Hope you didnt buy a Navworks UAT

Unit74

Unit74

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
6,992
Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
FAA just pulled the rug out from under them.

Sounds like the GPS driving the position is the problem.

Sucks to be you if you got one installed.
 
Last edited:
Applies to two specific part numbers, not all of them.
The transceiver version of the NavWorx ADS600-B is currently produced in four different part numbers. Part numbers 200-0112 and 200-0113 contain an approved GPS position source and are not the subject of this notice.
Click to expand...
 
Better check those logbooks!
 
According to the FAA, Navworx changed the GPS receiver in the ADS600-B to a different one than the one that the ADS600-B was certified with, and the FAA has now added Navworx part numbers 200-0012 and 200-0013 to its Unapproved Parts Notifications as of 10/14/2016.

I recently installed one of these in my plane and the document (No: 2016- 2016SW56001 Date: October 14, 2016) says I need to remove the equipment or pull the breaker.

When I bought the ADS600-B, the FAA site listed the Navworx ADS600-B as rebate eligible and 2020 compliant and Navworx listed (and still lists) the internal GPS as 2020 compliant. The FAA web site now only lists two specific sub part numbers as legitimate, and of course Navworx still lists the ADS600-B as 2020 compliant.

In a 9/25/2016 AVweb article, Navworx asked for a week or two to get it straightened out. It's been three weeks and we haven't heard anything. Today I tried to call and "there is no one available to take your call, goodbye." I don't like where this is going. Anyone know what's going on?
 
They must be packing up all the high dollar gear in a truck. Too busy to answer.
 
Time to play lawyer:

Until there is an AD are you legally required to do anything?
 
bnt83 said:
Time to play lawyer:

Until there is an AD are you legally required to do anything?
Click to expand...


I truly don't have very much knowledge about the box, but unless they have fix for their customers, this is ripe for a lawsuit. False adervitising, deceptive sales practices, misuse of the TSO for fraud. I'm sure a first year law student could come up with a plethora of angles.
 
I'd give Navworx a chance to fix the problem before I called up a lawyer.

They have brought the lowest cost solution to the table and I, for one, would like them to succeed. Running them through the legal mill while they are struggling with this isn't going to help.
 
kyleb said:
I'd give Navworx a chance to fix the problem before I called up a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I would imagine the fix will be to modify the -012 and -013 boxes to -112 and -113 by changing the GPS component(s) in question. This will be expensive for them and an inconvenience to their customers. I certainly want them to succeed if this was an honest mistake.
 
Bugger. This was an ADS-B solution I was seriously considering purchasing in the near future. I guess it's back to saving more shekels unless Navworx gets this figured out.
 
rtk11 said:
Bugger. This was an ADS-B solution I was seriously considering purchasing in the near future. I guess it's back to saving more shekels unless Navworx gets this figured out.
Click to expand...

I was going to use them as well. Haven't changed my mind yet. Still have a couple more years before I write the check anyway.
 
Unit74 said:
I truly don't have very much knowledge about the box, but unless they have fix for their customers, this is ripe for a lawsuit. False adervitising, deceptive sales practices, misuse of the TSO for fraud. I'm sure a first year law student could come up with a plethora of angles.
Click to expand...

I was fishing but here is my point, until this goes through the notice of proposed rule making process and becomes an Airworthiness Directive, I don't think owners have to do anything. Navworxs could easily issue a service bulletin, which the FAA could reference in an AD, and make it mandatory to fix these.

I'm not going to accuse anyone of anything as there are alterations a TSO, PHA, PMA holder can do to a product and call them minor, and require little substantiation, and of course major which require FAA approval, we all know how clear cut major/minor arguments are. What really happened is between Navworx and the FAA. For all we know Navworx self disclosed the issue to their certificate managers (FAA inspectors) and are now trying to resolve the problems. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Navworx is popular with the experimental folk, and there is discussion of this over on VAF.

Not surprisingly the comments over there are supportive of Bill and the team at Navworx.

Time will tell.
 
And I bet that whatever they replaced the approved GPS with is quite accurate and works fine... just as a side note. It just doesn't have the bureaucratic paperwork approval.

Anyone seen a pre-built GPS module that doesn't work these days from any of the One Hung Lo plants across the Pacific? I haven't. They all work better than the first Garmin I owned in the 90s, too.

Certification limbo. Limbo lower now. How low can you go?!
 
rolivi said:
....Not surprisingly the comments over there are supportive of Bill and the team at Navworx.

Time will tell.
Click to expand...

seems like most posters here are being supportive, with one obvious exception. Like u said, give them time to make it right.
 
I don't have any knowledge of this particular incident, but my guess (based on similar experience) is that this is a company who is a victim of the approval process working at "the speed of government." IMHO, It probably has NOTHING to do with the device actually meeting specifications...

I worked last year testing a bunch of different PLBs. They needed to be SARSAT certified in order to be legal, however the change of ANY internal components invalidates that certification, regardless if it actually doesn't change the operating parameters. The supply chain changes and updates component parts sometimes within a few weeks. Unfortunately, the govt certification paperwork can take months, sometimes over a year to catch up. (In my scenario, there was only one person in the English speaking world that processed the certs!) I've seen companies come close to going out of business because of the SNAFU.

I kinda doubt there was malicious intent here, but I might be wrong, lol! I hope they don't, because I wanted one of these too...

V/r,

Dana
 
Navworks screwed the pooch. Plane and simple. They will either fix all the installed units or get their asses sued off. And if anyone installed using the FAA rebate, you now may have a fraud case against the government.

It was approved, however, Navworks changed the product for whatever reason. Anyone who has been in aviation more than a few weeks should now an approved product is essentially locked down from modification.

They tried to be slick and got caught. Hopefully, they make it right before the subpoenas start rolling in.
 
Unit74 said:
Navworks screwed the pooch. Plane and simple.
Click to expand...

Unitxx is clearly anti-Navworx. I think he meant "plain and simple" but that's conjecture on my part.

Certainly Navworx will straighten this all out in the THREE F-ing YEARS we all have to be ads-b compliant. Spinning up them lawyers never goes so quickly.

Fly safe.
 
Unit74 said:
Navworks screwed the pooch. Plane and simple. They will either fix all the installed units or get their asses sued off. And if anyone installed using the FAA rebate, you now may have a fraud case against the government.

It was approved, however, Navworks changed the product for whatever reason. Anyone who has been in aviation more than a few weeks should now an approved product is essentially locked down from modification.

They tried to be slick and got caught. Hopefully, they make it right before the subpoenas start rolling in.
Click to expand...

That's probably a bit much. Anyone who's built anything with modern electronic components has had a part number changed on them by vendors, usually because there was some tiny manufacturing change in the part so they couldn't call it the same part number, even when it did exactly the same thing. L

The issue in the certification world is that you need to source your parts from a vendor who'll keep stamping the same part number on the thing for you, or your certification suddenly goes moldy.

Dad dealt with this all the time in his career of selling millions and millions of electronic components.

A module like a GPS module will be worse. Even a firmware update to the module to fix a real honest to God bug in the thing will invalidate a certification unless appropriate paperwork games are played.

The real fun was when all the component makers began making lead-free versions of their parts under RoHS a couple decades ago. Every part number changed, even on stupid "jellybean" component crap like 5% resistors just so manufacturers could document for European authorities (at the time, now the world) that they're parts weren't made with lead or even had lead solder tinning on pins and leads. Fun times back then for everyone scrambling to do search and replace in Word for all of their engineering docs and resubmitting them all to various agencies who were all overwhelmed by the stupid paper shuffle.

There's a greater than zero chance this is all that has happened to Navworx. If they changed the GPS module, or had to substitute one that behaves identically to their original, they get to start over on paperwork. No real value is added by any of this, but it does highlight that as a manufacturer you have to be a total pain in the ass to your upstream distributors and vendors.

And if you're buying in low quantity, good luck having any leverage when the One Hung Lo plant in Shenzhen says they're changing the part number on resistor R27 on your board.
 
Unit74 said:
Navworks screwed the pooch. Plane and simple. They will either fix all the installed units or get their asses sued off. And if anyone installed using the FAA rebate, you now may have a fraud case against the government.

It was approved, however, Navworks changed the product for whatever reason. Anyone who has been in aviation more than a few weeks should now an approved product is essentially locked down from modification.

They tried to be slick and got caught. Hopefully, they make it right before the subpoenas start rolling in.
Click to expand...

without knowing the internals to the investigation, you are WAY out of line here. it could be as simple as the manufacturer of the GPS chip changed the chip software, and the FAA deemed it non-compliant. before you go accusing a company of fraud i suggest you get the details.

bob
 
Yep... I know all. The interwebz don't lie. Just like Aveo got caught trying to BS us too.

Go on and defend them. Doesn't bother me. They got caught and hopefully have they capital to fix it. If not, that "cheap" option just got a hole lot mo 'spensive.

Is what it is. Reserect the thread in 3 years and see what happened.
 
Unit74 said:
Reserect the thread in 3 years and see what happened.
Click to expand...

This feature would be classic: Designate a thread "Necro-to-be" and wager on the outcome? How fun would that be?

For now, it seems your gleeful about the issue NW is having. No reasons given. Nothing like "I waited a month and it didn't ...." or anything like that. Just seems you're basking in their bad news.

Catch ya in 3 years.
 
Well....Alls I know is the -0112 I suppervised installation passed the ops testing just fine and there are zero issues with his unit.
 
rolivi said:
This feature would be classic: Designate a thread "Necro-to-be" and wager on the outcome? How fun would that be?

For now, it seems your gleeful about the issue NW is having. No reasons given. Nothing like "I waited a month and it didn't ...." or anything like that. Just seems you're basking in their bad news.

Catch ya in 3 years.
Click to expand...


I just think it's slimy. That's all. Glad they got caught. Hopefully once bitten, twice shy.
 
rolivi said:
We all get it. You've got an issue with Navworx.

Done yet?
Click to expand...

Nope. Clearly you have an issue with me though. How about you just let it go. We get it. You love Navworks.
 
kyleb said:
I'd give Navworx a chance to fix the problem before I called up a lawyer.

They have brought the lowest cost solution to the table and I, for one, would like them to succeed. Running them through the legal mill while they are struggling with this isn't going to help.
Click to expand...

That.

And they are the only option which doesn't send sensitive info when you're 1200. For me that's a saftey factor which puts it well ahead of the other boxes, even my existing 330 which I would only need to ES.

It's still YEARS from 2020 anyways.
 
I have an experimental Nav Worx unit and it saved me from a mid-air once, it has always worked perfectly and passed the FAA compliance test. The customer service I have received from Bill the last few years has been good. I hope he gets his problems straightened out. Just my 2 cents.
 
Thankfully I have 3 years to wait and see on ADS-B.

If I had to buy today I'd be torn between Lynx NGT-1000 or GTX330ES for my experimental. More than likely I won't buy anything for her until Oshkosh 2019.
The Lynx NGT-9000 is the leading contender for our club planes. Most of our members like that it puts the weather/traffic display in the panel instead of relying on a tablet.
 
I am surprised they didn't see this coming from the FAA, seems like a dumb move after jumping thru all the hoops to get it certified in the first place.
 
Conformity, all it takes is one engineer that didn't leave any wiggle room in the notes section on a drawing. Say a company manufactures and sells FAA/PMA side stays for main landing gears on a Beech F33 series, the flag note says to topcoat them white with a specific part number paint. Later down the road the manufacturer of that paint discontinues it. Instead of revising the drawing to approve an alternate paint they just make a reasonable substitution and keep on manufacturing the side stays and selling them. Then comes the audit and the FAA finds the issue.

The notes on drawings can be quite troublesome in fact.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
maybe it was a supplier that did it? .....:eek:
Click to expand...

That kind of thing has happened before and I'm sure will again. Not that long ago 3M introduced a toluene-free 1300L and it was packaged and looked nearly identical to the standard 1300L, which is typically THE staple adhesive used by repair stations to glue on deice boots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top