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)

recapen 06-06-2017 02:24 PM

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 06-06-2017 02:31 PM

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 06-06-2017 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennisRhodes (Post 1178614)
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 06-06-2017 02:51 PM

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 06-06-2017 04:09 PM

Navworx 600 EXP models
 
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 06-06-2017 04:13 PM

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 06-06-2017 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennisRhodes (Post 1178643)
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 06-06-2017 05:19 PM

[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 06-06-2017 05:41 PM

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 06-06-2017 05:43 PM

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???


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