VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #61  
Old 10-26-2016, 12:31 PM
Billvt's Avatar
Billvt Billvt is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Fairfax, VT
Posts: 65
Default Reported SIL

The SIL reported by my ADS600-EXP on my latest report dated 10/05/16 was SIL = 3
__________________
Bill Morelli - A&P I/A - EAA Tech Counselor
Up North Aviation
CNC Instrument Panel Fabrication
Web www.upnorthaviation.com
E-Mail upnorthaviation@gmail.com
VAF advertiser
- RV-4 build in progress !!!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-26-2016, 01:06 PM
rleffler's Avatar
rleffler rleffler is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, OH (KDLZ)
Posts: 3,891
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk View Post
All this said...how does the FAA know that you removed the box? Can they discover your manufacturer by recognizing the equipment that is receiving streaming data?

Or is it like flying a non-sport compliant aircraft without a medical...good till you get caught?
As part of the data packet of the ADSB transmission, they know it's a NavWorx unit. If I recall correctly, the compliance report listed the Navworx model number.

Now whether or not they act on the data, is another issue........
__________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - RV10 Flying
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-26-2016, 01:15 PM
Radomir's Avatar
Radomir Radomir is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterk View Post
All this said...how does the FAA know that you removed the box? Can they discover your manufacturer by recognizing the equipment that is receiving streaming data?

Or is it like flying a non-sport compliant aircraft without a medical...good till you get caught?
It's an honor system... there's nothing in the transmitted data that identifies the manufacturer.

PS. they "know" on compliance report cause "you told them what unit you have" (they ask for it when you ask for compliance report)
__________________
Radomir
RV-7A sold
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-26-2016, 07:11 PM
Scott Hersha Scott Hersha is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 863
Default

Well..... what I heard was a bit different, not that it matters much. I heard that last January the FAA stopped sending traffic info (TIS B) to aircraft broadcasting SIL=0 in the ADS-B data string (indicates EAB/light sport, I think). NavWorx changed the software to broadcast TIS=3, in order to get traffic info displayed on their customers ADS600-B and ADS600-EXP units. SIL 3 is for certified units, not experimental - I think..... The FAA has a beef with this because even though the internal GPS accuracy meets the TSO accuracy requirements, it's not a certified TSO'd GPS. I could be wrong about this, but that's the way I understand it from what I've read/researched. I do have a dog in this fight because I just received my new ADS600-EXP 3 days ago, and would like to use it.......forever...

Anyway, it sort of reminds me of what happened many years ago when PMA(parts manufacturing approval)was first introduced, but the PMA'd parts didn't have to meet any of the original design parameters other than basic shape, size and weight. Customers of major aircraft components, such as engines, expected the original manufacturer to warranty and support their product when it included PMA'd replacement parts that were installed that didn't meet the designed performance requirements of the original engine (Lycoming, GE, etc). Eventually the PMA system became a little more stringent and PMA'd parts became more like the original design (but not quite).

What this has to do with the NavWorx situation has to do with the way the FAA handles things. If NavWorx knowingly changed their software to broadcast a SIL=3 code with an uncertified unit in order to 'steal' the TIS-B info, well, bad on them. If the FAA changed the protocol on what was originally accepted by the FAA air traffic system without informing the previously approved venders of ADS-B systems and offering them a recourse, then bad on them - and I believe that is what happened here. Why? I don't know, but what if the thousands of certified 'light' aircraft were allowed to use uncertified parts that met the original TSO - via an extension or growth of a part 23 rewrite to meet the 2020 ADS-B mandate? Do you think any pressure could be exerted on FAA in the name of protectionism by certain groups, like, say, GAMA? I don't trust anyone in Washington and neither should you. What they are doing could ruin a small American company, and in the name of what? Safety?? Absolutely not! That has been proven, and they (FAA) proved, or shall I say, approved it. Write to them. It's on the NavWorx website - EASY link to make a comment. Experimental aviation needs to stand up to these kinds of threats.
__________________
Scott Hersha
2001 RV-6 - sold 2005
2008 RV-8 Fastback - Sold 2016
RV-14 Wings - sold 2014
RV4 - Sold
Cessna 182RG - flying
New RV8 - Finished and flying 4/26/18
Cincinnati, OH/KHAO
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-26-2016, 07:38 PM
rvator51's Avatar
rvator51 rvator51 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 1,006
Default

I wonder if a compromise solution that Navworx could change the software to broadcast SIL=1, which would make everyone happy and give Navworx and the FAA 4 years to come to agreement/solution on getting the SIL=3, while the user can still get traffic?
__________________
Regards,

Thomas Velvick
Goodyear, AZ (KGYR)

2017 Donation sent.

N53KT RV-6a Flying
N7053L RV-4 Wife's RV (RV4chick's blog)
N56KT RV-4 Finishing

Last edited by rvator51 : 10-26-2016 at 07:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-26-2016, 08:43 PM
Jordan1976 Jordan1976 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Hersha View Post
SIL 3 is for certified units, not experimental - I think..... The FAA has a beef with this because even though the internal GPS accuracy meets the TSO accuracy requirements, it's not a certified TSO'd GPS. I could be wrong about this, but that's the way I understand it from what I've read/researched.

If the FAA changed the protocol on what was originally accepted by the FAA air traffic system without informing the previously approved venders of ADS-B systems and offering them a recourse, then bad on them - and I believe that is what happened here.
First and foremost, this AD is for TSO'd units. SIL has nothing to do with certified/not certified. It's all about the demonstrated reliability of the GPS to not transmit a wrong position. There are at least two non-TSO'd vendors sending SIL=3. In this particular case, the unit WAS TSO'd and the FAA still claims it's not SIL=3 capable. You can TSO a SIL=0, SIL=1, SIL=2, or SIL=3 device.

The FAA gave everyone (the public, the vendors) at least 9 months warning of the upcoming change, and engaged the vendors for almost a year before that. They did not change the protocol, they changed how the ground stations reacted to it, and they left the ability for SIL 1,2, and 3 to wake up the ground stations, not just SIL 3. Many vendors did object to the change, but it wasn't like the FAA didn't engage everyone beforehand, and didn't discuss multiple options. There was a specific safety issue with SIL=0 (certified planes couldn't see you AT ALL because of a quirk in the TSO), and that was a primary basis for the change, and the issue the FAA was looking to solve.

Last edited by Jordan1976 : 10-26-2016 at 08:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-26-2016, 08:44 PM
lr172 lr172 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 2,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theduff View Post
I was told by an avionics guru that there are only 3 companies that make the TSO'd GPS chips and they have raised their prices exorbitantly which led Bill to looking for an alternative. Seems like the big players in the avionics universe weren't too keen on Bill's affordable solution.
Seems the aviation business is learning from big Pharma - Pay the Gov't to eliminate your competition for you.

Larry
__________________
N64LR
RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
RV-10 in progress
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-26-2016, 09:01 PM
lr172 lr172 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 2,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brantel View Post
It did... Garmin was also effected by this change in that they correctly output SIL-0 when using an uncertified (or approved equal) position source. When the FAA flipped the switch to not allow clients outputting SIL-0 to receive the traffic uplink, Garmin based panels (using an uncertified (or approved equal) position source) lost uplinked traffic data as well. Garmin refused to lie to the system by incorrectly outputting something higher than SIL-0. Other well known manufacturers also got hammered by this change as well but also followed the rules.

My understanding is that the manufacturers firmware is what decides what SIL level is going to be output. Looks to me like Navworx decided to break the rules by outputting a higher SIL level than 0 without a properly certified (or approved equal) position source. Essentially what appears to be lying to the system and therefore the FAA takes issue with that.

I doubt they are the only ones out there that have tried or are trying to get away with this. There are some other dirt cheap models that most likely are doing the same thing and will eventually get busted by the FAA.
A key difference here is that Garmin and most others are selling TSO'ed units and all parts must be TSO'ed. In essence, they must prove to the FAA that ALL TSO specs are met and receive the FAA stamp of approval.

Last year, the FAA gave makers of experimental units the ability to utilize non-TSO'ed parts inside of a packaged non-TSO product as long as they met the performance specifications outlined in the TSO. Unless Navworx used parts that didn't allow their units to meet the performance spec for SIL=3, they didn't do anything wrong by using non-TSO parts and outputting a SIL=3. You can't compare Navworx to Garmin, as they are selling different products. Unfortunately the FAA didn't publicly state if or how they would police the industry on "meeting the performance spec."

My guess is that the FAA is quietly pulling back on some of the freedom it issued last year in a quiet way. This is likely due to political pressure from the larger players in the certified arena.

Larry
__________________
N64LR
RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
RV-10 in progress

Last edited by lr172 : 10-26-2016 at 09:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-26-2016, 09:51 PM
Paul 5r4 Paul 5r4 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Foley, Al
Posts: 285
Default FAA BS

It's absolutely amazing to me that right in the middle of the FAA's push... AKA $500 rebates... to get everyone on board with ADSB they pull something like this and I don't care if they gave everyone 9 months warning. It really looks like they didn't have things all figured out or as some stated, it's the big companies applying some political pressure to make life hard on smaller companies. Navworx puts out a fantastic product for a very reasonable price. Along with minimal install time, it's just a great unit.

After flying with my navworx ADSB a few months I can say it increases safety 1000%. Weather is one thing but with most of my flights local... weather is never much of an issue. Traffic on the other hand, well I never knew there was so much around me and so close too. The FAA changing the rules is a huge step back for lots of people. It took months of research/reading/asking questions/saving money to get ADSB.... and now the threat of having to take it out looms. Unbelievable!

Sorry, needed to vent a little. :-(
__________________
Paul Gray
Foley, Alabama
N729PG..... 300+ hrs
RV 7A, Lycoming 0 320 D1A, Sensenich FP propeller
pilotforfun2001@yahoo.com
VAF supporter $$$
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-26-2016, 10:14 PM
Jordan1976 Jordan1976 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lr172 View Post
A key difference here is that Garmin and most others are selling TSO'ed units and all parts must be TSO'ed.
This AD is for a TSO'd unit. From the AD:

Quote:
NavWorx produces ADS-B units under Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-154c.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:04 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.