What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Possible AD for certain NAVWORX ADS-B Units

Let's assume that all 700 affected Aircraft were flying with Navworx ADSB out and within their hockey puck of coverage each one was also allowing three other aircraft with just an ADSB IN receiver to receive traffic information...... The FAA changing everything around affects many more than just 700 Navworx customers. It would be 700+2100 for a total of 2900 airplanes not getting the full picture thanks to the FAA! One source I saw states there are anywhere from 9 to 12,000 airplanes airborne in the United States at peak times. So you can see that hypothetically it would affect 25 to 30% of all flying aircraft! The FAA isn't interested in our safety at all. This is the best example ever of you can't fight City Hall. If I ever have a mid air because of this I hope it's with an airplane carrying one of these jacka...sses!
 
Last edited:
Before someone gets killed relying on incomplete miss information.

FWIW: It is impossible for any system (ADS-B included) to provide complete information at all times. As a pilot, if you have ADS-B use it to augment the information already provided by existing systems like flight following and most important of all EYES OUT THE WINDOW. Otherwise, you are just fooling yourself.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
FWIW: It is impossible for any system (ADS-B included) to provide complete information at all times. As a pilot, if you have ADS-B use it to augment the information already provided by existing systems like flight following and most important of all EYES OUT THE WINDOW. Otherwise, you are just fooling yourself.

:cool:

Is Flight Following any better?

Don't the controllers see the same data that is presented by the ADSB display, but now with a human time lag in the loop?
 
FWIW: It is impossible for any system (ADS-B included) to provide complete information at all times. As a pilot, if you have ADS-B use it to augment the information already provided by existing systems like flight following and most important of all EYES OUT THE WINDOW. Otherwise, you are just fooling yourself.

:cool:

While I do agree with this, if you take it to the extreme you might as well leave traffic out of the screen altogether. Traffic helps sometimes on cross-country trips when talking to ATC, but it helps more so when not talking to anyone, and helps even the most in the traffic pattern. Sometimes people will call their downwind on a certain runway, but be on downwind for a different runway. The traffic display helps you know where to look. Other people are either instructing or just being dopey and flying the pattern without talking. This helps you know that they are there. Yeah, midairs don't happen when the planes are a mile or two apart, but knowing there is a plane a mile or two away can help you see them earlier, know where to look for them and avoid getting close enough to become a problem. Even two miles or less away, in the traffic pattern, it can be hard to see a plane even if they are calling their position. Seeing them on the display makes it much easier because you know exactly where to look.
 
Should be interesting to see how this AD is finally settled. Appears there are still rules out there that are not clear and are subject to interpretation ( by the FAA and lawyers) and maybe rules that are being altered along the way. With this ongoing, I don't see how anyone could afford to build a product that would be considered to be compliant for the long run. Maybe it is now but give them 6 weeks.
I guess the one thing that stands out for me in all of this is, how can the FAA as a public federal organization with safety at its core withold safety info ie TIF-B to some users and provide that to others. Aren't we all a part of the system?
 
My ADS-B experience - -



This was leaving a Flyin this summer. I for one very much appreciate what info is available. I could pretty much know where everyone was while listening to the tower. This was a screenshot from a 10" IPad Pro. If you haven't experienced this much info, you likely don't understand how much info is available.
 
Looks like ifly software loaded onto an iPad. There "multiplatform" package for $20. Besides my ifly 720, I use it on two other devices. At one time I was using wing x and ifly.... that got confusing when I wanted to do something. When Ifly came out with the multi-platform option, I jumped on it and have never looked back. Love it! And now back to your regularly scheduled program.....

Like I've already mentioned in a previous post, if I ever have a mid air because of the FAA's screwing around with the ADSB outputs and navworx, I hope the other aircraft has one of the decision makers aboard behind all this. Irony.
 
Is Flight Following any better?
Not really. TIS-B is basically just a FF display in the cockpit that will show traffic the controller has not called out to you because he might not be paying attention to it at that moment. So if it isn't on the controller's display, it won't be on your display either. That is why we need to use ADS-B to AUGMENT our traffic situation awareness not as a system to be blindly relied upon.

While I do agree with this, if you take it to the extreme you might as well leave traffic out of the screen altogether. Traffic helps sometimes on cross-country trips when talking to ATC, but it helps more so when not talking to anyone, and helps even the most in the traffic pattern. Sometimes people will call their downwind on a certain runway, but be on downwind for a different runway. The traffic display helps you know where to look. Other people are either instructing or just being dopey and flying the pattern without talking. This helps you know that they are there. Yeah, midairs don't happen when the planes are a mile or two apart, but knowing there is a plane a mile or two away can help you see them earlier, know where to look for them and avoid getting close enough to become a problem. Even two miles or less away, in the traffic pattern, it can be hard to see a plane even if they are calling their position. Seeing them on the display makes it much easier because you know exactly where to look.
I also agree with you, but again "we need to use ADS-B to AUGMENT our traffic situation awareness not as a system to be blindly relied upon" which is my point. ADS-B is another tool for us to use, not a fix-all.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
The statement from NavWorx needs editing for clarity, but when the owner makes this type of declaration "We can only conclude that the FAA is deliberately sabotaging our business.," combined with the refusal to allow FAA inspectors access to their production facility / records, my spidey sense goes off. I'm not convinced we're getting the entire story. Let's hope that the FAA will clarify its position, so the APOA / EAA - or the courts - can get to the bottom of the issue.

When I was installing my G3X system, I had to change my system design to include a "certified" (GPS20A when it became available) earlier than anticipated to meet the FAAs change in traffic transmission policy. I had originally designed my ADS-B In/Out system to use the G3X's internal WAAS GPS to provide position data until the final 2020 specs were implemented. But faced with the potential of not having a complete and comprehensive traffic picture (as complete as ADS-B traffic can be,) I had to spend more money earlier. I'm happy with my decision.
 
Navworx

has my vote, and will have my money, when this finally settles out. That said, I fly in congested airspace, do not have ADS-B in my work environment and do not feel un-safe. It has always been about see and avoid, that will not change regardless of the bells and whistles we install. In fact, the more "head down time" the FAA mandates the LESS comfortable I feel. ADS-B is good, I will adopt it and I feel it is an important step... but it is not a substitute for situational awareness and the Mark One Eyeball.
 
Maybe I've been drinking too much cough syrup, but the last article NavWorx posted on its web page was hard to follow. I wish they would post a synopsis containing only the facts and segregating the discussion into:

A) The relevant facts (dates, TSO's, letters, phone calls, etc.) about the certified products.

B) The relevant facts about the experimental products.
 
I am an advocate of situation awareness, but until I had ADS-B, I was shocked at the traffic, that I did not see or was just beyond my visual range.
Having ADS-B, as others have said, gives you an additional awareness on "where to look for traffic"
 
Ditto on Roadrunner's post above. I had NO IDEA at the amount of traffic around me until I installed my navworx. I would estimate that for every aircraft spotted
"pre-adsb" I never saw 5-10 others. It's simply mind boggling that the FAA would do what they're doing. Navworx is the only company I'm aware of that truly has an inexpensive, perfect and elegant solution for any airplane. I'm fairly convinced there is pressure from the big players somewhere in the background to put them out of business.
 
It is humanly impossible to see traffic more than one mile away. Don't believe me? Then have a friend fly his plane on a collision course along a straight road towards you in your plane at the same altitude. To be safe, you each agree to stay on the right side of the road. The farther apart the two planes are starting out, the more realistic the results will be. As soon as you spot your traffic, start a timer and stop it when abreast of each other. Depending on the rate of closure, pilots will have 10 or 15 seconds to recognize a danger, react to that danger, and get the aircraft to change course. That might not be enough time. Have you ever looked at a chart or GPS or at the ground for 5 seconds? If you climb or descend to avoid a collision, what if the traffic goes in the same direction? Wouldn't it be better if everyone had ADS-B In & Out so that you could see hazardous traffic 5 miles away?
 
I will add more to my previous posts - -

With my 10" screen that you can read easily in direct sunlight, this tool adds a great amount of safety in my opinion. I would guess those that are not fully in favor of it have not had a good working system in their plane. Have not spoken to one person who says they want to go without it, that have tried it. Especially close to an airport it is a great tool. We all make mistakes, and when someone says they are in a specific location, but are actually not there, you can question them to verify. Accidents like we recently saw where one plane landed on top of another should be easy to avoid. Again, just my opinion. I suggest trying a good system for a while and I think you will agree. A very good helper. Not perfect, but a real helper.
 
Apparently the fight is still on at Navworx. There's an update on their site that looks like the lines in the sand are drawn with the FAA. Sounds like barring any change from either party we'll lose the TIS-B. Hope they get it sorted out...
 
Maybe I've been drinking too much cough syrup, but the last article NavWorx posted on its web page was hard to follow. I wish they would post a synopsis containing only the facts and segregating the discussion into:

A) The relevant facts (dates, TSO's, letters, phone calls, etc.) about the certified products.

B) The relevant facts about the experimental products.

Agree. The long statement comes across as more of a rambling and sometimes repetitive rant than a consise explanation of the situation.

Before all this started I was ready to pull the trigger and order the experimental version of the product for my RV-12. But now I am rethinking, even if Navworx and the FAA can somehow agree on a solution for the immediate problem. The owners/managers of Navworx and the FAA have gone to war, and the bitterness of battle will last well into the future, and does not bode well for the long term prospects of the company. Not sure it would be smart to depend on them for future support and product upgrades.
 
There is a bit more understandable reply to the AD on the FAA comments website from Navworx. Also there are some supporting attachments that indicated that there were some real problems in communication between FAA and NW. Looks like it will be up to the lawyers now. Bill Moffit signed the comment and it was posted to FAA site day or so ago. I was wondering if Navworx was going to reply to the AD and see that they finally did on the last several days of the comment period

https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=0&dct=PS&D=FAA-2016-9226

I actually went back to make sure my link worked and found the AOPA and EAA response to the AD . Both are very good and deal with the facts . I like both but the EAA response is my favorite. !
 
Last edited:
As a fighter pilot, I disagree. I have special eyes.
Alright, you are the perfect pilot to conduct the test that I proposed in post # 165 above. Let us know how many seconds between first sighting of traffic and potential collision. For us older pilots with less than perfect vision, we can expect even less time to react.
 
Why an AD?

I don't understand how the FAA can issue an AD on a piece of equipment that is not required to be installed until 2020. AD's are supposed to be issued when something poses a risk to safe flight. ADSB is not a fully operational system yet and therefore no pilot or air traffic controller should be relying on the information provided by ADSB for aircraft separation until 2020. So, it seems to me that until 2020 (or later), ADSB provides nothing more than a secondary source of information to pilots and air traffic controllers. The primary source is still radar and vision so nothing has really changed that affects safety by adding ADSB UATs until they become the primary source of information to ATC and pilots. So, an AD should not be issued on non-compliant equipment...yet. The FAA should be working with all the ADSB equipment manufactures to try and foster a cooperative environment and ensure all new equipment meets the technical requirements to make the system safe and not get bogged down in the bureaucracy.
 
I don't understand how the FAA can issue an AD on a piece of equipment that is not required to be installed until 2020. AD's are supposed to be issued when something poses a risk to safe flight. ADSB is not a fully operational system yet and therefore no pilot or air traffic controller should be relying on the information provided by ADSB for aircraft separation until 2020. So, it seems to me that until 2020 (or later), ADSB provides nothing more than a secondary source of information to pilots and air traffic controllers. The primary source is still radar and vision so nothing has really changed that affects safety by adding ADSB UATs until they become the primary source of information to ATC and pilots. So, an AD should not be issued on non-compliant equipment...yet. The FAA should be working with all the ADSB equipment manufactures to try and foster a cooperative environment and ensure all new equipment meets the technical requirements to make the system safe and not get bogged down in the bureaucracy.


It has nothing to do with the 2020 mandate. It is reference to the TSO that was issued to NavWorx a couple years ago.
 
That means the AD is not applicable to the EXP unit. It is not a TSO'd device.

Of course, that is way too abvious to be useful to the people making the rules.
 
I think the proposed AD has a lot to due with the 2020 mandate. Until 2020, ADSB should not be used as a primary source of information to ensure aircraft separation. Therefore, regardless of the SIL that is transmitted (and the TSO), there should be no impact on flight safety until ADSB replaces radar and becomes the primary means used to ensure separation.

The proposed AD states the reason for the AD as:

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as an ADS-B unit incorrectly broadcasting a Source Integrity Level of 3 instead of 0. This condition could result in the unit communicating unreliable position information to Air Traffic Control and nearby aircraft and a subsequent aircraft collision.

Until 2020, radar is still the primary source of position information for ATC therefore even if the Navworx units are broadcasting unreliable position information it shouldn't affect flight safety since ATC (and pilots) shouldn't be relying on that information yet.
 
-EXP units

I got an e-mail from Bill yesterday saying he will have an update posted Jan. 2nd on their website concerning the -EXP units.
 
AOPA

Felt like a member who got a fair return on his membership fees today. The AOPA response to the FAA proposed AD is pointed, fair and thorough.
I await an equally fair reaction from the Fort Worth ACO.
 
AOPA

did very well with their response to the NPRM, as did the EAA to a lesser degree. I hope that the application of calm logic can resolve this issue. I have my doubts about hope, however.
 
Anyone venture a guess on how long it takes the FAA and the lawyers to resolve the issues of all this mess? My hope is that the EXP units fair well in the hatchet job. Or at least continues to function until 2020. I'm thinking there will be some other options by that time.
 
I think the proposed AD has a lot to due with the 2020 mandate. Until 2020, ADSB should not be used as a primary source of information to ensure aircraft separation. Therefore, regardless of the SIL that is transmitted (and the TSO), there should be no impact on flight safety until ADSB replaces radar and becomes the primary means used to ensure separation.

The proposed AD states the reason for the AD as:

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as an ADS-B unit incorrectly broadcasting a Source Integrity Level of 3 instead of 0. This condition could result in the unit communicating unreliable position information to Air Traffic Control and nearby aircraft and a subsequent aircraft collision.

Until 2020, radar is still the primary source of position information for ATC therefore even if the Navworx units are broadcasting unreliable position information it shouldn't affect flight safety since ATC (and pilots) shouldn't be relying on that information yet.

I would suggest that an increasing number of ATC facilities are integrating ADS-B into controller displays and it can be used for aircraft separation. See the FAA Air Traffic Manual (7110.65W), paragraph 5-1-3(c):

"All procedures and requirements relating to ATC services using secondary radar targets apply to ATC services provided to targets derived from ADS-B and WAM."

There are a few exceptions but ADS-B is potentially being used for separation services. There are places where radar coverage is lacking but ADS-B works just fine for separating like-equipped aircraft.
 
See & be seen

The Cessna wasn't going to be seen by the Viper based on it being below the nose. Has nothing to do with visual acuity.
The point of the original comment is that "See and be seen" as the primary tool to avoid mid-airs has serious limits in the real world. We all know that. I have found ADS-B to be a very valuable tool to focus "see and be seen". Synergism of ADS-B is powerful and should not be take lightly by any pilot.
Like others have commented, until ADS-B, I had no idea the hornets nest that's out there. There have been times it actually gave me pause about flying through some areas.

Right now, I don't understand what all the fuss is with the FAA in claiming the Navworx units provide inaccurate position indication and should be removed from service forthwith. Based on the conversations I've had with ATC while flying, they don't seem to even know I have ADS-B out. Besides, what are we talking about in alleged "position inaccuracy", a handful of inches or feet.
This whole affair sounds like a loss of perspective, where real world engineering is "Measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a crayon and cut it with a chainsaw".
 
Last edited:
Any word on the 'actual' AD

Now that the comment period has expired - should we be seeing this by the end of the year?!

Anyone in the know?

Just trying to get an understanding of the options and what NavWorx might do to help make it easier!
 
FAA V/S NavWorx Proposed AD.

It's not likely the FAA will move faster than a snails pace to bring any resolution to Nav/Worx, or its many satisfied customers. To the great satisfaction of much more expensive marketers of ADS-B systems.
 
Under the FAA Docket folder is the "current status" which presently says " in Long Term Action". Not sure what that means but probably IMHO .... we can last longer than you can. I vaguely remember someone saying NavWorx would respond on their website on Jan 2 , ( 2017). Anyone seen anything ???
 
There is some new info on the Cessna Pilots Association forum from a person whose wife worked at Navworx. Unless Navworx (Bill) has a rather large sum of money to fight this, I'm getting the feeling that their doors may never open.
Just hope maybe someone will pick up the pieces.
Larry
 
This is where AOPA and EAA should step in to help their members (NavWorx customers) - as well as helping NavWorx...they've done it before!

Meanwhile, let us know what is going on - give us some options...other than the orphanage.

Considering the work and money we already have invested in this product - the ability to not have to start over would be a great option.

I was an early purchaser and recently got mine installed and configured using my 430W as the certified position source - still having technical issues (with the box, I think, as it presents a TX/RX fault message). No response on the follow-ups I have sent regarding my installation. My gut tells me that a certified position source will be an alternate method of compliance...I hope!
 
There is some new info on the Cessna Pilots Association forum from a person whose wife worked at Navworx. Unless Navworx (Bill) has a rather large sum of money to fight this, I'm getting the feeling that their doors may never open.
Just hope maybe someone will pick up the pieces.
Larry

Please post a link please.
 
There is some new info on the Cessna Pilots Association forum from a person whose wife worked at Navworx. Larry

Bob,
Go to: http://www.cessna.org then click on:

Forums
Main Index
Avionics Corner
*Group Buy Navworxs ADS-B

Larry

Appears you have to be a member to access the forums.

Larry, would you mind just sharing the paragraph that has the discussion you're referring to? If you don't want to post it publically, please PM or email a copy.

thanks,

bob
 
Sorry about that....didn't know if they allowed guests access.
Here is a couple of comments. It appears to all boil down to
a certification issue, which I understand is very expensive.
Larry


Quote:
To get a product to market, one hires people that know "what is expected", NavWorx didn't or this wouldn't be an issue.

I've been on the front-line in this with FCC certifications, and the company I was a hired design ( hardware and software ) consultant, had specialists whom their only job was the compliance / government interface. These specialists also told us exactly how things were to be designed / tested.

This is shown again with the FAA inspectors being turned away more than once. If your QA person is laid up ( your wife ), then the company must find someone else to be there to answer questions. A company that can't do that, can't be successful in these type of markets, Its sounds like a hard lesson to be learned for many involved.

All I can say is that NavWorx had a number of consultants involved in the certification effort. But for the most part, they studied the FAA guidance and proceeded as instructed by that guidance. As best I can tell, the problems started when the "normal thing" at the FAA office was above and beyond what was in the guidance. The alternative (which is a theory I do not like, but must acknowledge as a possibility) is that a competitor influenced the FAA, and once that ball was rolling, it couldn't stop.


Another:

The conversations often went something like this...

NavWorx provides data that is at-least compliant with the regulation.

FAA: This is not what we expect.
NavWorx: Okay, what would you like?
FAA: It is not our place to tell industry how to comply with regulations.

That's not to say that I imagine NavWorx is blameless in the situation. I know that in a small town (like the aviation community) you don't mouth-off to the cops, even if you're right. That isn't going to play well for you in the short term or the long. I can easily imagine certain people at NavWorx electing to say certain things to their FAA representatives that I might have chosen not to say.

But that's why I say that the real issues here are personal rather than technical in nature.
 
From pukingdawgs post....

"But that's why I say that the real issues here are personal rather than technical in nature".... AKA POLITICS!

I just spoke with Walter Boyd of Adventure Pilot regarding an ifly 720 question. Then I ask if they knew any more info than the public since they use to sell Navworx ADSB boxes. He said they've emailed navworx several times and their emails are thus far unanswered.
 
Back
Top