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

FAA logo
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Date: November 22, 2016
Contact: Lynn Lunsford
Phone: (817) 222-4455
Email: [email protected]
You are subscribed to News updates for the Federal Aviation Administration. A new Press Release is now available. We've included a copy of the release in this email.
FORT WORTH, Texas – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration today issued an emergency order suspending the authorization NavWorx Inc. uses to manufacture certain Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) navigation units. Such units, when properly manufactured and operated, help to improve the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations.

The authorization, known as a Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA), enables suppliers to produce components for use on aircraft after proving that each component meets FAA standards. Federal regulations set forth FAA’s authority to inspect suppliers’ quality systems, facilities, technical data, and products to determine whether they meet safety standards. These regulations also provide that FAA may witness any tests necessary to determine a product’s compliance.

The suspension order was issued after NavWorx declined on repeated occasions to allow FAA personnel to conduct the required inspections. The suspension is immediate and will remain in effect until NavWorx consents to the inspections and demonstrates compliance with FAA standards.

The FAA is concerned that two versions of the company’s ADS600-B units, carrying part numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013, may contain an internal Global Positioning System (GPS) chip that does not meet the FAA’s minimum performance standards for transmitting an aircraft’s accurate location.

On June 29, the FAA requested to inspect NavWorx’s facility to determine the specific GPS unit and software installed in part numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013, and if the units are marked correctly. NavWorx informed the inspector that he would not be allowed inside the company’s facility. During subsequent correspondence, NavWorx agreed to allow an Aug. 31 inspection but then denied access when FAA inspectors arrived.

NavWorx later agreed to allow inspectors into the facility on Nov. 21 but they were again denied access.

Due to the company’s unwillingness to comply with these requirements, the FAA has determined that NavWorx’s continued use of its FAA authorization is contrary to the interests of safety in air commerce. During the suspension, NavWorx may not mark or otherwise indicate that its ADS600-B units meet FAA standards.
 
Tinfoil hat time?

A buddy of mine tells me that his EXP unit stopped receiving traffic and weather today after about 5 minutes of use in flight. It has been working fine all summer long.

I don't believe that the ADSB protocol includes any information about the manufacturer of the equipment sending a signal. He did not send for one of the compliance reports so I don't see any way they can remotely detect what kind of UAT he has in his airplane.

Can anyone confirm this?

Don
 
There is no way to know what transmitting device you are using when outside the plane.

Additionally, weather is broadcast to everyone all the time, even if there are no planes around. They can't shut off weather to one plane even if they wanted to. They can kind of shut of traffic, but not "all" of it unless they shut off traffic to all planes.
 
A buddy of mine tells me that his EXP unit stopped receiving traffic and weather today after about 5 minutes of use in flight. It has been working fine all summer long.

I don't believe that the ADSB protocol includes any information about the manufacturer of the equipment sending a signal. He did not send for one of the compliance reports so I don't see any way they can remotely detect what kind of UAT he has in his airplane.

Can anyone confirm this?

Don

I can confirm that they do know what equipment is sending packets. If you've received a validation report from the FAA, it will show everything that they collect.
 
Additionally, weather is broadcast to everyone all the time, even if there are no planes around.

FIS-B (Wx) is only sent when the ground station receives a query from an ADS-B unit indicating it can receive data on 978Mhz. Otherwise. nothing is transmitted on 978Mhz. This is part of your OUT software configuration. So if you have 1090Mhz OUT but no 978 IN, WX is not transmitted.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
FIS-B (Wx) is only sent when the ground station receives a query from an ADS-B unit indicating it can receive data on 978Mhz. Otherwise. nothing is transmitted on 978Mhz. This is part of your OUT software configuration. So if you have 1090Mhz OUT but no 978 IN, WX is not transmitted.

:cool:

Then those with Stratus, Stratux, Garmin equipment etc.. would never receive any weather ;) cause they never broadcast anything.. only receive... but practice says otherwise (that what Jordan wrote is correct)..
 
FIS-B (Wx) is only sent when the ground station receives a query from an ADS-B unit indicating it can receive data on 978Mhz. Otherwise. nothing is transmitted on 978Mhz. This is part of your OUT software configuration. So if you have 1090Mhz OUT but no 978 IN, WX is not transmitted.

Not true. ADS-B ground stations always uplink FIS-B. This is how portable ADS-B receivers work even though they have no ADS-B OUT at all.

Now, traffic (ADS-R and TIS-B) is only up-linked if the ground station knows about you. The ground station builds a "puck" of aircraft around you. However, even without this, you can see traffic sent to other ADS-B clients in your area. Again, the way that portables work and show some traffic even though they don't have OUT.

If two planes with ADS-B out fly next to one another, the ground station doesn't send two sets of other aircraft out, it knows that when it sends it out once, each plane can see it.

Here's a good page from the FAA on how it all works:
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/ins_and_outs/

Flight Information Services ? Broadcast (FIS-B)
FIS-B provides the meteorological and aeronautical data to the cockpit. This service is not a client-based service, but rather is always broadcast into the airspace on the UAT frequency. This information is not broadcast on the 1090MHz frequency.
 
Last edited:
Not true. ADS-B ground stations always uplink FIS-B. This is how portable ADS-B receivers work even though they have no ADS-B OUT at all.

Now, traffic (ADS-R and TIS-B) is only up-linked if the ground station knows about you. The ground station builds a "puck" of aircraft around you. However, even without this, you can see traffic sent to other ADS-B clients in your area. Again, the way that portables work and show some traffic even though they don't have OUT.

If two planes with ADS-B out fly next to one another, the ground station doesn't send two sets of other aircraft out, it knows that when it sends it out once, each plane can see it.

Here's a good page from the FAA on how it all works:
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/ins_and_outs/
You are correct. FIS-B tends to be well detailed within the broadcast radius of the ground station from which it’s being sent. To save bandwidth, it becomes somewhat less detailed the further out you look from the ground station and is independent of the aircraft. I was confusing apples and oranges again.
 
And now back to the real story:
Due to the company?s unwillingness to comply with these requirements, the FAA has determined that NavWorx?s continued use of its FAA authorization is contrary to the interests of safety in air commerce. During the suspension, NavWorx may not mark or otherwise indicate that its ADS600-B units meet FAA standards.

Yowza. That does not bode well for NavWorx's future in ADSB.

erich
 
Very disappointing

I was a very early adopter. Paid $$$. I hope Bill has a plan. Time to let them in Bill!
 
I'm guessing this would be coming from the manufacturing side of the FAA. It's entirely possible Navworx doesn't want to to"let them in" as this would be a waste of time until the issues with the engineering side are resolved.

Not sure what they would inspect, since the manufacturing must surely be shut down pending resolution of the AD.

John Allen
 
I'm guessing this would be coming from the manufacturing side of the FAA. It's entirely possible Navworx doesn't want to to"let them in" as this would be a waste of time until the issues with the engineering side are resolved.

Not sure what they would inspect, since the manufacturing must surely be shut down pending resolution of the AD.

John Allen

The manufacturing data and the unit test reports for each serial number...
 
Interesting there hasn't been a peep from navworx regarding this whole thing. The letter on their web page states to check back for weekly updates... and this thing broke open a month ago. If you call them, it goes to the mailbox.

I did go flying this evening and was interested to see if my navworx 600 EXP was receiving. There's an earlier post here someplace that theirs quit working 5 minutes into the flight. I can report that mine did not quit working. However there was a king air, a bonanza and another RV that made position reports with each of them being less than 10 miles from me, (I'm set for 25nm and +- 2500 feet). I was looking for them on the ifly and no joy. The king air did show up on my Zaon XRX. Each was at a different time but all were within about 10 minutes of each other. The entire time there was other traffic showing up on my screen. Is this something the FAA is doing with navworx units or is there another answer?
 
Beta

I, like many other members here, read just about anything that pops up on the topic of ADS-B. Taking all I have seen personally and also read about... leaves me feeling that all of this is really still in the BETA stage. Traffic that does not show up, compliance reports that fail or just show no data...
Approved or not approved GPS receivers and so forth.
I never saw such a push to have the general public adopt a technology so far before a mandated calendar date... and at considerable expense. It illustrates the power of the airlines and influence of big money.
Navworx should have released an immediate press release, if they have an adequate explanation. I don't think we will see the demise of radar sites anytime in the next thirty years. TCAS-II works well presently, as I don't recall hearing of many airliners being hit by light planes. I do suspect we will see more drone incursions... particularly after major gifting holidays.
I have made good use of the weather products coming from the ground stations on UAT frequency. But that is about all I see so far that is a tangible safety enhancement. Chime in if you think I am way off base. Cheers. Nick
 
Effective 11/22/2016 FAA Suspends Approval of Certain NavWorx ADS-B Units.

The reason stated was that the FAA was denied access to the property to inspect the facility 3 times.

The issue is over internal GPS installed in -B units with part numbers 0012 and 0013.

The latest company statement is posted on their web site. They are awaiting the outcome of the AD which will be resolved around December 20.
 
I never saw such a push to have the general public adopt a technology so far before a mandated calendar date... and at considerable expense.

I take it you were not in aviation when Mode C transponders became mandatory. It's Deja Vu all over again. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Effective 11/22/2016 FAA Suspends Approval of Certain NavWorx ADS-B Units.

The reason stated was that the FAA was denied access to the property to inspect the facility 3 times.

The issue is over internal GPS installed in -B units with part numbers 0012 and 0013.

The latest company statement is posted on their web site. They are awaiting the outcome of the AD which will be resolved around December 20.

You think the news will change between the press release this week and the end of next month? Navworx needs to quit acting like an ostrich and start dealing with the issues. There appears to be a significant lack of transparency.
 
The FAA indicates the approved GPS sensors for the Navworx certified unit is the Aspen Avionics Accord Technologies NexGen Mini. Accord Tech site indicates they have a second one Maxi and a new one labeled Micro. Appears that the Mini is the only one Navworx has TSO to use. Also interesting to note, Mini appears to be the same one used in the Trig TT3x, also certified for use in Dynon and Bendix King units. Not that this means anything just interesting info I found in looking at some of this. FYI
 
I do not know what is going on with FAA and NavWorx.

It would appear to be a peeing contest at local level.

I was talking with local FBO owner thus week, FAA inspectors show up and wanted to inspect his shop. When asked what they were looking for they would not say. He denied them access and they left.

He then called an FAA attorney about the incident and was told have them call me next time.

I do believe, rarely, but sometimes, the FAA does have a local loose canon, new guys trying to make a mark.
 
Not sure I'm worried.... about NavWorx

I'm not jumping off the cliff yet ... I've had my Navworx ADS600B since 2012 and I've always found them very quick to reply to any questions I've had. I noticed today on the site that Bill had updated that there is an approved upgrade if the AD goes into effect. So I'll wait and see what happens... but 800+ pilots will be much less safe in high-traffic areas without units we've come to rely on.

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? There must be a middle ground.

We've got to support the smaller vendors ...even during challenges .. Navworx made ADS-B cost effective while the big guys wanted 2-5x the amount. The same holds true for our 'glass' cockpits .. without GRT, Dynon or Advanced there would be no low cost option for the experimental population.

I for one have called my Representative .. who happens to be a big-time pilot and a primary sponsor of the 3rd class medical bill... everyone should do the same. Without a proliferation of lower cost avionics, flying will become much too expensive for regular people.

OFF SOAPBOX: Sorry about that!

Regards,

DWS
 
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??
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
ADS600-EXP

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
AD to include EXP model

If this works, the discussion para of the AD is going to be posted, with the models that are affected, or not. Last sentence lists the unaffected models.

NavWorx produces ADS-B units under Technical Standard Order (TSO)
C-154c. NavWorx has implemented a design change by revising its
software for ADS-B units, Model ADS600-B part number (P/N) 200-0012 and
200-0013 and Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013. The design of the units
includes an internal uncertified GPS source. ADS-B units with an
uncertified GPS source are required to broadcast a SIL of 0. The
software revision (version 4.0.6) resulted in the units broadcasting a
SIL of 3. This design change was not approved by the FAA and rendered
the units noncompliant with TSO-C154c. Because the ADS-B unit
incorrectly broadcasts a SIL of 3 instead of 0, the unit could
communicate unreliable position information to ATC and nearby aircraft,
resulting in an aircraft collision.



NavWorx ADS-B units with P/N 200-0112 and 200-0113 are TSO-C154c
compliant and are not the subject of this proposed AD.

Yippee! It worked.
 
So, if a certified GPS (Garmin 650) is used for a position source, then this AD does not apply if I understand this correctly??


If this works, the discussion para of the AD is going to be posted, with the models that are affected, or not. Last sentence lists the unaffected models.

NavWorx produces ADS-B units under Technical Standard Order (TSO)
C-154c. NavWorx has implemented a design change by revising its
software for ADS-B units, Model ADS600-B part number (P/N) 200-0012 and
200-0013 and Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013. The design of the units
includes an internal uncertified GPS source. ADS-B units with an
uncertified GPS source are required to broadcast a SIL of 0. The
software revision (version 4.0.6) resulted in the units broadcasting a
SIL of 3. This design change was not approved by the FAA and rendered
the units noncompliant with TSO-C154c. Because the ADS-B unit
incorrectly broadcasts a SIL of 3 instead of 0, the unit could
communicate unreliable position information to ATC and nearby aircraft,
resulting in an aircraft collision.



NavWorx ADS-B units with P/N 200-0112 and 200-0113 are TSO-C154c
compliant and are not the subject of this proposed AD.

Yippee! It worked.
 
My last post

probably could have been worded a bit better. Sorry for the confusion to some readers. The copy/paste of the "discussion" portion of the AD is pretty self-explanatory.
woody
 

That justification sounds odd to me. If Navworx has a documented set of assembly and inspection processes and procedures, I don't see how having one person on sick leave should leave them helpless in front of the FAA.

It might be more efficient to go through the documentation on the processes and procedures with the key person's participation, but his (or her) absence shouldn't create a "game over" situation.
 
If this works, the discussion para of the AD is going to be posted, with the models that are affected, or not. Last sentence lists the unaffected models.

NavWorx produces ADS-B units under Technical Standard Order (TSO)
C-154c. NavWorx has implemented a design change by revising its
software for ADS-B units, Model ADS600-B part number (P/N) 200-0012 and
200-0013 and Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013. The design of the units
includes an internal uncertified GPS source. ADS-B units with an
uncertified GPS source are required to broadcast a SIL of 0. The
software revision (version 4.0.6) resulted in the units broadcasting a
SIL of 3. This design change was not approved by the FAA and rendered
the units noncompliant with TSO-C154c. Because the ADS-B unit
incorrectly broadcasts a SIL of 3 instead of 0, the unit could
communicate unreliable position information to ATC and nearby aircraft,
resulting in an aircraft collision.



NavWorx ADS-B units with P/N 200-0112 and 200-0113 are TSO-C154c
compliant and are not the subject of this proposed AD.

Yippee! It worked.

FROM THE AOPA Article published November 30, 2016.
"NavWorx ADS-B transceivers with part numbers 200-0112 and 200-0113 contain a different WAAS GPS position source and are not subject to the proposed AD or the unapproved parts notification, the FAA said. NavWorx can continue to produce transceivers with those part numbers".

This article was published on this date; not written on this date..!!
THE EXP IS ON THE PROPOSED AD.
I paid for the EXP System & have not taken delivery because on November 27, 2016 via e-mail to me BILL MOFFITT RECOMMENDED I WAIT UNTIL AD IS PUBLISHED---"BECAUSE THE EXP IS LISTED ON THE PROPOSED AD; & IS HOPING IT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL AD".
 
That justification sounds odd to me. If Navworx has a documented set of assembly and inspection processes and procedures, I don't see how having one person on sick leave should leave them helpless in front of the FAA.

It might be more efficient to go through the documentation on the processes and procedures with the key person's participation, but his (or her) absence shouldn't create a "game over" situation.

If that one person is the only person that knows where the required documentation exists (or not) and is the only guy with the knowledge to produce it when required, then this scenario becomes understandable - but it's still not acceptable to have ONE person with that kind of required data for the company. Accidents happen and personnel change jobs, this process/procedure needs to be documented and available for a backup within the company.

Disclaimer - I don't have a dog in this fight, just looking at it from the "disaster recovery" aspect and hoping Navworx can pull this out. We need the competition and they need to keep the market share.
 
NAVWORX

and the FAA may find common ground, but there are some serious issues going on here. (understatement)
The questions I have are:
1. Does the GPS in the affected units have the same accuracy as those in the non affected units?
2. Did the software change that caused the FAA scrutiny affect the actual accuracy of the GPS source, or is there another feature, or bug, in the software change that caused the FAA to geek? (I have heard that the software change would allow for the user to go "incognito" when desired, which may have caused this level of scrutiny by the FAA.) So: is the move from SIL 3 to SIL 0 in the new software just the avenue that the FAA is using to keep the "bug" or "feature" from being utilized?

I do not know for certain, but, unless the FAA authorized the change from SIL 3 to SIL 0, changing the software to SIL 0 may violate the TSO, hence the units not being in "compliance". Someone out there will know more about this than I.

I do not know the answers to the above questions. I hope that Navworxs survives this ordeal, as I would like to install the system in my own aircraft.
woody
 
As has been discussed, it is really not the accuracy as much as the 'design assurance', e.g. How the box will react to the many possible failure modes, including loss of or erroneous satellite data. But the real issue is the TSO process. Once you have a TSO the design is frozen. If you change anything, you have to re-qualify the box. As to hiding your identity, UAT boxes have always had this feature, it's nothing new. If you want or need radar service, you have to turn it off and tell the world who you are.
 
Have a question on TSO and etc. as it relates to this possible AD and us as experimental operators and users. I have a Navworx 600 EXP and presently use it each time I fly.
Does this EXP unit have or " supposed" to have installed in it a GPS source /receiver that is (1) TSO d and meets all conditions of the Certified units? or(2) being exp is it OK that the GPS position source is non TSOd ie non Certified but meets the performance standards of the TSO.? ( 3) Does the fact that a units GPS source is TSOd or certified determine what SIL the unit will be required to report ie. having nothing to do with meeting performance?
IF this unit is req d to report a SIL=0 as result of this AD, then we will no longer get our "hockey puck" reported traffic but only traffic where someone else has ping d the ground station and happens to be in our area. Assuming it can be turned on.
Just my attempt to understand where this might go and what might be a next step for the Exp users.
 
I do not know for certain, but, unless the FAA authorized the change from SIL 3 to SIL 0, changing the software to SIL 0 may violate the TSO, hence the units not being in "compliance".

The AD claims that the units were originally TSO'd to SIL=0 and the change to SIL=3 is why the device is no longer in compliance. You can absolutely TSO a SIL=0 device. The whole issue is that a device is not in compliance with the TSO if the SIL transmitted does not match the position source being used.
 
small update on navworx

Earlier today I spoke with the ifly/adventure pilot folks about something then picked their brain about navworx, (since they also sold some of the navworx units). Anyway.... their response to me was this, "We sent Navworx an email asking some specific questions and fully expected an answer since we had also promoted and sold their units. Navworx's return email stated for us to see a soon to be released article in AOPA. Not what we expected." He did say he didn't think navworx was shipping ANY units at all at this time.
 
Let's see if they start answering customers emails.

I've been waiting for a response to an unrelated technical issue with my install for about a month now!

Replacing the GPS unit with the one from their 112 and 113 units should solve the issue - so would allowing the continued use of the existing 12 and 13 units when connected to a certified GPS source 4XXW/5XXW or 480's 540's etc.

Still waiting!
 
Crazy

Interesting, so now I understand why I'm not seeing all the traffic. I own a 600 exp. Just the other day two planes flew by me that did not show up on my
ADSB receiver. This is dangerous **** that is going on! So now I know I can't rely on this information. It appears the FAA does not seem to give a hoot they are putting people at risk with this situation. If in fact, Navworx has a solution for its "700" customers to comply with the FAA changes, this needs to happen ASAP! Before someone gets killed relying on incomplete miss information.

Bill if you read this thread, I'm sure your loosing sleep over all of this and I sincerely hope you can sort this out and make good to your customers. Please come up with a plan so we can send these units back and get the correct GPS installed. You can't fight them, join them. Lets fix the units! The 600 exp is a great product and I have loved having traffic in my plane, please keep it going in compliance.
 
Back
Top