The G1000 project - "The next step"
Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray
- pietromarx
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
- First Name: Peter
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
- Airports: KWHP
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"
Diamond had the same level of (non)communications about the digital side of their business when I first started trying to buy an airplane in 2002. They promised the G1000 and it was delayed for a variety of reasons, none of which were ever clearly communicated or committed to. I used to torture them on this, but it wasn't until much later that I figured out what was going on.
When I received the (second) G1000 DA-40, the buying experience was both terrific (the factory is a wonderful place) and a little annoying (the G1000 system was much less than what it is today). I remember grabbing Garmin's product guy for the G1000 and asking him about a lot of basic functionality that they could implement and getting the hard goodbye. Less than no interest in talking with customers (end-users).
This said, whenever I needed service, a part, or had a question for Diamond they were immediately responsive. Some of those folks are still there. I had a broken exhaust and they immediately fixed it. I had another and they fixed the entire fleet. The company was immediately and completely responsive to our needs and I see that part here, still.
The digital side remains troublesome. It has never been Diamond's strong suit and it likely never will. There are no software engineers at Diamond that I'm aware of, nor is there the concept of iterative software development. Garmin has plenty of engineers, but simply could care less about the customer base (they've never been responsive in any of their product lines, whether bike computers or avionics -- go check out the communities in those spaces if you want to see real annoyance).
At the end of the day, Garmin continues to develop new products and fails to invest into older ones. They would argue with me on this, but I have decades of experience with the company across many product lines and the behavior is the same everywhere. The business relationship between Diamond and Garmin is fraught: Diamond literally has no leverage. There is nothing that they could do to force Garmin to deliver better services to us.
The proof in all this: Diamond is shipping more airplane types than Garmin is delivering software releases. That tells you something.
Simply put: it is what it is.
The folks who started this effort get an "A" for effort, but I can't hold them responsible for fixing two corporate cultures (one who isn't digital, yet is responsive and another which is digital, yet unresponsive).
And for these $0.02 and a few hundred thousand more dollars I have a nice airplane that I like to fly and feel safe in.
Peter
When I received the (second) G1000 DA-40, the buying experience was both terrific (the factory is a wonderful place) and a little annoying (the G1000 system was much less than what it is today). I remember grabbing Garmin's product guy for the G1000 and asking him about a lot of basic functionality that they could implement and getting the hard goodbye. Less than no interest in talking with customers (end-users).
This said, whenever I needed service, a part, or had a question for Diamond they were immediately responsive. Some of those folks are still there. I had a broken exhaust and they immediately fixed it. I had another and they fixed the entire fleet. The company was immediately and completely responsive to our needs and I see that part here, still.
The digital side remains troublesome. It has never been Diamond's strong suit and it likely never will. There are no software engineers at Diamond that I'm aware of, nor is there the concept of iterative software development. Garmin has plenty of engineers, but simply could care less about the customer base (they've never been responsive in any of their product lines, whether bike computers or avionics -- go check out the communities in those spaces if you want to see real annoyance).
At the end of the day, Garmin continues to develop new products and fails to invest into older ones. They would argue with me on this, but I have decades of experience with the company across many product lines and the behavior is the same everywhere. The business relationship between Diamond and Garmin is fraught: Diamond literally has no leverage. There is nothing that they could do to force Garmin to deliver better services to us.
The proof in all this: Diamond is shipping more airplane types than Garmin is delivering software releases. That tells you something.
Simply put: it is what it is.
The folks who started this effort get an "A" for effort, but I can't hold them responsible for fixing two corporate cultures (one who isn't digital, yet is responsive and another which is digital, yet unresponsive).
And for these $0.02 and a few hundred thousand more dollars I have a nice airplane that I like to fly and feel safe in.
Peter
- NickBudd
- 3 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:49 am
- First Name: Nick
- Aircraft Type: DA42
- Aircraft Registration: N483TS
- Airports: LFPN LFMD
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"
That’s pretty much how I feel. GIA63Ws are starting to become available but won’t couple to the RNAV guideslope with the KAP 140 and this didn’t bother me when there was no RNAV guideslope. This is life in the digital world. OEMs sell new planes and boxes, not software. If you want or need the new gadgets you have to buy the new car/computer/TV/airplane.pietromarx wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:19 am
And for these $0.02 and a few hundred thousand more dollars I have a nice airplane that I like to fly and feel safe in.
- Colin
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 2006
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:37 pm
- First Name: Colin
- Aircraft Type: DA42
- Aircraft Registration: N972RD
- Airports: KFHR
- Has thanked: 319 times
- Been thanked: 527 times
Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"
My experience, and experiences in the software world, have lead me to the same conclusions as Peter. And when I have discussed software things with people at Diamond (CRS, fleet tracking) they have been totally uninterested. It's not how they see the world. And my experience with Garmin has been similar to his as well.
Anyone talking about a lawsuit has too little experience with lawsuits. You will be flying an electric plane before suing Diamond and Garmin in a US court give you any relief.
Anyone talking about a lawsuit has too little experience with lawsuits. You will be flying an electric plane before suing Diamond and Garmin in a US court give you any relief.
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~3,000hrs
colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
- krellis
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:42 am
- First Name: Keith
- Aircraft Type: OTHER
- Aircraft Registration: N853DF
- Airports: GA04
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"
It's difficult to change corporate culture. When the owner/founder/CEO tells you to your face that "the North American Avgas market is dead to him" and the long time former President of Diamond Canada chastises you for expecting "Diamond to support an out of production airplane" (in my case a DA20-A1) - it should be little surprise to anyone how Diamond is/has responded.
As to Garmin - the G3X team is outstanding and is incredibly responsive. I think that attitude will carry over with the STC'd versions as well. Doesn't help much with the G1000 equipped airplanes, though.
Personally, I think the issues primarily rest with DAI not Garmin.
As to Garmin - the G3X team is outstanding and is incredibly responsive. I think that attitude will carry over with the STC'd versions as well. Doesn't help much with the G1000 equipped airplanes, though.
Personally, I think the issues primarily rest with DAI not Garmin.
- NickBudd
- 3 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:49 am
- First Name: Nick
- Aircraft Type: DA42
- Aircraft Registration: N483TS
- Airports: LFPN LFMD
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"
As a matter of corporate and legal policy Garmin cannot apply for a STC without the consent of the airframe manufacturer If Diamond is showing some flexibility this is encouraging. There are a lot of moving parts in play here: global recession, US China relations and the impact on cross border investments; CV19 and impact on GA Sales; retooling market for hundreds of DA42s with aged out and timed out engines; the future of Austro and Continental as competitors sharing a very small market. Diamond must be gaming out a strategy right now that could result in a renewed interest in aftermarket support. Let’s see what the new proposals look like. I think Garmin will be ready to find solutions when Diamond is ready to let them do it.
-
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 801
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
- First Name: Tommy
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N591CA
- Airports: KCGF
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Re: The G1000 project -
Sometimes you have to shake the tree to get the fruit to drop.meowmeow wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:28 pmI know neither Scott nor you personally, but I think your discouraging tone is neither appropriate nor helpful. As I’m sure you know everything in the aviation world runs in super slow motion due to unique industry complications when it comes to collaboration of businesses like Diamond and Garmin, whose strategic plans and goals may not always be aligned while constantly being slowed down by tedious and costly certification processes neither company is responsible for.Tommy wrote:Really? I get it. So results don’t matter. You really, really tried hard, put together a five star team of participants to present your concerns, requests to Diamond hierarchy and you have absolutely nothing to show for it other than platitudes. I understand, you have no concrete results of what you set out to accomplish other than a continuous round of back slapping and you’re offended? Sure, it all makes sense to me.
I for one am glad that there is a dedicated group of DA aircraft owners that managed to get any traction at all in making sure our interests and suggestions are heard and we‘re getting systematically involved – undoubtedly the result of many efforts and required patience with slow processes that won‘t move any faster (or at all) just because we want to. We don’t own those processes – Diamond, Garmin and the FAA do.
- pietromarx
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
- First Name: Peter
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
- Airports: KWHP
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"
I agree. There is a market developing here and Garmin will eventually want to make a few $ out of it. The timeframe will not be what people have wanted.NickBudd wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:08 am As a matter of corporate and legal policy Garmin cannot apply for a STC without the consent of the airframe manufacturer If Diamond is showing some flexibility this is encouraging. There are a lot of moving parts in play here: global recession, US China relations and the impact on cross border investments; CV19 and impact on GA Sales; retooling market for hundreds of DA42s with aged out and timed out engines; the future of Austro and Continental as competitors sharing a very small market. Diamond must be gaming out a strategy right now that could result in a renewed interest in aftermarket support. Let’s see what the new proposals look like. I think Garmin will be ready to find solutions when Diamond is ready to let them do it.
- Charles K
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:46 pm
- First Name: Charles
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N5WU
- Airports: KCCR
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 98 times
Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"
It is why I have been looking at used Columbia and Cirrus aircraft. I have a great plane but it could use some reasonably priced upgrades.
Charles
KCCR Based
N5WU - 2004 G1000 DA40 40.400, GTX345R ADS-B, WAAS Upgraded in 2021 via Diamond Upgrade Program
IFR and ME Rated - Advanced Ground Instructor Rated
KCCR Based
N5WU - 2004 G1000 DA40 40.400, GTX345R ADS-B, WAAS Upgraded in 2021 via Diamond Upgrade Program
IFR and ME Rated - Advanced Ground Instructor Rated
- Boatguy
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 1827
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:48 am
- First Name: Russ
- Aircraft Type: DA62
- Aircraft Registration: N962M
- Airports: KSTS
- Has thanked: 1329 times
- Been thanked: 1163 times
Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"
It's worth noting that Cirrus and Continental are owned by the same Chinese manufacturer, and now Diamond and Austro are owned by the same manufacturer. And Wangfen who owns Diamond/Austro is a multibillion dollar global auto parts company.NickBudd wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:08 am the future of Austro and Continental as competitors sharing a very small market. Diamond must be gaming out a strategy right now that could result in a renewed interest in aftermarket support. Let’s see what the new proposals look like. I think Garmin will be ready to find solutions when Diamond is ready to let them do it.
I believe the Chinese training market is larger than the US+Europe+ROW market and is probably the primary interest of Wangfen.
Consider Austro and Continental to be the equivalent of when GM owned Delco.
- Lou
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 1:39 pm
- First Name: Louis
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: CGXLO
- Airports: CZVL
- Has thanked: 118 times
- Been thanked: 115 times
Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"
I really appreciate the efforts of this group to advance the upgrade agenda, but I also see an almost intractable problem for Diamond in that avionics are not consumer electronics. That is, the market is small, the regulatory costs immense, and the need for perfect reliability is paramount.
As someone with a lifetime of experience with lawsuits, I could not agree more. The only likely results of a lawsuit are the expenditure of more funds per owner than the cost of an NXi upgrade and the bankruptcy of Diamond altogether. It much better to continue to engage the problem in a constructive manner. Few people respond positively to threats.