NavWorx front page announcement

[rv9av8tr]

Just got this e-mail from Dallas Avionics. Will be interesting what they come up.
************
Dallas Avionics, Inc./ADS-B Customers,

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.

Dallas Avionics, Inc.
2525 Santa Anna Ave
Dallas, TX 75228
800-527-2581

[DennisRhodes]

Originally Posted by TimO

I hate it when a manufacturer stops supporting a product. On the up side, there are finally getting to be plenty of products out there for most people, and prices are cheap. When I got the first ADS600B, they were $2495. Got my second on Ebay for about $1700. Now days you can do better than that, depending on what you need..

Above may be the quote for the week. And today you can probably buy that same ADS600B on Ebay or anywhere else for way less than $200. !! Thanks Tim for the LOL !!. At lease I only have one and its a 600EXP which may have a lesser value than that. !

[Billvt]

Dallas Avionics does not have to wait a few weeks to ease my burden.

Simply send me a check now for the $1600 I paid for the EXP science fair project that I am stuck with !!

Bill

[gyoung]

Originally Posted by rleffler

The AMOCs state 4.1.0 or later, you should be good once you switch to the 430. You to be legal, although it would be nice to get the bug fixes.

Thanks Bob. That's good to know. Another small bit of good news for me is I apparently installed 4.1.0 on my laptop. Don't know why - guess that was my developer side keeping the latest version handy. It would be nice to have the fixes and features of V5 but oh well. At least I can stay legal and start searching for a replacement for when the box goes TU.

[N363RV]

Originally Posted by dynonsupport

Scott, first, congrats on your first flight!

As an FYI, the FAA will never publish a document that they state that an experimental product complies with the law. That's the point of the TC, STC and TSO process, which we all know is expensive. They can't make that statement without analysis, and they do that analysis under a TC, STC, or TSO. It's like asking them to state that a Vans RV-X design is compliant with the FARs. Even a TSO is technically a self audit, with the FAA poking their head in now and then, and the FAA has that ability to revoke in the future if they find out something went wrong on that process.

It's easy to forget as EAB owners, but the Navworx issue came out of the TSO process. Our understanding is that Navworx had a TSO, but then changed the product without getting requisite FAA approval. They actually HAD approval and then ended up with it revoked because the product changed. So getting an FAA statement is no guarantee, you also need to trust the company you are buying from. Same thing happened to Ameri-King who also had a TSO and behaved badly.

What I can tell you about Dynon is that we have been a leader in ADS-B compliance, and take it very seriously. We have voluntarily worked with the FAA to ensure we meet their requirements, even if we have not done it under official TSO or STC. We have a deep analysis done on our GPS position source, as well as the system as a whole, and how it complies to the FARs, and we have all this documented if any regulator needs to audit it. The vendors we use all have deep experience in TSO'd products and certification, and sell their products widely in the aviation industry. We've been on industry committees to help shape ADS-B, we've worked with the FAA to help them draft the guidance on ADS-B in EAB/LSA which would otherwise be in regulatory limbo. We were ahead of the curve when the FAA announced changes to traffic and ADS-B in 2015 because we had been part of the committee discussing those changes with the FAA (as had navworx), and we were able to give our customers a software update that kept their traffic for free even in a changing regulatory environment that other vendors struggled with.

You'll notice that all the experimental GPS position sources from Dynon and other experimental companies carry a statement that the company has evaluated them as being compliant to 91.227, and that's because that's what the FAA expects, based on this guidance: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/#q4. The FAA is allowing companies to self-declare their compliance, which lowers costs, but it does mean you need to trust the company and their ability to actually do this, resolve any issues that do occur, and to be trustworthy. If you want the FAA's guarantee, you need to buy TSO/STC, and even then, the company matters. I think Dynon's 15 year history in experimental aviation shows that we're a company you can trust to keep your airplane compliant.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics

P.S. As a final note, compliance in an EFIS system goes beyond the GPS source. The ADS-B system as a whole must be analyzed. Even if the FAA finds that a GPS is acceptable, that doesn't mean it's acceptable when hooked to any random ADS-B out transmitter. Make sure your vendors list compliance of the whole system, not just one part.

Ian... thank you for your response. The primary rub for most consumers now is that they really don't know what they are buying. I use Dynon (D10A) and your autopilot. Your support and product are outstanding. I am considering an upgrade to a skyview system.
Unfortunately, the bad players have generated great distrust amongst consumers. So we are forced to request a little more information from ADSB solution providers.

It would be a pretty compelling sell for me and others if you guys(Dynon) named your GPS receiver manufacturer. UBlox?..Trimble.. even Garmin? Can you imagine how the consumer would react to a company being completely transparent on this issue. A part number along with the performance spec would be pretty awesome.

I get it if you don't want to disclose that info. But it would set a higher bar for your competition and it would weed out companies like navworx that are hiding a non compliant receiver in their product.

It would certainly make us feel better.

In regards to Navworx... we don't even have a part number of the so called out of compliance GPS receiver. I find it strange the FAA wouldn't state in plain terms what they found in their investigation.... as a concrete part number/ manufacturer name that out of compliance.

Dynon...thank you for being a great supporter of the Vans Community.

[flightlogic]

If you are curious about un-named GPS receiver chip sets in U.S. made avionics, just research Accord in India. You will find it interesting.

[dynonsupport]

Originally Posted by N363RV

In regards to Navworx... we don't even have a part number of the so called out of compliance GPS receiver. I find it strange the FAA wouldn't state in plain terms what they found in their investigation.... as a concrete part number/ manufacturer name that out of compliance.

John,
The GPS that Navworx used is in the AD, found here:

FAA Response: NavWorx has not demonstrated to the FAA that the internal position source meets the performance requirements in Appendix B to AC 20-165B  (1) for a SIL of 3. The design specifications for NavWorx's P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013 ADS-B units identify the internal GPS source for those units as an uncertified SiRF IV GPS. The SiRF IV is a commercial grade chipset not manufactured under an FAA Technical Standard Order (TSO). AC 20-165B requires the SIL be set at 0 when the ADS-B is integrated with an uncertified GPS source. When NavWorx submitted its software upgrade changing the SIL value from 0 to 3, no hardware design changes associated with the SIL value change were made to the ADS-B units and no testing data substantiating that SIL change was provided to the FAA. The only justification NavWorx cited for the software change was the FAA's termination of Traffic Information Service—Broadcast (TIS-B) services to aircraft broadcasting ADS-B with a SIL of 0. This data is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2016-9226.

It's really worth reading the AD. It explains very clearly what the FAA's issue was with the Navworx product, and how the situation happened.

The issue with us, or any other company telling you what GPS vendor we use is that it's still not helpful to you. As you can see, Navworx used a very reputable GPS vendor (SiRF) but the issue was that they didn't have the internal data to back it up, so it didn't matter. 91.227 (ADS-B) compliance does not come from a single element of the ADS-B system. Just because the GPS module says it's 91.227 compliant doesn't mean it is with every firmware revision, nor with every output protocol, nor with every antenna. The system, end-to-end needs to be tested and validated. That's why Dynon's installation manuals include specific installation and configuration instructions to be 91.227 compliant, and we don't allow arbitrary GPS's to be used. So a datasheet for a GPS saying that it passes some parts of the TSO isn't all that useful because you need to know how it was integrated to be sure.

If you read the AD linked above, you can see that Navworx didn't hide a non-compliant GPS from the FAA. They in fact TSO'd a a GPS with an appropriate SIL=0. The FAA documents this in the AD:

NavWorx's TSO-C154c authorization and STC were approved based on the P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013 units broadcasting a SIL of 0 when using the internal uncertified GPS position source. NavWorx documented this as a limitation in the Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement (AFMS) for NavWorx's STC for ADS600-B installations. Section 2.6 of the AFMS, titled “Uncertified GPS Receiver (P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013),” states:
The ADS600-B has an internal uncertified GPS WAAS receiver which does not meet the 14 CFR 91 FAA-2007-29305 rule for certified GPS position source. If the ADS600-B is configured to use the internal uncertified GPS as the position source the ADS-B messages transmitted by the unit reports: A Source Integrity Limit (SIL) of 0 indicating that the GPS position source does not meet the 14 CFR 91 FAA-2007-29305 rule.

This is fine under the TSO, which only requires you to transmit your GPS integrity accurately. The issue is that the FAR for ADS-B doesn't require a TSO, it requires a specific performance, so having the TSO doesn't make you compliant for sure. The FAA claims Navworx took this SIL=0 TSO and used a software change to make it SIL=3, without any data to back that up, and with the only justification being that they needed to do so to stay in business. Given that Navworx appeared to be working on an alternate vendor for a GPS, it appears they were unable to show the SiRF was compliant.

The fact that Navworx has never been able to show the SiRF as compliant is why it the effects EAB products. If they used the same GPS there, then you as an operator know that it has been found non-compliant. The authorization the FAA has under TSO to audit products leaks over to EAB if the TSO is found non-compliant and the EAB product isn't different.

This is why I say trusting your vendor has to come first. There is enough complexity in complying in this area that no one element makes you compliant. Just knowing a vendor uses a SiRF, Ublox, MediaTek, or Trimble isn't useful since none of those companies make a compliant GPS that I know of. Even very big players like Garmin don't use Garmin GPS modules in all their products as there are all sorts of good reasons to choose from the plethora of options out there. Even Dynon didn't start with a GPS that another company claimed was compliant, because you couldn't do that and sell a GPS for $500 in 2015. We worked with a company to help them develop compliance, and it took a year to do so. There's a reason affordable GPS modules from other vendors only showed up after Dynon's product was on the market. We're happy to see that work expand and lower the cost of ADS-B compliance throughout aviation.

Aviation is small, and the innovation often comes from companies you've never heard of because the big companies have no interest in volumes that don't involve millions of units a quarter. So ultimately, it's your direct vendor you need to trust, not hoping for some big name GPS company to transfer your faith to.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics

[Ironflight]

Ian - I need to talk you in to writing a magazine article on the topic of GPS ADS-B compliance so that your message reaches the full experimental audience!

Paul

[N363RV]

[quote=dynonsupport;1212774]John,
The GPS that Navworx used is in the AD, found here:

Thank you for the link Ian. That was helpful.

[rv9av8tr]

OMG all this makes my head spin..........