NavWorx has ceased operations after the FAA determined that a GPS module in the ADS600-B did not meet requirements.
“The ADS600-B Gen 2.0 product utilizes a GPS module from a third-party vendor,” officials said on the NavWorx site. “Although the vendor represented their GPS module met 14 CFR 91.227, the FAA recently determined the GPS module does not meet 14 CFR 91.227.”
“We are unable to sell the ADS600-B, or provide AD updates, for either certified or experimental aircraft,” the notice continued. “Therefore, we are not currently conducting any business and have ceased operations.”
The FAA proposed the Airworthiness Directive (AD) a year ago, on Oct. 20, 2016. The AD sought the removal of certain NavWorx products, including the non-TSOed ADS600-EXP, from an estimated 800 general aviation aircraft in which they have been installed.
A little more than a month later, on Nov. 21, 2016, the FAA suspended the company’s technical standard order authorization for the affected units.
For months after the FAA proposed the AD, NavWorx said it was “moving forward to resolve the current issue with our products.”
At least one aircraft owner who had the NavWorx ADS600-B in his plane received this notice from Dallas Avionics, which installed and supported the products:
“Effective immediately, Dallas Avionics has discontinued distribution and support for all NavWorx products.
All pre-orders for NavWorx products, repairs and upgrades received by Dallas Avionics will be canceled effective immediately.
Over the past year, Dallas Avionics has made every attempt to facilitate the success of NavWorx and support of their customers. Unfortunately, under the current conditions and outlook, we can no longer continue to provide this service.
While we are compassionate to your situation, please direct all further correspondence direct to NavWorx at NavWorx, Incorporated, 3706 Big A Road, Rowlett, TX 75089 or 888-NAVWORX(628-9679).”
It’s nice to see the FAA upholding the standard. We can’t have fleet-wide equipment operating on their own rules and specs. It’s a shame that the end customers, who already have the faulty equipment, will end up as the ones paying for Navworx’s mistakes. Someone would have to quickly step in with a class action lawsuit before any remaining assets of Navworx disappears.
https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=953
You have been doing it. Is your transponder compliant with TSO-C74c or TSO-C74c (these are mutually exclusive to eachother!)? Ever wonder where came from drop out, stealth, coast mode, track jump, …? Then there is TSO-C74d, whatever you are doing is good but don’t listen to us no more!
If we’re not supposed to listen to you anymore, why did we buy ADS-B?
And does anyone now doubt that instead of NavWorx shutting down, it is instead FAA that needs to be forced to “Cease Operations” (e.g., per HR2997) !!!, …at least as FAA is presently seriously failing, in both setting ill-advised policy and inappropriate criteria? Their FAR 91.227 is in itself seriously flawed, and needs to be substantially changed, or rescinded. For example, NIC and NAC for ADS-B are massively overspecified by FAA, as well as current FAA criteria for ADS-B do not even address the needed C-N-S parameters for effective “State Vector data Exchange” to support any future rational, economic, safe, and successful ATS evolution. Then note, FAA’s ridiculous ADS-B version can be hacked or spoofed by high-school kids, and they’re placing vastly too much emphasis on it being the source of “integrity” for the NAS. It will NEVER be a 1x10E-4 system or any better due to both electrical failure, let alone system failure, or erroneous installations. Regardless of ADS-B implementation, they’ll still need primary radar, and retaining Mode S. So FAA’s foolish form of dysfunctional ADS-B, as well as their mistreatment of NavWorx, is a national disgrace. Just one more reason why GA in the U.S. is NOT equipping with ADS-B in any sufficient numbers to ever have any chance whatsoever of meeting FAA’s foolish equipage targets for the 2020 deadline (sic).
Your explanation might have gone over better had you minimized the diatribe and the unneeded embellishment. Setting aside the shortcomings in FAR 91.227, Navworks failed to meet the specifications
The reason for ADS-B is “pay per flight” ATC privatization. Without ADS-B private ATC is impossible.
I am amazed at how many people don’t know.