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
  #31  
Old 10-19-2017, 10:58 AM
Dvalcik's Avatar
Dvalcik Dvalcik is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ellsworth, ME
Posts: 842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scootwoot View Post
looks like we have been lead on by NavWorx for some time.

I would join a class action - but nothing to gain
__________________
David
EAA 1250 KPTW
Royersford, PA
david@rv12pilot.com
2020 VAF Supporter


RV12 #568 EAB
* Started 9/30/2011
* 1st flight 8/30/12


http://www.rv12pilot.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/dvalcik
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-19-2017, 12:23 PM
jlupnacca jlupnacca is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Villages Fl
Posts: 27
Default Received text also , lawyer may have some action

You know a lot of us bought the 1090 hardware upgrade. Did any one ever make sure that there was really an upgrade, only waiting for the software to turn it on? Or was this another method of obtaining more money . How can we find out, what action can a large group of us take?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-20-2017, 05:47 AM
takair takair is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, CT
Posts: 13
Default

I'm caught in the middle of an install of a certified ADS600-B with GNS-430W against an AMOC. Best I can tell, the install is fully certified, but with the web site down I can't get the UAT software. Anybody have an alternate way of getting it?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:15 AM
rleffler's Avatar
rleffler rleffler is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, OH (KDLZ)
Posts: 4,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by takair View Post
I'm caught in the middle of an install of a certified ADS600-B with GNS-430W against an AMOC. Best I can tell, the install is fully certified, but with the web site down I can't get the UAT software. Anybody have an alternate way of getting it?
All you need is the current version (4.1.0) of the UAT software. You don't need 5.0 for the AMOC. However, if we can get our hands on 5.0, the AMOC does cover any subsequent versions.

Now that Bill has shuttered his business. Any of the beta testers of 5.0 want to share the code? Feel free to contact me via email (it's linked in my userid above this message)
__________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - RV10 Flying
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-20-2017, 09:08 AM
recapen recapen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Laurel, DE
Posts: 347
Default Were there any Beta testers!

If there was one....

It would be great to get our hands on that software!
__________________
Ralph E. Capen
RV6AQB N822AR @ N06
"Patience"
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-20-2017, 05:22 PM
Rodoc's Avatar
Rodoc Rodoc is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rleffler View Post
All you need is the current version (4.1.0) of the UAT software. You don't need 5.0 for the AMOC. However, if we can get our hands on 5.0, the AMOC does cover any subsequent versions.

Now that Bill has shuttered his business. Any of the beta testers of 5.0 want to share the code? Feel free to contact me via email (it's linked in my userid above this message)
For that matter, does anyone know where I can get a copy of the 4.1.0 software? Mine is about 3 years old but I never updated because it was working fine and the whole unit was about to go into Dallas Avionics for the position source upgrade. (my console version is 4.0.3, is that tied to the UAT software version?)

FWIW, I might still have bought my Navworx back in 2009 even knowing what I know now. I got a decade of weather and traffic that I would not have otherwise gotten. I will still probably meet an AMOC with some sort of external position source for not too much extra $$. I appreciate guys like Bill giving a go at being on the cutting edge.
__________________
David "Rodoc" Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6
Oceanside CA
www.n4vy.rotaryroster.net
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-21-2017, 07:59 AM
GordonR GordonR is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Elkton, MD
Posts: 19
Default Dallas Avionics

Anyone understand what this email which I received from Dallas Avionics means?

"In an effort to ease the burden of existing NavWorx customers, Dallas Avionics, Inc. is currently evaluating multiple replacement ADS-B systems.

We anticipate offering a "special offer" specifically to replace AD affected systems. Look for our announcement of new system/replacement in the coming few weeks."

Will they try to produce a compliant doghouse for the 600EXP? Or just discount a different fully compliant ADS-B unit?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-21-2017, 08:24 AM
rgilbride rgilbride is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Valdosta, GA
Posts: 2
Default Dallas Avionics

Morning Gordon, I just received the same EMail. If Dallas Avionics is willing to look into a way of keeping the Navworx units in compliance it would sure be a shot in the arm for all of us. I have contacted them and offered my support and a willingness to incorporate an appropriate update to my system. My 600-EXP has worked fine for nearly 3 years so I still find it hard to understand what the problem is. I strongly believe that if the FAA is going to mandate that we install new equipment tom comply with their NexRad program, then they also have a responsibility to that we have the necessary information, (which units they actually approve for use) so the end user can make an educated/informed decision before purchasing. Navworx hasn't been working in a vacuum or selling on the "Dark Web". The FAA new they were providing a product that was advertised as "2020 compliant" but did nothing until the AD to inform operators of a problem.
Rick Gilbride
RV6
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-21-2017, 10:35 AM
Jesse's Avatar
Jesse Jesse is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: X35 - Ocala, FL
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgilbride View Post
My 600-EXP has worked fine for nearly 3 years so I still find it hard to understand what the problem is. I strongly believe that if the FAA is going to mandate that we install new equipment tom comply with their NexRad program, then they also have a responsibility to that we have the necessary information, (which units they actually approve for use) so the end user can make an educated/informed decision before purchasing. Navworx hasn't been working in a vacuum or selling on the "Dark Web". The FAA new they were providing a product that was advertised as "2020 compliant" but did nothing until the AD to inform operators of a problem.
Rick Gilbride
RV6
Here?s my take on the Navworx issue. The fact that an ADS-B unit gets a passing report has nothing to do with meeting the requirements. The report shows that it is reporting an SIL of 3 and an SDA of 2. It also shows the percentage of dropouts and things like that. It does not know the accuracy, just hat it reports the accuracy of the SIL and SDA levels. What Navworx did is certify their GPS chip at a lower accuracy, then when the FAA changed their requirements fto wake up the ground stations (end of 2015 IIRC), Navworx changed their software to the higher SIL to continue waking up the ground stations. This was the main beef with the FAA, or at least the beginning of it. If you report these accuracy levels, the report will show compliance, whether you are in compliance or not.

The certified units ar stated to be in compliance with the TSO paperwork.

My problem with this situation is that the Navworx unit may have meet the accuracy requirements, even though it wasn?t TSOed to that level. The -EXP box reported the higher SIL and SDA, but the rule said hat they had to meet the accuracy requirements of the TSO, not actually be TSOed. Navworx states that it met those requirements, so to recall the via the AD, the FAA should have (and may have) tested the GPS chip to establish that it, in fact, did NOT meet the accuracy requirement. Otherwise, based on heir rule, there was no basis for he AD on that unit. This problem is compounded because the -EXP doesn?t have an option for an external GPS input. A lot of people have the -EXP box with a GTN or GNSW unit that could provide the compliant position, but they have no way to connect the two units. I would have to read the AD again to remember the details, but if you are using the -EXP as ADS-B In, you should still be able to do this, but will need to disable the Out, if this is possible. That was the real benefit of the Navworx units, they provided In and Out for the cost of other options that were just Out.

For all of the ADS600-B units, if there is a position source listed in the AD or fitting with the Global AMOCS, the only cost to comply is running the wire(s) and sending in he paperwork if/as required by the local FSDO.

My main question at this point would be, is there a way that the FAA can tell if you have a NavWorx box outputting the UAT? I?m not condoning using this method any more than I am condoning the ignoring of any AD, but I am wondering. For example, my main fear of User Fees for GA is that people are going to start flying IFR without being in the system to avoid the fees. This is illegal, but it will happen. That is another issue, but the FAA can?t police that except in cases of accidents (which there will certainly be more of), which would be the same case with non-compliant Navworx boxes, unless they have a way of knowing what box is outputting the UAT signal. Again, I do NOT condone this, but it will be done, both deliberately and out of ignorance. Many mechanics, both A&P and Repairmen, don?t check AD?s on experimentales, and are not aware of the NavWorx AD, so there will continue to be aircraft flying non-compliant units well into the future. Just like the Cherokee that I did an annual on that had an AD 25 years ago hat had never been complied with, that took 3 minutes to inspect for compliance. It had just never been done.

It would be nice if someone could make a piggyback box that would provide a simple input for a compliant source.
__________________
Jesse Saint
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-21-2017, 11:18 AM
Guyfly47 Guyfly47 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Haven, MI
Posts: 15
Default Need a logbook entry for Navworx AMOC

I just installed a Navworx ADS600B to a 430W via AMOC but have yet to do the logbook entry. There was an example on another thread but the link is broken now. Can anyone post or link to a logbook entry for a Navworx ADS600B installed via an AMOC? I can try to reinvent it but the one linked was better than what I would have written.
Eric
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 07:33 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.