Possible AD for certain NAVWORX ADS-B Units

[txshan130]

Synopsis anyone? Haven't had time to read it through yet. But from my first glance, it appears that we are in trouble if Navworx doesn't cooperate and come up with some solutions that the FAA agrees with.

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:

[recapen]

OK - so the AD is out on the streets...the way I read it, within 6 months of July 11th (Jan 11, 2018 - give or take a day!), the 0012, 0013, and 8013 PN's are useless in that state.

You can't get an upgrade of the internal GPS until after 1 July - then Dallas Avionics will be busy ($599 more for us early adopters)...do we know that this upgrade will turn our units in to 0112/0113 and 'certified' EXP boxes? Then more money to put in the second GPS antenna for the upgraded box...customers are currently on the hook for both of these!

Is anyone pursuing the use of the 400W/500W, 600/700, or 480 as a certified external solution? If these are certified for approaches and contain the software to output the proper data stream - we should be able to use them.

I plan to request the use of my 430W as an Alternate Method of Compliance and see what they say. I'll update with their response!

[rleffler]

OK - so the AD is out on the streets...the way I read it, within 6 months of July 11th (Jan 11, 2018 - give or take a day!), the 0012, 0013, and 8013 PN's are useless in that state.

You can't get an upgrade of the internal GPS until after 1 July - then Dallas Avionics will be busy ($599 more for us early adopters)...do we know that this upgrade will turn our units in to 0112/0113 and 'certified' EXP boxes? Then more money to put in the second GPS antenna for the upgraded box...customers are currently on the hook for both of these!

Is anyone pursuing the use of the 400W/500W, 600/700, or 480 as a certified external solution? If these are certified for approaches and contain the software to output the proper data stream - we should be able to use them.

I plan to request the use of my 430W as an Alternate Method of Compliance and see what they say. I'll update with their response!

I was going to do the same for my GTN650. If you read the comments that the FAA published last week, it stated the Garmin told them that the 480 wasn't compliant.

I'm not optimistic at the moment, the AD appears to be harsher than I anticipated. It also doesn't paint a clear path with the Navworx announced upgrades. Navworx still has to prove to the FAA that the new units are compliant. Based upon their track record, I'm not sure what to expect.

[recapen]

I have requested the AMOC via email - I'll update with any response!
Since Garmin updated their 400W/500W software for this, I would think it could be used!

There I go, thinking again!

[JohnAJohnson]

...do we know that this upgrade will turn our units in to 0112/0113 and 'certified' EXP boxes?

My question too. Just because Navworx says it will make things 2020 compliant doesn't make it so. Fool me once (ADS600-B), Fool me twice (GNS430W)...

And here's another question.... I cannot see anyway that the exchange boxes will carry the 112/113 part numbers. Will the new boxes, with their new part numbers be eligible for the $500 rebate (if installed before the September cutoff)? Will the FAA consider the 012/013 boxes as legitimate ADS-B installations, thus nullifying the second dip at the well for rebate purposes?

Is anyone pursuing the use of the 400W/500W, 600/700, or 480 as a certified external solution? If these are certified for approaches and contain the software to output the proper data stream - we should be able to use them.

I plan to request the use of my 430W as an Alternate Method of Compliance and see what they say. I'll update with their response!

I see lots of ADS-B systems authorized to use the 430W as a position source at the FAA site (https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/equipment/) and a lot of systems that aren't. This tells me that Garmin or other WAAS equipment isn't an automatic shoe-in as a position source but must be certificated WITH the specific ADS-B box. Insanity that would probably take a company two years and a wheelbarrow full of money to do.

I can't see an individual getting an AMOC for the 430W, but if you were to do it and have it approved, it should open the door for everyone else to do it. Press on and please keep us posted!

[Jordan1976]

Will the new boxes, with their new part numbers be eligible for the $500 rebate (if installed before the September cutoff)? Will the FAA consider the 012/013 boxes as legitimate ADS-B installations, thus nullifying the second dip at the well for rebate purposes?

If the aircraft has ever transmitted ADS-B OUT before, it is not eligible for the rebate. Doesn't matter if the previous ADS-B was compliant or not, certified or not.

[DavidBunin]

OK - so the AD is out on the streets...the way I read it, within 6 months of July 11th (Jan 11, 2018 - give or take a day!), the 0012, 0013, and 8013 PN's are useless in that state.

The way I read it, the AD is effective July 11 and compliance required in six months. December is the sixth month after July, so action must be taken by December 31, 2017.

The FAA waited a long time to publish this AD. I would guess that they have reached some internal point in the approval process for the new NavWorx products.

I think there will be multiple paths forward by the end of this year. Let's see what announcements are made at Oshkosh.

[RV6_flyer]

Since I have not seen anyone post the link to the AD on the FAA website, here is where you can download the actual FAA AD (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/3156ea8fd766278486258137004ff683/$FILE/2017-11-11.pdf) document.

[ccrawford]

Good clarification in the AD. About what I expected.

Summary of what happened with the NavWorx boxes:

- NavWorx released ADS-B boxes with an uncertified GPS chip, using a SIL of 0. The FAA was fine with this.
- The FAA decided that units using a SIL of 0 shouldn't get traffic. (why??)
- NavWorx published a software patch to change their SIL from 0 to 3 without actually ensuring their hardware/software was SIL 3 compliant.
- The FAA has rejected this change due to non-compliance, thus the AD.

Re: 430W and GTN650: It is up to NavWorx to confirm performance compliance with those GPS sources, which NavWorx has not done. It would be interesting to see if you can get field approval for that pairing - though I would expect you'd have to show proof of compliance too.

[scottg]

Back on posts #500 and 501, there were comments stating this AD cannot apply to an experimental. Unfortunately ADs can apply to experimentals, and this one does. The FAA clarifies this on page 8 as follows:

Request: EAA and two individual commenters requested the AD not apply to experimental or light sport aircraft, since they are not regulated in the same manner as type-certificated aircraft. EAA states the FAA should address any valid airworthiness concerns with parts intended for experimental aircraft through a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) or safety alert for operators (SAFO). Two commenters requested the AD apply to experimental aircraft, because those aircraft operate in the same airspace as type-certificated aircraft and should use equipment with the same integrity. A few commenters, including AOPA, requested we clarify whether the AD applies to experimental aircraft.

FAA Response: We agree to clarify this issue. We confirm that the AD applies to all aircraft, including experimental, and we revised the AD to clarify the applicability. We made this AD applicable to the ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013 units because the design of the Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013 is substantially identical to the Model ADS600-B P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013, specifically with regard to the internal GPS and the SIL setting. While some commenters are correct that the FAA has chosen to minimize regulations on experimental aircraft because of the level of the safety risk, these risks normally apply to the individual airplane and do not affect the overall NAS. The safety risks defined in this AD extend beyond one aircraft and could affect many other aircraft as well as ATC. Therefore, we find it necessary to include experimental aircraft in the AD's applicability.

We do not agree that an SAIB or SAFO would be an appropriate solution. These documents contain information and recommended actions that are voluntary and not regulatory. Moreover, an SAIB is issued only for airworthiness concerns that do not rise to the level of an unsafe condition.

The mission of the FAA is aviation safety. ADs are used by the FAA to correct known safety defects. It would be contrary to the intent of the FAA's mission and statutory authority to exclude certain aircraft when we have determined that a part installed on those aircraft has a safety problem.

[recapen]

Hopefully between July and the required implementation date, we can get my SL-70 control head issue fixed - then I can get in line to hopefully get my unit converted from a -0013 to a -0113.

Not really a fan of chasing money with money - but the AD does not apply to the -0113 units and I like the functionality combination...starting with the SL-70 control head working at 1200 Baud.

Go, Bill, GO!

[DennisRhodes]

Guess NW has already thought of this but why not pursue getting the GPS position source they are now using TSOd or at lease prove it to be of equal performance for use in the EXP units ( Which we thought had already happened). That might would allow the EXP units to operate JAN 1 2020. Seems the FAA was not concerned with the accuracy but rather the integrity (or failure method) on the "commercial" GPS source. I know there are many FAA reports that indicate accuracy is within limits. I know I have a couple. Looks like that might would be a better route than than replacing.

My other question : How is it other manufactures are advertising certified GPS position sources and also advertising an output of SIL= 3 but do not show up on the approved list that's on the FAA site. ie echo UAT uavonix , and the GRT/ Dynon position source maybe others? Are they good for compliance in 2020 or just next in line?

As for the other experimental use units that advertise 2020 compliant, do they offer a letter or certification indicating the FAA has approved their position source. Anyone seen one?

[BobTurner]

Seems the FAA was not concerned with the accuracy but rather the integrity (or failure method) on the "commercial" GPS source. I know there are many FAA reports that indicate accuracy is within limits. I know I have a couple. Looks like that might would be a better route than than replacing.

My other question : How is it other manufactures are advertising certified GPS position sources and also advertising an output of SIL= 3 but do not show up on the approved list that's on the FAA site. ie echo UAT uavonix , and the GRT/ Dynon position source maybe others? Are they good for compliance in 2020 or just next in line?

As for the other experimental use units that advertise 2020 compliant, do they offer a letter or certification indicating the FAA has approved their position source. Anyone seen one?

1. As I read the AD, the FAA is concerned with the ability of the GPS to detect a failure in the satellite system, among other things. It's not JUST the gps' integrity, it's the whole system.
2. The boxes you mention are NOT "certified" (e.g., they do not carry a TSO tag) and by FAA fiat they are not on the approved list to qualify for a $500 rebate. The manufacturers state that they "meet the standards" and therefore are eligible for installation (within the limits set forth in their documentation) on EAB aircraft. Note the gps source must only use transmitters listed in the documentation.
3. I know of no FAA list of "approved but not TSO'd" devices, so I think you're taking it on faith that the manufacturer really has talked with the FAA, provided all needed data, and gotten an okay. It's most unfortunate that faith in Navworx appears to have been misplaced.

[Lars]

So the latest news is dismaying. So far no path forward has been described for those of us with EXP units. Hoping there will be some news at Oshkosh.

[Paul 5r4]

I have the navworx 600 EXP model... There for awhile I was beginning to get the impression the FAA was going to leave the EXP models out of the AD. That's not the case. I just called the number listed on the Navworx site and connected to a very nice gentleman from Dallas Avionics. I ask what I needed to do to get the unit to comply with the AD. I'll relay his comments here. He stated he was actually on the way to a meeting with navworx today about the AD and how to bring all this to a close for everyone affected. He did say there are plans in place and it's not the end of the world. He ask that I call him back tomorrow as he should have some answers for me/us then. Hopefully some good information will come tomorrow. I will call him and post any information here.

[DennisRhodes]

Still confused, So does this mean I need to have my EXP unit reprogramed to an SIL =0 and then the FAA will allow my experimental aircraft into Class C and under Class B airspace even though the internal source is uncertified? Except that I won't be able to receive any TIF and that will be safer?? Or does the access to Class C and under Class B go away with the change in SIL? If that is true why would I want to carry a brick around all the time?

[DavidBunin]

Still confused,

Understandable. The thing to do right now is nothing. Wait and see what announcements are made at Oshkosh.

Yes, changing to a SIL of 0 is one potential solution acceptable to the FAA, but I think probably not acceptable to many aircraft owners. Wait and see what's behind door number two.

[DennisRhodes]

[QUOTE=BobTurner;1178617]1. As I read the AD, the FAA is concerned with the ability of the GPS to detect a failure in the satellite system, among other things. It's not JUST the gps' integrity, it's the whole system.

Thanks for the reply Bob, After reading ( not necessarily comprehending or understanding) the AD is pretty clear with the 0012 and 0013 units but I believe there are still unanswered questions about how this applies to the EBA and Light sport. I have to agree that whats good for one concerning the position safety should be applied to the EBA. I don't think they provided a very good support or answer for why they needed to include the EBA. It may just be the fact that NW never provided any test results showing the position source meet performance and this is all they could do. I'm pretty sure as an individual I can not and should not be the one to detect a problem with the satellite system as a whole. But my little device should be able to be programmed to detect a receiving problem and kick it to default. If it is a problem with the system there should be a number of others that see that also. If its not accuracy but rather integrity then that should be a simple programing step.

[roadrunner20]

Ok, Let me get this straight.

The FAA wants me to disconnect my ADS-B box in 6 months that I have received multiple in-compliance reports from their agency, because it may not be as accurate or may suffer a breakdown in flight and misreport my position in the NAS.

They will not allow me to use it until the actual compliance date in 2020, because it may present a NAS safety issue to me or other aircraft.

So they want me to unplug it and transmit NO position & receive NO position on any aircraft in the NAS. Safer or Not Safer?

[Paul 5r4]

One method of the AD compliance states to change the SIL back to 0. If I'm understanding the result of a SIL change from 3 back to 0 on the EXP units and that will NOT allow 600 EXP users to receive traffic information... well, what's the point of having the thing in the plane at all???

[ccrawford]

So they want me to unplug it and transmit NO position & receive NO position on any aircraft in the NAS. Safer or Not Safer?

What would you rather have: no position reported, but you have your fallbacks to find aircraft (eg: eyeballs, radar), or: a bad position reported but indicating its a good position, so you think it's at position A when its really at position B?

[DennisRhodes]

What would you rather have: no position reported, but you have your fallbacks to find aircraft (eg: eyeballs, radar), or: a bad position reported but indicating its a good position, so you think it's at position A when its really at position B?

For VFR flight and (Assuming you have a Navworx that has lost its intergity!) a default to "no position" puts you right back to the way we've done it for the last 100 years, look out the windscreen! And since in VFR we do have the possibility of encountering the J3Cub, that still not a bad idea.

[Paul 5r4]

Good morning all. I spoke with Scott Edwards from Dallas Avionics a few minutes ago. He stated they are working on the fix for the EXP units. It will more than likely be a two pronged approach.... first a software upgrade, (SIL to 0.... also the possibility of making the SIL end-user selectable. I don't understand that because the AD states it must be set to 0), and then a hardware upgrade down the road. He didn't want to speculate about cost at this time. He added that the communication letters on the Navworx site should be updated by the end of this week. He said navworx is very committed to taking care of all these issues with their customers. Hopefully things start happening soon and then as far as compliance we'll know exactly what we're facing.

[roadrunner20]

What would you rather have: no position reported, but you have your fallbacks to find aircraft (eg: eyeballs, radar), or: a bad position reported but indicating its a good position, so you think it's at position A when its really at position B?

In all the flying I have done with this system in 1 1/2 years, my traffic alerts have always been spot on. In most cases, I did not immediately see the traffic out the window, but knowing where to look, it was spot on. I continue, box or no box, to scan for AC regardless of what it reports.

[BobTurner]

So they want me to unplug it and transmit NO position & receive NO position on any aircraft in the NAS. Safer or Not Safer?

It will be safer for the airlines, because you will not be allowed to fly in "their" airspace (for the most part). Don't be fooled; ADSB is all about saving the FAA money and keeping the airlines safe from GA. Any concern for GA is a distant second.

[DennisRhodes]

Understandable. The thing to do right now is nothing. Wait and see what announcements are made at Oshkosh.

Yes, changing to a SIL of 0 is one potential solution acceptable to the FAA, but I think probably not acceptable to many aircraft owners. Wait and see what's behind door number two.

David , I think you may be correct, in the thing to do right now is nothing, But I think I will go the second step and continue to use my 600 EXP as it is until Dec 31 2017 and ask for a test report EACH time i fly just to be sure it doesn't lose its "integrity" . All the limits in accuracy are easy to read off the reports. And unless there's some breakthru from Navworx at that time which I don't expect, I'll throw it in the trash and buy again from another supplier. Maybe by that time the dust will be settled and the FAA can decide what it is they want. Looks like the international market place is keying in on ADSB and actually are making some pretty good " certified" products.

[Paul 5r4]

I agree with David and Dennis.... do nothing till OSH. I'll continue to use mine as is until I have to change/disable it. I bet Navworx/Bill/Dallas avionics know there will many eyes watching to see how this is handled.

[Swoda]

In reading the AD if I were making a log book entry stating that i was complying with the AD per Para. e(1)ii in an experimental aircraft how could I log that I complied IAW the AD per para. e(1)ii by Revising the Limitations section of the Aircraft Flight Manual supplement (AFMS) by inserting a copy of this AD or by making pen-and-ink changes to add the following: ?USING THE ADS-B SYSTEM IS PROHIBITED.? WHEN I DO NOT HAVE AN AFM OR POH? or para e(1)iv which states Revise the Limitations section of the AFMS by inserting a copy of this AD or by making pen-and-ink changes to add the following: ?OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE ACCORD NEXNAV MINI P/N 21000 EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQUIRED.? WHEN I DO NOT HAVE AN AFM OR POH?

I have reviewed FAR 21.5, 21.191, 21.193, 91.319, 91.9, AC 60-6B, AC20-27G and my aircraft's Operating Limitations no where is it required to have an Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) or Pilot Operating Handbook (POH). How is it possible to comply with the two above methods for AD compliance if I have no AFM or POH to enter the required statements into and am not required to have an AFM or POH?

Definition:
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). An FAA-approved document that contains information (operating limitations, operating procedures, performance information, etc.) necessary to operate the airplane at the level of safety established by the airplane?s certification basis.

Supplement. Information that supersedes or is in addition to the basic AFM
resulting from the issuance of a supplemental type certificate (STC), or from approved changes to AFM limitations, procedures, or performance information without an STC.

Terminology:

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM): The AFM is a document developed by the airplane manufacturer and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) It is specific to a particular make and model airplane by serial number and it contains operating procedures and limitations which meet the requirements of FAR 21.5
Pilot Operating Handbook (POH): The POH is a document developed by the airplane manufacturer and contains the FAA approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) information The term "POH" came into existence in the mid-1970s as a result of AOPA's and GAMA's efforts to standardize and expand information contained in the owner's manuals or information manuals of the day
Airplane Owner/Pilot Information Manual (PIM): The PIM is a document developed by the airplane manufacturer containing general information about the make and model of an airplane The airplane owner?s manual is not FAA-approved and is not specific to a particular serial numbered airplane
This manual is not kept current, and therefore cannot be substituted for the AFM/POH It is often used as a way to learn and review aircraft information without removing legal information from the aircraft




(d) Compliance
You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.
(e) Required Actions
(1) Within 6 months, comply with either paragraph (e)(1)(i),
(ii), (iii), or (iv) of this AD
:
(i) Remove the ADS
-B unit.
(ii) Disable and prohibit use of the ADS
-B unit as follows:
(A) Pull and secure the circuit breaker and disconnect the internal GPS antenna connector from the ADS-B unit and secure.
(B) Install a placard in view of the pilot that states ?USING THE ADS
-B SYSTEM IS PROHIBITED.?
(C) Revise the Limitations section of the Aircraft Flight Manual supplement (AFMS) by inserting a copy of this AD or by making pen-
and-ink changes to add the following:
?USING THE ADS-B SYSTEM IS PROHIBITED.?
(iii) Revise the software so the ADS-B unit broadcasts a SIL of 0.
(iv) Couple the ADS-B unit with an approved external GPS as
follows:
(A) Interface the ADS-B unit with an Accord NexNav mini LRU GPS
Receiver P/N 21000.
(B) Revise the Limitations section of the AFMS by inserting a
copy of this AD or by making pen-and-ink changes to add the
following: ?
OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS
PROHIBITED. USE OF THE ACCORD NEXNAV MINI P/N 21000 EXTERNAL
POSITION SOURCE IS REQUIRED.?

[scottg]

Regarding the no AFMS concern, the AD provides the option of contacting the FAA and asking for an alternate means of compliance. Standard aircraft are not required to have the operating limitations that are attached to our EAB airworthiness certificates. Maybe propose in an AMOC that a copy of the AD be attached to your operating limitations instead of an AFMS change? A quick call to the FAA can't hurt.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Kyle Cobble, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5172, email kyle.cobble@faa.gov; or Michael Heusser, Program Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5038, email michael.a.heusser@faa.gov

[rleffler]

Here's the response I just received from the FAA concerning the AMOC and any future hardware/software upgrades from Navworx.

Mr. Leffler,
First, let me address how to apply for the AMOC. Please reference Advisory Circular (AC) 39-10. You can find this on the Regulatory and Guidance Library online. Go to http://rgl.faa.gov. On the right, select Advisory Circulars, and then you can do a search for 39-10.

Section 3-2 details the information that should be included in the AMOC. The AMOC should go through your Flight Standards Principal Inspector, according to paragraph 3-4. So, I would think you could e-mail the AMOC proposal to your PI, and he could forward it on to us, but that’s something you should ask him. Alternatively, if you wanted to present your proposal to the PI, he could give you an endorsement letter stating that he has reviewed the proposal and has no further comments. You could then e-mail the proposal to us (the ACO) and include the PI's endorsement letter. We ask that you submit an ADS-B performance report that has been performed since the AD was published (June 7, 2017). It would be ok to e-mail and electronic version to us at the ACO for inclusion with the AMOC. You should also list the data that was used for the installation, such as the NavWorx installation manual and version number. I believe we have enough experience and data with the GTN650 that it will allow us to issue an AMOC.

We are aware that some of the owners may not have a working relationship with a PI, especially those with experimental aircraft. If that is the case, let me know, as we may have to come up with a work around or provide further guidance on how to submit the proposal.

The other question on NavWorx upgrades is a little nuanced. If the NavWorx upgrade is to set SIL back to 0, then you can check with our office to see if that particular software version has been approved. If so, you could install that version, since the AD allows such a change to be installed if it becomes available. If the upgrade is to set the SIL to some value other than 0, then you may still have to apply for an AMOC for that version. When that time comes, you can call me or Mike Heusser for guidance.


Kyle Cobble
Fort Worth ACO
817-222-5172

Bill has insisted that external GPS units, such as the GNS430 and/or the GTN650 were approved GPS sources. The AD states that isn't the case. It appears that the burden is on us to file an AMOC for each of our certified GPS, but we may have to for each of the proposed Navworx upgrades. It appears that while Bill is offering what he thinks in an acceptable upgrade path to resolve this current situation, the FAA may have another opinion.

I have a good relationship with the local FSDO office, but I don't know how onerous is the AMOC process or is it something that an individual can accomplish. I guess it's time to get started. The link to the AMOC is: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/e5053168f0cc2c1f862580300058f80f/$FILE/39-10.pdf

Update: I just read the AMOC instructions. It seems like a more bureaucratic process than a technical one, especially with well known certified GPS sources. It's going to be a couple weeks before I can start working on this, since I'm in the midst of a panel upgrade that I need to get completed first. It seems to me that we may want to organize and request a Global AMOC. The requirements seems to be that you need to add make/model and serial number of each aircraft to be included. I suspect that there needs to be an AMOC filed for each certified GPS. The question then becomes how to we handle the coordination and track all the aircraft that needs to be included in the Global AMOC. Thoughts?

Update 2:

I have been out for a few days.
I will get back with you regarding the Garmin GTN650 nav source.

Thanks,

Michael Heusser
Program Manager
Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office
Phone: 817-222-5038

[DennisRhodes]

I didnt really think the FAA could make this more complicated than the fiascos witnessed prior to the AD final rule. But looks like they have done it again. Talk about creating jobs and legal paperwork, they are the best. And i thought it was only the IRS that needed reorganized. Maybe MAGA will address some of this. We seems to pay for it anyway.

Please leave a text number where i can send a pic of my 600 EXP in a trash can. Thats about all the paperwork im going to do.

[Indycanard]

I sent an email to the Ft Worth FAA ACO in regards to this AD this morning. I specifically asked if an alternate "non-TSO" GPS source solution would be entertained by the FAA in an AMOC request, and if so, what data would be required. I specifically mentioned the GRT Safe Fly 2020 (http://www.grtavionics.com/safeflygps.html

For my specific NavWorx box (very early 200-0012), it would be more expensive to have NavWorx upgrade the GPS vs. going with another mfg external GPS (such as GRT).

In lieu of an email response, Mike Heusser called me and we spoke for a few minutes. He sounded VERY agreeable to consider AMOCs utilizing other than TSO certified GPS sources.

Further, we discussed a Global AMOC approach approving certain combinations of GPS sources and the three NavWorx box versions. Mike indicated the ideal solution would be to have a single Global AMOC approved allowing certain GPS solutions with each of the three NavWorx boxes in question. The data needed would be each combination GPS and NavWorx box would be flight tested and a performance report generated. The GPS source would also have to be acceptable, perhaps with data from the Mfg, which the FAA probably already has.

Mike will be working thru details in the near term, and his thought would be to work with the alphabet groups (EAA/AOPA) to get the combinations tested with each proposed solution installed to make sure the systems talk to each other and perform acceptably. Once done, a Global AMOC would be approved that would require no individual action except to file a copy with your aircraft documents. Mike promised an email response to me once more details are know that can be shared.

Bottom line, don't throw those NavWorks boxes away yet.

Henry
Seattle WA
N85TT

[BobTurner]

Henry, I do not believe a non-WAAS box can meet the accuracy requirements. The GRT fly safe DOES use WAAS. I think you meant "meets the performance standard but does not carry a TSO".

[Indycanard]

Henry, I do not believe a non-WAAS box can meet the accuracy requirements. The GRT fly safe DOES use WAAS. I think you meant "meets the performance standard but does not carry a TSO".

You are correct. I asked about a non-TSO GPS source such as the GRT source in lieu of the $$$$$ TSO Garmin boxes. I didn't mean non-WAAS.

I will correct the my previous post - Thanks

[tim2542]

In regards to the 600 EXP, I don't see any way to feed serial data from my 430W. There is no serial "in" except from the transponder.
Sooooo, looks like the AMOC won't work for the EXP. Do I have that wrong?
Tim Andres

[Indycanard]

In regards to the 600 EXP, I don't see any way to feed serial data from my 430W. There is no serial "in" except from the transponder.
Sooooo, looks like the AMOC won't work for the EXP. Do I have that wrong?
Tim Andres

You may be correct, or at least correct until NavWorx can modify your EXP box to allow external GPS feed (if ever). You may be stuck with the NavWorx internal GPS upgrade solution.

Mike H with the FAA-ACO is aware the EXP doesn't have the capability for external GPS solution.

It should be noted according to Scott with Dallas Avionics (NavWorx support focal), the "FAA-approved external GPS source is the Accord NexNav mini P/N 21000" specifically mentioned in the AD is a no longer used GPS in the NavWorx boxes. As it is, I don't see how an external GPS (even if FAA approved) can be used with the EXP box without a serial port. A new solution is in work by NavWorx

[tim2542]

Does anyone know if the 600 EXP GPS is internal or actually internal to the remote puck? Like my little Garmin 5 volt GPS puck I used for a second position source on the GRT's?
Tim Andres

[Lars]

Does anyone know if the 600 EXP GPS is internal or actually internal to the remote puck? Like my little Garmin 5 volt GPS puck I used for a second position source on the GRT's?
Tim Andres

Tim, the antenna is a dumb device. The offending GPS parts are internal to the EXP. I'll give NavWorx the benefit of the doubt until Oshkosh. If a path forward for the EXP is announced at that time I will follow that path. If it isn't an ironclad solution mine will become a paperweight and I'll turn to the GRT/uAvonics solution and their proven track record of actual real customer service. If you want more details on the latter comment please contact me by PM or email.

[Romper@q.com]

Talked to Scott Edwards from Dallas Avionlcs today. He believes NavWorx will put out a software fix plus some sort of approval from the FAA blessing several alternate position sources. I was inquiring about my setup with the Ads600-B and my GNS430W and whether I would need to submit an AMOC. He said I would not and the NavWorx release would solve
our problems.
I await.

Bob Ashey
RV10 500 hours

[Mike S]

Bob, welcome to VAF:D

[DavidBunin]

I was inquiring about my setup with the Ads600-B and my GNS430W and whether I would need to submit an AMOC. He said I would not and the NavWorx release would solve our problems.


I've been trying to read the tea leaves on this one. As I understand it, a new software release from NavWorx alone isn't enough. Somebody will need to apply for AMOC coverage, unless the FAA plans to revise the AD (which they almost never do, unless it is to expand effectivity).

That doesn't mean that everybody needs to apply for AMOC coverage, but whoever does it first should ask for a "Global AMOC". That way, the AMOC can be offered to anybody flying that configuration; for example the 200-0012 + GNS430W.

If the FAA is smart, they will grant that Global AMOC to the first applicant they get for each configuration. (Even if the applicant doesn't specifically ask for Global approval.)

I don't know if the FAA can group configurations onto a single AMOC. If not, then we're looking at a separate Global AMOC for each of the following:

200-0012 + GNS480
200-0013 + GNS480
200-0012 + GNS430W
200-0013 + GNS430W
200-0012 + GTN650
200-0013 + GTN650
200-0012 + IFD540
200-0013 + IFD540

This assumes that the FAA accepts the GNS530W as the same GPS as the GNS430W, and so on for the GTN750/650 and the IFD440/540. If not, then double that list.

The ADS600-EXP (part number 200-8013) does not have the capacity to be slaved to an external GPS, so there will have to be some kind of software solution there. I haven't tried asking detailed questions yet about that.

David

[Romper@q.com]

I'm hoping that person is NavWorx.

Bob

[Indycanard]

I've been trying to read the tea leaves on this one. As I understand it, a new software release from NavWorx alone isn't enough. Somebody will need to apply for AMOC coverage, unless the FAA plans to revise the AD (which they almost never do, unless it is to expand effectivity).

That doesn't mean that everybody needs to apply for AMOC coverage, but whoever does it first should ask for a "Global AMOC". That way, the AMOC can be offered to anybody flying that configuration; for example the 200-0012 + GNS430W.

If the FAA is smart, they will grant that Global AMOC to the first applicant they get for each configuration. (Even if the applicant doesn't specifically ask for Global approval.)

I don't know if the FAA can group configurations onto a single AMOC. If not, then we're looking at a separate Global AMOC for each of the following:

200-0012 + GNS480
200-0013 + GNS480
200-0012 + GNS430W
200-0013 + GNS430W
200-0012 + GTN650
200-0013 + GTN650
200-0012 + IFD540
200-0013 + IFD540

This assumes that the FAA accepts the GNS530W as the same GPS as the GNS430W, and so on for the GTN750/650 and the IFD440/540. If not, then double that list.

The ADS600-EXP (part number 200-8013) does not have the capacity to be slaved to an external GPS, so there will have to be some kind of software solution there. I haven't tried asking detailed questions yet about that.

David

As I stated above, The FAA is hoping to work with AOPA/EAA to test out many combinations of GPS sources with the NavWorx ADS600B boxes. Maybe the EAA and or AOPA would formally request the Global AMOCs on behalf of the individuals. The FAA doesn't want 600+ AMOC requests as that would overwhelm them. Also, they are not bent on only the TSO'd GPS sources such as the Garmins, but also the experimental (meets the TSO specs) such as the GRT Safe Fly 2020 and other vendors.

In the short term, it is best to let the dust settle and allow Navworx get to work. They may also be involved in AMOC solutions with other GPS solutions.

[DavidBunin]

I'm hoping that person is NavWorx.


That would be ideal for us, but NavWorx doesn't own a fleet of aircraft with one of each piece of equipment installed.

They do own units for bench testing in the lab, where it actually is quite easy to induce/simulate the kinds of problems that the FAA claims to be worried about (failure of a satellite signal). But if they did take the time to witness those tests, they would then see that there was no issue in the first place.

Since the FAA has shown no interest in lab tests, this is going to "take a village" instead.

[recapen]

I'm working on a global for 200-0013 and 430W - just waiting for an opportunity for a PAPR flight.

[Romper@q.com]

Ralph, good work. Hope you'll share if you're approved.

Bob

[recapen]

I'll let everyone know my results!
If my global AMOC gets approved, everyone with a 200-0013 and a 400W/500W series externally connected GPS will benefit. Thant's how I'm writing it!

Best I can do at sharing!

[rv6n6r]

I'll let everyone know my results!
If my global AMOC gets approved, everyone with a 200-0013 and a 400W/500W series externally connected GPS will benefit. Thant's how I'm writing it!

Best I can do at sharing!

Thanks, sounds like that'll help, but (from Kyle Cobble, FAA):

A global AMOC for the GNS430W would not automatically extend to the 400W. We will need to receive data and issue an AMOC for each GPS part number. However, if there is a global AMOC for the GNS430W, I would anticipate that it would make it quicker and easier to approve an AMOC for someone who proposes the GPS 400W.
So someone will have to go through the process for each model.

As for waiting on NavWorx as Indycanard suggests -- after so many missteps and misstatements (the latest being, that 430W et-al would be approved as alternate position sources in the forthcoming AD), the needle on my "benefit of the doubt" meter has pegged. I believe that to the extent possible, we need to take control of the process ourselves. Unfortunately we'll still need the promised SW update to report the approved position source -- I think?

[DavidBunin]

Thanks, sounds like that'll help, but (from Kyle Cobble, FAA):

A global AMOC for the GNS430W would not automatically extend to the 400W. We will need to receive data and issue an AMOC for each GPS part number.
So someone will have to go through the process for each model.

It's worse than that. If Kyle really sticks to that strict interpretation of "each GPS part number" then the problem explodes, because Garmin has made about twenty different part numbers of the GNS units.

David Bunin

[rv6n6r]

It's worse than that. If Kyle really sticks to that strict interpretation of "each GPS part number" then the problem explodes, because Garmin has made about twenty different part numbers of the GNS units.

David Bunin

Here's his answer to that:

I expect that we will be able to give an AMOC for general part numbers, such as GNS 430W, without having to go down to revision levels. The only exception might be the GNS 480, which I believe was only compliant with 91.227 after a specific revision level.

Generally, yes, it would be easier to wait for a global AMOC. That being said, some of the entities may be looking for people who would allow their airplanes to be used as the basis for the AMOC. If you are interested, we may be able to put you in contact with them.
As I mentioned previously, I'm not content any longer to sit and wait for things to happen, plus my GPS-400W won't be as likely to get approval as soon as others e.g. the 430W. So I will be taking him up on that offer.

[rleffler]

I submitted a Global AMOC for the GTN-650/GTN-750 this morning. I also had a conversation with Mike Heusser. He mentioned that my data appeared to be in order and looked good. He said to expect my personal AMOC within thirty days.

The Global AMOC may take a bit longer. The reason for the delay was that it was his preference to do one Global AMOC to cover the majority of aircraft and GPS devices. Its going to take a bit longer to facilitate getting all the various test data collected.

He said that they have data on the GNS430/4520 and now the GTN-650/750. What he needs are people that have other GPS units that they are looking to incorporate into the Global AMOC.

If you have another certified GPS that you would like included and are willing to facilitate using your aircraft to get the data for approval, please drop me an email. (do NOT PM me) Click on my userid to email me. I'll share what you'll need to do.

bob

[rleffler]

It it appears that we have the Garmin camp covered for the Global AMOC. Does anyone else have a certified GPS from another vendor that they would be interested in providing data for inclusion in the Global AMOC?

If so, please email me. (No PMs please)

bob

[rleffler]

I just got off the phone with Mike @ FAA.

He thinks he may be able to get the Global AMOC out in about 90 days for the Garmin family of GPS. That was his guess, not a commitment since he has to follow a defined process to get all the approvals before release. He also stated that all the data seems to be clear cut and doesn't foresee any problems.

He committed to getting the several of us that are helping provide data for the AMOC to provide bi-weekly updates on the status. I will commit to posting those updates as I get them here.

He also hinted that there is something coming for the -EXP units too, but he wasn't at liberty to share the details.

[roadrunner20]

From the sound of it, it doesn't sound very painful to get these GPSs approved on a AMOC.

How about all the EXP users submit an AMOC using our internal GPS?
I'm thinking AMOC, as the FAA was never able to test it for accuracy & reliability.:rolleyes:

[Paul 5r4]

I'm with roadrunner!

[David-aviator]

From the sound of it, it doesn't sound very painful to get these GPSs approved on a AMOC.

How about all the EXP users submit an AMOC using our internal GPS?
I'm thinking AMOC, as the FAA was never able to test it for accuracy & reliability.:rolleyes:

I will gladly do it if Navworx will send the hardware on order since last August.

[rleffler]

From the sound of it, it doesn't sound very painful to get these GPSs approved on a AMOC.

How about all the EXP users submit an AMOC using our internal GPS?
I'm thinking AMOC, as the FAA was never able to test it for accuracy & reliability.:rolleyes:

The reason that the Garmin family of gps appear to be an easy amoc is the the faa already has the data they need. All the amoc is doing is basically connecting the Garmin to the Navworx in an approved configuration.

I don't believe that there is any way to get an amoc approved for the -exp. you would have to prove and supply data that the gps is within spec.:eek:

[dtw_rv6]

Has anyone opened up an EXP unit? Since there is no provision for connecting an external unit, I'm speculating that a really creative person could locate communication line between the Sirf IV chip and the rest of the board, intercept it and feed data from a valid source instead.

As I've stated before, I have no intentions of paying Navworx to fix this mess. I think it could be possible to comply with the AD without their help with a little bit of creative reverse engineering. The worst case is that I fry the little box and it is useless. Oh... wait.... its useless anyway.

Don

[DennisRhodes]

My deadline for the exp is Sept . After that i will be removing and replacing with echo. If anyone wants to post mortem mine i can make it available. Would like for it to be someone with the intentions of trying to make some effort at recovering its usefullness to the group. Looks like a long shot to get the certification test done for a device that probably is capable but paper work never presented.

[rleffler]

My deadline for the exp is Sept . After that i will be removing and replacing with echo. If anyone wants to post mortem mine i can make it available. Would like for it to be someone with the intentions of trying to make some effort at recovering its usefullness to the group. Looks like a long shot to get the certification test done for a device that probably is capable but paper work never presented.

I don't have any skin in the -EXP game. But with my conversations with the FAA, they seemed quite confident that there would be an approved solution for the -EXP. They couldn't talk about the details, since the FAA is prohibited from talking about future vendor products. All I can pass along is that Mike appeared to be satisfied with the direction of the solution.

I understand the frustration people have with Navworx. I've in the similar boat with my 0012 unit. I would advise people to wait 90-120 days before making any decisions that require a major expense. Mike clearly understands that he has to get the Global AMOC out the door in time for people to make decision well before the deadline on the AD so people have plenty of time to comply. I can share with you that he's working hard to make that happen.

[Paul 5r4]

And in the midst of all this... the AD having been out for several weeks now... I was told there was going to be an update on their web site by the end of that week. Nothing! Not any official words from Navworx. I agree the best approach for now is to wait. Hopefully by Oshkosh they'll have some news. In the mean time, my research it taking me towards the ECHO as well.

[dtw_rv6]

I would certainly be willing to share whatever I learn about the insides of the EXP once I get to see inside. I'm not quite ready to rip it open yet, but likely will do so this winter if Navworx can't make my unit compliant before then. I waited 10 months after paying them the first time, and I still don't have the second radio activated in firmware, so call me very skeptical that they can take care of this to my satisfaction.

I can wait until my flying season is over before doing anything drastic....

Don

[JohnAJohnson]

And in the midst of all this... the AD having been out for several weeks now... I was told there was going to be an update on their web site by the end of that week...

Frustrating. Navworx posted that the V5 software will allow GNS4xx as an AMOC, but the FAA is working on a global AMOC that Ralph submitted for the GNS4xx, to be done in approximately 90 days, I am again scratching my head. Is Navworx and the FAA talking at all? It's almost as bad as watching national politics.

[rleffler]

Frustrating. Navworx posted that the V5 software will allow GNS4xx as an AMOC, but the FAA is working on a global AMOC that Ralph submitted for the GNS4xx, to be done in approximately 90 days, I am again scratching my head. Is Navworx and the FAA talking at all? It's almost as bad as watching national politics.

I submitted the data for the 650/750 and 480 for the global amoc. In my talking with the faa, they are having conversations with Bill. However, they weren't allowed to share with me any of the details due to faa policy. He did say that the solutions being provided were on target and looked good. Anything that Navwork releases will have to get approval from the FAA prior to the end of service date in the AD. The FAA was optimistic that they'll be able to beat that deadline, but wasn't making any promises.

[JohnAJohnson]

I submitted the data for the 650/750 and 480 for the global amoc.

Sorry Bob, I mistakenly called you "Ralph" in my post.

I very much appreciate you taking the lead on this. Thank you.

[rleffler]

Sorry Bob, I mistakenly called you "Ralph" in my post.

I very much appreciate you taking the lead on this. Thank you.

No, you were correct. Ralph submitted the data for the 430/530.

[recapen]

Went for a flight today and got a "Clean" PAPR in my e-mail inbox.
I'll be submitting a Global AMOC for the 200-0013 ADS600B unit with a GNS430W as the external GPS source.

I have already had a number of conversations with the FAA folks in Ft Worth about this. Their last instruction was to submit the info requested in the 30-9 along with your PAPR.

Fingers crossed!

[recapen]

I submitted my request for global AMOC for 200-0012 and 200-0013 connected to Garmin 4XXW and 5XXW series GPS (with requisite software to support ADS-B OUT+).

Good vibes please!

[Indycanard]

I am working with GRT to install their "Safe-Fly 2020 GPS" position source into my aircraft as a source for my 200-0012 Navworx box. I'm hoping to receive it and install it in the next week. As my Navworx box is of the early vintage, a Navworx upgrade is stupid expensive. I'm not willing to invest more $$$ with Navworx currently. The Safe-Fly 2020 GPS would be an independent compliant source I can utilize with my existing GRT EFIS and other ABS-B solutions if my Navworx dies.
My plan is to fly this combination. If the flight test is successful, submit a global AMOC for the 200-0012 and 200-0013 to utilize this Safe-Fly 2020 GPS source.
I'm following in Ralph's footsteps here, but for a more economical solution for those of us without the Garmin devices.
Henry

[txshan130]

Following here...might want to do the same as I can't tie into my Garmin. I had asked about this earlier and was under the impression that the GRT GPS would not work (incompatible output) with the Navworx ADS600-B. Maybe things have changed since then...

I am working with GRT to install their "Safe-Fly 2020 GPS" position source into my aircraft as a source for my 200-0012 Navworx box. I'm hoping to receive it and install it in the next week. As my Navworx box is of the early vintage, a Navworx upgrade is stupid expensive. I'm not willing to invest more $$$ with Navworx currently. The Safe-Fly 2020 GPS would be an independent compliant source I can utilize with my existing GRT EFIS and other ABS-B solutions if my Navworx dies.
My plan is to fly this combination. If the flight test is successful, submit a global AMOC for the 200-0012 and 200-0013 to utilize this Safe-Fly 2020 GPS source.
I'm following in Ralph's footsteps here, but for a more economical solution for those of us without the Garmin devices.
Henry

[recapen]

Brian,
What Garmin do you have? Someone else here may have already done it - or has the manuals to determine the interoperabilty capabilities and requirements.

[rleffler]

Brian,
What Garmin do you have? Someone else here may have already done it - or has the manuals to determine the interoperabilty capabilities and requirements.

At the moment, we should have the 4XXw/5XXw, 6XX/7XX, and 480 models covered.

[txshan130]

Brian,
What Garmin do you have? Someone else here may have already done it - or has the manuals to determine the interoperabilty capabilities and requirements.

Ralph...it's a problem of "access." The wiring bundle is extremely difficult to get to and just won't budge. I can hardly get to it in the first place so it's just not really an option. FWIW it's a G430W.

[recapen]

Understood Brian - I have a 430W integrated with mine - working fine!

Yes, a royal PITB to wire up and my panel comes apart easily for just this reason. If you change your mind and force the wire bundle issue, it's been done already - just ask!

[DavidBunin]

At the moment, we should have the 4XXw/5XXw, 6XX/7XX, and 480 models covered.

Does anybody know if the approval for the GNS products will automatically approve the Avidyne IFD products, which are certified as slide-in replacements for GNS?

[rleffler]

Does anybody know if the approval for the GNS products will automatically approve the Avidyne IFD products, which are certified as slide-in replacements for GNS?

Just because it's tray compatible doesn't mean it meets the required GPS specification. With that said, I'm sure it does, but it needs it's own AMOC.

I can assist you with the AMOC if you have the Avidyne currently driving the Navwork. All you then need is an installation schematic (the Navworx one is acceptable) and a Public ADS-B Performance Report showing everything passed.

Also, if it's already FAA approved for other ADS-B products, that will make the process go even faster. For example the GTN650 was approved with seven other devices. It's currently approved with Avidyne's and Dynon's ADS-B solutions.

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/equipment/

[kevin O]

i am looking to rewire my 600b to the 430w as gps position source. are we assuming in the amoc that the current navworx wiring schematic and software will be approved by the faa or are there anticipated changes? any other issues beside wiring that i need to consider? thanks

[rleffler]

i am looking to rewire my 600b to the 430w as gps position source. are we assuming in the amoc that the current navworx wiring schematic and software will be approved by the faa or are there anticipated changes? any other issues beside wiring that i need to consider? thanks

While I haven't seen the data Ralph submitted, I believe that he used the Navworx schematic. I know I did for the 6xx/7xx and 480 submissions.

At this point, all I think you need to do is to be patient and wait for the Global AMOC to be published in about 90 days. We should be getting a status update from the ACO after the holiday.

[recapen]

I did get confirmation that my AMOC request was received and appears to be in order.

Now simply waiting for the requisite approval timing process!

[rleffler]

I just received an email from Mike @ FAA ACO regarding the status of the Global AMOC for Garmin GPS (4xx/5xx, 6xx/7xx, & 480) for use with Navworx (0012 & 0013).

There is a meeting scheduled next week. He should be able to provide an estimated completion date for the Global AMOC afterwards.

bob

[rv6n6r]

At the moment, we should have the 4XXw/5XXw, 6XX/7XX, and 480 models covered.

So just to be clear, that will include the GPS-400W? Because based on my discussions with FAA (see my previous post), it wouldn't be automatic based on AMOCs for other Garmin 4XX variants. Does that mean FAA has people providing data for all the different models?

Also won't this all be dependent on new firmware from Navworx as well?

[rleffler]

So just to be clear, that will include the GPS-400W? Because based on my discussions with FAA (see my previous post), it wouldn't be automatic based on AMOCs for other Garmin 4XX variants. Does that mean FAA has people providing data for all the different models?

Also won't this all be dependent on new firmware from Navworx as well?

I've asked for validation. I'll let you know when I get a response.

bob

[rleffler]

I've asked for validation. I'll let you know when I get a response.

bob

Here's the response I got from the FAA:

Good question. We normally only approve equipment that is requested by the applicant.

What I can do is see if a similarity argument is acceptable. Would it be possible for you to provide the other part numbers?

We would like to capture as many variants as we can this first time around.
Also, we have our meeting this morning to discuss this AMOC. I will get back with you after this meeting.

So the answer is maybe. We should know more later today.

If you have something other than a 430/530, 650/750, or 480, have either a 0012 or 0013 Navworx box, and a passing Public ADS-B Performance remote while using a certified Garmin model other that those above, then contact me and that will help accelerate the process. I will also need to know if you wired your GPS per the Navworx manual. We also have to supply installation schematics. The Navworx pages have been acceptable to the FAA.

Please send me an email and not a PM.

bob

[rleffler]

Both Ralph and I had conversations with the FAA yesterday. This is what we know:

There was only three people that submitted data to them for an AMOC. It turns out that they where for a 430w, a 480, and a 650. The people that submitted data will get an individual AMOC first, most likely some time in August.

We were told that this is being done because the FAA is working with a large aviation related interest group to facilitate the Global AMOC to the public. The name and the process hopefully can be made public in the next couple of weeks. The expectation was sent that the Global AMOC should be available, assuming no more hurdles get in the way, by September. The intent of the first Global AMOC is to cover the 480, 4XX, 5XX, 6XX, and 7XX family of Garmin transponders.

The FAA is prohibited from supply the data that we sent to the FAA directly to the interest group. Just like the fact that they have insight into Bill's plans, but can't share any details due to non-disclosure requirements. Ralph, Phil, and I have been asked to share the data with this organization to get the process rolling. We are just waiting to hear what the process may be and the process/organization name to be made public. I'm hoping that news may come out at a large aviation event happening next week. :D

I was also told that anyone that upgrades the GPS to the ones that Navworx is offering on the web site, will also need an AMOC. Unfortunately, that is a chicken/egg scenario. Until somebody installs the upgrade, generates successful data through the FAA Public ADS-B Performance Report, they can't issue an AMOC. They did share that while they can't disclose details, they know of no reason the new GPS will fail. They were quite optimistic. They also couldn't disclose details of the EXP solution, but stated that they were optimistic with what they've seen to date. The EXP news has to come first from Bill before the FAA can comment publically.

If you have another brand certified GPS, I can work with you to get an AMOC submitted and approved. The process isn't that difficult. I may be able to cut some red tape out of the process for a short period of time. The FAA is really pushing hard to help us. There are new resources assigned that weren't directly involved in the original debacle.

I will be in HBC (weather permitting) from Saturday through Thursday morning. If you're going to be at OSH and have specific questions, let me know and we can meet.

As always, as the FAA shares more details, I repost them here. Please be patient. We just have to work through the formal FAA ISO 9000 processes. That just takes some time.

For those that ask, I have no formal relationship with NavWorx. I'm a customer just like you. I still have an outstanding support issue with Bill. My goal is to come up a free solution that will help me and the majority of the ADS600-B users get through this debacle.

[kevin O]

i recently wired my 430w to the 600b in anticipation of the amoc approval. not sure i understand the process required to take advantage of all the work that Bob and Ralph are doing on the amoc. is it automatic with the global amoc? how will the global amoc be finalized and published. i am very grateful to bob and ralph for the information they've posted for all of us.
kevin oshea

[recapen]

Kevin,

We can certainly help you to get to the state we're in with an individual AMOC. The individual AMOC is probably quicker than the Global AMOC. Since I already have a request in for a 430W connection, your's will probably go easier than mine. The global will probably be published as an update to the AD - but published nonetheless!

The global AMOC will cover you without additional application when it is published according to what I understand about AD's and AMOC's. An individual AMOC gives you the peace of mind of having your installation specifically approved. The global will take longer as they are trying to make it pretty comprehensive in order to do it once...

Is your unit a 200-0012 or 200-0013? That doesn't matter too much, mine is a 0013 so we can compare easier if that's the case! Is your installation complete with the green 'ready for flight' indication? Is your plane flyable? If so, go fly and request a PAPR for your N-Number shortly after your flight. That will get you a report pdf'ed to your e-mail address. If it is clean, you're golden except for the data submission to the FAA - we can help with that as well.

Let us know here or in the 'help each other out' thread and we can keep you going in the right direction.

[kevin O]

Thanks Ralph. Have been flying the 600b for 4 yrs. It is 200-0012. Just did the 430w connection for gps source. Already ran the faa report. All is good. What else must i do? Kevin

[rleffler]

Thanks Ralph. Have been flying the 600b for 4 yrs. It is 200-0012. Just did the 430w connection for gps source. Already ran the faa report. All is good. What else must i do? Kevin

At this point in time, just be patient. The folks are doing whatever that they can do to fast track the Global AMOC as fast as they can. As with all governmental organizations, there is always something unexpected that can throw a monkey wrench into the works.

At this point in time, if you have a 480, 4XX, 5XX, 6XX, or 7XX, I would just wait for the Global AMOC. The individual AMOC most likely won't be any faster. They'll take about the same amount of time. I'm hoping that there will be a more information we can share publically next week. Ralph and I are being spoon fed information from the FAA. Once this new agreement with a well known interest group is in place, things will be made public and will proceed very quickly.

If you don't have one of the Garmin GPS units listed above and are using a certified GPS unit or the new upgrade from NavWorx, I highly recommend going through the individual AMOC route. Typically they are supposed to go through your local FSDO first. There may be a very small window in which we can fast track it directly through the DFW ACO.

I will be at OSH Saturday though Thursday morning, camping in HBC. If you want to meet, please send me an email. PMs will most likely be read after OSH.

[recapen]

I have downloaded the SB's - no software yet....

[recapen]

Just got a question regarding my AMOC request...here's the response I provided:

In order to comply with the provisions contained in paragraph (e)(1)(iv)(B), I plan to place a placard in the aircraft next to the connection interface to the ADS600B that states: "OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE GNS430W EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQUIRED."

If you are submitting an individual AMOC, substitute your external position source for my GNS430W entry.

The fact they are asking questions at this level should be an indication as to how close they are to completing my approval!

[DavidBunin]

Would it not be simpler to just say:
OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQUIRED.

That way everybody could use the same placard. It's not like the external position source is ever going to be different for the pilot. Any changes in the aircraft's future configuration are the responsibility of the maintenance person.

[airguy]

Would it not be simpler to just say:
OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQUIRED.

That way everybody could use the same placard. It's not like the external position source is ever going to be different for the pilot. Any changes in the aircraft's future configuration are the responsibility of the maintenance person.

You would have to specify that the external position source is a certified accepted one - either by model number or reference to the TSO covering it.

[recapen]

David,

I agree with your response from a global perspective - mine is being approved as an individual AMOC, not a global one. The Global AMOC, when published, should provide for language for whatever alternative approved devices are connected.

The original language in the AD referred to the only unit type certified to perform this function. Since my individual AMOC seeks to replace that specific device type with another specific device type, the consensus was to specify that device type. The initial discussion centered around entries in the POH - which we are not required to publish and/or maintain for Owner Built and Maintained aircraft so this was the compromise agreed to.

The Global AMOC, when published and accompanied by hardware (added cost) and software (added time) changes may replace the individual AMOCs for those of us that get them - but the individual AMOC provides for immediate post-2020 compliance regardless of further vendor actions or timelines. The individual AMOC may require me to stay with the current software revision until a later one is approved by a Global AMOC or AD update - meaning we may have boxed ourselves in to a corner - but it is a known corner, with known timelines, costs, and features!

This is a great product at an initially great price and I want to use it long-term - without waving my checkbook every time I turn around!

[Snowflake]

If your external source fails for some reason, would you switch to the internal source, or fly with no ADS-B position reporting? Is switching something that could be done in flight?

[recapen]

Based on the way this system is designed and usually installed, it takes an external computer to reconfigure the GPS source - something that you would not do in flight!

[rleffler]

In talking with Bill at OSH, he shared the following:


He has applied to the FAA for a Global AMOC. This has nothing to do with the activities that Ralph and I have mentioned previously on VAF. He actually voiced his frustration that somebody else would submit an AMOC.
He stated he can't sell the new units, upgrades, or release 5.0 until the AMOC is approved by the FAA.

In thinking about our conversation, it started to bug me quite a bit. Bill's comment was why would anyone submit an AMOC independently since he clearly wasn't going out of business. I think that's the perception that he doesn't understand. Due to Bill's complete lack of communications, failure to return voice mail or email. I've had similar issues with Scott Edwards. Since there were no updates for months on end, what other conclusions would a normal individual come to?

If Bill had simply stated that he needs to get a Global AMOC approved, but the schedule is outside his span of control due to the FAA process, it would have most likely appeased most folks. If he was transparent and just communicate what he was working on and trying to get done, most folks to would trust him and extend to him the courtesy of trusting in his efforts. Unfortunately, since he chose not to communicate his direction, intent, or next steps, most folks were extremely frustrated.

I'm share with him my frustration, specifically the problem with the display port 2 not being able to transmit traffic or weather. He stated that would be resolved with 5.0 of the software.

To be honest, I'm still sitting on the fence about proceeding with the upgrades. I've got my unit working with the GTN-650 and an individual AMOC (hoping a Global AMOC coming later). So I'll be compliant soon. I'll have to study the upgrade later to see if it makes sense for me to purchase. My concern would be that if you don't get the upgrade, some future release of the software may not function properly.

[bdserv]

I have been watching this from the sidelines still deciding what direction to take. I had originally planned to install the Navworx EXP unit and my normal luck with this sort of thing should have resulted in me sharing the suffering with so many of you. However, for some unknown reason I waited this time...

I have to say that at this point I doubt that I would choose a Navworx product regardless of the ultimate outcome of all of this, and the main reason for that is the inexcusable way in which Navworx have conducted themselves especially in the area of customer communication.

All companies make mistakes. It's what you do after the mistake that separates one company from another.

Bruce

[Weasel]

Along with an airplane deal I wound up with a Navworx -EXP brand new in the box. So, what should I do with it? :confused::confused::confused:

[BobTurner]

Along with an airplane deal I wound up with a Navworx -EXP brand new in the box. So, what should I do with it? :confused::confused::confused:

Follow the lead of the manufacturer:
1. Talk as if you know what you're doing.
2. Make lots of promises.
3. Collect money from a buyer, but don't send him anything.
4. After a while, send him the box but tell him he can't use it.

[airguy]

Unfortunately that seems to be the way of things.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I was hoping Bill would pull his head out and save the day for the good of the community, it appears that's not going to happen.

[rleffler]

Along with an airplane deal I wound up with a Navworx -EXP brand new in the box. So, what should I do with it? :confused::confused::confused:


If you wait until Navworx is granted their global amoc, you'll be fine. You'll also have to purchase their upgrade. Read their service bulletin for more info.

The open question is how long it will take the faa to get the global amoc published.

[dtw_rv6]

I'm going to buy a trig or Grand Rapids gps source and interface it just like Bill is doing with his add on. It costs a few bucks more, but I can buy the units now from a dealer I trust. I'll deal with an AMOC just for the sheer satisfaction of not paying Navworx for another empty promise.

Have you noticed that you have to order (and pay for) the hardware mod before December 31 to get one. Very efficient to force us to pay for something that isn't approved, isn't being manufactured, and is being scheduled at a lower priority than the certified boxes.

NO THANKS

Don

[BigJohn]

I have been watching this from the sidelines still deciding what direction to take. I had originally planned to install the Navworx EXP unit and my normal luck with this sort of thing should have resulted in me sharing the suffering with so many of you. However, for some unknown reason I waited this time...

I have to say that at this point I doubt that I would choose a Navworx product regardless of the ultimate outcome of all of this, and the main reason for that is the inexcusable way in which Navworx have conducted themselves especially in the area of customer communication.

All companies make mistakes. It's what you do after the mistake that separates one company from another.

Bruce

My exact situation and feelings. Was ready to order when all of this controversy started. For once my procrastination paid off! I feel for all of you caught in the middle of this fiasco. I still have to get my 12 compliant sometime in the next two years, but I will not even consider a Navworx product, as I doubt the company can stay viable in the long term with the horrible reputation they have managed to build.

[David-aviator]

I have $1890 in the pot since this poker game began last August and am waiting for the next cards to fill the hand.

My gut feeling is Bill Moffiet wants to stay in business, has reached a level of compliance with FAA and is waiting for response to his application for Global AMOC concerning the product.

That will probably happen if indeed the war is over with FAA. They probably want this whole mess to go away also.

After talking with him, I feel I will receive an approved system.

[JohnAJohnson]

Would someone at Oshkosh please ask Bill directly, if 1090 is in V5?

No one seems to care at this point but for me, it was a selling point right along with 2020 compliance. I won't consider the Navworx issue behind me till I get both.

[David-aviator]

Would someone at Oshkosh please ask Bill directly, if 1090 is in V5?

No one seems to care at this point but for me, it was a selling point right along with 2020 compliance. I won't consider the Navworx issue behind me till I get both.

Is 1090 required in Canada?

[rleffler]

Would someone at Oshkosh please ask Bill directly, if 1090 is in V5?

No one seems to care at this point but for me, it was a selling point right along with 2020 compliance. I won't consider the Navworx issue behind me till I get both.

If you read the service bulletins for both models, you would know the answer. The service bulletins list the feature changes in V5.

http://navworx.com/Downloadable-Documents.php

[recapen]

The one question that has not been answered to my knowledge...:

Will software version 5 work WITHOUT the hardware changes?

[rleffler]

The one question that has not been answered to my knowledge...:

Will software version 5 work WITHOUT the hardware changes?

It is addressed in the service bulletin. V5 will auto detect the gps source and set the SIL value appropriately.

Let's not carry on the same conversation in multiple threads.

[JohnAJohnson]

If you read the service bulletins for both models, you would know the answer. The service bulletins list the feature changes in V5.

http://navworx.com/Downloadable-Documents.php

I've believed what was written on the Navworx site before and have been made a fool of. Forgive me for seeking clarification.

[dtw_rv6]

V5 will not have 1090 mhz. It is not a priority for them according to Bill at his booth.

[JohnAJohnson]

V5 will not have 1090 mhz. It is not a priority for them according to Bill at his booth.

Thank you DTW

[BobTurner]

Is 1090 required in Canada?

IIRC: No form of ADSB is required in Canada at this time, except for certain high flying airliners over Hudson Bay and the likes. However, if you do want to see them when they are down lower, they are all on 1090 MHz. Since Canada has no ADSB ground stations, you must listen on 1090 MHz if you want to "see" them.

[David-aviator]

IIRC: No form of ADSB is required in Canada at this time, except for certain high flying airliners over Hudson Bay and the likes. However, if you do want to see them when they are down lower, they are all on 1090 MHz. Since Canada has no ADSB ground stations, you must listen on 1090 MHz if you want to "see" them.

Thanks. Question was relative to flying to AK.

[DavidBunin]

Have you noticed that you have to order (and pay for) the hardware mod before December 31 to get one. Very efficient to force us to pay for something that isn't approved, isn't being manufactured, and is being scheduled at a lower priority than the certified boxes.

Don,

I understand your frustration. I feel the same way. But lets make sure we are sharing accurate information here.

1) NavWorx is not taking a dime of anybody's money before the products are being shipped. There were plenty of pilots who approached them at the Oshkosh booth "check in hand" but NavWorx told them to hang on to it. The only thing NavWorx is accepting right now are requests for a spot in line.

2) It is true that the GPS doghouse for the EXP is not expected to remain in production indefinitely. No doubt some of the original customers have moved on to another solution, so NavWorx had to have some kind of timeline to forecast their production capabilities from. The December date on the flier is merely a reflection of the compliance date for the AD. Nothing more.

3) The production priority is to take care of everybody as quickly as possible AND to take care of everybody before the AD compliance date. The production volume/mix will track with expressed customer interest. That seems fair enough to me.

David

[DavidBunin]

Would someone at Oshkosh please ask Bill directly, if 1090 is in V5?

No one seems to care at this point but for me, it was a selling point right along with 2020 compliance. I won't consider the Navworx issue behind me till I get both.

I care. I want dual-band receiving capability in my airplane.

After reading all of the changes that are in software 5.0, I (reluctantly) understand why they couldn't get the dual-band receiving in with this one.

That said, I do not expect 5.0 to be the last software produced. I think that once the dust settles on this chapter in the story that the 1090 will move back up the priority list.

I still think (and expect) that I will have dual-band receiving in my airplane before 2020.

David

[DavidBunin]

V5 will not have 1090 mhz. It is not a priority for them according to Bill at his booth.

Bill certainly has "a way with words". Yes, he is still smarting from his brush with the FAA, but just because a feature is "not a priority" this week doesn't mean it won't become the next priority soon.

The low-hanging fruit gets eaten first, but eventually all of the fruit gets consumed.

David

[dtw_rv6]

Don,

I understand your frustration. I feel the same way. But lets make sure we are sharing accurate information here.

1) NavWorx is not taking a dime of anybody's money before the products are being shipped. There were plenty of pilots who approached them at the Oshkosh booth "check in hand" but NavWorx told them to hang on to it. The only thing NavWorx is accepting right now are requests for a spot in line.

2) It is true that the GPS doghouse for the EXP is not expected to remain in production indefinitely. No doubt some of the original customers have moved on to another solution, so NavWorx had to have some kind of timeline to forecast their production capabilities from. The December date on the flier is merely a reflection of the compliance date for the AD. Nothing more.

3) The production priority is to take care of everybody as quickly as possible AND to take care of everybody before the AD compliance date. The production volume/mix will track with expressed customer interest. That seems fair enough to me.

David

Let's also be accurate about why these boxes are now the subject of an AD. Bill installed a different gps in the production units than what was approved by the FAA. The FAA did not change the regulations in a way that made these boxes non compliant, regardless of what Navworx was spouting at Oshkosh.

Navworx is charging us to fix their mistake, and without apology.




Don

[Tankerpilot75]

Let's also be accurate about why these boxes are now the subject of an AD. Bill installed a different gps in the production units than what was approved by the FAA. The FAA did not change the regulations in a way that made these boxes non compliant, regardless of what Navworx was spouting at Oshkosh.

Navworx is charging us to fix their mistake, and without apology.




Don

Then why deal with them? I was considering the NavWorx product until they got crossways with the FAA and their customer support became non-existent during their troubles. Have since moved on and installed the GTX335 for ads-b out and a FlightBox for ads-b in: cost (including conversion cable) was $3,100. Qualified for the FAA ads-b rebate ($500) and sold my old transponder for $700. Net cost of the complainant installation was $1,900. That cost compared very favorably to the NavWorx units.

I've watched this thread since last summer and have seen a lot of frustration from NavWorx customers. There has to be an economic cost to that frustration that exceeds the sunk cost of the units people purchased. I honestly don't see NavWorx being around three years from now therefore why would anyone want to continue throwing good money at a continuing problem. Move on and get a compliant unit!

[dtw_rv6]

I am moving on now that I've seen their cards for correcting their problem. No way am I paying another dime to Navworx.

Don

[Sam Buchanan]

Why am I reminded of Blue Mountain Avionics (and a certain Subaru conversion) every time I read this thread.........deja vue all over again.....

But, I have no dog in this hunt (Stratus ESG and dual-band Stratux receiver for not much more than NavWorx equipment, and it is compliant...pre and post 2020).

[Tracer 10]

We installed this in our RV6; and got...
Dual Band ADS-B IN/OUT
AHRS/WEATHER USING ForeFlight on iPad Mini.
And I still have the NAVWORX EXP system & wiring harness that I paid for in October 2016; minus the (brain box); which was never shipped due to the impending AD. Which they obviously knew about when they sold me the EXP.

[DavidBunin]

Let's also be accurate about why these boxes are now the subject of an AD. Bill installed a different gps in the production units than what was approved by the FAA. The FAA did not change the regulations in a way that made these boxes non compliant,

There are plenty of reasons to be upset with NavWorx without making things up.

The GPS hardware never changed. The FAA's handling of ADS-B products did.

The regulations for ADS-B did: 91.225 and 91.227 were revised. Also, the FAA changed the behavior of their network software. Those two things were what put NavWorx on the path that the FAA (six months later) decided was not what they wanted from the company.

Of course now we have companies like uAvionics who say that they will be selling products with no TSO approval at all. If the FAA allows that, then what was this whole thing about?

[Radomir]

The regulations for ADS-B did: 91.225 and 91.227 were revised.


You left out a "minor" detail there -- yes, it changed *for the better* (for manufacturers). With that change, things should have gotten easier for NavWorx, not harder ;)

The change you're referring to was a "clarification' that GPS source need not be "certified." It was never FAA's intent to put that restriction (absolutely requiring certified position source), but original language of those two regs implied so.

[Jordan1976]

Of course now we have companies like uAvionics who say that they will be selling products with no TSO approval at all. If the FAA allows that, then what was this whole thing about?

The FAR says you must meet the requirements of the TSO. The Navworx box actually had a TSO-A, which means the FAA was actually stating that it meets the TSO, not just the manufacturer. The original TSO was for a GPS with a SIL of 0. The FAA found that a software change made this a SIL of 3, as a "minor change." The FAA disagreed with Navworx that the installed GPS was capable of this integrity level. This is exactly the FAA's purview in this case as they are the auditor of TSO manufacturers.

You can sell non-TSO-A stuff, but if you're going to actually get a TSO, you need to prove to the FAA that it meets everything. There's also nothing stating that if a manufacturer sells a non-TSO box, but it becomes clear that it doesn't meet the requirements of the TSO, that the FAA can't do something about it. So while you don't need a TSO, you better meet the requirements, and have documentation to back that up.

[DavidBunin]

The FAA disagreed with Navworx that the installed GPS was capable of this integrity level.

What you say is true (meaning that you have correctly stated the FAA's contention) but the FAA never provided any indication of why they felt that way. NavWorx tested the unit in simulations of exactly the conditions that were supposed to be a problem (failed satellites), and it worked fine. The FAA was never clear as to why they felt those tests were not sufficient, or what other testing they would like to see.

Also, the NavWorx TSO is for TSO-154 which covers the GPS performance in great detail without also requiring that the GPS itself be certified to TSO-145 as a stand-alone product. The FAA (in 2013) accepted that. The FAA (since 2016) seems to think that the GPS can't possibly be "good enough" if it isn't certified to TSO-145 as a stand-alone product. But this is a shackle that they appear to have applied only to NavWorx. No other manufacturer is being held to this standard, and now the trend is towards non-TSO products entirely.

That is what makes me think that much of this issue centers on interpersonal issues rather than technical merits. And we all suffer for it.

if a manufacturer sells a non-TSO box, but it becomes clear that it doesn't meet the requirements of the TSO

In all of the UPN/NPRM/AD supporting material, I never saw a single thing from the FAA that made any such shortcoming "clear" to me. The only 'failure' I found was that the product did not have TSO-145 certification (which is not required for TSO-154). And, of course the EXP unit was never sold as TSO-154 at all.

[dtw_rv6]

I think you are pointing out the primary reason I am grinding my axe against Navworx. They've never come out publicly and said that they were in the wrong for anything. Clearly there is enough evidence for me to see that they are deluding themselves in this respect. The cost to fix their mess is not very high - I would admit that. What I've decided is that the company is not worthy of my future business. If they had handled things in a way that I could have faith in their ability to deliver on their promises even after the AD came out, my check would already be in their hands.

As I said earlier, my mind is made up. So at this time, I'll sit quietly to watch the debate and the spectacle. I wish everyone the best with regard to the outcome.

Don







What you say is true (meaning that you have correctly stated the FAA's contention) but the FAA never provided any indication of why they felt that way. NavWorx tested the unit in simulations of exactly the conditions that were supposed to be a problem (failed satellites), and it worked fine. The FAA was never clear as to why they felt those tests were not sufficient, or what other testing they would like to see.

Also, the NavWorx TSO is for TSO-154 which covers the GPS performance in great detail without also requiring that the GPS itself be certified to TSO-145 as a stand-alone product. The FAA (in 2013) accepted that. The FAA (since 2016) seems to think that the GPS can't possibly be "good enough" if it isn't certified to TSO-145 as a stand-alone product. But this is a shackle that they appear to have applied only to NavWorx. No other manufacturer is being held to this standard, and now the trend is towards non-TSO products entirely.

That is what makes me think that much of this issue centers on interpersonal issues rather than technical merits. And we all suffer for it.



In all of the UPN/NPRM/AD supporting material, I never saw a single thing from the FAA that made any such shortcoming "clear" to me. The only 'failure' I found was that the product did not have TSO-145 certification (which is not required for TSO-154). And, of course the EXP unit was never sold as TSO-154 at all.

[DavidBunin]

You're right about that. They're not much for admitting they were wrong. This condition is exasperated by the fact that they're not good at communication in general. My hope is that the customer experience will improve as more and more of the communication role moves over to Dallas Avionics.

[rv9av8tr]

Repair solution status is here:
https://www.dallasavionics.com/cgi-bin/navworx.cgi?faction=ads600exp

[jliltd]

Okay. So I was talking to cousin Everett up in Doo Dah Falls. He has an EXP unit in his EAB aircraft and says he doesn't intend to do anything about the AD. He will just keep flying without the software or hardware update. If'n he does his own condition inspection and ignores the AD what are the consequences? I explained to him that it's a safety issue as separation may be compromised. He scoffed and said he never sees traffic in BFE where he operates. Alas there is no reasoning with the fellow.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I have my own new EXP unit in the box delivered last fall. Intended for my RV but never installed as the stuff hit the fan a week after delivery. For I, unlike cousin Everett above, have been hoping for a resolution to the FAA vs NavWorx issue. If my unit is new in the box and under a year old shouldn't I expect a warranty replacement for the new compliant unit or at a minimum the new GPS reciever add-on needed to bring my currently delivered unit up to the compliance level promised me at OSH 2016 when I enthusiastically put my money down on the NavWorx table?

Customer Jim

[recapen]

"If my unit is new in the box and under a year old shouldn't I expect a warranty replacement for the new compliant unit or at a minimum the new GPS reciever add-on needed to bring my currently delivered unit up to the compliance level promised me at OSH 2016 when I enthusiastically put my money down on the NavWorx table?"

We all expect that - as it is what should happen - we are all disappointed - as it is not what is going to happen!

My current best hope is that the hardware and software updates get us legal past 2020 and out of hot water with the FAA - with future software updates fixing the issues that we have identified as deficiencies!

[JohnAJohnson]

Repair solution status is here:
https://www.dallasavionics.com/cgi-bin/navworx.cgi?faction=ads600exp

The link specifies that the 5.0 software will be released on 8/17. Does this mean the FAA has cleared/approved it as an AMOC?

[FORANE]

The navworx website under downloads has a mandatory service bulletin referencing software versions 6 and 7. Neither appear to be available for download on my cell phone at present.

[recapen]

The link specifies that the 5.0 software will be released on 8/17. Does this mean the FAA has cleared/approved it as an AMOC?

I know the FAA is working on a number of AMOCs - some Global and may have provided NavWorx with that date...we can't do anything without both at this point.....

[DennisRhodes]

The navworx website under downloads has a mandatory service bulletin referencing software versions 6 and 7. Neither appear to be available for download on my cell phone at present.

Assuming you are addressing the 600EXP . You 're not going to need that 6 or 7 software until you install the "dog house " hardware fix. No one has the hardware fix as of today. I my opinion, don't change any software until both hardware and software fix becomes available, if it is your decision to upgrade then make all the changes at one time.

[DennisRhodes]

Ralph C. if you re still looking for that transmonSPE , I'm getting closer!!. Spent about 4 hours under the panel of the 9 yesterday. Will check today after my Aleve kicks in and see where I got to!

[JohnAJohnson]

Ralph C. if you re still looking for that transmonSPE , I'm getting closer!!. Spent about 4 hours under the panel of the 9 yesterday. Will check today after my Aleve kicks in and see where I got to!

Don't mean to butt in, especially if you and Ralph already have the issue resolved, but if you need a TransmonSPE, mine is available. Never could get it to work reliably so I just hardwired to the transponder and encoder. The TransmonSPE does work fine though. I swapped it with my buddy and he flew fine, while I still didn't with his installed in my plane.

[jliltd]

"If my unit is new in the box and under a year old shouldn't I expect a warranty replacement for the new compliant unit or at a minimum the new GPS reciever add-on needed to bring my currently delivered unit up to the compliance level promised me at OSH 2016 when I enthusiastically put my money down on the NavWorx table?"

We all expect that - as it is what should happen - we are all disappointed - as it is not what is going to happen!

Well, okay then. As far as I'm concerned I now have a new brick in a box sitting on a shelf. As long as NavWorx takes money and then won't stand behind their products I feel swindled and lied to. I won't be sending good money after bad. As long as NavWorx remains in business I shall endeavor to spread my tale of woe with respect to lack of warranty or loyalty to their customers.

Jim

[fliier]

If I can get out of this Navworx issue for $300 I will consider that a gift. I have no interest in putting Navworx out of business because they didn't treat me like Garmin. I didn't pay the Garmin $2k feel-good premium.

That Navworx -EXP box has been gold for the year I have had it installed. Hopefully the GPS will be just as good.

John Allen
RV-6A
First flight 2001. Completed next year.

[recapen]

John / Dennis,

I did a test flight this weekend trying to use my MX-20 as a control head and the SL-70 for altitude only. The MX-20 doesn't have the full functionality that is implied - but it is workable to get me in to squawk-assigned airspace...even though I need to enter the squawk code into two places.

My intent in trying out the TRANSMON would be to see what functionality would be gained/lost?
Maybe you can answer:
Does the TRANSMON simply capture the Alt and squawk code being sent by the transponder and present it to the ADS600B?
With the TRANSMON, can you use the SBY, ON, and ALT features of the transponder to control the ADS600B? I would think that without altitude (ON setting) the ADS600B would not transmit ADSB out at all.

More research required.....free-to-good-home would be great - but I don't know if I need it yet...and the software update may solve (or increase) my problems.

[BobTurner]

John / Dennis,

I did a test flight this weekend trying to use my MX-20 as a control head and the SL-70 for altitude only. The MX-20 doesn't have the full functionality that is implied - but it is workable to get me in to squawk-assigned airspace...even though I need to enter the squawk code into two places.

My intent in trying out the TRANSMON would be to see what functionality would be gained/lost?
Maybe you can answer:
Does the TRANSMON simply capture the Alt and squawk code being sent by the transponder and present it to the ADS600B?
With the TRANSMON, can you use the SBY, ON, and ALT features of the transponder to control the ADS600B? I would think that without altitude (ON setting) the ADS600B would not transmit ADSB out at all.

More research required.....free-to-good-home would be great - but I don't know if I need it yet...and the software update may solve (or increase) my problems.

Entering the squawk code in two places is a violation of the rules and is not allowed (the issue is, if you accidently enter two different codes, the computer will think a collision is imminent and set off alarms).
You are correct, you must leave your transponder on ALT all the time, including on the ground, or the Transmon won't work. I don't know what happens if you are below radar coverage and your transponder doesn't get 'pinged'.

[Jaws]

CIf I can get out of this Navworx issue for $300 I will consider that a gift. I have no interest in putting Navworx out of business because they didn't treat me like Garmin. I didn't pay the Garmin $2k feel-good premium.

That Navworx -EXP box has been gold for the year I have had it installed. Hopefully the GPS will be just as good.

John Allen
RV-6A
First flight 2001. Completed next year.

My feeling exactly...plus I've had nothing but the best of customer service and support from Bill when I've needed it. Yeh, I really don't like paying the additional $300 to be in compliance but stuff happens...
Larry

[Piper J3]

What is "dog house"? Did search in this forum and nothing...

[NM Doug]

What is "dog house"? Did search in this forum and nothing...

Here's (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1191537&postcount=119) a description!

[Romper@q.com]

I have the 600B unit with 0012 and 0013 hardware and have wired my 430W as the GPS source. My problem is I can't pass the mode 3/A PAPR test, I usually get a 40% failure rate. Is my problem with the TransMonSpe? I'm using RG 400 cable and have even added a section of RG55 cable and put the TransMonSpe on that section. I get the same failure rate. All other parameters are spot on. Should I try another TransMonSpe?
Bob

[recapen]

Bob,
What transponder do you have?
Has it been checked recently for proper radio power output?
Do you have the suppression line wired in to prevent the transponder from transmitting simultaneously - does your transponder have that function?
The TransMon with RG-400 has been known to be problematic as the RG400 is too good at shielding! Your use of other coax for the TransMon transition should have taken care of your issue...the TransMon is designed to make any mode C transponder become the control head - although there are limitations to the resultant control functionality. I recently learned that the TransMon gets you all or nothing - Standby and on gets you nothing - alt gets you everything - no anonymous mode when in alt mode (right now anyway).
I don't remember what data is required for the 3/A portion of the test... if it is altitude or squawk then the TransMon might be the issue. The other thing to consider is what is your altitude relative to antenna position and the ground station you are communicating with.

FYI, I have a SL-70 as my transponder - it has RS-232 output...wired to pin 33 of the ADS600B The 430W is wired for ADSB OUT + to the ADS600B - mine is a -0013 with the current software (waiting for the next release for AD compliance past 2020). I don't understand '0012 and 0013 hardware' in your statement - 0013 represents the ARINC converter (which I have).

Hope this helps - if you get desperate, I can throw your box in my plane to see if it works - we need to make sure it is either a 0012 or 0013 so I know what the interface is.

[BobTurner]

I have the 600B unit with 0012 and 0013 hardware and have wired my 430W as the GPS source. My problem is I can't pass the mode 3/A PAPR test, I usually get a 40% failure rate. Is my problem with the TransMonSpe? I'm using RG 400 cable and have even added a section of RG55 cable and put the TransMonSpe on that section. I get the same failure rate. All other parameters are spot on. Should I try another TransMonSpe?
Bob

I see that you're in Boise. How's the radar coverage out there? If you're flying low enough that the transponder doesn't get "pinged" by ATC or an airliner, there's no data for the Transmon to hear.

[rleffler]

I have the 600B unit with 0012 and 0013 hardware and have wired my 430W as the GPS source. My problem is I can't pass the mode 3/A PAPR test, I usually get a 40% failure rate. Is my problem with the TransMonSpe? I'm using RG 400 cable and have even added a section of RG55 cable and put the TransMonSpe on that section. I get the same failure rate. All other parameters are spot on. Should I try another TransMonSpe?
Bob

What transponder do you have? You may want to wire a serial connection if your transponder is new enough to support that function.

[Romper@q.com]

It's a 327 transponder. The best results I've had was an 8% failure rate and that occurred shooting approaches at Boise (class B airspace). I had them manually review my flight and most of the failure points were during a turn, if that helps. I do appreciate all the input . If I can solve this 3/A problem I'll wait for a global AMOC and be happy.
Bob

[rleffler]

It's a 327 transponder. The best results I've had was an 8% failure rate and that occurred shooting approaches at Boise (class B airspace). I had them manually review my flight and most of the failure points were during a turn, if that helps. I do appreciate all the input . If I can solve this 3/A problem I'll wait for a global AMOC and be happy.
Bob

I have a 327 too. If my memory is correct, you just have to run three wires from it to the Navworx box. One pair to allow the transponder to function as a control head and one to eliminate you as a ghost. This will be more consistent than the transmon.

If you have the latest software rev for the 430, so it supports adsb+, then you'll be all set for the amoc. You just have to run a pair a wires from the 430 to the Navworx box.

When I talked to the faa last Wednesday, they thought the amoc was days away. I haven't received anything yet and have been too busy to call the faa this week. You should be set soon. In additional to whatever Navworx is doing, there will be three independent amoc issued. One for the 430/530 family, one for the 650/750 family, and one for the 480. They are basically approved already, we are just waiting for them get through the final faa processes.

[rleffler]

Good news! The FAA has started approving and publishing some of the AMOCs for Navworx ADS-600B today. I will post an excerpt from the text below. Initially, these will only include ADS600-B 200-0012 and 200-0013 units that are using a Garmin 480, 430/530, and 650/750 units. I've been told that the other units within the family should be approved in a couple weeks.

One of the hold ups for the approvals was that the Forth Worth ACO wanted to ensure that units with the AMOC were still eligible for the ADSB rebates. I was told that if you are eligible for a rebate (I'm not) and have the AMOC, you should be good when you apply for the rebate.

Also, AOPA has volunteered to facilitate the public distribution of the AMOC. I've been told that almost a thousand folks are impacted. I'm grateful to AOPA for handling the distribution because I don't think Ralph, Phil, or myself are up to that daunting task. Once AOPA has finalized the process for distribution, I will share that with you as well.

If you have a -EXP unit or another certified GPS, you'll have to wait a bit longer to get you AMOC. In talking with Bill and the FAA, I am aware that Bill is working with the FAA. But I don't know much more than that. The FAA isn't allowed to share information on any of the activities that they are working with Bill for obvious NDA reasons.

I also have to give credit were it's due. There have been four people actively involved in the process working to get these through the FAA process and approved. Ralph Capen (RECAPEN) provided data on for the Garmin 430/530 approval, Phil Yoder (PYODER - soon to be a RV-10 builder) provided data for the Garmin 480, and I provided data for the Garmin 650/750. Mike Heusser from the FAA walked us through the process and helped to drive these to approvals.

Please don't ask for copies of the AMOCs directly from any of us. Please wait a few days until AOPA has their distribution process established.

Here's a text excerpt from the 650/750 AMOC.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received your proposal dated June 22, 2017, proposing FAA approval of a global AMOC to AD 2017-11-11 for a NavWorx ADS600-B, Part Numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013. AD 2017-11- 11 requires the ADS600-B unit to be removed or disabled if it is not coupled to an approved NexNav Mini GPS receiver, PIN 21000.

You are proposing a global AMOC to paragraph (e)(l)(iv)(A) of AD 2017-11-11 by coupling the ADS600-B with Garmin GTN 650 or 750 series Global Positioning System (GPS) sources.

Your proposal provides an acceptable level of safety to (e)(1)(iv)(A) based on your installation drawings, which document the coupling of the ADS600-B unit with a Garmin GPS source, and the Public ADS-B Performance Report of May 10, 2017. For section (e)(l )(iv)(B), you proposed a placard next to the ADS600-B unit that states, "OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE GARMIN GTN-650(750) EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQURED" .

The Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) approves your AMOC proposal to paragraph (e)(l)(iv)(A) and (B) of AD 2017-11-11 by using Garmin GTN 650 or 750 as an external GPS source in place of the NexNav Mini and adding the placard as described above. Furthermore, the application of this AMOC will bring the ADS-B system into compliance with TSO C154c and 14 CFR §91.227 requirements.

In accordance with FAA Order 8110.103B, the following conditions apply:

• Before using this AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local Flight Standards District Office/Certificate Holding District Office.
• All provisions of AD 2017-11-11 that are not specifically referenced above remain fully applicable and must be complied with accordingly .
• This FAA AMOC is transferable with the aircraft to an operator who operates the aircraft under U.S. registry .

[rleffler]

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received your proposal dated June 22, 2017, proposing FAA approval of a global AMOC to AD 2017-11-11 for a NavWorx ADS600-B, Part Numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013. AD 2017-11- 11 requires the ADS600-B unit to be removed or disabled if it is not coupled to an approved NexNav Mini GPS receiver, PIN 21000.

You are proposing a global AMOC to paragraph (e)(l)(iv)(A) of AD 2017-11-11 by coupling the ADS600-B with Garmin GTN 650 or 750 series Global Positioning System (GPS) sources.

Your proposal provides an acceptable level of safety to (e)(1)(iv)(A) based on your installation drawings, which document the coupling of the ADS600-B unit with a Garmin GPS source, and the Public ADS-B Performance Report of May 10, 2017. For section (e)(l )(iv)(B), you proposed a placard next to the ADS600-B unit that states, "OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE GARMIN GTN-650(750) EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQURED" .

The Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) approves your AMOC proposal to paragraph (e)(l)(iv)(A) and (B) of AD 2017-11-11 by using Garmin GTN 650 or 750 as an external GPS source in place of the NexNav Mini and adding the placard as described above. Furthermore, the application of this AMOC will bring the ADS-B system into compliance with TSO C154c and 14 CFR ?91.227 requirements.

In accordance with FAA Order 8110.103B, the following conditions apply:

? Before using this AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local Flight Standards District Office/Certificate Holding District Office.
? All provisions of AD 2017-11-11 that are not specifically referenced above remain fully applicable and must be complied with accordingly .
? This FAA AMOC is transferable with the aircraft to an operator who operates the aircraft under U.S. registry .

I now have all three AMOCs in my possession and they've been sent to AOPA. Once we get the process from AOPA, we'll share them here.

One gotcha that I just noticed in the 480 AMOC, is that it's only approved for a 200-0013. We're working on getting the 200-0012 included, as well as the other models. I've was told to expect the next update from the FAA mid-week next week.

[txshan130]

Thanks very much for all your work on this issue guys! Looking forward to possibly getting a rebate now :-)

[DavidBunin]

I now have all three AMOCs in my possession and they've been sent to AOPA. Once we get the process from AOPA, we'll share them here.

Bob,

Thank you for sharing the AMOC text. Your audience will also need to know the AMOC number itself (should be in the header of the letter they sent you) to reference when they communicate with their FSDO.

David

[rleffler]

Bob,

Thank you for sharing the AMOC text. Your audience will also need to know the AMOC number itself (should be in the header of the letter they sent you) to reference when they communicate with their FSDO.

David

That's why I specifically stated it's an excerpt. It's only about half the text and not enough for anyone to submit it to their Fsdo. Like I stated, everyone will have to wait until aopa has their distribution process online. I spent a fair amount of time talking with them today. It looks like they may have something ready mid-week. I won't go into all the details, it there is quite a bit work going on in the background on this. It's more than just sending out a copy of the amoc itself.

[recapen]

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=152455

[FLightning]

Has Dallas Avionics started shipping the dog house yet?

[Jaws]

Has Dallas Avionics started shipping the dog house yet?

Ordered August 7th and have not received mine yet.

[Timberwolf]

Ordered August 7th and have not received mine yet.

Same here.

[ArVeeNiner]

I called Dallas Avionics about an hour ago. IIRC, they got final approval a couple of weeks ago and they will start shipping in about 3 weeks.

He said they were going to send out a mass email to everybody who ordered.

[recapen]

I would think a final approval for this issue should be published like our AMOCs!

[DennisRhodes]

I had tried several times to get an email reply from Dallas Avionics, and finally today ( SEpt 14) I got this email back. Looks like there is some progress, at least with the FAA and maybe now looks to be back in NavWorx court for mfg. Really not overly concerned at this time we've got until first of Jan 2018 to comply.

Date: Sep 14, 2017 12:30 PM
Subject: NavWorx inquiry
To: <dennisrrhodes@gmail.com>
Cc:

Sir,

Navworx has just received certification on the Experimental unit and "Doghouse" for existing EXP System. NavWorx anticipates manufacturing in the next few weeks and we should be shipping shortly after.
--
Scott C Edwards
Dallas Avionics, Inc.
2525 Santa Anna Ave.
Dallas, TX 75228

[Jaws]

I had tried several times to get an email reply from Dallas Avionics, and finally today ( SEpt 14) I got this email back. Looks like there is some progress, at least with the FAA and maybe now looks to be back in NavWorx court for mfg. Really not overly concerned at this time we've got until first of Jan 2018 to comply.

Date: Sep 14, 2017 12:30 PM
Subject: NavWorx inquiry
To: <dennisrrhodes@gmail.com>
Cc:

Sir,

Navworx has just received certification on the Experimental unit and "Doghouse" for existing EXP System. NavWorx anticipates manufacturing in the next few weeks and we should be shipping shortly after.
--
Scott C Edwards
Dallas Avionics, Inc.
2525 Santa Anna Ave.
Dallas, TX 75228


Once we get the "Doghouse" we will still need the updated software for it to work, correct?
Larry

[DennisRhodes]

Pretty sure that will be the case. I believe I saw somewhere it would be v 7.0 . That has yet to be seen on DA or NAvworx.

[DavidBunin]

Navworx has just received certification on the Experimental unit and "Doghouse" for existing EXP System.

I think Scott may be mixing terminology. There is no certification for the experimental products. I think the truth may be that the FAA agreed that NavWorx could produce and sell the experimental products (and related accessories) without jeopardizing their current application for certification of the "2.0" certified products.

I think if I was NavWorx, and the FAA's agreement on the experimental stuff was "verbal" (even including informal email) I might still elect to wait until standing of firmer ground before proceeding to crank up the production machinery. With those last few signatures waiting in the balance, this is not the time for unmeasured action.

In my opinion, of course.

[DennisRhodes]

It seems that the exp units were definitely included in the AD as per my understanding and would seems likely that some type of approval maybe not" certification " would be needed maybe agreement that the doghouse box would eliminate the original AD . If I were NW i would insist getting that in writing prior to production.

[rleffler]

It seems that the exp units were definitely included in the AD as per my understanding and would seems likely that some type of approval maybe not" certification " would be needed maybe agreement that the doghouse box would eliminate the original AD . If I were NW i would insist getting that in writing prior to production.

It would require a Global Appliance Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC), similar to the ones that Ralph, Phil, and I obtained for the ADS600-B for the existing EXP units.

From what I was told by the FAA, some of the AMOC approvals have slowed down a bit due to staff reallocation to address damage caused by Harvey. Although in a different region, I'm sure that Irma didn't help any either.

[GordonR]

Sorry this is a duplicate post -

October 2 2017
Today I called the NavWorx technical department and talked about the FAA AD on the ADS600-EXP unit. This is a summary of my conversation.

NavWorx is caught up by the FAA which claims that the Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) in their internal GPS receiver is inadequate. Never mind that the NavWorx unit has passed every accuracy test, the FAA contention is that in some apocalyptic situation with sunspots or military interference or whatever, the system might be using corrupted GPS data without the RAIM being able to detect that. The result is that the Signal Integrity Level (SIL,) which is an ADS-B (Out) broadcast data byte, is insufficient. If the SIL were to be set appropriately (according to the FAA) to 0, it would block traffic and weather from being received making the ?IN virtually useless. The FAA has issued an AD which applies to the experimental version as well as to the certified version.

NavWorx issued a Service Bulletin http://www.navworx.com/ServiceBulletinEXP060000.pdf which instructed owners of the ADS600-EXP to download software 6.0.0 or 7.0.0. The bulletin also states that 7.0.0 requires an external GPS receiver part number 200-8112. As of the date of this writing, neither the software nor the GPS receiver is listed on the NavWorx website. I called the NavWorx technical department to sort all this out.

I was directed to the website www.dallasavionics.com (apparently one of the installation arms of NavWorx) where we can order the external GPS. It is $299.00 and will be produced in a limited production run and only available until Dec 1 2017. A purchaser will not be charged until it is shipped. The GPS module will not require any additional wiring changes and will be "Daisy Chained in Series" with the existing system using existing ADS600-EXP system wiring and connectors. I was advised to place the order early.

The software is not released yet, even though the bulletin says that it is available on the NavWorx website. That website is really messed up with links pointing all over the place and at least two pages nearly identical to each other. I was told that the author of the website is trying to extricate himself from the effects of Hurricane Irma in Florida.

What happens if we don?t do this? Well, probably nothing unless we are ramp-checked or have some other verification test. But we will not be in compliance until this is done.

I would appreciate any inputs from others in the same situation. Compliance seems to cost $300.

[GalinHdz]

Man, this situation did not work out well for those that paid for units. :(

[JohnAJohnson]

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=22254

[GordonR]

Wow. But NavWorx has stopped doing business. They will surely declare bankruptcy so the FAA will get nothing. Neither will the customers.

The article does not mention the EXP units. There is some difference in opinion whether they are mandated to comply or not. Any thoughts on this?

[recapen]

The AD specifically mentions the EXP units - NavWorx was working on a doghouse fix for them. From what I recall reading, a couple were actually shipped. If you are one of the few that got an updated or 'new' EXP box, you will most likely need to submit an AMOC of your own - but I would suggest that if there are any out there, the hardware configuration and software would be of interest to the remainder of the EXP customer base!

[rleffler]

I know that I'm sounding like a broken record these days, but....

Unless you are one of the handful of folks that got an upgraded or new EXP unit, there is no path forward after January for the EXP platform.

For the ADS600-B folks that also have an approved GPS, there is life after January and the AD as long as you follow the procedures in one of the AMOCs. But the reality of the situation, the AMOCs just are buying us some time. With no software and/or hardware support, the life of our units is limited.

Most of can't afford dropping another $2k at the moment and need some time to save for that replacement expense. The AMOCs have bought that time.

For those that don't have an approved GPS to use as an external position source already, I'm sympathetic to your predicament. By the time you invest in the GPS source, there are many other similarly priced ADSB solutions available that probably should be considered.

[dtw_rv6]

There is certainly a path forward.. the FAA has not ruled out an AMOC for the EXP.

I know that I'm sounding like a broken record these days, but....

Unless you are one of the handful of folks that got an upgraded or new EXP unit, there is no path forward after January for the EXP platform.

For the ADS600-B folks that also have an approved GPS, there is life after January and the AD as long as you follow the procedures in one of the AMOCs. But the reality of the situation, the AMOCs just are buying us some time. With no software and/or hardware support, the life of our units is limited.

Most of can't afford dropping another $2k at the moment and need some time to save for that replacement expense. The AMOCs have bought that time.

For those that don't have an approved GPS to use as an external position source already, I'm sympathetic to your predicament. By the time you invest in the GPS source, there are many other similarly priced ADSB solutions available that probably should be considered.

[rleffler]

There is certainly a path forward.. the FAA has not ruled out an AMOC for the EXP.

The FAA doesn't care. For there to be an AMOC, you must have a working solution that meets their requirements. How are you going to accomplish that with the EXP?

It appears to require hardware and firmware modifications, unless you have to have one of the few new ones that got shipped. Having worked with Kyle and Mike since last June getting the current AMOCs approved for the ADS600-B, I would be highly skeptical on getting any hardware/firmware mods approved by a customer of Navworx. I can tell you from my personal experience that if you had a working solution today, it would take a miracle to get an AMOC approved before the AD deadline.

I did ask them about one of the new EXP units and there is hope for them, but Bill modified both the firmware and hardware to support an external gps position source. I haven't been able to get a good count of how many actually got shipped. I suspect that number is rather small.

[dtw_rv6]

Still a far cry from ?no path for the EXP?

[GordonR]

Bob,

How do I know if I have got a "new" EXP unit? Is there a serial number or a date of shipment which defines the new ones?

And you say "unless you have a new EXP..." What if I do have a new EXP, how do I attach a certified GPS to qualify for AMOC? The doghouse and v 7.0.0 software was going to do that.

And if we scrape up enough money for another unit, how do we know that they comply and will not do a NavWorx on us in a couple of years? Unless we go to Garmin of course and pay $5K!

GordonR

[rv9av8tr]

What really jacks my jaw is I go out of the way to do business with promising small companies to support them. But I don’t expect to be bamboosalled.

Gonna hang mine on the wall with a sign under it, “$1400” Boat Anchor..... WORTHLESS”

[DennisRhodes]

You can bend over and kiss that 600EXP good-by. Without a working solution and software to support that , there's no chance that anyone can get either a doghouse or any other certificated position source approved. And If you could by some miracle , there would be no support in the future.

Its a shame to pull out a perfectly good UAT which yields 100% acceptable performance reports every time , all due to the comedy of errors that took place in this adventure. I'm going to run mine up to the deadline. Might even fly at 11:50 PM that nite just to prove the point!

[BobTurner]

What really jacks my jaw is I go out of the way to do business with promising small companies to support them. But I don?t expect to be bamboosalled.


It's very unfortunate and frustrating. But also, some warning signs were there, that perhaps Bill was in over his head. For comparison, look at the way GRT, another small company, does business: Your check will not be cashed - not a single penny - until the product is shipped. And the product won't be shipped until it is right.
Also, I STILL don't understand how an ADSB-out using a Transmon or similar device ever got an FAA blessing. (So I think the FAA is partly guilty here, too.)

[rleffler]

Bob,

How do I know if I have got a "new" EXP unit? Is there a serial number or a date of shipment which defines the new ones?

And you say "unless you have a new EXP..." What if I do have a new EXP, how do I attach a certified GPS to qualify for AMOC? The doghouse and v 7.0.0 software was going to do that.

And if we scrape up enough money for another unit, how do we know that they comply and will not do a NavWorx on us in a couple of years? Unless we go to Garmin of course and pay $5K!

GordonR

If you have a new EXP, you would know it as you would have received it in the last week or two. It looks different too.

I?m waiting to hear results from somebody that has one. I?ve already been contacted for assistance.

I can?t answer your last question. My only advice is to watch the FAA approved list and make sure the position source is listed. In the EAB market 90% of our vendors are small businesses. There are no guarantees.

[Timberwolf]

When the unit is trash I?ll pull it and not put one back in that plane. I?m waiting on the garmin Gdl-82 for the RV. Burned once, I?ll stick with garmin.

As a side note I was never informed by the FAA that there was an AD on this unit. Being as though it?s an experimental and ADs typically do not apply, (I know the argument when this whole fiasco started) I?m curious to see if they start contacting people after the AD date and start handing down fines.

[Tracer 10]

Bob,

How do I know if I have got a "new" EXP unit? Is there a serial number or a date of shipment which defines the new ones?

And you say "unless you have a new EXP..." What if I do have a new EXP, how do I attach a certified GPS to qualify for AMOC? The doghouse and v 7.0.0 software was going to do that.

And if we scrape up enough money for another unit, how do we know that they comply and will not do a NavWorx on us in a couple of years? Unless we go to Garmin of course and pay $5K!

GordonR

I highly recommend the STRATUS APPAREO 1090ES Transponder. Model ESG for ADSB Out at under 2K or the ESGi for ADSB IN/OUT at 3K. It has worked perfectly the last 6 months in our RV6. Sold our KT76A and got the $500 rebate to offset the cost. And Yes—We got caught in the NavWorx ESG Debacle..!!

[Abbygirl1]

I highly recommend the STRATUS APPAREO 1090ES Transponder. Model ESG for ADSB Out at under 2K or the ESGi for ADSB IN/OUT at 3K. It has worked perfectly the last 6 months in our RV6. Sold our KT76A and got the $500 rebate to offset the cost. And Yes?We got caught in the NavWorx ESG Debacle..!!


I did exactly that several months ago. I am very pleased with the Apparreo unit.....AND i got a new xponder to replace the aging KT76 to boot.

[Jesse]

And if we scrape up enough money for another unit, how do we know that they comply and will not do a NavWorx on us in a couple of years? Unless we go to Garmin of course and pay $5K!

Don?t assume that it will be compliant just because it says Garmin on it. Ask the people who forked out huge dollars for the GDL90. People were trying to hit a moving target regarding ads-b for years. Let?s hope the target doesn?t continue to move.

[roadrunner20]

With the number of Navworx units in the AD, has there been a mention or discussion related to the Avidyne products that Navworx was producing for them?

Some of the early delivery issues where related to Navworx closing the line to produce a large order for Avidyne.

I've not heard mention of any of their devices.

[DavidBunin]

The units they made for Avidyne were receive-only boxes. They were never part of the AD, so not affected.

No word on how many units were built for Avidyne before NavWorx shuttered, but the assumption is "plenty".

[FORANE]

If it is the ads-b in box I am thinking of, they were asking around $2500 for it when it launched. Not sure how many would bite at that price.

[emuyshondt]

My new-to-me 182 came with one. Avidyne calls it a SkyTrax 100 or MLB100. The paperwork says it is a Navworx ADS600 B 200-11. The STC is from Navworx.

Avidyne doesn't say much about it. They are working on a new unit, but wouldn't give me any details. For now, the unit seems to be working ok. I would prefer a dual-band device, but this one will do for now. I am just learning it, as I got the 182 last week. It came with an Avidyne IFD540, AXP340 transponder/ADS-B Out and the Navworx unit. Since it doesn't transmit, it is not affected by the AD.

[GordonR]

So here is the offer from Dallas Avionics that came in yesterday (Nov 2). I would like to hear opinions on the uAvionics systems mentioned. Do they replicate the functions of the defunct NavWorx EXP? Are we assured that uAvionics is approved by FAA and will not bite us again?

I welcome discussions and opinions.

GordonR



Attention: Experimental & LSA Aircraft Owners

Dallas Avionics, Inc. is pleased to announce a "plug and play" replacement system for your Experimental or LSA Aircraft with existing NavWorx AD affected system.

Working with uAvionix Corp., we are pleased to be offering the EchoUAT and SkyFyx Bundle (P/N ECHOFIX-KL5) at reduced price of $1090.00 (regularly $1499.00). The System bundle will come with a factory supplied "pig tail" harness/connector that will require no additional wiring making replacement system "plug and play" for those with an existing ADS600-EXP. (Those with experimental aircraft with the ADS-600B system are also included in this special but will require connector replacement). With all the capabilities of your existing system, the EchoUAT also provides Dual (978 & 1090) traffic as a dual frequency receiver.

In addition to the "plug and play" system, we will offer additional configurations to include a bundle with SKYFYX-EXT which includes replacement of your existing portable antenna with a GPS antenna with built in WAAS receiver (in antenna). This bundle is offered at a discounted price of $1050.00 (regularly $1399.00).

Lastly, for those customers that would like to interface an existing compatible WAAS GPS (Garmin, Avidyne, etc) we offer just the EchoUAT at a discounted price of $799.00 (regularly $999.00).

Customers must verify serial number of existing ADS-600EXP or ADS-600B system to qualify for this incredible one time offer. Dallas Avionics, Inc. will offer this price through 12/31/17.

Please visit dallasavionics.com or uavionix.com for detailed unit specifications. Dallas Avionics, Inc. will begin to accept orders on Friday 11/3/17.

Note: This solution is for Experimental and LSA aircraft only. Dallas Avionics, Inc. is working on a similar solution for Certified Aircraft Owners and should have additional information in the next coming weeks.

Dallas Avionics, Inc.
2525 Santa Anna Ave
Dallas, TX 75228
800-527-2581 / 214-320-9770

[DavidBunin]

Are we assured that uAvionics is approved by FAA and will not bite us again?

uAvionics only produces products for drones, light sport, and experimental aircraft. None of their products are certified by the FAA, although they are rumored to be working on approval for certified aircraft.

With the exception of the NavWorx ADS600-EXP, the FAA appears to be content to ignore that experimental aircraft use experimental avionics products.

At the price levels given, there is no way that uAvionics products contain a TSO-certified GPS. But then, the regulations don't require TSO certification, just TSO-like performance. But we all see how well that worked out for NavWorx.

[maus92]

uAvionics only produces products for drones, light sport, and experimental aircraft. None of their products are certified by the FAA, although they are rumored to be working on approval for certified aircraft.

With the exception of the NavWorx ADS600-EXP, the FAA appears to be content to ignore that experimental aircraft use experimental avionics products.

At the price levels given, there is no way that uAvionics products contain a TSO-certified GPS. But then, the regulations don't require TSO certification, just TSO-like performance. But we all see how well that worked out for NavWorx.

Sounds like uAvionics documented their engineering, and plays well with the FAA. Something to be said for that approach.

[GordonR]

This is a call to FAA-savvy readers to comment on the suitability and acceptance by FAA of the uAvionics ADS-B equipment, and to compare and contrast with the NavWorx 600-EXP.

The uAvionics echoUAT documentation contains this information:

"The echoUAT meets the Minimum Operational Performance Standards of DO-282B Class B1S and meets the performance requirements of TSO-C154c. It complies with the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225(b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B Out in the National Airspace System for devices meeting the performance of TSO_C154c. Accordingly, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions fo this guide, the device complies with the aircraft requirement of 14 CFR 91.227"

.. then it goes on to say

"The equipment contains FCC ID 2AFFTUAT016 and is marked on the equipment nameplate.
The equipmenet also contains FCC ID 2ADUIESP-12 and is marked on the equipment nameplate"

Even though as DavidBunin points out it is not TSO'ed, it seems to me that the FAA has blessed their implementation. Is that how more knowledgeable folks read it?

By way of comparison, the NavWorx equivalent statements in their documentation were:

"The ADS600-EXP UAT complies with section 3 requirements of TSO-C154c and when installed in accordance with the installation instructions of this document complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227.

1.3.1 FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization.
This equipment has been issued an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization. The FCC ID is marked on the equipment nameplate."

Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? So how do we gauge the FAA acceptance of the uAvionics equipment?

[flightlogic]

A member wrote to me asking if the uAvionix wifi would reach behind a rear bulkhead. I really don't know how strong the wifi is. Anybody got any ideas?

[recapen]

Meeting the performance and meeting the standards without the actual certification is what got NavWorx in trouble in the first place. The certified NavWorx units were never in question by the FAA. The EXP units (along with the -0012 and -0013 devices), without a certified position source were deemed to start with non-SIL=3 - which was OK as long as the FAA was broadcasting to non-SIL=3! - then the FAA said "No SIL=3 - no data"...

Has the SIL for this UNIT been approved at 3 and is that in writing from the FAA to the vendor?

I would suggest that the same potential for the FAA changing its mind at a later time could put these folks in the same place. The SIL requirement change is what bit NavWorx - I would make sure that this gear meets the SIL requirements and have that in writing from the FAA to this vendor!

Bitten once - now aware of what and how things are written.

Not disparaging any other products out there as it sounds like this is good gear and functionality - just like the NavWorx boxes...just asking if their i's are dotted and their t's are crossed!

[Fred.Stucklen]

This is a call to FAA-savvy readers to comment on the suitability and acceptance by FAA of the uAvionics ADS-B equipment, and to compare and contrast with the NavWorx 600-EXP.

The uAvionics echoUAT documentation contains this information:

"The echoUAT meets the Minimum Operational Performance Standards of DO-282B Class B1S and meets the performance requirements of TSO-C154c. It complies with the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225(b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B Out in the National Airspace System for devices meeting the performance of TSO_C154c. Accordingly, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions fo this guide, the device complies with the aircraft requirement of 14 CFR 91.227"

.. then it goes on to say

"The equipment contains FCC ID 2AFFTUAT016 and is marked on the equipment nameplate.
The equipmenet also contains FCC ID 2ADUIESP-12 and is marked on the equipment nameplate"

Even though as DavidBunin points out it is not TSO'ed, it seems to me that the FAA has blessed their implementation. Is that how more knowledgeable folks read it?

By way of comparison, the NavWorx equivalent statements in their documentation were:

"The ADS600-EXP UAT complies with section 3 requirements of TSO-C154c and when installed in accordance with the installation instructions of this document complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227.

1.3.1 FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization.
This equipment has been issued an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization. The FCC ID is marked on the equipment nameplate."

Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? So how do we gauge the FAA acceptance of the uAvionics equipment?

So I have to ask, What is the transmitted SIL value of the EchoUAT-KL5 that is being offered up as a NavWorx ADS600-EXP unit? I have not seen it advertised anywhere.

[JBPILOT]

3 3 3 3 3 ( for enough info )

[rleffler]

This is a call to FAA-savvy readers to comment on the suitability and acceptance by FAA of the uAvionics ADS-B equipment, and to compare and contrast with the NavWorx 600-EXP.

The uAvionics echoUAT documentation contains this information:

"The echoUAT meets the Minimum Operational Performance Standards of DO-282B Class B1S and meets the performance requirements of TSO-C154c. It complies with the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225(b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B Out in the National Airspace System for devices meeting the performance of TSO_C154c. Accordingly, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions fo this guide, the device complies with the aircraft requirement of 14 CFR 91.227"

.. then it goes on to say

"The equipment contains FCC ID 2AFFTUAT016 and is marked on the equipment nameplate.
The equipmenet also contains FCC ID 2ADUIESP-12 and is marked on the equipment nameplate"

Even though as DavidBunin points out it is not TSO'ed, it seems to me that the FAA has blessed their implementation. Is that how more knowledgeable folks read it?

By way of comparison, the NavWorx equivalent statements in their documentation were:

"The ADS600-EXP UAT complies with section 3 requirements of TSO-C154c and when installed in accordance with the installation instructions of this document complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227.

1.3.1 FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization.
This equipment has been issued an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization. The FCC ID is marked on the equipment nameplate."

Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? So how do we gauge the FAA acceptance of the uAvionics equipment?

The short answer is that you can't. For EAB aircraft, the vendors can self certify. This means that the FAA will trust them until proven otherwise, which was Navworx's demise. Even Navworx was burned by a vendor that misrepresented their product to Navworx.

Caveat Emptor.......

The good news is that the community is pretty small and is very self policing. Unfortunately, that doesn't protect early adopters of their products.

[GalinHdz]

The fallout from this unfortunate situation continues for many. VAF NAVWORX bankruptcy thread (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=162855). :(