What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Navworx , back in business?

roadrunner20

Well Known Member
Navworx has just updated their website with a posting for their products including a message on the proposed AD.

No mention of the EXP box.

From Navworx/
Proposed FAA Airworthiness Directive: We are anticipating an FAA AD to be issued on existing ADS600-B Systems. Be assured we have taken steps to ensure seamless instructions for AD compliance. Upon issuance and review, NavWorx is prepared to release a new software revision which will allow for continued operation up to 2020. It is anticipated that the software update will not require removal of system components and can be completed by utilizing existing configuration computer port already installed in aircraft installation. As stated above, we have established an upgrade path for existing customers to upgrade to the new ADS600-B NexGen 2.0 System that will comply with FAA 2020 mandate.

ADS600-B Upgrade for 2020 Compliance: Upgrade of existing systems to include internal GPS upgrade.

Units with S/N 1602000 or earlier - List $ 599.00
Units with S,N 1602001 or later - List $ 349.00
Please Contact Scott Edwards to schedule your upgrade (upgrades begin in 7/1).
 
I talked to Scott Edwards at Dallas Avionics, the product support for Navworx.
He indicated to me that, at this time, they don't forsee any action from the FAA on the EXP box. If they do, they will handle it.

It all sounds good. Navworx & Dallas Avionics will be in attendance at Oshkosh.
 
Last edited:
Sounds good, Dan, thanks for the info. I assume the AD final resolution will be out in several days and should let us know if anything needs to be done to the 600EXP UATs. I hope not!! Not interested in sending mine back into that blackhole just yet. DRR
 
I called Navworx to ask when they would ship 600-EXP (ordered and paid for last August). No one there to answer call.

I've asked CC bank to recover payment, they have not delivered nor indicated they ever would.

No communication on subject at all, take money and nothing.

I am disappointed.

Why are customers, the backbone of any business, so mistreated?
 
Last edited:
I called Navworx to ask when they would ship 600-EXP (ordered and paid for last August). No one there to answer call.

I've asked CC bank to recover payment, they have not delivered nor indicated they ever would.

No communication on subject at all, take money and nothing.

I am disappointed.

Why are customers, the backbone of any business, so mistreated?

David,
Try giving Scott Edwards a call. In talking to him today, he renewed my hopes in the company. Here's his tel# @ Dallas Avionics. 214-668-7466
He will be handling all the product communications.
 
Last edited:
David,
Try giving Scott Edwards a call. In tallking to him today, he renewed my hopes in the company. Here's his tel# @ Dallas Avionics. 214-668-7466
He will be handling all the product communications.

Ok thanks will call him tomorrow...at least be someone to talk to.
 
So, they want existing customers to pay for them, cleaning up the mess they made? Wow.... :mad:
 
So, they want existing customers to pay for them, cleaning up the mess they made? Wow.... :mad:

Not an entirely accurate statement.

As an early adopter, Navworx stated from day one, that sometime before 2020, we would have to upgrade the internal GPS to one that was compliant. He had one you could buy immediately, but it was expensive. Bill advised folks to hold off until later when the price would be much more reasonable. I view that is the option they just announced.

The confusion started when the FAA stopped broadcasting traffic last year instead of 2020, when there were no ADSB out stations nearby that had certified GPS sources. There was also confusion about the ability of experimental manufacturers being able to self certify. This is the slippery slope on which Bill was caught.

Since very few people know the real story, it's hard to tell who is at fault. At this point, it doesn't really matter. Both parties have contributed to this mess. Because of the lack of transparent and frequent communications, I'm sure Bill's business has been severely impacted. Let's hope he can recover. Competition is always good for the consumer.
 
Navworxs

I agree with Oliver, customers should not have to pay for an upgrade that is required for the ADSB unit to work as it was originally advertised. I was going to go this route initially with Navworxs but no way am I jumping into this hornets nest only to be burned when they come up with something else they want customers to pay for.

Dave- walk away from this and put your money toward a new ADSB transponder. I am going with the Garmin GTX 335 special that's being advertised for $2995 (with GPS and antenna) plus the $500 FAA rebate (only 25% used so far) which puts the cost at $2500 for both a new digital transponder and ADSB out capability. I have other Garmin gear and their extensive knowledge and product support for me has been stellar.
 
Last edited:
I am going with the Garmin GTX 335 special that's being advertised for $2995 (with GPS and antenna) plus the $500 FAA rebate (only 25% used so far) which puts the cost at $2500 for both a new digital transponder and ADSB out capability. I have other Garmin gear and their extensive knowledge and product support for me has been stellar.

The Stratus ESG ADS-B transponder with internal WAAS GPS and antenna can give you the same performance at ~$900 lower price point if purchased from a source that offers aggressive pricing. It is on the FAA's list of compliant devices that are eligible for the $500 rebate.

I just intalled the Stratus and am pleased so far.
 
Last edited:
David,
Try giving Scott Edwards a call. In talking to him today, he renewed my hopes in the company. Here's his tel# @ Dallas Avionics. 214-668-7466
He will be handling all the product communications.

Dan, same response as calling Navworx, mail box full, can not accept calls at this time.

I remain disappointed.

dd
 
The confusion started when the FAA stopped broadcasting traffic last year instead of 2020, when there were no ADSB out stations nearby that had certified GPS sources.

The FAA changed the traffic system to need SIL > 0 to send traffic instead of any SIL. Not "certified," not "compliant" which would be a SIL of 3. Just not zero.

If Navworx had changed their software from SIL=0 to SIL=1 this wouldn't have been an issue. They instead went to SIL=3 (full compliance) which was the issue.
 
AD might not happen

Asked the FAA directly today about the proposed AD on Navworx. The incredible answer was two part. First: wait 30 days. I have heard that one before. Second: we may not do an AD.
After the storm they created for a small company trying to make an affordable product (to meet a questionable demand from FAA), it just baffles me.
I love the weather products and find traffic an enhancement to my flying. I don't think I will live to see radar turned off though. In a mode C environment, every airliner out there can "see" me with a 1200 code. So, I am a fan of ADS-B but still not impressed by the FAA in Ft. Worth. I asked several times, of the man in charge, over the last year.... if my safety was compromised by using a Navworx UAT. He would never answer that question. Radar controllers have reported me to be 100% of where my UAT and radar return were tracking.
At any rate, Navworx is back in business... and offering to put a high grade gps receiver in customer boxes at less than their actual costs. We might want to cut them some slack under these difficult circumstances. I know patience is running thin for some folks.
 
Name and Number

Could you post the name and number of this government servant so others can call for an update on their specific unit?

Bob Cowan
RV-7A, 450 hrs, TMX IO360, Hartzel Blended, Lasar Ignition, AFS 5400
 
At any rate, Navworx is back in business... and offering to put a high grade gps receiver in customer boxes at less than their actual costs. We might want to cut them some slack under these difficult circumstances. I know patience is running thin for some folks.

I agree completely.
 
So, they want existing customers to pay for them, cleaning up the mess they made? Wow.... :mad:

Not an entirely accurate statement.

As an early adopter, Navworx stated from day one, that sometime before 2020, we would have to upgrade the internal GPS to one that was compliant....

I bought an ADS600-B (-013) in July 2016 with an understanding that it was FULLY 2020 compliant. This is what Navworx advertised and this is what the FAA concurred with (as published on their web site listing 2020 compliant and rebate authorized boxes). There was no ambiguity.

A few months ago I installed a 430W in my plane and am using it for the position source, so I'm fine, but I do have a useless $378 GPS antenna that I would like to return for a full refund.

If I had not installed the 430W, I would pay the additional $349 to get to exactly where I thought I was in July 2016. But I do believe the press, peanut gallery, and many purchasers will feel Navworx should get the existing boxes up to 2020 compliance at no cost to the purchaser.

We all want to see Navworx succeed but I don't feel good about how this will turn out for them. This fiasco has damaged their brand and they've been in the ADS-B irrelevant category for eight critical months and to dig out will require extraordinary measures. Low prices and a great product will certainly help, but stating the new box will be 2020 compliant might be a harder sell than it was a year ago.
 
Last edited:
I was curious about Dallas Avionics and their product list.
I noticed one product in particular that got my attention.
They listed all the ADS600-B boxes, but the ADS600-EXP, indicated that it was a "Discontinued Item"
I'm not sure what this means, but it did get my attention.
Maybe they decided not to sell them.
 
Last edited:
I sent in a request of status update a few days ago and haven't heard back - you guys must have a special address that gets read and responded to...I feel ignored!
 
I'm still standing by my resolution! Not doin' or believing anything until the AD is final and is in black and white on the FAA web site.
 
Dallas Avionics does the repairs?

I've been trying to contact Bill directly He told me to send the unit to the NAVWORX address. I didn't know there was a third party involved.....
 
Dallas Avionics does the repairs?

I've been trying to contact Bill directly He told me to send the unit to the NAVWORX address. I didn't know there was a third party involved.....

Bill made my repair. It was sent to and received from his office.

At the moment Scott Edwards seems to went to the same customer communication training as Bill. He's not responding either.
 
Faithful Support ?

At the moment Scott Edwards seems to went to the same customer communication training as Bill. He's not responding either.

Bob,
You've been a faithful NavWorx supporter (maybe too faithful) of Bill and NavWorx which I honestly commend you for. However, are you beginning to rethink that support?

Like a number of VAF followers of this issue, I cannot consider this product line in the future as an ads-b solution due to Bill's significant lack of product communication and customer concern responsiveness. I'm sure the FAA didn't do them any favors with the AD threat but NavWorx has only themselves to blame for the unfavorable image they now have.

At one time I really considered their product for my RV. I thought it well priced and an elegant solution. Now, it's just a waste of good money and a foolish purchase consideration. This issue would make a great case study in a college business class of what not to do when facing regulatory adversity.
 
Bob,
You've been a faithful NavWorx supporter (maybe too faithful) of Bill and NavWorx which I honestly commend you for. However, are you beginning to rethink that support? .

I was an early adopter, but I certainly am not a faithful supporter. When you have purchased a product and need the vendor's assistance to make it work, you don't publically bash them. I'm seeing some progress, but I'm as frustrated as many others are.

Silence and selectively returning emails or voice mail isn't a way to improve the market's perception of customer service.

Like a number of VAF followers of this issue, I cannot consider this product line in the future as an ads-b solution due to Bill's significant lack of product communication and customer concern responsiveness. I'm sure the FAA didn't do them any favors with the AD threat but NavWorx has only themselves to blame for the unfavorable image they now have.

At one time I really considered their product for my RV. I thought it well priced and an elegant solution. Now, it's just a waste of good money and a foolish purchase consideration. This issue would make a great case study in a college business class of what not to do when facing regulatory adversity.

If I hadn't already owned the unit for over four years, I would probably make a different solution if I were purchasing something today.

With that said, Bill has provided good support until this past year. My unit has been upgraded twice and an out of warranty repair once at no charge to me. Bill does appear to be standing behind the products he has sold. Unfortunately, with the current customer support issues, that may not be good enough to sustain his business.
 
Navworx

I was an early adopter, but I certainly am not a faithful supporter. When you have purchased a product and need the vendor's assistance to make it work, you don't publically bash them. I'm seeing some progress, but I'm as frustrated as many others are.

Silence and selectively returning emails or voice mail isn't a way to improve the market's perception of customer service.



If I hadn't already owned the unit for over four years, I would probably make a different solution if I were purchasing something today.

With that said, Bill has provided good support until this past year. My unit has been upgraded twice and an out of warranty repair once at no charge to me. Bill does appear to be standing behind the products he has sold. Unfortunately, with the current customer support issues, that may not be good enough to sustain his business.


"Bill does appear to be standing behind the products he has sold."

Not for me he doesn't. I've got a brand new never been installed, opened once to inventory 600B certified unit with Transmon and GPS antenna sitting in my hangar. I've tried almost on a daily basis to get SOMEONE to contact me.....no luck. Like I've said before. IF and when he has a fix for this unit, it will be sold at a good price to someone.
Oh, also....I installed an Appareo ESG and have already received my $500 rebate.
Bill's sickening lack of response OR communication is indicative of a business to shun. Period.
 
Message to Navworx this morning

- Regarding order #936 08/04/2016.
I have received nothing from Navworx but you have my $1891.15.
Is there a plan to resolve this matter?

David Domeier -

Also left similar message with Scott Edwards at Dallas Avionics.

My Credit Card Bank is processing a dispute with them at this time. I have no choice, Navworx does not respond concerning the matter.

It is an incomprehensible situation, like looking in the window of an insane asylum.

There is no connection between upbeat Navworx public statement and reality of it in market place. None of this makes any sense.
 
BINGO!!

Scott at Dallas Avionics returned my call regarding the order.

He said needed some time to do research with Navworx and would get back to me around beginning of June. It is his understanding all orders will be filled with an approved operating system.

I've waited this long and will wait some more. All I want is a functioning ADS-B system, I am not seeing traffic in the St. Louis area and want to be in the loop.
 
Bethany tells me that Scott has been getting something like 50 contacts a day (email messages, phone calls, etc.). He is doing his best to answer them all.
 
How many people here paid for the dual band EXP receiver and are waiting for the software upgrade to activate it? This story has a long way to go before everyone is made whole - if it ever happens.
 
ADS600EXP

I have the 600EXP model installed since just before it all hit the FAA fan with navworx. Mine has performed flawlessly since the first time it was powered up. I've not installed any kind of updates. I'm with Dennis on this.... works fine and don't want to mess with it. I've updated other electronic devices, both aviation and others things as well, that before an update were working fine and after.... buggy. As long as my unit functions properly, I'll fly on.
 
Paul

Paul, did you use the iphone app to set it up?
My ID is programmed via the app.... but the FAA says it is sending no ID.
Wondered if your setup was easy or not ???
 
It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure I used my iPad. I went through their set up program and input whatever it ask for. It only took a couple of minutes before it said I was ready to fly. Can't imagine life without this thing now!
 
I have the 600EXP model installed since just before it all hit the FAA fan with navworx. Mine has performed flawlessly since the first time it was powered up. I've not installed any kind of updates. I'm with Dennis on this.... works fine and don't want to mess with it. I've updated other electronic devices, both aviation and others things as well, that before an update were working fine and after.... buggy. As long as my unit functions properly, I'll fly on.

Ditto with Dennis & Paul. If it ain't broke...
I went through a couple iterations of the pc configuration verison back in Dec 2015. Once we all got it right, I've not touched it, including using the mobile configuration app.

When the FAA sorts it all out, I'm staying with what I have unless I fail a compliance report.

Paul, BTW, I enjoyed talking with you & your wife at SNF HBC. It's great to connect the VAFer with a personal contact.
 
Last edited:
Got my unit back from repair yesterday - re-installed today.
Looks like it is functioning properly with the exception of display port 2 - which is a known software issue.

I guess we'll know more as we hear from others...and when the AD Actually comes out!
 
Yes Hooray - I still have a question about the transponder code - which I sent to Bill directly - but I'll replicate here.

My MX20 has a little display box showing "FID 1200" - I'm guessing this is my SL-70 transponder code as my transponder was set to 1200 and it showed up in the messages in the UAT console...Since I'm in my hangar, I changed my transponder code to 1234 - the messages in the UAT console and my little box in the MX20 didn't change. I made sure the transponder was in the Altitude mode and the transponder is set up for EXTended data output. Have you heard of other issues with the squawk code getting updated? Is there an interaction required to set/confirm the transponder code? FYI my SL-70 SW VER is "MICR 014" and "FPGA 1.1".

Thanks!
 
Well Bill is the expert, so if what he says diverges from whatever I post here, I encourage you to ignore me.

Flight ID should be the tail number unless you are operating with an official ATC call sign (such as a charity flight or life flight). The only exception I can think of is if operating in anonymous mode. A code of 1200 would push my thoughts in that direction, but then when you change to a discrete code I would expect the Flight ID to go back to being your tail number.

The UAT should have your tail number programmed as a constant within the maintenance console. Might want to check that field.

While you're at it, may as well make sure that your SL70 has your tail number programmed correctly.
 
Thanks David - I did check the UAT and it had my tail number correct.

The SL-70 cannot be programmed with any data. The squawk code (1200 for VFR and as assigned by ATC) which I was referring to earlier is supposed to be sent from the SL-70 where it is set to the ADS600B for transmission along with the other info as the SL-70 is suppressed by pin 35 of the ADS600B. The FID I referred to was displayed in my MX20 (data sent to it by the ADS600B) which prompted me to look in the data stream (in the UAT console)...The data stream also shows my tail number correctly (from the ADS600B) and the 1200 - which did not change when I changed the setting in the SL-70. I think FID might be a misnomer from the MX20.

Hope that clears the mud

Not ignoring anyone - trying to learn as much as I can!
 
Interesting. I thought the SL-70 was a Mode S transponder, but maybe it isn't.

I know with a TransMON it takes a certain number of replies before the UAT changes to the new squawk code. Sometimes as long as 15 seconds. It's not immediate.

I don't know if that behavior is the same when using a databus connection. In other words, I don't know if the delay is a factor in the TransMON itself, or an internal characteristic of the UAT.

As posted above, these systems work best when the transponder is replying to interrogations. What do you observe in the Flight ID during flight?
 
Interesting. I thought the SL-70 was a Mode S transponder, but maybe it isn't.

I know with a TransMON it takes a certain number of replies before the UAT changes to the new squawk code. Sometimes as long as 15 seconds. It's not immediate.

I don't know if that behavior is the same when using a databus connection. In other words, I don't know if the delay is a factor in the TransMON itself, or an internal characteristic of the UAT.

As posted above, these systems work best when the transponder is replying to interrogations. What do you observe in the Flight ID during flight?

The SL-70 is a Mode C transponder. It differs from the GTX-327 in that it outputs both the squawk and the altitude (even if it gets the altitude from a Gray code encoder) via the RS-232. The GTX-327 outputs squawk, but you still need the altitude, so if you don't have an encoder that has RS232 output, you still need the Transmon. This information is from experience re the 327 and from Bill re the SL-70.
 
I have my SL-70 installed and functioning the way Jesse describes - gray code in to the SL-70 and serial out.

I haven't flown it yet to answer David's point but will wander down to some flight following where they issue me a different squawk code - we'll see what happens then!

Can we get Bill to chime in?!
 
Bill responded to my request for help with a couple of things to check.

One possibility is that my MX-20 is set up as the controller instead of the SL-70. Gotta figure out where that setting is and change if it is wrong! Then I can check the status field.

Status update next weekend when I get to the hangar to try it out!
 
The SL-70 is a Mode C transponder. It differs from the GTX-327 in that it outputs both the squawk and the altitude (even if it gets the altitude from a Gray code encoder) via the RS-232. The GTX-327 outputs squawk, but you still need the altitude, so if you don't have an encoder that has RS232 output, you still need the Transmon. This information is from experience re the 327 and from Bill re the SL-70.

Not sure if I'm talking apples to apples, but my GTX327 is sending ialtitude and squawk to my EXP. At least until I switch the transponder to standby and my UAT stops transmitting. Not sure how I'm going to handle that since we aren't supposed to switch off adsb even when transponder is in standby for formation
 
my GTX327 is sending altitude and squawk to my EXP. At least until I switch the transponder to standby and my UAT stops transmitting.

Only if you're using a TransMON device.

If you don't have a TransMON, the GTX327 only has one data output port and it can only output one data format (squawk or altitude, not both).

Possible that you have the control data (squawk) coming to the UAT from your GTX327 and you have the altitude from your encoder going into the UAT directly (and into the GTX). Or possibly you have the TransMON.

The NavWorx UAT does not stop transmitting when you turn your transponder off. It simply transmits a message that says there is no control input data. So you are still in compliance with the rule.
 
Only if you're using a TransMON device.

If you don't have a TransMON, the GTX327 only has one data output port and it can only output one data format (squawk or altitude, not both).

Possible that you have the control data (squawk) coming to the UAT from your GTX327 and you have the altitude from your encoder going into the UAT directly (and into the GTX). Or possibly you have the TransMON.

The NavWorx UAT does not stop transmitting when you turn your transponder off. It simply transmits a message that says there is no control input data. So you are still in compliance with the rule.

David, I believe you're correct in that altitude is received from the encoder & the GTX transmits squawk control data. When I originally set up my UAT, I had expected both from the GTX, but had to T off from the encoder to the GTX & UAT box.
 
You guys are correct. I wired this up two years ago and I've already forgotten.

How do you know the UAT is still transmitting when the transponder is in standby? I don't appear on my buddy's foreflight when I'm not squawking.
 
Back
Top