What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Possible AD for certain NAVWORX ADS-B Units

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

Will software version 5 work WITHOUT the hardware changes?
 
recapen said:
The one question that has not been answered to my knowledge...:

Will software version 5 work WITHOUT the hardware changes?
Click to expand...

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.
 
David-aviator said:
Is 1090 required in Canada?
Click to expand...

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.
 
BobTurner said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Question was relative to flying to AK.
 
dtw_rv6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
JohnAJohnson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
dtw_rv6 said:
V5 will not have 1090 mhz. It is not a priority for them according to Bill at his booth.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
dtw_rv6 said:
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
Click to expand...

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!
 
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).
 
Last edited:
Aparreo STRATUS ESGi

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.
 
dtw_rv6 said:
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,
Click to expand...

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?
 
DavidBunin said:
The regulations for ADS-B did: 91.225 and 91.227 were revised.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DavidBunin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
"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!
 
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.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.....
 
FORANE said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
DennisRhodes said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
recapen said:
"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!
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
On the other hand. . .

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.
 
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.
 
recapen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
C
fliier said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Mode 3/A problem

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
 
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.
 
[email protected] said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
[email protected] said:
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
Click to expand...

What transponder do you have? You may want to wire a serial connection if your transponder is new enough to support that function.
 
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
 
[email protected] said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 .
 
Last edited:
rleffler said:
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 .
Click to expand...

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.
 
rleffler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
DavidBunin said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top