Has Dallas Avionics started shipping the dog house yet?
Ordered August 7th and have not received mine yet.
I had tried several times to get an email reply from Dallas Avionics, and finally today ( SEpt 14) I got this email back. Looks like there is some progress, at least with the FAA and maybe now looks to be back in NavWorx court for mfg. Really not overly concerned at this time we've got until first of Jan 2018 to comply.
Date: Sep 14, 2017 12:30 PM
Subject: NavWorx inquiry
To: <[email protected]>
Cc:
Sir,
Navworx has just received certification on the Experimental unit and "Doghouse" for existing EXP System. NavWorx anticipates manufacturing in the next few weeks and we should be shipping shortly after.
--
Scott C Edwards
Dallas Avionics, Inc.
2525 Santa Anna Ave.
Dallas, TX 75228
Navworx has just received certification on the Experimental unit and "Doghouse" for existing EXP System.
It seems that the exp units were definitely included in the AD as per my understanding and would seems likely that some type of approval maybe not" certification " would be needed maybe agreement that the doghouse box would eliminate the original AD . If I were NW i would insist getting that in writing prior to production.
There is certainly a path forward.. the FAA has not ruled out an AMOC for the EXP.
What really jacks my jaw is I go out of the way to do business with promising small companies to support them. But I don?t expect to be bamboosalled.
Bob,
How do I know if I have got a "new" EXP unit? Is there a serial number or a date of shipment which defines the new ones?
And you say "unless you have a new EXP..." What if I do have a new EXP, how do I attach a certified GPS to qualify for AMOC? The doghouse and v 7.0.0 software was going to do that.
And if we scrape up enough money for another unit, how do we know that they comply and will not do a NavWorx on us in a couple of years? Unless we go to Garmin of course and pay $5K!
GordonR
Bob,
How do I know if I have got a "new" EXP unit? Is there a serial number or a date of shipment which defines the new ones?
And you say "unless you have a new EXP..." What if I do have a new EXP, how do I attach a certified GPS to qualify for AMOC? The doghouse and v 7.0.0 software was going to do that.
And if we scrape up enough money for another unit, how do we know that they comply and will not do a NavWorx on us in a couple of years? Unless we go to Garmin of course and pay $5K!
GordonR
I highly recommend the STRATUS APPAREO 1090ES Transponder. Model ESG for ADSB Out at under 2K or the ESGi for ADSB IN/OUT at 3K. It has worked perfectly the last 6 months in our RV6. Sold our KT76A and got the $500 rebate to offset the cost. And Yes?We got caught in the NavWorx ESG Debacle..!!
And if we scrape up enough money for another unit, how do we know that they comply and will not do a NavWorx on us in a couple of years? Unless we go to Garmin of course and pay $5K!
Are we assured that uAvionics is approved by FAA and will not bite us again?
uAvionics only produces products for drones, light sport, and experimental aircraft. None of their products are certified by the FAA, although they are rumored to be working on approval for certified aircraft.
With the exception of the NavWorx ADS600-EXP, the FAA appears to be content to ignore that experimental aircraft use experimental avionics products.
At the price levels given, there is no way that uAvionics products contain a TSO-certified GPS. But then, the regulations don't require TSO certification, just TSO-like performance. But we all see how well that worked out for NavWorx.
This is a call to FAA-savvy readers to comment on the suitability and acceptance by FAA of the uAvionics ADS-B equipment, and to compare and contrast with the NavWorx 600-EXP.
The uAvionics echoUAT documentation contains this information:
"The echoUAT meets the Minimum Operational Performance Standards of DO-282B Class B1S and meets the performance requirements of TSO-C154c. It complies with the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225(b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B Out in the National Airspace System for devices meeting the performance of TSO_C154c. Accordingly, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions fo this guide, the device complies with the aircraft requirement of 14 CFR 91.227"
.. then it goes on to say
"The equipment contains FCC ID 2AFFTUAT016 and is marked on the equipment nameplate.
The equipmenet also contains FCC ID 2ADUIESP-12 and is marked on the equipment nameplate"
Even though as DavidBunin points out it is not TSO'ed, it seems to me that the FAA has blessed their implementation. Is that how more knowledgeable folks read it?
By way of comparison, the NavWorx equivalent statements in their documentation were:
"The ADS600-EXP UAT complies with section 3 requirements of TSO-C154c and when installed in accordance with the installation instructions of this document complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227.
1.3.1 FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization.
This equipment has been issued an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization. The FCC ID is marked on the equipment nameplate."
Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? So how do we gauge the FAA acceptance of the uAvionics equipment?
This is a call to FAA-savvy readers to comment on the suitability and acceptance by FAA of the uAvionics ADS-B equipment, and to compare and contrast with the NavWorx 600-EXP.
The uAvionics echoUAT documentation contains this information:
"The echoUAT meets the Minimum Operational Performance Standards of DO-282B Class B1S and meets the performance requirements of TSO-C154c. It complies with the ADS-B Final Rule Technical Amendment, dated 2/9/2015, affecting 14 CFR 91.225(b)(1)(ii) which permits ADS-B Out in the National Airspace System for devices meeting the performance of TSO_C154c. Accordingly, when installed in accordance with the installation instructions fo this guide, the device complies with the aircraft requirement of 14 CFR 91.227"
.. then it goes on to say
"The equipment contains FCC ID 2AFFTUAT016 and is marked on the equipment nameplate.
The equipmenet also contains FCC ID 2ADUIESP-12 and is marked on the equipment nameplate"
Even though as DavidBunin points out it is not TSO'ed, it seems to me that the FAA has blessed their implementation. Is that how more knowledgeable folks read it?
By way of comparison, the NavWorx equivalent statements in their documentation were:
"The ADS600-EXP UAT complies with section 3 requirements of TSO-C154c and when installed in accordance with the installation instructions of this document complies with the aircraft requirements of 14 CFR 91.227.
1.3.1 FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization.
This equipment has been issued an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization. The FCC ID is marked on the equipment nameplate."
Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? So how do we gauge the FAA acceptance of the uAvionics equipment?