What's new
Van's Air Force

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

NavWorx Solution coming

NavWorx ADS600-EXP update

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.

Before I spend another $300 on my system, I would appreciate thoughts and inputs from others in the same situation.

GordonR
 
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.

Before I spend another $300 on my system, I would appreciate thoughts and inputs from others in the same situation.

GordonR

This is old news covered by at least two other threads on VAF.

The FAA is capable of determining who has an operational Navwork unit. The question then becomes how proactive are they at enforcing the AD. I'm not sure that's a bet I would be willing to take.

Unfortunately for the EXP unit, there isn't much of a choice. You must upgrade if you have an EXP. There are other options for the ADS600-B.

Scott just communicated the status to everyone in the queue waiting for updates last week. You can read it here:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1207313&postcount=46
 
Is there a date from which -EXP units sold new will be in compliance as delivered? The email that Bob posted states that new -EXP units will have a new part number, and implies that the new part number units will be in compliance as delivered.

What is unclear is whether those new units will include the daisy-chained external certified GPS source which is being developed as a remedy for the existing units, or whether there will be a new design that will incorporate the new certified GPS source internally? If external, will it be bundled in the purchase price, or sold separately?
 
Is there a date from which -EXP units sold new will be in compliance as delivered? The email that Bob posted states that new -EXP units will have a new part number, and implies that the new part number units will be in compliance as delivered.

What is unclear is whether those new units will include the daisy-chained external certified GPS source which is being developed as a remedy for the existing units, or whether there will be a new design that will incorporate the new certified GPS source internally? If external, will it be bundled in the purchase price, or sold separately?

You have access to the same information the rest of us have.

From reading the information on the web site, it appears that there are two solutions. An upgrade for existing users with an external gps and a new purchase option which appears to have an internal gps.
 
Just noticed this

On the Dallas site . This is a copy and paste.
Update: 9/28/2017

Attention: Customers Awaiting ADS600-B Upgrade & Certified ADS600-B NexGen 2.0

During a recent meeting between the FAA and NavWorx, the FAA has requested additional data from NavWorx referencing the upgrade for AD compliance of the certified system. Once this data is submitted the FAA has conservatively given a time period of 2 months to review.

Be assured that it is a priority for NavWorx to complete certification, not only for AD compliance but for 2020 Compliance as well.

We understand the urgency and frustration that may result with this delay. Be assured that NavWorx is working diligently to reach final certification.

To ensure customers are up to date on NavWorx progress during this time frame, Dallas Avionics, Inc. will send out updates periodically.

Attention: NavWorx ADS600-EXP GPS Module for AD Compliance (P/N 200-9013)

NavWorx has received FAA approval for the experimental GPS Module "Doghouse" for AD resolution/compliance of existing ADS600-EXP Systems.

The part number of the ADS600-EXP will change to 200-9013, with the addition of the new GPS module, eliminating the AD on the original ADS600-EXP 200-8013 part numbers. No AMOC is required nor will be issued.

NavWorx has completed all design and verification to 14 CFR 91.227 and is waiting for shipment of the new GPS module from the manufacturer.
 
"NavWorx has received FAA approval for the experimental GPS Module "Doghouse" for AD resolution/compliance of existing ADS600-EXP Systems."

From this I understand that the doghouse add-on being offered for sale by DallasAvionics for $299 has already received FAA approval, and those of us with installed ADS600-EXP units may confidently purchase this add-on and be in 2020 compliance.

Is that also the understanding of other members of this forum? I would not like to spend another $300 and still be undecided on compliance.

GordonR
 
Mo Money?

I'm thinking that I'd do better to toss my brand new EXP into the trash can (and forget about this fiasco) rather than spend another dime with Bill. But, I digress...and will wait a little longer.
 
Environmentally friendly disposal

Ron, please send your EXP to me for proper "disposal"!

Thanks,

Ron
 
Adios NavWorx

I have already purchased another ADSB solution for my plane. However, I will wait until the deadline to order the NavWorx "piggy-back GPS" to see if any units have actually shipped (not holding my breath). If not, my EXP will be disposed of.

If you want to punish yourself, I will sell my EXP now for $250.00. Just PM me.

Ron B.
 
I have lost confidence as well...

I really hate to pile on here... but it's pretty uncool to force us to buy another dang gps receiver. I have a 430w and just want to send data like folks with the -b units do. But I frankly have had other problems with the unit so I don't want to waste any more time on it. I will wait until within a few months of the 2020 dead line before I gamble any more airplane money on another solution.

By the way... you should be able receive the weather regardless if you have a navworx or a stratux or whatever. Only traffic gets shut off due to sil 0.
 
I too have an EXP model. New in the box with connectors. I bought it a few weeks before the FAA shut down Navworx a year ago. Then couldn't get a peep of a response back from Navworx. I should have learned my lesson years ago with the Blue Mountain debacle. This is right up there.

The sad thing is that this mainly hurts the other 2nd and 3rd tier device makers. I know many former Blue Mountain owners who went with the big G after their experience dealing with Blue Mountain. This is unfortunate for the likes of uAvionix, Skyradar, Freeflight etc. who, unlike Navworx, provide great customer support but might still be passed over by those same potential customers burned by Navworx and so choose to go Garmin from now on to make sure they can keep flying. A real shame.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Me 2

Me 2. I'm just sitting on an EXP in it's box-----reading all of this for "forever" already.
 
Technical issue on SIL

By the way... you should be able receive the weather regardless if you have a navworx or a stratux or whatever. Only traffic gets shut off due to sil 0.

I am receiving traffic on my 600EXP now. I do not know what is the transmitted SIL (how can I determine that?), but I think that the SIL=0 will only get transmitted if we install 6.0.0 software. Is that so?

If we put in the $300 doghouse and install 7.0.0 then SIL=3 will be transmitted. But for now, and without 6.0.0, I still get traffic.

Can any technically competent folks explain this to us?

GordonR
 
That sounds right to me. If you're running the current software, it is broadcasting a SIL of 3 which is what makes the FAA mad but also makes everything work correctly.
 
Yes, get a report to see your SIL. Remember that even with no transmitter at all, an ADSB-in receiver will get some traffic, but not necessarily all (relevant) traffic.
 
Hopefully, this means that they got their AMOC approved - make sure you get a copy of it and comply with the local FSDO notification. Keep a copy with your airframe logbook - along with the actual AD...in case you ever get ramp-checked!
 
Hopefully, this means that they got their AMOC approved - make sure you get a copy of it and comply with the local FSDO notification. Keep a copy with your airframe logbook - along with the actual AD...in case you ever get ramp-checked!

They don't need an AMOC for the EXP. After the upgrade (and new purchases) it has a new part number. That takes it out of the published AD hit list.

BTW, you aren't required to have log books in the aircraft, so nobody doing a ramp check will ever care about a Navworx AD. If they want to see your logs, you are going have a really bad day because they are probably looking for something else that they already know the answer.
 
Last edited:
Good points - new part number - forgot about that difference. I hope they're using the same previously approved hardware for the dog-house...
Good info on the ramp check - knock wood...if they're digging that deep, they already know the answer...good one!
 
Yes I placed mine also. The alternative seems to be a $500 Garmin receiver, or a completely new unit for $1400.

My unit works well with one or two glitches, so I am ok technically with staying with them.

I could do nothing at all, and short of a ramp-check nobody will be any the wiser. But the upgrade is inexpensive enough that I don't want to jeopardize re-sale opportunities by not being in compliance.

Business-wise I am not too happy because I think that we should get what we originally paid for - namely a fully compliant 2020 grade unit. That would imply FREE dog-house for purchasers, but I am willing (unwillingly:confused:) to pay $300 for compliance if NavWorx feels it is necessary to stay in business.

I am sure that if it were Dynon, they would upgrade us for free.

GordonR
 
Navworx: not currently conducting any business and have ceased operations.

What do you all make of this?

Just copied this from the Navworx website:

The ADS600-B Gen 2.0 product utilizes a GPS module from a third-party vendor. Although the vendor represented their GPS module met 14 CFR 91.227, the FAA recently determined the GPS module does not meet 14 CFR 91.227.

We are unable to sell the ADS600-B, or provide AD updates, for either certified or experimental aircraft.

Therefore, we are not currently conducting any business and have ceased operations.

We will provide updates if they become available.
 
I'm sorry to see this come down the way it did. Obviously Bill was betting his business on this GPS vendor and lost.

It appears that the only legal option now for those of us with ADS600-B's are the three AMOCs. While it makes us legal, I believe it's just a temporary stop gap.

There are still outstanding bugs in the current software release that Bill has stated are fixed in 5.0. (i.e. traffic on both display ports). While legal, our units are only going to suffice until a major bug pops up. It will buy us some time so that we can save and plan the purchase of replacement units.
 
Last edited:
Is the nail in the coffin

Text I recieved today:

Dallas Avionics, Inc.

Effective immediately, Dallas Avionics, Inc. has discontinued distribution and support all NavWorx products.

All pre-orders for NavWorx products, repairs and upgrades received by Dallas Avionics, Inc. will be canceled effective immediately.

Over the past year, Dallas Avionics, Inc. has made every attempt to facilitate the success of NavWorx and support of their customers. Unfortunately under the current conditions and outlook, we can no longer continue to provide this service.

While we are compassionate to the situation, please direct all further correspondence direct to Navworx at:

NavWorx, Inc.
3706 Big A Road
Rowlett, TX 75089
1-888-NAVWORX (628-9679)
 
Received text also , lawyer may have some action

You know a lot of us bought the 1090 hardware upgrade. Did any one ever make sure that there was really an upgrade, only waiting for the software to turn it on? Or was this another method of obtaining more money . How can we find out, what action can a large group of us take?
 
I'm caught in the middle of an install of a certified ADS600-B with GNS-430W against an AMOC. Best I can tell, the install is fully certified, but with the web site down I can't get the UAT software. Anybody have an alternate way of getting it?
 
I'm caught in the middle of an install of a certified ADS600-B with GNS-430W against an AMOC. Best I can tell, the install is fully certified, but with the web site down I can't get the UAT software. Anybody have an alternate way of getting it?

All you need is the current version (4.1.0) of the UAT software. You don't need 5.0 for the AMOC. However, if we can get our hands on 5.0, the AMOC does cover any subsequent versions.

Now that Bill has shuttered his business. Any of the beta testers of 5.0 want to share the code? Feel free to contact me via email (it's linked in my userid above this message)
 
Were there any Beta testers!

If there was one....

It would be great to get our hands on that software!
 
All you need is the current version (4.1.0) of the UAT software. You don't need 5.0 for the AMOC. However, if we can get our hands on 5.0, the AMOC does cover any subsequent versions.

Now that Bill has shuttered his business. Any of the beta testers of 5.0 want to share the code? Feel free to contact me via email (it's linked in my userid above this message)

For that matter, does anyone know where I can get a copy of the 4.1.0 software? Mine is about 3 years old but I never updated because it was working fine and the whole unit was about to go into Dallas Avionics for the position source upgrade. (my console version is 4.0.3, is that tied to the UAT software version?)

FWIW, I might still have bought my Navworx back in 2009 even knowing what I know now. I got a decade of weather and traffic that I would not have otherwise gotten. I will still probably meet an AMOC with some sort of external position source for not too much extra $$. I appreciate guys like Bill giving a go at being on the cutting edge.
 
Dallas Avionics

Anyone understand what this email which I received from Dallas Avionics means?

"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."

Will they try to produce a compliant doghouse for the 600EXP? Or just discount a different fully compliant ADS-B unit?
 
Dallas Avionics

Morning Gordon, I just received the same EMail. If Dallas Avionics is willing to look into a way of keeping the Navworx units in compliance it would sure be a shot in the arm for all of us. I have contacted them and offered my support and a willingness to incorporate an appropriate update to my system. My 600-EXP has worked fine for nearly 3 years so I still find it hard to understand what the problem is. I strongly believe that if the FAA is going to mandate that we install new equipment tom comply with their NexRad program, then they also have a responsibility to that we have the necessary information, (which units they actually approve for use) so the end user can make an educated/informed decision before purchasing. Navworx hasn't been working in a vacuum or selling on the "Dark Web". The FAA new they were providing a product that was advertised as "2020 compliant" but did nothing until the AD to inform operators of a problem.
Rick Gilbride
RV6
 
My 600-EXP has worked fine for nearly 3 years so I still find it hard to understand what the problem is. I strongly believe that if the FAA is going to mandate that we install new equipment tom comply with their NexRad program, then they also have a responsibility to that we have the necessary information, (which units they actually approve for use) so the end user can make an educated/informed decision before purchasing. Navworx hasn't been working in a vacuum or selling on the "Dark Web". The FAA new they were providing a product that was advertised as "2020 compliant" but did nothing until the AD to inform operators of a problem.
Rick Gilbride
RV6

Here?s my take on the Navworx issue. The fact that an ADS-B unit gets a passing report has nothing to do with meeting the requirements. The report shows that it is reporting an SIL of 3 and an SDA of 2. It also shows the percentage of dropouts and things like that. It does not know the accuracy, just hat it reports the accuracy of the SIL and SDA levels. What Navworx did is certify their GPS chip at a lower accuracy, then when the FAA changed their requirements fto wake up the ground stations (end of 2015 IIRC), Navworx changed their software to the higher SIL to continue waking up the ground stations. This was the main beef with the FAA, or at least the beginning of it. If you report these accuracy levels, the report will show compliance, whether you are in compliance or not.

The certified units ar stated to be in compliance with the TSO paperwork.

My problem with this situation is that the Navworx unit may have meet the accuracy requirements, even though it wasn?t TSOed to that level. The -EXP box reported the higher SIL and SDA, but the rule said hat they had to meet the accuracy requirements of the TSO, not actually be TSOed. Navworx states that it met those requirements, so to recall the via the AD, the FAA should have (and may have) tested the GPS chip to establish that it, in fact, did NOT meet the accuracy requirement. Otherwise, based on heir rule, there was no basis for he AD on that unit. This problem is compounded because the -EXP doesn?t have an option for an external GPS input. A lot of people have the -EXP box with a GTN or GNSW unit that could provide the compliant position, but they have no way to connect the two units. I would have to read the AD again to remember the details, but if you are using the -EXP as ADS-B In, you should still be able to do this, but will need to disable the Out, if this is possible. That was the real benefit of the Navworx units, they provided In and Out for the cost of other options that were just Out.

For all of the ADS600-B units, if there is a position source listed in the AD or fitting with the Global AMOCS, the only cost to comply is running the wire(s) and sending in he paperwork if/as required by the local FSDO.

My main question at this point would be, is there a way that the FAA can tell if you have a NavWorx box outputting the UAT? I?m not condoning using this method any more than I am condoning the ignoring of any AD, but I am wondering. For example, my main fear of User Fees for GA is that people are going to start flying IFR without being in the system to avoid the fees. This is illegal, but it will happen. That is another issue, but the FAA can?t police that except in cases of accidents (which there will certainly be more of), which would be the same case with non-compliant Navworx boxes, unless they have a way of knowing what box is outputting the UAT signal. Again, I do NOT condone this, but it will be done, both deliberately and out of ignorance. Many mechanics, both A&P and Repairmen, don?t check AD?s on experimentales, and are not aware of the NavWorx AD, so there will continue to be aircraft flying non-compliant units well into the future. Just like the Cherokee that I did an annual on that had an AD 25 years ago hat had never been complied with, that took 3 minutes to inspect for compliance. It had just never been done.

It would be nice if someone could make a piggyback box that would provide a simple input for a compliant source.
 
Need a logbook entry for Navworx AMOC

I just installed a Navworx ADS600B to a 430W via AMOC but have yet to do the logbook entry. There was an example on another thread but the link is broken now. Can anyone post or link to a logbook entry for a Navworx ADS600B installed via an AMOC? I can try to reinvent it but the one linked was better than what I would have written.
Eric
 
ADS-600EXP Replacement

Jesse,

What do you recommend for a replacement unit for the ADS
-600EXP unit?

Here?s my take on the Navworx issue. The fact that an ADS-B unit gets a passing report has nothing to do with meeting the requirements. The report shows that it is reporting an SIL of 3 and an SDA of 2. It also shows the percentage of dropouts and things like that. It does not know the accuracy, just hat it reports the accuracy of the SIL and SDA levels. What Navworx did is certify their GPS chip at a lower accuracy, then when the FAA changed their requirements fto wake up the ground stations (end of 2015 IIRC), Navworx changed their software to the higher SIL to continue waking up the ground stations. This was the main beef with the FAA, or at least the beginning of it. If you report these accuracy levels, the report will show compliance, whether you are in compliance or not.

The certified units ar stated to be in compliance with the TSO paperwork.

My problem with this situation is that the Navworx unit may have meet the accuracy requirements, even though it wasn?t TSOed to that level. The -EXP box reported the higher SIL and SDA, but the rule said hat they had to meet the accuracy requirements of the TSO, not actually be TSOed. Navworx states that it met those requirements, so to recall the via the AD, the FAA should have (and may have) tested the GPS chip to establish that it, in fact, did NOT meet the accuracy requirement. Otherwise, based on heir rule, there was no basis for he AD on that unit. This problem is compounded because the -EXP doesn?t have an option for an external GPS input. A lot of people have the -EXP box with a GTN or GNSW unit that could provide the compliant position, but they have no way to connect the two units. I would have to read the AD again to remember the details, but if you are using the -EXP as ADS-B In, you should still be able to do this, but will need to disable the Out, if this is possible. That was the real benefit of the Navworx units, they provided In and Out for the cost of other options that were just Out.

For all of the ADS600-B units, if there is a position source listed in the AD or fitting with the Global AMOCS, the only cost to comply is running the wire(s) and sending in he paperwork if/as required by the local FSDO.

My main question at this point would be, is there a way that the FAA can tell if you have a NavWorx box outputting the UAT? I?m not condoning using this method any more than I am condoning the ignoring of any AD, but I am wondering. For example, my main fear of User Fees for GA is that people are going to start flying IFR without being in the system to avoid the fees. This is illegal, but it will happen. That is another issue, but the FAA can?t police that except in cases of accidents (which there will certainly be more of), which would be the same case with non-compliant Navworx boxes, unless they have a way of knowing what box is outputting the UAT signal. Again, I do NOT condone this, but it will be done, both deliberately and out of ignorance. Many mechanics, both A&P and Repairmen, don?t check AD?s on experimentales, and are not aware of the NavWorx AD, so there will continue to be aircraft flying non-compliant units well into the future. Just like the Cherokee that I did an annual on that had an AD 25 years ago hat had never been complied with, that took 3 minutes to inspect for compliance. It had just never been done.

It would be nice if someone could make a piggyback box that would provide a simple input for a compliant source.
 
How about since the FAA is partially at fault in all this, that they reallocate the funds that weren't claimed for the rebate program and offer to buy back all of the exp units out there? Thus showing good faith in the system and removing any potential risks. Problem solved and we can all move on.
 
I just installed a Navworx ADS600B to a 430W via AMOC but have yet to do the logbook entry. There was an example on another thread but the link is broken now. Can anyone post or link to a logbook entry for a Navworx ADS600B installed via an AMOC? I can try to reinvent it but the one linked was better than what I would have written.
Eric

Hi,
If you send me an email at flightenhancements.com and I can share one that someone from Pilots of America shared with me.
 
For that matter, does anyone know where I can get a copy of the 4.1.0 software? Mine is about 3 years old but I never updated because it was working fine and the whole unit was about to go into Dallas Avionics for the position source upgrade. (my console version is 4.0.3, is that tied to the UAT software version?)

FWIW, I might still have bought my Navworx back in 2009 even knowing what I know now. I got a decade of weather and traffic that I would not have otherwise gotten. I will still probably meet an AMOC with some sort of external position source for not too much extra $$. I appreciate guys like Bill giving a go at being on the cutting edge.

I sent you a PM ref 4.1.0.
 
Is anybody out there using the TransMon with a GTX-327? I?m having trouble getting it to talk. Anybody have any TransMon advice?
 
Jesse,

What do you recommend for a replacement unit for the ADS
-600EXP unit?

I don?t have much experience with the other experimental units out there. I do have a lot of good experience with the Stratus ES(G), the Garmin units and the TT22. The best In option would probably be to keep the Navworx if there is a way to disable the Out.
 
Is anybody out there using the TransMon with a GTX-327? I?m having trouble getting it to talk. Anybody have any TransMon advice?
I had the transmon and discontinued using it in favor of hard wire for more reliable transmissions.
 
My Solution

I have also been caught up Navworx deal, with a 600B installed. In fact, this aspect alone has held up the completion of my 7. Despite redesigning the panel and sub panel for easy access after completion (7 slider) guess which box is the toughest to get to......

My transponder, a Garmin 330 remote mounted, was upgraded to an ES version. When all this was going on I considered options. Up hearing of death of Navworx, I call Tim Haas of Approach Systems to consult. I have his Hub installed. He was completely shocked and was unaware of the closing of Navworx. We discussed a couple of options and suggest I call Rob Hickman since I have two 5500T's installed.

Rob advised me that they have a new ADS-B receiver coming out and will adapt easily. Tim said he can make the harness or possibly and adapter from the Navworx harness.

So, the solution was relatively easy and probably less than a $1000. I suspect a couple of hours of install time and I'll be done.

FYI, the Garmin solution for the same issue could have reached $3000 or more.

If you have a solution for your install, post!!! It will help everyone that has been affected.
 
Here?s my take on the Navworx issue. The fact that an ADS-B unit gets a passing report has nothing to do with meeting the requirements. The report shows that it is reporting an SIL of 3 and an SDA of 2. It also shows the percentage of dropouts and things like that. It does not know the accuracy, just hat it reports the accuracy of the SIL and SDA levels. What Navworx did is certify their GPS chip at a lower accuracy, then when the FAA changed their requirements fto wake up the ground stations (end of 2015 IIRC), Navworx changed their software to the higher SIL to continue waking up the ground stations. This was the main beef with the FAA, or at least the beginning of it. If you report these accuracy levels, the report will show compliance, whether you are in compliance or not.

The certified units ar stated to be in compliance with the TSO paperwork.

My problem with this situation is that the Navworx unit may have meet the accuracy requirements, even though it wasn?t TSOed to that level. The -EXP box reported the higher SIL and SDA, but the rule said hat they had to meet the accuracy requirements of the TSO, not actually be TSOed. Navworx states that it met those requirements, so to recall the via the AD, the FAA should have (and may have) tested the GPS chip to establish that it, in fact, did NOT meet the accuracy requirement. Otherwise, based on heir rule, there was no basis for he AD on that unit. This problem is compounded because the -EXP doesn?t have an option for an external GPS input. A lot of people have the -EXP box with a GTN or GNSW unit that could provide the compliant position, but they have no way to connect the two units. I would have to read the AD again to remember the details, but if you are using the -EXP as ADS-B In, you should still be able to do this, but will need to disable the Out, if this is possible. That was the real benefit of the Navworx units, they provided In and Out for the cost of other options that were just Out.

For all of the ADS600-B units, if there is a position source listed in the AD or fitting with the Global AMOCS, the only cost to comply is running the wire(s) and sending in he paperwork if/as required by the local FSDO.

My main question at this point would be, is there a way that the FAA can tell if you have a NavWorx box outputting the UAT? I?m not condoning using this method any more than I am condoning the ignoring of any AD, but I am wondering. For example, my main fear of User Fees for GA is that people are going to start flying IFR without being in the system to avoid the fees. This is illegal, but it will happen. That is another issue, but the FAA can?t police that except in cases of accidents (which there will certainly be more of), which would be the same case with non-compliant Navworx boxes, unless they have a way of knowing what box is outputting the UAT signal. Again, I do NOT condone this, but it will be done, both deliberately and out of ignorance. Many mechanics, both A&P and Repairmen, don?t check AD?s on experimentales, and are not aware of the NavWorx AD, so there will continue to be aircraft flying non-compliant units well into the future. Just like the Cherokee that I did an annual on that had an AD 25 years ago hat had never been complied with, that took 3 minutes to inspect for compliance. It had just never been done.

It would be nice if someone could make a piggyback box that would provide a simple input for a compliant source.


They have the ability to know what device is transmitting data. I was an early adopter and the very first compliance reports from the FAA had more data than you would ever want to know in them, including the device name.

The real question is how motivated they will be to police AD compliance. Unfortunately, only hindsight will be accurate.

Regarding the FSDO paperwork. I know one FSDO that went off the deep ending requiring all kinds of documentation and another one that couldn't care less. All they wanted was a simple email stating that you installed per the AMOC in your aircraft number. I'm sure the rest of the country is someplace in between. The AMOC states to contact the FSDO Office's Principal Inspector. I was informed by my FSDO, that they didn't have that role in their office, and if the did, they wouldn't be looking at experimentals. With that said, the AMOC also covers certified aircraft too.

bob
 
I just installed a Navworx ADS600B to a 430W via AMOC but have yet to do the logbook entry. There was an example on another thread but the link is broken now. Can anyone post or link to a logbook entry for a Navworx ADS600B installed via an AMOC? I can try to reinvent it but the one linked was better than what I would have written.
Eric

Just note that you complied with the AMOC, date, and sign.
 
Back
Top