Navworx receives a "stop order" from FAA

Glad you decided to join the party in a timely fashion.

But, I'm sorry......who are you again?

I have an interest in this thread - I am one of the 800 and stand to loose $4100. I haven't been able to figure out why you are even in this thread, since it is obvious you aren't a stakeholder. Are you here just to revel in other people's misery? Please just go away. You are crapping all over this thread and for those of us who would like to simply share information, it's difficult getting past the smell.
 
I never said that the truce was without cost.

I don't remember what it cost Bob. It cost me a bit over ten years.

Jim

I was trying to obliquely make the point that you lose even if you fight to a truce. You're spending your time and money against the time and money of a bureaucracy with infinite resources. They can afford the fight. You can't.
 
Navworx did a horrible job in writing that. I've read it several times since they published it and every time, I wonder why they don't find someone to summarize their argument with a set of bullet points for the certified version and another set of bullet points related to their experimental product.

Instead, they try to create fear of midair collisions and claim the FAA is sabotaging their business. They need to clearly identify the key issue for each product and clearly disprove the FAA's line of thinking. AOPA did a very good job of boiling the issue down in the recommendations in this letter:

https://download.aopa.org/advocacy/..._AD.pdf?_ga=1.185066729.1102710182.1455276858

One is written by a small business owner being threatened by a regulatory agency and the other is written by someone who's likely a lawyer and runs the regulatory division of AOPA.

Neither seems particularly difficult to read, nor out of character for either letter.

The owner letter is aimed more at the news media than anywhere. It tells a story about what happened. It has enough information even non-pilots can follow it.

The AOPA letter is just lawyers talking to lawyers.

The "fear of midair collision" is actually FAA's creation, not the manufacturer's. The products wouldn't exist or be mandatory if FAA weren't pushing that generally false narrative about what ADS-B accomplishes.

If you go by FAA's own stated purposes for the products to even exist and be mandated, attacking their premise when they make things LESS "safe" (with "safe" being THEIR word, not the manufacturer's) is absolutely correct.

Not that logic or reality factors into it much.


AOPA's letter hints that they know FAA isn't following their own procedures. Which, is fairly common in these things until someone reminds them they published the stuff.

I chuckled at the "your own staff was required to fill out a worksheet... can we see the results of that?" comment from the AOPA guy. I get the feel the AOPA guy knows someone skipped (a whole bunch of) required steps and knows the bureaucracy will circle the wagons and pretend they process was followed, but it gives him leverage to demand formal answers.

A formal published process broken by a bureaucracy is always the best way to kick that door open wide. Nothing a bureaucracy loves more than a process. They'll fight themselves internally over that one, even while disregarding the safety commentary... which technically should be their goal. Not process.

Nobody has ever won a war with the FAA.

Some have won battles. Some have negotiated a truce.

Nobody has ever won the war.

Nobody.

Jim

Wrong.

Imhofe did. Hoover did.

But then again, most of us aren't Senators, or famous pilots.

One had to write new law.

The other had to be so good that even FAA people wondered what the hell had gotten into the heads of their two rogue inspectors.

And then there's a few I suspect won, in that they had rather spectacular public crashes, and no record of them needing so much as even five minutes of remedial training and certainly not a 709 ride.

But it's very hard to find out for sure on those. You mostly just find "nothing", which says something. Those winners have powerful friends with serious coin in aviation and usually who have influence over FAA's budget stream.

Most of us though? Nope. Won't win even a battle, let alone a war. You're correct. But it's not zero.
 
I was trying to obliquely make the point that you lose even if you fight to a truce. You're spending your time and money against the time and money of a bureaucracy with infinite resources. They can afford the fight. You can't.

No $#!+, $herlock.

Jim
 
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/EAA-AOPA-Respond-To-NavWorx-AD-228259-1.html

It sounds to me as EAA/AOPA is coming in on the side of NavWorx. At least that's how I read it.


Sounds like a security guard yelling, "Stop! Or I'll say sto again but really mean it!"

Maybe they will get some traction on the right desk, assuming the appropriate amount of undisclosed negotiables are accidentally dropped in the Right place. Isn't that how these groups work...ear...lobby.
 
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/EAA-AOPA-Respond-To-NavWorx-AD-228259-1.html

It sounds to me as EAA/AOPA is coming in on the side of NavWorx. At least that's how I read it.

"Around May 2014, the FAA issued NavWorx an STC for its ADS600-B UAT with part numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013 (Certified UATs). The STC allowed for the installation of those UATs into any type-certificated aircraft identified in the approved model list. The Certified UATs were compliant with TSO-C154c, but had internal, non-compliant GPS receivers. (ADS600-B Installation Manual 240-0008-00-36 (IM -36), at 17, 21, 28.)

Specifically, section 2.3 of NavWorx’s March 2015 installation manual states: 'For ADS600-B part numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013, the internal GPS WAAS receiver does not meet 14 CFR 91 FAA-2007-29305 for GPS position source. If the ADS600-B is configured to use the internal GPS as the position source the ADS-B messages transmitted by the unit reports: A Source Integrity Limit (SIL) of 0 indicating that the GPS position source does not meet the 14 CFR 91 FAA-2007-29305 rule.' (IM -36, at 19.) This means the Certified UATs, which utilized the internal, non-compliant position source, had to transmit a SIL of 0 for the UAT to remain compliant with TSO-C154c. By transmitting a SIL of 0, the Certified UATs did not meet the performance requirements in § 91.227, which require a SIL of 3.2 On the other hand, the Certified UATs had been approved via STC for use with two separate external position sources: Garmin GNS480 and Accord Technology NexNav mini. (IM -36, at 33.) If configured to use either of these two external position sources, then the UATs could transmit a SIL of 3 and meet the requirements in § 91.227.

In September 2015, NavWorx upgraded its software in the Certified UATs to change the SIL value from 0 to 3 even though there does not appear to have been a design change.
The SIL value, which generally reflects the accuracy of the position source, depends upon the performance of the position source in the ADS-B Out system. (AC 20-165B, at 19.) After the SIL value change, NavWorx noted in its revised installation manual that the internal position source complied with the requirements of AC 20-165B. (ADS600-B Installation Manual 240- 0008-00-39 (IM -39), at 19.)

*snip*

AOPA suspects that the integrated position source in the Certified UATs does not meet the performance requirements in § 91.227. If the position source was properly qualified and compliant with the applicable requirements, NavWorx could expeditiously resolve this issue by presenting the necessary, supporting data to the FAA.
Nevertheless, to eliminate confusion and concerns, AOPA recommends the FAA resolve the contradictory positions. If the FAA has not received any data from NavWorx, the FAA should state such fact in a final rule, or explain why the submitted data does not meet the applicable requirements."

I don't know. Sounds like AOPA is throwing Navworx under the bus.
 
I don't know. Sounds like AOPA is throwing Navworx under the bus.

I thought it looked more like..

"We'll list everything we know, ask FAA to tell everyone more, and couch our position such that if they reply and say no, we look like we did something, and if they say yes, we look like we did something, and if by some miracle whatever hard on FAA has for cheap Chinese GPS modules goes away, we'll get to declare a great victory for all members, just like we did on Medical Reform. And it won't cost us a dime. Free press!"
 
I thought it looked more like..

"We'll list everything we know, ask FAA to tell everyone more, and couch our position such that if they reply and say no, we look like we did something, and if they say yes, we look like we did something, and if by some miracle whatever hard on FAA has for cheap Chinese GPS modules goes away, we'll get to declare a great victory for all members, just like we did on Medical Reform. And it won't cost us a dime. Free press!"

To sum up AOPA's position, to me it reads like "Yeah. Navworx totally screwed the pooch. But c'mon. Experimentals. Amirite?" Like AOPA is afraid of EAA's press lately, so they are like "YEAH! EXPERIMENTALS!"
 
I think AOPA is saying "both of you are claiming diametrically opposite sets of facts. May we see the performance testing data please? And btw FAA, hypothetically speaking, if the data does not meet performance standards, how did you arrive at the conclusion the unit is a hazard to the NAS requiring immediate removal? Because $85 cost of compliance is unrealistic."

Sounds reasonable to me.
 
The scathing letter they posted about the FAA sabotaging their business is gone.
 
EAA asked the FAA to withdraw the AD for the ADS600-EXP and instead communicate safety concerns through non-regulatory special airworthiness information bulletins (SAIBs) or safety alerts for operators (SAFOs), which is the usual procedure. As it exists now, EAA said, the FAA’s proposal would set a “troubling precedent”

Seems Eaa ain't onboard with the feds
 
Curiouser.
It's being reported on the Beech board that the Feds are sending letters to 600B owners asking to inspect the physical installation of the unit in the aircraft. Not sure what it entails, or if it includes downloading position data from the service port. You would think they could access that data from their own system. And what good would a paperwork inspection do.

Not sure what to make of this.
 
So did the competition go to FAA and complain in order to negatively impact Navworx's business? Surely someone stirred the pot to bring attention (maybe Navworx themself?).
 
So did the competition go to FAA and complain in order to negatively impact Navworx's business? Surely someone stirred the pot to bring attention (maybe Navworx themself?).

Been thinkin' the same but I doubt Navworx is the culprit. Which avionics manufacturer would you think of?
 
Been thinkin' the same but I doubt Navworx is the culprit. Which avionics manufacturer would you think of?

Any of the competition. When profit margins are impacted by the low cost producer, you pull out all the stops to regain some competitive advantage, including supporting new legislation and giving enforcement agencies something to go after. I've seen that time and time again in corporate strategy in my business, 25 years' worth. Pick your industry - medical, chem, pharma, automotive, etc. A most recent example is big tobacco vs grass roots vaping (I don't vap, never have).
 
not so much the installation...but the box configuration?

What would be the point of that? If it's a matter of the SIL, they know what that is based on serial number and software ver, and that's not user definable. That info is on the 337, no reason to have to pay me a visit.

If it would speed settling this deal, I would have no problem with giving them a look, but otoh, I'm not in the habit of inviting wolves into the henhouse.
 
Last edited:
What would be the point of that? If it's a matter of the SIL, they know what that is based on serial number and software ver, and that's not user definable. That info is on the 337, no reason to have to pay me a visit.

If it would speed settling this deal, I would have no problem with giving them a look, but otoh, I'm not in the habit of inviting wolves into the henhouse.
The possible reason to do a field check....is to see what's out there and compare that with NavWorx's quality records. Do the production records align with what was sold? Are there other parts that were swapped and not approved?

IMHO the installation is very straight forward....I can't imagine that being an issue.

You have noting to worry bout.....I do think there's a workable solution underway. Don't know yet what that is....but I bet both sides want this resolved.;)

hey....sometime when you're up to it, let's do lunch.
 
They pulled all ADS-B transponders from their shop (incl. the experimental versions) and even removed the images.

Not a good sign, I guess...
 
Navworx has a new letter posted on the website, looks like an agreement is in the offing. A little light on details, but welcome news.
www.navworx.com
 
Last edited:
Navworx has a new letter posted on the website, looks like an agreement is in the offing. A little light on details, but welcome news.
www.navworx.com

"Reopening our lines of communication..." shouldn't have closed them. Definitely shouldn't have put that in a letter to customers. "Hi, we ignored you..."
 
So I very much want Navworx to succeed with their ADS-B In/Out option (since it means a YOOJ savings for me over a GTX345)....

"I am extremely pleased to announce that we are moving forward with our plans to resolve the current issue for our products."

Sounds so much like "We have a plan to plan the plan, and are planning to plan soon!"

Like... was your original plan to NOT fix the problem? And now you're excited to announce that you are planning on fixing it? Or did you just now come up with a plan? Or are you finally executing a plan you've had?
 
Back
Top