October 2 2017
Today I called the NavWorx technical department and talked about the FAA AD on the ADS600-EXP unit. This is a summary of my conversation.
NavWorx is caught up by the FAA which claims that the Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) in their internal GPS receiver is inadequate. Never mind that the NavWorx unit has passed every accuracy test, the FAA contention is that in some apocalyptic situation with sunspots or military interference or whatever, the system might be using corrupted GPS data without the RAIM being able to detect that. The result is that the Signal Integrity Level (SIL,) which is an ADS-B (Out) broadcast data byte, is insufficient. If the SIL were to be set appropriately (according to the FAA) to 0, it would block traffic and weather from being received making the ?IN virtually useless. The FAA has issued an AD which applies to the experimental version as well as to the certified version.
NavWorx issued a Service Bulletin http://www.navworx.com/ServiceBulletinEXP060000.pdf which instructed owners of the ADS600-EXP to download software 6.0.0 or 7.0.0. The bulletin also states that 7.0.0 requires an external GPS receiver part number 200-8112. As of the date of this writing, neither the software nor the GPS receiver is listed on the NavWorx website. I called the NavWorx technical department to sort all this out.
I was directed to the website www.dallasavionics.com (apparently one of the installation arms of NavWorx) where we can order the external GPS. It is $299.00 and will be produced in a limited production run and only available until Dec 1 2017. A purchaser will not be charged until it is shipped. The GPS module will not require any additional wiring changes and will be "Daisy Chained in Series" with the existing system using existing ADS600-EXP system wiring and connectors. I was advised to place the order early.
The software is not released yet, even though the bulletin says that it is available on the NavWorx website. That website is really messed up with links pointing all over the place and at least two pages nearly identical to each other. I was told that the author of the website is trying to extricate himself from the effects of Hurricane Irma in Florida.
What happens if we don?t do this? Well, probably nothing unless we are ramp-checked or have some other verification test. But we will not be in compliance until this is done.
Before I spend another $300 on my system, I would appreciate thoughts and inputs from others in the same situation.
GordonR
Is there a date from which -EXP units sold new will be in compliance as delivered? The email that Bob posted states that new -EXP units will have a new part number, and implies that the new part number units will be in compliance as delivered.
What is unclear is whether those new units will include the daisy-chained external certified GPS source which is being developed as a remedy for the existing units, or whether there will be a new design that will incorporate the new certified GPS source internally? If external, will it be bundled in the purchase price, or sold separately?
Hopefully, this means that they got their AMOC approved - make sure you get a copy of it and comply with the local FSDO notification. Keep a copy with your airframe logbook - along with the actual AD...in case you ever get ramp-checked!
looks like we have been lead on by NavWorx for some time.
I'm caught in the middle of an install of a certified ADS600-B with GNS-430W against an AMOC. Best I can tell, the install is fully certified, but with the web site down I can't get the UAT software. Anybody have an alternate way of getting it?
All you need is the current version (4.1.0) of the UAT software. You don't need 5.0 for the AMOC. However, if we can get our hands on 5.0, the AMOC does cover any subsequent versions.
Now that Bill has shuttered his business. Any of the beta testers of 5.0 want to share the code? Feel free to contact me via email (it's linked in my userid above this message)
My 600-EXP has worked fine for nearly 3 years so I still find it hard to understand what the problem is. I strongly believe that if the FAA is going to mandate that we install new equipment tom comply with their NexRad program, then they also have a responsibility to that we have the necessary information, (which units they actually approve for use) so the end user can make an educated/informed decision before purchasing. Navworx hasn't been working in a vacuum or selling on the "Dark Web". The FAA new they were providing a product that was advertised as "2020 compliant" but did nothing until the AD to inform operators of a problem.
Rick Gilbride
RV6
Here?s my take on the Navworx issue. The fact that an ADS-B unit gets a passing report has nothing to do with meeting the requirements. The report shows that it is reporting an SIL of 3 and an SDA of 2. It also shows the percentage of dropouts and things like that. It does not know the accuracy, just hat it reports the accuracy of the SIL and SDA levels. What Navworx did is certify their GPS chip at a lower accuracy, then when the FAA changed their requirements fto wake up the ground stations (end of 2015 IIRC), Navworx changed their software to the higher SIL to continue waking up the ground stations. This was the main beef with the FAA, or at least the beginning of it. If you report these accuracy levels, the report will show compliance, whether you are in compliance or not.
The certified units ar stated to be in compliance with the TSO paperwork.
My problem with this situation is that the Navworx unit may have meet the accuracy requirements, even though it wasn?t TSOed to that level. The -EXP box reported the higher SIL and SDA, but the rule said hat they had to meet the accuracy requirements of the TSO, not actually be TSOed. Navworx states that it met those requirements, so to recall the via the AD, the FAA should have (and may have) tested the GPS chip to establish that it, in fact, did NOT meet the accuracy requirement. Otherwise, based on heir rule, there was no basis for he AD on that unit. This problem is compounded because the -EXP doesn?t have an option for an external GPS input. A lot of people have the -EXP box with a GTN or GNSW unit that could provide the compliant position, but they have no way to connect the two units. I would have to read the AD again to remember the details, but if you are using the -EXP as ADS-B In, you should still be able to do this, but will need to disable the Out, if this is possible. That was the real benefit of the Navworx units, they provided In and Out for the cost of other options that were just Out.
For all of the ADS600-B units, if there is a position source listed in the AD or fitting with the Global AMOCS, the only cost to comply is running the wire(s) and sending in he paperwork if/as required by the local FSDO.
My main question at this point would be, is there a way that the FAA can tell if you have a NavWorx box outputting the UAT? I?m not condoning using this method any more than I am condoning the ignoring of any AD, but I am wondering. For example, my main fear of User Fees for GA is that people are going to start flying IFR without being in the system to avoid the fees. This is illegal, but it will happen. That is another issue, but the FAA can?t police that except in cases of accidents (which there will certainly be more of), which would be the same case with non-compliant Navworx boxes, unless they have a way of knowing what box is outputting the UAT signal. Again, I do NOT condone this, but it will be done, both deliberately and out of ignorance. Many mechanics, both A&P and Repairmen, don?t check AD?s on experimentales, and are not aware of the NavWorx AD, so there will continue to be aircraft flying non-compliant units well into the future. Just like the Cherokee that I did an annual on that had an AD 25 years ago hat had never been complied with, that took 3 minutes to inspect for compliance. It had just never been done.
It would be nice if someone could make a piggyback box that would provide a simple input for a compliant source.
I just installed a Navworx ADS600B to a 430W via AMOC but have yet to do the logbook entry. There was an example on another thread but the link is broken now. Can anyone post or link to a logbook entry for a Navworx ADS600B installed via an AMOC? I can try to reinvent it but the one linked was better than what I would have written.
Eric
For that matter, does anyone know where I can get a copy of the 4.1.0 software? Mine is about 3 years old but I never updated because it was working fine and the whole unit was about to go into Dallas Avionics for the position source upgrade. (my console version is 4.0.3, is that tied to the UAT software version?)
FWIW, I might still have bought my Navworx back in 2009 even knowing what I know now. I got a decade of weather and traffic that I would not have otherwise gotten. I will still probably meet an AMOC with some sort of external position source for not too much extra $$. I appreciate guys like Bill giving a go at being on the cutting edge.
Jesse,
What do you recommend for a replacement unit for the ADS
-600EXP unit?
I had the transmon and discontinued using it in favor of hard wire for more reliable transmissions.Is anybody out there using the TransMon with a GTX-327? I?m having trouble getting it to talk. Anybody have any TransMon advice?
Here?s my take on the Navworx issue. The fact that an ADS-B unit gets a passing report has nothing to do with meeting the requirements. The report shows that it is reporting an SIL of 3 and an SDA of 2. It also shows the percentage of dropouts and things like that. It does not know the accuracy, just hat it reports the accuracy of the SIL and SDA levels. What Navworx did is certify their GPS chip at a lower accuracy, then when the FAA changed their requirements fto wake up the ground stations (end of 2015 IIRC), Navworx changed their software to the higher SIL to continue waking up the ground stations. This was the main beef with the FAA, or at least the beginning of it. If you report these accuracy levels, the report will show compliance, whether you are in compliance or not.
The certified units ar stated to be in compliance with the TSO paperwork.
My problem with this situation is that the Navworx unit may have meet the accuracy requirements, even though it wasn?t TSOed to that level. The -EXP box reported the higher SIL and SDA, but the rule said hat they had to meet the accuracy requirements of the TSO, not actually be TSOed. Navworx states that it met those requirements, so to recall the via the AD, the FAA should have (and may have) tested the GPS chip to establish that it, in fact, did NOT meet the accuracy requirement. Otherwise, based on heir rule, there was no basis for he AD on that unit. This problem is compounded because the -EXP doesn?t have an option for an external GPS input. A lot of people have the -EXP box with a GTN or GNSW unit that could provide the compliant position, but they have no way to connect the two units. I would have to read the AD again to remember the details, but if you are using the -EXP as ADS-B In, you should still be able to do this, but will need to disable the Out, if this is possible. That was the real benefit of the Navworx units, they provided In and Out for the cost of other options that were just Out.
For all of the ADS600-B units, if there is a position source listed in the AD or fitting with the Global AMOCS, the only cost to comply is running the wire(s) and sending in he paperwork if/as required by the local FSDO.
My main question at this point would be, is there a way that the FAA can tell if you have a NavWorx box outputting the UAT? I?m not condoning using this method any more than I am condoning the ignoring of any AD, but I am wondering. For example, my main fear of User Fees for GA is that people are going to start flying IFR without being in the system to avoid the fees. This is illegal, but it will happen. That is another issue, but the FAA can?t police that except in cases of accidents (which there will certainly be more of), which would be the same case with non-compliant Navworx boxes, unless they have a way of knowing what box is outputting the UAT signal. Again, I do NOT condone this, but it will be done, both deliberately and out of ignorance. Many mechanics, both A&P and Repairmen, don?t check AD?s on experimentales, and are not aware of the NavWorx AD, so there will continue to be aircraft flying non-compliant units well into the future. Just like the Cherokee that I did an annual on that had an AD 25 years ago hat had never been complied with, that took 3 minutes to inspect for compliance. It had just never been done.
It would be nice if someone could make a piggyback box that would provide a simple input for a compliant source.
I just installed a Navworx ADS600B to a 430W via AMOC but have yet to do the logbook entry. There was an example on another thread but the link is broken now. Can anyone post or link to a logbook entry for a Navworx ADS600B installed via an AMOC? I can try to reinvent it but the one linked was better than what I would have written.
Eric