What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Navworx price increase

navworx

I have one of the earlier boxes which I have updated to the newer box per Bill since we never could get it to function.My panel is Stein built and the display is a GRT sport which I also upgraded in an attempt to get the unit to function.My unit has been back to Bill four times,I purchased and installed the transmon, and each time we have had different failure points and have been unable to get it to function.Bill feels my IA is damaging the unit during installation.Bill has been helpful and available during installation and trouble shooting,both on the phone and tapping into our laptop.Has anyone been successful in getting there units fully functional .Bill tells me he has several thousand in the field.Bill tells me he will intall the unit If I bring it to him which I will probably do but I am curious what other experiences have been.Please feel free to pm me thanks Jim Also the basic panel is a g900 the Grt was installed specificaly to display the navworx.
 
pilotdds said:
I have one of the earlier boxes which I have updated to the newer box per Bill since we never could get it to function.My panel is Stein built and the display is a GRT sport which I also upgraded in an attempt to get the unit to function.My unit has been back to Bill four times,I purchased and installed the transmon, and each time we have had different failure points and have been unable to get it to function.Bill feels my IA is damaging the unit during installation.Bill has been helpful and available during installation and trouble shooting,both on the phone and tapping into our laptop.Has anyone been successful in getting there units fully functional .Bill tells me he has several thousand in the field.Bill tells me he will intall the unit If I bring it to him which I will probably do but I am curious what other experiences have been.Please feel free to pm me thanks Jim Also the basic panel is a g900 the Grt was installed specificaly to display the navworx.
Click to expand...

I had one of the first generation units. It was problematic until Bill upgraded it to the newer TSO units. It's working fine now, with the exception that it's broadcasting a SIL=0, which is supposed to be changed in the 4.0.6 release due this week. I have AFS screens, so I can't comment on either the Garmin or GRT interface.

It's pretty easy to install. I'm curious, what damage is occurring? Why does Bill think that your IA is causing that damage?
 
Holy cow... sounds like the Navworx unit needs a lot of "work" yet.... glad I'm still waiting.....
 
rv9av8tr said:
Holy cow... sounds like the Navworx unit needs a lot of "work" yet.... glad I'm still waiting.....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. I think that's a misrepresentation.

The software update to address the sil=0 issue is due to recently issued mandate that moves the gps requirement up to January 2016 or they shut the tis feed off to you.

The box has been working great in my RV for almost two years now. It was really nice seeing traffics pop up on my approach plate when I was doing my ipc a few weeks ago.
 
I got my exp unit working. The 3rd version of the software did the trick. It seems to be working correctly now. I wish they had used BNC connectors for e UAT and GPS antennas, but the SMA is better than the TNC used in the ADS600-B.

The software for programming the unit could use a little work, but once it's setup it seems to work the way it should.

In talking to Bill, he said their initial pricing was so cheap that people's reaction compared it to things like the GDL-39 or the Stratus receivers. The main reason for the price increase appears to be customer perception of value. The current price is a good price.
 
for those who are comparing the navworx box and the skyguard box, you must understand the skyguard is still a portable box, as long as the portable box has no installation instructions it remains a portable. Portables are not compliant to the rule.
The Navworx is a remote mounted box, this is ultimately connected to your transponder, this is compliant, either its hardwired to your transponder or using the transmonspe. The rules state ads-b out. this is a UAT out box with UAT in and an option for 1090 in.
This is the most affordable box by far on the market.
Your transponder is your control head.
So if you have no PFD , you still can install this unit. Then take advantage of the ADS-b in capability with your ipad or other portable devices.
 
Got my ups tracking # the exp box is on its way!
Expecting Monday delivery.
Hang in there folks, your box will get to you. I will report back on the install and performance.
 
Got my ups tracking # the exp box is on its way!
Expecting Monday delivery.
Hang in there folks, your box will get to you. I will report back on the install and performance.
 
Updates requested!

Keeping this thread alive.:eek: Looking for as many reviews as possible on this new product. Detailed Info requested on Ease of Installation, Tech support provided, Use of software provided to setup unit, Delivery time since order placed, What Transponder was used, ATC feed back after installation, what you used to see ADSB in, Etc!:confused:
 
I agree, this an excellent one to keep alive. The latest statistics on who is waiting to purchase, who is giving up their plane, who is wondering how experimental will be treated... is just out.
The manufacturers will be doing the delicate balance calculcations of how to make money, stay in business and meet the mandate.... while not losing customers to the competition.
 
I have been trying to be patient, and keep my enthusiasm in check, but I finally broke down and e-mailed for an update (I ordered 2/13/15). Bethany from customer service replied that they were making changes to some of their production services and that I would be receiving my unit at the end of August in the next batch to be shipped then.

I will post when I receive, and also as I install to share my experiences with you all.
 
I ordered 2 on Feb 13 for $699 each.
I emailed July 5 to inquire status of orders.
I received a reply July 6 stating:
"Your orders will ship this month. Could possibly be this week or sometime next week"
Still have not received either unit.
 
600 exp.

I installed mine before I went to Oshkosh. It was a very easy install,
Especially using the transponder coax coupler. I have an older transponder and it took 5 min. To install over existing coax. In this case, the 9 pin d-sub only required 3 wires, positive, ground, and indicator light ground.

I flew with two wingmen and had them on my screen for 1,000 plus miles each way. I use Garmin Pilot with the GDL 39 as an in source. This is hard wired into my Garmin Aera 510 as well as blue toothed to my iPhone. I use the 600 for firing up the towers.

I received it in the mail at 6:30 pm and had it installed by 8:30 including a half hour trip to my plane. Most of the time was involved with installing the UAT stubby antenna ( min 5' away from transponder, min 2' from comm.)

I'm sure you will be equally pleased with the product.
 
Last edited:
We've had one in the -12 for a month now and are still working through some known issues. Bill is responsive to our feedback so far.

It does wake up the towers for traffic (good) but is currently not sending traffic info out the wire to our Garmin (396) correctly. Also, there is an ICAO randomization feature that is doing weird things. Right now, if you squawk 1200 your N number is not recognized by ATC. This is bad if you want to use ADSB-out for tracking on FlightAware or FlightRadar24.

Even with a discrete squawk, the FAA report shows some problems that I have reported to Bill and he is working on the issues.

We also tried it with WingX Pro7 and never saw traffic, weather, or GPS altitude (just lat/long). Bill said this is a known issue and is being addressed.

If/when I hear more I'll post an update here.
 
"Also, there is an ICAO randomization feature that is doing weird things. Right now, if you squawk 1200 your N number is not recognized by ATC."

I thought this is by design with the "stealth mode"?
 
Yes that would be stealth mode(1200), if you ask for flight following and put in your new code, you should be seen correctly as programmed into the box.

My install is all hard wired, getting behind the panel took patience and time. but its all good, read the instructions carefully.
I am wired to my GRT and took a couple trys to get the box and GRT to talk to one another.
All in all it was ok to do. If I were to do it over I would order the transmonspe to make everything easier.
I am waiting for better weather to get out and give her a try.
The simulation seems to work fine.
 
some pics

here are a few pictures, the gps is considered the internal gps, I have it on my glare shield
208im9h.jpg

2z8410l.jpg
 
Flight following

FLightning said:
Yes that would be stealth mode(1200), if you ask for flight following and put in your new code, you should be seen correctly as programmed into the box.

I have requested flight following on numerous occasions and have been assigned a squawk code, also mentioned that
I had a new AdSb unit in my plane and requested feedback from ATC. I was told it was reporting correctly.

The only issue thus far is when squawking 1200 occasionally my tail number comes up on my wingman's AdSb "in" system. Bill is addressing this and will be fixed with the next software update.
Click to expand...
 
The only issue thus far is when squawking 1200 occasionally my tail number comes up on my wingman's AdSb "in" system. Bill is addressing this and will be fixed with the next software update.
Click to expand...

Wait... why wouldn't it? I must be missing something.
 
rv6n6r said:
Wait... why wouldn't it? I must be missing something.
Click to expand...

UAT's support anonymous mode when squawking 1200. In this mode, the aircraft is supposed to have a randomized ICAO code, and in this mode the call sign and flight ID are supposed to be blank.
 
ads600exp after January 2016?

I've got an ads600exp on order and am patiently waiting for it to arrive. With all of the confusion regarding the January 2016 shutoff of noncompliant units, does anyone know if the Navworx will still worx... after January?
 
I have read somewhere that Bill has assured the unit is compliant.
Assuming this, there should be no issue.

Here is an explanation of the 2016 issue copy and pasted from Skyguard forum.

All:
As some of you may recently have learned, the FAA has decided to throw a ?curve ball? to all the ADS-B Transceiver manufactures and their customers. There was a recent notification on the FAA WEB site that states the ADS-B TIS-B Traffic Client policy and methodology will be changed sometime in early 2016. We first learned of this about 3 weeks ago when one of our customers sent me the document. Without getting too technical, what the policy change defines is that any ADS-B transmitter that is currently transmitting with SDA and SIL parameters set to zero will no longer be identified as a TIS-B Traffic Client and the ADS-B ground station towers will no longer transmit that aircrafts surrounding traffic targets back up to that aircrafts ADS-B IN receivers. Of course this was a big shock to us as most all of our Transceivers and Transmitters have SDA and SIL parameters set to zero. This is what the FAA directed us to do over 2 years ago when we first started shipping our products. The intent then was for ATC to see these 2 parameters and knowing they were zero, would not use the ADS-B transmissions for aircraft separation in controlled airspace until we could achieve TSO-C154c certification. Upon TSO certification, we would update these parameters to values indicating a TSO certified unit. Now, according to the FAA, they have done a recent analysis and found that approx. 40% of the aircraft containing ADS-B Transmitters are flying with incorrectly installed or incorrectly configured ADS-B units. We believe the FAA enacted this policy change to force pilots to correct their installation/configuration. Unfortunately, SkyGuardTWX has gotten caught up in this new policy. Upon learning of this information, I immediately called my contacts within the FAA Washington office to understand why this was being done. As I suspected, the FAA is cracking down on aircraft with improperly installed/configured ADS-B Transmitters. And they are using the TIS-B traffic service as leverage to force corrections. Of course I had further conversations with the FAA to help develop a plan for our existing customers to continue to receive TIS-B client services while we continue to work on our TSO certification. After much discussion, the FAA is going to allow us to use an ?alternate? GPS position source where we can set the SDA and SIL parameters to numbers greater than zero but NOT as a fully TSO?d position source. This GPS is ?rule compliant? with 5hz position updates and will support both an internal active antenna as well as an externally mounted active antenna. This will allow our units to continue to receive TIS-B traffic client services after the enacted policy change. Unfortunately, this will require most of our customers to send back their units for a GPS swap and firmware update. Even though, we consider this issue as caused by the FAA reneging on their original directions to us, we want to support our customers as much as possible, so we have decided to split the cost of the GPS hardware with our customers. The customer pays half and we pay half of the GPS and associated parts cost, and we perform the upgrade for no labor costs. The cost of the GPS and parts is approx. $100, so our customers would pay $50 plus their return shipping costs. We will pay for the remaining $50 in parts, perform the labor to install it, and the shipping cost to get the updated units back to our customers. We fully intend to pursue the TSO-C154c certification using this ?alternate GPS?. One thing I want to be perfectly clear on is this ?alternate GPS? has not been TSO certified by the FAA and therefore there is some possibility that another GPS swap might be required to meet the overall TSO-C154c certification requirement at a later date. When it comes to the FAA, one can never be sure what will change!
We will soon be contacting our customers in groups and notifying them of this GPS update so they can send in their units. The FAA has ?assured me? this TIS-B policy change will happen no sooner than Jan 1, 2016 and could be later until it is actually implemented. Please remember that we have approx. 300 affected units in the field that could be updated so it will take all our resources to get this done prior to Jan 1, 2016. If any customers do not want to take advantage of this update, then their Transceivers will still operate as ADS-B IN receivers. Thank you for your patience with us and your support of SkyGuardTWX products.
Sincerely,
Don Houtz
SkyGuardTWX
 
Un-Stealth

agirard7a said:
"Also, there is an ICAO randomization feature that is doing weird things. Right now, if you squawk 1200 your N number is not recognized by ATC."

I thought this is by design with the "stealth mode"?
Click to expand...

We are aware of the randomization and are requesting a feature to turn it off for 1200. We want to be tracked. My point was that, for non-1200 squawks, the box does not always correctly broadcast the ICAO info. I've reported this to Bill along with the detailed FAA report that anyone can request with an email to [email protected] with your N number in the subject line.
 
Navworx 600EXP

Purchased mine in Feb, still no delivery, no reply to telephone messages and e-mails requesting delivery info (for the last few weeks).
 
I spoke with the owner this week

I called this week to find out the status of my -EXP order and Bill answered the phone. My order was made the end of May. Apparently their manufacturing has been down recently while they install a new pick and place machine for the surface mount process.

Essentially he stated that, up until a couple of months ago their volumes were very low. Then "AOPA came out and said 'now is the time' and the order book became huge" (paraphrased)

As a result of that conversation, and some considerable and often painful experience I have as an avionics product manager, I am not expecting imminent delivery of my Navworx unit. In my case I won't do the install until my panel retrofit later in the Fall or Winter, which may work out well with the delivery schedule. This box is doing a lot of things, and Lord knows I don't want to be anywhere near the front of the line anyway.
 
My frustration with Navworx is that I think most of us would be very accommodating if Bill would just be more transparent with reasons for the delays. Instead he treats most of us like mushrooms, unless you are fortunate to catch him on the phone, which is a catch-22. If he's answering the phone and emails, he's not getting product out the door.

Of course constantly over committing doesn't help either.

I think he makes great products, he just is having growing pain issues and having problems keeping everyone well informed. Hopefully he didn't process all the credit card transactions until units shipped.

It appears that he's addressing the manufacturing throughput issue with new equipment, which will take some time to implement new processes. He's also late on 4.0.6, which he stated would ship before OSH to address the FAA Jan 16 changes.

A short blog update on his web site would make folks much more understanding.
 
Bill has been fairly open in discussions we have had. He is probably a little too optimistic on time frame. I catch him on the phone from time to time, but I have also received returned calls from him. He told me they should be producing again very soon, and once they fill a big order to Avidyne, they will be putting out the -EXP units. This is from a week ago, so I don't know the current status. He did say that orders came in much faster than expected, so they had to get the new equipment to keep up with demand.

It does make me wish companies would wait until they have stock on the shelves before they announce, but at the same time, look at Van's with the -14 kits, Icon, etc. At least, if you got your order placed back when they were $699, you will get your unit for that price. Icon told their first orders that they would get the plane for $100,000ish if they put it all down, then used that $ to develop, then told them at Oshkosh that they got to pay full price (or something along those lines).
 
Jesse said:
It does make me wish companies would wait until they have stock on the shelves before they announce, ).
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Unfortunately, this sems to be the rule rather than the exception.
And as long as people send these companies money for products that don't actually exist on the shelf, the problem will continue. (What did Pogo say?)
 
Certified WAAS GPS?

Can someone here help me (and perhaps others), understand what the difference is between the Navworx ADSB600 and ADSB600-EXP. Box size is a lot different so what's different inside that is should matter to me and the Feds?

Also, Pacific Coast Avionics tells me that for ADSB units to be fully 2020 compliant, the units must use a CERTIFED WAAS GPS. Navworx website indicates the units have WAAS GPS, well... so does my GRT EFIS... but it's not CERTIFIED.. GRT is building a box that will make their WAAS certified... for another ~$600.

So the question is, is the Navworx internal GPS actually a certified WAAS?
 
First, WAAS has nothing to do with anything in ADS-B. As pilots we got used to WAAS as a big deal because Garmin updated their GPS' from non-WAAS to WAAS and called them the 430W and 530W. These new units could do precision approaches, and everyone associated that with WAAS. The reality is they were designed under a whole new TSO, which WAAS allowed them to meet, but was not required. Your cell phone has WAAS. It's not the thing that makes a GPS aviation legal.

What ADS-B needs is a GPS device of sufficient accuracy and integrity. Now WAAS is one of the technologies that allows that at a reasonable cost, but you need a lot more than just WAAS, and it is also possible to build an ADS-B legal GPS without WAAS.

Nothing in an experimental needs to be certified. However, a few things need to "meet the performance requirements in the TSO." Those would be your transponder, your GPS navigator if used as primary navigation in IFR, and your ADS-B OUT system. The system is both the ADS-B transmitter and the GPS position source.

The FAA made this very clear. They updated the FAR in Febuary with a statement that no TSO or other certification was needed. This doesn't mean you can use anything you want. Check out the FAA's FAQ on ADS-B installs:

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/

Specifically, it says:

The ADS-B Out equipment installed in an aircraft must meet the performance requirements of the ADS-B TSOs. A TSO authorization, issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21 subpart O, is not required. However, ADS-B Out systems and equipment installed or used in type-certificated aircraft must have a design approval issued under 14 CFR 21 (or must be installed by field approval, if appropriate).

The performance requirements include those requirements referenced in section 3 of the applicable TSO (UAT or 1090ES), including considerations for design assurance and environmental qualification. Deviations to the requirements can be approved for equipment which does obtain a TSO authorization, as identified in 14 CFR 91.227.

For experimental category aircraft there is no FAA approval required for the ADS-B Out system installation. Owners of these aircraft may elect to install equipment authorized under a TSO, in accordance with the installation instructions provided by the manufacturer. Alternatively, owners of these aircraft may elect to purchase uncertified equipment. For uncertified equipment, the owner should obtain a statement of compliance from the supplier, along with installation instructions, that identifies that the ADS-B equipment complies with section 3 requirements of the applicable TSO and that, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions, complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227. The FAA expects manufacturers to perform appropriate engineering efforts to ensure the equipment complies with all requirements of Section 3 of the TSO before issuing their statement of compliance, and expects installers to consider the guidance in the current version of AC 20-165 when performing the installation.

Owners of experimental aircraft should retain the statement of compliance from the equipment supplier in the aircraft records to assist in resolving in-service issues, should they arise. The FAA monitors compliance to the ADS-B Out requirements, and if the equipment, or an installation, is determined to be noncompliant the operator may not be able to enter the airspace designated in 14 CFR 91.225 until the equipment or installation is brought into compliance.
Click to expand...

The FAA expects manufacturers to provide a clear install manual, and state that if installed as instructed, the system is compliant with all performance requirements in the 91.227 and the TSO. Without that, there's no way for you to have any idea that it complies. Even with that, tn the end, it's up to you, the installer to decide if the information provided is sufficient to be legal. Note that this doesn't say it just needs to transmit a SIL of 3 and SDA of 2. It needs to have actually been fully tested and verified to comply, and the company needs to be willing to provide a statement as of such, in lieu of a TSO from the FAA.

As per an EFIS system adding a $600 GPS position sensor that makes the system legal for IFR navigation, Dynon has a statement on the feasibility of this, which you might want to read. The issue is not the "GPS" it's the rest of the system which also has to meet all the requirements:

http://dynonavionics.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1362597418

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics
 
IMHO Ian's post is one of the clearest and correct statement concerning the FAA's position on "certified" - that is, equipment which must meet the standards of a TSO (although not necessarily carry a TSO) that I have read.
 
Thanks Ian, that's very enlightening. This whole ADSB "Compliance" bit makes my head swim! Now I wonder why PCA told me the GPS WAAS signal had to be "certified" for compliance. Oh my aching head.....
 
rv9av8tr said:
Thanks Ian, that's very enlightening. This whole ADSB "Compliance" bit makes my head swim! Now I wonder why PCA told me the GPS WAAS signal had to be "certified" for compliance. Oh my aching head.....
Click to expand...

Because certified means guaranteed compliance, otherwise the onus of compliance is still on the operator/installer, take careful note what Ian said:

"The FAA expects manufacturers to provide a clear install manual, and state that if installed as instructed, the system is compliant with all performance requirements in the 91.227 and the TSO. Without that, there's no way for you to have any idea that it complies. Even with that, in the end, it's up to you, the installer to decide if the information provided is sufficient to be legal."
 
FAA FAQ page

Walt,

Regarding "Even with that, in the end, it's up to you, the installer to decide if the information provided is sufficient to be legal.""

In looking at the FAA website, that onus is not placed upon the installer. Rather the onus is upon the installer to consider the guidance of the Advisory Circular, which essentially is a "best practices" document. Here is the text. . .

"The FAA expects manufacturers to perform appropriate engineering efforts to ensure the equipment complies with all requirements of Section 3 of the TSO before issuing their statement of compliance, and expects installers to consider the guidance in the current version of AC 20-165 when performing the installation."

Reference: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/#q4

Is there another document you are referencing?

John Allen
RV6A
 
John,
The issue is that the FAR says:

(b) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL and in airspace described in paragraph (d) of this section unless the aircraft has equipment installed that--

(1) Meets the requirements in--

(i) TSO-C166b; or

(ii) TSO-C154c, Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipment Operating on the Frequency of 978 MHz;

(2) Meets the requirements of Sec. 91.227.
Click to expand...

Note that the FAR does not say "that they think meets the requirements of..." or "no manufacturer shall allow an operator to operate..."

The FAA has the authority to ask you why you flew into an area with the equipment in the airplane, and what data you had to back it up. The FAR doesn't say anything about the manufacturer. In an experimental, it's always up to you to do the verification that the equipment you install is FAR legal.

In the end, things are not 100% documented for experimental aircraft and ADS-B. The FAA is coming out with a revision of AC 90-114 which will make it clearer what you can install and with what documentation you will be covered by. Since Dynon has been helping draft this language, I can tell you it's basically what is above on the FAA ADS-B FAQ page.
 
Last edited:
AC 20-165 ADSB

IMHO, I would be shocked if 1% of EAB bulders/pilots can read AC 20-165 with enough understanding to be able to attest to installation compliance of an ADSB box. I mean really.... you have to be lawyer and an EE.... geezzz. There is so much technicaleze in that AC the FAA could bowl over any self-installer where it comes to claiming "compliance". I'm finding this ADSB business frustrating, disheartening, and deep muddy waters.

What are we EAB guys to do.... invest $1500 in a box and "hope for the best" without a definable solution?? Spending $3,000 for labor alone by an avionics shop is not an acceptable answer either. But I rant.....
 
dynonsupport said:
John,

In the end, things are not 100% documented for experimental aircraft and ADS-B. The FAA is coming out with a revision of AC 90-114 which will make it clearer what you can install and with what documentation you will be covered by. Since Dynon has been helping draft this language, I can tell you it's basically what is above on the FAA ADS-B FAQ page.
Click to expand...

The new FAA way:

Step 1: Install now!
Step 2: Now we'll tell you how to do step one.

this whole thing reminds me of an old MASH episode, defusing a bomb:
Step 1: cut the red wire
Step 2: Cut the blue wire
Step 3: But first,...
 
I really appreciate you taking the time to respond. It's nice to have knowledgable folks weigh in.

It would seem at the point the FAA inspector started asking those questions I would refer to my installation manual with the manufacturer's certification and effectively say "I have relied upon the work of a qualified engineering team to determine that my ADS-B receiver meets the performance requirements of the TSO. In the absence of getting an engineering degree and outfitting my own lab, that's the best I can do."

In my mind that's a fair argument, but the FAA is who they are, and they will say yes or no. If the answer is "no" they will likely ground me until I can put a TSO'd receiver in. I'll be out a grand or so and the time to do the install. If there's a 5% chance of that worst-case scenario happening then the estimated cost of that decision is $50. That's significantly less than the incremental cost of a TSO'd box.

Of course, it's entirely possible I've misunderstood your point. I see your moniker is "dynonsupport", and of course an equipment manufacturer or installer would have a completely different take due to the liability issue of certifying "non-TSO'd" equipment as compliant. It's just that for me, this seems a comparatively small risk.

John Allen
RV6A
 
fliier said:
Walt,

Regarding "Even with that, in the end, it's up to you, the installer to decide if the information provided is sufficient to be legal.""

In looking at the FAA website, that onus is not placed upon the installer. Rather the onus is upon the installer to consider the guidance of the Advisory Circular, which essentially is a "best practices" document. Here is the text. . .

"The FAA expects manufacturers to perform appropriate engineering efforts to ensure the equipment complies with all requirements of Section 3 of the TSO before issuing their statement of compliance, and expects installers to consider the guidance in the current version of AC 20-165 when performing the installation."

Reference: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/#q4

Is there another document you are referencing?

John Allen
RV6A
Click to expand...

Well the "installer" can mean many things, the average builder can plead ignorance if he installed a non conforming box and may be told you're grounded till you fix it. But in my case as an FAA repair station they could come back to me and ask what "approved installation data" I used for a particular installation. If I installed non TSO'd ADS-B equipment that didn't comply with the FAR's I can see where that could get very sticky for me.

Notice in the section you quoted above it is referring only to TSO'd equipment so they "assume" the equipment is TSO'd.
 
Last edited:
The FAA did recognize that there was a deficiency in guidance for EAB and LSA aircraft and has been working to correct that. They plan to have the guidance out by 2016 (last I heard) which gives everyone 4 years to comply.

The simplest path to compliance is going to be to buy a complete solution (ADS-B OUT and GPS) from a reputable manufacturer who will give you a statement of compliance, or a system which has a combination of equipment that has been STC'd.

As you might know, the recent work has allowed Navworx, Dynon, and Garmin to release lower cost products that comply with the rules, so it's not all bad. The FAA really is working to come up with guidance that both stays within the spirit and cost of E-AB and LSA while also supporting the safety level they need for ADS-B.

As a note, the current rev of the guidance actually says that the *manufacturer* should reference AC 20-165 when designing their install guide, not the individual installer.
 
Navworx 600 exp

According to the install manual for the 600exp:

1.3 Regulatory Compliance
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.

As well, according to Bill Moffitt at Navworx. "The ADS600-EXP is 2020 compliant"
 
Last edited:
All right you guys... I just "pulled the trigger" on the EXP.
"Compliant participation" here we come......
 
Dont hold your breath...

The real trick is actually getting an EXP box delivered before 2020. I've been waiting since March.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top