Avidyne Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Avidyne General > SkyTrax Series ADS-B Receivers & Transceivers
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Pending Navwork AD
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Pending Navwork AD

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
ddgates View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Location: Deer Valley
Status: Offline
Points: 870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ddgates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Pending Navwork AD
    Posted: 20 Oct 2016 at 10:38am

Is the AD which is coming on the Navworx 600-B going to have any impact on those of us who have MLB100/Skytrax 100 installed?


Thanks

David Gates
Back to Top
MysticCobra View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MysticCobra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2016 at 11:08am
Where'd you hear an AD was coming?

Simpson has already said the current documents do not apply to SkyTrax/MLB100:

Edited by MysticCobra - 20 Oct 2016 at 11:13am
Back to Top
cbenedikt View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 27 Oct 2015
Location: Suwanee, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cbenedikt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2016 at 11:51am
The proposed NavWorx AD is listed in the Federal Register. 
Back to Top
ddgates View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Location: Deer Valley
Status: Offline
Points: 870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ddgates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Oct 2016 at 12:58pm
Originally posted by MysticCobra MysticCobra wrote:

Where'd you hear an AD was coming?

Simpson has already said the current documents do not apply to SkyTrax/MLB100:


BeechTalk

David Gates
Back to Top
jimmyz80 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2016
Location: Apex, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 41
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jimmyz80 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Oct 2016 at 9:44pm
It seemed like the AD was targeting devices that were UAT transmitters, and the MLB100 is just a UAT receiver.  I'd hope it would be excluded from the AD, but who knows...
2006 Cirrus SR22 - IFD540 IFD440 DFC90 AXP322 MLB100
Back to Top
ddgates View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Location: Deer Valley
Status: Offline
Points: 870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ddgates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Oct 2016 at 9:54pm
That's the question..I think the issue is an onboard GPS chip, but after all this is the FAA😊

Edited by ddgates - 21 Oct 2016 at 9:55pm
David Gates
Back to Top
oskrypuch View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Location: CYFD
Status: Online
Points: 2007
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oskrypuch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Oct 2016 at 11:55pm
Clipped from elsewhere ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/programs/sups/upn/media/2016/2016_2016SW56001_UPN.pdf

https://www.navworx.com/documents/UPN%20Statement.pdf

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FAA-2016-9226-0016&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/media/TIS-B_service_change_summary_final_508_5-13-15-webV2.pdf

Navworx certified an ADS-B box that uses your existing transponder several years ago. It does not have an approved nav GPS, because that level of accuracy is not required for traffic, per the regs.

The FAA refused, per Navworx, to grant them approved GPS status despite their demonstration of the equipment meeting that capability.

The FAA later changed the traffic output on the server-side of ADS-B to only show traffic targets to devices with approved GPS units.

That means that the STC'd Navworx box no longer receives traffic.

Navworx informed the FAA that they were going to push a software update to change their ADS-B box to report as an approved GPS. The FAA told them not to. Navworx did it anyway. The FAA, in what must be a record in terms of timely government action, submitted a proposed AD within two days that recommends forcing Navworx owners to pull the devices from their airplanes.

.... Navworx had already brought in legal counsel with the intention of fighting the FAA in court if this happened.


Edited by oskrypuch - 21 Oct 2016 at 11:56pm
Back to Top
RobertC View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 22 Oct 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RobertC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Oct 2016 at 12:48pm
I have sent this separately in an email, but for others...

I have documented, along with at least two others with different equipment, a failure of Garmin's ADS-B transponder (GTX 345) that is actually worthy of an AD. At least myself and one other person have reported it to the FAA safety hotline over a month ago and have gotten zero response from the FAA.

Depending on how that Garmin transponder is connected to other devices, it will get itself into a crash/reboot loop cycle on a magnetic heading of 360. Therefore, it cannot be safe to fly an approach in a northerly direction with that Garmin transponder, because the aircraft would lose transponder output entirely if runway orientation or wind correction leaves the airplane aligned on a magnetic heading of 360.

Meanwhile the FAA managed to go from UPN to AD proposal inside of a week on this Navworx dispute.

It seems that they are more concerned with who is selling ADS-B boxes than whether the boxes actually work or not.

I understand that Navworx is an Avidyne supplier so I assume you guys have some interest in this situation between Navworx and the FAA.

If my documentation of preferential treatment of Garmin can be of any assistance let me know, I would be happy to help in any way I can.


Edited by RobertC - 22 Oct 2016 at 12:56pm
Back to Top
Catani View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catani Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Oct 2016 at 3:04pm
Originally posted by RobertC RobertC wrote:

Meanwhile the FAA managed to go from UPN to AD proposal inside of a week on this Navworx dispute.

It seems that they are more concerned with who is selling ADS-B boxes than whether the boxes actually work or not.

I understand that Navworx is an Avidyne supplier so I assume you guys have some interest in this situation between Navworx and the FAA.

If my documentation of preferential treatment of Garmin can be of any assistance let me know, I would be happy to help in any way I can.
I think there is a major difference between intentionally defying FAA safety standards, and unintentionally screwing up an apparently compliant design. A design screw-up requires some study to find out whether it's real or due to operator error, and how prevalent it is.  From your description, the Garmin may well get an AD issued in due time (emergency ADs are pretty rare), although people really holler when the FAA gets ADs wrong for whatever reason.  With the Garmin box, the FAA has to be pretty sure what's wrong before they issue an AD.

But the Navworks thing is a whole different situation.  By FAA's pre-determined standards, every affected Navworks box is defective by design and does not meet minimum standards of safety - and Navworks told the FAA they were going forward anyway.  It's a no brainer to issue the AD.  That sets the situation back to where it should be: the box doesn't go on the market as an ADS-B mandate solution until the FAA agrees to waive its standards, or Navworks agrees to comply with them.  Navworks doesn't get to waive itself.
Back to Top
ddgates View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Location: Deer Valley
Status: Offline
Points: 870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ddgates Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Oct 2016 at 7:27pm
Where the skytrax is concerned, it is just a receiver. If a position is transmitted, it comes out of the TXP. Since that is not being questioned, WE should have no issue? And should not have to remove our boxes?

Edited by ddgates - 22 Oct 2016 at 7:28pm
David Gates
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Status: Offline
Points: 251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2016 at 7:35am
The AD is against specific NavWorx models.  The Avidyne MLB100 is not one of those models.
Back to Top
wookie View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 48
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wookie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Oct 2016 at 11:50pm
Navworx asserts that testing was satisfactorily performed on their position source.   So their change had basis.   BH
BH
Back to Top
berndsenco View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jun 2016
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote berndsenco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jan 2017 at 9:06pm
You should check out the rant NavWorx has on their home page about the FAA and the AD. They are really bashing the FAA publicly...

http://navworx.com/


Jon Berndsen
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.145 seconds.