diamondaviators.net

AndrewM wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:53 pm So for me the future might be a SR22 or a DA50. Constantly scanning both the Diamond and Cirrus owner forums, and seeing the continual focus on taking on customer feedback from Cirrus, access to spare parts in a timely manner and various other factors, I wonder how many people will buy a DA50 vs a Cirrus, or for those owners of Cirrus who buy a new one every 3-5 years (and let me tell you there are a lot of those folks out there) sell their SR22 to go into a DA50? Time will tell, but I think Diamond will have an uphill battle to gain meaningful share from Cirrus with the DA50 unless they can inspire more owner confidence that they will be taken care of.

This is the essential issue: Diamond has fallen down on the software side. Today, the world is about service, both customer service and software-as-a-service. In the absence of this, there is only an aging not-new becoming-obsolete product.

The meeting basically boils down to this: is Diamond going to step up their software service or are all of us gradually going to have to step away? They used to be excellent at both customer and software, but recently the software side has fallen away.

Anyone who wants to raise any European specific issue, please contact me, either here with posting it or via PM.

I look forward to hearing about progress on the meeting and any new developments.

A concern that I had expressed, namely Garmin's outright refusal to take in GIA63W LRUs that I had purchased on the used market, and for which I was perfectly willing to pay Garmin to bench test and make any required repairs, does not appear on the agenda. Given the fact that any of us who need those LRUs that are no longer being made by Garmin in order to add WAAS capability to our planes, the only place to purchase them is on the used/surplus market, and since Garmin chose to not make the GIA64 backwards compatible, Garmin has a corporate policy of making our planes obsolete notwithstanding that Diamond has publicly stated that it was working with Garmin to equip our planes with GIA63W LRUs that become available.

I am very hopeful that this type of issue can be addressed at the meeting, as the alternative is to lobby the FAA and our legislators to impose legal requirements on all avionics and airframe manufacturers who seek to certify avionics, requiring them to either continue to offer software/hardware support or dedicate the specifications and hardware designs to the public. In view of the technology issues that have plagued Boeing and Airbus, I suspect that many legislators would be interested in taking the lead on issues relating to automation safety in technologically advanced aircraft.

Sandy

Sandy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:39 pm
A concern that I had expressed, namely Garmin's outright refusal to take in GIA63W LRUs that I had purchased on the used market, and for which I was perfectly willing to pay Garmin to bench test and make any required repairs, does not appear on the agenda. Given the fact that any of us who need those LRUs that are no longer being made by Garmin in order to add WAAS capability to our planes, the only place to purchase them is on the used/surplus market, and since Garmin chose to not make the GIA64 backwards compatible, Garmin has a corporate policy of making our planes obsolete notwithstanding that Diamond has publicly stated that it was working with Garmin to equip our planes with GIA63W LRUs that become available.

Don’t worry, it will be addressed. We can’t reveal full agenda and details of all topics and issues that will be discussed before agreeing it with other participants and before getting their consent on making info public. There will be few meetings with different people involved from both Garmin and DAI and all issues discussed here during last few months will be addressed.

I have continued to follow this thread and may have missed it somewhere but a question might be asked of Garmin - “Are you willing to release all design documentation and cert data on the GIA63W so that a 3rd party avionics manufacturer could design a replacement box from those docs?”. There probably are some capable small shops who have the capability to do this given the sales price of the computers could justify it. Garmin would have to agree to provide the necessary technical support required.

40flyer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:02 pm I have continued to follow this thread and may have missed it somewhere but a question might be asked of Garmin - “Are you willing to release all design documentation and cert data on the GIA63W so that a 3rd party avionics manufacturer could design a replacement box from those docs?”. There probably are some capable small shops who have the capability to do this given the sales price of the computers could justify it. Garmin would have to agree to provide the necessary technical support required.

I highly doubt Garmin would go along. There really is no financial reason for Garmin to do this. It could also be used as a foundation to eventually compete against Garmin.

Garmin announced years ago the planned migration away from the G1000; GNS units and other equipment. In all cases; I am aware of; Garmin announced they placed the last order which was oversized to maintain support for a decade based on current repair rates at the time. For the GNS units, Garmin even admitted when their order was filled for a critical sub-assembly the supplier was gutting the factory!

Tim

My request as a VFR pilot.......let me activate Synthetic Vision on my legacy G1000 at a reasonable cost. The capability is already there. Why should it cost $11,000 to unlock it?

Does anyone see a path for G1000 removal using G500/600 txi and GTN nav/coms? You can fit a GDU 1060 (the big 500/600 TXI display) and 2x GTN 750s in the same width used by a G1000. Pop an audio panel beneath one 750 and the AP head beneath the other (or up top if you replace the steam standby gauges with an all-in-one standby EFIS.

Would be cool if there were an STC that stripped the G1000 suite from the type certificate to allow any other gauges to go in (steam gauges even). GTNs and TXI (or G3X) can almost get to G1000 level integration except the glaring issue to me is the removal of the GFC 700 for a GFC 600. Seems to be such a waste and a burden, but would allow owners to the enjoy fast arriving avionics born from the part 23 rewrite.

Some features we don't have on our G1000s that would be nice: clean, integrated AOA (TBM and Cirrus included this), newer audio panel features with bluetooth and 3d audio, blue level button on the AP to name a few

GTN/TXI all fits in the panel space of the G1000 (look for the blue outline)

Neema, why would you prefer this compared to a full G1000 NXI Phase II upgrade?

How would that set of avionics address engine monitoring?