Possible AD for certain NAVWORX ADS-B Units - Page 17

longline · #**161** 12-19-2016, 08:06 PM

has my vote, and will have my money, when this finally settles out. That said, I fly in congested airspace, do not have ADS-B in my work environment and do not feel un-safe. It has always been about see and avoid, that will not change regardless of the bells and whistles we install. In fact, the more "head down time" the FAA mandates the LESS comfortable I feel. ADS-B is good, I will adopt it and I feel it is an important step... but it is not a substitute for situational awareness and the Mark One Eyeball.

Kyle Boatright · #**162** 12-19-2016, 08:46 PM

Maybe I've been drinking too much cough syrup, but the last article NavWorx posted on its web page was hard to follow. I wish they would post a synopsis containing only the facts and segregating the discussion into:

A) The relevant facts (dates, TSO's, letters, phone calls, etc.) about the certified products.

B) The relevant facts about the experimental products.

roadrunner20 · #**163** 12-19-2016, 09:08 PM

I am an advocate of situation awareness, but until I had ADS-B, I was shocked at the traffic, that I did not see or was just beyond my visual range.
Having ADS-B, as others have said, gives you an additional awareness on "where to look for traffic"

Paul 5r4 · #**164** 12-19-2016, 09:50 PM

Ditto on Roadrunner's post above. I had NO IDEA at the amount of traffic around me until I installed my navworx. I would estimate that for every aircraft spotted
"pre-adsb" I never saw 5-10 others. It's simply mind boggling that the FAA would do what they're doing. Navworx is the only company I'm aware of that truly has an inexpensive, perfect and elegant solution for any airplane. I'm fairly convinced there is pressure from the big players somewhere in the background to put them out of business.

Mich48041 · #**165** 12-19-2016, 09:59 PM

It is humanly impossible to see traffic more than one mile away. Don't believe me? Then have a friend fly his plane on a collision course along a straight road towards you in your plane at the same altitude. To be safe, you each agree to stay on the right side of the road. The farther apart the two planes are starting out, the more realistic the results will be. As soon as you spot your traffic, start a timer and stop it when abreast of each other. Depending on the rate of closure, pilots will have 10 or 15 seconds to recognize a danger, react to that danger, and get the aircraft to change course. That might not be enough time. Have you ever looked at a chart or GPS or at the ground for 5 seconds? If you climb or descend to avoid a collision, what if the traffic goes in the same direction? Wouldn't it be better if everyone had ADS-B In & Out so that you could see hazardous traffic 5 miles away?

JBPILOT · #**166** 12-20-2016, 06:30 AM

With my 10" screen that you can read easily in direct sunlight, this tool adds a great amount of safety in my opinion. I would guess those that are not fully in favor of it have not had a good working system in their plane. Have not spoken to one person who says they want to go without it, that have tried it. Especially close to an airport it is a great tool. We all make mistakes, and when someone says they are in a specific location, but are actually not there, you can question them to verify. Accidents like we recently saw where one plane landed on top of another should be easy to avoid. Again, just my opinion. I suggest trying a good system for a while and I think you will agree. A very good helper. Not perfect, but a real helper.

oaklandaviator · #**167** 12-20-2016, 06:41 AM

Apparently the fight is still on at Navworx. There's an update on their site that looks like the lines in the sand are drawn with the FAA. Sounds like barring any change from either party we'll lose the TIS-B. Hope they get it sorted out...

BigJohn · #**168** 12-20-2016, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright

Maybe I've been drinking too much cough syrup, but the last article NavWorx posted on its web page was hard to follow. I wish they would post a synopsis containing only the facts and segregating the discussion into:

A) The relevant facts (dates, TSO's, letters, phone calls, etc.) about the certified products.

B) The relevant facts about the experimental products.

Agree. The long statement comes across as more of a rambling and sometimes repetitive rant than a consise explanation of the situation.

Before all this started I was ready to pull the trigger and order the experimental version of the product for my RV-12. But now I am rethinking, even if Navworx and the FAA can somehow agree on a solution for the immediate problem. The owners/managers of Navworx and the FAA have gone to war, and the bitterness of battle will last well into the future, and does not bode well for the long term prospects of the company. Not sure it would be smart to depend on them for future support and product upgrades.

BHunt · #**169** 12-20-2016, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mich48041

It is humanly impossible to see traffic more than one mile away.

As a fighter pilot, I disagree. I have special eyes.

DennisRhodes · #**170** 12-20-2016, 08:45 AM

There is a bit more understandable reply to the AD on the FAA comments website from Navworx. Also there are some supporting attachments that indicated that there were some real problems in communication between FAA and NW. Looks like it will be up to the lawyers now. Bill Moffit signed the comment and it was posted to FAA site day or so ago. I was wondering if Navworx was going to reply to the AD and see that they finally did on the last several days of the comment period

https://www.regulations.gov/docketBr...=FAA-2016-9226

I actually went back to make sure my link worked and found the AOPA and EAA response to the AD . Both are very good and deal with the facts . I like both but the EAA response is my favorite. !