Update navworx adsb boxes

[WaiexN143NM]

Hi all,
Have you seen the recent article on www.avweb.com about the spat between navworx and the FAA?
Well you know who will win this one. Bizzare . And sad for us navworx owners.

WaiexN143NM
Michael

[intoaircooled]

Yes very sad, I have a "certified" unit install in my Cessna. Can't get anyone at Navworx to pickup the phone. Not a good sign.

[Gripdana]

I was able to get them by email. This is a bummer since I received my EXP just prior to the notice. I thought an AD could/would not cover any equipment or aircraft that is experimental. That said it is also my understanding that the ADS-B equipment for experimental only needs to meet and perform to the standards of the ruling. So if the internal GPS in question performs to the standards, the EXP should be excluded from the proposed AD.

[fastj22]

I was able to get them by email. This is a bummer since I received my EXP just prior to the notice. I thought an AD could/would not cover any equipment or aircraft that is experimental. That said it is also my understanding that the ADS-B equipment for experimental only needs to meet and perform to the standards of the ruling. So if the internal GPS in question performs to the standards, the EXP should be excluded from the proposed AD.

Here's where it might be a sticky wicket.
"The FAA said it is concerned that two versions of the company’s ADS600-B units may contain an internal GPS chip that does not meet the FAA’s minimum performance standards for transmitting an aircraft’s accurate location."
If the chip doesn't meet minimum performance standards, its not qualified even for EXP.

It also is reminiscent of Jabiru's run in with CASA. Jabiru didn't respond well to CASA's inquiries and they came down hard on them.

[Gripdana]

That would be unfortunate. However if there is a hardware/software upgrade I am willing to have it done if the cost is reasonable. The EXP is a good setup for my avionics package. I'll cross my fingers.

[fastj22]

That would be unfortunate. However if there is a hardware/software upgrade I am willing to have it done if the cost is reasonable. The EXP is a good setup for my avionics package. I'll cross my fingers.

It was my first choice also, but I decided to be cheap and go with the Skyguard and save a few bucks. It seems like a crap shoot if you choose wisely.

[WaiexN143NM]

Hi all, dana, john,
John u nailed it on the head. When the regulatory govt agency(faa) , who probably would have worked together with the factory to insure the internal gps was transmitting a within tolerance data stream was ok, instead of just changing the sil code from zero, and then they got caught doing so, came clean and worked with the faa, this would be moot. To ad insult to injury, to schedule inspections from the faa and then deny them access 2x when they showed up reeks of stupidity.
Im really wondering if navworx will even survive. Its too bad because alot of people got on the bandwagon to be adsb compliant early. This whole adsb thing has been hard on the mfgr's to keep up with the faa as specs change along the way, and they are trying to sell a product. Its been reported the air force and even the faa's fleet of aircraft may not be compliant by jan 1 2020 .
Buckle up the rides got some turbulence ahead.
WaiexN143NM
Michael

[DCASonex]

Add to all this the requirement as noted in legal column in AOPA mag few months back, that any ADS-B equipped plane MUST have unit turned on and operating for every flight, even if in areas where no transponder is required, raises the question: Are all planes equipped with these now effectively grounded indefinitely ? Has the FAA issued a waiver for the affected aircraft ? Personally, do not often fly where transponder is required and plan to wait at least a few more years and let dust settle.
Much talk of units being unavailable when last minute rush to beat the deadline, but suspect capacity crunch will be in installers, rather than equipment and think experimental builders can still install their own.

David A. Sonex TD #1327

[fastj22]

This would be a good podcast subject. Anyone feel they are an expert on the technology or regulations?

[Jonathan McGee]

I was able to get them by email. This is a bummer since I received my EXP just prior to the notice. I thought an AD could/would not cover any equipment or aircraft that is experimental. That said it is also my understanding that the ADS-B equipment for experimental only needs to meet and perform to the standards of the ruling. So if the internal GPS in question performs to the standards, the EXP should be excluded from the proposed AD.

Your experimental status will not get you out of this one.

As you pointed out, when interfacing with ATC (navigation systems, transponders, etc.), an experimental aircraft still has to meet the appropriate performance requirements. For something like a GPS source, it is typically infeasible for the buyer to test and confirm (especially the integrity and reliability requirements), so you will naturally defer to the manufacturer for that confirmation (be it by TSO or some other standard).

My understanding of this situation (read the emergency order) is that Navworx modified the firmware of their device to report a non-zero Source Integrity Level (SIL) in the ADS-B packet. The FAA claims that Navworx has not provided it with the necessary information to confirm that their hardware actually meets the performance it is reporting. At this point, if you want to fall back on your experimental status to get you out of this, you would then have to go through the process of demonstrating your hardware meets the claimed integrity requirements.

An integrity score of zero (no integrity guarantees) is perfectly legal up until the 2020 mandate, at which a specific integrity level is required (read 14 CFR 91.225 and 227 if you really want the details). If your Navworx is reporting an integrity of zero, you "should" be fine up until midnight on 2019-12-31. If your unit is reporting anything else, you'll have a problem.

From my perspective, it seems like the easiest solution for Navworx would be release a firmware update that simply reverts the SIL to zero. That would resolve the immediate airworthiness issue. They could then work with the FAA to get the SIL upgraded prior to the 2020 mandate deadline.

Edit/Add: According to the Navworx statement, they increased the SIL in response to an FAA decision where they were to terminate TIS-B services to aircraft squawking with a SIL of 0.