What's new
Van's Air Force

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

FAA $3.7M penalty against Navworx

rleffler

Well Known Member
FAA Proposes Civil Penalty of Nearly $3.7 Million Against Manufacturer of ADS-B Navigation Units

October 27, 2017
Contact: Lynn Lunsford
Phone: 817-222-4455

FORT WORTH, Texas ? The U.S. Department of Transportation?s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes a civil penalty of $3,685,000 against NavWorx Inc. of Rowlett, Texas, for allegedly producing and selling navigation units that did not meet FAA requirements and for allegedly misleading customers about those products.

?The FAA has strict requirements for navigation units to ensure the reliability of the information they provide both to pilots and to air traffic controllers,? said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. ?Customers of these products must be able to trust that their equipment meets our safety standards."

During an investigation, the FAA found that NavWorx produced certain Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) navigation units containing an internal Global Positioning System (GPS) chip that did not meet the FAA?s standards for integrity.

In March 2015, the FAA notified the aviation industry that it had tightened its System Integrity Level (SIL) standards for GPS chips in units that meet the FAA?s January 1, 2020 mandatory deadline for operators to equip their aircraft with ADS-B transmitters. Such units, when properly manufactured and operated, broadcast an aircraft?s precise position.

The FAA alleges that, rather than replace the chips in its ADS600-B units, NavWorx knowingly altered the units? internal software to transmit a code that indicated the units met the new SIL standard even though they did not. The FAA further alleges that the company subsequently refused to comply with the FAA?s direction to modify the software to transmit an accurate code.

The FAA also alleges that NavWorks advertised on its company website and through transactions with customers that ADS600-B part numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013 met the FAA?s tighter standards for the 2020 installation deadline. These advertisements omitted and materially misrepresented the essential fact that the units contain a GPS chip that is incapable of meeting the FAA?s standards.

In November 2016, the FAA issued an emergency order suspending the authorization that NavWorx uses to manufacture the affected ADS-B units after the company repeatedly refused to allow the FAA to inspect its records and manufacturing facilities. 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 the FAA may witness any tests necessary to determine a product?s compliance. The company subsequently allowed the inspections to occur and the FAA reinstated NavWorx?s manufacturing authorization.

The FAA is continuing to work with NavWorx customers to ensure the safety and accuracy of the affected products. In June 2017, the FAA published a final Airworthiness Directive (AD) that requires owners to remove or disable these ADS-B units. The AD also allows the owner to modify the unit by linking it with a GPS unit that contains a certified chip that meets FAA standards.

NavWorx has been in communication with the FAA about the case.
 
Interesting. I wonder if they did the same for Ameri-King (didn't find any indication they did), and if not why the two cases would be so different.
 
Did we see this coming?

When I read the recent history written by a Navworx person, I thought it sounded fishy changing the SIL without changing the hardware. Maybe they thought this was OK as a stop gap measure, but I guess the FAA didnt see it that way. Sorry for all the people hurt by this.
 
So what in the world will they do with 3.7MM? Seems like they could easily make the end users whole again and have plenty of boot money left over....:rolleyes:
 
Unfortuneately, if Navworx had their corporate structure in better order than their operational structure the lawyers have covered them so the potential fine will not be paid.
 
So what in the world will they do with 3.7MM? Seems like they could easily make the end users whole again and have plenty of boot money left over....:rolleyes:

Cover the cost of those ADS-B rebates they've been handing out?
 
Based on reports, what the company did was just dumb, but...

"In March 2015, the FAA notified the aviation industry that it had tightened its System Integrity Level (SIL) standards for GPS chips in units that meet the FAA?s January 1, 2020 mandatory deadline for operators to equip their aircraft with ADS-B transmitters. "

Setting up a standard, letting mfgrs go into production, and then ' moving the goalposts' is not exactly sporting.
 
FAA Proposes Civil Penalty of Nearly $3.7 Million Against Manufacturer of ADS-B Navigation Units

October 27, 2017
Contact: Lynn Lunsford
Phone: 817-222-4455

FORT WORTH, Texas ? The U.S. Department of Transportation?s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes a civil penalty of $3,685,000 against NavWorx Inc. of Rowlett, Texas, for allegedly producing and selling navigation units that did not meet FAA requirements and for allegedly misleading customers about those products.

?The FAA has strict requirements for navigation units to ensure the reliability of the information they provide both to pilots and to air traffic controllers,? said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. ?Customers of these products must be able to trust that their equipment meets our safety standards."

During an investigation, the FAA found that NavWorx produced certain Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) navigation units containing an internal Global Positioning System (GPS) chip that did not meet the FAA?s standards for integrity.

In March 2015, the FAA notified the aviation industry that it had tightened its System Integrity Level (SIL) standards for GPS chips in units that meet the FAA?s January 1, 2020 mandatory deadline for operators to equip their aircraft with ADS-B transmitters. Such units, when properly manufactured and operated, broadcast an aircraft?s precise position.

The FAA alleges that, rather than replace the chips in its ADS600-B units, NavWorx knowingly altered the units? internal software to transmit a code that indicated the units met the new SIL standard even though they did not. The FAA further alleges that the company subsequently refused to comply with the FAA?s direction to modify the software to transmit an accurate code.

The FAA also alleges that NavWorks advertised on its company website and through transactions with customers that ADS600-B part numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013 met the FAA?s tighter standards for the 2020 installation deadline. These advertisements omitted and materially misrepresented the essential fact that the units contain a GPS chip that is incapable of meeting the FAA?s standards.

In November 2016, the FAA issued an emergency order suspending the authorization that NavWorx uses to manufacture the affected ADS-B units after the company repeatedly refused to allow the FAA to inspect its records and manufacturing facilities. 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 the FAA may witness any tests necessary to determine a product?s compliance. The company subsequently allowed the inspections to occur and the FAA reinstated NavWorx?s manufacturing authorization.

The FAA is continuing to work with NavWorx customers to ensure the safety and accuracy of the affected products. In June 2017, the FAA published a final Airworthiness Directive (AD) that requires owners to remove or disable these ADS-B units. The AD also allows the owner to modify the unit by linking it with a GPS unit that contains a certified chip that meets FAA standards.

NavWorx has been in communication with the FAA about the case.

It worked for VW for quite a while, so why not try it..........................::eek:

That would be around $400. That should come out of the $3.6MM
 
So what in the world will they do with 3.7MM? Seems like they could easily make the end users whole again and have plenty of boot money left over....:rolleyes:

I doubt there's anywhere in the world where Government fines get shared with ripped off customers. :)
 
According to Navworks they had approval from the FAA to transmit a SIL of 3 so that the traffic data would still be transmitted back to the customer after the FAA changed the goalpost again with only delivering traffic back to SIL 3 transmitters. With approval in hand they implemented that software change. According to NW .
 
According to Navworks they had approval from the FAA to transmit a SIL of 3 so that the traffic data would still be transmitted back to the customer after the FAA changed the goalpost again with only delivering traffic back to SIL 3 transmitters. With approval in hand they implemented that software change. According to NW .

I suspect you misunderstood something. They never had any approvals for SIL=3... ever...
 
I suspect you misunderstood something. They never had any approvals for SIL=3... ever...

I have from NW a PDF file that shows an approved software change by the FAA office , that appears to be on Navworx letterhead , that will not transfer into this forum but looks something like this with a copy and paste. Looks like approval date was Mar2016. The FAA disposition underneath Moffits signature did not paste well but is listed in 6 line from bottom. I'm sure lawyers will have to work this out. No longer any of my business nor concern. But really hate to see it come to this.

NavWorV
Afferdsble ADS^" * >
December 18,2015
Mr. Michael A. Heusser
Program Manager Airplane Certification Office, ASW-143
FAA Fort Worth AGO
10101 Millwood Parkway, ASW-143
Fort Worth, Texas 76177-1524
RE: Submitting three data packages for FAA project number SP9628SC-A
Dear Mr. Heusser,
Enclosed you will find two minor change data packages for FAA project number SP9628SC-A.
NavWorx is submitting data packages for ADS600-B software releases 4.0.8 and 4.0.9. Each data
package has its own binder. Within each binder is a cover letter that summarizes the changes for the
specific release.
Sincerely,
Williarrf-Moffitt
Operations Manager
CONTROL *libA^A.
1-6.8
CONTROL
■f.o. 1
Enclosures:
ADS600-B SW release 4.0.8 binder
ADS600-B SW release 4.0.9 binder
FAA ACTION
ASW-140. AIRCRAFT CERTinCATIQNOiTICB
Action Taken
Acoqited
Approved
Comment*
Retimi
Acknowledged
Manager
Page1

If you re interested in a pic of this send me a text to 7708233426
 
Last edited:
Here is the FAA's response to the question of why 4.0.8 and 4.0.9 were approved:

FAA Response: The commenters are correct that the FAA approved NavWorx's software changes identified as 4.0.7, 4.0.8, and 4.0.9. However, none of these changes identified on NavWorx's submittals affected the SIL value or referenced the SIL value change in 4.0.6. The FAA's approvals did not alter the FAA's previous written statements to NavWorx advising the equipment must report a SIL of 0 to remain compliant with TSO-C154c.

As much as I like to believe that Government aviation regulators are always the bogeyman (well, they often are :) ), I read through a bunch of FAA responses to public submissions about the AD and it does not leave a favourable impression of Navworx's efforts to cooperate or be compliant with the rules, whereas most others seem to have managed ok.
 
With the fine levied, you're not going to get a penny out of NavWorx (the government may only get pennies on the dollar as well) - the best you can hope for is to force the sale of the assets and Intellectual Property to someone that will support it...let's hope it's not JPI - remember how they orphaned Vision Micro Systems owners...!
 
I don't have any NW hardware, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out. NW could be exactly right and the FAA simply backed out, then fined them. It is not the first time this happened. EPA did the that in 1998 to truck engine manufacturers. I know for a fact that one was not guilty and EPA knew and agreed to every change with full disclosure. You can not fight the government and win even if you are right. Just pay up and move on.

I know nothing about this particular case, but would not make assumptions. Either way, NW will pay.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/1998/October/499_enr.htm
 
With the fine levied, you're not going to get a penny out of NavWorx (the government may only get pennies on the dollar as well) - the best you can hope for is to force the sale of the assets and Intellectual Property to someone that will support it...let's hope it's not JPI - remember how they orphaned Vision Micro Systems owners...!

And really tried to destroy Matronics (Fuel Scan). No JPI products for me.
 
Unfortuneately, if Navworx had their corporate structure in better order than their operational structure the lawyers have covered them so the potential fine will not be paid.

Sounds like an opportunity for a class action.

It might be worth noting we are not talking about a large corporate company. This is not a Garmin, GM, IBM type of company. This is a Granny's Diner type of company opened up by granny because she likes making pies. To wax on about how a law suite should 'stick it to the big guy' who screwed us is not seeing the big picture. I find it crazy to think anyone in a government agency thinks a $3.5 M fine enforced on a mom and pop company they have shut down for breaking the rules will ever be realized. Instead I see this as a means by which the FAA is saying to the rest of the avionics world:

DON'T MESS WITH OUR RULES OR WE WILL SHUT YOU DOWN AND REMOVE YOU FROM THE GAME PERMANENTLY!
 
Last edited:
I won't go into the details but I personally feel like Navworx took me for a bit of a ride on support of the 'Certified' unit in my 172. Sucks for all of us that were early adopters but at least they won't wrangle any new customers in.
 
It might be worth noting we are not talking about a large corporate company.

I find it crazy to think anyone in a government agency thinks a $3.5 M fine enforced on a mom and pop company they have shut down for breaking the rules will ever be realized.

The fact that they are no longer in business complicates everything by orders of magnitude.

I feel bad for those who lost money, time, and sleep over all of this - I was almost in this group myself - but I wouldn't hold out much hope of getting anything back.
 
I have from NW a PDF file that shows an approved software change by the FAA office , that appears to be on Navworx letterhead , that will not transfer into this forum but looks something like this with a copy and paste. Looks like approval date was Mar2016. The FAA disposition underneath Moffits signature did not paste well but is listed in 6 line from bottom. I'm sure lawyers will have to work this out. No longer any of my business nor concern. But really hate to see it come to this.

NavWorV
Afferdsble ADS^" * >
December 18,2015
Mr. Michael A. Heusser
Program Manager Airplane Certification Office, ASW-143
FAA Fort Worth AGO
10101 Millwood Parkway, ASW-143
Fort Worth, Texas 76177-1524
RE: Submitting three data packages for FAA project number SP9628SC-A
Dear Mr. Heusser,
Enclosed you will find two minor change data packages for FAA project number SP9628SC-A.
NavWorx is submitting data packages for ADS600-B software releases 4.0.8 and 4.0.9. Each data
package has its own binder. Within each binder is a cover letter that summarizes the changes for the
specific release.
Sincerely,
Williarrf-Moffitt
Operations Manager
CONTROL *libA^A.
1-6.8
CONTROL
■f.o. 1
Enclosures:
ADS600-B SW release 4.0.8 binder
ADS600-B SW release 4.0.9 binder
FAA ACTION
ASW-140. AIRCRAFT CERTinCATIQNOiTICB
Action Taken
Acoqited
Approved
Comment*
Retimi
Acknowledged
Manager
Page1

If you re interested in a pic of this send me a text to 7708233426
Software releases 4.0.8 and 4.0.9 were approved but not an SIL change which never met the standard. Hung their hat on something they should have known was incorrect and paid the price. :(

Sounds like an opportunity for a class action.
Really, an "opportunity" to sue??? And who would you sue? A bankrupt out of business NavWorx? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top