Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Avionics and Upgrades' started by Unit74, Oct 14, 2016.
You are such an a$$...nothing personal
Nothing personal taken. If you are looking for a replacement, Freeflight is running a deal over on Beechtalk. Or you could just man up and buy a Garmin unit.
Navworx responds, they are working on it. http://www.navworx.com/documents/UPN Statement.pdf
As for Garmin, I bought a GTX320 transponder on the strength of their reputation. One day they decided they would no longer support it. I fail to see how they are any better than a no name company trying to earn a place in the market. YMMV.
ADS-B implementation has been messy all around (DO-260A vs DO-260B if you are bored)
Hopefully we are late enough in the game now things don't change much.
Today in AvWeb:
NavWorx Hoping For Quick Resolution
By Russ Niles
NavWorx says it expects agreement in “two to three weeks” with the FAA on the qualification of some of its ADS-B products for the $500 rebate the agency is offering early adopters of the technology. Aircraft operators who get the gear installed before next Sept. 19 or when 20,000 applications have been received (whichever comes first) will get the money but the agency has disqualified some NavWorx devices because it says its GPS receivers are not properly certified. That’s left some customers with certified aircraft without their $500 and potentially without a certified solution to meet the 2020 ADS-B mandate. NavWorx claims the FAA changed the rules for devices it had already certified in denying the rebates.
In a statement issued late Sunday, NavWorx says the Model 200-0012 and 200-0013 devices under the Unapproved Parts Notification issued by the FAA last month “are designed and were tested and manufactured to meet the 2020 rule.” The company also notes that the devices remain approved for light sport and other uncertified aircraft which it says means the FAA is satisfied they work satisfactorily in those aircraft. It says the agency “changed their system to stop sending traffic to our products for reasons unconnected to the performance or integrity of our products” and the current discussions with the agency are aimed at addressing that.
Nope, emailed the FAA thanks, they just saved me a bunch of money. I will cancel my install appointment. I was borderline on installing anyway. I do not fly a bunch of B, C airspace anyway. I do fly out of plenty of D airspace, but ads b is not required there. I look at where I fly and I really do not need it. I was only installing for the traffic, but with everyone else installing ads b, my Stratus will pick you up when we get close. Kind of like vaccinations and herd immunity. Why pay for a vaccination when everyone around you already is? See the beaurocrats win, I win, we all win.
By the way, there is plenty of man here..
A little flaw in your logic. How would you pick up other people who think like you and only have passive ADS-B IN?
Once the mandate really goes live, I suspect a lot more out planes will be in everyone's AO. The towers will activate for them and he can fly in their veil. I bought in early because of the weather and traffic and I fly in a lot of controlled Airspace. As mandated as the MK1 Eyeball active traffic system is, it fails a lot of us often. Into DFW it's an absolute bees nest and seeing Traffic without seeing traffic helps out immensely. Head on a swivel will give you whiplash in these circumstances.
I guess that it a risk that I will have to manage, just like I have for the last 38 years of flying. I made a good faith effort and the wonderful folks at the FAA let me down. Moving on...
I've been flying longer than you, and one thing I learned is that what counts safety-wise is not the many hours you may have behind you, but the next one.
No argument, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand? I don't know why you are getting huffy at me. I made the effort to get this capability and the FAA did a last minute changaroo. Then you beat me up because I am still planning to go fly without it, implying that doing so is unsafe. Be angry with the FAA for screwing up a low cost option. I am. For safety, I'd rather spend the money on a new autopilot. Which is probably what I will do. Most of my X-country is IFR anyway.
In areas where ADS-B will not be required for VFR, will it also not be required for IFR? (Not arguing, just wondering.)
91.225 does not appear to differentiate between IFR and VFR.
It doesn't call for it. However, unless you are working a short hop, I suspect any typical IFR plan issued by ATC may route you into a controlled airspace at some point.
After youget your clearance, make damn sure you know 91.225 and cross check your clearance on the map carefully. VFR can bebop you from coast to coast. On an IFR plan, you may find some difficulty in getting a legal flight plan for your equipment. Without the appropriate equipment code, you might even get a rejected clearance as the computer cannot route you legally.
I suspect we will see an amendment that all aircraft will have to be ADSB out once they get the thing fully functioning. Maybe a portable option will be certified for balloons, gliders and Cubs.
It doesn't appear to cover all controlled airspace, just some of it. He would have to make sure that the MEA allowed him to stay below 10,000 MSL though.
AD coming... Post your comments here (https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ndent-surveillance-broadcast-universal-access).
Bad deal there...
This AD applies to the following NavWorx, Inc., Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Universal Access Transceiver units (unit) installed on aircraft certificated in any category:
(1) Model ADS600-B part number (P/N) 200-0012;
(2) Model ADS600-B P/N 200-0013; and
(3) Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013.
NavWorx ADS-B units with P/N 200-0112 and 200-0113 are TSO-C154c compliant and are not the subject of this proposed AD.
I guess the cost of actually replacing the units doesn't matter.
BTW... I still haven't changed my mind about putting a NavWorx unit in my plane in a couple years. I'm sure they'll have everything sorted out by then. Or be out of business.
I do hope they get it sorted out Andy, but at this point it looks like the FAA has a personal vendetta going on.
how is it personal when they shipped the wrong GPS chip sets? I would hope NavWorx would make good with their customers and recall those units and ship out the proper boxes.
Yeah, the UPN says that those dash numbers include a certified GPS source, so I'm guessing that that's why broadcasting an SIL of 3 is not an issue for those models.
"Part numbers 200-0112 and 200-0113 contain an approved GPS position source and are not the subject of this notice."
Here's what I don't get. The Navworx box uses the Accord NextNav mini CCA as a position source, according to the FAA site. From the Accord site, there are two part numbers for the NextNav Mini, Pn 21000 is used in the Nextnave LRU box, and is listed as being tso 145c. The other, Pn 12000, is used in the Trig TN 70, and Trig shows that one as tso 145c.
If there's only two part numbers, one of them has to be in the Navworx box, if the FAA is correct. Why is the one in the Navworx box unapproved?
This makes no sense to me.
Sounds like one chip might be TSO from the chip manufacturer and the other is not but when installed in the Trig TN70 that chip becomes approved in the assembly, even though they may be identical chips sold under different part numbers.
What also doesn't make sense are all the PAPR's (including 15 of mine) from the FAA showing 0 errors for SIL, Position and GEO ALT. You would think that if it were dangerous enough for a Remove Before Next Flight AD, their own quality standards would show it.
Comments to the FAA are now posted. If you are a stakeholder, you might want to consider adding your comment.
So... I'm not one for conspiracies, but before @James331 comes by, I'm wondering if this is a direct shot across the bow at Navworx for allowing the 1200 stealth mode.
And that's the strategy folks need to use in comments. "You have all the data already to show the unit doesn't have an accuracy problem."
Even if this is the real reason.
To clarify "stealth mode" I'm pretty sure he means stopping Mode S/ES squawk, which is also available on the GTX345, and I'm sure many many others.
The GTN650 trainer allows you to enable/disable ES at any time, (assuming a GTX is being remote controlled by it)
Even the GDL 84/88 has an "anonymous mode"
The Anonymous Mode, when armed, will replace the Flight ID with a temporary randomized number for privacy while the position information will still be provided. This randomized address allows the ADS-B Out message to not be tied to a specific aircraft, much like a VFR squawk code of 1200 on a Mode A or Mode C transponder
None of that is going to matter if the certification and testing process wasn't properly followed. The only people who know what happened is Navworx and the FAA, and we're not getting the whole story from either.
It seems as though the part was and the assembly wasn't. Or something equally ludicrous.
My personal position is that petitioning the FAA to rescind will be a colossal waste of time, though I will make a comment for whatever its worth. Since the FAA and Moffitt were in negotiations, there has probably been some indication by the FAA as to what needs to be done to comply. Whether reasonable or unreasonable, they are the ones with the power, and obviously there going to use it. It is possible for them to withdraw the NPRM if Navworx follows the path to certification they define. The speed with which this thing collapsed would indicate Moffitt wants none of it.
I think the question should be put to Bill to find out what they need him to do to get us the product we bought in good faith and paid good money for. I'm writing tomorrow.
It would be nice if either party fully disclosed what the hell is going on since many people have already invested a large percentage of the value of their planes in the equipment and installation.
And the FAA's position that the cost of the AD is 85 bucks is a straight lie meant to diminish the actual cost of their arbitrary decision-making.
Somebody probably ought to point out the true cost in their comments on the NPRM.
I saw one person said 6 and another said 5. Which is good. Ripping the damn thing out ignores the costs of putting it in in the first place AND the cost or replacing it if people choose to do that rather than wait for Navworx.
But if this issue with this specific model isn't going to be resolved soon, methinks Navworx better start swapping boxes if they plan on retaining customers.