|
Pending Navwork AD |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | |
ddgates 
Senior Member 
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Pending Navwork ADPosted: 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
|
|
 |
|
|
MysticCobra
Senior Member
Joined: 29 Jan 2013 Status: Offline Points: 664 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Oct 2016 at 11:08am |
|
Where'd you hear an AD was coming? Edited by MysticCobra - 20 Oct 2016 at 11:13am |
|
|
|
|
cbenedikt
Newbie 
Joined: 27 Oct 2015 Location: Suwanee, GA Status: Offline Points: 16 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Oct 2016 at 11:51am |
|
The proposed NavWorx AD is listed in the Federal Register.
|
|
|
|
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Oct 2016 at 12:58pm |
BeechTalk |
|
|
David Gates
|
|
|
|
|
jimmyz80
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jul 2016 Location: Folsom, CA Status: Offline Points: 102 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|
|
|
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|
|
|
|
oskrypuch
Senior Member
Joined: 09 Nov 2012 Location: CYFD Status: Offline Points: 3061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|
|
|
|
RobertC
Newbie
Joined: 22 Oct 2016 Status: Offline Points: 1 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|
|
|
|
Catani
Senior Member
Joined: 21 Jan 2016 Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Oct 2016 at 3:04pm |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ddgates
Senior Member
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Location: Deer Valley Status: Offline Points: 1100 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
Senior Member
Joined: 17 Aug 2012 Location: Massachusetts Status: Offline Points: 285 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Oct 2016 at 7:35am |
|
The AD is against specific NavWorx models. The Avidyne MLB100 is not one of those models.
|
|
|
|
|
wookie
Groupie 
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 Location: Colorado Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|
|
|
|
berndsenco
Newbie
Joined: 03 Jun 2016 Location: Atlanta Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
MysticCobra wrote: