Update navworx adsb boxes

Use this area for aviation related general discussions, newsworthy items, and non model specific topics.

Update navworx adsb boxes

Postby WaiexN143NM » Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:16 pm

Hi all,
Have you seen the recent article on www.avweb.com about the spat between navworx and the FAA?
Well you know who will win this one. Bizzare . And sad for us navworx owners.

WaiexN143NM
Michael
WaiexN143NM
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:04 am
Location: SF CA, Tucson AZ

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes

Postby intoaircooled » Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:50 pm

Yes very sad, I have a "certified" unit install in my Cessna. Can't get anyone at Navworx to pickup the phone. Not a good sign.
Carl Benda
A&P
Intoaircooled Engines
Barn find Sonex 048 AeroVee 2.1 Turbo
intoaircooled
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:57 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes

Postby Gripdana » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:43 am

I was able to get them by email. This is a bummer since I received my EXP just prior to the notice. I thought an AD could/would not cover any equipment or aircraft that is experimental. That said it is also my understanding that the ADS-B equipment for experimental only needs to meet and perform to the standards of the ruling. So if the internal GPS in question performs to the standards, the EXP should be excluded from the proposed AD.
Dana Baker
Scratch Built
First Flight March 8, 2015
Sonex #1534 - N1534S "Aluminum Foil"
Aerovee-Dual Controls-Tail Dragger
Gripdana
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:59 pm

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes

Postby fastj22 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:35 pm

Gripdana wrote:I was able to get them by email. This is a bummer since I received my EXP just prior to the notice. I thought an AD could/would not cover any equipment or aircraft that is experimental. That said it is also my understanding that the ADS-B equipment for experimental only needs to meet and perform to the standards of the ruling. So if the internal GPS in question performs to the standards, the EXP should be excluded from the proposed AD.

Here's where it might be a sticky wicket.
"The FAA said it is concerned that two versions of the company’s ADS600-B units may contain an internal GPS chip that does not meet the FAA’s minimum performance standards for transmitting an aircraft’s accurate location."
If the chip doesn't meet minimum performance standards, its not qualified even for EXP.

It also is reminiscent of Jabiru's run in with CASA. Jabiru didn't respond well to CASA's inquiries and they came down hard on them.

John Gillis
Waiex N116YX, Jabiru 3300, Tail dragger, SkyGuard ADS-B
First flight, 3/16/2013. 350+ hours and climbing.
Home: CO15. KOSH x 4 States landed in: CO, NB, NM, TX, OK, IA, KS, WI, IL, WY
User avatar
fastj22
 
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:56 pm
Location: Mile High

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes

Postby Gripdana » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:48 pm

That would be unfortunate. However if there is a hardware/software upgrade I am willing to have it done if the cost is reasonable. The EXP is a good setup for my avionics package. I'll cross my fingers.
Dana Baker
Scratch Built
First Flight March 8, 2015
Sonex #1534 - N1534S "Aluminum Foil"
Aerovee-Dual Controls-Tail Dragger
Gripdana
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:59 pm

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes

Postby fastj22 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:52 pm

Gripdana wrote:That would be unfortunate. However if there is a hardware/software upgrade I am willing to have it done if the cost is reasonable. The EXP is a good setup for my avionics package. I'll cross my fingers.

It was my first choice also, but I decided to be cheap and go with the Skyguard and save a few bucks. It seems like a crap shoot if you choose wisely.

John Gillis
Waiex N116YX, Jabiru 3300, Tail dragger, SkyGuard ADS-B
First flight, 3/16/2013. 350+ hours and climbing.
Home: CO15. KOSH x 4 States landed in: CO, NB, NM, TX, OK, IA, KS, WI, IL, WY
User avatar
fastj22
 
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:56 pm
Location: Mile High

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes

Postby WaiexN143NM » Thu Nov 24, 2016 2:29 am

Hi all, dana, john,
John u nailed it on the head. When the regulatory govt agency(faa) , who probably would have worked together with the factory to insure the internal gps was transmitting a within tolerance data stream was ok, instead of just changing the sil code from zero, and then they got caught doing so, came clean and worked with the faa, this would be moot. To ad insult to injury, to schedule inspections from the faa and then deny them access 2x when they showed up reeks of stupidity.
Im really wondering if navworx will even survive. Its too bad because alot of people got on the bandwagon to be adsb compliant early. This whole adsb thing has been hard on the mfgr's to keep up with the faa as specs change along the way, and they are trying to sell a product. Its been reported the air force and even the faa's fleet of aircraft may not be compliant by jan 1 2020 .
Buckle up the rides got some turbulence ahead.
WaiexN143NM
Michael
WaiexN143NM
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:04 am
Location: SF CA, Tucson AZ

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes

Postby DCASonex » Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:59 am

Add to all this the requirement as noted in legal column in AOPA mag few months back, that any ADS-B equipped plane MUST have unit turned on and operating for every flight, even if in areas where no transponder is required, raises the question: Are all planes equipped with these now effectively grounded indefinitely ? Has the FAA issued a waiver for the affected aircraft ? Personally, do not often fly where transponder is required and plan to wait at least a few more years and let dust settle.
Much talk of units being unavailable when last minute rush to beat the deadline, but suspect capacity crunch will be in installers, rather than equipment and think experimental builders can still install their own.

David A. Sonex TD #1327
DCASonex
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:04 pm
Location: Western NY USA

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes

Postby fastj22 » Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:35 pm

This would be a good podcast subject. Anyone feel they are an expert on the technology or regulations?

John Gillis
Waiex N116YX, Jabiru 3300, Tail dragger, SkyGuard ADS-B
First flight, 3/16/2013. 350+ hours and climbing.
Home: CO15. KOSH x 4 States landed in: CO, NB, NM, TX, OK, IA, KS, WI, IL, WY
User avatar
fastj22
 
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:56 pm
Location: Mile High

Re: Update navworx adsb boxes

Postby Jonathan McGee » Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:14 pm

Gripdana wrote:I was able to get them by email. This is a bummer since I received my EXP just prior to the notice. I thought an AD could/would not cover any equipment or aircraft that is experimental. That said it is also my understanding that the ADS-B equipment for experimental only needs to meet and perform to the standards of the ruling. So if the internal GPS in question performs to the standards, the EXP should be excluded from the proposed AD.


Your experimental status will not get you out of this one.

As you pointed out, when interfacing with ATC (navigation systems, transponders, etc.), an experimental aircraft still has to meet the appropriate performance requirements. For something like a GPS source, it is typically infeasible for the buyer to test and confirm (especially the integrity and reliability requirements), so you will naturally defer to the manufacturer for that confirmation (be it by TSO or some other standard).

My understanding of this situation (read the emergency order) is that Navworx modified the firmware of their device to report a non-zero Source Integrity Level (SIL) in the ADS-B packet. The FAA claims that Navworx has not provided it with the necessary information to confirm that their hardware actually meets the performance it is reporting. At this point, if you want to fall back on your experimental status to get you out of this, you would then have to go through the process of demonstrating your hardware meets the claimed integrity requirements.

An integrity score of zero (no integrity guarantees) is perfectly legal up until the 2020 mandate, at which a specific integrity level is required (read 14 CFR 91.225 and 227 if you really want the details). If your Navworx is reporting an integrity of zero, you "should" be fine up until midnight on 2019-12-31. If your unit is reporting anything else, you'll have a problem.

From my perspective, it seems like the easiest solution for Navworx would be release a firmware update that simply reverts the SIL to zero. That would resolve the immediate airworthiness issue. They could then work with the FAA to get the SIL upgraded prior to the 2020 mandate deadline.

Edit/Add: According to the Navworx statement, they increased the SIL in response to an FAA decision where they were to terminate TIS-B services to aircraft squawking with a SIL of 0.
Last edited by Jonathan McGee on Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Attempt #2 at this whole Sonex Business.
Waiex-B WXB0019 [Progress reported upon completion]
Jonathan McGee
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:04 am
Location: KPAO

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests