VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   ADS-B (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=113)
-   -   Navworx , back in business? (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=149343)

DavidBunin 05-27-2017 03:07 PM

Well Bill is the expert, so if what he says diverges from whatever I post here, I encourage you to ignore me.

Flight ID should be the tail number unless you are operating with an official ATC call sign (such as a charity flight or life flight). The only exception I can think of is if operating in anonymous mode. A code of 1200 would push my thoughts in that direction, but then when you change to a discrete code I would expect the Flight ID to go back to being your tail number.

The UAT should have your tail number programmed as a constant within the maintenance console. Might want to check that field.

While you're at it, may as well make sure that your SL70 has your tail number programmed correctly.

recapen 05-27-2017 03:21 PM

Thanks David - I did check the UAT and it had my tail number correct.

The SL-70 cannot be programmed with any data. The squawk code (1200 for VFR and as assigned by ATC) which I was referring to earlier is supposed to be sent from the SL-70 where it is set to the ADS600B for transmission along with the other info as the SL-70 is suppressed by pin 35 of the ADS600B. The FID I referred to was displayed in my MX20 (data sent to it by the ADS600B) which prompted me to look in the data stream (in the UAT console)...The data stream also shows my tail number correctly (from the ADS600B) and the 1200 - which did not change when I changed the setting in the SL-70. I think FID might be a misnomer from the MX20.

Hope that clears the mud

Not ignoring anyone - trying to learn as much as I can!

DavidBunin 05-28-2017 06:50 AM

Interesting. I thought the SL-70 was a Mode S transponder, but maybe it isn't.

I know with a TransMON it takes a certain number of replies before the UAT changes to the new squawk code. Sometimes as long as 15 seconds. It's not immediate.

I don't know if that behavior is the same when using a databus connection. In other words, I don't know if the delay is a factor in the TransMON itself, or an internal characteristic of the UAT.

As posted above, these systems work best when the transponder is replying to interrogations. What do you observe in the Flight ID during flight?

Jesse 05-28-2017 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidBunin (Post 1176077)
Interesting. I thought the SL-70 was a Mode S transponder, but maybe it isn't.

I know with a TransMON it takes a certain number of replies before the UAT changes to the new squawk code. Sometimes as long as 15 seconds. It's not immediate.

I don't know if that behavior is the same when using a databus connection. In other words, I don't know if the delay is a factor in the TransMON itself, or an internal characteristic of the UAT.

As posted above, these systems work best when the transponder is replying to interrogations. What do you observe in the Flight ID during flight?

The SL-70 is a Mode C transponder. It differs from the GTX-327 in that it outputs both the squawk and the altitude (even if it gets the altitude from a Gray code encoder) via the RS-232. The GTX-327 outputs squawk, but you still need the altitude, so if you don't have an encoder that has RS232 output, you still need the Transmon. This information is from experience re the 327 and from Bill re the SL-70.

recapen 05-28-2017 07:30 AM

I have my SL-70 installed and functioning the way Jesse describes - gray code in to the SL-70 and serial out.

I haven't flown it yet to answer David's point but will wander down to some flight following where they issue me a different squawk code - we'll see what happens then!

Can we get Bill to chime in?!

recapen 05-30-2017 03:44 PM

Bill responded to my request for help with a couple of things to check.

One possibility is that my MX-20 is set up as the controller instead of the SL-70. Gotta figure out where that setting is and change if it is wrong! Then I can check the status field.

Status update next weekend when I get to the hangar to try it out!

dtw_rv6 05-30-2017 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse (Post 1176078)
The SL-70 is a Mode C transponder. It differs from the GTX-327 in that it outputs both the squawk and the altitude (even if it gets the altitude from a Gray code encoder) via the RS-232. The GTX-327 outputs squawk, but you still need the altitude, so if you don't have an encoder that has RS232 output, you still need the Transmon. This information is from experience re the 327 and from Bill re the SL-70.

Not sure if I'm talking apples to apples, but my GTX327 is sending ialtitude and squawk to my EXP. At least until I switch the transponder to standby and my UAT stops transmitting. Not sure how I'm going to handle that since we aren't supposed to switch off adsb even when transponder is in standby for formation

DavidBunin 06-03-2017 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtw_rv6 (Post 1176860)
my GTX327 is sending altitude and squawk to my EXP. At least until I switch the transponder to standby and my UAT stops transmitting.

Only if you're using a TransMON device.

If you don't have a TransMON, the GTX327 only has one data output port and it can only output one data format (squawk or altitude, not both).

Possible that you have the control data (squawk) coming to the UAT from your GTX327 and you have the altitude from your encoder going into the UAT directly (and into the GTX). Or possibly you have the TransMON.

The NavWorx UAT does not stop transmitting when you turn your transponder off. It simply transmits a message that says there is no control input data. So you are still in compliance with the rule.

roadrunner20 06-03-2017 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidBunin (Post 1177847)
Only if you're using a TransMON device.

If you don't have a TransMON, the GTX327 only has one data output port and it can only output one data format (squawk or altitude, not both).

Possible that you have the control data (squawk) coming to the UAT from your GTX327 and you have the altitude from your encoder going into the UAT directly (and into the GTX). Or possibly you have the TransMON.

The NavWorx UAT does not stop transmitting when you turn your transponder off. It simply transmits a message that says there is no control input data. So you are still in compliance with the rule.

David, I believe you're correct in that altitude is received from the encoder & the GTX transmits squawk control data. When I originally set up my UAT, I had expected both from the GTX, but had to T off from the encoder to the GTX & UAT box.

dtw_rv6 06-03-2017 05:28 PM

You guys are correct. I wired this up two years ago and I've already forgotten.

How do you know the UAT is still transmitting when the transponder is in standby? I don't appear on my buddy's foreflight when I'm not squawking.

JohnAJohnson 06-04-2017 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtw_rv6 (Post 1177874)
How do you know the UAT is still transmitting when the transponder is in standby?

Best way I've found is to plug a RTL-SDR Receiver into your tablet or phone and run software such as ADS-B Receiver.

I use this setup to test all mine and my friends' systems and it works great.

recapen 06-26-2017 02:43 PM

Got a RTL-SDR Receiver for Father's day! I'll be trying this out in the hangar.
Do they make an app for Windows 10? I have the Android one...

recapen 07-06-2017 03:00 PM

Tried out my RTL-SDR today - really neat.

Provided another data point that I though I should publish.

My configuration uses a SL-70 running at 1200baud as it supports altitude output to my MX-20 (which only takes 1200baud). In this configuration, my 200-0013 transmits ADS-B out even in the SL-70 stand-by mode. This means there is no such thing as anonymous with my configuration - the transmission contains all of the pertinent identification data!

roadrunner20 07-06-2017 05:16 PM

A little over 2 weeks to Oshkosh, where Navworx will be attending.
Still nothing on their website about addressing a fix for the EXP box.

I hope they're working on some sort of resolution for all us potential orphans out there.

airguy 07-07-2017 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner20 (Post 1185808)
A little over 2 weeks to Oshkosh, where Navworx will be attending.
Still nothing on their website about addressing a fix for the EXP box.

I hope they're working on some sort of resolution for all us potential orphans out there.

If they are not, it might be a bit of an ugly scene there at Oshkosh.

DavidBunin 07-14-2017 05:36 PM

I have heard complimentary rumors from two different sources regarding a fix for the EXP. So it appears that there will be one, but the exact plans and details are not yet public.

Regardless, an ugly scene at Oshkosh is essentially unavoidable at this point, but skipping the show would be even worse for the company. My crystal ball says that the situation will turn around, but that might not happen until after Oshkosh.

roadrunner20 07-14-2017 06:03 PM

One of the rumors out there is a software update to set SIL=1 to handle the immediate compliance. Secondly, to have a $300 inline gps box to address the reporting issues going forward.
I suspect the SIL=1 will still enable the rebroadcast of TIS-B.

MartySantic 07-14-2017 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidBunin (Post 1187923)
I have heard complimentary rumors from two different sources regarding a fix for the EXP. So it appears that there will be one, but the exact plans and details are not yet public.

Regardless, an ugly scene at Oshkosh is essentially unavoidable at this point, but skipping the show would be even worse for the company. My crystal ball says that the situation will turn around, but that might not happen until after Oshkosh.

Navworx MUST let the EXP owners what will be happening whether or not there is an additional cost for an approved GPS source or not. Otherwise in the experimental community Navworx is burnt toast. Don't think there will be an ugly scene unless Navworx comes clean and lets the EXP user what is happening. Navworx needs someone that can help help with company PR. To date they seem not to care.

agirard7a 07-14-2017 08:47 PM

Fix
 
I spoke with Bill Moffitt. I was told Navworx will be making an announcement on the EXP fix. A software update as well as a $299.00 hardware GPS (FAA approved) to be attached atop of the Exp box. The GPS will have a serial out feed that could be tied into an EFIS as an external GPS source.

Larco 07-14-2017 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agirard7a (Post 1187976)
I spoke with Bill Moffitt. I was told Navworx will be making an announcement on the EXP fix. A software update as well as a $299.00 hardware GPS (FAA approved) to be attached atop of the Exp box. The GPS will have a serial out feed that could be tied into an EFIS as an external GPS source.

So how many units are out there? 1000?=2000?=3000?? $300,000 $600,000-$900,000
Not to shabby for NaxWorx! If it happens

Timberwolf 07-15-2017 07:34 AM

The AD claimed only 800 units total were affected. Of course the AD also claimed the cheapest way of compliance was to just disconnect the navworx box.

tim2542 07-15-2017 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timberwolf (Post 1188040)
The AD claimed only 800 units total were affected. Of course the AD also claimed the cheapest way of compliance was to just disconnect the navworx box.


What AD? I didn't think they ever issued one.
Tim Andres

Timberwolf 07-15-2017 08:47 AM

https://www.airworthinessdirectives....D/20171111.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2017-11625.pdf

tim2542 07-15-2017 01:40 PM

Thanks, I was told just a few days ago they had not issued the AD yet, guess I ought to look for myself next time.
Tim

Delta Bravo 07-15-2017 03:07 PM

I will be awaiting the announcement on the EXP fix. If the answer is an approved piggyback receiver than my two questions would be:

1. Will the 1090 in receiver internal hardware finally get the promised software to make it functional?

2. As per BM at the time of install I have a non WAAS Garmin antenna mounted and feeding my EXP. Will I also have to pay for a WAAS antenna upgrade which would add another 300 or so dollars?


Don Bodnar

Timberwolf 07-15-2017 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tim2542 (Post 1188102)
Thanks, I was told just a few days ago they had not issued the AD yet, guess I ought to look for myself next time.
Tim

The good news is we have 6 months to comply. I'm just flying it until then. I'll be deployed for most of it so I'll worry about it when I get back.

DavidBunin 07-17-2017 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta Bravo (Post 1188109)
1. Will the 1090 in receiver internal hardware finally get the promised software to make it functional?

2. As per BM at the time of install I have a non WAAS Garmin antenna mounted and feeding my EXP. Will I also have to pay for a WAAS antenna upgrade which would add another 300 or so dollars?

Disclaimer: Answers below are based on nothing more than my own imagination...

1) I still think it will happen "finally" someday. I just don't know when that day will come. I don't think they're taking that on under the current initiative, so I continue to look forward to it in a future software (but before 2020).

2) The certified system works with the Garmin non-WAAS antenna, so I don't see why this new version would differ in that respect. NavWorx always considered their ability to use that old antenna as a point of pride and marketing advantage.

David

Larco 07-17-2017 02:52 PM

DavidBunin;Disclaimer: Answers below are based on nothing more than my own imagination...

Quote:

1) I still think it will happen "finally" someday. I just don't know when that day will come. I don't think they're taking that on under the current initiative, so I continue to look forward to it in a future software (but before 2020).
So is this just another promise that was made and BTW I believe money was paid to NavWorx for this option. Will NavWorx refund the customer the amount paid

Quote:

2) The certified system works with the Garmin non-WAAS antenna, so I don't see why this new version would differ in that respect. NavWorx always considered their ability to use that old antenna as a point of pride and marketing advantage.
Then what is the rumored $299.00 add on update cost for really? Referring to an earlier post regarding the EXP version

agirard7a 07-17-2017 08:31 PM

Gps
 
The $299.00 was for an additional "Faa approved" gps.
To make the system"2020" compatible. That in combination of a software update. I would hope that would be the only
Additional hardware cost for the EXP. I seriously doubt there whould be additional costs for an antenna.

Alan Cockrell 07-18-2017 08:50 AM

Is Navworx still alive?
 
The AD has been a reality for over a month and still Navworx refers to it on their opening page of their website as the "proposed" AD. Back in the spring my Navworx's wi-fi went out. I called Scott Edwards about it and sent it to him. It came back promptly with no documents or comments--just the unit in a box. But at least it works again. I am curious to know if any Navworx victim has done the hardware mod that the AD calls for, or the software change. I would like to do the software mod which ostensibly will keep the unit legally ops until 1/1/2020 but I have no idea how to do that and Navworx isn't providing that information. As to the hardware mod, I think I'll hold off until I'm more sure that I won't be throwing good money after bad. I need to hear how others with this problem are handing it.

recapen 07-18-2017 09:23 AM

Software update
 
The software update is not available yet - that I know of....
There are a number of issues that are promised to be resolved in the software upgrade - the second display port being the primary touted fix that I know of...there's also the SL-70 control head functionality issue that I am working with Bill on - I am fairly certain that he has replicated the issue and understands that it is not functioning as necessary...the changes required by the AD also need to be in there prior to the deadline date.

Some of us are working on AMOC's which will allow us to keep running even after the AD deadline - but the broke stuff needing the software update is still out there!

DavidBunin 07-21-2017 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Cockrell (Post 1188811)
The AD has been a reality for over a month and still Navworx refers to it on their opening page of their website as the "proposed" AD.

It is true that NavWorx is not focused on their web site (or frankly on communication in general*). What they ARE focused on is getting the solutions certified as quickly as possible so that their customers have the most of the remaining interval possible to install whichever solution they choose.

Of course "quickly" in this case is at the whim of the FAA.

Right now, I'm sure the NavWorx team is busy packing a suitcase for Oshkosh.

* The customer communications piece was assumed by Dallas Avionics, but they seem overwhelmed with it for now. They are used to being a wholesaler and working with dealerships. I think working directly with the end-user customers has been a learning curve for them.

Alan Cockrell 07-21-2017 06:25 PM

SIL change?
 
So what happens to my functionality if and when I change the 600EXP to SIL-1? Does the unit then become like a portable receiver that gets FIS-B weather from ADS-B towers and traffic from nearby ADS-B emitters? Will it transmit anything?

Alan Cockrell 07-21-2017 06:32 PM

SIL?
 
Oops. reviewing the AD it will require a change to SIL-0. Same question though about functionality.

Timberwolf 07-21-2017 06:44 PM

We have 6 months for compliance. Don't do anything rash yet and lose the functionality. Hopefully by that time a fix will be out

gyoung 07-21-2017 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Cockrell (Post 1189932)
Oops. reviewing the AD it will require a change to SIL-0. Same question though about functionality.

SIL-0 means you won't get traffic. That takes you back to where the problem started when the FAA changed the rules and decided not to broadcast traffic to SIL-0. I don't know why their rule change keeps getting overlooked as the source of the problem. When I purchased I could get traffic with a non-2020 unit, i.e. SIL-0. Then the FAA changed their mind. Why?

Timberwolf 07-22-2017 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gyoung (Post 1189944)
SIL-0 means you won't get traffic. That takes you back to where the problem started when the FAA changed the rules and decided not to broadcast traffic to SIL-0. I don't know why their rule change keeps getting overlooked as the source of the problem. When I purchased I could get traffic with a non-2020 unit, i.e. SIL-0. Then the FAA changed their mind. Why?

If the FAA was really concerned about safety as they say, all traffic would be broadcast all the time...even without you having to have 978 adsb out. I see it as them punishing people unless they updated.

The other thing I've noticed while flying the rv(no adsb out) vs my other plane(navworx adsb) is I will see a full picture when the navworx is pinging the towers on the 978uat freq. However for all of the other planes with adsb out squawking 1090ES they don't trigger the towers. So even though they are adsb out, they won't get the full picture either if they are using adsb-in

maus92 07-22-2017 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timberwolf (Post 1189976)
If the FAA was really concerned about safety as they say, all traffic would be broadcast all the time...even without you having to have 978 adsb out. I see it as them punishing people unless they updated.

The other thing I've noticed while flying the rv(no adsb out) vs my other plane(navworx adsb) is I will see a full picture when the navworx is pinging the towers on the 978uat freq. However for all of the other planes with adsb out squawking 1090ES they don't trigger the towers. So even though they are adsb out, they won't get the full picture either if they are using adsb-in


The 1090ES solution won't trigger a ground station to send traffic unless the triggering aircraft is equipped with ADS-B In, and is configured properly. The transmitting aircraft has to tell the system that it is equipped to receive ADS-B In / TIS-B in order for the ground station to rebroadcast traffic info.

pfactor 07-22-2017 09:43 AM

https://www.dallasavionics.com/cgi-b...tion=ads600exp

Friend is in this boat.. can't get any answer.. email phone.. nothing.. as others have experienced..


Experimental Aircraft ADS-600EXP System:


In order for Experimental Aircraft with our ADS-600EXP Systems to comply with AD all Systems must update software to new revision (when released anticipate 8/15/17) and must install EXP GPS Module (we anticipate to begin to take orders 8/7/17 and begin shipping in 8/15/17).

GPS Module Price is $299.00

GPS module will install in aircraft and will not require any additional wiring changes. Module will be "Daisy Chained in Series" with existing system utilizing existing EXP system wiring and connectors.

All orders will be through Dallas Avionics, Inc. Orders will be accepted on 8/7/17.

Note: Experimental owners with ADS-600B System must comply with ADS-600B criteria.

tim2542 07-22-2017 09:57 AM

Its OSH week, perhaps they are traveling or just swamped.
It's hard to suggest patience at this point, but I think we need to have some.
There is movement, a fix is in place, and we have lots of time to comply with the AD.
I think we're fortunate Navworx is still in business at this point.
Tim


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:24 AM.