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.


Go Back   VAF Forums > Avionics / Interiors / Fiberglass > ADS-B
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #691  
Old 11-04-2017, 07:58 AM
DavidBunin DavidBunin is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Are we assured that uAvionics is approved by FAA and will not bite us again?
uAvionics only produces products for drones, light sport, and experimental aircraft. None of their products are certified by the FAA, although they are rumored to be working on approval for certified aircraft.

With the exception of the NavWorx ADS600-EXP, the FAA appears to be content to ignore that experimental aircraft use experimental avionics products.

At the price levels given, there is no way that uAvionics products contain a TSO-certified GPS. But then, the regulations don't require TSO certification, just TSO-like performance. But we all see how well that worked out for NavWorx.
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 11-04-2017, 08:11 AM
maus92 maus92 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidBunin View Post
uAvionics only produces products for drones, light sport, and experimental aircraft. None of their products are certified by the FAA, although they are rumored to be working on approval for certified aircraft.

With the exception of the NavWorx ADS600-EXP, the FAA appears to be content to ignore that experimental aircraft use experimental avionics products.

At the price levels given, there is no way that uAvionics products contain a TSO-certified GPS. But then, the regulations don't require TSO certification, just TSO-like performance. But we all see how well that worked out for NavWorx.
Sounds like uAvionics documented their engineering, and plays well with the FAA. Something to be said for that approach.
__________________
CA
2000 RV-8A | O-360, SDS CPI, FP, G3X Touch, VP-X, EarthX | Eastern Shore | KESN
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 11-05-2017, 11:43 AM
GordonR GordonR is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Elkton, MD
Posts: 19
Default uAvionics echoUAT and the FAA

This is a call to FAA-savvy readers to comment on the suitability and acceptance by FAA of the uAvionics ADS-B equipment, and to compare and contrast with the NavWorx 600-EXP.

The uAvionics echoUAT documentation contains this information:

"The echoUAT meets the Minimum Operational Performance Standards of DO-282B Class B1S and meets the performance requirements of TSO-C154c. It complies with the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225(b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B Out in the National Airspace System for devices meeting the performance of TSO_C154c. Accordingly, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions fo this guide, the device complies with the aircraft requirement of 14 CFR 91.227"

.. then it goes on to say

"The equipment contains FCC ID 2AFFTUAT016 and is marked on the equipment nameplate.
The equipmenet also contains FCC ID 2ADUIESP-12 and is marked on the equipment nameplate"

Even though as DavidBunin points out it is not TSO'ed, it seems to me that the FAA has blessed their implementation. Is that how more knowledgeable folks read it?

By way of comparison, the NavWorx equivalent statements in their documentation were:

"The ADS600-EXP UAT complies with section 3 requirements of TSO-C154c and when installed in accordance with the installation instructions of this document complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227.

1.3.1 FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization.
This equipment has been issued an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization. The FCC ID is marked on the equipment nameplate."

Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? So how do we gauge the FAA acceptance of the uAvionics equipment?
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 11-05-2017, 11:57 AM
flightlogic's Avatar
flightlogic flightlogic is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 1,636
Default strength of wifi

A member wrote to me asking if the uAvionix wifi would reach behind a rear bulkhead. I really don't know how strong the wifi is. Anybody got any ideas?
__________________
"Kindness is never a bad plan."

exemption option waived. Donation appropriate.
Reply With Quote
  #695  
Old 11-05-2017, 12:03 PM
recapen recapen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Laurel, DE
Posts: 360
Default

Meeting the performance and meeting the standards without the actual certification is what got NavWorx in trouble in the first place. The certified NavWorx units were never in question by the FAA. The EXP units (along with the -0012 and -0013 devices), without a certified position source were deemed to start with non-SIL=3 - which was OK as long as the FAA was broadcasting to non-SIL=3! - then the FAA said "No SIL=3 - no data"...

Has the SIL for this UNIT been approved at 3 and is that in writing from the FAA to the vendor?

I would suggest that the same potential for the FAA changing its mind at a later time could put these folks in the same place. The SIL requirement change is what bit NavWorx - I would make sure that this gear meets the SIL requirements and have that in writing from the FAA to this vendor!

Bitten once - now aware of what and how things are written.

Not disparaging any other products out there as it sounds like this is good gear and functionality - just like the NavWorx boxes...just asking if their i's are dotted and their t's are crossed!
__________________
Ralph E. Capen
RV6AQB N822AR @ N06
"Patience"

Last edited by recapen : 11-05-2017 at 12:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 11-05-2017, 08:10 PM
Fred.Stucklen's Avatar
Fred.Stucklen Fred.Stucklen is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brooksville, FL
Posts: 386
Default Sill value

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonR View Post
This is a call to FAA-savvy readers to comment on the suitability and acceptance by FAA of the uAvionics ADS-B equipment, and to compare and contrast with the NavWorx 600-EXP.

The uAvionics echoUAT documentation contains this information:

"The echoUAT meets the Minimum Operational Performance Standards of DO-282B Class B1S and meets the performance requirements of TSO-C154c. It complies with the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225(b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B Out in the National Airspace System for devices meeting the performance of TSO_C154c. Accordingly, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions fo this guide, the device complies with the aircraft requirement of 14 CFR 91.227"

.. then it goes on to say

"The equipment contains FCC ID 2AFFTUAT016 and is marked on the equipment nameplate.
The equipmenet also contains FCC ID 2ADUIESP-12 and is marked on the equipment nameplate"

Even though as DavidBunin points out it is not TSO'ed, it seems to me that the FAA has blessed their implementation. Is that how more knowledgeable folks read it?

By way of comparison, the NavWorx equivalent statements in their documentation were:

"The ADS600-EXP UAT complies with section 3 requirements of TSO-C154c and when installed in accordance with the installation instructions of this document complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227.

1.3.1 FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization.
This equipment has been issued an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization. The FCC ID is marked on the equipment nameplate."

Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? So how do we gauge the FAA acceptance of the uAvionics equipment?
So I have to ask, What is the transmitted SIL value of the EchoUAT-KL5 that is being offered up as a NavWorx ADS600-EXP unit? I have not seen it advertised anywhere.
__________________
Fred Stucklen
wstucklen1@cox.net
RV-7A N924RV Flying (1865 Hrs & counting)
RV-6A N926RV 875 Hrs (Sold)
RV-6A N925RV 2008 Hrs (Sold)

2021 Contribution done
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 11-06-2017, 05:49 AM
JBPILOT JBPILOT is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Jesup, Iowa
Posts: 1,673
Default Got my report day one - -

3 3 3 3 3 ( for enough info )
__________________
John Bender
Flying RV-12 - Serial #120036
Paid in May ( 5-2020 )
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 11-06-2017, 05:54 AM
rleffler's Avatar
rleffler rleffler is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, OH (KDLZ)
Posts: 4,225
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonR View Post
This is a call to FAA-savvy readers to comment on the suitability and acceptance by FAA of the uAvionics ADS-B equipment, and to compare and contrast with the NavWorx 600-EXP.

The uAvionics echoUAT documentation contains this information:

"The echoUAT meets the Minimum Operational Performance Standards of DO-282B Class B1S and meets the performance requirements of TSO-C154c. It complies with the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225(b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B Out in the National Airspace System for devices meeting the performance of TSO_C154c. Accordingly, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions fo this guide, the device complies with the aircraft requirement of 14 CFR 91.227"

.. then it goes on to say

"The equipment contains FCC ID 2AFFTUAT016 and is marked on the equipment nameplate.
The equipmenet also contains FCC ID 2ADUIESP-12 and is marked on the equipment nameplate"

Even though as DavidBunin points out it is not TSO'ed, it seems to me that the FAA has blessed their implementation. Is that how more knowledgeable folks read it?

By way of comparison, the NavWorx equivalent statements in their documentation were:

"The ADS600-EXP UAT complies with section 3 requirements of TSO-C154c and when installed in accordance with the installation instructions of this document complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227.

1.3.1 FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization.
This equipment has been issued an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization. The FCC ID is marked on the equipment nameplate."

Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? So how do we gauge the FAA acceptance of the uAvionics equipment?
The short answer is that you can't. For EAB aircraft, the vendors can self certify. This means that the FAA will trust them until proven otherwise, which was Navworx's demise. Even Navworx was burned by a vendor that misrepresented their product to Navworx.

Caveat Emptor.......

The good news is that the community is pretty small and is very self policing. Unfortunately, that doesn't protect early adopters of their products.
__________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - RV10 Flying
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 08-05-2018, 09:44 PM
GalinHdz's Avatar
GalinHdz GalinHdz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: KSGJ / TJBQ
Posts: 2,165
Default

The fallout from this unfortunate situation continues for many. VAF NAVWORX bankruptcy thread.
__________________
Galin
CP-ASEL-AMEL-IR
FCC Radiotelephone (PG) with Radar Endorsement
2020 Donation made
www.PuertoRicoFlyer.com
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 11:22 AM.


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.