What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

NavWorx front page announcement

Well, that's it. Over and Out on Navworx. $1890 down the drain...time to press on.

Just ordered ADS-B 2020 compliant GPS/Uavionix EchoUAT ADS-B In/Out Transceiver from GRT....$1490.

And they would not take a credit card until ready to ship, estimated mid November.

What a breath of fresh air. :)
 
I just talked to Scott Edwards at Dallas Avionics & they will be sending out a global email.
Bottom line: Game Over

No product will be manufactured or delivered including the doghouse fix for the EXP.
 
Wow - didn't see that one coming.
Really? Of course the written word does not lend itself well to jesting, so maybe thou doth indeed jest.

Small company defying large government agency -- outcome uncertain? NOT!
 
This brings to mind two questions. First -- if companies like uAvionix, Dynon and Levil can source compliant GPS modules, then why was Navworx apparently unable to do so? Second -- If other manufacturers get the same scrutiny of their GPS modules from the FAA, are we likely to see this scenario repeated?

I had planned at one time to buy a Navworx box, but decided against it based on their incredibly poor handling of the FAA issue. At this point, though, I'm not inclined to buy anyone's ADS-B OUT solution until I have to. I'd hate to buy one from some other manufacturer, only to find they used the same GPS module the FAA rejected for Navworx.

I get a really bad feeling that this story isn't over, and no one's going to like the ending much.
 
Is there a way to disable the transmitter portion so that my Navworx EXP box can at least work as an ADS-B In receiver?
 
I'm sorry to see this come down the way it did. Obviously Bill was betting his business on this GPS vendor and lost.

It appears that the only legal option now for those of us with ADS600-B's are the three AMOCs. While it makes us legal, I believe it's just a temporary stop gap.

There are still outstanding bugs in the current software release that Bill has stated are fixed in 5.0. (i.e. traffic on both display ports). While legal, our units are only going to suffice until a major bug pops up. It will buy us some time so that we can save and plan the purchase of replacement units.
 
Last edited:
Well, that's it. Over and Out on Navworx. $1890 down the drain...time to press on.

Just ordered ADS-B 2020 compliant GPS/Uavionix EchoUAT ADS-B In/Out Transceiver from GRT....$1490.

And they would not take a credit card until ready to ship, estimated mid November.

What a breath of fresh air. :)

Remember, NAVWORX also said they were 2020 compliant too. What makes this unit any different?

I think I may rig up an ADS-B In only using Stratux (and a Rasberry Pi board) until we get closer to 2020.

I think we all got served a very sloppy and expensive shlt sandwich. Time to pull out the Sriracha sauce and choke it down I guess. :mad:
 
That?s my concern as well

unless the FAA comes out with an endorsement of these non certified units, we only have the vendors word that the equipment is good. And regardless of good intentions, the FAA has the final say.

I have the good fortune of being located where I don’t have to have adsb. Do I want it? Heck yes! Will I pay another dime to get compliant? Not for something without an FAA backed pedigree. That means a TSO unit, and I don’t see that as a priority right now in my situation

The little guys have come to the table with good faith in the guidance for non TSO equipment. Unfortunately we’ve seen what that is worth to the regulators.

Can any of these non TSO UAT manufacturers produce a signed FAA endorsement of their product? If not, I’ll sit and wait.


This brings to mind two questions. First -- if companies like uAvionix, Dynon and Levil can source compliant GPS modules, then why was Navworx apparently unable to do so? Second -- If other manufacturers get the same scrutiny of their GPS modules from the FAA, are we likely to see this scenario repeated?

I had planned at one time to buy a Navworx box, but decided against it based on their incredibly poor handling of the FAA issue. At this point, though, I'm not inclined to buy anyone's ADS-B OUT solution until I have to. I'd hate to buy one from some other manufacturer, only to find they used the same GPS module the FAA rejected for Navworx.

I get a really bad feeling that this story isn't over, and no one's going to like the ending much.
 
Seems like there would be some value present that another company might acquire through fire sale or bankruptcy. Maybe I am wrong; I too have a 600 - EXP unit.
 
Wow..definitely wasn't expecting that! Wonder if the FAA will still be processing rebates for Navworx units or if FSDOs will be accepting the AMOC anymore? Losing confidence here very quickly. Still love my ADSB and the info it provides however...
 
Well...dang. So much for being an early adopter of new technology. I guess I'll never learn. Will enjoy -Exp unit until I have to turn it off.

Bill and crew were always great to me personally and had a nice simple setup that I thought was worth the money...guess I was wrong. Sure hate to see a small business with good people go down the tubes. Another expensive lesson for many of us!

Where to now...
 
shopping again

The NavWorx 600exp had been just about perfect for me, given my combination of 430W, GTX327 and AFS 4500. I'm not sure if there is a current product that would give me cockpit EFIS display of Wx and traffic, at reasonable cost, but the search begins...
 
That is a drag...

I was hoping it was gonna work out...

It is my humble opinion that if the equipment is not on this list...
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/equipment/

You better not buy it... which means the latest darling receiver (uavionix) is illegal.

EDIT: I know navworks is on that list.... I'm just not real sure what yardstick we use to know for sure we have a good piece of equipment that the FAA won't hate in a few months down the line.
 
Last edited:
unless the FAA comes out with an endorsement of these non certified units, we only have the vendors word that the equipment is good. And regardless of good intentions, the FAA has the final say.

I have the good fortune of being located where I don?t have to have adsb. Do I want it? Heck yes! Will I pay another dime to get compliant? Not for something without an FAA backed pedigree. That means a TSO unit, and I don?t see that as a priority right now in my situation

The little guys have come to the table with good faith in the guidance for non TSO equipment. Unfortunately we?ve seen what that is worth to the regulators.

Can any of these non TSO UAT manufacturers produce a signed FAA endorsement of their product? If not, I?ll sit and wait.

FWIW the FAA has been to GRT and approved the manufacture and sale of the product.
I want and need ADS-B, it?s a safety item.
Navworx came to grief going to war with FAA. GRT had not done that.
I?ve had good service with them on EIS and EFIS, confident will be same with ADS-B. Would have gone with them on it earlier but was not available when ordering from Navworx.
 
FWIW the FAA has been to GRT and approved the manufacture and sale of the product.
I want and need ADS-B, it?s a safety item.
Navworx came to grief going to war with FAA. GRT had not done that.
I?ve had good service with them on EIS and EFIS, confident will be same with ADS-B. Would have gone with them on it earlier but was not available when ordering from Navworx.
Just in case you may not know, the GRT ADS-B equipment is a re-branded version of the UAvionics product?
 
What am I missing? GRT doesn?t make a UAT.

I suppose you are referring to their GPS? again, is there written endorsement from the FAA? That?s fine for the GPS, but what about the front end / UAT? Haven?t seen anyone produce FAA endorsement of anything more than pretty hyperbole and website pages.

Maybe I?m not looking hard enough? I?m willing to listen.
 
I was rooting for Bill and the concept of ADS-B for a good price. This is the first I've heard and I had pinged him 2 days ago about planning for delivering firmware updates - with no real answer of course.

I've removed my app from the iOS store since only the -0012 EXP boxes escaped the AD and they've all likely been installed by now. If anyone does have one that needs configuration or the last good firmware fix just ping me and I'll try to help. But I have no idea of whether it actually conforms, or will continue to conform, to the ADS-B TSOs.
 
What am I missing? GRT doesn?t make a UAT.

I suppose you are referring to their GPS? again, is there written endorsement from the FAA? That?s fine for the GPS, but what about the front end / UAT? Haven?t seen anyone produce FAA endorsement of anything more than pretty hyperbole and website pages.

Maybe I?m not looking hard enough? I?m willing to listen.

Rather than looking for answers here, call GRT and pose your questions.
 
I would like to know the third party vendor

I would think it only fair that we know who the third party vendor is who purportedly misrepresented its GPS as compliant. That may be the next Navworx.
 
Just in case you may not know, the GRT ADS-B equipment is a re-branded version of the UAvionics product?

I don?t think GRT ?rebrands? anything. Their web site is pretty clear: you can buy a uAvionics UAT device fed by the uAvionics gps, or the GRT GPS, or ADSB+ format from a Garmin box. You can install a Trig TT22 transponder, stand alone or with a control interface to a GRT Hx or HXr, fed, again, by the GRT gps or a Garmin ADSB+ format gps. For ?in? it will display data from the uAvionics, or a number of other -in boxes. There is no one solution.
 
It would really be nice at this point for the FAA to maybe relax the AD for all of us who've been orphaned and permit us to operate until the real 2020 compliance date.
(Anyone know how we can present a group request to the FAA?)

This was no fault of our own making, other than being early adopters to a supposedly compliant system.

I for one, will not be purchasing a new ADS-B out system until we get closer to that date.

At this point, I have a real trust issue with any upcoming new solutions being presented.
 
Last edited:
AD timetable

Am I interpreting it correctly that we have until January 11th to operate an EXP uint until it has to be removed?

Thanks,

Don Bodnar
 
I would think it only fair that we know who the third party vendor is who purportedly misrepresented its GPS as compliant.

I think that is a " fair" question that the FAA should answer for us. My guess it that Navwork was not that vendors only customer/supplier. And as a end user the FAA should be obligated to make that known. NW just did not have that large enough block of the market for GPS devices.
 
Maybe we can get uavionix or another company to support the doghouse unit. As much of a dream as that is, I probably just need to get on board with most others and cut my losses and move on. Another reason my RV is all Garmin. Luckily my navworx is in my bush plane that rarely goes into controlled airspace.
 
Surprised?

I'm not surprised. I had already decided to throw my EXP in the trash anyway due to NavWorx poor business practices. Adios, NavWorx - be thankful you got away with our $ without a class-action lawsuit.
 
Well thats too bad. I have one of the units that the FAA does NOT have a problem with.

I guess I'll run it like I stole it until it breaks. Been good for the last 3 or so years.
 
If anyone is planning to remove a Navworx unit, I'm willing to pay for shipping just to take it apart and see how it works. Glad to post the photos for all to see.

David
 
Without a class-action lawsuit? Really? Who says that?s going to (not) happen? There should be more than one defendant. The FAA should be in the cross hairs. Did you get some sort of letter or notice that your ADSB unit is non-compliant? Neither did I. Who sends this out? NavWorx? FAA? Doesn?t matter. I didn?t get anything. Am I required to monitor some small company?s website to see if their equipment that was approved, is now not approved? I also own a Cessna and when there is an AD issued on any of my equipment, I get a notice from the FAA. It?s happened several times. If I continued to use my ?non-compliant? NavWorx ADSB unit past the deadline of the AD, which is supposed to be for type-certificated aircraft, will I hear from the FAA? Can?t I then refer to the certificate that I received from NavWorx that my system complies with the FAA TSO? This is a collection of screw-ups - by the FAA who did not do the required research before implementing this ill-thought out idea - and by NavWorx for not doing their due diligence after the wish-washy Feds changed their minds, who?s to say how many times. The loosers here are the customers left holding the bag, and we have rights, protected by consumer and interstate commerce laws. Class action lawsuit? - you betcha!! Number one on the hit list - the FAA. NavWorx should also be named.
 
I think that is a " fair" question that the FAA should answer for us. My guess it that Navwork was not that vendors only customer/supplier. And as a end user the FAA should be obligated to make that known. NW just did not have that large enough block of the market for GPS devices.

I can tell from working with the FAA for the AMOCs for the ADS600-B, you won’t get the information from the FAA. They treat each submission as if it was covered by a NDA. Only Bill can release that information.
 
Did you get some sort of letter or notice that your ADSB unit is non-compliant? Neither did I.

Unfortunately it doesn't matter. FAR 91.7 (I think) says the PIC is supposed to (somehow) know the airplane is in a safe condition, and airworthy. I once had the misfortune to show up at the FSDO for a flight test with a rented airplane. The inspector came in with the logs, and pointed out that a certain repetitive AD had not been signed off. Check flight cancelled. And I couldn't takeoff until I found an A&P to sign a ferry permit. They were pretty nice about it, acknowledging that it was pretty tough for me to know about this AD; but, nevertheless, as PIC it was my responsibility.
 
GRT Safe-Fly GPS Compliance with FAR 14 CFR 91.227

I wanted to make a quick posting to reassure all GRT Safe-Fly users our Safe-Fly 2020 Compliant GPS does meet all FAA requirements for GPS performance according to FAR 14 CFR 91.227. I personally contacted Mike Heusser of the the FAA Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) in Fort Worth, Tx in January of this year during the development of the Safe-Fly GPS to make certain it would be compliant. Mr Heusser was very helpful, immediately familiar with our GPS source, and assured me that it was compliant, as described in the datasheet for the GPS.

The spirit of our conversation with very positive. Mr. Heusser was helpful, and I was left with complete confidence that our Safe-Fly GPS would not be subject to the problems NavWorx encountered.

Greg Toman
Chief Engineer/Owner
GRT Avionics, Inc.
 
Thanks for posting here Greg. Other than your conversation with the FSDO, is there anything we can hang our hats on with regard to 2020 compliance of the package you offer? I don't doubt for a minute that you have their assurances. Is there something that the end-user can point to when a local FSDO or ramp inspector gets uptight about a non-certified UAT transmitter?
 
Last edited:
After the text and email about the demise of NavWorx I called John at GRT and order a EchoUAT since I already had a SafeFly GPS installed with my recent panel upgrade.

img_0955.png
 
Anybody wanna buy a Navworx EXP cheap?? Really cheap?? Really really cheap?? (I suppose I could use it as a paper weight)
 
That might have sold for $200 last week. Today not so much.
Just glad I bought at the intro price, only burned for $600.
Tim Andres
 
Any thoughts about an easy swap out option? Mine seems to be working perfectly and it is hard to think about taking it out over this but I am not sure what else to do. It sounds like we may have some time.....

Thanks.
John
 
Law suit?

I am out $1,500 on this debacle. I wonder how many of these units where sold?
How do we organize a class action law suit? Any lawyers out there that bought one of these and want to organize this? This is all not right! I was willing to cut Navworx some slack on this as they “had a solution”. More ****! GRT apparently sourced out a compliant GPS. Why could Navworx not have done the same?
 
Last edited:
I don?t think GRT ?rebrands? anything. Their web site is pretty clear: you can buy a uAvionics UAT device fed by the uAvionics gps, or the GRT GPS, or ADSB+ format from a Garmin box. You can install a Trig TT22 transponder, stand alone or with a control interface to a GRT Hx or HXr, fed, again, by the GRT gps or a Garmin ADSB+ format gps. For ?in? it will display data from the uAvionics, or a number of other -in boxes. There is no one solution.
Well, if I used the wrong word (rebrand) then fine. However, talking with Greg at OSH, he told me that UAvionics is providing the ADS-B technology for their product. So call that whatever you wish.
 
Well, if I used the wrong word (rebrand) then fine. However, talking with Greg at OSH, he told me that UAvionics is providing the ADS-B technology for their product. So call that whatever you wish.

Love your sig line.

It is clear to me that UAvionics is a vendor to GRT. For what its worth.
 
I am out $1,500 on this debacle. I wonder how many of these units where sold?
How do we organize a class action law suit? Any lawyers out there that bought one of these and want to organize this? This is all not right! I was willing to cut Navworx some slack on this as they ?had a solution?. More ****! GRT apparently sourced out a compliant GPS. Why could Navworx not have done the same?

According to this article on AvWeb, there are over 800 installed units out there:

https://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3824-full.html?ET=avweb:e3824:220304a:&st=email#229800
 
I wanted to make a quick posting to reassure all GRT Safe-Fly users our Safe-Fly 2020 Compliant GPS does meet all FAA requirements for GPS performance according to FAR 14 CFR 91.227. I personally contacted Mike Heusser of the the FAA Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) in Fort Worth, Tx in January of this year during the development of the Safe-Fly GPS to make certain it would be compliant. Mr Heusser was very helpful, immediately familiar with our GPS source, and assured me that it was compliant, as described in the datasheet for the GPS.

The spirit of our conversation with very positive. Mr. Heusser was helpful, and I was left with complete confidence that our Safe-Fly GPS would not be subject to the problems NavWorx encountered.

Greg Toman
Chief Engineer/Owner
GRT Avionics, Inc.

Hi Greg... Thank you for posting. I would like to say that you are very well respected and folks love your company and product. I personally fly with your product. I trust you and really like your newest partner uAvionix. However, since the FAA in my opinion is complicit in the navworx failure, I am forced to have to only consider adsb-out boxes that are in the list.

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/equipment/

If uAvionix (any maufacturer for that matter) can't get the FAA to say directly and on a public medium (faa.gov site) that the product is good to go, we can't make a rational decision to buy the product.

More importantly than that, the FAA should force said manufacturers to list the part number inside their box and that part number should be publicly approved by the FAA.

The FAA has to fix this and the manufactures have to push them to do it. If you need the end user to help, please tell us what to do to help you.

I will close with a quote that will make most of us giggle... or maybe cry.

Dynon SV-GPS-2020 (not TSO approved, but meets 91.227 requirements per Dynon) (taken from the FAA site link above)

That's hillarious considering what we just went through with navworx.
 
Last edited:
ADS600B AMOC

I've got an ADS600B and planed to wait for V5 software before I rewired it to use my GNS430W as the position source. But it's now obvious no software revision will happen. So my question is whether there are any issues rewiring to my 430W using the current console SW? Using the 430W was not an option when I originally installed it and the console SW I have doesn't show that option. I hope/assume I'll be able to get the most current version from Dallas Av or another user since the Navworx download page is gone. Any words of wisdom from those that have gone this route?
 
My situation is a little different than many. I started flying with NavWorX in 2009, and went thru 2 receiver hardware upgrades. They used to be very nice to deal with, and I've been flying with traffic available for many years. I presently own and use 2 of the ADS600B boxes and both work great in their respective installs. They had done some great software over the years, some of it still is running and some isn't, that allowed me to get rid of converter boxes and such in my panel. One of the big ones that to this day is a requirement for me, is that I can receive traffic over and ARINC output, that is very similar to TCAS format. You see, my EFIS has a limitation that in order to use Satellite WX,
I MUST get traffic via TCAS format. Satellite WX is something I will not compromise on because ADS-B's FIS-B weather is sorely inadequate if you do lots of long x/c and especially non-US-48 flying....and for scud runners, will prove to be highly unreliable.

That's the rub. NavWorX is the ONLY one I know of that offers ARINC output for their traffic...and it's something I need. So I've been thrilled that they provided this flexibility and have done it for many many years. I knew when I bought it that the original GPS needed an upgrade. Back then it was sold that way. It wasn't until more recently that the internal GPS even became a POTENTIAL useable item. They sold the unit as the ADS600BG if you wanted the certified GPS at that time. I think they tried, and failed, to get the FAA to go with that original GPS being adequate. It *should* have been a simple fix...just swap GPS modules, and you're all set. Not sure why this latest module fails.

Even with all the great experience I've had over the years, I have become very unhappy with their communication in the past couple years. Really around the time this AD thing started, the clamming up on discussing things caused a lot of angst for people. And other things transpired for friends of mine, such as a box that went in for repair this spring and still hasn't been returned, that get me just fuming.

So I'd love to see them come back to life, and get back on track. At the same time, if there was another vendor that offered a product that I could use that would work exactly the same, I'd jump and buy it in a heartbeat.

What I want:

1) 1090Mhz and 978Mhz receive for traffic
2) EITHER freq as the OUT...doesn't matter to me
3) WiFi option for Traffic and Wx on the ipad
4) Serial GDL-90 format with 38,400 baud option for Traffic/Weather
5) ARINC 735A format traffic output

Any manufacturers listening? I'll buy 2 if you do it reasonably.

Greg@GRT, do you see the above specs as do-able in any way?

I hate it when a manufacturer stops supporting a product. On the up side, there are finally getting to be plenty of products out there for most people, and prices are cheap. When I got the first ADS600B, they were $2495. Got my second on Ebay for about $1700. Now days you can do better than that, depending on what you need.

At least as Bob said, there's an AMOC, so for many ADS600B users, we do have possible ways to go forward. I just may not get the opportunity to have dual frequency receive, which is something I was really looking forward to.
 
You see, my EFIS has a limitation that in order to use Satellite WX,
I MUST get traffic via TCAS format. Satellite WX is something I will not compromise on because ADS-B's FIS-B weather is sorely inadequate if you do lots of long x/c and especially non-US-48 flying....and for scud runners, will prove to be highly unreliable.

If your system is using WSI weather things are about to get worse.

It is my understanding that WSI, the weather services provider is dropping the subscription service at the end of 2017.

Rob Hickman
N402RH RV-10
 
Back
Top