VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #621  
Old 07-30-2017, 01:55 PM
DavidBunin DavidBunin is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnAJohnson View Post
Would someone at Oshkosh please ask Bill directly, if 1090 is in V5?

No one seems to care at this point but for me, it was a selling point right along with 2020 compliance. I won't consider the Navworx issue behind me till I get both.
I care. I want dual-band receiving capability in my airplane.

After reading all of the changes that are in software 5.0, I (reluctantly) understand why they couldn't get the dual-band receiving in with this one.

That said, I do not expect 5.0 to be the last software produced. I think that once the dust settles on this chapter in the story that the 1090 will move back up the priority list.

I still think (and expect) that I will have dual-band receiving in my airplane before 2020.

David
Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 07-30-2017, 01:59 PM
DavidBunin DavidBunin is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtw_rv6 View Post
V5 will not have 1090 mhz. It is not a priority for them according to Bill at his booth.
Bill certainly has "a way with words". Yes, he is still smarting from his brush with the FAA, but just because a feature is "not a priority" this week doesn't mean it won't become the next priority soon.

The low-hanging fruit gets eaten first, but eventually all of the fruit gets consumed.

David

Last edited by DavidBunin : 07-30-2017 at 02:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 07-30-2017, 05:23 PM
dtw_rv6 dtw_rv6 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Martinsville, IN
Posts: 321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidBunin View Post
Don,

I understand your frustration. I feel the same way. But lets make sure we are sharing accurate information here.

1) NavWorx is not taking a dime of anybody's money before the products are being shipped. There were plenty of pilots who approached them at the Oshkosh booth "check in hand" but NavWorx told them to hang on to it. The only thing NavWorx is accepting right now are requests for a spot in line.

2) It is true that the GPS doghouse for the EXP is not expected to remain in production indefinitely. No doubt some of the original customers have moved on to another solution, so NavWorx had to have some kind of timeline to forecast their production capabilities from. The December date on the flier is merely a reflection of the compliance date for the AD. Nothing more.

3) The production priority is to take care of everybody as quickly as possible AND to take care of everybody before the AD compliance date. The production volume/mix will track with expressed customer interest. That seems fair enough to me.

David
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, regardless of what Navworx was spouting at Oshkosh.

Navworx is charging us to fix their mistake, and without apology.




Don
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 07-30-2017, 06:47 PM
Tankerpilot75 Tankerpilot75 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 290
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, regardless of what Navworx was spouting at Oshkosh.

Navworx is charging us to fix their mistake, and without apology.




Don
Then why deal with them? I was considering the NavWorx product until they got crossways with the FAA and their customer support became non-existent during their troubles. Have since moved on and installed the GTX335 for ads-b out and a FlightBox for ads-b in: cost (including conversion cable) was $3,100. Qualified for the FAA ads-b rebate ($500) and sold my old transponder for $700. Net cost of the complainant installation was $1,900. That cost compared very favorably to the NavWorx units.

I've watched this thread since last summer and have seen a lot of frustration from NavWorx customers. There has to be an economic cost to that frustration that exceeds the sunk cost of the units people purchased. I honestly don't see NavWorx being around three years from now therefore why would anyone want to continue throwing good money at a continuing problem. Move on and get a compliant unit!
__________________
Jim Harris, RV7A, 2nd owner, N523RM
IO-360, Hartzel CS prop, Older Aerotronics built panel Dual GRT Horizon WS, Garmin 340, 335, Dual 430s, Stratux hard wired to WS, Dynon D10A (backup EFIS)
Retired - Living the dream - And going broke!
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 07-30-2017, 07:43 PM
dtw_rv6 dtw_rv6 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Martinsville, IN
Posts: 321
Default

I am moving on now that I've seen their cards for correcting their problem. No way am I paying another dime to Navworx.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 07-30-2017, 07:55 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is offline
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 3,755
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 07:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 07-30-2017, 09:27 PM
Tracer 10 Tracer 10 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 82
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
  #628  
Old 08-01-2017, 07:24 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
  #629  
Old 08-01-2017, 01:32 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
  #630  
Old 08-01-2017, 01:54 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
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 02:13 AM.


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.