VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   ADS-B (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=113)
-   -   Possible AD for certain NAVWORX ADS-B Units (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=142967)

MartySantic 11-28-2016 09:26 PM

Have been patiently waiting to see how Navworx will address the ADS600-EXP. (Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013). Have seen nothing from Navworx regarding the EXP. The Navworx website home page only references the ADS600-B P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013. The proposed AD lists all of the part numbers, including the EXP.

I have sent e-mails. Have tried calling. No response whatsoever. Bill Moffit really needs to improve his non-existent customer relations!

Has anyone been able to get any information regarding the ADS600-EXP??

Paul 5r4 11-28-2016 10:06 PM

Regarding the Navworx 600 exp
 
I frequently checked Adventure Pilot, a.k.a. the Ifly people, site and one thing I noticed was the exp model was never placed on the "all sales on hold," Like the Navworx B models. The exp was indeed mentioned in the initial FAA letter however I'm thinking/Hoping that since the exp model sales were never on hold maybe it's going to be exempt from any A.D. Perhaps just wishful thinking but Navworx nor the FAA has mentioned the exp model since the beginning of this mess.

BobTurner 11-28-2016 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwschaefer (Post 1130247)
ON SOAPBOX: However, I've always been curious about the "certified GPS" issue.. I asked the FAA at Oshkosh several years ago about the requirement.. since our current GPS units are very very accurate...and got no good answer. Back then only the big guys offered 'WAAS cerified GPSs' that could be used. I suspect my trusty old 430 is accurate to less than the width of my RV6 .. which should be good enough for traffic separation etc. I really hope that the controllers don't direct anyone closer to me than that.. yet there is this mandate for EXPENSIVE GPS upgrades or new receivers...to what benefit?

DWS

The very high GPS accuracy is being driven by the idea of using ADSB to automate ground control. That is why the 'ground' broadcast includes wingspan data. The computer needs to be sure large aircraft on adjacent taxiways won't clip wings.

BobTurner 11-28-2016 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul 5r4 (Post 1130259)
I frequently checked Adventure Pilot, a.k.a. the Ifly people, site and one thing I noticed was the exp model was never placed on the "all sales on hold," Like the Navworx B models. The exp was indeed mentioned in the initial FAA letter however I'm thinking/Hoping that since the exp model sales were never on hold maybe it's going to be exempt from any A.D. Perhaps just wishful thinking but Navworx nor the FAA has mentioned the exp model since the beginning of this mess.

The FAA is apparently claiming that NavWorx has violated the requirements of its TSO authorization. Since the EXP model is not TSO'd it is not affected. If the FAA thinks the EXP model does not meet the required performance standards, it is not clear to me how they will proceed - my guess is individual owners will get letters telling them not to use the device.

Tracer 10 11-28-2016 11:23 PM

ADS600-EXP
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MartySantic (Post 1130253)
Have been patiently waiting to see how Navworx will address the ADS600-EXP. (Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013). Have seen nothing from Navworx regarding the EXP. The Navworx website home page only references the ADS600-B P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013. The proposed AD lists all of the part numbers, including the EXP.

I have sent e-mails. Have tried calling. No response whatsoever. Bill Moffit really needs to improve his non-existent customer relations!

Has anyone been able to get any information regarding the ADS600-EXP??

I got a reply from Bill Moffitt today; saying they are hoping the EXP will not be included in the AD that will be published in December. I don't think there will be any new information from NavWorx until the AD is published.

fliier 11-30-2016 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTurner (Post 1130266)
The very high GPS accuracy is being driven by the idea of using ADSB to automate ground control. That is why the 'ground' broadcast includes wingspan data. The computer needs to be sure large aircraft on adjacent taxiways won't clip wings.

I'm not sure native accuracy is the issue. The certified GPS don't have any special algorithms to solve the GPS ranging solution that the non-certified folks don't have. Given good satellites they both should be equally accurate.

If there is an issue then it is more likely in error detection. In other words, the trick is to know how to not broadcast a bad solution (ex. because of a bad satellite)

I don't really know what type of error detection is required by the TSO, because it calls out an RTCA document that costs hundreds of $ to purchase, and that I probably wouldn't understand anyway. I am relying on Navworx to tell me if the GPS performance meets the spec. . .with my fingers crossed.

I wonder how much difference this integrity monitoring really makes in a world of 10+ channel chips that are putting out multiple fixes per second?


John Allen

BobTurner 11-30-2016 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fliier (Post 1130800)
I'm not sure native accuracy is the issue. The certified GPS don't have any special algorithms to solve the GPS ranging solution that the non-certified folks don't have. Given good satellites they both should be equally accurate.

If there is an issue then it is more likely in error detection. In other words, the trick is to know how to not broadcast a bad solution (ex. because of a bad satellite)

I don't really know what type of error detection is required by the TSO, because it calls out an RTCA document that costs hundreds of $ to purchase, and that I probably wouldn't understand anyway. I am relying on Navworx to tell me if the GPS performance meets the spec. . .with my fingers crossed.

I wonder how much difference this integrity monitoring really makes in a world of 10+ channel chips that are putting out multiple fixes per second?


John Allen

I agree with this post entirely. It's the multiple error detection schemes and quality assurance mandates that are driving the cost of the position source. And almost none of it is needed for airborne use - ground use is the cost driver here.

MartySantic 11-30-2016 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fliier (Post 1130800)
I don't really know what type of error detection is required by the TSO, because it calls out an RTCA document that costs hundreds of $ to purchase, and that I probably wouldn't understand anyway. I am relying on Navworx to tell me if the GPS performance meets the spec. . .with my fingers crossed.
John Allen

I found and downloaded a copy of the RTCA document on the web. If ya think you can decipher it, PM me with your e-mail address and will send you the .pdf. Is 700+ pages.

MS19087 12-02-2016 05:45 AM

AOPA Article on Navworx comments to suspension
 
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...n=161202epilot

rleffler 12-02-2016 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS19087 (Post 1131223)

Interesting quotes from Bill, or at least I assume it was Bill. If only he had been more transparent and added those comments to his website post, it would have probably removed a significant amount of emotion from the conversations.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:14 AM.