What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Possible AD for certain NAVWORX ADS-B Units

About the only bit of knowledge there, and I already knew this, was that the FAA looks at all threads on the Vansairforce site. Remember the S in ADS B stands for surveillance.

LOL... that was good :) But I should probably put the tinfoil hat back on... just in case
 
redactions

The Freedom of Information Act seems to have many exemptions. Much of what we want to see is simply black. I am mildly offended at being referred to as a costumer, not a customer. I only wear silly hats on the Queen's birthday.
Seriously though, the number of paid FAA employees that have spent hours sending each other memos, and setting up meetings is staggering.
They could have told Navworx to send a SIL of 2 for the next year or two, while they sort out their technical review. Safety would be enhanced, an American small business would have people working and no airlines would be in danger. So far, NEXT GEN has been seriously degraded by the actions of a limited number of men in costumes down in Fort Worth, Texas. I hope someone like Senator Inhofe takes a look at this and spotlights the issue. We only saw action on medical reform when congress over rode the FAA.
 
Having a Hard Time Understanding

Per the FAA webpage, ADS-B Out will be required in the following airspace:
  • Class A, B, and C airspace
  • Class E airspace areas at or above 10,000 ft MSL over the 48 states and DC, excluding airspace at and below 2,500 ft AGL
  • Airspace within 30 nautical miles (nm) at certain busy airports from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL; airports listed in appendix D to part 91.
  • Above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area up to 10,000 feet MSL
  • Class E airspace over the Gulf of Mexico at and above 3,000 feet MSL within 12 nm of the coastline of the United States
I have a hard time understanding the FAA logic. Worried about "potential" inaccuracies and separation issues, yet, 90+% of the airspace, where GA operates does not require ADS-B out. Makes it obvious the FAA could care less about GA. Radar will never go away!
 
And how could they possibly eliminate radar when there are hundreds of aircraft flying around that were originally certified without an engine-driven electrical system and have never had one added subsequent to manufacture? Those aircraft have a waiver to ADS-B "out" requirements equal to their current waiver to Mode C (at least alleged under the ADS-B rule). And they usually operate at lower altitudes in the range of Amazon drones etc.... Many of these non-electrical aircraft have installed transponders for interment use when operating in Class B or C or sometimes just to be "nice" in other areas. However, there isn't a practical way for these same aircraft to equip with ADS-B "out" equipment because unlike Mode C the continuous operation rule of ADS-B renders it operationally infeasible.
 
I wrote the Faa the following.
To Michael Heusser. I hope I am addressing this to the right party. I have had the navworx 600b for years. Have followed the proposed AD closely. I have a garmin 430w that could be used as position source however My concern is whether navworx is a viable company. Certainly doesn't appear to be in business.
Decided that I would go ahead and make the change to the Dynon transponder which is rebate compliant. I am trusting that the navworx Faa action is a one off and not an issue with other manufacturers?
So thinking I could at least qualify for the $500 rebate, decided to go forward. Now I find that I am not eligible for the rebate because I have had "certified" equipment i.e. Navworx which is no longer certified. Talk about a catch 22.
I'd certainly appreciate hearing from you. To be dealing with the navworx mess and then be told my early compliance is now penalizing me is hard to swallow. Thanks.
Kevin Oshea
Got a quick response. They can't do anything until the AD is finalized. Will probably be several months.
Of course the rebate period will be closed by then. This navworx saga just keeps getting worse.
 
I exercised my 9 today after the snow and used the chance to honor the rule that says "if I have an ADSB installed "to be sure it's turned on"! I do and the 600EXP worked flawlessly. Spotted numerous traffic targets, allowed me to maneuver to avoid uncomfortable close positions and effectively enjoyed a great flight all in E airspace! If traffic ever gets within 3 nm and+- 500. I start looking for the target HOWEVER, being VFR you still have to look out the windshield and it is my responsibility as PIC to avoid the conflict. Doesn't hurt that the WX was clear below 12500 and Vis in excess of 10 nm ..Thanks Navworx.
 
Navworx mean FAA letter

Seems like the letter about the FAA destroying Navworx business has been removed from the Navworx website. Hopefully that's a good thing and they're starting to work out a solution!
 
I just sent them a note through their website portal.
I'll try the e-mail as well.

Will let the list know if I get a response!

Response - the e-mail didn't immediately bounce - and I did get an Out of office on vacation from 14 to 23 Jan notice from Bill's e-mail address....maybe someone from the support team will answer for real!

Hopefully, something's happening!
 
Last edited:
I just went to the Navworx site after hearing the letter was removed.
The 600EXP price went up from $1399 to $1599.
This is probably a good sign that they may be close to resuming business.

Let's hope this all gets resolved.
 
My that was pretty much a waste of server space!!! About the only bit of knowledge there, and I already knew this, was that the FAA looks at all threads on the Vansairforce site. Remember the S in ADS B stands for surveillance.

Kind of makes you want to take all your operational/airworthiness/regulatory questions into a private chat room, doesn't it. Apparently Exemption #5 allows the concealing of anything from FOIA except prepositions, pronouns and indefinite articles. Our best hope to learn what is in these documents is the admittedly remote chance they were cached on a bathroom server being mirrored by a pedophile congressman's MacBook and somehow caught the attention of Julian Assange.

Browsing VAF on the public payroll? Obviously, FAA has put their top men on this.

Top. Men.

Meh, I want my ten minutes back.
 
I wrote the Faa the following.
To Michael Heusser. I hope I am addressing this to the right party. I have had the navworx 600b for years. Have followed the proposed AD closely. I have a garmin 430w that could be used as position source however My concern is whether navworx is a viable company. Certainly doesn't appear to be in business.
Decided that I would go ahead and make the change to the Dynon transponder which is rebate compliant. I am trusting that the navworx Faa action is a one off and not an issue with other manufacturers?
So thinking I could at least qualify for the $500 rebate, decided to go forward. Now I find that I am not eligible for the rebate because I have had "certified" equipment i.e. Navworx which is no longer certified. Talk about a catch 22.
I'd certainly appreciate hearing from you. To be dealing with the navworx mess and then be told my early compliance is now penalizing me is hard to swallow. Thanks.
Kevin Oshea
Got a quick response. They can't do anything until the AD is finalized. Will probably be several months.
Of course the rebate period will be closed by then. This navworx saga just keeps getting worse.

That seems weird - if you are changing out to a Dynon ES transponder, and you are using the Garmin 430W as the position source, then what's the problem? The Navworx would be relegated to ADS-B In duties, a capability that isn't even mandated. Maybe it's because you already installed ADS-B Out previously (with a possibly non-compliant solution?)
 
The rebate requires that the aircraft has never transmitted ADS-B OUT before. Doesn't matter if it was compliant, TSO'd, certified. legal, or anything else. If your plane has had any ADS-B OUT before, you can't get the rebate. Thus, upgrades to a plane's ADS-B system are really never eligible.

Just the way the rebate is set up.
 
I've also seen, on another board, posts by someone (probably the same guy) who says his wife worked in some unspecified capacity for Navworx at some unspecified point in past, and who may or more likely may not have the slightest clue what's going on. So far those posts have not included anything that would indicate either he or his ex-employee wife have any information that the rest of us don't have

Hi guys! Mind if I join the formation?

By way of introduction, my name is David Bunin. I am an A&P/IA who has spent a career working in avionics. Some of you may know my wife Bethany Bunin, who has worked as the NavWorx Customer Support Specialist since 2013. She was put on furlough when the FAA actions in-effect put the company on hold. Then she suffered a back injury that put her in the hospital for emergency surgery. She has been in rehabilitation ever since. Only recently has she been healthy enough to even think about her employment status. If things work out between NavWorx and the FAA, I believe she would be invited to return to her previous/current position.

From time to time, I have used my A&P background to serve NavWorx as an installation/maintenance consultant. So on-and-off I have been formally associated with NavWorx, but I am not (and never was) a direct employee of the corporation myself. I was invited (along with my wife, naturally) to help them staff the booth at Oshkosh a few times, and at Sun N' Fun once.

With all of that said, there will always be somebody online who knows something that I don't. Knowing everything is a standard I would never claim, although certainly a goal to aspire to. Reading these threads, it appears that you guys pretty much know everything I do about the current situation. But if I notice an opportunity to share, I will.

David Bunin
 
It's actually very simple. Although you only need ADSB-out in certain airspace, FAR 91.225 says that if it's installed, you must operate it all the time. And FAR 91.227 says when it's operating, it has to send out pressure altitude. But the transponder needs to have your mode C transponder 'pinged' by ATC in order for the Transmon to pick up PA. There's lots of airspace where that doesn't happen. In particular, my home airport (LVK) is inside the SFO mode C veil, so ADSB-out will be required from the ground up. But there's no radar service below about 1000' agl (LVK is in a valley), so Transmon devices will have no PA info until reaching that height.

I almost agree with you Bob, except when we get to the bold highlights. ATC is not the only source of interrogation. Every TCAS-equipped airliner, biz jet, and turboprop is sending out Mode C interrogations all the time. So the TransMON virtually always has pressure altitude replies to work with, even if you are not in ATC radar coverage.

What's missing is the squawk code (TCAS does not interrogate for Mode A) but again if you're not in radar coverage there is no use for a squawk code. The UAT still sends out your tail number (or a random identification number in anonymous mode).

Even if there was no pressure altitude available (suppose an encoder failure) the TSO spec says that the UAT design should provide the "secondary" altitude (GPS altitude) which the NavWorx product does. I've seen it on their test bench.

David Bunin
 
David,
I respectfully disagree. MUCH of the time the transponder will get pinged by a large aircraft. But some times it won't, because it's 3 am and no large planes are around. With the FAA demanding ultra high reliability, MUCH isn't good enough. Same with the GPS altitude back up. It's a backup. The FAR specifically requires PA be sent if the unit is compliant.
What I really want to know is this: If a transmon equipped plane is descending, and, at, let's say 2000', drops below radar coverage and continues down, and there are no TCAS planes around, what will the ADSB-out send out for PA? Will it be the last known one (2000')? Or will it 'time out', and send 'no data'? The latter is bad, the former outright dangerous.
 
David,
I respectfully disagree. MUCH of the time the transponder will get pinged by a large aircraft. But some times it won't, because it's 3 am and no large planes are around. With the FAA demanding ultra high reliability, MUCH isn't good enough. Same with the GPS altitude back up. It's a backup. The FAR specifically requires PA be sent if the unit is compliant.
What I really want to know is this: If a transmon equipped plane is descending, and, at, let's say 2000', drops below radar coverage and continues down, and there are no TCAS planes around, what will the ADSB-out send out for PA? Will it be the last known one (2000')? Or will it 'time out', and send 'no data'? The latter is bad, the former outright dangerous.

While I don't disagree with this, having no ads-b (by removing the NavWorx box) would be more dangerous yet, because there would be no indication that the plane is even in the area. Having a plane at low altitude (assuming landing), I would rather have had him shown then disappear so I know there is a plane to see in my see and avoid scan (as well as know more or less where to look for him), than to have no idea if he is there or not. I regularly see planes appear and disappear in these types of situations. Knowing they are out there is much safer, IMHO, than not. Where we are in FL there are pings giving replies from the transponder to the NavWorx via the Transmon any time we are out of the hangar.
 
Are you familiar with the DO-282 specification? Are you familiar with the UAT downlink message format?

Every UAT Out message includes two altitudes, the primary and the secondary, and a bit to identify which is which.

With the identity bit "normal" the primary altitude is barometric and the secondary altitude is geometric. That means pressure altitude and GPS altitude respectively.

With the identity bit "alternate" the primary altitude is geometric and the secondary is barometric.

When barometric altitude becomes unavailable, the unit goes to alternate mode, per the TSO requirements.

++++++++++++++

All of these things were discussed between the FAA and NavWorx before the TransMON was certified. The FAA approved this design because they intend to provide radar coverage in rule airspace. They said so in their approval documents.

NavWorx is far from unique in relying on transponder replies. Without naming names, there are at least two other name-brand companies that also need a transponder reply.
 
I appreciate the above reply. But I believe the FARs take precedence, and FAR 91.227(d)(3) clearly states that PA must be transmitted. Did NavWorx (and others) get a waiver for this FAR?
I don't understand the comment about rule airspace. The FARs say if installed, it has to operate all the time, everywhere.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the above reply. But I believe the FARs take precedence, and FAR 91.227(d)(3) clearly states that PA must be transmitted. Did NavWorx (and others) get a waiver for this FAR?
I don't understand the comment about rule airspace. The FARs say if installed, it has to operate all the time, everywhere.

I think what you are picking at is a discrepancy between the documents that govern the design and production of equipment (i.e. TSO requirements) and the documents that govern the operation of the equipment (Part 91).

That is really the FAA's discrepancy, not any one equipment manufacturer's discrepancy.

It would be nice if we could all wait until 2030 and just install third-generation or fourth-generation equipment. I'm sure the market will be much more mature by then. But without the 2020 mandate, there would never be a first-generation of equipment to learn the soft spots in the specifications.

The unit does output altitude all the time. Might be the primary pressure altitude, might be the secondary pressure altitude. That is in compliance with the requirements for the equipment.
 
I think what you are picking at is a discrepancy between the documents that govern the design and production of equipment (i.e. TSO requirements) and the documents that govern the operation of the equipment (Part 91).

That is really the FAA's discrepancy, not any one equipment manufacturer's discrepancy.
nt.

I agree 100%. I think the FAA's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Unfortunately it's the buyers who are caught in the middle.
 
I agree 100%. I think the FAA's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Unfortunately it's the buyers who are caught in the middle.

Are you kidding? Sometimes it seems that the FAA thumb doesn't know what the FAA pinky from the same hand is doing.
:cool:
 
This came from a posting on the Grumman mailing list.
The originator has been tracking the problems closely and had filed FOIA requests.

I finally got some actual information (as opposed to speculation) on what is
going on with the NavWorx-FAA dispute.

The Aviation Electronics Assn, has apparently been mediating between NavWorx
and the FAA. They reached a deal  of sorts which amounted to a series of
talking points. First, NavWorx agreed to tone down the public battle (hence
the taking down of a letter to customers on the website front page).

NavWorx units had been transmitting SIL3  and the FAA was demanding they
change to SIL 0  which would have deprived owners of any uplinked
information. The tentative agreement os to allow the units to switch to SIL
1  which will still give uplinked information (traffic) BUT would not meet
the 2020 mandate requirement. However, it would give NavWorx time to either
replace the internal GPS source chips OR demonstrate the adequacy of the
existing chips.

In addition, if the units use an external certified source (e.g. Garmin or
Avidyne), then they would be approved and would meet the 2020 mandate.

None of this is finalized so anything could happen. The final resolution is
supposed to happen within 2 weeks. Which is an interesting time frame as the
emails to the owner of NavWorx, Bill Moffett, come back with an automated
response that he is on vacation for 2 weeks &.

Speculation: Since NavWorx also produced units sold under the Avidyne label,
should NavWorx fold I would guess Avidyne would acquire the intellectual
property and (hopefully) absorb fixing the 700-800 units that are out there
and continue to produce compliant units.

The exclusive national distributor for NavWorx, Dallas Avionics, has
terminated its distribution agreement.
 
The exclusive national distributor for NavWorx, Dallas Avionics, has
terminated its distribution agreement.[/I]

Interesting.

That would explain why I can't get a simple support question answered by either firm. I suspect that Dallas Avionics got overwhelmed when Bill point all the support directly to them.

Of course hearing from Bethany's spouse that she was laid off too, doesn't help. She was one of the few reliable contacts that would actually return your call.
 
First, NavWorx agreed to tone down the public battle (hence
the taking down of a letter to customers on the website front page).

So the public outcry and pressure upon the FAA via phone calls and letters did have some impact after all...
 
So...... Still do not understand the problem. Is it the GPS chip (as was dismissed by a previous poster), detection of bad data, something else or a combination of these and other issues? Sure would be nice is someone could state the REAL issue.
 
So...... Still do not understand the problem. Is it the GPS chip (as was dismissed by a previous poster), detection of bad data, something else or a combination of these and other issues? Sure would be nice is someone could state the REAL issue.

When the FAA changed it's rules and decided units broadcasting SIL=0 would no longer be sent traffic, Navworx came out with a software update that changed the SIL from 0 to 3. That let the units continue to get traffic. The p#@sing contest is about whether Navworx is justified in changing the SIL.

To my mind the real issue is the FAA raising their blackmail demand to get traffic. If they had just left the SIL requirement alone until 2020 everything would be fine. I planned to upgrade the GPS prior to 2020 but wanted traffic now. Without traffic there is no reason (for me at least) to install ADSB OUT.
 
A follow-up from the Grumman list by the same person who posted the message I copied 6 posts earlier.

After posting an update a few minutes ago I was surprised to receive a call
from the owner of NavWorx, Bill Moffet from his vacation on a cruise ship in
port in Hawaii.

He tells me the FAA is very non-committal and has even said they might issue a
NEW proposal for an AD to get yet more comments. But they already received a
flood of comments (available on the FAA website) so I doubt they would glean
anything new.

Moffett says NavWorx is finalizing software revisions to hopefully satisfy the
FAA but, worst case, they are ready and willing to replace all the chips the
FAA has an issue with.

Taken with the information I previously got from Dallas Avionics, I am more
hopeful than ever that NavWorx customers will be able to keep their units and
NavWorx will then be able to compete on a level playing field in the ADS-B
space.
 
Yes -2, Both of Az Gila's posts are great news. I for one, am just sitting here with my Navworx still in the box waiting to see what happens.
 
A follow-up from the Grumman list by the same person who posted the message I copied 6 posts earlier.

After posting an update a few minutes ago I was surprised to receive a call
from the owner of NavWorx, Bill Moffet from his vacation on a cruise ship in
port in Hawaii.

He tells me the FAA is very non-committal and has even said they might issue a
NEW proposal for an AD to get yet more comments. But they already received a
flood of comments (available on the FAA website) so I doubt they would glean
anything new.

Moffett says NavWorx is finalizing software revisions to hopefully satisfy the
FAA but, worst case, they are ready and willing to replace all the chips the
FAA has an issue with.

Taken with the information I previously got from Dallas Avionics, I am more
hopeful than ever that NavWorx customers will be able to keep their units and
NavWorx will then be able to compete on a level playing field in the ADS-B
space.

Thanks for posting Gil.

How's it go, Faith, Hope, Love, etc. :)
 
Good updates - hopefully, when Bill gets back from his cruise I can get my unit in for repair. I suspect it has transmission issues (based of the TX/RX error message) unrelated to the AD...I'm using a 430W as the position source....
 
NavWorx

Thanks Gil for this updated information.
I paid for the EXP TransMon system including wired harness back in October.
I received everything except the the unit with WiFi antenna.
Holding off on the wiring installation until this is resolved and I receive the updated (FAA approved) EXP unit.
 
Am I the only one who thinks going on a Hawaiian cruise in the middle of a **** storm that may bankrupt your business is just a little weird :confused:
 
Keep in mind, many book a cruise 10-12 months before to get a good price and the most desirable cabin. Might have happened.....
 
Keep in mind, many book a cruise 10-12 months before to get a good price and the most desirable cabin. Might have happened.....

Indeed. Which would imply that Mr Moffitt values the few (or even several) thousand dollar cost of the cruise more than the success of his business. Having worked (enjoyably) for a few businessmen who would would have, and sometimes did that I can remember, absorb such a loss to ensure the survival of their business, I'm inclined to side with Walt's perspective. Glad my EXP keeps working...
 
Honestly though, with how long this has been going on and how, relatively, little we seem to know about whats going on behind the curtain, he may very well be able to handle the day-to-day stuff from vacation (this may be a run-on sentence, sue me). It's 2017, there's really not much you can't do while away. The guy has had a ****ty couple months, maybe he needs to step back for a week, take a breather, then get back into the fight. I highly doubt that he's cut ties with the outside world.
 
Last edited:
Honestly though, with how long this has been going on and how, relatively, little we seem to know about whats going on behind the curtain,

Exactly. Are any of us really in a position to be critical of his decisions? especially with the good news posted by gil? Is Bill the only person to go golfing while the world was burning?
 
OR - - -

Compared to the cost of mental health professionals - this may be a better option. Like the election, maybe we can chill until we KNOW something for sure.
 
If Bill is golfing or on a cruise, he believes he has the FAA behind an 8 ball. It could be delusional or real.

I doubt that he is on a cruise or a golf course, it is a smoke screen for something else.

His business may be the Titanic in North Atlantic or USS Enterprise after Battle of Midway. Time will tell.
 
Scooby is correct. John B is a close second. I've been in contact with Bill a few times about config issues (no connection to GPS issue) so he is staying in touch and involved. And he seriously needs some chill time.
 
This just posted on Cessna Pilots Association website:

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes
Postby WaiexN143NM ? Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:42 am

Hi all,
Just a quick update. I had 5min direct talk in person with mark baker, pres AOPA the other day. Navworx is done out of business. I've soften my tone a little here too, sounded like a 50/50 share of the blame is faa/navworx. AOPA is working with FAA, and aircraft electronics mfgr's, AEA, to come up with solutions to the 900 adsb boxes that are out there. They are working on it. Somebody will pick up the pieces , as mark put it. Timeline? Cant say. Its too bad it came to this. I shook his hand for the 3rd class medical reform.
One note off this topic, because the other thread got locked. Of the accidents we see in our community, stall/spin, maybe we should all strive to have LRI lift reserve indicators in the panel. No matter what situation we are faced with, you gotta keep it in the green. Ihab, whats going on with airball? Can u enter this years eaa contest again.? Are you still working on a finished unit? Maybe some units for us to test?
Take care everyone, and fly safe.
Michael
WaiexN143NM

Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:04 am
Location: SF CA, Tucson AZ


I think we should wait for an official announcement that Navworx is out of business before posting here.

Vic
 
So disappointed to hear this news. I had hoped Navworx would pull through. Just speculation but I bet at navworx it came down to a simple finicial decision. Close up shop and walk away... no more headaches and jumping through hoops for the FAA or customers. And for the customers that never took delivery of their units I hope they get their money back!
 
Last edited:
Thanks to Adventure Pilot, I recovered my $$$

I ordered my Navworx ADS600 EXP last October through Adventure Pilot (The Ifly folks). Because they had been having some delivery problems with Navworx, they worked out a deal with them to hold customer funds until the unit was actually delivered!

I didn't know anything about this, but a couple of weeks ago, I got a phone call from Walter Boyd at AP. He wanted to know what I wanted to do with my order - keep waiting? Switch to another product? or Refund?

After a couple of days looking at the options, I requested a refund. At the same time, I elected to use part of those funds to upgrade from my Ifly 720 to the new 740.

I have flown with Ifly GPS units since they first came out, and continue to be impressed with AP's customer service, support, and most importantly, the product itself.

Mel B. RV-4, Flying
Dues Paid
 
Today's the day according to the autoreply from Bill Moffitt's e-mail, that he is back from vacation.

Has anyone heard from him?

I have some tech issue questions in to them related to TX/RX error indication - unrelated to the AD brouhaha...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top