VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Avionics / Interiors / Fiberglass > ADS-B
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #511  
Old 06-06-2017, 02:24 PM
recapen recapen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Laurel, DE
Posts: 347
Default

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!
__________________
Ralph E. Capen
RV6AQB N822AR @ N06
"Patience"
Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 06-06-2017, 02:31 PM
DennisRhodes DennisRhodes is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Taylorsville, Ga
Posts: 798
Default

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?
__________________
DRRhodes
2020 VAF Supporter
RV9 N908DR
Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 06-06-2017, 02:45 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennisRhodes View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 06-06-2017, 02:51 PM
Lars Lars is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Davis, CA
Posts: 1,156
Default

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.
__________________
Lars Pedersen
Davis, CA
RV-7 Flying as of June 24, 2012
960+ hours as of June 30, 2020. Where did the time go?
Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 06-06-2017, 04:09 PM
Paul 5r4 Paul 5r4 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Foley, Al
Posts: 563
Default 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.
__________________
Paul Gray
Foley, Alabama
N729PG..... 450+ hrs
RV 7A, Lycoming 0 320 D1A, Sensenich FP propeller
pilotforfun2001@yahoo.com
VAF supporter $$$
Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 06-06-2017, 04:13 PM
DennisRhodes DennisRhodes is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Taylorsville, Ga
Posts: 798
Default

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?
__________________
DRRhodes
2020 VAF Supporter
RV9 N908DR
Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 06-06-2017, 04:33 PM
DavidBunin DavidBunin is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennisRhodes View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 06-06-2017, 05:19 PM
DennisRhodes DennisRhodes is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Taylorsville, Ga
Posts: 798
Default

[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.
__________________
DRRhodes
2020 VAF Supporter
RV9 N908DR
Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 06-06-2017, 05:41 PM
roadrunner20's Avatar
roadrunner20 roadrunner20 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bay Pines, FL (based @ KCLW)
Posts: 1,955
Default

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?
__________________
Danny "RoadRunner" Landry
Morphed RV7(formally 7A), N20DL, PnP Pilot
1190+ hours
2019 Donation Paid

Last edited by roadrunner20 : 06-06-2017 at 09:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 06-06-2017, 05:43 PM
Paul 5r4 Paul 5r4 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Foley, Al
Posts: 563
Default

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???
__________________
Paul Gray
Foley, Alabama
N729PG..... 450+ hrs
RV 7A, Lycoming 0 320 D1A, Sensenich FP propeller
pilotforfun2001@yahoo.com
VAF supporter $$$
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:23 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.