VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Avionics / Interiors / Fiberglass > ADS-B
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-29-2017, 08:23 AM
DennisRhodes DennisRhodes is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Taylorsville, Ga
Posts: 605
Default

According to Navworks they had approval from the FAA to transmit a SIL of 3 so that the traffic data would still be transmitted back to the customer after the FAA changed the goalpost again with only delivering traffic back to SIL 3 transmitters. With approval in hand they implemented that software change. According to NW .
__________________
DRRhodes
2018 VAF dues paid
RV9 N908DR
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-29-2017, 10:45 AM
Radomir's Avatar
Radomir Radomir is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennisRhodes View Post
According to Navworks they had approval from the FAA to transmit a SIL of 3 so that the traffic data would still be transmitted back to the customer after the FAA changed the goalpost again with only delivering traffic back to SIL 3 transmitters. With approval in hand they implemented that software change. According to NW .
I suspect you misunderstood something. They never had any approvals for SIL=3... ever...
__________________
Radomir
RV-7A sold
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-29-2017, 01:11 PM
DennisRhodes DennisRhodes is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Taylorsville, Ga
Posts: 605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radomir View Post
I suspect you misunderstood something. They never had any approvals for SIL=3... ever...
I have from NW a PDF file that shows an approved software change by the FAA office , that appears to be on Navworx letterhead , that will not transfer into this forum but looks something like this with a copy and paste. Looks like approval date was Mar2016. The FAA disposition underneath Moffits signature did not paste well but is listed in 6 line from bottom. I'm sure lawyers will have to work this out. No longer any of my business nor concern. But really hate to see it come to this.

NavWorV
Afferdsble ADS^" * >
December 18,2015
Mr. Michael A. Heusser
Program Manager Airplane Certification Office, ASW-143
FAA Fort Worth AGO
10101 Millwood Parkway, ASW-143
Fort Worth, Texas 76177-1524
RE: Submitting three data packages for FAA project number SP9628SC-A
Dear Mr. Heusser,
Enclosed you will find two minor change data packages for FAA project number SP9628SC-A.
NavWorx is submitting data packages for ADS600-B software releases 4.0.8 and 4.0.9. Each data
package has its own binder. Within each binder is a cover letter that summarizes the changes for the
specific release.
Sincerely,
Williarrf-Moffitt
Operations Manager
CONTROL *libA^A.
1-6.8
CONTROL
■f.o. 1
Enclosures:
ADS600-B SW release 4.0.8 binder
ADS600-B SW release 4.0.9 binder
FAA ACTION
ASW-140. AIRCRAFT CERTinCATIQNOiTICB
Action Taken
Acoqited
Approved
Comment*
Retimi
Acknowledged
Manager
Page1

If you re interested in a pic of this send me a text to 7708233426
__________________
DRRhodes
2018 VAF dues paid
RV9 N908DR

Last edited by DennisRhodes : 10-29-2017 at 02:23 PM. Reason: Clarification
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-29-2017, 02:57 PM
dutchroll dutchroll is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 97
Default

Here is the FAA's response to the question of why 4.0.8 and 4.0.9 were approved:

Quote:
FAA Response: The commenters are correct that the FAA approved NavWorx's software changes identified as 4.0.7, 4.0.8, and 4.0.9. However, none of these changes identified on NavWorx's submittals affected the SIL value or referenced the SIL value change in 4.0.6. The FAA's approvals did not alter the FAA's previous written statements to NavWorx advising the equipment must report a SIL of 0 to remain compliant with TSO-C154c.
As much as I like to believe that Government aviation regulators are always the bogeyman (well, they often are ), I read through a bunch of FAA responses to public submissions about the AD and it does not leave a favourable impression of Navworx's efforts to cooperate or be compliant with the rules, whereas most others seem to have managed ok.
__________________
Mike
Down Under
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-30-2017, 09:41 PM
sblack sblack is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchroll View Post
I doubt there's anywhere in the world where Government fines get shared with ripped off customers.
Sounds like an opportunity for a class action.
__________________
Scott Black
RV 4, with an engine...and other stuff
VAF dues 2016
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-31-2017, 06:34 AM
recapen recapen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Laurel, DE
Posts: 318
Default

With the fine levied, you're not going to get a penny out of NavWorx (the government may only get pennies on the dollar as well) - the best you can hope for is to force the sale of the assets and Intellectual Property to someone that will support it...let's hope it's not JPI - remember how they orphaned Vision Micro Systems owners...!
__________________
Ralph E. Capen
RV6AQB N822AR @ N06
"Patience"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-31-2017, 07:25 AM
BillL BillL is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central IL
Posts: 4,360
Default

I don't have any NW hardware, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out. NW could be exactly right and the FAA simply backed out, then fined them. It is not the first time this happened. EPA did the that in 1998 to truck engine manufacturers. I know for a fact that one was not guilty and EPA knew and agreed to every change with full disclosure. You can not fight the government and win even if you are right. Just pay up and move on.

I know nothing about this particular case, but would not make assumptions. Either way, NW will pay.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/...er/499_enr.htm
__________________
Bill

RV-7
1st Flight 1-27-18
Aerobatics done
Phase II 8-3-18
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-31-2017, 07:33 AM
rv7charlie rv7charlie is online now
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 2,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recapen View Post
With the fine levied, you're not going to get a penny out of NavWorx (the government may only get pennies on the dollar as well) - the best you can hope for is to force the sale of the assets and Intellectual Property to someone that will support it...let's hope it's not JPI - remember how they orphaned Vision Micro Systems owners...!
And really tried to destroy Matronics (Fuel Scan). No JPI products for me.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-31-2017, 08:03 AM
RVbySDI's Avatar
RVbySDI RVbySDI is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by azflyer21 View Post
Unfortuneately, if Navworx had their corporate structure in better order than their operational structure the lawyers have covered them so the potential fine will not be paid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sblack View Post
Sounds like an opportunity for a class action.
It might be worth noting we are not talking about a large corporate company. This is not a Garmin, GM, IBM type of company. This is a Granny's Diner type of company opened up by granny because she likes making pies. To wax on about how a law suite should 'stick it to the big guy' who screwed us is not seeing the big picture. I find it crazy to think anyone in a government agency thinks a $3.5 M fine enforced on a mom and pop company they have shut down for breaking the rules will ever be realized. Instead I see this as a means by which the FAA is saying to the rest of the avionics world:

DON'T MESS WITH OUR RULES OR WE WILL SHUT YOU DOWN AND REMOVE YOU FROM THE GAME PERMANENTLY!
__________________
RVBYSDI
Steve
RV9A
Live Long And Prosper! 🖖🏻

Last edited by RVbySDI : 10-31-2017 at 08:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-31-2017, 08:57 AM
AviatorJ AviatorJ is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 645
Default

I won't go into the details but I personally feel like Navworx took me for a bit of a ride on support of the 'Certified' unit in my 172. Sucks for all of us that were early adopters but at least they won't wrangle any new customers in.
__________________
Justin
RV-10 Quickbuild 'Avionics and Interior'
http://operationrv10.blogspot.com/
Donated for 2018
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 07:04 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.