Navworx receives a "stop order" from FAA

Man, I have been following this story and without being privy to all the details I may be way off base but it looks to me as a classic big government agency bullying around the little guy.

As a small business owner myself who deals a lot with regulatory agencies I honestly feel for Navworx. You guys that don't work with these government agencies don't understand that their priorities are not helping you, your business, or the consumer. They are about protecting their job in the bureaucracy and ensuring that they take on no liability, and as little responsibility as possible.

Of course that is a sweeping generalization and like any field there are stand outs who are there to get the job done and help achieve compliance but in my experience they are few and far between.

Basically stories like this scare the hell out of me....
 
neilw2 said:
Man, I have been following this story and without being privy to all the details I may be way off base but it looks to me as a classic big government agency bullying around the little guy....
Click to expand...


You just said you were (or should be) unable to speak about the case, then proceeded to profess how corrupt this is? :cool:


We see this syndrome a lot in the media, especially when a good cop shoots a bad guy and the hood pours into the street yelling" he was a good boy, family man and just about to turn it all around. " Never mind he just car jacked some pour girl, has a pocket full of heroin in single use baggies and is on parole for armed robbery.

But hey...... Emotional fact manufacturing is far more valuable than real facts these days... I get it.
 
Actually what it looks like to me is that Navworx decided "Hey... our product is good enough. We don't need no stinking approvals."

And the FAA was like "wanna bet?"

So Navworx might have a legit, quality, affordable, awesome product. But they can't just go changing specs on things without prior approval, even if the new specs conform to the old ones... unless the agreement is "anything meetings this spec can be changed without prior approval."
 
ircphoenix said:
Actually what it looks like to me is that Navworx decided "Hey... our product is good enough. We don't need no stinking approvals."

And the FAA was like "wanna bet?"

So Navworx might have a legit, quality, affordable, awesome product. But they can't just go changing specs on things without prior approval, even if the new specs conform to the old ones... unless the agreement is "anything meetings this spec can be changed without prior approval."
Click to expand...


And that's why we need complete reform on part 91 aircraft. The certified vs experimental is complete horse picky. The effing planes are all in the same airspace. Yet, different rules for both and no appreciable difference.
 
Unit74 said:
And that's why we need complete reform on part 91 aircraft. The certified vs experimental is complete horse picky. The effing planes are all in the same airspace. Yet, different rules for both and no appreciable difference.
Click to expand...
...and crash the same way.
 
Unit74 said:
And that's why we need complete reform on part 91 aircraft. The certified vs experimental is complete horse picky. The effing planes are all in the same airspace. Yet, different rules for both and no appreciable difference.
Click to expand...

You'll get no disagreement from me on that point.
 
Unit74 said:
You just said you were (or should be) unable to speak about the case, then proceeded to profess how corrupt this is? :cool:
Click to expand...

So opinions aren't allowed... unless they're yours. Got it.

And I didn't see anything about corruption. So I guess you get to manufacture facts.
 
I think Navworx has 2.5 years to get the paperwork correct for installation in my plane, and I hope they do it because I only want a low cost OUT solution, preferably without transponder replacement since I don't play with tablets in the cockpit.
 
donjohnston said:
So opinions aren't allowed... unless they're yours. Got it.

And I didn't see anything about corruption. So I guess you get to manufacture facts.
Click to expand...


Apparently reading isn't your strongest skillset..... Maybe some pictures would help? :cool:
 
Ravioli said:
I think Navworx has 2.5 years to get the paperwork correct for installation in my plane, and I hope they do it because I only want a low cost OUT solution, preferably without transponder replacement since I don't play with tablets in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

More or less same boat, wouldn't mind more in traffic, even though the only places I need it is if I go to a larger city, and in most cases my TIS fires up anyways around there

For me I'm waiting for navworx due to their saftey compared to the others, I think they are the only one with the "stealth" feature when you're squaking 1200, that's a game changer.
 
Well anyone with a ounce of common sense who is any student of history what so ever can look at the individual identity sending aspect (as in N number) of ADSB, which has no saftey benifit, and see the major underlining reason to MANDATE it.
 
James331 said:
For me I'm waiting for navworx due to their saftey compared to the others, I think they are the only one with the "stealth" feature when you're squaking 1200, that's a game changer.
Click to expand...

They don't care about YOUR safety, silly! ;-) It's all about the communal "safety" nobody can define in terms of a solid cost-benefit analysis.

Gotta admit, though. Getting people you want to track to pay for the tracking gear, with a false claim of safety, is pretty effing good marketing.
 
denverpilot said:
They don't care about YOUR safety, silly! ;-) It's all about the communal "safety" nobody can define in terms of a solid cost-benefit analysis.

Gotta admit, though. Getting people you want to track to pay for the tracking gear, with a false claim of safety, is pretty effing good marketing.
Click to expand...

It amazes me even with people like Snowden coming out and straight underlining all the shady stuff the government does to its own people, folks left and right still trust these schmucks.
 
James331 said:
It amazes me even with people like Snowden coming out and straight underlining all the shady stuff the government does to its own people, folks left and right still trust these schmucks.
Click to expand...

Yup. Government spies on Citizens illegally, someone points it out, they're immediately a "terrorist" and one of the most wanted people on the planet.

For every one of him willing to say something, there's a thousand willing to do anything as long as the big paychecks funded with debt, cash every other week.
 
The comments are interesting,

FAA Response: We agree to clarify this issue. We confirm that the AD applies to all aircraft, including experimental, and we revised the AD to clarify the applicability. We made this Start Printed Page 25950AD applicable to the ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013 units because the design of the Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013 is substantially identical to the Model ADS600-B P/N 200-0012 and 200-0013, specifically with regard to the internal GPS and the SIL setting. While some commenters are correct that the FAA has chosen to minimize regulations on experimental aircraft because of the level of the safety risk, these risks normally apply to the individual airplane and do not affect the overall NAS. The safety risks defined in this AD extend beyond one aircraft and could affect many other aircraft as well as ATC. Therefore, we find it necessary to include experimental aircraft in the AD's applicability.

6.  Some commenters stated or implied that other external GPS sources, such as the Garmin 530W, the Garmin GNS 430W, the Garmin GNS 480, and the Garmin GTN 650, are approved for installation in the ADS600-B. Contrary to any documentation these commenters may have from NavWorx, the only FAA-approved external GPS source is the Accord NexNav mini P/N 21000. Documentation of this is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2016-9226.
 
While 14 CFR § 91.227 requires a SIL of 3, TSO-C154c (the TSO under which the affected units are produced) does not. Thus, when the affected units broadcast a SIL of 0, they are TSO-compliant. Until the performance requirements of 14 CFR § 91.227 become effective on January 1, 2020, the FAA does not find the internal uncertified GPS source objectionable, as long as the ADS-B unit is correctly broadcasting a SIL of 0. It is NavWorx's change of the SIL setting in these units to 3, without any qualification of the internal uncertified GPS position source to support broadcast of SIL 3, that the FAA finds unacceptable. In this condition, the units are transmitting to ATC and to nearby aircraft that they have 14 CFR § 91.227-compliant position source integrity, when their position source integrity is actually not compliant with that rule, or is unknown. We discuss the safety effects of this condition in greater detail below.
 
I think their wording could use improvement. They need some more 'allegedly' and 'unknown' in place of 'unreliable'. Just because the GPS source used was uncertified doesn't mean it isn't accurate to the SIL 3 level. It just means it hasn't been tested and stamped by the establishment!! It could be just fine. I see why they'd be peeved about them sending a '3' though, to cheat the system. The software guys were like, 'they want a 3, we'll send them a 3, done'

The GPS source they used could be perfectly reliable and accurate, or it could be not.
 
Well, option iv seems to offer some hope.

"iv) Couple the ADS–B unit with an approved external GPS as follows:"

I'm guessing that one could couple that to a Garmin 430 or newer (or older I suppose) and get their Navworx unit legal again.
 
Anymouse said:
Well, option iv seems to offer some hope.

"iv) Couple the ADS–B unit with an approved external GPS as follows:"

I'm guessing that one could couple that to a Garmin 430 or newer (or older I suppose) and get their Navworx unit legal again.
Click to expand...

But the only GPS source acceptable to the Administrator is the Accord NexNav mini P/N 21000:

"(iv) Couple the ADS–B unit with an approved external GPS as follows:
(A) Interface the ADS–B unit with an Accord NexNav mini LRU GPS Receiver P/N 21000.
(B) Revise the Limitations section of the AFMS by inserting a copy of this AD or by making pen-and-ink changes to add the following: ‘‘OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE ACCORD NEXNAV MINI P/N 21000 EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQUIRED.’’"
 
Axtel4 said:
But the only GPS source acceptable to the Administrator is the Accord NexNav mini P/N 21000:

"(iv) Couple the ADS–B unit with an approved external GPS as follows:
(A) Interface the ADS–B unit with an Accord NexNav mini LRU GPS Receiver P/N 21000.
(B) Revise the Limitations section of the AFMS by inserting a copy of this AD or by making pen-and-ink changes to add the following: ‘‘OPERATION USING THE INTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS PROHIBITED. USE OF THE ACCORD NEXNAV MINI P/N 21000 EXTERNAL POSITION SOURCE IS REQUIRED.’’"
Click to expand...


Exactly, any other external GPS source will need AMOC.
 
for the skimmers.....:confused:

ADS600-B (Garmin WAAS GTN/GNS Interface) System: For those that have existing Garmin WAAS (GTN & GNS) Systems, we are re-launching our ADS600-B at an unbelievable price of $1499.00. When interfaced with the Garmin WAAS Receiver for position source, the ADS600-B system will include: 2020 FAA compliance, UAT ADS-B In & Out, optional WIFI via WIFI Module. And as all NavWorx systems, by utilizing our TransMonSPE reduced installation cost and installation time is standard for owners without the need to upgrade existing transponder. Refer to Brochure for further detail. We will begin taking orders through Dallas Avionics, Inc. on 5/1/17. Don't hesitate to place an order due to high demand and interest in this break-through system.
Click to expand...
 
LOL!! I just popped over to the Navworx page to see what their take was and saw that. In addition to that, I also found the following for folks that have the affected systems...

Proposed FAA Airworthiness Directive: We are anticipating an FAA AD to be issued on existing ADS600-B Systems. Be assured we have taken steps to ensure seamless instructions for AD compliance. Upon issuance and review, NavWorx is prepared to release a new software revision which will allow for continued operation up to 2020. It is anticipated that the software update will not require removal of system components and can be completed by utilizing existing configuration computer port already installed in aircraft installation. As stated above, we have established an upgrade path for existing customers to upgrade to the new ADS600-B NexGen 2.0 System that will comply with FAA 2020 mandate.

ADS600-B Upgrade for 2020 Compliance: Upgrade of existing systems to include internal GPS upgrade.

  • Units with S/N 1602000 or earlier - List $ 599.00
  • Units with S,N 1602001 or later - List $ 349.00
Please Contact Scott Edwards to schedule your upgrade (upgrades begin in 7/1).
Click to expand...

It sucks to have to pay up to $600, but it beats having to pay a boatload more to pull this unit out and have another brand put in.
 
btw skimmers...all that info was posted on the red board this morning. :D:ohsnap::stirpot:
 
All I can say is Navworx ought to use a word other than "unbelievable" in it's advertising at this point.

Looking for what exactly is included in upgrading my unit to the 2.0 . No rponse yet from Dallas Avionics. I don't want to hear "compliant" waas gps.

I want to hear TSO'd. No way I'm going through this BS again.
 
So in essence, the FAA is twitterpated over a single bit in the bitstream that says "The world's most common and popular on board certified navigation sources, are accurate".

LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top