FAA $3.7M penalty against Navworx

[DennisRhodes]

According to Navworks they had approval from the FAA to transmit a SIL of 3 so that the traffic data would still be transmitted back to the customer after the FAA changed the goalpost again with only delivering traffic back to SIL 3 transmitters. With approval in hand they implemented that software change. According to NW .

[Radomir]

Originally Posted by DennisRhodes

According to Navworks they had approval from the FAA to transmit a SIL of 3 so that the traffic data would still be transmitted back to the customer after the FAA changed the goalpost again with only delivering traffic back to SIL 3 transmitters. With approval in hand they implemented that software change. According to NW .

I suspect you misunderstood something. They never had any approvals for SIL=3... ever...

[DennisRhodes]

Originally Posted by Radomir

I suspect you misunderstood something. They never had any approvals for SIL=3... ever...

I have from NW a PDF file that shows an approved software change by the FAA office , that appears to be on Navworx letterhead , that will not transfer into this forum but looks something like this with a copy and paste. Looks like approval date was Mar2016. The FAA disposition underneath Moffits signature did not paste well but is listed in 6 line from bottom. I'm sure lawyers will have to work this out. No longer any of my business nor concern. But really hate to see it come to this.

NavWorV
Afferdsble ADS^" * >
December 18,2015
Mr. Michael A. Heusser
Program Manager Airplane Certification Office, ASW-143
FAA Fort Worth AGO
10101 Millwood Parkway, ASW-143
Fort Worth, Texas 76177-1524
RE: Submitting three data packages for FAA project number SP9628SC-A
Dear Mr. Heusser,
Enclosed you will find two minor change data packages for FAA project number SP9628SC-A.
NavWorx is submitting data packages for ADS600-B software releases 4.0.8 and 4.0.9. Each data
package has its own binder. Within each binder is a cover letter that summarizes the changes for the
specific release.
Sincerely,
Williarrf-Moffitt
Operations Manager
CONTROL *libA^A.
1-6.8
CONTROL
■f.o. 1
Enclosures:
ADS600-B SW release 4.0.8 binder
ADS600-B SW release 4.0.9 binder
FAA ACTION
ASW-140. AIRCRAFT CERTinCATIQNOiTICB
Action Taken
Acoqited
Approved
Comment*
Retimi
Acknowledged
Manager
Page1

If you re interested in a pic of this send me a text to 7708233426

[dutchroll]

Here is the FAA's response to the question of why 4.0.8 and 4.0.9 were approved:

FAA Response: The commenters are correct that the FAA approved NavWorx's software changes identified as 4.0.7, 4.0.8, and 4.0.9. However, none of these changes identified on NavWorx's submittals affected the SIL value or referenced the SIL value change in 4.0.6. The FAA's approvals did not alter the FAA's previous written statements to NavWorx advising the equipment must report a SIL of 0 to remain compliant with TSO-C154c.

As much as I like to believe that Government aviation regulators are always the bogeyman (well, they often are ), I read through a bunch of FAA responses to public submissions about the AD and it does not leave a favourable impression of Navworx's efforts to cooperate or be compliant with the rules, whereas most others seem to have managed ok.

[sblack]

Originally Posted by dutchroll

I doubt there's anywhere in the world where Government fines get shared with ripped off customers.

Sounds like an opportunity for a class action.

[recapen]

With the fine levied, you're not going to get a penny out of NavWorx (the government may only get pennies on the dollar as well) - the best you can hope for is to force the sale of the assets and Intellectual Property to someone that will support it...let's hope it's not JPI - remember how they orphaned Vision Micro Systems owners...!

[BillL]

I don't have any NW hardware, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out. NW could be exactly right and the FAA simply backed out, then fined them. It is not the first time this happened. EPA did the that in 1998 to truck engine manufacturers. I know for a fact that one was not guilty and EPA knew and agreed to every change with full disclosure. You can not fight the government and win even if you are right. Just pay up and move on.

I know nothing about this particular case, but would not make assumptions. Either way, NW will pay.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/...er/499_enr.htm

[rv7charlie]

Originally Posted by recapen

With the fine levied, you're not going to get a penny out of NavWorx (the government may only get pennies on the dollar as well) - the best you can hope for is to force the sale of the assets and Intellectual Property to someone that will support it...let's hope it's not JPI - remember how they orphaned Vision Micro Systems owners...!

And really tried to destroy Matronics (Fuel Scan). No JPI products for me.

[RVbySDI]

Originally Posted by azflyer21

Unfortuneately, if Navworx had their corporate structure in better order than their operational structure the lawyers have covered them so the potential fine will not be paid.

Originally Posted by sblack

Sounds like an opportunity for a class action.

It might be worth noting we are not talking about a large corporate company. This is not a Garmin, GM, IBM type of company. This is a Granny's Diner type of company opened up by granny because she likes making pies. To wax on about how a law suite should 'stick it to the big guy' who screwed us is not seeing the big picture. I find it crazy to think anyone in a government agency thinks a $3.5 M fine enforced on a mom and pop company they have shut down for breaking the rules will ever be realized. Instead I see this as a means by which the FAA is saying to the rest of the avionics world:

DON'T MESS WITH OUR RULES OR WE WILL SHUT YOU DOWN AND REMOVE YOU FROM THE GAME PERMANENTLY!

[AviatorJ]

I won't go into the details but I personally feel like Navworx took me for a bit of a ride on support of the 'Certified' unit in my 172. Sucks for all of us that were early adopters but at least they won't wrangle any new customers in.