Navworx receives a "stop order" from FAA

AggieMike88

AggieMike88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
20,805
Location
Denton, TX
Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
Ugh, this doesn't sound good. I'd like to hear what Navworx has to say...Wouldn't allow access???
 
I'd wager there is more to the story, wonder if it has to do with the privacy features of their units, think they are the only ones doing that. The feds and individual privacy have never got along.


Plus they through he saftey flag with nothing to back it up, and no negative pireps seen on the function of their units, yeah nothing to see here folks move along lol
 
A bunch of PoA drum bangers jumped all over me for NOT expressing support for Navworks and falling on the side of the FAA when the Navworks story first broke.


Where are they at now......
 
Right here



James331 said:
I'd wager there is more to the story, wonder if it has to do with the privacy features of their units, think they are the only ones doing that. The feds and individual privacy have never got along.


Plus they through he saftey flag with nothing to back it up, and no negative pireps seen on the function of their units, yeah nothing to see here folks move along lol
Click to expand...
 
Unit74 said:
A bunch of PoA drum bangers jumped all over me for NOT expressing support for Navworks and falling on the side of the FAA when the Navworks story first broke.
Where are they at now......
Click to expand...

I may be one of those of whom you are speaking. But I think I asked to not disparage Navworx. Don't think I asked anyone to support them. I know I posted links to the VAF form where it was being discussed without vitriol.

Hopefully they'll get it resolved swiftly.

And on the other hand, they've got 3 years before it matters.
 
They got caught, screwed a bunch of customers, won't cooperate with the FAA....... Little stick, big bear and lots of poking involved. They are not going to win and the FAA just threw down the ace of spades. They still don't play nice, the FAA will drop a royal flush or dat ass and put them out of bizniz Ricky tick......just watch.
 
Why are you rooting for a small GA business to go out of business??

A business who makes a great and inexpensive all in one solution to the BS ADSB mandate the FAA dumped on us

The only one which doesn't send all your info out to anyone listing when you're 1200

One which no pilot report, that I've seen, has found a problem with function wise.

And the FAA plays the "saftey" card? Were these units not showing traffic? Bursting into flames? I mean if you're going to play that crap back it up.

After the ECI thing, I take these things with a HUGE grain of salt now
 
I don't think anyone has come up with any complaints about the function or accuracy of the Navworx boxes. From what I understand, the FAA's gripe is that they are claiming a relibility spec that they don't officially meet. At least that's what I think I understand. Now, I have not slogged through all of the documentation to figure out what it takes to actually prove that you meet that spec. However, if it's like anything else I have ever read from the FAA or any other regulatory agency, it would require years and an obscene amount of money to do.

I'm not certain, but I think the last time I saw a GPS receiver actually give an inaccurate position was a TomTom automotive unit back in about 2007.

So the whole thing sucks for Navworx. Maybe the rules are needlessly arcane and burdensome. Certainly the FAA changed the rules in the middle of the game on 1/1/16; maybe Navworx had a good plan before that happened and they had to do something in the interim. Maybe the FAA (or some other TLA) didn't like some of their features and decided to drop the hammer. But being in the business of manufacturing ADS-B equipment Navworx had to have known what they were doing. Had to have.

The really sucky part (or lucky part) is, I was going to buy one in a few months.
 
In many federally-regulated businesses the rules specify that you must allow agency inspectors to visit at any time the business is operating. Failure to do that is enough to get the license pulled, though usually it takes a couple of warnings first. The agency doesn't need to prove faulty operation or construction, it can rest on the administrative convenience provision alone. They'll allege 'non-compliant' attitude. And once pulled it'll be hard to get the authorization back.

It's administrative law, so the agency gets to be investigator, judge, and enforcer. And failure to comply they can bring in the marshals. Typically real courts will defer to agency expert judgement and only intervene if procedural matters were not followed.
 

“They got caught”, or they “won't cooperate with a” fishing expedition?


This goes back to the “rule correction” quagmire created when the FAA submitted in Feb. 2015. It was a direct change with no comment period. With this “correction” they stated, “In reviewing these paragraphs, the FAA notes that the regulatory text implies that the equipment must meet all the requirements of the referenced TSOs. As the ADS-B Out rule is a performance-based rule, it was not the FAA's intent to arguably limit operators to only install equipment marked with a TSO in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, subpart O.”


This change causes confusion on two fronts. 1) Who is allowed to install this “rule compliant” equipment?, and 2) How does a manufacturer prove to the Administrator their equipment is “rule compliant”?


“As the ADS-B Out rule is a performance-based rule, it was not the FAA's intent to arguably limit operators to only install equipment marked with a TSO in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, subpart O.” Nowhere have I seen where this is only limited to UAS, LSA or EAB aircraft, nor where it precludes certified aircraft.


Concerning the rule compliance, “In reviewing these paragraphs, the FAA notes that the regulatory text implies that the equipment must meet all the requirements of the referenced TSOs.”


Further in the rule it is stated for UAT equipment,

“(b) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL and in airspace described in paragraph (d) of this section unless the aircraft has equipment installed that—

(1) Meets the performance requirements in—

(i) TSO-C166b; or

(ii) TSO-C154c, Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipment Operating on the Frequency of 978 MHz;

(2) Meets the requirements of § 91.227.”

Given the way the “rule compliant” change was written, I personally wouldn’t vilify NavWorx for what they are doing. Without further guidance, the only way a manufacturer has to prove to the Administrator that their equipment is “rule compliant” is to submit a full TSO package. Maybe they tried an alternate means to show compliance. If, as they have said, the they submitted substantiating engineering data to the FAA to prove “rule compliance”, then I think it would be upon the FAA to prove that the equipment was not “rule compliant.” Instead, it appears the FAA didn’t like that approach and “pulled the plug on them.”

Now, not allowing the FAA into the factory may be another issue.

For those so inclinded, the link to the “rule change” proposal: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...rformance-requirements-to-support-air-traffic

Also an early article to the “rule compliance” change, http://www.suasnews.com/2015/02/faa...-give-experimental-aircraft-more-options/amp/
 
meeting the TSO spec.....and having a TSO approval are two separate things. When one has a TSO approval they agree to the FAA inspecting quality systems. That inspection was turned away several times.....so the approval is being lifted.
 
Axtel4 said:
“They got caught”, or they “won't cooperate with a” fishing expedition?
........
If, as they have said, the they submitted substantiating engineering data to the FAA to prove “rule compliance”, then I think it would be upon the FAA to prove that the equipment was not “rule compliant.” Instead, it appears the FAA didn’t like that approach and “pulled the plug on them.”
Click to expand...

Except that's not the way it works. Administrative law, unlike legislative law, allows the agency to impose specific requirements on the person that gets the authorization. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" - administrative law allows that to be bypassed in favor of "you must prove your innocence". Again, that's in the context of regulations, not USC (United States Code).

They way regulations are normally structured - and this is true with most regulatory agencies, including FAA, FCC, DOT, FDA, and others - is that you must prove that you are compliant with the regulations, otherwise you're presumed to be non-compliant. The FAA need not prove that you're non-compliant with the technical standards.... they can pull the authorization for being non-compliant with the regulations (even if they're only paperwork regulations).

As noted below, the regulations permit the FAA to inspect and require that the authorization holder permit that inspection. Even if you're 100% in compliance with technical and quality standards if you don't permit the inspection you're in violation of the regulations and your authorization can be pulled.

By creating regulations, rather than having it embodied in the law itself, it permits the agency to bypass some of the protections one might be afforded under Federal law itself.

Checkout_my_Six said:
meeting the TSO spec.....and having a TSO approval are two separate things. When one has a TSO approval they agree to the FAA inspecting quality systems. That inspection was turned away several times.....so the approval is being lifted.
Click to expand...

Yep, as I read it the yank is because of the inspection violation, not that the technical performance is necessarily deficient.
 
The scuttlebutt on the Beech board is that Navworx intends on pursuing this through the Federal courts, under the theory that the PBOR bill made FAA administrative decisions subject to review by Federal Court or some such. Some are suggesting the refusal of access is that it would have allowed discovery outside the process.

If a federal suit has been filed, I couldn't find it in the system, but I'm no lawyer.

Hoo boy. I didn't sign up for this.
 
Last edited:
Almost pulled the trigger on a NavWorx box. I will let this play out before making any final decisions.
 
James331 said:
Why are you rooting for a small GA business to go out of business??

A business who makes a great and inexpensive all in one solution to the BS ADSB mandate the FAA dumped on us

The only one which doesn't send all your info out to anyone listing when you're 1200

One which no pilot report, that I've seen, has found a problem with function wise.

And the FAA plays the "saftey" card? Were these units not showing traffic? Bursting into flames? I mean if you're going to play that crap back it up.

After the ECI thing, I take these things with a HUGE grain of salt now
Click to expand...


Because Unit74 is not happy that someone could get the same ADS-B capability for half the price of what he shelled out.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Because Unit74 is not happy that someone could get the same ADS-B capability for half the price of what he shelled out.
Click to expand...

Meh.....its not about coin at all. :cool:. I woulda bought a G unit regardless since my entire stack is New and all have Garmin silk screened on the front. I'm not a fan of Garmin either for that matter. But its easier to stick with interoperability than try and be an experimental owner.

It's about THEM positioning themselves to screw anyone who bought those UATs and that's it. I do t give a shot if they are a big company of start up. They took the money and now the uat owners are in the middle if a fight they didn't ask for.

I don't think for one second Navworks will pay to replace anyone's UAT. Upgrade the unit probably. But labor, flight time to the shop......owners still bending over.
 

”wsuffa” said:
They way regulations are normally structured - and this is true with most regulatory agencies, including FAA, FCC, DOT, FDA, and others - is that you must prove that you are compliant with the regulations, otherwise you're presumed to be non-compliant. The FAA need not prove that you're non-compliant with the technical standards.... they can pull the authorization for being non-compliant with the regulations (even if they're only paperwork regulations).

As noted below, the regulations permit the FAA to inspect and require that the authorization holder permit that inspection.
Click to expand...

Not arguing that one bit. An FAA (MIDO) Inspection for a manufacturer is akin to a Ramp Check for a pilot. It can go as simple as an examination of the Pilot Cert., Medical, W&B, Registration, and AW Cert (i.e review of the Quality Manual) or, it can advance to “I see your pilot and airframe log books laying in the baggage compartment. May I see those for examination also?” (Top down investigation of the Engineering and Manufacturing Process.) At this juncture, the pilot (i.e. manufacturer) has to make a decision to allow or not allow the “expanded” inspection with ramifications either way. The course of action will depend on the situation and / or the counsel received.

”Axtel4” said:
2) How does a manufacturer prove to the Administrator their equipment is “rule compliant”?
Click to expand...

I did some looking this morning and a procedure for “certifying” a rule compliant position source is outlined in TSO-C199. [The TSO is intended for the voluntary Traffic Awareness Beacon System (TABS) equipage of aircraft not required to have a transponder or ADS-B device] (http://www.icao.int/RO_APAC/Meetings/2015 ADSBSITF14/SP08b_FAA TABS briefing.pdf) however the procedure outlined in the TSO could have wider application to other aircraft.

TSO-C199 states in part:

(4) The position source function must use a GNSS receiver that meets the requirements defined in Appendix 1. The intent of this TSO is to allow the use of commercially available GNSS position sources. The receiver must be capable of using SBAS provided corrections and health messages as defined in Appendix 1, in order to provide a means to prevent the TABS from transmitting false or misleading information. The receiver may continue to provide position when outside of SBAS coverage or when using unmonitored satellites. TABS Class B position sources may not be used for certified navigation equipment.
Click to expand...

Per Appendix 1, Section A1.2.
Designers wishing to take advantage of the Class B reduced GNSS requirements will need to meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs A1.2.6 GNSS Position Source Function Requirements.
Click to expand...

A manufacturer could enter this full aware of the provisions within TSO-C199 to satisfy the “rule compliance” position source and use those provisions as guidance to show position source compliance for “rule compliant” ADS-B units. From section A1.2.6.1,

Manufacturers may use commercial off the shelf (COTS) GNSS position sources to meet the performance of this TSO as long as the sensor meets the requirements in this section. The position source must be capable of using Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS) corrections and health messages to detect and correct satellite range errors. In areas where SBAS is not available or out of service, the TABS may continue to operate. The regional airspace authority will determine what operational impacts this may have on air-to-ground usage of TABS equipment. The GPS constellation experiences a significant ramp error approximately once a year. During these events, a chipset which uses SBAS will detect and either correct or exclude the faulty satellite. Refer to RTCA/DO-229D when interpreting SBAS related requirements.
Click to expand...
.

The remainder of section A1.2.6 goes on to define the tests that are applicable to show the position source is “rule compliant.”

What I find interesting is for the units under question the procedure set in TSO-C199 for meeting the requirements of a ADS-B position source without a full blown TSO may open the door for lower priced ADS-B solutions for the remainder of the small GA fleet.
 
Unit74 said:
Meh.....its not about coin at all. :cool:. I woulda bought a G unit regardless since my entire stack is New and all have Garmin silk screened on the front. I'm not a fan of Garmin either for that matter. But its easier to stick with interoperability than try and be an experimental owner.

It's about THEM positioning themselves to screw anyone who bought those UATs and that's it. I do t give a shot if they are a big company of start up. They took the money and now the uat owners are in the middle if a fight they didn't ask for.

I don't think for one second Navworks will pay to replace anyone's UAT. Upgrade the unit probably. But labor, flight time to the shop......owners still bending over.
Click to expand...

lol, and you think if your garmin chit the bed, garmin would pay for your flight time to the shop, down time, etc, etc??? you must be new here

I got a full garmin stack in my plane too, but their ADSB solutions are not on par with the navworx box, Ill wait it out.

And when it comes to avionics in my certified, I wish I had the options of a experimatal owner.
 
James331 said:
lol, and you think if your garmin chit the bed, garmin would pay for your flight time to the shop, down time, etc, etc??? you must be new here

I got a full garmin stack in my plane too, but their ADSB solutions are not on par with the navworx box, Ill wait it out.

And when it comes to avionics in my certified, I wish I had the options of a experimatal owner.
Click to expand...


Really? You think a second class manufacture has out R&Ded, out performed, out optioned, out supported, out serviced Garmin?

Clearly you are a low time pilot. Probably just got your VFR ride and still think your call sign should be Maverick. Seriously, now your just blowing hot air cuz you have no foundation with Navworks and arguing just to argue.

I'm not a big fan of Garmin, like I said. But I'm confident Garmin would be handling it like a reputable company, not acting like an Osterich.

If and when your cornerstone argument folds for good, I'm sure you'll be wistling Dixie. :frown2:
 
Unit74 said:
Really? You think a second class manufacture has out R&Ded, out performed, out optioned, out supported, out serviced Garmin?

Clearly you are a low time pilot. Probably just got your VFR ride and still think your call sign should be Maverick. Seriously, now your just blowing hot air cuz you have no foundation with Navworks and arguing just to argue.

I'm not a big fan of Garmin, like I said. But I'm confident Garmin would be handling it like a reputable company, not acting like an Osterich.

If and when your cornerstone argument folds for good, I'm sure you'll be wistling Dixie. :frown2:
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the spec sheet to price sheet on the garmin vs navworx??

I fly behind garmins for work and in my own plane, I like the systems, but they just arnt putting the same features and prices on this ADSB thing
 
Unit74 said:
Really? You think a second class manufacture has out R&Ded, out performed, out optioned, out supported, out serviced Garmin?

Clearly you are a low time pilot. Probably just got your VFR ride and still think your call sign should be Maverick. Seriously, now your just blowing hot air cuz you have no foundation with Navworks and arguing just to argue.

I'm not a big fan of Garmin, like I said. But I'm confident Garmin would be handling it like a reputable company, not acting like an Osterich.

If and when your cornerstone argument folds for good, I'm sure you'll be wistling Dixie. :frown2:
Click to expand...
Their price to value ratio is a little obscene.
 
Unit74 said:
I don't think for one second Navworks will pay to replace anyone's UAT. Upgrade the unit probably. But labor, flight time to the shop......owners still bending over.
Click to expand...

I doubt Garmin would pay for any of that if they had out of spec devices either.

Here's the interesting part. Let's say NavWorx gets their collective you-know-what together and offers a fix by replacing the GPS module in units or whatever...

The fix could easily, even with the shop time and flights to/from...

Still end up cheaper than a Garmin.

That's said from the sidelines, but some of the Garmin solutions are way WAY above the prices for the competition. They essentially admitted this by releasing newer stuff at lower prices.

Whether it's because they needed the higher price tag to meet the standard or for pure profit, they're not going to say. The most likely answer is that it's somewhere in the middle.

There's chipsets now that do everything an entire GPS board did, not that long ago. Better than the board did. Whether the regulatory folks LIKE the documentation of those chipsets from raw silicon to chip installed in a device, is probably the biggest sticking point in the process right now. The tech moved VERY fast.

Reception of multiple satellites in a concrete underground basement was unheard of not that many years ago. And that with a huge antenna on the device and gobbling power. Now you take a $20 Chinese built USB dongle with one of those chipsets on it to a basement, with an antenna printed as traces on the circuit board, and it'll hear most of the satellites in view over that location, easily. No way you'd get that dongle through any sort of certification though.
 
ircphoenix said:
Their price to value ratio is a little obscene.
Click to expand...


I agree. If I had a hodge pod get stack, my tune would be different. still would be MFing Navworks though. They tried to color outside the lines when the teacher wasn't looking. Now everyone's picture (who has one of the units) might be worthless.
 
How is the navworx (minus whatever BS is going on with the feds) hodge podge?

frankly the ADSB solutions from garmin look a lot more amature hour, I mean I have a nice full garmin stack right now, all I would need to do is ES my transponder and wire, yet I would also need another box to get the weather and traffic to display between my garmin boxes? really? the navworx actually appears to be more plug and play friendly with my garmins, than garmins own solution, plus the price and features, I love my garmins, between the multi million dollar work plane and my personal plane, its great stuff, but for ADSB its really crap.
 
James331 said:
How is the navworx (minus whatever BS is going on with the feds) hodge podge?

frankly the ADSB solutions from garmin look a lot more amature hour, I mean I have a nice full garmin stack right now, all I would need to do is ES my transponder and wire, yet I would also need another box to get the weather and traffic to display between my garmin boxes? really? the navworx actually appears to be more plug and play friendly with my garmins, than garmins own solution, plus the price and features, I love my garmins, between the multi million dollar work plane and my personal plane, its great stuff, but for ADSB its really crap.
Click to expand...
and you wouldn't be stuck with wifi into yet another Garmin product...:mad2:
 
I just had another fine flight with my NavWorx box. Been a happy user since before Garmin or almost anyone had a product. Had a few bumps but so did the ADSB 'network'. If I get 2 more years of traffic and wx, I won't be happy if I have to trash it but not overly upset either. Just hope I don't get caught in the compliance crunch... but I can do the install myself.

I have a Garmin 430w and a 327 - very happy - even happier with my 8yo GRT EFISs and the rest of the experimental stack. High performance, GREAT CUSTOMER SVC, and good $$$ all around.

Just sayin'


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Bill Watson said:
I just had another fine flight with my NavWorx box. Been a happy user since before Garmin or almost anyone had a product. Had a few bumps but so did the ADSB 'network'. If I get 2 more years of traffic and wx, I won't be happy if I have to trash it but not overly upset either. Just hope I don't get caught in the compliance crunch... but I can do the install myself.

I have a Garmin 430w and a 327 - very happy - even happier with my 8yo GRT EFISs and the rest of the experimental stack. High performance, GREAT CUSTOMER SVC, and good $$$ all around.

Just sayin'


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Is yours one of the affected boxes?
 
James331 said:
How is the navworx (minus whatever BS is going on with the feds) hodge podge?

frankly the ADSB solutions from garmin look a lot more amature hour, I mean I have a nice full garmin stack right now, all I would need to do is ES my transponder and wire, yet I would also need another box to get the weather and traffic to display between my garmin boxes? really? the navworx actually appears to be more plug and play friendly with my garmins, than garmins own solution, plus the price and features, I love my garmins, between the multi million dollar work plane and my personal plane, its great stuff, but for ADSB its really crap.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like get NOTHING for weather with Navworxs connected to GNS boxes. The ONLY way you'd get ANY weather stuff is Wifi to portable device assuming you run a compatible app.

Sell your transponder and pony up an additional $3000 or so for the GTX345. Which gets you weather, traffic on GNS AND wireless support of two portables.
 
bnt83 said:
Looks to me like get NOTHING for weather with Navworxs connected to GNS boxes. The ONLY way you'd get ANY weather stuff is Wifi to portable device assuming you run a compatible app.

Sell your transponder and pony up an additional $3000 or so for the GTX345. Which gets you weather, traffic on GNS AND wireless support of two portables.
Click to expand...

I guess but don't know. I display everything on my GRT EFIS/MFDS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
bnt83 said:
Looks to me like get NOTHING for weather with Navworxs connected to GNS boxes. The ONLY way you'd get ANY weather stuff is Wifi to portable device assuming you run a compatible app.

Sell your transponder and pony up an additional $3000 or so for the GTX345. Which gets you weather, traffic on GNS AND wireless support of two portables.
Click to expand...

Seems to me according to their site it supports both wx and traffic, that said I could care less about stale weather in my 120kt plane, I'll just look out the window, most of my missions are more contact type flying and between my eyeballs, altimeter settings and OAT, I'm good, the traffic would be a fun thing to have, but I already have TIS, which kicks on around most busy airspace anyways, so meh, whatever.

Sure as heck not spending that kind of money for old weather, so selling my 330 and kicking in big bucks, F' that noise, and that 345 doesn't even have a anonymous mode does it? Sounds like a rip off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top