VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


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
  #11  
Old 10-21-2016, 01:44 PM
flightlogic's Avatar
flightlogic flightlogic is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 1,336
Default my not so humble view

Lawyers got involved. That backs the FAA into a corner. And remember, we pay for their lawyers too. Most of us here on VAF will not have to worry. If we operate the 600-exp box. Now, I did write in to the FAA this morning to ask if I was at risk of a mid-air collision, using my Navworx experimental. I am baiting them of course. Since we fly in the same airspace as certified, but they have no problem with my GPS source. I want to see in writing, their explanation of how one is safe and one is dangerous.
Their logic is sometimes quite interesting. I once crashed a fully fueled plane in the desert. It lay there upside down for three days. When the wrecking crew finally came and got it, the fuel was all in the sand. The FSDO (Riverside) said I ran out of gas. I provided my fuel receipt from thirty minutes prior to the crash, showing a top off. Their reply, and I kid you not... was "that just proves you bought fuel... not where you put it" I had to undergo a 709 oral re-examination of my ratings. They include ATP single, ATP multi, CFI-I, helo, balloon, fixed, seaplane. I was just astonished at the logic of FAA employees.
When the Fort Worth ACO gets straightened out by D.C. we shall see non TSO GPS receivers in ADS-B down the line. But for now, the lawyers are billing in the neighborhood of $700 per hour. Man, what a system.
__________________
"Kindness is never a bad plan."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-21-2016, 01:53 PM
BHunt BHunt is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 257
Default

So on the website, where it says (essentially, not writing exactly) that the FAA stopped sending data to their products, they mean only the product numbers listed there? Not, the EXP? Just trying to figure it out because the EXP seems to be what I'm looking for but I want to make sure.
__________________
Scooby
Harrumph!!
RV-8 IO-390 N788MT
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-21-2016, 02:41 PM
flightlogic's Avatar
flightlogic flightlogic is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 1,336
Default

The exp receiver is not affected. I fly mine daily... works fine.
This began when owners of the non TSO GPS receiver chip set... applied for a $500 rebate. We experimental types are not incentivised by any such rebate.
The focus then went on the subtle part number change from Navworx where they removed the Accord certified GPS receiver and substituted a commercial non TSO receiver. The software continued to put out a SIL 3 code... meaning "hey, I am OK here, I meet the criteria and performance of the other chip".
Now the FAA says unnapproved. Navworx says hold on to your hats.
They may swap out boxes with owners to solve this. Maybe, like the Samsung... a hundred bucks will be offered to cover the cost of the shop who pulls the box for exchange. Time will tell.
__________________
"Kindness is never a bad plan."

Last edited by flightlogic : 10-21-2016 at 02:42 PM. Reason: spelling like a pilot
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-21-2016, 02:52 PM
maus92 maus92 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul 5r4 View Post
The Navworx 600EXP has been installed in my plane about three months. I'm already spoiled and don't want to think about flying without this traffic and weather. Is this just a software issue, something they can rewrite? It looks like this AD will effect about 800 of their ADSB units. Hoping Navworx will chime in today!
Edited: I went to Navworx site and there is information there regarding UPN or unapproved parts notification... what ever that means... and at the end it states to write to the FAA administrator or your congressman.

I'm upset!
You should be upset. As described, this seems to be both a hardware and software issue. Its internal GPS hardware does not and can not meet the specs of the TSO C-154c. NavWorks' older operating software makes it appear to the FAA's system that their device is using a conforming GPS position source, which it is apparently not. The software was changed report the GPS position source's integrity accurately, which in turn makes it non-compliant. Uh, oh....
__________________
CA
2000 RV-8A w/ G3X Touch, VP-X, O-360, FP

Last edited by maus92 : 10-21-2016 at 03:06 PM. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-21-2016, 03:00 PM
erich weaver's Avatar
erich weaver erich weaver is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: santa barbara, CA
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flightlogic View Post
The exp receiver is not affected. I fly mine daily... works fine.
This isn't about whether you think your unit is working ok. Also, the Avweb article seems to indicate the experimental unit IS affected by the proposed rule:

"The FAA says there are about 800 aircraft with Model ADS600-B part number (P/N) 200-0012 and 200-0013 and Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013 transceivers installed and they’re saying it should only take an hour to take them out."

Erich
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-21-2016, 03:10 PM
GalinHdz's Avatar
GalinHdz GalinHdz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: KSGJ / TJBQ
Posts: 1,247
Default

FWIW you can read NAVWORX take on this issue via this link. Only time will tell what actually come out of this.
__________________
Galin
CP, ASEL, AMEL, IR
St. Augustine, FL
www.puertoricoflyer.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-21-2016, 03:26 PM
kevin O kevin O is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: swanton vt
Posts: 68
Default

Pls refer to the AD language as well as Navworx notice just posted on their website. This does affect the ads600 exp as well as the certified versions. Not sure that 800 users writing the Faa or congressman telling them our units are accurate is going to change this. I would like to see something from Navworx with solutions should this ruling come to pass. Does anyone know what units are out there that are not affected. Can those components be used in the affected units? Can a 430w, 530w etc be used as position source? If so is a modification of the affected units necessary or just running new wires. Would be nice if Navworx was addressing some of this.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-21-2016, 05:12 PM
flightlogic's Avatar
flightlogic flightlogic is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 1,336
Default correction

I stand corrected. Contrary to what I was told by the manufacturer, even the experimental is sending out a SIL code that is misleading according to the proposed AD wording. I have heard that an alternate GPS chipset is available, that would make the FAA happy and return the units to TSO compliant status.
How that happens, what it costs and what it does to the competitive market for these avionics is unknown at this time. I am on standby, like many of us here.
__________________
"Kindness is never a bad plan."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-21-2016, 05:58 PM
N743RV N743RV is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 40
Default Navworx Statement

I'm confused... the Navworx statement says

"The UPN only applies to certified aircraft installations. It does not apply to installations in uncertified amateur-built, light-sport, and unmanned aircraft. In other words, the FAA is apparently satisfied from the standpoint of national airspace system (NAS) safety that the products properly locate aircraft and transmit that information in a manner that is properly received by the ground stations as well as other aircraft."

That conflicts with some of the previous post

I literally just installed the EXP UNIT IN MY 7a. I love the FAA estimate of one hour of labor as the cost of the proposed AD to owners!

Bob Cowan, N743RV
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-21-2016, 06:39 PM
flightlogic's Avatar
flightlogic flightlogic is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 1,336
Default

Two different documents. The unapproved notice listed the certified units.
The AD proposal includes the experimental. A broader brush...
It is a notice of proposed rule.... to the public though... and open for comment.
Contact the FAA if you so desire.
__________________
"Kindness is never a bad plan."
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 07:58 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.