VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.

  #121  
Old 11-28-2016, 09:26 PM
MartySantic's Avatar
MartySantic MartySantic is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,390
Default

Have been patiently waiting to see how Navworx will address the ADS600-EXP. (Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013). Have seen nothing from Navworx regarding the EXP. The Navworx website home page only references the ADS600-B P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013. The proposed AD lists all of the part numbers, including the EXP.

I have sent e-mails. Have tried calling. No response whatsoever. Bill Moffit really needs to improve his non-existent customer relations!

Has anyone been able to get any information regarding the ADS600-EXP??
__________________
Marty Santic ----- W9EAA
RV-12 N128MS ----- Now Flying
My RV-12 Build Log - http://www.martysrv12.blogspot.com/
Davenport, IA
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-28-2016, 10:06 PM
Paul 5r4 Paul 5r4 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Foley, Al
Posts: 604
Default Regarding the Navworx 600 exp

I frequently checked Adventure Pilot, a.k.a. the Ifly people, site and one thing I noticed was the exp model was never placed on the "all sales on hold," Like the Navworx B models. The exp was indeed mentioned in the initial FAA letter however I'm thinking/Hoping that since the exp model sales were never on hold maybe it's going to be exempt from any A.D. Perhaps just wishful thinking but Navworx nor the FAA has mentioned the exp model since the beginning of this mess.
__________________
Paul Gray
Foley, Alabama
N729PG..... 450+ hrs
RV 7A, Lycoming 0 320 D1A, Sensenich FP propeller
pilotforfun2001@yahoo.com
VAF supporter $$$

Last edited by Paul 5r4 : 11-28-2016 at 10:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-28-2016, 10:55 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 7,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwschaefer View Post
ON SOAPBOX: However, I've always been curious about the "certified GPS" issue.. I asked the FAA at Oshkosh several years ago about the requirement.. since our current GPS units are very very accurate...and got no good answer. Back then only the big guys offered 'WAAS cerified GPSs' that could be used. I suspect my trusty old 430 is accurate to less than the width of my RV6 .. which should be good enough for traffic separation etc. I really hope that the controllers don't direct anyone closer to me than that.. yet there is this mandate for EXPENSIVE GPS upgrades or new receivers...to what benefit?

DWS
The very high GPS accuracy is being driven by the idea of using ADSB to automate ground control. That is why the 'ground' broadcast includes wingspan data. The computer needs to be sure large aircraft on adjacent taxiways won't clip wings.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-28-2016, 11:14 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 7,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul 5r4 View Post
I frequently checked Adventure Pilot, a.k.a. the Ifly people, site and one thing I noticed was the exp model was never placed on the "all sales on hold," Like the Navworx B models. The exp was indeed mentioned in the initial FAA letter however I'm thinking/Hoping that since the exp model sales were never on hold maybe it's going to be exempt from any A.D. Perhaps just wishful thinking but Navworx nor the FAA has mentioned the exp model since the beginning of this mess.
The FAA is apparently claiming that NavWorx has violated the requirements of its TSO authorization. Since the EXP model is not TSO'd it is not affected. If the FAA thinks the EXP model does not meet the required performance standards, it is not clear to me how they will proceed - my guess is individual owners will get letters telling them not to use the device.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-28-2016, 11:23 PM
Tracer 10 Tracer 10 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 140
Default ADS600-EXP

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartySantic View Post
Have been patiently waiting to see how Navworx will address the ADS600-EXP. (Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013). Have seen nothing from Navworx regarding the EXP. The Navworx website home page only references the ADS600-B P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013. The proposed AD lists all of the part numbers, including the EXP.

I have sent e-mails. Have tried calling. No response whatsoever. Bill Moffit really needs to improve his non-existent customer relations!

Has anyone been able to get any information regarding the ADS600-EXP??
I got a reply from Bill Moffitt today; saying they are hoping the EXP will not be included in the AD that will be published in December. I don't think there will be any new information from NavWorx until the AD is published.
__________________
CW4 (Retired) U.S. Army
A&P: I pay double dues (it's worth it)
Restored L2-M; flown 7 years & sold.
Flying Oregon RV-6
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-30-2016, 03:58 PM
fliier fliier is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner View Post
The very high GPS accuracy is being driven by the idea of using ADSB to automate ground control. That is why the 'ground' broadcast includes wingspan data. The computer needs to be sure large aircraft on adjacent taxiways won't clip wings.
I'm not sure native accuracy is the issue. The certified GPS don't have any special algorithms to solve the GPS ranging solution that the non-certified folks don't have. Given good satellites they both should be equally accurate.

If there is an issue then it is more likely in error detection. In other words, the trick is to know how to not broadcast a bad solution (ex. because of a bad satellite)

I don't really know what type of error detection is required by the TSO, because it calls out an RTCA document that costs hundreds of $ to purchase, and that I probably wouldn't understand anyway. I am relying on Navworx to tell me if the GPS performance meets the spec. . .with my fingers crossed.

I wonder how much difference this integrity monitoring really makes in a world of 10+ channel chips that are putting out multiple fixes per second?


John Allen
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-30-2016, 04:12 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 7,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fliier View Post
I'm not sure native accuracy is the issue. The certified GPS don't have any special algorithms to solve the GPS ranging solution that the non-certified folks don't have. Given good satellites they both should be equally accurate.

If there is an issue then it is more likely in error detection. In other words, the trick is to know how to not broadcast a bad solution (ex. because of a bad satellite)

I don't really know what type of error detection is required by the TSO, because it calls out an RTCA document that costs hundreds of $ to purchase, and that I probably wouldn't understand anyway. I am relying on Navworx to tell me if the GPS performance meets the spec. . .with my fingers crossed.

I wonder how much difference this integrity monitoring really makes in a world of 10+ channel chips that are putting out multiple fixes per second?


John Allen
I agree with this post entirely. It's the multiple error detection schemes and quality assurance mandates that are driving the cost of the position source. And almost none of it is needed for airborne use - ground use is the cost driver here.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 11-30-2016, 04:51 PM
MartySantic's Avatar
MartySantic MartySantic is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fliier View Post
I don't really know what type of error detection is required by the TSO, because it calls out an RTCA document that costs hundreds of $ to purchase, and that I probably wouldn't understand anyway. I am relying on Navworx to tell me if the GPS performance meets the spec. . .with my fingers crossed.
John Allen
I found and downloaded a copy of the RTCA document on the web. If ya think you can decipher it, PM me with your e-mail address and will send you the .pdf. Is 700+ pages.
__________________
Marty Santic ----- W9EAA
RV-12 N128MS ----- Now Flying
My RV-12 Build Log - http://www.martysrv12.blogspot.com/
Davenport, IA
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-02-2016, 05:45 AM
MS19087's Avatar
MS19087 MS19087 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 750
Default AOPA Article on Navworx comments to suspension

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...n=161202epilot
__________________
Mark
RV-9A; Built, Flown & Sold
RV-14A; Building
2021 =VAF= donor
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-02-2016, 10:48 AM
rleffler's Avatar
rleffler rleffler is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, OH (KDLZ)
Posts: 4,225
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS19087 View Post
Interesting quotes from Bill, or at least I assume it was Bill. If only he had been more transparent and added those comments to his website post, it would have probably removed a significant amount of emotion from the conversations.
__________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - RV10 Flying
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 11:55 PM.


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.