The FAA has proposed a civil penalty of $3.685 million against NavWorx of Rowlett, Texas, for allegedly producing and selling ADS-B 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 Jan. 1, 2020, mandatory deadline for pilots 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 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,” FAA officials said in a prepared release.
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 companies to produce components for use on aircraft after proving that each component meets FAA standards.
Federal regulations set forth the 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, agency officials report.
It is absolutely insane — INSANE — for E-AB and LSA airplanes to use ADS-B units built to a lesser spec than the units installed in certified aircraft. My Cessna is no different than a RV-7, for example, when participating in the NAS.
Between the FAA shenanigans and the insane business decisions by the 800 pound avionics gorilla — spelled with a capital ‘G’ — in the room, my only real option was to buy a GTX335 when I really wanted the out and in box. They wouldn’t sell it to me … they want their dealers to do that at high cost! It’s no darn wonder the equipage rate is so low. Between unnecessarily stringent ADS-B requirements and Companies who require that ONLY their dealers install the equipment … it’s no wonder participation is low.
At Airventure 2018, I talked at length with the owner of a new Company who is “fighting” to certify his new product. He won an EAA Innovation prize but is still fighting the FAA. I made a comment that I was fed up with the FAA patting itself on the back for FAR Part 23 update when — in fact — the 346 page ARC Report TO them was largely ignored. Some of the FAA’s own people participated in that 5+ year effort only to see their work ignored. When I made the comment that I thought ALL Class I airplanes should be relieved of most FAA oversight, the CEO decided to unload on me and we both agreed. The FAA ought to fine itself and just go away. Everything is black and white when THEY are dealing with their “customers” but when the reverse is true and they mess up … no penalties are involved.
It’s gonna be fun to see what happens when a new Administrator AND Jan 1, 2020 comes along.
These commenters are insane and this article left out quite a lot of key information. Navworx committed fraud against the FAA. Navworx committed fraud against their customers. They refused to allow the FAA access – another violation. Somehow shutting Navworx is bad and the FAA is wrong? No. Thank you FAA for shutting down this POS business. They have no place in this industry. Fine the hell out of them!
@ Mr. Bradley. Before expressing your disagreement with experienced and well informed GA pilots and aircraft owners expressing their entirely valid concerns about both FAA’s version of ADS-B, and NavWorx treatment by FAA, perhaps you might consider reviewing FAA and CAA’s history of failures. Note the very long list of similar failed regulatory attempts, counterproductive enforcement efforts, failed system implementations, and utterly complete policy failures, of which ADS-B is just the next serious candidate. Try starting with reviewing the history of MLS, Volscan, PAR/GCA’s failure, Pete Quesada’s age 60 and 4-F, and DPC, or FLIR CAS, and scores of other FAA serious policy failures or counterproductive actions. From your expressed prospective, you sound very much like either a current FAA employee, a NavWorx competitor, or an avionics shop, cashing in on the FAA’s welfare relief act gift to the avionics industry. Nonetheless “good flying”, with your obviously secure place in this wonderful aviation industry!
As an LSA owner I was leaning toward the Navworx product, only to hear about their difficulties with the FAA. My current Garmin mode S transponder gives me TIS traffic when I am in town and I love the security of seeing the traffic around me. ADS-B will give me that most everywhere and I’m excited to have it, along with free FAA weather broadcasts. But most of the large companies came out with very expensive solutions. In my case it was the Garmin 345 transponder at over $5,000. Navworx was to be my solution at less than half that price. With their demise I am now looking at the Uavionix products, but they would have to get permission from Garmin to send the FIS-B weather to my Garmin 696 display using their proprietary RS-232 connection.
But how do I know Uavionix will survive FAA scrutiny? So that means I continue to wait, even though I want to install the equipment. The FAA fine of Navworx is misplaced and shows their personal antipathy toward that company. Instead, the FAA should be actively working with companies producing ADS-B equipment to show them the path to compliance and to clear away any technical obstacles to interoperability between the boxes. Then they should publish a list of the units that are in compliance.
@ Sport Flier. Well spoken. But even more importantly, FAA needs to AMEND the criteria for a fully compliant ADS-B unit to be rationally aligned with that (less stringent) criteria used in over 100 other countries globally (simplified NIC and NAC). And if FAA took the lead in doing what they ought to do, with a proper and long needed redesign of NextGen to configure it so that it would actually work, and provide useful benefits to airspace users, then the consequent revised ADS-A, ADS-B, and ADS-C criteria could allow for producing ADS-B units with even better traffic capability, while being available for 1/10 the cost of the least expensive present FAA compliant units. With that, even tiny drones flying in mixed airspace could even afford to have it, as well as Cubs and gliders using hand held battery powered units, …if it were properly being used as an air-air link, and NOT as the conceptually faulty and fatally flawed FAA “Pseudo-radar” (with FAA’s version foolishly requiring WAAS/SBAS source dada, with an entirely excessive NIC and NAC). Thankfully, Mr. Huerta’s term is about up, and hopefully a more aviation experienced, operationally educated, and wise Administrator will take the helm at FAA, with the hope all this ADS-B mess will be mooted, and taken in a more rational direction by 2020.
Has Uavionix committed fraud? If not, then they’re fine and you’re fine.
This is like getting mad at the police for arresting and shutting down a meth lab. Navworx is a meth lab of fraud and unsafe equipment. They refused to allow an FAA audit because they KNEW they had committed fraud.
Maybe you folks need to do more research about what Navworx had been doing and you might start to understand why they have been shutdown. Hopefully shutdown for good.
So the FAA launches a multi million dollar lawsuit to punish a company that has closed its doors. And all of the aircraft owners who did what the FAA said and bought early and bought from this company (being one of the few available early) now have to deactivate and disconnect their units which have become high tech junk. Maybe they can throw them in the same box as their Ameri-King ELT’s. I am just glad my EAB project is not far enough along to be shopping for avionics with all this mess and uncertainty hitting GA.
I also invested in to a Navworx ads600-b 0013 early and installed it , tested it and used it. Then one day on a cross country it picked up a target that indicated a direct collision course , this allow me to provide seperation and avoid a very small helicopter . It just paid for itself ! The FAA allows an AMOC , ASPEN avionics has an adaptable certified GPS unit P/N 21000 that is authorized source , I have installed it in mine to replace the GPS source, tested and am using it in my experimental . You will need a new GPS antenna properly installed and the very latest NavworX software with the Aspen option . I think the way the FAA is dealing with Navworx is unfortunate , there are other options . This unit save my butt !
Absolutely agree. The FAA’s handling of this has been a colossal mistake. Instead of getting heavy handed with Navworx and issuing the AD, the FAA should have done whatever they could to work with Navworx to quietly resolve the issue.
Beyond putting Navworx out of business, the only thing the FAA accomplished is to give more aircraft owners more reason to delay installation of ADS-B equipment. After this shenanigan, it’s abundantly clear there will be more changes required to existing ADS-B hardware before 2020. So, why spend a bunch of money on equipment that may need to be thrown out or modified within 2 years?
In view of the very poor ADS-B adoption rate coupled with the FAA administrator’s 2018 retirement announcement at Oshkosh, I’m betting the 2020 mandate will be pushed out 2 – 5 years. As soon as a new FAA administrator comes in their first action will be to review all the current projects. No new administrator will be willing to accept a massive multi-billion dollar failure come 1/1/2020. So what will the new administrator do with a 25 – 30% projected ADS-B adoption rate? Either provide free equipment or push out the mandate.
Excellent comment by the 40+ year GA owner!
But what the FAA should really do, is to put the entire present FAA ADS-B program on indefinite hold, by rescinding both 91.225 and 91.227. Then the Administration needs to formulate a Presidential Level task force (similar to the Curtis Committee of the late ’50s), without any FAA leadership or involvement whatsoever, except perhaps to provide data to the Committee. That new Presidential level committee then needs to complete an entire fundamental NextGen design and implementation review, and a subsequent ATS redesign, starting from fundamental principles. NextGen as presently foolishly configured is heading straight for a $40B failure. However, many of the needed CNS elements now already exist, if they were properly used, to formulate a suitable and proper foundation for the future ATS (e.g, RNP, Data Links, and ADS-A, -B, and -C) using automated dynamic 3D and 4D trajectory based separation. The system could be designed to be better, safer, and more efficient, at likely 1/10 to 1/100 of the present obsolete antiquated ATC’s system outrageously high cost, and poor performance. What we have now in ATC is the past equivalent of the obsolete telephone system of the ’40s, with operators and party lines, with each operator having to plug in every call manually, one at a time. It is just absurd. Events like the NavWorx sad lesson, along with the dismal ADS equipage rate, together with the rise of drones legitimate needs, and the frequent denied airspace access for GA, and the military, together with horrendous delay and lousy routes for air transport, should be the catalyst for the long overdue and badly needed scrapping of FAA’s version of NextGen, and the reformulation of the needed ATS evolutionary change.
This is all a very sad story. While in broad terms having ADS-B to serve as an inter-vehicle coordination link is a worthy idea (as originally conceived), FAA’s severely flawed version of ADS-B to foolishly be used as “Pseudo-radar” (thus requiring unrealistic levels of integrity) is at the root of this NavWorx issue.
So instead, it is the FAA who should now be fined, and not NavWorx. FAA was wrong to apply a completely unnecessary and unrealistically high standard for integrity (SIL, NIC, and NAC) to ADS-B, that has no hope whatsoever of either solving NextGen’s real issues, or being globally accepted and sustained.
This seriously faulty and massively overspecified FAA integrity criteria for ADS-B in 91.227 is central to the FAA “House-of-cards” surrounding FAA’s failed ADS concept, and their planned pending eventual misuse of ADS-B for “pseudo-radar”. Instead of ADing these NavWorx units, FAA should probably just be letting everyone use that same relaxed level of integrity, and dumping any need for use of WAAS/SBAS, thus allowing for much simpler and vastly less expensive units (even portable units), that all air vehicles could use. FAA needs to completely rethink this foolish idea of depending on ADS-B for pseudo-radar to be hand carrying vehicles by ATS in an obsolete 1:1 ratio. Further, primary radars, and Mode S (for TCAS) will always be needed for security and other reasons. This NavWorx prosecution by FAA (for the reasons FAA has claimed) was a colossal mistake.