What's new
Van's Air Force

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

NavWorx front page announcement

[...]
What I want:

1) 1090Mhz and 978Mhz receive for traffic
[...]
Any manufacturers listening? I'll buy 2 if you do it reasonably.

Mark me down for that upgrade too, if anyone takes over Navworx.

I fly a lot in airspace that is filled with planes from a flight school that all transmit 1090ES, and those guys simply disappear when I get below radar coverage (i.e. no retransmit). Even happens sometimes up at altitude near airliners. Very disconcerting. Would like to receive those guys directly.
 
Last edited:
What I want:

1) 1090Mhz and 978Mhz receive for traffic
2) EITHER freq as the OUT...doesn't matter to me
3) WiFi option for Traffic and Wx on the ipad
4) Serial GDL-90 format with 38,400 baud option for Traffic/Weather
5) ARINC 735A format traffic output

Any manufacturers listening? I'll buy 2 if you do it reasonably.

You mean like the L3 Lynx?
 
Mark me down for that upgrade too, if anyone takes over Navworx.

I fly a lot in airspace that is filled with planes from a flight school that all transmit 978, and those guys simply disappear when I get below radar coverage (i.e. no retransmit). Even happens sometimes up at altitude near airliners. Very disconcerting. Would like to receive those guys directly.

Have you looked at a Skyradar D2? About $500 on the used market. Outputs wifi to an iPad, and USB.
Tim?s requirement for arinc out is the hard one to find.
 
Mark me down for that upgrade too, if anyone takes over Navworx.

I fly a lot in airspace that is filled with planes from a flight school that all transmit 978, and those guys simply disappear when I get below radar coverage (i.e. no retransmit). Even happens sometimes up at altitude near airliners. Very disconcerting. Would like to receive those guys directly.

OOPS I meant to say, they all transmit 1090ES not 978. Also corrected the original post.
 
Have you looked at a Skyradar D2? About $500 on the used market. Outputs wifi to an iPad, and USB.
Tim?s requirement for arinc out is the hard one to find.

I'd rather not add more boxes but hey it would be a solution for not too much more $$. But can it connect to the AFS-5600, and can the 5600 can integrate both traffic sources?
 
No problem, the D2 listens on both frequencies! I'll bet there are other solutions, too, for just -in, within the $500 (used) price range.

Edit: Opps, we're out of sync with posts. I cannot speak to what the 5600 can or cannot do.
 
If uAvionix (any maufacturer for that matter) can't get the FAA to say directly and on a public medium (faa.gov site) that the product is good to go, we can't make a rational decision to buy the product.

More importantly than that, the FAA should force said manufacturers to list the part number inside their box and that part number should be publicly approved by the FAA.

...

Dynon SV-GPS-2020 (not TSO approved, but meets 91.227 requirements per Dynon) (taken from the FAA site link above)

That's hillarious considering what we just went through with navworx.

Scott, first, congrats on your first flight!

As an FYI, the FAA will never publish a document that they state that an experimental product complies with the law. That's the point of the TC, STC and TSO process, which we all know is expensive. They can't make that statement without analysis, and they do that analysis under a TC, STC, or TSO. It's like asking them to state that a Vans RV-X design is compliant with the FARs. Even a TSO is technically a self audit, with the FAA poking their head in now and then, and the FAA has that ability to revoke in the future if they find out something went wrong on that process.

It's easy to forget as EAB owners, but the Navworx issue came out of the TSO process. Our understanding is that Navworx had a TSO, but then changed the product without getting requisite FAA approval. They actually HAD approval and then ended up with it revoked because the product changed. So getting an FAA statement is no guarantee, you also need to trust the company you are buying from. Same thing happened to Ameri-King who also had a TSO and behaved badly.

What I can tell you about Dynon is that we have been a leader in ADS-B compliance, and take it very seriously. We have voluntarily worked with the FAA to ensure we meet their requirements, even if we have not done it under official TSO or STC. We have a deep analysis done on our GPS position source, as well as the system as a whole, and how it complies to the FARs, and we have all this documented if any regulator needs to audit it. The vendors we use all have deep experience in TSO'd products and certification, and sell their products widely in the aviation industry. We've been on industry committees to help shape ADS-B, we've worked with the FAA to help them draft the guidance on ADS-B in EAB/LSA which would otherwise be in regulatory limbo. We were ahead of the curve when the FAA announced changes to traffic and ADS-B in 2015 because we had been part of the committee discussing those changes with the FAA (as had navworx), and we were able to give our customers a software update that kept their traffic for free even in a changing regulatory environment that other vendors struggled with.

You'll notice that all the experimental GPS position sources from Dynon and other experimental companies carry a statement that the company has evaluated them as being compliant to 91.227, and that's because that's what the FAA expects, based on this guidance: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/#q4. The FAA is allowing companies to self-declare their compliance, which lowers costs, but it does mean you need to trust the company and their ability to actually do this, resolve any issues that do occur, and to be trustworthy. If you want the FAA's guarantee, you need to buy TSO/STC, and even then, the company matters. I think Dynon's 15 year history in experimental aviation shows that we're a company you can trust to keep your airplane compliant.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics

P.S. As a final note, compliance in an EFIS system goes beyond the GPS source. The ADS-B system as a whole must be analyzed. Even if the FAA finds that a GPS is acceptable, that doesn't mean it's acceptable when hooked to any random ADS-B out transmitter. Make sure your vendors list compliance of the whole system, not just one part.
 
Last edited:
I've got an ADS600B and planed to wait for V5 software before I rewired it to use my GNS430W as the position source. But it's now obvious no software revision will happen. So my question is whether there are any issues rewiring to my 430W using the current console SW? Using the 430W was not an option when I originally installed it and the console SW I have doesn't show that option. I hope/assume I'll be able to get the most current version from Dallas Av or another user since the Navworx download page is gone. Any words of wisdom from those that have gone this route?

The AMOCs state 4.1.0 or later, you should be good once you switch to the 430. You to be legal, although it would be nice to get the bug fixes.
 
Ian,
Thank you for this post.
I think it is important for everyone to read the next to last sentence. Even for TSO'd equipment, it is, by and large, the company that submits data to the FAA. If that data is in error, the FAA may, or may not, catch it in the TSO approval process. TSO'd or not TSO'd, users (us) are putting faith in the vendor that they have properly done their homework. That's the way it has always been.

As a side note, and off topic, we should be happy (if that's possible) that the individual cost is not more than it is. If you want to feel for someone, find someone who was involved in the TCM crankshaft AD.
 
I just got this email from Dallas Avionics:

"Dallas Avionics, Inc./ADS-B Customers,

In an effort to ease the burden of existing NavWorx customers, Dallas Avionics, Inc. is currently evaluating multiple replacement ADS-B systems.

We anticipate offering a "special offer" specifically to replace AD affected systems. Look for our announcement of new system/replacement in the coming few weeks."
 
Dallas Avionics stepping in??

Just got this e-mail from Dallas Avionics. Will be interesting what they come up.
************
Dallas Avionics, Inc./ADS-B Customers,

In an effort to ease the burden of existing NavWorx customers, Dallas Avionics, Inc. is currently evaluating multiple replacement ADS-B systems.

We anticipate offering a "special offer" specifically to replace AD affected systems. Look for our announcement of new system/replacement in the coming few weeks.

Dallas Avionics, Inc.
2525 Santa Anna Ave
Dallas, TX 75228
800-527-2581
 
I hate it when a manufacturer stops supporting a product. On the up side, there are finally getting to be plenty of products out there for most people, and prices are cheap. When I got the first ADS600B, they were $2495. Got my second on Ebay for about $1700. Now days you can do better than that, depending on what you need..

Above may be the quote for the week. And today you can probably buy that same ADS600B on Ebay or anywhere else for way less than $200. !! Thanks Tim for the LOL !!. At lease I only have one and its a 600EXP which may have a lesser value than that. !
 
Dallas Avionics Stepping In

Dallas Avionics does not have to wait a few weeks to ease my burden.

Simply send me a check now for the $1600 I paid for the EXP science fair project that I am stuck with !!

Bill
 
The AMOCs state 4.1.0 or later, you should be good once you switch to the 430. You to be legal, although it would be nice to get the bug fixes.

Thanks Bob. That's good to know. Another small bit of good news for me is I apparently installed 4.1.0 on my laptop. Don't know why - guess that was my developer side keeping the latest version handy. It would be nice to have the fixes and features of V5 but oh well. At least I can stay legal and start searching for a replacement for when the box goes TU.
 
Thank you

Scott, first, congrats on your first flight!

As an FYI, the FAA will never publish a document that they state that an experimental product complies with the law. That's the point of the TC, STC and TSO process, which we all know is expensive. They can't make that statement without analysis, and they do that analysis under a TC, STC, or TSO. It's like asking them to state that a Vans RV-X design is compliant with the FARs. Even a TSO is technically a self audit, with the FAA poking their head in now and then, and the FAA has that ability to revoke in the future if they find out something went wrong on that process.

It's easy to forget as EAB owners, but the Navworx issue came out of the TSO process. Our understanding is that Navworx had a TSO, but then changed the product without getting requisite FAA approval. They actually HAD approval and then ended up with it revoked because the product changed. So getting an FAA statement is no guarantee, you also need to trust the company you are buying from. Same thing happened to Ameri-King who also had a TSO and behaved badly.

What I can tell you about Dynon is that we have been a leader in ADS-B compliance, and take it very seriously. We have voluntarily worked with the FAA to ensure we meet their requirements, even if we have not done it under official TSO or STC. We have a deep analysis done on our GPS position source, as well as the system as a whole, and how it complies to the FARs, and we have all this documented if any regulator needs to audit it. The vendors we use all have deep experience in TSO'd products and certification, and sell their products widely in the aviation industry. We've been on industry committees to help shape ADS-B, we've worked with the FAA to help them draft the guidance on ADS-B in EAB/LSA which would otherwise be in regulatory limbo. We were ahead of the curve when the FAA announced changes to traffic and ADS-B in 2015 because we had been part of the committee discussing those changes with the FAA (as had navworx), and we were able to give our customers a software update that kept their traffic for free even in a changing regulatory environment that other vendors struggled with.

You'll notice that all the experimental GPS position sources from Dynon and other experimental companies carry a statement that the company has evaluated them as being compliant to 91.227, and that's because that's what the FAA expects, based on this guidance: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/faq/#q4. The FAA is allowing companies to self-declare their compliance, which lowers costs, but it does mean you need to trust the company and their ability to actually do this, resolve any issues that do occur, and to be trustworthy. If you want the FAA's guarantee, you need to buy TSO/STC, and even then, the company matters. I think Dynon's 15 year history in experimental aviation shows that we're a company you can trust to keep your airplane compliant.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics

P.S. As a final note, compliance in an EFIS system goes beyond the GPS source. The ADS-B system as a whole must be analyzed. Even if the FAA finds that a GPS is acceptable, that doesn't mean it's acceptable when hooked to any random ADS-B out transmitter. Make sure your vendors list compliance of the whole system, not just one part.

Ian... thank you for your response. The primary rub for most consumers now is that they really don't know what they are buying. I use Dynon (D10A) and your autopilot. Your support and product are outstanding. I am considering an upgrade to a skyview system.
Unfortunately, the bad players have generated great distrust amongst consumers. So we are forced to request a little more information from ADSB solution providers.

It would be a pretty compelling sell for me and others if you guys(Dynon) named your GPS receiver manufacturer. UBlox?..Trimble.. even Garmin? Can you imagine how the consumer would react to a company being completely transparent on this issue. A part number along with the performance spec would be pretty awesome.

I get it if you don't want to disclose that info. But it would set a higher bar for your competition and it would weed out companies like navworx that are hiding a non compliant receiver in their product.

It would certainly make us feel better.

In regards to Navworx... we don't even have a part number of the so called out of compliance GPS receiver. I find it strange the FAA wouldn't state in plain terms what they found in their investigation.... as a concrete part number/ manufacturer name that out of compliance.

Dynon...thank you for being a great supporter of the Vans Community.
 
Mystery components

If you are curious about un-named GPS receiver chip sets in U.S. made avionics, just research Accord in India. You will find it interesting.
 
In regards to Navworx... we don't even have a part number of the so called out of compliance GPS receiver. I find it strange the FAA wouldn't state in plain terms what they found in their investigation.... as a concrete part number/ manufacturer name that out of compliance.

John,
The GPS that Navworx used is in the AD, found here:

FAA Response: NavWorx has not demonstrated to the FAA that the internal position source meets the performance requirements in Appendix B to AC 20-165B  (1) for a SIL of 3. The design specifications for NavWorx's P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013 ADS-B units identify the internal GPS source for those units as an uncertified SiRF IV GPS. The SiRF IV is a commercial grade chipset not manufactured under an FAA Technical Standard Order (TSO). AC 20-165B requires the SIL be set at 0 when the ADS-B is integrated with an uncertified GPS source. When NavWorx submitted its software upgrade changing the SIL value from 0 to 3, no hardware design changes associated with the SIL value change were made to the ADS-B units and no testing data substantiating that SIL change was provided to the FAA. The only justification NavWorx cited for the software change was the FAA's termination of Traffic Information Service—Broadcast (TIS-B) services to aircraft broadcasting ADS-B with a SIL of 0. This data is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2016-9226.

It's really worth reading the AD. It explains very clearly what the FAA's issue was with the Navworx product, and how the situation happened.

The issue with us, or any other company telling you what GPS vendor we use is that it's still not helpful to you. As you can see, Navworx used a very reputable GPS vendor (SiRF) but the issue was that they didn't have the internal data to back it up, so it didn't matter. 91.227 (ADS-B) compliance does not come from a single element of the ADS-B system. Just because the GPS module says it's 91.227 compliant doesn't mean it is with every firmware revision, nor with every output protocol, nor with every antenna. The system, end-to-end needs to be tested and validated. That's why Dynon's installation manuals include specific installation and configuration instructions to be 91.227 compliant, and we don't allow arbitrary GPS's to be used. So a datasheet for a GPS saying that it passes some parts of the TSO isn't all that useful because you need to know how it was integrated to be sure.

If you read the AD linked above, you can see that Navworx didn't hide a non-compliant GPS from the FAA. They in fact TSO'd a a GPS with an appropriate SIL=0. The FAA documents this in the AD:

NavWorx's TSO-C154c authorization and STC were approved based on the P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013 units broadcasting a SIL of 0 when using the internal uncertified GPS position source. NavWorx documented this as a limitation in the Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement (AFMS) for NavWorx's STC for ADS600-B installations. Section 2.6 of the AFMS, titled “Uncertified GPS Receiver (P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013),” states:
The ADS600-B has an internal uncertified GPS WAAS receiver which does not meet the 14 CFR 91 FAA-2007-29305 rule for certified GPS position source. If the ADS600-B is configured to use the internal uncertified GPS as the position source the ADS-B messages transmitted by the unit reports: A Source Integrity Limit (SIL) of 0 indicating that the GPS position source does not meet the 14 CFR 91 FAA-2007-29305 rule.

This is fine under the TSO, which only requires you to transmit your GPS integrity accurately. The issue is that the FAR for ADS-B doesn't require a TSO, it requires a specific performance, so having the TSO doesn't make you compliant for sure. The FAA claims Navworx took this SIL=0 TSO and used a software change to make it SIL=3, without any data to back that up, and with the only justification being that they needed to do so to stay in business. Given that Navworx appeared to be working on an alternate vendor for a GPS, it appears they were unable to show the SiRF was compliant.

The fact that Navworx has never been able to show the SiRF as compliant is why it the effects EAB products. If they used the same GPS there, then you as an operator know that it has been found non-compliant. The authorization the FAA has under TSO to audit products leaks over to EAB if the TSO is found non-compliant and the EAB product isn't different.

This is why I say trusting your vendor has to come first. There is enough complexity in complying in this area that no one element makes you compliant. Just knowing a vendor uses a SiRF, Ublox, MediaTek, or Trimble isn't useful since none of those companies make a compliant GPS that I know of. Even very big players like Garmin don't use Garmin GPS modules in all their products as there are all sorts of good reasons to choose from the plethora of options out there. Even Dynon didn't start with a GPS that another company claimed was compliant, because you couldn't do that and sell a GPS for $500 in 2015. We worked with a company to help them develop compliance, and it took a year to do so. There's a reason affordable GPS modules from other vendors only showed up after Dynon's product was on the market. We're happy to see that work expand and lower the cost of ADS-B compliance throughout aviation.

Aviation is small, and the innovation often comes from companies you've never heard of because the big companies have no interest in volumes that don't involve millions of units a quarter. So ultimately, it's your direct vendor you need to trust, not hoping for some big name GPS company to transfer your faith to.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics
 
Last edited:
Ian - I need to talk you in to writing a magazine article on the topic of GPS ADS-B compliance so that your message reaches the full experimental audience!

Paul
 
John,
The GPS that Navworx used is in the AD, found here:



It's really worth reading the AD. It explains very clearly what the FAA's issue was with the Navworx product, and how the situation happened.

The issue with us, or any other company telling you what GPS vendor we use is that it's still not helpful to you. As you can see, Navworx used a very reputable GPS vendor (SiRF) but the issue was that they didn't have the internal data to back it up, so it didn't matter. 91.227 (ADS-B) compliance does not come from a single element of the ADS-B system. Just because the GPS module says it's 91.227 compliant doesn't mean it is with every firmware revision, nor with every output protocol, nor with every antenna. The system, end-to-end needs to be tested and validated. That's why Dynon's installation manuals include specific installation and configuration instructions to be 91.227 compliant, and we don't allow arbitrary GPS's to be used. So a datasheet for a GPS saying that it passes some parts of the TSO isn't all that useful because you need to know how it was integrated to be sure.

If you read the AD linked above, you can see that Navworx didn't hide a non-compliant GPS from the FAA. They in fact TSO'd a a GPS with an appropriate SIL=0. The FAA documents this in the AD:



This is fine under the TSO, which only requires you to transmit your GPS integrity accurately. The issue is that the FAR for ADS-B doesn't require a TSO, it requires a specific performance, so having the TSO doesn't make you compliant for sure. The FAA claims Navworx took this SIL=0 TSO and used a software change to make it SIL=3, without any data to back that up, and with the only justification being that they needed to do so to stay in business. Given that Navworx appeared to be working on an alternate vendor for a GPS, it appears they were unable to show the SiRF was compliant.

The fact that Navworx has never been able to show the SiRF as compliant is why it the effects EAB products. If they used the same GPS there, then you as an operator know that it has been found non-compliant. The authorization the FAA has under TSO to audit products leaks over to EAB if the TSO is found non-compliant and the EAB product isn't different.

This is why I say trusting your vendor has to come first. There is enough complexity in complying in this area that no one element makes you compliant. Just knowing a vendor uses a SiRF, Ublox, MediaTek, or Trimble isn't useful since none of those companies make a compliant GPS that I know of. Even very big players like Garmin don't use Garmin GPS modules in all their products as there are all sorts of good reasons to choose from the plethora of options out there. Even Dynon didn't start with a GPS that another company claimed was compliant, because you couldn't do that and sell a GPS for $500 in 2015. We worked with a company to help them develop compliance, and it took a year to do so. There's a reason affordable GPS modules from other vendors only showed up after Dynon's product was on the market. We're happy to see that work expand and lower the cost of ADS-B compliance throughout aviation.

Aviation is small, and the innovation often comes from companies you've never heard of because the big companies have no interest in volumes that don't involve millions of units a quarter. So ultimately, it's your direct vendor you need to trust, not hoping for some big name GPS company to transfer your faith to.

--Ian Jordan
Dynon Avionics

Ian,

As the owner of a relatively new installation of a AFS 5600 in my RV-8, can you provide me with my Dynon/AFS options for removal and replacement of my Navworx? I see that the AFS 2020 compliant Mode S transponder is on the AFS web page but the page says that the page is not updated. When I click on the link, it takes me to the Dynon page where it is not listed.

I would be confident in staying with Dynon/AFS solutions. Your support has been stellar.

Thanks,
John
 
Ian,

As the owner of a relatively new installation of a AFS 5600 in my RV-8, can you provide me with my Dynon/AFS options for removal and replacement of my Navworx? I see that the AFS 2020 compliant Mode S transponder is on the AFS web page but the page says that the page is not updated. When I click on the link, it takes me to the Dynon page where it is not listed.

I would be confident in staying with Dynon/AFS solutions. Your support has been stellar.

Thanks,
John


SV-ADSB-472 Dual Band ADS-B Traffic and Weather Receiver

Mode-S Class 1 Transponder 261 (FAA 2020 ADS-B Out compliant in the US)

You can then use an existing certified GPS source or the Dynon 2020 GPS.
 
Except that the 472 is currently unavailable, while Dynon sorts out a problem affecting that unit. Not to cast doubt on this path forward - I have full faith in Dynon finding the problem and fixing it, and resuming shipments, it's just a question of time.

To Add to this, There is one AFS and one Dynon locally equipped with the 472 and we are very happy with the performance. They are as I am told working on a hardware update to better improve the system, not sure why. It appears to be the uAvoinix system thats being used. Because of the ease of installation and size I would give AFS/Dynon the time to get the hardware change done. They Rock!
 
To Add to this, There is one AFS and one Dynon locally equipped with the 472 and we are very happy with the performance. They are as I am told working on a hardware update to better improve the system, not sure why. It appears to be the uAvoinix system thats being used. Because of the ease of installation and size I would give AFS/Dynon the time to get the hardware change done. They Rock!

Agreed - I've got the 472 in my airplane now and I'm quite happy with the current level of performance overall - but I do see some dropouts occasionally.
 
Hey All,

Question for those of you who submitted for the rebate after using the AMOC...when you selected your equipment on the application, which did you pick?

a)Navworx ADS600-B 200-0013 AD
b)Navworx ADS600-B 200-0013

I'm guessing the choice with AD after it means you complied with the AD???

Thx for any quick replies...don't want to submit until I figure it out!
 
For Ralph or anyone else who has "used" the AMOC to notify their FSDO of AD compliance and/or people who have submitted for the rebate and were affected by the Navworx AD - MY FSDO is clueless on how to proceed!!! Some questions for you..


1) Email from ADS-B rebate office says you must submit paperwork (see below)..Did you just submit Ralph's AMOC letter posted on the AOPA site?

"For NavWorx P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013 only, if an FAA-approved Alternative Method of Compliance is used, provide a copy of the Letter from FAA Aircraft Certification for individual aircraft owners."

2)Where did you submit this paperwork?

3) What did you submit to your FSDO? My FSDO has no idea and wants me to basically re-do the AMOC :-( This shouldn't be necessary...

Thx...really need one of you guys to PM me your phone number if willing to answer a few questions..
 
For Ralph or anyone else who has "used" the AMOC to notify their FSDO of AD compliance and/or people who have submitted for the rebate and were affected by the Navworx AD - MY FSDO is clueless on how to proceed!!! Some questions for you..


1) Email from ADS-B rebate office says you must submit paperwork (see below)..Did you just submit Ralph's AMOC letter posted on the AOPA site?

"For NavWorx P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013 only, if an FAA-approved Alternative Method of Compliance is used, provide a copy of the Letter from FAA Aircraft Certification for individual aircraft owners."

2)Where did you submit this paperwork?

3) What did you submit to your FSDO? My FSDO has no idea and wants me to basically re-do the AMOC :-( This shouldn't be necessary...

Thx...really need one of you guys to PM me your phone number if willing to answer a few questions..

Yes, for #1, just submit Ralph?s amoc approval if you have a 430.

I am totally ignorant about the rebate process. I don?t believe that either Ralph, Phil, or I were eligible for a rebate. We were early adopters.

#3, you just have to notify the local FSDO. All you need is a copy of the amoc letter, and a memo stating that you?ve complied with all the requirements of the amoc ( I would recommend itemizing them) as well as the N# of your aircraft.

If they don?t like it or don?t understand, have them contact Kyle cobble at the forth worth ACO. I only am aware of one other FSDO that required more. Unfortunately that was Ralph on the first submission. Every other one I?m aware the Fsdo didn?t really care and just said thanks for notifying the,
 
OK...thx for the quick reply.

Will update and let everyone know what I find out after the rebate office gets back to me. As for the FSDO, I will do what you recommend and see what they say after I submit the letter. I probably should have just done that in the first place instead of calling them :)
 
OK...thx for the quick reply.

Will update and let everyone know what I find out after the rebate office gets back to me. As for the FSDO, I will do what you recommend and see what they say after I submit the letter. I probably should have just done that in the first place instead of calling them :)

Did you resolve this? I submitted the AMOC to the FSDO and received a letter back indicating they approved it. Had one problem with the rebate, they require you to send in some data supporting the Navworx install. You must submit this to the rebate email in order for them to process the rebate. So, if you did not receive confirmation that they accepted your rebate, you likely owe this data. I recently resolved this and have an email indicating the rebate is on the way.
 
Did you resolve this? I submitted the AMOC to the FSDO and received a letter back indicating they approved it. Had one problem with the rebate, they require you to send in some data supporting the Navworx install. You must submit this to the rebate email in order for them to process the rebate. So, if you did not receive confirmation that they accepted your rebate, you likely owe this data. I recently resolved this and have an email indicating the rebate is on the way.


My rebate is on it's way... Yes, they required a copy of my logbook and a copy of the AMOC. My local FSDO has not replied back to me. I am considering them "notified" per the AMOC, but hope they eventually send some sort of acknowledgement.
 
My rebate is on it's way... Yes, they required a copy of my logbook and a copy of the AMOC. My local FSDO has not replied back to me. I am considering them "notified" per the AMOC, but hope they eventually send some sort of acknowledgement.

Most likely you won?t get an acknowledgement. All I got was a phone call, but that was to ask me some questions about the amoc. Since mine was the first one they saw, they were curious.
 
Most likely you won?t get an acknowledgement. All I got was a phone call, but that was to ask me some questions about the amoc. Since mine was the first one they saw, they were curious.

Actually got a letter back from the FSDO in the mail last week...was very surprised.
 
Back
Top