What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Possible AD for certain NAVWORX ADS-B Units

Good news! The FAA has started approving and publishing some of the AMOCs for Navworx ADS-600B today. I will post an excerpt from the text below. Initially, these will only include ADS600-B 200-0012 and 200-0013 units that are using a Garmin 480, 430/530, and 650/750 units. I've been told that the other units within the family should be approved in a couple weeks.

One of the hold ups for the approvals was that the Forth Worth ACO wanted to ensure that units with the AMOC were still eligible for the ADSB rebates. I was told that if you are eligible for a rebate (I'm not) and have the AMOC, you should be good when you apply for the rebate.

Also, AOPA has volunteered to facilitate the public distribution of the AMOC. I've been told that almost a thousand folks are impacted. I'm grateful to AOPA for handling the distribution because I don't think Ralph, Phil, or myself are up to that daunting task. Once AOPA has finalized the process for distribution, I will share that with you as well.

If you have a -EXP unit or another certified GPS, you'll have to wait a bit longer to get you AMOC. In talking with Bill and the FAA, I am aware that Bill is working with the FAA. But I don't know much more than that. The FAA isn't allowed to share information on any of the activities that they are working with Bill for obvious NDA reasons.

I also have to give credit were it's due. There have been four people actively involved in the process working to get these through the FAA process and approved. Ralph Capen (RECAPEN) provided data on for the Garmin 430/530 approval, Phil Yoder (PYODER - soon to be a RV-10 builder) provided data for the Garmin 480, and I provided data for the Garmin 650/750. Mike Heusser from the FAA walked us through the process and helped to drive these to approvals.

Please don't ask for copies of the AMOCs directly from any of us. Please wait a few days until AOPA has their distribution process established.

Here's a text excerpt from the 650/750 AMOC.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received your proposal dated June 22, 2017, proposing FAA approval of a global AMOC to AD 2017-11-11 for a NavWorx ADS600-B, Part Numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013. AD 2017-11- 11 requires the ADS600-B unit to be removed or disabled if it is not coupled to an approved NexNav Mini GPS receiver, PIN 21000.

You are proposing a global AMOC to paragraph (e)(l)(iv)(A) of AD 2017-11-11 by coupling the ADS600-B with Garmin GTN 650 or 750 series Global Positioning System (GPS) sources.

Your proposal provides an acceptable level of safety to (e)(1)(iv)(A) based on your installation drawings, which document the coupling of the ADS600-B unit with a Garmin GPS source, and the Public ADS-B Performance Report of May 10, 2017. For section (e)(l )(iv)(B), you proposed a placard next to the ADS600-B unit that states, "OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE GARMIN GTN-650(750) EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQURED" .

The Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) approves your AMOC proposal to paragraph (e)(l)(iv)(A) and (B) of AD 2017-11-11 by using Garmin GTN 650 or 750 as an external GPS source in place of the NexNav Mini and adding the placard as described above. Furthermore, the application of this AMOC will bring the ADS-B system into compliance with TSO C154c and 14 CFR §91.227 requirements.

In accordance with FAA Order 8110.103B, the following conditions apply:

• Before using this AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local Flight Standards District Office/Certificate Holding District Office.
• All provisions of AD 2017-11-11 that are not specifically referenced above remain fully applicable and must be complied with accordingly .
• This FAA AMOC is transferable with the aircraft to an operator who operates the aircraft under U.S. registry .
 
Last edited:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received your proposal dated June 22, 2017, proposing FAA approval of a global AMOC to AD 2017-11-11 for a NavWorx ADS600-B, Part Numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013. AD 2017-11- 11 requires the ADS600-B unit to be removed or disabled if it is not coupled to an approved NexNav Mini GPS receiver, PIN 21000.

You are proposing a global AMOC to paragraph (e)(l)(iv)(A) of AD 2017-11-11 by coupling the ADS600-B with Garmin GTN 650 or 750 series Global Positioning System (GPS) sources.

Your proposal provides an acceptable level of safety to (e)(1)(iv)(A) based on your installation drawings, which document the coupling of the ADS600-B unit with a Garmin GPS source, and the Public ADS-B Performance Report of May 10, 2017. For section (e)(l )(iv)(B), you proposed a placard next to the ADS600-B unit that states, "OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE GARMIN GTN-650(750) EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQURED" .

The Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) approves your AMOC proposal to paragraph (e)(l)(iv)(A) and (B) of AD 2017-11-11 by using Garmin GTN 650 or 750 as an external GPS source in place of the NexNav Mini and adding the placard as described above. Furthermore, the application of this AMOC will bring the ADS-B system into compliance with TSO C154c and 14 CFR ?91.227 requirements.

In accordance with FAA Order 8110.103B, the following conditions apply:

? Before using this AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local Flight Standards District Office/Certificate Holding District Office.
? All provisions of AD 2017-11-11 that are not specifically referenced above remain fully applicable and must be complied with accordingly .
? This FAA AMOC is transferable with the aircraft to an operator who operates the aircraft under U.S. registry .

I now have all three AMOCs in my possession and they've been sent to AOPA. Once we get the process from AOPA, we'll share them here.

One gotcha that I just noticed in the 480 AMOC, is that it's only approved for a 200-0013. We're working on getting the 200-0012 included, as well as the other models. I've was told to expect the next update from the FAA mid-week next week.
 
I now have all three AMOCs in my possession and they've been sent to AOPA. Once we get the process from AOPA, we'll share them here.

Bob,

Thank you for sharing the AMOC text. Your audience will also need to know the AMOC number itself (should be in the header of the letter they sent you) to reference when they communicate with their FSDO.

David
 
Bob,

Thank you for sharing the AMOC text. Your audience will also need to know the AMOC number itself (should be in the header of the letter they sent you) to reference when they communicate with their FSDO.

David

That's why I specifically stated it's an excerpt. It's only about half the text and not enough for anyone to submit it to their Fsdo. Like I stated, everyone will have to wait until aopa has their distribution process online. I spent a fair amount of time talking with them today. It looks like they may have something ready mid-week. I won't go into all the details, it there is quite a bit work going on in the background on this. It's more than just sending out a copy of the amoc itself.
 
I called Dallas Avionics about an hour ago. IIRC, they got final approval a couple of weeks ago and they will start shipping in about 3 weeks.

He said they were going to send out a mass email to everybody who ordered.
 
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
 
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


Once we get the "Doghouse" we will still need the updated software for it to work, correct?
Larry
 
Pretty sure that will be the case. I believe I saw somewhere it would be v 7.0 . That has yet to be seen on DA or NAvworx.
 
Navworx has just received certification on the Experimental unit and "Doghouse" for existing EXP System.

I think Scott may be mixing terminology. There is no certification for the experimental products. I think the truth may be that the FAA agreed that NavWorx could produce and sell the experimental products (and related accessories) without jeopardizing their current application for certification of the "2.0" certified products.

I think if I was NavWorx, and the FAA's agreement on the experimental stuff was "verbal" (even including informal email) I might still elect to wait until standing of firmer ground before proceeding to crank up the production machinery. With those last few signatures waiting in the balance, this is not the time for unmeasured action.

In my opinion, of course.
 
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.
 
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.

It would require a Global Appliance Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC), similar to the ones that Ralph, Phil, and I obtained for the ADS600-B for the existing EXP units.

From what I was told by the FAA, some of the AMOC approvals have slowed down a bit due to staff reallocation to address damage caused by Harvey. Although in a different region, I'm sure that Irma didn't help any either.
 
NavWorx ADS600-EXP update -2

Sorry this is a duplicate post -

October 2 2017
Today I called the NavWorx technical department and talked about the FAA AD on the ADS600-EXP unit. This is a summary of my conversation.

NavWorx is caught up by the FAA which claims that the Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) in their internal GPS receiver is inadequate. Never mind that the NavWorx unit has passed every accuracy test, the FAA contention is that in some apocalyptic situation with sunspots or military interference or whatever, the system might be using corrupted GPS data without the RAIM being able to detect that. The result is that the Signal Integrity Level (SIL,) which is an ADS-B (Out) broadcast data byte, is insufficient. If the SIL were to be set appropriately (according to the FAA) to 0, it would block traffic and weather from being received making the ?IN virtually useless. The FAA has issued an AD which applies to the experimental version as well as to the certified version.

NavWorx issued a Service Bulletin http://www.navworx.com/ServiceBulletinEXP060000.pdf which instructed owners of the ADS600-EXP to download software 6.0.0 or 7.0.0. The bulletin also states that 7.0.0 requires an external GPS receiver part number 200-8112. As of the date of this writing, neither the software nor the GPS receiver is listed on the NavWorx website. I called the NavWorx technical department to sort all this out.

I was directed to the website www.dallasavionics.com (apparently one of the installation arms of NavWorx) where we can order the external GPS. It is $299.00 and will be produced in a limited production run and only available until Dec 1 2017. A purchaser will not be charged until it is shipped. The GPS module will not require any additional wiring changes and will be "Daisy Chained in Series" with the existing system using existing ADS600-EXP system wiring and connectors. I was advised to place the order early.

The software is not released yet, even though the bulletin says that it is available on the NavWorx website. That website is really messed up with links pointing all over the place and at least two pages nearly identical to each other. I was told that the author of the website is trying to extricate himself from the effects of Hurricane Irma in Florida.

What happens if we don?t do this? Well, probably nothing unless we are ramp-checked or have some other verification test. But we will not be in compliance until this is done.

I would appreciate any inputs from others in the same situation. Compliance seems to cost $300.
 
Wow. But NavWorx has stopped doing business. They will surely declare bankruptcy so the FAA will get nothing. Neither will the customers.

The article does not mention the EXP units. There is some difference in opinion whether they are mandated to comply or not. Any thoughts on this?
 
The AD specifically mentions the EXP units - NavWorx was working on a doghouse fix for them. From what I recall reading, a couple were actually shipped. If you are one of the few that got an updated or 'new' EXP box, you will most likely need to submit an AMOC of your own - but I would suggest that if there are any out there, the hardware configuration and software would be of interest to the remainder of the EXP customer base!
 
Last edited:
I know that I'm sounding like a broken record these days, but....

Unless you are one of the handful of folks that got an upgraded or new EXP unit, there is no path forward after January for the EXP platform.

For the ADS600-B folks that also have an approved GPS, there is life after January and the AD as long as you follow the procedures in one of the AMOCs. But the reality of the situation, the AMOCs just are buying us some time. With no software and/or hardware support, the life of our units is limited.

Most of can't afford dropping another $2k at the moment and need some time to save for that replacement expense. The AMOCs have bought that time.

For those that don't have an approved GPS to use as an external position source already, I'm sympathetic to your predicament. By the time you invest in the GPS source, there are many other similarly priced ADSB solutions available that probably should be considered.
 
There is certainly a path forward.. the FAA has not ruled out an AMOC for the EXP.

I know that I'm sounding like a broken record these days, but....

Unless you are one of the handful of folks that got an upgraded or new EXP unit, there is no path forward after January for the EXP platform.

For the ADS600-B folks that also have an approved GPS, there is life after January and the AD as long as you follow the procedures in one of the AMOCs. But the reality of the situation, the AMOCs just are buying us some time. With no software and/or hardware support, the life of our units is limited.

Most of can't afford dropping another $2k at the moment and need some time to save for that replacement expense. The AMOCs have bought that time.

For those that don't have an approved GPS to use as an external position source already, I'm sympathetic to your predicament. By the time you invest in the GPS source, there are many other similarly priced ADSB solutions available that probably should be considered.
 
There is certainly a path forward.. the FAA has not ruled out an AMOC for the EXP.

The FAA doesn't care. For there to be an AMOC, you must have a working solution that meets their requirements. How are you going to accomplish that with the EXP?

It appears to require hardware and firmware modifications, unless you have to have one of the few new ones that got shipped. Having worked with Kyle and Mike since last June getting the current AMOCs approved for the ADS600-B, I would be highly skeptical on getting any hardware/firmware mods approved by a customer of Navworx. I can tell you from my personal experience that if you had a working solution today, it would take a miracle to get an AMOC approved before the AD deadline.

I did ask them about one of the new EXP units and there is hope for them, but Bill modified both the firmware and hardware to support an external gps position source. I haven't been able to get a good count of how many actually got shipped. I suspect that number is rather small.
 
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
 
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.

Gonna hang mine on the wall with a sign under it, “$1400” Boat Anchor..... WORTHLESS”
 
Last edited:
You can bend over and kiss that 600EXP good-by. Without a working solution and software to support that , there's no chance that anyone can get either a doghouse or any other certificated position source approved. And If you could by some miracle , there would be no support in the future.

Its a shame to pull out a perfectly good UAT which yields 100% acceptable performance reports every time , all due to the comedy of errors that took place in this adventure. I'm going to run mine up to the deadline. Might even fly at 11:50 PM that nite just to prove the point!
 
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.

It's very unfortunate and frustrating. But also, some warning signs were there, that perhaps Bill was in over his head. For comparison, look at the way GRT, another small company, does business: Your check will not be cashed - not a single penny - until the product is shipped. And the product won't be shipped until it is right.
Also, I STILL don't understand how an ADSB-out using a Transmon or similar device ever got an FAA blessing. (So I think the FAA is partly guilty here, too.)
 
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

If you have a new EXP, you would know it as you would have received it in the last week or two. It looks different too.

I?m waiting to hear results from somebody that has one. I?ve already been contacted for assistance.

I can?t answer your last question. My only advice is to watch the FAA approved list and make sure the position source is listed. In the EAB market 90% of our vendors are small businesses. There are no guarantees.
 
When the unit is trash I?ll pull it and not put one back in that plane. I?m waiting on the garmin Gdl-82 for the RV. Burned once, I?ll stick with garmin.

As a side note I was never informed by the FAA that there was an AD on this unit. Being as though it?s an experimental and ADs typically do not apply, (I know the argument when this whole fiasco started) I?m curious to see if they start contacting people after the AD date and start handing down fines.
 
Garmin ADSB at 5k...

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..!!
 
Last edited:
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..!!


I did exactly that several months ago. I am very pleased with the Apparreo unit.....AND i got a new xponder to replace the aging KT76 to boot.
 
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!

Don?t assume that it will be compliant just because it says Garmin on it. Ask the people who forked out huge dollars for the GDL90. People were trying to hit a moving target regarding ads-b for years. Let?s hope the target doesn?t continue to move.
 
With the number of Navworx units in the AD, has there been a mention or discussion related to the Avidyne products that Navworx was producing for them?

Some of the early delivery issues where related to Navworx closing the line to produce a large order for Avidyne.

I've not heard mention of any of their devices.
 
The units they made for Avidyne were receive-only boxes. They were never part of the AD, so not affected.

No word on how many units were built for Avidyne before NavWorx shuttered, but the assumption is "plenty".
 
If it is the ads-b in box I am thinking of, they were asking around $2500 for it when it launched. Not sure how many would bite at that price.
 
My new-to-me 182 came with one. Avidyne calls it a SkyTrax 100 or MLB100. The paperwork says it is a Navworx ADS600 B 200-11. The STC is from Navworx.

Avidyne doesn't say much about it. They are working on a new unit, but wouldn't give me any details. For now, the unit seems to be working ok. I would prefer a dual-band device, but this one will do for now. I am just learning it, as I got the 182 last week. It came with an Avidyne IFD540, AXP340 transponder/ADS-B Out and the Navworx unit. Since it doesn't transmit, it is not affected by the AD.
 
Dallas Avionics

So here is the offer from Dallas Avionics that came in yesterday (Nov 2). I would like to hear opinions on the uAvionics systems mentioned. Do they replicate the functions of the defunct NavWorx EXP? Are we assured that uAvionics is approved by FAA and will not bite us again?

I welcome discussions and opinions.

GordonR



Attention: Experimental & LSA Aircraft Owners

Dallas Avionics, Inc. is pleased to announce a "plug and play" replacement system for your Experimental or LSA Aircraft with existing NavWorx AD affected system.

Working with uAvionix Corp., we are pleased to be offering the EchoUAT and SkyFyx Bundle (P/N ECHOFIX-KL5) at reduced price of $1090.00 (regularly $1499.00). The System bundle will come with a factory supplied "pig tail" harness/connector that will require no additional wiring making replacement system "plug and play" for those with an existing ADS600-EXP. (Those with experimental aircraft with the ADS-600B system are also included in this special but will require connector replacement). With all the capabilities of your existing system, the EchoUAT also provides Dual (978 & 1090) traffic as a dual frequency receiver.

In addition to the "plug and play" system, we will offer additional configurations to include a bundle with SKYFYX-EXT which includes replacement of your existing portable antenna with a GPS antenna with built in WAAS receiver (in antenna). This bundle is offered at a discounted price of $1050.00 (regularly $1399.00).

Lastly, for those customers that would like to interface an existing compatible WAAS GPS (Garmin, Avidyne, etc) we offer just the EchoUAT at a discounted price of $799.00 (regularly $999.00).

Customers must verify serial number of existing ADS-600EXP or ADS-600B system to qualify for this incredible one time offer. Dallas Avionics, Inc. will offer this price through 12/31/17.

Please visit dallasavionics.com or uavionix.com for detailed unit specifications. Dallas Avionics, Inc. will begin to accept orders on Friday 11/3/17.

Note: This solution is for Experimental and LSA aircraft only. Dallas Avionics, Inc. is working on a similar solution for Certified Aircraft Owners and should have additional information in the next coming weeks.

Dallas Avionics, Inc.
2525 Santa Anna Ave
Dallas, TX 75228
800-527-2581 / 214-320-9770
 
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.
 
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.

Sounds like uAvionics documented their engineering, and plays well with the FAA. Something to be said for that approach.
 
uAvionics echoUAT and the FAA

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?
 
strength of wifi

A member wrote to me asking if the uAvionix wifi would reach behind a rear bulkhead. I really don't know how strong the wifi is. Anybody got any ideas?
 
Meeting the performance and meeting the standards without the actual certification is what got NavWorx in trouble in the first place. The certified NavWorx units were never in question by the FAA. The EXP units (along with the -0012 and -0013 devices), without a certified position source were deemed to start with non-SIL=3 - which was OK as long as the FAA was broadcasting to non-SIL=3! - then the FAA said "No SIL=3 - no data"...

Has the SIL for this UNIT been approved at 3 and is that in writing from the FAA to the vendor?

I would suggest that the same potential for the FAA changing its mind at a later time could put these folks in the same place. The SIL requirement change is what bit NavWorx - I would make sure that this gear meets the SIL requirements and have that in writing from the FAA to this vendor!

Bitten once - now aware of what and how things are written.

Not disparaging any other products out there as it sounds like this is good gear and functionality - just like the NavWorx boxes...just asking if their i's are dotted and their t's are crossed!
 
Last edited:
Sill value

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?

So I have to ask, What is the transmitted SIL value of the EchoUAT-KL5 that is being offered up as a NavWorx ADS600-EXP unit? I have not seen it advertised anywhere.
 
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?

The short answer is that you can't. For EAB aircraft, the vendors can self certify. This means that the FAA will trust them until proven otherwise, which was Navworx's demise. Even Navworx was burned by a vendor that misrepresented their product to Navworx.

Caveat Emptor.......

The good news is that the community is pretty small and is very self policing. Unfortunately, that doesn't protect early adopters of their products.
 
Back
Top