ADSB-Out . . Creeping toward 2020

[andya]

I was told by a friend that talked to the fellow that started Navworks that he was not planning to get his non-TS)'d version
certified because the FAA hassle is more than he is willing to go thru. His original unit that is certified is much different than
the TSO'd version causing the whole process to start from scratch. Homer may have a better explanation,

[Gilbert Pierce]

Navworx Done Poated by AVWEB While it looked like owners of NavWorx ADS600-B ADS-B systems hit with a controversial AD were in luck with a replacement option, NavWorx announced today on its website that it is unable to sell the updated ADS600-B NextGen 2.0 or provide AD updates for either certified or experimental aircraft. Since the issue with old versions of the ADS600-B centered around the internal WAAS GPS engine that the FAA determined wasn't certified per the governing FAA regulations for position reporting, NavWorx ultimately sourced and utilized a replacement GPS module from a third-party vendor. The resulting replacement product was the ADS600-B 2.0—a system that was represented as a fully approved, drop-in replacement for versions that were non-compliant. According to NavWorx, while the third-party vendor represented its GPS module as meeting 14 CFR 91.227 criteria, the FAA determined the module does not meet regulations. As a result, the short announcement on www.navworx.com said the company is not conducting business and has ceased operations. As we reported this past September, company president Bill Moffitt boasted of "significant progress with certification of the ADS600-B 2.0," and said the company had found a viable solution to the long-delayed actions with the FAA. At the time, NavWorx was still waiting for final TSO approval for installation of the ADS600-B 2.0 in certified aircraft and encouraged customers to apply for the FAA's $500 rebate while there was still time. As of November 2016, sources estimated that over 800 U.S.-registered aircraft were affected by the ADS-B receivers grounded by the FAA AD. In its latest announcement, NavWorx said it will provide updates only if they become available. We'll report on any that are released. We couldn't reach the company for additional comment as we go to press.

[Old3pacer]

The navworx story is a snapshot of the most egregious problem with the FAA and future safety.
The differentiation between experimental craft and certified contributes nothing to safety -- it is a barrier.
FAA cares not about GA and would be perfectly satisfied were it to disappear.
Very sad!

[51-pa22]

For a more complete understanding of this turf war, read the AD AD 2017-11-11
It sounds like the exact same verbage given to Homer

[Homer Landreth]

The navworx story is a snapshot of the most egregious problem with the FAA and future safety.
The differentiation between experimental craft and certified contributes nothing to safety -- it is a barrier.
FAA cares not about GA and would be perfectly satisfied were it to disappear.
Very sad!

This is not to be considered a political statement, but; I don't agree with a lot of what President Trump says and does,
but I have to give him total agreement when he advocates Government just gets in the way of Business. The long and
short of this situation is that the FAA ran NAVWORX out of business.

[Jim]

Press Release – FAA Proposes Civil Penalty of Nearly $3.7 Million Against Manufacturer of ADS-B Navigation Units


October 27, 2017
Contact: Lynn Lunsford
Phone: 817-222-4455


FORT WORTH, Texas – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes a civil penalty of $3,685,000 against NavWorx Inc. of Rowlett, Texas, for allegedly producing and selling navigation units that did not meet FAA requirements and for allegedly misleading customers about those products.
“The FAA has strict requirements for navigation units to ensure the reliability of the information they provide both to pilots and to air traffic controllers,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “Customers of these products must be able to trust that their equipment meets our safety standards."
During an investigation, the FAA found that NavWorx produced certain Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) navigation units containing an internal Global Positioning System (GPS) chip that did not meet the FAA’s standards for integrity.
In March 2015, the FAA notified the aviation industry that it had tightened its System Integrity Level (SIL) standards for GPS chips in units that meet the FAA’s January 1, 2020 mandatory deadline for operators to equip their aircraft with ADS-B transmitters. Such units, when properly manufactured and operated, broadcast an aircraft’s precise position.
The FAA alleges that, rather than replace the chips in its ADS600-B units, NavWorx knowingly altered the units’ internal software to transmit a code that indicated the units met the new SIL standard even though they did not. The FAA further alleges that the company subsequently refused to comply with the FAA’s direction to modify the software to transmit an accurate code.
The FAA also alleges that NavWorks advertised on its company website and through transactions with customers that ADS600-B part numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013 met the FAA’s tighter standards for the 2020 installation deadline. These advertisements omitted and materially misrepresented the essential fact that the units contain a GPS chip that is incapable of meeting the FAA’s standards.
In November 2016, the FAA issued an emergency order suspending the authorization that NavWorx uses to manufacture the affected ADS-B units after the company repeatedly refused to allow the FAA to inspect its records and manufacturing facilities. The authorization, known as a Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA), enables suppliers to produce components for use on aircraft after proving that each component meets FAA standards.
Federal regulations set forth FAA’s authority to inspect suppliers’ quality systems, facilities, technical data, and products to determine whether they meet safety standards. These regulations also provide that the FAA may witness any tests necessary to determine a product’s compliance. The company subsequently allowed the inspections to occur and the FAA reinstated NavWorx’s manufacturing authorization.
The FAA is continuing to work with NavWorx customers to ensure the safety and accuracy of the affected products. In June 2017, the FAA published a final Airworthiness Directive (AD) that requires owners to remove or disable these ADS-B units. The AD also allows the owner to modify the unit by linking it with a GPS unit that contains a certified chip that meets FAA standards.
NavWorx has been in communication with the FAA about the case.

[51-pa22]

I read this press release with the same critical eye as the press release from such places as......
Dealey Plaza
Waco
Las Vegas....
There is more information that in NOT clearly represented in the above press statement.

[Pacerfgoe]

First off I have no dog in this issue....

The fact that potentially a company advertises it meets a certain specification, when it doesn't, really pisses me off.
Where has the integrity of business gone....they will advertise anything to take your money, and that's just wrong. Not all are like this, but how do you know who is trustworthy or not.
Now the FAA....once again, I have no dog in this, I'm Canadian....I deal with Transport Canada....another very special group of people

How do they allow homebuilt /experimental aircraft with all these fancy new non TSO'd avionics and engine monitoring equipment to share the same airspace with Certified Aircraft with all these new fancy TSO'd avionics and engine monitoring equipment, that cost twice as much.....and are exactly the same as the non TSO'd stuff..... except for a piece of paper.
Total BS in my opinion.
It's a new world in the avionics game, and I think it's time for an overhaul of the regs to allow this new stuff into VFR AIRCRAFT without all the restrictive paperwork....

My .02 cents after too much to drink...

[Homer Landreth]

Press Release – FAA Proposes Civil Penalty of Nearly $3.7 Million Against Manufacturer of ADS-B Navigation Units

FORT WORTH, Texas – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes a civil penalty of $3,685,000 against NavWorx Inc. of Rowlett, Texas,

“The FAA has strict requirements for navigation units to ensure the reliability of the information they provide both to pilots and to
air traffic controllers,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.

Right !, Unless you are an LSA or Experimental plane and then you can use any junk that you want.

In March 2015, the FAA notified the aviation industry that it had tightened its System Integrity Level (SIL) standards for GPS chips
in units that meet the FAA’s January 1, 2020 mandatory deadline for operators to equip their aircraft with ADS-B transmitters.

If the FAA "tightened" it's SIL standards, isn't it kind of interesting that only NAVWORKS units were the target of the AD ? Are
they telling us that out of EVERY manufacturer with units in service when the FAA pulled new SIL requirements out of "who knows
where", ONLY NAVWORX had a GPS non compliant to the NEW SIL requirements? This doesn't pass the "smell test".

[bluejeepdad]

If the FAA "tightened" it's SIL standards, isn't it kind of interesting that only NAVWORKS units were the target of the AD ? Are
they telling us that out of EVERY manufacturer with units in service when the FAA pulled new SIL requirements out of "who knows
where", ONLY NAVWORX had a GPS non compliant to the NEW SIL requirements? This doesn't pass the "smell test".

Right, the difference is that (as far as I know) NAVWORX was the only one that responded to the new SIL requirements by changing their software to make the units report a higher Source Integrity Level value (3 instead of 1). I think NAVWORX did this because they thought their units did meet level 3 requirements. But later on the FAA showed that the NAVWORX GPS chip did not.

The question I have is why did the FAA change the SIL standard? Many of the manufacturers had already developed their products and customers had purchased and installed them assuming that they would have a given level of functionality. I've read a little about this but not anything that's really clear.

Tim