Anybody have more info on this? Seems the FAA pulled the TSOA and issued an AD. This article is a little hysterical, make sure you read through the comments which includes some informative responses from NavWorx to its customers.

http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/faa-declares-ads-b-unairworthy/

From what I've read elsewhere, which isn't much different from the article, NavWorx has simply stonewalled the FAA, and that's not exactly the way to resolve any problem with any government agency. This isn't a criminal case in which silence is an option; it's an administrative matter in which the FAA holds all the cards until a court with appropriate jurisdiction says otherwise. Meanwhile, if NavWorx decides to go that route, they could be totally out of business before any court decision is reached. Bottom line: dumb move not to cooperate with the FAA's inspectors.

The FAA certainly isn't always right (recalling the Bob Hoover medical fiasco), but they are certainly a whole lot more powerful than any smallish company which depends on FAA certification to exist.

Cary

It is too bad. The decision to block access for SIL=0 units is short on motivation IMHO. Navworx can't really win this one.

Meanwhile, open source ADS-B in and out exists, can operate more securely than the certified stuff, and costs a few to several hundred dollars (retail, using expensive general use products) to put together in an evening. It is illegal to use the transmitter in the wild of course. ADS-B is really not a very well-thought out system as far as security or rollout goes.

With the spotty performance the FAA has had in the entire ADS-B debacle, it is no wonder that no vendor could afford to make such a simple device available affordably, even in ASU's (airplane spending units).

More twist:

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/12-22-2016-eaa-comments-on-navworx-airworthiness-directive?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTmpoa09ETTVNelkwTURnNCIsInQiOiJLcHBcL2d0YllKYUMrQVwvTFlXUEt6VlBcL25NZDlSOXlMWnMxemx1VXNuaGZydFRiS29Lcko3dzZMVlc3NFVyY3F5U08zVGZrNHNXYzhPWnNFOG9kanE2YkVvWEpJMGdqcStwWThOUERQN3BaUnE0bXY5dDlueTZGNTVOUTFnclFoSiJ9

Well its official... The AD hit today on the Navworx. What a pain. I will send Zane the PDF for him to post in the knowledge base.

Wasn't Navworx working on addressing the problem(s)?
I believe they had something to do with using non-approved internal parts,
or substituting unapproved parts for previously approved ones.

At this point, Navworx is still blowing smoke about how for only $349 or $599, depending on the model, they'll be able to fix it to meet 2020 requirements. Trouble is, they previously said that they were in compliance and that the FAA was wrong. Now implicitly they're admitting that they're out of compliance after all. Their credibility quotient is at an all time low, as far as I'm concerned--and I'm very glad that I didn't fall for their "low price" method to meet the 2020 requirements.

Cary

hotrod180 wrote:Wasn't Navworx working on addressing the problem(s)?
I believe they had something to do with using non-approved internal parts,
or substituting unapproved parts for previously approved ones.

The learning curve tends to be steep for companies who attempt to certify something with the FAA. Lancair, Rans, Van's all had perfectly good designs in production and probably thought certifying would be straight forward. I used to do tooling for the certified Lancair. There was only one fuselage bulkhead in common with the kit built plane when they were done.

For the supplier of something small (a product for an STC or a piece of avionics) they don't seem to understand that you can't just substitute something you know deep down inside is just as good as the one you promised the FAA you would be using.

Traceability, clear back to the hole in the ground the ore was dug up from. You can't even substitute a washer that has a different finish without the FAA finding out what you ate for Thanksgiving.

Retaining audit-proof records of everything in and out of your doors is why certified airplanes parts are so expensive. It's a pain in the a**. You can't have a single part laying around that doesn't belong to a job (shop guys often like to save an extra part or two to use as setup next time they make them, or to fill in when they scrap a part. NO CAN DO). Have one pair of calipers that don't have a certification sticker? Oops! Missing one signature on a work order that some audit gut pulls out at random? You're toast.

About 8 years ago I went to bat for a supplier who makes sun visors (yes that one). We (my giant employer) had a source inspector with a Jekyl & Hyde personality (he was diabetic) who FLIPPED out on them one day because they didn't do quality the way he thought they should. There were some things they couldn't justify but they still made a great product, exactly as we had been asking them to do for many years.

It took most of a year to sort out and I still have a bad taste in my mouth about the way they were treated. Once I got past the "I'm from the big ass company and I'm here to help" part I was able to discover that they had been documenting everything perfectly well, but no one asked the right workers.

It didn't help Navworx one bit that instead of complying, they argued that the FAA was wrong, and that they were in compliance. Now their response to the AD makes it sound like indeed they weren't in compliance, but for only $349 or $559, depending on model, they can make "your" Navworx box comply.

There are some who have said that the AD is a retaliatory response to Navworx's snotty public responses to the FAA's requirements. Whether true or not, if you want to sell something with the FAA's stamp of approval, it doesn't pay to argue with Mother FAA! You either do it the FAA's way or not at all.

Cary