VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #621  
Old 07-30-2017, 08:55 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is offline
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 3,851
Default

Why am I reminded of Blue Mountain Avionics (and a certain Subaru conversion) every time I read this thread.........deja vue all over again.....

But, I have no dog in this hunt (Stratus ESG and dual-band Stratux receiver for not much more than NavWorx equipment, and it is compliant...pre and post 2020).
__________________
Sam Buchanan
1999 RV-6
1918 Fokker D.VII replica

Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 07-31-2017 at 08:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 07-30-2017, 10:27 PM
Tracer 10 Tracer 10 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 90
Default Aparreo STRATUS ESGi

We installed this in our RV6; and got...
Dual Band ADS-B IN/OUT
AHRS/WEATHER USING ForeFlight on iPad Mini.
And I still have the NAVWORX EXP system & wiring harness that I paid for in October 2016; minus the (brain box); which was never shipped due to the impending AD. Which they obviously knew about when they sold me the EXP.
__________________
CW4 (Retired) U.S. Army
A&P: I pay double dues (it's worth it)
Oregon RV-6
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 08-01-2017, 08:24 AM
DavidBunin DavidBunin is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtw_rv6 View Post
Let's also be accurate about why these boxes are now the subject of an AD. Bill installed a different gps in the production units than what was approved by the FAA. The FAA did not change the regulations in a way that made these boxes non compliant,
There are plenty of reasons to be upset with NavWorx without making things up.

The GPS hardware never changed. The FAA's handling of ADS-B products did.

The regulations for ADS-B did: 91.225 and 91.227 were revised. Also, the FAA changed the behavior of their network software. Those two things were what put NavWorx on the path that the FAA (six months later) decided was not what they wanted from the company.

Of course now we have companies like uAvionics who say that they will be selling products with no TSO approval at all. If the FAA allows that, then what was this whole thing about?
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 08-01-2017, 02:32 PM
Radomir's Avatar
Radomir Radomir is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidBunin View Post
The regulations for ADS-B did: 91.225 and 91.227 were revised.
You left out a "minor" detail there -- yes, it changed *for the better* (for manufacturers). With that change, things should have gotten easier for NavWorx, not harder

The change you're referring to was a "clarification' that GPS source need not be "certified." It was never FAA's intent to put that restriction (absolutely requiring certified position source), but original language of those two regs implied so.
__________________
Radomir
RV-7A sold
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 08-01-2017, 02:54 PM
Jordan1976 Jordan1976 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidBunin View Post
Of course now we have companies like uAvionics who say that they will be selling products with no TSO approval at all. If the FAA allows that, then what was this whole thing about?
The FAR says you must meet the requirements of the TSO. The Navworx box actually had a TSO-A, which means the FAA was actually stating that it meets the TSO, not just the manufacturer. The original TSO was for a GPS with a SIL of 0. The FAA found that a software change made this a SIL of 3, as a "minor change." The FAA disagreed with Navworx that the installed GPS was capable of this integrity level. This is exactly the FAA's purview in this case as they are the auditor of TSO manufacturers.

You can sell non-TSO-A stuff, but if you're going to actually get a TSO, you need to prove to the FAA that it meets everything. There's also nothing stating that if a manufacturer sells a non-TSO box, but it becomes clear that it doesn't meet the requirements of the TSO, that the FAA can't do something about it. So while you don't need a TSO, you better meet the requirements, and have documentation to back that up.
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 08-01-2017, 03:34 PM
DavidBunin DavidBunin is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
The FAA disagreed with Navworx that the installed GPS was capable of this integrity level.
What you say is true (meaning that you have correctly stated the FAA's contention) but the FAA never provided any indication of why they felt that way. NavWorx tested the unit in simulations of exactly the conditions that were supposed to be a problem (failed satellites), and it worked fine. The FAA was never clear as to why they felt those tests were not sufficient, or what other testing they would like to see.

Also, the NavWorx TSO is for TSO-154 which covers the GPS performance in great detail without also requiring that the GPS itself be certified to TSO-145 as a stand-alone product. The FAA (in 2013) accepted that. The FAA (since 2016) seems to think that the GPS can't possibly be "good enough" if it isn't certified to TSO-145 as a stand-alone product. But this is a shackle that they appear to have applied only to NavWorx. No other manufacturer is being held to this standard, and now the trend is towards non-TSO products entirely.

That is what makes me think that much of this issue centers on interpersonal issues rather than technical merits. And we all suffer for it.

Quote:
if a manufacturer sells a non-TSO box, but it becomes clear that it doesn't meet the requirements of the TSO
In all of the UPN/NPRM/AD supporting material, I never saw a single thing from the FAA that made any such shortcoming "clear" to me. The only 'failure' I found was that the product did not have TSO-145 certification (which is not required for TSO-154). And, of course the EXP unit was never sold as TSO-154 at all.
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 08-01-2017, 04:25 PM
dtw_rv6 dtw_rv6 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Martinsville, IN
Posts: 393
Default

I think you are pointing out the primary reason I am grinding my axe against Navworx. They've never come out publicly and said that they were in the wrong for anything. Clearly there is enough evidence for me to see that they are deluding themselves in this respect. The cost to fix their mess is not very high - I would admit that. What I've decided is that the company is not worthy of my future business. If they had handled things in a way that I could have faith in their ability to deliver on their promises even after the AD came out, my check would already be in their hands.

As I said earlier, my mind is made up. So at this time, I'll sit quietly to watch the debate and the spectacle. I wish everyone the best with regard to the outcome.

Don







Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidBunin View Post
What you say is true (meaning that you have correctly stated the FAA's contention) but the FAA never provided any indication of why they felt that way. NavWorx tested the unit in simulations of exactly the conditions that were supposed to be a problem (failed satellites), and it worked fine. The FAA was never clear as to why they felt those tests were not sufficient, or what other testing they would like to see.

Also, the NavWorx TSO is for TSO-154 which covers the GPS performance in great detail without also requiring that the GPS itself be certified to TSO-145 as a stand-alone product. The FAA (in 2013) accepted that. The FAA (since 2016) seems to think that the GPS can't possibly be "good enough" if it isn't certified to TSO-145 as a stand-alone product. But this is a shackle that they appear to have applied only to NavWorx. No other manufacturer is being held to this standard, and now the trend is towards non-TSO products entirely.

That is what makes me think that much of this issue centers on interpersonal issues rather than technical merits. And we all suffer for it.



In all of the UPN/NPRM/AD supporting material, I never saw a single thing from the FAA that made any such shortcoming "clear" to me. The only 'failure' I found was that the product did not have TSO-145 certification (which is not required for TSO-154). And, of course the EXP unit was never sold as TSO-154 at all.
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 08-02-2017, 08:04 AM
DavidBunin DavidBunin is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 57
Default

You're right about that. They're not much for admitting they were wrong. This condition is exasperated by the fact that they're not good at communication in general. My hope is that the customer experience will improve as more and more of the communication role moves over to Dallas Avionics.
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 08-02-2017, 07:35 PM
rv9av8tr's Avatar
rv9av8tr rv9av8tr is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 826
Default Navworx repair solution here

Repair solution status is here:
https://www.dallasavionics.com/cgi-b...tion=ads600exp
__________________
Long-EZ built 1985 -> Sold 2007
RV-9A; N539RV First Flight: 7/2010
RV-8A N468DL 40 hr Flight Test Program
Building Log: www.mykitlog.com/n539rv
APRS Tracking: aprs.fi/n539rv
2017 Paid
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 08-08-2017, 04:26 AM
jliltd jliltd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Rancho San Lorenzo
Posts: 403
Default

Okay. So I was talking to cousin Everett up in Doo Dah Falls. He has an EXP unit in his EAB aircraft and says he doesn't intend to do anything about the AD. He will just keep flying without the software or hardware update. If'n he does his own condition inspection and ignores the AD what are the consequences? I explained to him that it's a safety issue as separation may be compromised. He scoffed and said he never sees traffic in BFE where he operates. Alas there is no reasoning with the fellow.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I have my own new EXP unit in the box delivered last fall. Intended for my RV but never installed as the stuff hit the fan a week after delivery. For I, unlike cousin Everett above, have been hoping for a resolution to the FAA vs NavWorx issue. If my unit is new in the box and under a year old shouldn't I expect a warranty replacement for the new compliant unit or at a minimum the new GPS reciever add-on needed to bring my currently delivered unit up to the compliance level promised me at OSH 2016 when I enthusiastically put my money down on the NavWorx table?

Customer Jim
__________________
RV-8
RV-3B
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 03:37 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.