the right party. I have had the navworx 600b for years. Have followed the proposed AD closely. I have a garmin 430w that could be used as position source however My concern is whether navworx is a viable company. Certainly doesn't appear to be in business.
Decided that I would go ahead and make the change to the Dynon transponder which is rebate compliant. I am trusting that the navworx Faa action is a one off and not an issue with other manufacturers?
So thinking I could at least qualify for the $500 rebate, decided to go forward. Now I find that I am not eligible for the rebate because I have had "certified" equipment i.e. Navworx which is no longer certified. Talk about a catch 22.
I'd certainly appreciate hearing from you. To be dealing with the navworx mess and then be told my early compliance is now penalizing me is hard to swallow. Thanks.
Kevin Oshea
Got a quick response. They can't do anything until the AD is finalized. Will probably be several months.
Of course the rebate period will be closed by then. This navworx saga just keeps getting worse.

That seems weird - if you are changing out to a Dynon ES transponder, and you are using the Garmin 430W as the position source, then what's the problem? The Navworx would be relegated to ADS-B In duties, a capability that isn't even mandated. Maybe it's because you already installed ADS-B Out previously (with a possibly non-compliant solution?)

[dynonsupport]

The rebate requires that the aircraft has never transmitted ADS-B OUT before. Doesn't matter if it was compliant, TSO'd, certified. legal, or anything else. If your plane has had any ADS-B OUT before, you can't get the rebate. Thus, upgrades to a plane's ADS-B system are really never eligible.

Just the way the rebate is set up.

[DavidBunin]

I've also seen, on another board, posts by someone (probably the same guy) who says his wife worked in some unspecified capacity for Navworx at some unspecified point in past, and who may or more likely may not have the slightest clue what's going on. So far those posts have not included anything that would indicate either he or his ex-employee wife have any information that the rest of us don't have

Hi guys! Mind if I join the formation?

By way of introduction, my name is David Bunin. I am an A&P/IA who has spent a career working in avionics. Some of you may know my wife Bethany Bunin, who has worked as the NavWorx Customer Support Specialist since 2013. She was put on furlough when the FAA actions in-effect put the company on hold. Then she suffered a back injury that put her in the hospital for emergency surgery. She has been in rehabilitation ever since. Only recently has she been healthy enough to even think about her employment status. If things work out between NavWorx and the FAA, I believe she would be invited to return to her previous/current position.

From time to time, I have used my A&P background to serve NavWorx as an installation/maintenance consultant. So on-and-off I have been formally associated with NavWorx, but I am not (and never was) a direct employee of the corporation myself. I was invited (along with my wife, naturally) to help them staff the booth at Oshkosh a few times, and at Sun N' Fun once.

With all of that said, there will always be somebody online who knows something that I don't. Knowing everything is a standard I would never claim, although certainly a goal to aspire to. Reading these threads, it appears that you guys pretty much know everything I do about the current situation. But if I notice an opportunity to share, I will.

David Bunin

[DavidBunin]

It's actually very simple. Although you only need ADSB-out in certain airspace, FAR 91.225 says that if it's installed, you must operate it all the time. And FAR 91.227 says when it's operating, it has to send out pressure altitude. But the transponder needs to have your mode C transponder 'pinged' by ATC in order for the Transmon to pick up PA. There's lots of airspace where that doesn't happen. In particular, my home airport (LVK) is inside the SFO mode C veil, so ADSB-out will be required from the ground up. But there's no radar service below about 1000' agl (LVK is in a valley), so Transmon devices will have no PA info until reaching that height.

I almost agree with you Bob, except when we get to the bold highlights. ATC is not the only source of interrogation. Every TCAS-equipped airliner, biz jet, and turboprop is sending out Mode C interrogations all the time. So the TransMON virtually always has pressure altitude replies to work with, even if you are not in ATC radar coverage.

What's missing is the squawk code (TCAS does not interrogate for Mode A) but again if you're not in radar coverage there is no use for a squawk code. The UAT still sends out your tail number (or a random identification number in anonymous mode).

Even if there was no pressure altitude available (suppose an encoder failure) the TSO spec says that the UAT design should provide the "secondary" altitude (GPS altitude) which the NavWorx product does. I've seen it on their test bench.

David Bunin

[BobTurner]

David,
I respectfully disagree. MUCH of the time the transponder will get pinged by a large aircraft. But some times it won't, because it's 3 am and no large planes are around. With the FAA demanding ultra high reliability, MUCH isn't good enough. Same with the GPS altitude back up. It's a backup. The FAR specifically requires PA be sent if the unit is compliant.
What I really want to know is this: If a transmon equipped plane is descending, and, at, let's say 2000', drops below radar coverage and continues down, and there are no TCAS planes around, what will the ADSB-out send out for PA? Will it be the last known one (2000')? Or will it 'time out', and send 'no data'? The latter is bad, the former outright dangerous.

[Jesse]

David,
I respectfully disagree. MUCH of the time the transponder will get pinged by a large aircraft. But some times it won't, because it's 3 am and no large planes are around. With the FAA demanding ultra high reliability, MUCH isn't good enough. Same with the GPS altitude back up. It's a backup. The FAR specifically requires PA be sent if the unit is compliant.
What I really want to know is this: If a transmon equipped plane is descending, and, at, let's say 2000', drops below radar coverage and continues down, and there are no TCAS planes around, what will the ADSB-out send out for PA? Will it be the last known one (2000')? Or will it 'time out', and send 'no data'? The latter is bad, the former outright dangerous.

While I don't disagree with this, having no ads-b (by removing the NavWorx box) would be more dangerous yet, because there would be no indication that the plane is even in the area. Having a plane at low altitude (assuming landing), I would rather have had him shown then disappear so I know there is a plane to see in my see and avoid scan (as well as know more or less where to look for him), than to have no idea if he is there or not. I regularly see planes appear and disappear in these types of situations. Knowing they are out there is much safer, IMHO, than not. Where we are in FL there are pings giving replies from the transponder to the NavWorx via the Transmon any time we are out of the hangar.

[DavidBunin]

Are you familiar with the DO-282 specification? Are you familiar with the UAT downlink message format?

Every UAT Out message includes two altitudes, the primary and the secondary, and a bit to identify which is which.

With the identity bit "normal" the primary altitude is barometric and the secondary altitude is geometric. That means pressure altitude and GPS altitude respectively.

With the identity bit "alternate" the primary altitude is geometric and the secondary is barometric.

When barometric altitude becomes unavailable, the unit goes to alternate mode, per the TSO requirements.

++++++++++++++

All of these things were discussed between the FAA and NavWorx before the TransMON was certified. The FAA approved this design because they intend to provide radar coverage in rule airspace. They said so in their approval documents.

NavWorx is far from unique in relying on transponder replies. Without naming names, there are at least two other name-brand companies that also need a transponder reply.

[BobTurner]

I appreciate the above reply. But I believe the FARs take precedence, and FAR 91.227(d)(3) clearly states that PA must be transmitted. Did NavWorx (and others) get a waiver for this FAR?
I don't understand the comment about rule airspace. The FARs say if installed, it has to operate all the time, everywhere.

[Mike S]

Hi guys! Mind if I join the formation?

By way of introduction, my name is David Bunin.


David, welcome aboard the good ship VAF:D

[DavidBunin]

I appreciate the above reply. But I believe the FARs take precedence, and FAR 91.227(d)(3) clearly states that PA must be transmitted. Did NavWorx (and others) get a waiver for this FAR?
I don't understand the comment about rule airspace. The FARs say if installed, it has to operate all the time, everywhere.

I think what you are picking at is a discrepancy between the documents that govern the design and production of equipment (i.e. TSO requirements) and the documents that govern the operation of the equipment (Part 91).

That is really the FAA's discrepancy, not any one equipment manufacturer's discrepancy.

It would be nice if we could all wait until 2030 and just install third-generation or fourth-generation equipment. I'm sure the market will be much more mature by then. But without the 2020 mandate, there would never be a first-generation of equipment to learn the soft spots in the specifications.

The unit does output altitude all the time. Might be the primary pressure altitude, might be the secondary pressure altitude. That is in compliance with the requirements for the equipment.

[BobTurner]

I think what you are picking at is a discrepancy between the documents that govern the design and production of equipment (i.e. TSO requirements) and the documents that govern the operation of the equipment (Part 91).

That is really the FAA's discrepancy, not any one equipment manufacturer's discrepancy.
nt.

I agree 100%. I think the FAA's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Unfortunately it's the buyers who are caught in the middle.

[GalinHdz]

I agree 100%. I think the FAA's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Unfortunately it's the buyers who are caught in the middle.

Are you kidding? Sometimes it seems that the FAA thumb doesn't know what the FAA pinky from the same hand is doing.
:cool:

[az_gila]

This came from a posting on the Grumman mailing list.
The originator has been tracking the problems closely and had filed FOIA requests.

I finally got some actual information (as opposed to speculation) on what is
going on with the NavWorx-FAA dispute.

The Aviation Electronics Assn, has apparently been mediating between NavWorx
and the FAA. They reached a deal  of sorts which amounted to a series of
talking points. First, NavWorx agreed to tone down the public battle (hence
the taking down of a letter to customers on the website front page).

NavWorx units had been transmitting SIL3  and the FAA was demanding they
change to SIL 0  which would have deprived owners of any uplinked
information. The tentative agreement os to allow the units to switch to SIL
1  which will still give uplinked information (traffic) BUT would not meet
the 2020 mandate requirement. However, it would give NavWorx time to either
replace the internal GPS source chips OR demonstrate the adequacy of the
existing chips.

In addition, if the units use an external certified source (e.g. Garmin or
Avidyne), then they would be approved and would meet the 2020 mandate.

None of this is finalized so anything could happen. The final resolution is
supposed to happen within 2 weeks. Which is an interesting time frame as the
emails to the owner of NavWorx, Bill Moffett, come back with an automated
response that he is on vacation for 2 weeks &.

Speculation: Since NavWorx also produced units sold under the Avidyne label,
should NavWorx fold I would guess Avidyne would acquire the intellectual
property and (hopefully) absorb fixing the 700-800 units that are out there
and continue to produce compliant units.

The exclusive national distributor for NavWorx, Dallas Avionics, has
terminated its distribution agreement.

[JBPILOT]

Interesting for sure.

[rleffler]

The exclusive national distributor for NavWorx, Dallas Avionics, has
terminated its distribution agreement.[/I]

Interesting.

That would explain why I can't get a simple support question answered by either firm. I suspect that Dallas Avionics got overwhelmed when Bill point all the support directly to them.

Of course hearing from Bethany's spouse that she was laid off too, doesn't help. She was one of the few reliable contacts that would actually return your call.

[airguy]

First, NavWorx agreed to tone down the public battle (hence
the taking down of a letter to customers on the website front page).



So the public outcry and pressure upon the FAA via phone calls and letters did have some impact after all...

[MartySantic]

So...... Still do not understand the problem. Is it the GPS chip (as was dismissed by a previous poster), detection of bad data, something else or a combination of these and other issues? Sure would be nice is someone could state the REAL issue.

[gyoung]

So...... Still do not understand the problem. Is it the GPS chip (as was dismissed by a previous poster), detection of bad data, something else or a combination of these and other issues? Sure would be nice is someone could state the REAL issue.

When the FAA changed it's rules and decided units broadcasting SIL=0 would no longer be sent traffic, Navworx came out with a software update that changed the SIL from 0 to 3. That let the units continue to get traffic. The p#@sing contest is about whether Navworx is justified in changing the SIL.

To my mind the real issue is the FAA raising their blackmail demand to get traffic. If they had just left the SIL requirement alone until 2020 everything would be fine. I planned to upgrade the GPS prior to 2020 but wanted traffic now. Without traffic there is no reason (for me at least) to install ADSB OUT.

[az_gila]

A follow-up from the Grumman list by the same person who posted the message I copied 6 posts earlier.

After posting an update a few minutes ago I was surprised to receive a call
from the owner of NavWorx, Bill Moffet from his vacation on a cruise ship in
port in Hawaii.

He tells me the FAA is very non-committal and has even said they might issue a
NEW proposal for an AD to get yet more comments. But they already received a
flood of comments (available on the FAA website) so I doubt they would glean
anything new.

Moffett says NavWorx is finalizing software revisions to hopefully satisfy the
FAA but, worst case, they are ready and willing to replace all the chips the
FAA has an issue with.

Taken with the information I previously got from Dallas Avionics, I am more
hopeful than ever that NavWorx customers will be able to keep their units and
NavWorx will then be able to compete on a level playing field in the ADS-B
space.

[Jesse]

That's great news.

[donaziza]

Yes -2, Both of Az Gila's posts are great news. I for one, am just sitting here with my Navworx still in the box waiting to see what happens.

[Abbygirl1]

Same here donaziza..........

[David-aviator]

A follow-up from the Grumman list by the same person who posted the message I copied 6 posts earlier.

After posting an update a few minutes ago I was surprised to receive a call
from the owner of NavWorx, Bill Moffet from his vacation on a cruise ship in
port in Hawaii.

He tells me the FAA is very non-committal and has even said they might issue a
NEW proposal for an AD to get yet more comments. But they already received a
flood of comments (available on the FAA website) so I doubt they would glean
anything new.

Moffett says NavWorx is finalizing software revisions to hopefully satisfy the
FAA but, worst case, they are ready and willing to replace all the chips the
FAA has an issue with.

Taken with the information I previously got from Dallas Avionics, I am more
hopeful than ever that NavWorx customers will be able to keep their units and
NavWorx will then be able to compete on a level playing field in the ADS-B
space.


Thanks for posting Gil.

How's it go, Faith, Hope, Love, etc. :)

[recapen]

Good updates - hopefully, when Bill gets back from his cruise I can get my unit in for repair. I suspect it has transmission issues (based of the TX/RX error message) unrelated to the AD...I'm using a 430W as the position source....

[Tracer 10]

Thanks Gil for this updated information.
I paid for the EXP TransMon system including wired harness back in October.
I received everything except the the unit with WiFi antenna.
Holding off on the wiring installation until this is resolved and I receive the updated (FAA approved) EXP unit.

[Walt]

Am I the only one who thinks going on a Hawaiian cruise in the middle of a **** storm that may bankrupt your business is just a little weird :confused:

[Brantel]

Am I the only one who thinks going on a Hawaiian cruise in the middle of a **** storm that may bankrupt your business is just a little weird :confused:

Nope.... Your definitely not alone!

[jliltd]

I couldn't help but think the same thing.

"Nero fiddled while Rome burned".

Jim

[MartySantic]

Keep in mind, many book a cruise 10-12 months before to get a good price and the most desirable cabin. Might have happened.....

[Lars]

Keep in mind, many book a cruise 10-12 months before to get a good price and the most desirable cabin. Might have happened.....

Indeed. Which would imply that Mr Moffitt values the few (or even several) thousand dollar cost of the cruise more than the success of his business. Having worked (enjoyably) for a few businessmen who would would have, and sometimes did that I can remember, absorb such a loss to ensure the survival of their business, I'm inclined to side with Walt's perspective. Glad my EXP keeps working...

[BigJohn]

Am I the only one who thinks going on a Hawaiian cruise in the middle of a **** storm that may bankrupt your business is just a little weird :confused:

My first thought.......

[BHunt]

Honestly though, with how long this has been going on and how, relatively, little we seem to know about whats going on behind the curtain, he may very well be able to handle the day-to-day stuff from vacation (this may be a run-on sentence, sue me). It's 2017, there's really not much you can't do while away. The guy has had a ****ty couple months, maybe he needs to step back for a week, take a breather, then get back into the fight. I highly doubt that he's cut ties with the outside world.

[rzbill]

Honestly though, with how long this has been going on and how, relatively, little we seem to know about whats going on behind the curtain,

Exactly. Are any of us really in a position to be critical of his decisions? especially with the good news posted by gil? Is Bill the only person to go golfing while the world was burning?

[JBPILOT]

Compared to the cost of mental health professionals - this may be a better option. Like the election, maybe we can chill until we KNOW something for sure.

[David-aviator]

If Bill is golfing or on a cruise, he believes he has the FAA behind an 8 ball. It could be delusional or real.

I doubt that he is on a cruise or a golf course, it is a smoke screen for something else.

His business may be the Titanic in North Atlantic or USS Enterprise after Battle of Midway. Time will tell.

[AllThumbs]

Scooby is correct. John B is a close second. I've been in contact with Bill a few times about config issues (no connection to GPS issue) so he is staying in touch and involved. And he seriously needs some chill time.

[vic syracuse]

This just posted on Cessna Pilots Association website:

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes
Postby WaiexN143NM ? Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:42 am

Hi all,
Just a quick update. I had 5min direct talk in person with mark baker, pres AOPA the other day. Navworx is done out of business. I've soften my tone a little here too, sounded like a 50/50 share of the blame is faa/navworx. AOPA is working with FAA, and aircraft electronics mfgr's, AEA, to come up with solutions to the 900 adsb boxes that are out there. They are working on it. Somebody will pick up the pieces , as mark put it. Timeline? Cant say. Its too bad it came to this. I shook his hand for the 3rd class medical reform.
One note off this topic, because the other thread got locked. Of the accidents we see in our community, stall/spin, maybe we should all strive to have LRI lift reserve indicators in the panel. No matter what situation we are faced with, you gotta keep it in the green. Ihab, whats going on with airball? Can u enter this years eaa contest again.? Are you still working on a finished unit? Maybe some units for us to test?
Take care everyone, and fly safe.
Michael
WaiexN143NM

Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:04 am
Location: SF CA, Tucson AZ


I think we should wait for an official announcement that Navworx is out of business before posting here.

Vic

[Paul 5r4]

So disappointed to hear this news. I had hoped Navworx would pull through. Just speculation but I bet at navworx it came down to a simple finicial decision. Close up shop and walk away... no more headaches and jumping through hoops for the FAA or customers. And for the customers that never took delivery of their units I hope they get their money back!

[88Vans4]

I ordered my Navworx ADS600 EXP last October through Adventure Pilot (The Ifly folks). Because they had been having some delivery problems with Navworx, they worked out a deal with them to hold customer funds until the unit was actually delivered!

I didn't know anything about this, but a couple of weeks ago, I got a phone call from Walter Boyd at AP. He wanted to know what I wanted to do with my order - keep waiting? Switch to another product? or Refund?

After a couple of days looking at the options, I requested a refund. At the same time, I elected to use part of those funds to upgrade from my Ifly 720 to the new 740.

I have flown with Ifly GPS units since they first came out, and continue to be impressed with AP's customer service, support, and most importantly, the product itself.

Mel B. RV-4, Flying
Dues Paid

[recapen]

Today's the day according to the autoreply from Bill Moffitt's e-mail, that he is back from vacation.

Has anyone heard from him?

I have some tech issue questions in to them related to TX/RX error indication - unrelated to the AD brouhaha...

[hpmicrowave]

I just got a text from Bill on this story and he said he has not talked to AOPA and that NAVWORX has not ceased business. Hopefully he will provide an update soon (if he can given the situation he's in).

Cecil

[Paul 5r4]

Well then, this is GREAT news. I do love this company and their business philosophy of providing a product for many thousands cheaper than the "big boy" competition.... (I've always been a supporter of the underdog)! I met Bill at sun and fun last year and he is a standup kind of guy!

[lr172]

Am I the only one who thinks going on a Hawaiian cruise in the middle of a **** storm that may bankrupt your business is just a little weird :confused:

I think that affords a window into the business philosophy and sheds some light on why these problems are happening to them.

[Jesse]

I have a hard time understanding how people think it's a bad idea to take a vacation. If there was anything he could do in the mean time, while waiting on the FAA to make their next move, I'm sure he would have done that instead. I can't imagine he could make things go any faster by sitting at home than going on a cruise, if in fact he did do that. If nothing else, it gave him a chance to rest up a little to return to the "fight" for survival. He's got a great product and the pricing is way below the competition.

[David-aviator]

Well then, this is GREAT news. I do love this company and their business philosophy of providing a product for many thousands cheaper than the "big boy" competition.... (I've always been a supporter of the underdog)! I met Bill at sun and fun last year and he is a standup kind of guy!

Paul,
Do you have a deposit with navworx and nothing to show for it?
I've been totally cut off communication wise and have not been unpleasant with them.
They just are not responding to inquiries re shipping as is, or a refund.

[David-aviator]

I just got a text from Bill on this story and he said he has not talked to AOPA and that NAVWORX has not ceased business. Hopefully he will provide an update soon (if he can given the situation he's in).

Cecil

Cecil, since you are in contact with navworx would you ask Bill the status of my order?
Also ask if they'd send a refund as promised last fall.
They do not respond to emails from customers.

[Paul 5r4]

David, No deposit however I do have the 600 EXP model which was installing just a few months before this all came out so I do have an iron in the fire. It IS great news that navworx isn't out of business and I feel that based on my impression of Bill he will stand behind your investment with his company.... eventually. :-(
I completely understand your frustration though and I agree that they should give you your money back without hesitation! Also feel that if Bill would communicate a little more regularly with a web site post etc it would keep customers in the loop.

[Tracer 10]

I agree with what Jesse said 100%.

[lndwarrior]

I think that affords a window into the business philosophy and sheds some light on why these problems are happening to them.

You don't know anything about the man or what's going on in his life. You also don't understand the first thing about life's priorities if you think a man's business is the most important thing in his life.

You have no window into his life. The arrogance of some people is amazing.

[BHunt]

I think that affords a window into the business philosophy and sheds some light on why these problems are happening to them.

Honestly though, with how long this has been going on and how, relatively, little we seem to know about whats going on behind the curtain, he may very well be able to handle the day-to-day stuff from vacation (this may be a run-on sentence, sue me). It's 2017, there's really not much you can't do while away. The guy has had a ****ty couple months, maybe he needs to step back for a week, take a breather, then get back into the fight. I highly doubt that he's cut ties with the outside world.

I'll just leave this right here

[dvalle]

I share your feelings in that it would be VERY beneficial to Bill to keep us in the loop on his webpage. Since I bought two of these units, I feel the financial pain (and have not requested a refund) and have been VERY proactive in coaching for help. I think I was the first to contact AOPA via phone, emailed EAA, talked the actual FAA guy involved with this, wrote to the FAA admin assistant and my Senator...eventually talking to his "aviation" person. All with pleas of getting the FAA to work with Navworx to resolve. Also I did ask Bill to keep us in the loop on his website.

[recapen]

Trying to follow-up on my non-AD related technical issue.
Left a message with my phone number.
Have not heard back.
I would really like to get my unit repaired - so I can get back to flight testing with it!

[JohnAJohnson]

Ralph, you probably won't get any support any time soon. I tried for a couple of months for a non AD problem and got no replies or help from either Navworx or Dallas Avionics. What's your problem? Maybe I or someone here can help.

[recapen]

I have the unit installed, wired up, and running.
430W is the position source and traffic display, SL-70 is the control head and altitude source, and MX-20 is the display configured for traffic and weather. All provide and receive properly in the simulated mode.

The unit is configured and comes back with the green "Ready for Flight" indications. It also comes back with a "TX/RX error" indication.

Before the AD brouhaha started, I had been communicating with Bill and his staff to get my unit configured and working. The last response from him was to the effect of "we gotta get rid of the TX/RX error" and he instructed me to do some system initialization in various sequences. I have tried every possible combination that I can think of - all resulting in the TX/RX error message. During that set of tests, which lasted quite a while, I got a fail warning from my SL-70 - which went away when I powered off the NavWorx box. I waited a half hour before powering it back on...I think the NavWorx box has an issue as this part happens every once in a while the exact same way....power cycling the NavWorx box clears the issue in my SL-70 immediately and waiting a half hour prevents it from recurring.

I have sent all of this in to NavWorx along with screen captures of the "Ready" and "TX/RX Error" messages - but with the AD noise, I think I have been forgotten in the shuffle. Since I am using a 430W for my position source, I think that will allow me to continue operating the unit as the AD should allow that (my common-sense thinking). Meanwhile, I have flown it in airspace where I should have received both traffic and weather - with no indication of ADSB-IN data.

Thanks in advance,

[JohnAJohnson]

My -013 wasn't transmitting about 50% of the time, but always received (FIS-B) OK. My problem was with the Transmon circuit. I rewired it twice, tried another Transmon, and still, it wouldn't reliably capture Baro Alt or squawk code. I finally dumped the transmon and wired directly to my transponder for the squawk code, and wired directly to my encoder (Ack 30.9) for the Baro Alt.

Doesn't sound the same as your problem but still, make sure you have good Baro Alt and Squawk codes from the transponder (and position source, I too am getting position from my 430W via ARINC) as it won't transmit without both being green on the status screen. Hopefully someone else will chime in with ideas, or someone local will offer to swap ADS600-B boxes with you to troubleshoot.

[recapen]

Thanks!

Both the position and alt indicators show as green - it also says ready for flight - along with the yellow TX/RX indicator.

Mine is also a -13 direct wired to the SL-70 for the altitude and squawk code...no TransMon gizmo...

I'm in Laurel, DE (N06) - if anyone has a unit they'll let me troubleshoot with (or let me put mine in their working environment), I would greatly appreciate it.

[lr172]

You don't know anything about the man or what's going on in his life. You also don't understand the first thing about life's priorities if you think a man's business is the most important thing in his life.

You have no window into his life. The arrogance of some people is amazing.

I know nothing about the man or his priorities. But I do know he has a real risk of losing his business if he doesn't resolve this issue. If it were me, I'd be working around the clock to find a meaningful resolution to avoid the destruction of a business that I spent years building. I recognize this is my opinion and should not be expected of all.

I also have no idea how he prioritizes his life choices. However, most business owners that go through an unplanned closure of their business have their lives turned upside down (professional and personal), whether they want it or not. I would certainly be cancelling vacations to avoid that possible outcome. I just can't see this as anything but a life or death situation for Navworx.

further, I find it interesting that posters on this thread have contacted AOPA, FAA, EAA, senators, etc. to resolve this situation, yet the business hasn't returned customer calls for several months and is now the owner is on a cruise.

I apologize if I came across too strong with my opinions here. In hind sight, I regret sharing them.

Larry

[rleffler]

I'm experiencing similar support issues. I've decided to sit back until this debacle has quieted down a bit. It helps keeping the blood pressure down. I have a Stratux that I'm using in the interim. When it gets a little warmer in the hangar, I'll start working on it again.

My issue is that the display out went dead. It's work fine for almost four years. Bill quickly blamed the wiring. I can successfully run a loop back test from the EFIS to the DB37 at the NavWorx unit. I also checked for shorts to each wire. MY EFIS also gives me the ability to promiscuous listen on the port to see the actual data being transmitted. No data was being transmitted.

I did send the unit in and Bethany recertified it and sent it back the day before this fiasco started with the FAA.

Installed back into the aircraft. No joy, same symptoms.

So I installed it Geoff Combs' aircraft. Same symptoms in his as well. No output on the display. At least the symptoms are consistent. Yes, the display output settings have been validated by numerous folks besides myself.

The unit works just fine, with the exception of the display output.

Numerous calls and emails have not been returned.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to his plight with the FAA, but my patience with Bill's lack of communication to his customer base is starting to wear thin. Especially what appears to be abandonment of supporting his customer's support issues.

I have the unit installed, wired up, and running.
430W is the position source and traffic display, SL-70 is the control head and altitude source, and MX-20 is the display configured for traffic and weather. All provide and receive properly in the simulated mode.

The unit is configured and comes back with the green "Ready for Flight" indications. It also comes back with a "TX/RX error" indication.

Before the AD brouhaha started, I had been communicating with Bill and his staff to get my unit configured and working. The last response from him was to the effect of "we gotta get rid of the TX/RX error" and he instructed me to do some system initialization in various sequences. I have tried every possible combination that I can think of - all resulting in the TX/RX error message. During that set of tests, which lasted quite a while, I got a fail warning from my SL-70 - which went away when I powered off the NavWorx box. I waited a half hour before powering it back on...I think the NavWorx box has an issue as this part happens every once in a while the exact same way....power cycling the NavWorx box clears the issue in my SL-70 immediately and waiting a half hour prevents it from recurring.

I have sent all of this in to NavWorx along with screen captures of the "Ready" and "TX/RX Error" messages - but with the AD noise, I think I have been forgotten in the shuffle. Since I am using a 430W for my position source, I think that will allow me to continue operating the unit as the AD should allow that (my common-sense thinking). Meanwhile, I have flown it in airspace where I should have received both traffic and weather - with no indication of ADSB-IN data.


Thanks in advance,

[Jesse]

Thanks!

Both the position and alt indicators show as green - it also says ready for flight - along with the yellow TX/RX indicator.

Mine is also a -13 direct wired to the SL-30 for the altitude and squawk code...no TransMon gizmo...

I'm in Laurel, DE (N06) - if anyone has a unit they'll let me troubleshoot with (or let me put mine in their working environment), I would greatly appreciate it.

I can't imagine how being connected to an SL-30 could give altitude and squawk to the ADS600. I assume you mean SL-70 or GTX-327 or something like that.

The SL-70 will output altitude and squawk.

The GTX-327 will only output squawk. If you have a serial encoder or an EFIS acting as an encoder, then you can use that for altitude.

[recapen]

It's a SL-70 - I corrected it - thanks!

[recapen]

Good to know that I'm not the only one with technical - non-AD related issues awaiting a response!

[Bdalporto]

I copied and pasted the Cessna Pilots email and sent it to Mark Baker and asked if it was what he said. Here is the response;

Hi Brian,
Mark Baker has been traveling extensively lately and I have been asked to respond to your email.
It is our understanding that NavWorx is still in business, and has been discussing the proposed AD with the FAA in hopes of coming to a resolution. Other than that, the FAA continues to review the comments posted to the docket in response to the proposed AD, and we urge members to remain patient during this process.
Regards,
Tom


Thomas A. Zecha, Jr.
Manager, AOPA Pilot Information Center
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association
tom.zecha@aopa.org
Phone: 301-695-2211
421 Aviation Way, Frederick MD 21701
www.aopa.org




There is some new info on the Cessna Pilots Association forum from a person whose wife worked at Navworx. Unless Navworx (Bill) has a rather large sum of money to fight this, I'm getting the feeling that their doors may never open.
Just hope maybe someone will pick up the pieces.
Larry

[Mike S]

Just strictly a FYI thing, I checked the last time Bill logged into VAF-----earlier this month.

So, it would appear he is at least monitoring the discussions here, if not contributing to them. His last actual post was about a year ago.

Bill-------any input would be appreciated.

[recapen]

Maybe we need a separate topic just for Bill! We can all put our stuff in there!

[dwschaefer]

Well as a very early adopter .. I've now gone through all the 5-stages of grief and am finally at acceptance.

Based on the complete lack of customer service/updates, ridiculous tirade on the website blaming everyone but themselves, and no forthcoming communications with a solution, I no longer believe we'll get a solution from Navworx.

That said, I'm researching replacement options and am shocked that the cost still remains as high as it is. The LEAST expensive solution I can come up with is to do the ES upgrade to my 330, then hope Trig quickly releases their new low cost certified GPS as a position source for the 330, since my 430 isn't good enough. Then find a ADS-B in source for the Grand Rapids screens, and maybe with ARINC for the 430.

I'm wondering why other providers like Dynon etc. don't release their ADS-B and GPS solutions for those of us who don't have their hardware. Seems like a good income source!

Wonderful!

DWS
RV6-A N142DS

[dynonsupport]

I'm wondering why other providers like Dynon etc. don't release their ADS-B and GPS solutions for those of us who don't have their hardware. Seems like a good income source!

To use a GPS as your ADS-B OUT position source, you must test it with that ADS-B OUT device, and produce engineering data that this system meets a Source Integrity Level (SIL) that is sufficient. The GPS and ADS-B transmitter are not allowed to exist and be tested independently.

So basically, for Dynon to "release" it to the world, we'd need to provide test data and installation instructions for it to be legal, for every transponder and UAT on the market. That's just not something we currently see a strong enough business case for. It's why we only support our GPS with our transponder because that's the only combination we can control well enough to make a statement of compliance. We'd even need to control for firmware revisions on the ADS-B OUT devices as this can easily change compliance and compatibility.

It is possible for someone that isn't Dynon or the Transponder manufacturer to do this if they want to, so you could actually buy a SV-GPS-2020 and hook it to your transponder and test it yourself, but then you'd be the one making a statement of compliance to 91.227, not Dynon or the ADS-B OUT manufacturer. You'd probably need to redo this anytime any software changed in the GPS or ADS-B OUT transmitter as well.

From the FAA guidance on ADS-B in experimentals. Note that it doesn't talk about GPS independently, it's always the system as a whole, and that it requires the manufacturer to provide installation instructions that create a repeatable compliant system:

I operate an amateur built experimental aircraft. What should I install?

The ADS-B Out equipment installed in an aircraft must meet the performance requirements of the ADS-B TSOs. A TSO authorization, issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21 subpart O, is not required. However, ADS-B Out systems and equipment installed or used in type-certificated aircraft must have a design approval issued under 14 CFR 21 (or must be installed by field approval, if appropriate).

The performance requirements include those requirements referenced in section 3 of the applicable TSO (UAT or 1090ES), including considerations for design assurance and environmental qualification. Deviations to the requirements can be approved for equipment which does obtain a TSO authorization, as identified in 14 CFR 91.227.

For experimental category aircraft there is no FAA approval required for the ADS-B Out system installation. Owners of these aircraft may elect to install equipment authorized under a TSO, in accordance with the installation instructions provided by the manufacturer. Alternatively, owners of these aircraft may elect to purchase uncertified equipment. For uncertified equipment, the owner should obtain a statement of compliance from the supplier, along with installation instructions, that identifies that the ADS-B equipment complies with section 3 requirements of the applicable TSO and that, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions, complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227. The FAA expects manufacturers to perform appropriate engineering efforts to ensure the equipment complies with all requirements of Section 3 of the TSO before issuing their statement of compliance, and expects installers to consider the guidance in the current version of AC 20-165B when performing the installation.

Owners of experimental aircraft should retain the statement of compliance from the equipment supplier in the aircraft records to assist in resolving in-service issues, should they arise. The FAA monitors compliance to the ADS-B Out requirements, and if the equipment, or an installation, is determined to be noncompliant the operator may not be able to enter the airspace designated in 14 CFR 91.225 until the equipment or installation is brought into compliance.

[Deweyclawson]

Grand rapids just released their adsb gps for about $500.

[Mike S]

Grand rapids just released their adsb gps for about $500.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=146171

[Tankerpilot75]

It looks like you have a similar setup to my panel. I've got two 430s (non-WAAS) and a 330 transponder (non-ES). Sunday I learned GRT is now selling their Fly Safe 2020 Compliant GPS for $500 that provides compliant gps information to their EFIS and other systems. While it's non-certified, they say it meets or exceeds FAR 91.227, TSO C166b, TSO C154c standards.

I asked in another thread whether this could feed gps data to my 330. I was told it would and if I upgrade my 330 to a 330-ES then I would meet ads-b out requirements for experimental category aircraft. While this setup is not allowed for certicated aircraft it is legal in experimental. Now if I add FlightBox ads-b in data to my EFIS (which is doable following GRT instructions) I should have both ads-b "in and out" on my EFIS and iPad. The good thing here is that Garmin ads-b out is 1090 MHz which allows you flight above 18,000'.

I estimate the equipment cost at $500 for the Fly Safe GPS and around $1,300 for the 330 upgrade. This is a cheaper and I think easier approach than the NavWorx approach from an installation standpoint and I know GRT is a good small company that supports its client base. If I decide later to go a different direction then selling the upgraded Garmin 330 should recover most of my upgrade cost. NavWorx's reputation has suffered these last few months and like you I'm looking for a good, inexpensive option.

[Sam Buchanan]

To use a GPS as your ADS-B OUT position source, you must test it with that ADS-B OUT device, and produce engineering data that this system meets a Source Integrity Level (SIL) that is sufficient. The GPS and ADS-B transmitter are not allowed to exist and be tested independently.

...GRT is now selling their Fly Safe 2020 Compliant GPS for $500 that provides compliant gps information to their EFIS and other systems. While it's non-certified, they say it meets or exceeds FAR 91.227, TSO C166b, TSO C154c standards.

It will be interesting to see if the FAA rules we can have a compliant "experimental" system by mixing and matching independently tested GPS receivers and transponders. Here we have two reputable vendors apparently holding different opinions on this issue....if I understand their positions correctly.

[JohnAJohnson]

The unit works just fine, with the exception of the display output.

Bob, I tried to wire (on my ADS600-B) a Bluetooth adapter and a WIFI adapter to Display 1 and Display 2 (so as to have my choice of either) and I found out, using sniffers and other means, that Display 2 does not send out TIS-B, only Position. I spoke with Bill on the phone and he was insistent that if it showed up on the "reports" screen, it is being output to all three Display outputs, end of discussion. I did try it with multiple iPads (WingX) and multiple Androids and Andriod apps, and Display 2 never would send out TIS-B. Even the raw data showed position only. I enjoyed speaking with Bill, but on some issues, I believe he might have the propensity to deny the existence of bugs or hardware issues as he did with Display 2 output. It is, after all, calling his baby ugly.

[DavidBunin]

I know nothing about the man or his priorities. But I do know ... the owner is on a cruise.

When I spoke with Bill last week, he was surprised to learn that he had been on a cruise.

It turns out that he did go for a whale-watching boat ride while on vacation, but he never took a cruise. (He did take a call from a NavWorx customer while on vacation and apparently this was the source of the "cruise" rumor. He mentioned the boat during the call to explain some of the background noise.)

To quote an old friend, "It's not that we don't know. It's that what we know just isn't so."

David Bunin

[rleffler]

Bob, I tried to wire (on my ADS600-B) a Bluetooth adapter and a WIFI adapter to Display 1 and Display 2 (so as to have my choice of either) and I found out, using sniffers and other means, that Display 2 does not send out TIS-B, only Position. I spoke with Bill on the phone and he was insistent that if it showed up on the "reports" screen, it is being output to all three Display outputs, end of discussion. I did try it with multiple iPads (WingX) and multiple Androids and Andriod apps, and Display 2 never would send out TIS-B. Even the raw data showed position only. I enjoyed speaking with Bill, but on some issues, I believe he might have the propensity to deny the existence of bugs or hardware issues as he did with Display 2 output. It is, after all, calling his baby ugly.

Interesting........

I never hooked up my wifi to display 2, but was about ready to when the display 1 issues started occurring. I'd would have been really pissed if all I got was position data, with no traffic or weather. That certainly is contrary to what's implied in the manual.

I've advised Bill on numerous occasions over the last four or five years, he really needs to provide a support forum on his site. Most of his users are pretty tech savvy, especially the early adopters. Users helping other users would take a tremendous burden off his support. It was also give him a place to disseminate information in a controlled environment. For what ever reason, not communicated to me, he didn't think it was added value.

[az_gila]

Hmmm ...

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so." - Will Rogers

From the 50's.... Pick a box for the previous comments -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Johari_Window.PNG

[DennisRhodes]

I don't kmow how many times I've looked at the Navworx site expecting to see a support forum but it never happened. It would be the best method to distribute info on the products and avoid all this guessing. Maybe a lesson learned for business in the 2000s. Actually got better info on navworx products from some of the competition or at least distributors Web site forums.

[dwschaefer]

Feeling better today about ADS-B replacement solutions... I now have a workable solution for ADS-B OUT for my non-W 430/330 setup after I remove the NavWorx unit.

I'm going to have the ES upgrade done for the 330 to turn it into an ES then add the Garmin GPS 20A as a position source. That should work out to round $2000 for OUT .. still haven't worked out the IN for my GRT displays.

Unfortunately, there are limited options for GRT IN to feed the displays. All the Garmins speak their own language so the most promising looks to be the Pathfinder Remote unit, that would add about another $400 to the package. Does anyone with a GRT display use the Pathfinder Remote?

The pain of losing my NavWorx unit is beginning to fade. :-)

DWS
N142DS RV-6A

[roadrunner20]

Feeling better today about ADS-B replacement solutions... I now have a workable solution for ADS-B OUT for my non-W 430/330 setup after I remove the NavWorx unit.

I'm going to have the ES upgrade done for the 330 to turn it into an ES then add the Garmin GPS 20A as a position source. That should work out to round $2000 for OUT .. still haven't worked out the IN for my GRT displays.

Unfortunately, there are limited options for GRT IN to feed the displays. All the Garmins speak their own language so the most promising looks to be the Pathfinder Remote unit, that would add about another $400 to the package. Does anyone with a GRT display use the Pathfinder Remote?

The pain of losing my NavWorx unit is beginning to fade. :-)

DWS
N142DS RV-6A

Stratux can be wired into the GRT now for about $100.
http://www.grtavionics.com/StratuxSupplement.pdf
I have one from my pre-Navworx install back in Nov 2015.
I may try to implement for redundancy.

[Tankerpilot75]

Feeling better today about ADS-B replacement solutions... I now have a workable solution for ADS-B OUT for my non-W 430/330 setup after I remove the NavWorx unit.

I'm going to have the ES upgrade done for the 330 to turn it into an ES then add the Garmin GPS 20A as a position source. That should work out to round $2000 for OUT .. still haven't worked out the IN for my GRT displays.

Unfortunately, there are limited options for GRT IN to feed the displays. All the Garmins speak their own language so the most promising looks to be the Pathfinder Remote unit, that would add about another $400 to the package. Does anyone with a GRT display use the Pathfinder Remote?

The pain of losing my NavWorx unit is beginning to fade. :-)



DWS
N142DS RV-6A

I think I might like this approach even better that the GRT Fly Safe 2020 GPS / 330 upgrade to extended squitter approach I discussed yesterday. What would make me like it even more would be it qualifying for the FAA rebate! Does anyone know?

This allows a certified gps and certified transponder and not mixing non-certified with certified equipment. A rebate of $500 makes this even more economical than the approach I discussed above.

[dynonsupport]

What would make me like it even more would be it qualifying for the FAA rebate! Does anyone know?


The rebate is only available for aircraft installing TSO'd equipment (not just meeting the TSO) and for aircraft that have never transmitted ADS-B OUT before.

The GPS 20A is not TSO'd / Certified, and if you had a Navworx before, you've already transmitted ADS-B OUT.

It's a bummer, but for experimentals it's hard to get the rebate and actually save money since it forces you to buy more expensive TSO'd equipment that generally costs more than $500 more than your other options.

[Tankerpilot75]

I think I might like this approach even better that the GRT Fly Safe 2020 GPS / 330 upgrade to extended squitter approach I discussed yesterday. What would make me like it even more would be it qualifying for the FAA rebate! Does anyone know?

This allows a certified gps and certified transponder and not mixing non-certified with certified equipment. A rebate of $500 makes this even more economical than the approach I discussed above.

It looks like I wrote the above too soon! I just looked at the Garmin website on the 20A gps. They say it's $850, non-TSO'd, and requires the purchase of a compatible gps antenna. Therefore I'd still be mixing a certified 330ES with a non-certified gps source at a higher cost plus antenna purchase. The GRT Fly Safe 2020 GPS again looks like a better solution.

[dwschaefer]

It looks like I wrote the above too soon! I just looked at the Garmin website on the 20A gps. They say it's $850, non-TSO'd, and requires the purchase of a compatible gps antenna. Therefore I'd still be mixing a certified 330ES with a non-certified gps source at a higher cost plus antenna purchase.

True .. however if you take a look at the 20A install docs in the G3X documentation you'll find that it was specifically designed for this purpose in Exp Aircraft:

"The Garmin GPS 20A, while not TSO approved, meets the ADS-B Out position source performance requirements for FAR 91.227 compliance when used in combination with a Mode S ADS-B Out transponder meeting the requirements of TSO-C166b and installed in accordance with the instructions in this document. Example transponders which may be used in combination with the GPS 20A for FAR 91.227 compliance are the Garmin GTX 330ES, GTX 23ES, GTX 35R, GTX 45R, GTX 345/345R, and GTX 335/335R."

I called Garmin today to confirm its use with the 330ES and they confirmed the above.

So I suspect spending a little more will mean a Garmin Transponder paired with a Garmin GPS. While I believe that GRT should be good enough, it's such a muddy area... I don't want to play.

Who knows!

DWS

[dwschaefer]

Stratux can be wired into the GRT now for about $100.
http://www.grtavionics.com/StratuxSupplement.pdf
I have one from my pre-Navworx install back in Nov 2015.
I may try to implement for redundancy.

I'm a huge fan of Raspberry Pi .. use them for several applications. I'll have to take a look ..want to mount in the back and use the belly antenna I used with NavWorx.

Thanks...

DWS
N142DS Rv6-A

[Sam Buchanan]

I'm a huge fan of Raspberry Pi .. use them for several applications. I'll have to take a look ..want to mount in the back and use the belly antenna I used with NavWorx.

Thanks...

DWS
N142DS Rv6-A

I recently put a transponder antenna on the bottom of the RV-6's tailcone for my dual-band Stratux install and am getting good service. The Raspberry is mounted on a sidewall in the baggage compartment and talks to a Nexus 7 running Avare.

[dwschaefer]

I recently put a transponder antenna on the bottom of the RV-6's tailcone for my dual-band Stratux install and am getting good service.

Sam .. when I looked at Stratux it was a dual-band dual-antenna system... did you mount two antennas on the bottom? What are you doing with the other antenna?

Thanks...

David Schaefer
RV6-A N142DS

[jwyatt]

Sam .. when I looked at Stratux it was a dual-band dual-antenna system... did you mount two antennas on the bottom? What are you doing with the other antenna

Not Sam, but I'm testing a Stratux with belly mount antenna in my 9A. Last night I got 6 towers at 1500agl and air to air traffic from 100+nm away. I have dual band receive, with a splitter cable (dual mcx to single sma) feeding one antenna to both SDR modules. Feeds iPad and my AFS 4500.

[Sam Buchanan]

Not Sam, but I'm testing a Stratux with belly mount antenna in my 9A. Last night I got 6 towers at 1500agl and air to air traffic from 100+nm away. I have dual band receive, with a splitter cable (dual mcx to single sma) feeding one antenna to both SDR modules. Feeds iPad and my AFS 4500.

Same here, one antenna split to two receivers.

[DavidBunin]

Hmmm ...

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so." - Will Rogers

I suppose I now know where my friend got it from.

I never thought to ask him if it was an original.

[Abbygirl1]

Well guys........ I have officially given up. Should have went with my son's advice. I guess that Air Force Academy education IS the real thing. He's a C-17 aircraft commander/ instructor pilot. Yep should have listened when he said I should have bought my ADS-B out equipment from a "big boy". Sad to say, but like an informed person told me: "the buzzards are circling" Navworx. SOOOO, I am getting an Appareo ESG. Will be installing when my son permanently moves out here mid March. He will actually be flying my airplane more than me probably, since for the short duration of his remaining AF career he will be commuting from KAVL to KCHS leaving on Sunday PM and returning Friday in the PM. Already got him a hangar at Summerville, SC. It's a good 1 hour 15 min. flight in the -6A.
So, if by some miracle Navworx works something out with the FAA, I will sell my never been opened Navworx ADS600B-0012. The list price I see has risen dramatically. But, with the Appareo I will get a new transponder replacing the KT76A. I just ordered and received the Navworx stuff a week before the FAA did them in. My luck........ :(

[DaleB]

Well guys........ I have officially given up.
I feel for you. I was planning to order the EXP box from them to install during my upcoming condition inspection. As much as I love the little guy, the underdog, and small nimble companies that do what others should be doing... after the incredibly poor way they've handled this issue, I'm looking elsewhere.

You know, sometimes you get tied up in a regulatory snafu. It happens. It usually happens because you misinterpreted something, or missed something, or maybe thought you could get away with something (AmeriKing), but occasionally it's just not your fault. Doesn't matter. In this case, we really have no idea what the problem is or if it will be resolved. There has been a total vacuum from Navworx, which now (from what I'm seeing here at least) extends to simple customer support as well.

Screwing up is forgivable. If you screw up, own up - fix it - move on. But it doesn't matter whether things are your fault or not, clamming up and not supporting your customers is unforgivable. Navworx may or may not survive, but at this point it doesn't matter to me. Even in the unlikely event it turned out that the FAA was completely wrong, I'm not buying from them because I have no confidence they'll be answering the phone or email when I need them.

[roadrunner20]

I love the EXP box and hope it continues to work, because there is no support or hope that it would ever be fixed.
I bought in early and was a big supporter of the product.

With the way they have and are treating their customers, I don't see how they can survive. They have lost all trust and credibility.

I just hope Bill is in negotiations with a big company(Avidyne) to maybe take over their product line & offer support for all the orphans.

[recapen]

Just checking to see if anyone has heard from NavWorx in any form....
I have started another thread to help each other out with tech issue....
I have some help lined up for me and offer my environment (SL-70, 430W, MX-20, AFS3400EE, and GRT Mini-AP) for testing your -x12 and -x13 units.

[David-aviator]

I believe everything is on hold until the FAA makes decision on proposed AD.

That should happen within 60 days.

[tim2542]

I believe everything is on hold until the FAA makes decision on proposed AD.

That should happen within 60 days.

I cant imagine the FAA's action in anyway limit Navworx from replying to CS emails, answering the phone or at least posting an update for their customers.

The FAA may have provided the bullets, but the damage appears self inflicted. Had they at least posted status updates to make it appear they are fighting the good fight, most of the customer base would have hung in there and supported them with more emails and phone calls to the FAA.
It appears Bill has moved on, maybe we should also.

Tim Andres

[David-aviator]

I cant imagine the FAA's action in anyway limit Navworx from replying to CS emails, answering the phone or at least posting an update for their customers.

The FAA may have provided the bullets, but the damage appears self inflicted. Had they at least posted status updates to make it appear they are fighting the good fight, most of the customer base would have hung in there and supported them with more emails and phone calls to the FAA.
It appears Bill has moved on, maybe we should also.

Tim Andres

I tend to agree with you Tim.

The owner has lost interest in the company he founded.

Least he could do is say its on hold pending the proposed AD.

But not a word, its like he doesn't exist.

He owes money to guys who have received nothing, may be in a hole keeping his head down.

[DennisRhodes]

Reminds me of the BD5 days. Really wanted to build one of those but decided to wait. Lot of people lost big $ on that . Myself, I wound up with a 600 EXP but it still works great.

[donaziza]

Any of you guys out there near Roswell, Texas banged on his door?

[dwschaefer]

Well .. I started the replacement process today. Sent my 330 in for the ES upgrade, ordered the Garmin GPS-20A for a WAAS position source and ordered a Pathfinder Remote for ADS-B in.

I've mapped out all the wires from the NavWorx that I can reuse. Should be about a weekend project. Sadly I'm going to lose ARINC into the 430's for traffic other than TIS-A which will still come from the 330ES. I should have everything in place and ready when the 330ES get's back in 10 days or so.

It would certainly be a nice gesture if NavWorx customers got a waiver on the ADS-B prior-use for the $500 it would help take some of the sting out of the process.

I'll let you know how it works.

Regards,

David
RV6-A N142DS
n142ds.com

[hpmicrowave]

I had asked Bill several times to post an update on the Forum, but for reasons only he knows he has not done so, but he did respond to my request for an update several hours ago today and agreed that I could post it here on the forum;
-------------------------
Bill Moffitt
2:51 PM (2 hours ago)

to me
Cecil,

We're waiting on the FAA to finalize the AD. Once this happens we will move forward with sales and support of our products.

Best Regards,

Bill Moffitt
NavWorx Incorporated

[dtw_rv6]

This should be a good datapoint for anyone doing business with Navworx in the future. I gave him money very early when he first stated selling the EXP and I got a good price. However, he promised delivery of the equipment in a few days for almost 9 months straight. He rarely responded to my inquiries and I learned back then that I will never send another dime to he man. I paid for dual radios in my EXP that he said would be activated last fall. That hasn't happened.

Caveat emptor for anyone who hasn't already learned their lesson. He isn't going to change, so don't expect him to.

Don

[Bill Dicus]

Who did your upgrade and what was your cost? Thanks for any info!

[Bill Dicus]

Oops - got on wrong thread! Sorry...

[David-aviator]

I had asked Bill several times to post an update on the Forum, but for reasons only he knows he has not done so, but he did respond to my request for an update several hours ago today and agreed that I could post it here on the forum;
-------------------------
Bill Moffitt
2:51 PM (2 hours ago)

to me
Cecil,

We're waiting on the FAA to finalize the AD. Once this happens we will move forward with sales and support of our products.

Best Regards,

Bill Moffitt
NavWorx Incorporated

I've been searching for information on Navworx and Bill Moffitt.

Found this 16 minute Youtube interview regarding ADS-B at the 2015 AEA Convention. It provides some insight into the man, his background and his view of the industry relative to the FAA. It does not explain why he left his customers in a lurch.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=aaplw&p=youtube+navworx#id=3&vid=d08bfa2e336ebd81e29e7f8183640844&action=click

[keijidosha]

I have a NavWorx ADS600 EXP paired with Trig TT-22. It works great. But I have been researching replacement strategies in case the AD outcome is bad.

So far I either need to spend in excess of $5k for a box to replace the EXP features, or about $3k to install a kludge panel cluster to get the same capabilities. And interfacing info is scarce, so not sure I will be able to install it as I did the EXP. Seems to me the EXP box is a pretty clever, clean, and versatile solution to ADS-B that interfaces with a wide range of existing equipment. I find no direct competition, certainly not near the price. I hope they find a way to continue.

[BobTurner]

I have a NavWorx ADS600 EXP paired with Trig TT-22. It works great. But I have been researching replacement strategies in case the AD outcome is bad.

So far I either need to spend in excess of $5k for a box to replace the EXP features, or about $3k to install a kludge panel cluster to get the same capabilities. And interfacing info is scarce, so not sure I will be able to install it as I did the EXP. Seems to me the EXP box is a pretty clever, clean, and versatile solution to ADS-B that interfaces with a wide range of existing equipment. I find no direct competition, certainly not near the price. I hope they find a way to continue.

That's crazy. Buy the new $500 GPS from GRT; an airspeed switch from Trig ($100, I think) and you're all set for ADSB-out. Keep the NavWorx with the transmitter turned off for ADSB-in, or buy one of the $500-$800 ADSB-in solutions.

[Canadian_JOY]

I'm with Bob on this one. You already have a 1090ES transponder to do the ADSB-out. All you need for OUT compliance is a position source. The recently-announced GRT unit sounds like a good choice. For the IN solution there are so many alternatives that it almost boggles the mind, and most of them are in the less-than-$1000 price bracket. At the cheap end you could be IN and OUT compliant for under $1000.

As for the airspeed switch, that, according to correspondence I've received from Trig, is NOT required unless one is using an older Air Data Computer. GPS groundspeed data is sufficient for air/ground detection, according to Trig. Is there hard data to suggest otherwise? (Note the STC data for the Trig TT31 mandates a second air/ground determination method, but that's a limitation of that particular STC and is not germane to the TT22.)

[Jesse]

As for the airspeed switch, that, according to correspondence I've received from Trig, is NOT required unless one is using an older Air Data Computer. GPS groundspeed data is sufficient for air/ground detection, according to Trig. Is there hard data to suggest otherwise? (Note the STC data for the Trig TT31 mandates a second air/ground determination method, but that's a limitation of that particular STC and is not germane to the TT22.)

Peregrine holds the STc for the TT22 and TT31. The STC for both requires the airspeed switch.

[N743RV]

Just saw this on the Navworx web site:

To All Our Valued Customers,

I want to thank everyone for their continued patience pertaining to this ongoing situation. Over the course of the past several months NavWorx has weathered extreme difficulties in tirelessly defending and resolving the ongoing actions against us. As a direct result of your comments on the proposed AD action, enlisted help from industry professionals to include the (AEA) Aircraft Electronics Association, Dallas Avionics, Inc., and our Dealers, I am extremely pleased to announce that we are moving forward with our plans to resolve the current issue for our products.

Very soon we will release our program details that will outline the entire resolution ranging from simple software updates to system exchanges. In addition, we will be re-opening all our lines of communication to ensure the seamless customer service throughout this process minimizing any frustrations you may encounter.

I, along with the entire staff of NavWorx, are committed to providing the industry with the most ?Affordable? ADS-B systems for many years to come.

In addition, NavWorx, along with our distributor (Dallas Avionics, Inc.) look forward to seeing all of you in 2017.

Again, I sincerely thank all of you for your continued patience.

Bill Moffitt
President,
NavWorx Incorporated

Bob Cowan, RV7A

[recapen]

Thanks for the update Bob. Hopefully, I can get my technical (non-ad-related) issues addressed!

[David-aviator]

Just saw this on the Navworx web site:

To All Our Valued Customers,

I want to thank everyone for their continued patience pertaining to this ongoing situation. Over the course of the past several months NavWorx has weathered extreme difficulties in tirelessly defending and resolving the ongoing actions against us. As a direct result of your comments on the proposed AD action, enlisted help from industry professionals to include the (AEA) Aircraft Electronics Association, Dallas Avionics, Inc., and our Dealers, I am extremely pleased to announce that we are moving forward with our plans to resolve the current issue for our products.

Very soon we will release our program details that will outline the entire resolution ranging from simple software updates to system exchanges. In addition, we will be re-opening all our lines of communication to ensure the seamless customer service throughout this process minimizing any frustrations you may encounter.

I, along with the entire staff of NavWorx, are committed to providing the industry with the most ?Affordable? ADS-B systems for many years to come.

In addition, NavWorx, along with our distributor (Dallas Avionics, Inc.) look forward to seeing all of you in 2017.

Again, I sincerely thank all of you for your continued patience.

Bill Moffitt
President,
NavWorx Incorporated

Bob Cowan, RV7A

Excellent!!!

There is a light in the tunnel and it's not the train coming.

Thanks for the update, Bill Moffett.

[Jesse]

That's great news! Now, let's hope it doesn't take too long to get back to "business as normal".

[Paul 5r4]

For money invested, time spent... (install)... and continued product support from Navworx, this is truly a breath of very fresh air!

[jroser]

Good news. Guess I will finally start the install.
Thanks Dave D.

[Tracer 10]

Great news; since I paid for the complete EXP system & received everything except the "brains"

[recapen]

When Bill reestablishes communications normally - will we need to resubmit everything we were working on? I was working on a technical issue with him when the lights went out....

Hopefully Bill will answer up on this one!

[Abbygirl1]

I sincerely hope the best for Bill and Navworx. But I personally am going to continue my install of the Appareo xponder. I wish only the best of luck to all the Navworx customers, but as soon as my 600B-0012 is repaired/made legal I will be selling it. Never been out of the box.

[recapen]

I just got a note from Bill with an RMA number for my unit.
Things are happening again!

[recapen]

By special request.....

My unit has shipped to NavWorx with an RMA number provided by Bill.
I have not been notified of its arrival there - according to UPS with the tracking number, it is supposed to be delivered today.

I requested an arrival notification from NavWorx - I will let you know if they respond regarding the arrival of my unit.

[rleffler]

By special request.....

My unit has shipped to NavWorx with an RMA number provided by Bill.
I have not been notified of its arrival there - according to UPS with the tracking number, it is supposed to be delivered today.

I requested an arrival notification from NavWorx - I will let you know if they respond regarding the arrival of my unit.

Good Luck!

Mine was sent back the week the AD before the AD came out. I had to call multiple times until I could talk to a real person and get an answer. Fortunately, I got the unit back before everything escalated. Unfortunately, they didn't resolve the issue.

[recapen]

Bob,

What was your issue? We have another sticky thread that we're using to help each other out.

I was able to verify my issue by installing my box in a known good environment.

Maybe someone in that thread can help!

I'm hoping mine didn't go in to a black hole and actually comes back as fixed....I got a UPS notification that Bill signed for my unit today - fingers crossed.

[JohnAJohnson]

Ralph, Thanks for creating the Navworx Tech Issues thread. Very much needed.

Bob, it's located here (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=146330).

[recapen]

I just got a note from Bill that my unit arrived there and it usually takes a week to turn around repairs.

Stuff is happening there - I hope to get my unit back shortly so I can get on with my testing - maybe even get a rebate!

[JohnAJohnson]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/AEA-Opens-in-New-Orleans-228632-1.html

[rleffler]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/AEA-Opens-in-New-Orleans-228632-1.html

NavWorx, which has been bickering with the FAA over ADS-B approvals announced two new ADS-B products, including the $1499 ADS600-B and the $2020 ADS600-B that includes an onboard WAAS GPS source. More on those later in the week.

Unfortunately, there are no press releases or mention on their web site.

[David_Nelson]

I'm hoping this is just a glitch and not a sign of things to come but can others get to NavWorx's web site? The registry info for 'navworx.com' was recently updated and doesn't expire until Oct 2017. So, that seems in order.

Google's DNS servers can't seem to find 'www.navworx.com' nor 'navworx.com'.

> nslookup navworx.com 8.8.8.8
Server: 8.8.8.8
Address: 8.8.8.8#53

Non-authoritative answer:
*** Can't find navworx.com: No answer

> nslookup www.navworx.com 8.8.8.8
Server: 8.8.8.8
Address: 8.8.8.8#53

** server can't find www.navworx.com: NXDOMAIN

> nslookup 8.8.8.8 8.8.8.8
Server: 8.8.8.8
Address: 8.8.8.8#53

Non-authoritative answer:
8.8.8.8.in-addr.arpa name = google-public-dns-a.google.com.

Authoritative answers can be found from:

dnelson@murdock:~>

[recapen]

I was looking at it yesterday to see if there was an update on the AD or new stuff for sale since the recent tradeshow that Bill attended....

No new stuff yesterday....

No access at all today!

Keeping my fingers crossed as my unit is in for repair!

[roadrunner20]

I just checked their site yesterday after reading an AvWeb article & it was still up.
Let's hope they are in the middle of updating their site to go back in business.

[tim2542]

The is an NavWorx IPad ap update (vs 1.5) that showed up yesterday on the ap store. That may be a third party though. I'm not going to allow an update until I know more.
Tim Andres

[roadrunner20]

The is an NavWorx IPad ap update (vs 1.5) that showed up yesterday on the ap store. That may be a third party though. I'm not going to allow an update until I know more.
Tim Andres

Maybe Neil can chime in as he's the mobile config app developer.

[rleffler]

Hmmm...... With an update on the record yesterday, I wonder if he's changing his hosting provider? We should probably give Bill a couple days before people start yelling the sky is falling.

bob

Domain Name: NAVWORX.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 2
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS1.BDM.MICROSOFTONLINE.COM
Name Server: NS2.BDM.MICROSOFTONLINE.COM
Name Server: NS3.BDM.MICROSOFTONLINE.COM
Name Server: NS4.BDM.MICROSOFTONLINE.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 17-mar-2017
Creation Date: 24-oct-2007
Expiration Date: 24-oct-2017


> server NS1.BDM.MICROSOFTONLINE.COM
Default Server: NS1.BDM.MICROSOFTONLINE.COM
Addresses: 2a01:111:f406:1804::59
207.46.15.59

> navworx.com
Server: NS1.BDM.MICROSOFTONLINE.COM
Addresses: 2a01:111:f406:1804::59
207.46.15.59

*** NS1.BDM.MICROSOFTONLINE.COM can't find navworx.com: No response from server
>

[roadrunner20]

I'm more optimistic & hoping that he's back in business & is republishing his site to begin taking new orders under the revised rules.

FWIW, I checked the FAA site for a press release, but now existed as related to Navworx.

[roadrunner20]

Navworx site is back up, but under construction.
Looks like it's in the middle of moving to a new web host.

[rleffler]

Navworx site is back up, but under construction.
Looks like it's in the middle of moving to a new web host.

It's back, with all the old pages..

[David-aviator]

FWIT the Navworx setup App on my iPhone was updated today....

[hpmicrowave]

Web site is back up and Bill posted this message

NavWorx Customers & Dealers
To All Our Valued Customers,

I want to thank everyone for their continued patience pertaining to this ongoing situation. Over the course of the past several months NavWorx has weathered extreme difficulties in tirelessly defending and resolving the ongoing actions against us. As a direct result of your comments on the proposed AD action, enlisted help from industry professionals to include the (AEA) Aircraft Electronics Association, Dallas Avionics, Inc., and our Dealers, I am extremely pleased to announce that we are moving forward with our plans to resolve the current issue for our products.

Very soon we will release our program details that will outline the entire resolution ranging from simple software updates to system exchanges. In addition, we will be re-opening all our lines of communication to ensure the seamless customer service throughout this process minimizing any frustrations you may encounter.

I, along with the entire staff of NavWorx, are committed to providing the industry with the most ?Affordable? ADS-B systems for many years to come.

In addition, NavWorx, along with our distributor (Dallas Avionics, Inc.) look forward to seeing all of you in 2017.

Again, I sincerely thank all of you for your continued patience.

Bill Moffitt
President,
NavWorx Incorporated

[recapen]

Their website is down again this morning.....

[rleffler]

Their website is down again this morning.....

I can reach it.

[roadrunner20]

I can not connect on refresh

Update: It's baaaack. :rolleyes:

[rleffler]

I can not connect on refresh

I can still see the site. I suspect that there must be a regional outage impacting a few ISPs.

[Fred Hollendorfer]

I'm getting "Page Under construction" for about an hour now.

[Boyd Birchler]

NavWorx ADS-B units with P/N 200-0112 and 200-0113 are TSO-C154c compliant and are not the subject of this proposed AD.

[roadrunner20]

NavWorx ADS-B units with P/N 200-0112 and 200-0113 are TSO-C154c compliant and are not the subject of this proposed AD.

Really? Can you supply us a url to that source?


Update: Correct those are not.
But, Model ADS600-B part number (P/N) 200-0012 and 200-0013 and Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013 are the subject of the potential AD.

[Robertc]

Try this.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/10/20/2016-25255/airworthiness-directives-navworx-inc-automatic-dependent-surveillance-broadcast-universal-access

[David-aviator]

NAVWORX is back and running as of this evening but nothing new news-wise.

Nothing available to purchase but install down loads are available.

I have one just in case he ships one of these days. :)

[rleffler]

I sent this simple email request off yesterday:

Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:10 PM
To: Cobble, Kyle (FAA); Heusser, Michael A (FAA)
Subject: NavWorx AD Status

What?s the status of the potential AD for NavWorx? Docket FAA-2016-9226, Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-065-AD

When can we expect something to be published?

I received this response a few minutes ago:

Mr. Leffler,
We try to finish the AD?s within 90 days. This AD had many comments and we have had to coordinate with several offices. I can?t give an exact date, but we are working to issue the final rule as soon as possible.


Kyle Cobble
Fort Worth ACO
817-222-5172

Based upon this response, it's doubtful we'll see anything until after OSH.

[roadrunner20]

I sent this simple email request off yesterday:

Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:10 PM
To: Cobble, Kyle (FAA); Heusser, Michael A (FAA)
Subject: NavWorx AD Status

What’s the status of the potential AD for NavWorx? Docket FAA-2016-9226, Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-065-AD

When can we expect something to be published?

I received this response a few minutes ago:

Mr. Leffler,
We try to finish the AD’s within 90 days. This AD had many comments and we have had to coordinate with several offices. I can’t give an exact date, but we are working to issue the final rule as soon as possible.


Kyle Cobble
Fort Worth ACO
817-222-5172

Based upon this response, it's doubtful we'll see anything until after OSH.

Since the SIL is so critical to public safety, :rolleyes:, I would think they would expedite & prioritize their decision.

It's already been 5 months since the announcement & 3 months since the end of their comment period.

I was hoping they'd have a resolution by SNF.
We should all become active in their ADS-B discussions at SNF.

[JohnAJohnson]

Since the SIL is so critical to public safety, :rolleyes:, I would think they would expedite & prioritize their decision.

It's already been 5 months since the announcement & 3 months since the end of their comment period.

I was hoping they'd have a resolution by SNF.
We should all become active in their ADS-B discussions at SNF.

I continue to be disappointed when AOPA and other representatives don't press the FAA to answer questions such as why drones are allowed/encouraged to use cheap OUT devices in the interest of safety, and experimentals that are allowed to use different categories of OUT devices, vs. certificated, i.e., the Navworx fiasco. It's just a big mess that cannot be defended. I won't be at SNF but surely hope the FAA is bombarded with common sense questions from pilots and other groups on this issue.

[GalinHdz]

I won't be at SNF but surely hope the FAA is bombarded with common sense questions from pilots and other groups on this issue.
The Federal Government listening to common sense? Man you're a really good comedian.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-laughter-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

[JohnAJohnson]

The Federal Government listening to common sense? Man you're a really good comedian.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-laughter-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

You raise a good point Galin :D

[Jordan1976]

why drones are allowed/encouraged to use cheap OUT devices in the interest of safety, and experimentals that are allowed to use different categories of OUT devices, vs. certificated, i.e., the Navworx fiasco. It's just a big mess that cannot be defended.

A drone cannot use a non-compliant ADS-B OUT device to fly in 2020 airspace. The FAA encourages drones to equip with advisory only GPS position sources when flying in places where ADS-B is not required at all. They do the same for all aircraft in non-2020 airspace, and in fact there is a TSO for these advisory beacons (TSO-C199) which is significantly cheaper to comply with than the full compliant systems.

You can absolutely put non-compliant ADS-B on your EAB, you just can't fly into 2020 airspace with it, and you can't transmit misleading signals (inappropriate SIL/SDA for instance). In fact, thousands of EAB's are flying with "cheap" ADS-B devices with no issues from the FAA because they aren't claiming to be compliant in their transmissions.

The only issue would be if somehow the FAA said that a drone could fly in 2020 airspace with any GPS onboard, but only manned aircraft needed compliant GPS's. They aren't doing that though, and are holding all aircraft to the exact same standard, so I don't see an issue.

[DennisRhodes]

I think a lot of this compliant / non compliant, TSO d position source/ meets C199 performance standards , SIL 3 / or 1, SDA 2 /or 0, Experimental equipment inside 2020 compliant area / Certified aircraft equipment inside 2020 compliant area ; ALL this may get redefined after the NavWorx AD becomes final whenever that may be. After all, this is what all of this has been about. Maybe if the FAA can decide what it is they want, the mfgs can produce that and make it available. Not sure we're there yet. All I know is I'm not buying again until they decide and you can write that on the wall!

[JohnAJohnson]

Makes my head hurt just reading this stuff - way too complicated and it doesn't have to be. We have big airliners over my house at 7000' flying into a C, and smaller regionals flying into the local E, both in non 2020 airspace. I threaten them equally as an experimental, drone, or certificated flying machine and can't see where position resolution or even reliability is relevant. I know the ADS-B debate is long over, but quick obsolescence is imminent unless the system/regs are constantly changed.

But I agree the Navworx issue has probably brought these issues front and center.

[John Owen]

If this does not get resolved in the favor of those of us who have already installed the EXP version of Navworx, would the new Dynon/AFS work as a replacement? I have the AFS 5600 EFIS. If it would swap out, it looks like one of the most viable options in my situation. I have a GTX-327 transponder.

Thanks,
John

[Larco]

Hi John, I have the 5000 series AFS as well. This 470/472 is the IN only part of the Dynon ADSB which works very well as I have the 470 version currently. For the OUT I have the AFS/Dynon remote transponder which is 1090 out and very happy with the it too. Hopefully NavWorx will get their act together so no changes are necessary for you but I think you would need both units from Dynon or AFS. Larry

[John Owen]

Hi John, I have the 5000 series AFS as well. This 470/472 is the IN only part of the Dynon ADSB which works very well as I have the 470 version currently. For the OUT I have the AFS/Dynon remote transponder which is 1090 out and very happy with the it too. Hopefully NavWorx will get their act together so no changes are necessary for you but I think you would need both units from Dynon or AFS. Larry

I see. I was concerned that would be the case. Thanks for the clarification. If Dynon/AFS would offer a trade in allowance for the Navworx/GTX, I would think that would be a popular alternative if the Navworx issue goes south. Hopefully, it won't and all of us happy Navworx customers will stay happy!

John
RV-8

[PCHunt]

I'm still waiting another year or so.

Things seem to improve on an "order of magnitude" basis in electronics.

JMHO, YMMV.

[rleffler]

FYI......

I submitted an email to Navworx support this morning and got a reply from Bill within five minutes.

It might be luck, but I was pleasantly surprised. He made some other commitments to me, that I won't share, but they were very positive and well received.

He did acknowledge the Display 2 out issue and said it would be fixed in the next software release. He didn't state when the release would be available.

Just thought I would share some positive news........

[RONSIM]

Hoping for the best --- very happy with my EXP, and I have two (2) perfect reports from the FAA, in my files.

Ron

[Lars]

I scrounged an iPhone running iOS 9.x a few days ago, downloaded v1.5 of the EXP app and upgraded the firmware in my EXP from 5.62 to 5.70, the result of which is my iPad now communicating more reliably with the EXP. Apparently there was some sort of issue with the app and iOS 10.x, now resolved. In any case my EXP continues to perform, feeding my GRT Sport, which I prefer to look at over the iPad. I wish the best for continued success to NavWorx, I'm very happy with the product.

[rv9av8tr]

I scrounged an iPhone running iOS 9.x a few days ago, downloaded v1.5 of the EXP app and upgraded the firmware in my EXP from 5.62 to 5.70, the result of which is my iPad now communicating more reliably with the EXP. Apparently there was some sort of issue with the app and iOS 10.x, now resolved. In any case my EXP continues to perform, feeding my GRT Sport, which I prefer to look at over the iPad. I wish the best for continued success to NavWorx, I'm very happy with the product.

I'm running the original software that came with my -EXP 2 yrs ago. I got a perfect report from the FAA check. I'm a strong believer in "don't mess with success". Why should a person "update" software for the -EXP?

[BobTurner]

I'm running the original software that came with my -EXP 2 yrs ago. I got a perfect report from the FAA check. I'm a strong believer in "don't mess with success". Why should a person "update" software for the -EXP?

The FAA only cares about ADSB-out. The previous poster said a software update improved communication to his iPad; e.g., ADSB-in.

[keijidosha]

I'm running the original software that came with my -EXP 2 yrs ago. I got a perfect report from the FAA check. I'm a strong believer in "don't mess with success". Why should a person "update" software for the -EXP?

Updated software on my May 2016 delivered EXP in October to 5.6.3 , a month after install. WiFi connectivity to my iPad was cranky before the update, but rock solid after. FAA reports were perfect before and after the software update.

[Lars]

The FAA only cares about ADSB-out. The previous poster said a software update improved communication to his iPad; e.g., ADSB-in.

What Bob said. "In" communication to my iPad was flakey, the upgrade solved the problem. I didn't request an "Out" report from the FAA after the upgrade, presumably it's unaffected.

For anyone wanting to upgrade to firmware 5.70 using the Apple app written by AllThumbs, there is a gotcha that took me a few minutes to grasp: it apparently won't work if the app is on a device running iOS 10.x. You need to run the app on a device running iOS 9.x; after the upgrade to 5.70 that is supposedly no longer an issue. Lucky me my son's iPad (that I paid for) was available.

[recapen]

Bob Leffler - thanks for the update...hopefully, I'll get a response soon on my unit in for repairs. Things appear to be happening there! Mine is in for Non-AD related repairs although I expect that they'll do what is necessary to be in compliance with the AD before shipping it back - maybe causing the delay. It has been there for about three weeks now and they did acknowledge receipt.

[rleffler]

Bob Leffler - thanks for the update...hopefully, I'll get a response soon on my unit in for repairs. Things appear to be happening there! Mine is in for Non-AD related repairs although I expect that they'll do what is necessary to be in compliance with the AD before shipping it back - maybe causing the delay. It has been there for about three weeks now and they did acknowledge receipt.

Mine is going back tomorrow for another round, which isn't ad related. My display port 1 appears to be totally dead. Other than that, the unit it working fine.

I've had several email exchanges with Bill over the last few days. He stated he isn't going to SnF so he should be able to turn things promptly. He didn't define promptly. I'm hoping mine doesn't take three weeks.

He also stated that the display 2 issue will be resolved in the next release. He didn't give a date, but implied it would be shortly.

[Scott Hersha]

I am unable to update my ADS600EXP to firmware version 5.7, even when using my old iPad running software 9.3.5. My new iPad mini with software version 10.xx works OK in flight most of the time, but won't perform the update either. The in flight functionality on my iPad mini using Foreflight is spotty - sometimes it doesn't work at all. I'm thinking, if I could get this new firmware load, it might work OK. During the update it starts out OK, but then says "update failed" or something like that. After re-booting as suggested, it starts again, only to fail again. After going through this many times, it finally just kind of froze on the failed message. Clicking 'OK' only momentarily removed the failed window, and then it reappears instantly. The failed window is preventing me from doing anything else on the app. I don't know what firmware version I'm running, and I don't know how to find out. I guess I have whatever firmware was on it when it was delivered last fall. I've tried to update 2 other firmware versions before and they didn't work either, at least I don't think they did - no way of knowing as far as I can tell. If anyone has a method to update NavWorx that works, please share it here for all of us. I did pose the question/problem to NavWorx. Hopefully someone here or there will have an answer.

[Lars]

I am unable to update my ADS600EXP to firmware version 5.7, even when using my old iPad running software 9.3.5. My new iPad mini with software version 10.xx works OK in flight most of the time, but won't perform the update either. The in flight functionality on my iPad mini using Foreflight is spotty - sometimes it doesn't work at all. I'm thinking, if I could get this new firmware load, it might work OK. During the update it starts out OK, but then says "update failed" or something like that. After re-booting as suggested, it starts again, only to fail again. After going through this many times, it finally just kind of froze on the failed message. Clicking 'OK' only momentarily removed the failed window, and then it reappears instantly. The failed window is preventing me from doing anything else on the app. I don't know what firmware version I'm running, and I don't know how to find out. I guess I have whatever firmware was on it when it was delivered last fall. I've tried to update 2 other firmware versions before and they didn't work either, at least I don't think they did - no way of knowing as far as I can tell. If anyone has a method to update NavWorx that works, please share it here for all of us. I did pose the question/problem to NavWorx. Hopefully someone here or there will have an answer.

Scott, the app should show you what firmware you are running, at least it did for me. On the main page that shows if all is well or not, near the top. Neil (AllThumbs) is the expert here, in my case I was jumping from 5.62 to 5.70, and the latest version of the app (1.5) did the trick. The spotty issue you are experiencing is exactly what motivated me to upgrade. If you can make it happen successfully it should solve the problem; it did in my case.

Apropos of nothing, I saw your old RV-6 on the ramp at Bridgeport (O57) a couple of weeks ago. Current owner loves it, was pretty cool to see him depart on a high DA day and rocket into the sky!

[Abbygirl1]

Well, this whole Navworx debacle has left a bad taste in my mouth after purchasing a certified 600B with all the goodies, antenna, transmon, etc. So, I took Sam Harts' advice and contacted Russ at Palmetto Avionics in Greenwood SC and installed an Appareo Stratus ESG. What a nice clean look. No external boxes to fool with. It took all of a 40 minuute flight back home and now I'm registered to receive my $500 rebate.
So.....whenever Navworx gets a fix for their equipment, I will send my unopened stuff back and then sell it. So someone will get a Navworx setup at a good price. I just simply got tired of the BS surrounding it all. Oh, as a commentary on Russ's work, I can say after being in the electronics field for over 40 years, his work is impeccable. Here's a picture of the finished product.

https://photos.google.com/u/2/share/AF1QipP20ViCb3a0DpDXOIb0-S4AU_p5_yC6x0R-0HUysqT9NV3Z9w4VjgVZ6YiNq2Uk3w/photo/AF1QipP2bDph0oScfnck5sPi2c_8lmVFUxlBa2S1GEaI?key=M HNjX084SGJVcTFyZVE5MVA1UWRxMHEyX1J2TTR3

[theduff]

I just received an email from David Baron of the Fort Worth Office of the FAA regarding NavWorx ADSB. He hss requested my phone number to discuss my experience with the EXP unit.I suspect he got my email address from my public comment to the proposed AD. After watching an online deposition in which he testified on another Emergencey Revocation Action involving Air Trek , I'm not sure I want to even contact this guy. He came off really badly under cross- examination by the defense attorney and ultimately the NTSB denied the FAA appeal and ordered the FAA to pay Air Trek's attorney fees. If this guy is at the center of this AD then the video really shows what Bill Moffet has been up against. Google this and see for yourself, it's on YouTube . As for me I'm undecided weather I'll respond to his inquiry.
Duff

[Vic LaRocca]

Is this the deposition?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W_42CGdgrw

Vic

[theduff]

Yep that's the guy ?
Duff

[Vic LaRocca]

That clears things up for me.

[David-aviator]

Is this the deposition?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W_42CGdgrw

Vic

That deposition was 9 years ago, he probably is much more spun up today on the appeal process.

I too received an email from him and have been in contact.

It could be Navworx has appealed to NTSB with regard to the proposed AD and shutdown of their business. We just don't know what is going on behind the scenes.

One of these days FAA will make a decision on proposed AD.

Hopefully Navworx will resume business.

[88Vans4]

I received an e-mail from the same FAA person.

I replied that I was willing to speak with him, but explained that I never received my Navworx unit and no longer have one on order. He may or may not be interested in speaking with me.

Interesting video tho. Answers a lot of questions about how this all went down as far as I'm concerned.

Mel B.
Dues Paid

[rleffler]

So what type of questions is this guy asking?

[rv9av8tr]

So what type of questions is this guy asking?
I got the same e-mail request. It seems like a very odd request.
I'm very happy with my -EXP, been installed a couple yrs now, got clean bill of health on first flight. I forwarded the e-mail to Bill and asked for his thoughts, haven't heard back from him.
*******************

Hi Mike,

I?m Dave Baron with the FAA and I?ve been tasked with contacting folks like you who purchased the Navworx ADS-B unit.

I would like to ask you questions about your purchase and how you heard about the Navworx ADS-B product line.

If I could get your telephone number and when it might be a good time for me to call, it would be very much appreciated.

Thank you!

Regards,

Dave Baron
Aviation Safety Inspector
Federal Aviation Administration
AFS-1030 Special Emphasis Investigations Team (SEIT)
10101 Hillwood Pkwy
Suite 6S-500
Ft. Worth, TX 76177
david.baron@faa.gov


NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?? 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.

[David-aviator]

So what type of questions is this guy asking?

Mr. Baron said he would call this week, when he does I will ask him why he is gathering this information.

[JohnAJohnson]

I would like to ask you questions about your purchase and how you heard about the Navworx ADS-B product line.

Why would purchase information, or "How you heard about" have anything to do with an AD? To me, it sounds like they are building a case of false advertising which to me, has nothing to do with safety. This smells like CYA to counter a colossal FAA blunder.

[Low Pass]

Why would purchase information, or "How you heard about" have anything to do with an AD? To me, it sounds like they are building a case of false advertising which to me, has nothing to do with safety. This smells like CYA to counter a colossal FAA blunder. Classic legal fishing, trying to make the case after initiated.

[David-aviator]

Classic legal fishing, trying to make the case after initiated.

AHA!

Maybe that's why Mr Baron has not called for more information.

I sent an email - I heard about Navworx from a local friend flying successfully with 600-EXP before the proposed AD and was waiting for the dispute with FAA be resolved and Navworx send what had been ordered and paid for.

[AllThumbs]

The FAA (DB) called me back and I asked the why and who questions. Answers were:

I work for SEIT (an organization that seems to have no clear definable mandate).
I can't tell you why, I am just collecting the info for others.
No, I can't tell you who the others are or what they will do with the info, or why they want it.

I told him I'd be happy to answer specific questions on FAA letterhead with a purpose and goal stated, and an officially responsible name and division related to the AD on the letterhead. He said he thought that was a good idea, and thanked me for my time.

[flightlogic]

He is supposed to call me today. I think it prudent to ask him the exact same questions. The vague answers are fully expected.

[rleffler]

The FAA (DB) called me back and I asked the why and who questions. Answers were:

I work for SEIT (an organization that seems to have no clear definable mandate).
I can't tell you why, I am just collecting the info for others.
No, I can't tell you who the others are or what they will do with the info, or why they want it.

I told him I'd be happy to answer specific questions on FAA letterhead with a purpose and goal stated, and an officially responsible name and division related to the AD on the letterhead. He said he thought that was a good idea, and thanked me for my time.

Perfect response! Now if we can get everyone he reaches out to do the same.

bob

[88Vans4]

I concur and will comply (if he should call me).

Mel B.

[oaklandaviator]

Anyone heard anything about where this company stands recently? I keep checking the website and it hasn't changed in months. I'm beginning to think my unit with transmon is going to end up an expensive paperweight... The iPad app doesn't work anymore because of the new iOS, so I'm thinking any computerized gizmo isn't worth much without a good company backing it to keep things current. My navworx seems to work well in the plane for now at least.

[recapen]

There's another thread (sticky) where some activity is documented from NavWorx. There are a few of us with our units in for repair that are getting an occasional response from Bill. Based on who sent what in when, we kinda know what order stuff arrived and when we should expect turnaround.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=146330

No idea about long-term viability of the company from this - but we are hearing something...and we want them to continue to be a viable option!

[FLightning]

Is 5.7.1 a new update for the exp? What are the changes? Will it open the 1090?

[MartySantic]

Is 5.7.1 a new update for the exp? What are the changes? Will it open the 1090?

Or more importantly, does 5.7.1 change the SIL value?

[roadrunner20]

Any updates on the Mr Baron phone interviews?

[sf3543]

I ordered one of the Navwork EXP units last August, and like everyone else, never got it. After months of no email or telephone responses to my queries, I was really glad that I purchased it on my Master Card. I called MC today and they are refunding my purchase price and will collect from Navworx.
THANK YOU MASTERCARD!
I hated to do it, but with the lack of response from Navworx, on products already paid for (which, in hind sight, should have been a red flag in the first place), I can only imagine what ongoing support would be like.
Since I have always been happy with GRT products, and am installing their EFIS/EIS system in my RV-3B, I am going to go with their new UAvionics package, which should ship by the middle to end of June. (They are waiting to get in more of their GPS units so they can bundle the packages.)

[Fearless]

Like Steve we are contemplating putting the UAvionics/GRT package in my 9A as well as my brothers 12. I think they fit better behind the 12's panel anyhow.

[DennisRhodes]

I noticed that the Navworx block for certified ADSB equipment on the FAA page was back on there when I looked today . I don't frequent this page very often so It may have been placed earlier but I just noticed it. I know that for quite some time there was no mention of Navworx on this page. That block is for the 600B cert unit with P/N 0112 and 0113 using the internal GPS source and or Aspen NexNav Mini .

copied off the FAA page:
NavWorx ADS600-B, Part Numbers 200-0112 and 200-0113 Source: Internal or Aspen NexNav? Mini Application: Fixed Wing STC Jun 2014

[flightlogic]

I am told Navworx phones and website will all be operational by tommorrow.
Orders are being taken for the compliant units that will ship in June.
Mr. baron asked if he could call me... which I agreed to. Silence since then.

[DennisRhodes]

Took a look at the NavWorx page just to see if anything new. Was looking at the product offerings ( not that you could buy anything ) but just to see if anything was new. Found this interesting bullet item on the ADS600 receiver ( in Only) unit. Copied from Navworx site:

Certified ADS-B Receiver for upcoming certified ADS-B IN applications ????

To my knowledge the FAA certification process has been been pretty clear about having minimum control on ADS B In receivers. However this bullet item leads one to believe there may be something forthcoming. I know I have been asking about the low end cost Receiver that uAvionix has ( Ping Buddy II) and have been getting " it's not ready for sale yet" and notice that the prototype is no longer available.

Is there some talk of regulations now on certification of the ADSB in products??

[Billvt]

I have a Navworx ADS600-EXP being fed by a KT76A through a TransMon.

This equipment was installed on 05/06/2016 and has worked without issues for 36 flight hours.

In the past, I had requested a few ADS-B reports and all came back with no issues.

I just recently requested another ADSB report using the following link:

9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov

Here is the message that I received back that it failed to generate a report.

************************************************** ***************
Your Performance Report request for Tail Number N812BM on 5/04/2017 failed to generate a result.

If you believe this is an error, please respond to 9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov and include the following information:

1. Aircraft registration number and flight identification code,

2. Flight date and time,

3. Make/model of ADS-B transmitter and GPS, and

4. Any ADS-B avionics operating abnormalities observed or reported during the associated flight.

************************************************** ***************

I submitted the requested info and got the following reply a couple of days later.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Please see link and contact Navworx.

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/49_1/industrynews/NavWorx-ADS-B_7018-1.html

Additional ADS-B information can be found here:

www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb

Provided by:
Federal Aviation Administration
Flight Standards Division
Avionics Branch (AFS-360)
Washington, DC
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So bottom line is, at present my system is working fine but can't get an ADS-B report ????

The FAA reply refers me to the document about the FAA and Navworx debacle.

So there you have it from another Navworx dazed and confused customer

Bill

[David-aviator]

This mess is like looking in window of an insane asylum.

My patience and confidence in Navworx is gone, have contacted CC bank to get a refund (if possible) on purchase last August, over $1800 invested, nothing to show for it, absolutely nothing.

[roadrunner20]

FWIW, I just requested a report for my 600EXP box installed Nov 2015, and received a good & complete report. Reported back within 5 minutes.

I have a Navworx ADS600-EXP being fed by a KT76A through a TransMon.

This equipment was installed on 05/06/2016 and has worked without issues for 36 flight hours.

In the past, I had requested a few ADS-B reports and all came back with no issues.

I just recently requested another ADSB report using the following link:

9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov

Here is the message that I received back that it failed to generate a report.

************************************************** ***************
Your Performance Report request for Tail Number N812BM on 5/04/2017 failed to generate a result.

If you believe this is an error, please respond to 9-AWA-AFS-300-ADSB-AvionicsCheck@faa.gov and include the following information:

1. Aircraft registration number and flight identification code,

2. Flight date and time,

3. Make/model of ADS-B transmitter and GPS, and

4. Any ADS-B avionics operating abnormalities observed or reported during the associated flight.

************************************************** ***************

I submitted the requested info and got the following reply a couple of days later.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Please see link and contact Navworx.

http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/49_1/industrynews/NavWorx-ADS-B_7018-1.html

Additional ADS-B information can be found here:

www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb

Provided by:
Federal Aviation Administration
Flight Standards Division
Avionics Branch (AFS-360)
Washington, DC
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So bottom line is, at present my system is working fine but can't get an ADS-B report ????

The FAA reply refers me to the document about the FAA and Navworx debacle.

So there you have it from another Navworx dazed and confused customer

Bill

[JohnAJohnson]

Got a good report from my flight last night on a 600B-0013. I suspect you could select any system (instead of Navworx) and GPS source on the PAPRR screen, and the report wouldn't care. I'd bet the FAA only collects the make/model/gps source for building data, because I don't think the information is placed in the OUT stream.

[keijidosha]

I flew this morning and just requested a report. I'm pretty sure this is a new question as I don't remember answering it in the past;

"Please provide the Installer of your ADS-B OUT Equipment. ADS-B OUT Equipment Installer
*Installer Category:
Repair Shop
Airframe Powerplant Mechanic
Factory Installed
Self Installed - Experimental
Self Installed - Light Sport
Not Known
[*Denotes required input.]"

Repair Shop, Mechanic ask for State, City, and Shop/Mechanic name.

FWIW, my report came back No Exceptions, as usual.

[az_gila]

I flew this morning and just requested a report. I'm pretty sure this is a new question as I don't remember answering it in the past;

.....

I did mine a few days ago and Dynon wasn't even in the pull-down list for the manufacturer...:rolleyes:

[JohnAJohnson]

pretty sure this is a new question...

I saw that too and selected "Not Known".

[BobTurner]

Isn't the Dynon transponder actually manufactured by Trig?

[az_gila]

Isn't the Dynon transponder actually manufactured by Trig?

Yes, but I didn't see that as an option either...:)

[dynonsupport]

Gil,
I just checked and Dynon is on the pull down, and as far as we knew, has been for a long time. What page are you at where you can't find it?

You are supposed to enter Dynon, not Trig. Our transponder has a unique part number.

https://adsbperformance.faa.gov/PAPRRequest.aspx

[GalinHdz]

I flew this morning and just requested a report. I'm pretty sure this is a new question as I don't remember answering it in the past;

"Please provide the Installer of your ADS-B OUT Equipment. ADS-B OUT Equipment Installer
*Installer Category:
Repair Shop
Airframe Powerplant Mechanic
Factory Installed
Self Installed - Experimental
Self Installed - Light Sport
Not Known
[*Denotes required input.]"

Repair Shop, Mechanic ask for State, City, and Shop/Mechanic name.

FWIW, my report came back No Exceptions, as usual.
WAY before that point on the FAA page, you need to pick which ADS-B OUT Data link(s) you have. If you have a DYNON, select 1090ES which is what their transponder's frequency. THEN you can select DYNON under <MANUFACTURER>. DYNON does not manufacture a UAT unit so if you select that option, it doesn't show up.

REMEMBER the FAA is only interested in ADS-B OUT, they don't care about ADS-B IN.

:cool:

[phobos_49]

If you're configuration is set to "anonymous " the FAA system can't find your record and will not generate a report.
Reconfigure to show your N number and you should get a report in minuets.

[BobTurner]

If you're configuration is set to "anonymous " the FAA system can't find your record and will not generate a report.
Reconfigure to show your N number and you should get a report in minuets.

Since he's talking about a mode S-ES transponder, "anonymous" is not an option.

[Billvt]

Jarhead was correct.

My Navworx ADS600-EXP was in the stealth mode.

I had switched to that mode a few months ago and had forgotten about it.

Problem of no ADS-B reports, solved.

Bill

[roadrunner20]

Navworx has updated their website.
See my new thread.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=149343&highlight=Navworx

[Swoda]

The following is a link to a new letter from the FAA Manager of the Helicopter Directorate on the Status of the NAVWORX NPRM. It was posted yesterday.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-9226-0203

[GalinHdz]

WOW, this thread has over 101,000 views and 475 posts in less than 7 months. :eek:

[DennisRhodes]

Has been a Hot Topic. Wonder what the record is?

[recapen]

Still no update on the actual AD since the 11th!

A lot of folks and a couple businesses are anxiously awaiting the government moving slower than the speed of smell!

Mine is still in for repair and I almost rather it stay there until after the AD comes out so my box would come back to me fully compliant - and functional!

[N743RV]

I just received a reply to my status email inquiry to David Hempe, the FAA contact listed under the AD status web page. It reads:

"We are completing the review of the Federal Register AD and plan to issue the document in the next couple of weeks. It has a few steps left inside the agency. Unfortunately, due to us being so close to the issuance on this rule I cannot provide you with more detailed information.

Sincerely, Dave"

By the way, my Navworx 600 B-EXP is installed and working great!! Sure hope I don't have to change anything.

Bob Cowan
RV-7A, IO 360, Hartzel Blended Airfoil,

[recapen]

Bob - thanks for the update!

Hopefully, once the AD is actually out, the mystery and uncertainty will be gone! Maybe then we'll see more activity from the NavWorx folks responding to our information and update requests!

[recapen]

My unit is on its way back to me - I'll post an update on the re-installation results!

[txshan130]

So has anyone made sense of this yet? Or been able to reach anyone at Navworx or Dallas Avionics? From what I can tell, they are saying that there is a software update that will ONLY fix the problem UNTIL 2020. If you want your ADS600B to operate like it should after 2020 (ie what we paid for) you will have to send it in for an internal GPS upgrade at a cost of either $349 or $599...all this in addition to NOT being able to claim the $500 FAA rebate.

WOW - maybe I am misunderstanding what is written below. Someone please correct me and tell me this is not the case.



FROM THE NAVWORX WEBSITE:

Proposed FAA Airworthiness Directive: We are anticipating an FAA AD to be issued on existing ADS600-B Systems. Be assured we have taken steps to ensure seamless instructions for AD compliance. Upon issuance and review, NavWorx is prepared to release a new software revision which will allow for continued operation up to 2020. It is anticipated that the software update will not require removal of system components and can be completed by utilizing existing configuration computer port already installed in aircraft installation. As stated above, we have established an upgrade path for existing customers to upgrade to the new ADS600-B NexGen 2.0 System that will comply with FAA 2020 mandate.

ADS600-B Upgrade for 2020 Compliance: Upgrade of existing systems to include internal GPS upgrade.

Units with S/N 1602000 or earlier - List $ 599.00
Units with S,N 1602001 or later - List $ 349.00

Please Contact Scott Edwards to schedule your upgrade (upgrades begin in 7/1).

Technical and Sales Support: We are in the process of transferring all Technical and Sales support to Dallas Avionics, Inc. and will be able to accept new system, system upgrade/exchange orders by 5/1/17. Contact your local Dallas Avionics, Inc. sales representative for details or contact Scott Edwards (Dallas Avionics, Inc. Product Line specialist) at 214-668-7466 for all Technical or Sales inquiries. Certified Aircraft installation and new equipment sales will be managed through our established qualified dealer network (Refer to our dealer page for a contact near you).

We look forward to greeting everyone one at EAA Airventure 2017 Oshkosh Booth 4054

[recapen]

I'm expecting a savvy lawyer to grab the original advertisements, contact us and start a class action! That would take NavWorx down completely - which we don't want!

As much as I hate paying a second time for the functionality that I expected initially, The FAA did change the rules after the game started so NavWorx was operating in good faith!

[dtw_rv6]

The rules for 2020 haven't changed. Just the implementation date. I was promised a 2020 compliant box and depending on what is in the AD I might not have it. I ain't payin' another dime to NavWorx.

[Abbygirl1]

I'll second that........ They're not getting another dime from me. I'll have a 600B with "certified" GPS on board with Transmon, GPS antenna, and TED antenna for sale. I've had it!!

[rleffler]

I don't think its as bad as it sounds.

My interpretation is that the software update will guarantee that the unit will work until 2020, at which time you must use a certified GPS source.

You then have two options, use an external certified GPS source (i.e. GNS430, GTN650, etc.) or purchase the GPS upgrade from Navworx.


So has anyone made sense of this yet? Or been able to reach anyone at Navworx or Dallas Avionics? From what I can tell, they are saying that there is a software update that will ONLY fix the problem UNTIL 2020. If you want your ADS600B to operate like it should after 2020 (ie what we paid for) you will have to send it in for an internal GPS upgrade at a cost of either $349 or $599...all this in addition to NOT being able to claim the $500 FAA rebate.

WOW - maybe I am misunderstanding what is written below. Someone please correct me and tell me this is not the case.



FROM THE NAVWORX WEBSITE:

Proposed FAA Airworthiness Directive: We are anticipating an FAA AD to be issued on existing ADS600-B Systems. Be assured we have taken steps to ensure seamless instructions for AD compliance. Upon issuance and review, NavWorx is prepared to release a new software revision which will allow for continued operation up to 2020. It is anticipated that the software update will not require removal of system components and can be completed by utilizing existing configuration computer port already installed in aircraft installation. As stated above, we have established an upgrade path for existing customers to upgrade to the new ADS600-B NexGen 2.0 System that will comply with FAA 2020 mandate.

ADS600-B Upgrade for 2020 Compliance: Upgrade of existing systems to include internal GPS upgrade.

Units with S/N 1602000 or earlier - List $ 599.00
Units with S,N 1602001 or later - List $ 349.00

Please Contact Scott Edwards to schedule your upgrade (upgrades begin in 7/1).

Technical and Sales Support: We are in the process of transferring all Technical and Sales support to Dallas Avionics, Inc. and will be able to accept new system, system upgrade/exchange orders by 5/1/17. Contact your local Dallas Avionics, Inc. sales representative for details or contact Scott Edwards (Dallas Avionics, Inc. Product Line specialist) at 214-668-7466 for all Technical or Sales inquiries. Certified Aircraft installation and new equipment sales will be managed through our established qualified dealer network (Refer to our dealer page for a contact near you).

We look forward to greeting everyone one at EAA Airventure 2017 Oshkosh Booth 4054

[dtw_rv6]

It is precisely as bad as it sounds. I paid for dual receivers and I paid for 2020 compliance. Anybody want an EXP?

[DennisRhodes]

Any speculation on how the AD may affect the 600EXP? All the comments have been very quite about what may happen with the EXP . Being a non TSOd unit for LSA and Exp, it will be interesting to see what the fate of this unit may be. AOPA comments for the AD were fairly direct in how the FAA could and could not address the non certified experimental device Anyone have any inside info?

[roadrunner20]

Any speculation on how the AD may affect the 600EXP? All the comments have been very quite about what may happen with the EXP . Being a non TSOd unit for LSA and Exp, it will be interesting to see what the fate of this unit may be. AOPA comments for the AD were fairly direct in how the FAA could and could not address the non certified experimental device Anyone have any inside info?


See my other post# 2
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=149343&highlight=Navworx

Dallas Avionics believes there will be no action on the EXP boxes.
That is of the opinion of Scott Edwards.

Time will tell. Some say is only a few weeks away. I would think it will be settled before Oshkosh. I don't think Navworx will want to show up there without this issue being resolved.

[recapen]

Got my unit back from repair yesterday - re-installed today.
Looks like it is functioning properly with the exception of display port 2 - which is a known software issue.

I guess we'll know more as we hear from others...and when the AD Actually comes out!

[txshan130]

Lol...guess it depends on your outlook. My ADS600-B has already cost me the $500 rebate which I will not be getting.

I can't use the position output from my 430W as I can't get to the wiring bundle :-(

Anyone know if the position output from the GRT 2020 external GPS module can be used as an input to the ADS600-B?

Keeping my fingers crossed...

I don't think its as bad as it sounds.

My interpretation is that the software update will guarantee that the unit will work until 2020, at which time you must use a certified GPS source.

You then have two options, use an external certified GPS source (i.e. GNS430, GTN650, etc.) or purchase the GPS upgrade from Navworx.

[recapen]

If the output from the GRT box is ADSB+ which the GRT website says the GRT SafeFly is - you should be good to go!

Just remember, The FAA has already changed the rules once - which got us to where we currently are!

[BobTurner]

If the output from the GRT box is ADSB+ which the GRT website says the GRT SafeFly is - you should be good to go!

Just remember, The FAA has already changed the rules once - which got us to where we currently are!

Nowhere does GRT say the output format is ADSB+. In fact it does not offer that option, which I believe is a proprietary Garmin code. The new GRT box outputs NMEA 0183 at 4.8k and 9.6k; and NexNav format at 38.4k ("NN33"). The NN33 can be used by the Trig TT22 and 31 transponders.
In addition, several manufacturers have told me that the FAA wants a statement from the manufacturer that their GPS box meets the TSO specs when paired with specific transmitters. GRT has such a statement in the manual for Trig transponders (TT21, 22, 31) and 'soon' for Sandia; plus the just announced Echo UAT. There is no statement for the NavWorx products.

[recapen]

You are correct - Here's what is on their website...:

The GRT Safe-Fly is a 2020 ADS-B compliant GPS, allowing it to be used as the navigation source for your compatible ADS-B output. This full compliance with FAR 91.227 allows your ADS-B output to trigger the return of traffic data. This demanding standard requires a GPS that is reliable to better than one undetected failure per million hours, making it a natural as your navigation source for your GRT EFIS.

[DavidBunin]

Dallas Avionics believes there will be no action on the EXP boxes.
That is of the opinion of Scott Edwards.

For what it's worth (I know, its worth very little), I am of the same opinion as Scott.

After reading the docket comments on the NPRM, I think the FAA will quietly step back from doing anything about the EXP. (With the exception, of course, of forcing it out of new production.)

I believe this mainly because the exact same GPS that NavWorx used in that unit is also used in a whole series of name-brand products within the Experimental community. And the FAA has no stated intention of issuing a rule against any of those products.

Which again begs the question of why any of this heartburn was necessary in the first place, but I digress...

David

[recapen]

If the FAA leaves the EXP units out of the AD, they are accepting Bill's premise of functionality over certification (and the initial reason for acceptance of the 012 and 013 units) - for the Experimental crowd!

[DavidBunin]

Maybe.

Or maybe they're just accepting that publishing a rule (for failure to meet a certification standard) against a product that is not certified might be an endeavor that exposes certain thorns that are better left buried.

Especially in a time when the FAA is encouraging the use of non-certified products in certified aircraft.

[Swoda]

Document dump on the NAVWORX AD this morning at

https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=0&D=FAA-2016-9226

Includes the following items
U.S. DOT/FAA - Supporting AD Documents
05/31/2017 ID:
FAA-2016-9226-0207
Emergency Order of Suspension, NavWorx, Inc.
undefined Supporting & Related Material Posted:
05/31/2017 ID:
FAA-2016-9226-0208
Corrective Action Review Board Meeting Minutes
undefined
05/31/2017 ID:
FAA-2016-9226-0211
U.S. DOT/FAA - Supporting AD Documents
05/31/2017 ID:
FAA-2016-9226-0206
Safety Risk Management Document August 2014
undefined
05/31/2017 ID:
FAA-2016-9226-0210
Emergency Order of Suspension, NavWorx, Inc.
undefined
05/31/2017 ID:
FAA-2016-9226-0209

[airguy]

Looks like this is mostly supporting and background documentation from the FAA's side. Unless I'm mis-reading it, the broad emergency order of suspension has been lifted but there is still an Unapproved Parts Notification that is effective on the -0012 and -0013 units that use software version 4.0.6 (SIL 3) or any future software version that incorporates SIL 3.

[recapen]

Looks like there was a recommendation to include the Experimental devices as well! Buried in one of these documents.

[airguy]

Looks like there was a recommendation to include the Experimental devices as well! Buried in one of these documents.

There was an attempt to include the experimentals in the AD, but they can't do that, so the experimentals were covered under the Unapproved Parts issuance.

[recapen]

That makes sense since the AD's don't normally apply.....

[airguy]

And the data dumps continue - more added today and possibly more coming.

As Paul Harvey would say - "The REST of the story" is now coming out. Reading the technical rationale behind the FAA's decision to TIS-B changes sheds some light on what happened, why, when, and who knew about it, and when. Some emails between NavWork and the FAA are also included, which gives some insight into the situation as well.

[recapen]

One of those e-mails details their expected customer blowback from the -12 and -13 units not being able to continue receiving TIS/FIS traffic due to the SIL requirement change...based on the expectation of reception due to functional compatibility instead of a compliance certification.

[recapen]

I am thankful to have my unit back and working - and that I installed it using a certified position source (430W).

Hopefully, all I get is updated software that transmits SIL0 when the internal (non-certified) GPS is used and SIL3 when connected to the 430W....and display port 2 fixed!

[JohnAJohnson]

I am thankful to have my unit back and working - and that I installed it using a certified position source (430W).

Hopefully, all I get is updated software that transmits SIL0 when the internal (non-certified) GPS is used and SIL3 when connected to the 430W....and display port 2 fixed!

Ralph,
Unfortunately, we who are using the 430W as a position source are still screwed. The AD is out (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/06/06/2017-11625/airworthiness-directives-navworx-inc-automatic-dependent-surveillance-broadcast-universal-access). I don't know how many Navworx deceptions I can put up with (or afford). Here's the pertinent info about the 430W:

Some commenters stated or implied that other external GPS sources, such as the Garmin 530W, the Garmin GNS 430W, the Garmin GNS 480, and the Garmin GTN 650, are approved for installation in the ADS600-B. Contrary to any documentation these commenters may have from NavWorx, the only FAA-approved external GPS source is the Accord NexNav mini P/N 21000. Documentation of this is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2016-9226.