Communication with Diamond - ADS-B and main spar AD

[Barry]

Thought you might be interested in this communication...

Barry
DA40XL 40.827
KHIO - Hillsboro, OR
--------------------
Mr. Starkman,

Diamond is not paying for compliance with this AD. Your aircraft continues to have an unlimited lifespan, the only difference being that compliance with the AD allows for a repetitive inspection to be pushed out. Additionally, the cost is minimal and the work is to be done when practicable. When compared to the increase in the MSI, our Diamond customers stand to gain significantly with this reinforcement.

As for ADSB, we continue to work with Garmin towards solutions for all of our customers. As soon as something becomes available, we will let everyone know via the website, and e-mail notifications such as these. Regards.

From: Cathy Wood
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:32 AM
To: Will Hawkes
Subject: FW: New DA40-180 Technical Publications



------ Forwarded Message
From: Barry Starkman <barry.starkman@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 17:43:25 -0700
To: Cathy Wood <cwood@diamondair.com>
Subject: Re: New DA40-180 Technical Publications

Cathy.... Is Diamond paying for this AD compliance? According to my records, Diamond warranted an unlimited lifespan for the airframe and advertised as such. Now we find this is not the case. What is Diamond's position on this?

Also, I was told by Garmin that Diamond will have to resolve the ADS-B / Pre-WAAS G1000 interface problem since Diamond is responsible for software updates. What is happening regarding this issue?

Thank you.

Best regards,
Barry

[hoyaj]

I'm struck by the imprecision of these responses. The spar AD compliance timeline lacks any alignment to the manufacturers guidance or intent. Unfortunately, that ship sailed when no one commented on it during the period provided.

It's woulda/coulda/shoulda now.

[rwtucker]

Barry,

It seems to me that Diamond's response is inaccurate. Simply put, the lifespan of our airframes is not unlimited unless the airframe is modified. No one can predict a judge's ruling with certainty but there is a good chance that the ruling would hold Diamond responsible for making the promise good. In cases like these, it is common to avoid paying by handling complaints one-off, as you see here. If, on the other hand, Diamond received a letter signed by 500 Diamond owners, they would almost certainly pay rather than face the adverse publicity. It is up to us to decide whether it is worth it.

[Colin]

I have no interest in signing onto that effort. I would like Diamond to focus on ADS-B on my G1000. I will not give them the slightest reason to decrease their interest in the North American GA market any further.

[rwtucker]

Colin,

I have only a little interest in the spar. I am pointing out that there is a case to be made should someone want to make it. On the other hand, I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that not 'distracting" Diamond by holding them accountable for promises will facilitate greater responsiveness in other areas, or that it will drive them out of the North American market. In terms of responsiveness, one could argue that a strong unified voice will get their attention. In terms of leaving the market, I am more certain. That decision will be made by revenue, margin, share, and future market potential. Reimbursing for a spar AD is a marginal cost of business. Unless Garmin is lying, Diamond has not requested and ADS-B solution from them. I am reasonably certain that if the US Diamond owners spoke as one and asked for a solution within six months, we would get it. Same with the spar AD.

At the end of the day, we don't have enough facts. My personal opinion is that Diamond behaves as it does toward the North American market because it can. It can because we permit it. You don't facilitate responsiveness on the part of a company by being careful not to offend or distract them.

[Keith M]

I would like Diamond to focus on ADS-B on my G1000. I will not give them the slightest reason to decrease their interest in the North American GA market any further.

You don't facilitate responsiveness on the part of a company by being careful not to offend or distract them.

Is there any evidence that Diamond is responsive to either tactic? I can't think of any examples here in Europe, but I stand to be corrected.

[Antoine]

I tend to agree that there is nothing left to lose i terms of Diamond's interest for the US market.
Their focus is Jet-A and they see their AVGAS customers as a liability.
The only people who care about us AVGAS-drinkers are the poor (in every sense) chaps in Canada. I would want to avoid causing the survivors even more financial worries which would orphan them even more.
I support the idea of firmly requesting a solution for avionics dead ends (out of solidarity - it seems that we Europeans are not under pressure with ADS-B).
As to the spar AD I would book it into "unforeseen costs" and move on. Of course Diamond should pay, but there are quite a few other hiccups in my plane I should not have paid for... the only difference is this is an AD.

[rwtucker]

As this exchange among us demonstrates, the aviation community is global and relatively tightly knit. Bad publicity in the US, especially from treating customers poorly, will translate into lost sales in Europe and elsewhere, whatever the configuration. As I said, the spar issue is marginal but if it can be confirmed that Diamond did not request a position on Garmin's list for a G-1000 ADS-B solution around the same time as Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, etc. count me in for a solidarity response. There is no better place to facilitate it than within the DAN community. If we opt for something less than a fully integrated ADS-B solution not led by Diamond, it may create unforeseen downstream consequences.