diamondaviators.net

Paul, a few things come to mind.

1. Diamond slow to release anything (NXi came out Jan 2017)
2. Diamond's pricing for Garmin updates (remember GFC 700 upgrade cost on DA42s?)
3. Diamond's exclusion of features on their G1000 (no AOA for example, incompatibility with GTX 345s, no flight stream 210, or this very thread where software updates aren't available!)

Note the part 23 rewrite came in Q3 of 2017--after NXi came to market. Look how many non-G1000 avionics are now available and how fast they're still coming to market.

Stepping away from G1000 effectively gives you the chance to keep up with the times without bondage to the manufacturer. In a way I pity Diamond, they're punished by gluing G1000 to the type certiciate. For other planes that were manufactured pre and post G1000, I'd (now) prefer to get a non-G1000 plane for flexibility, unless the manufacturer was very proactive in keeping G1000 up to date (like TBM?).

I think a G1000/GFC 700 plane is the gold standard in GA for excellent SA and autopilot finesse. My observation is that non G1000 planes have caught up and in some ways surpassed G1000 capabilities.

Russ: TXI can include engine indicators (look closely on the PFD above, you'll see them on the right side of the screen).

neema wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:48 pm Russ: TXI can include engine indicators (look closely on the PFD above, you'll see them on the right side of the screen).

I saw the indicators, I just don't know what the interface is for the TXi to the Diamond engine(s). The G1000 uses the GEA71. Will the TXi use that box?

It's all hypothetical right now. TXi panels use a GEA 110

Friday afternoon (2/21/2020) we received word from CEO Scott McFadzean, asking the joint meeting at Garmin Headquarters be changed to March 25th and 26th. The attending members have consulted and are able to accommodate this request from DAI. The change of dates request was beyond the control of either Diamond or Garmin.

I really hope this meeting comes up with some solutions to the avionics issues. (Sadly, I'm in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp.) But the fact that both Diamond and Garmin are prepared to invest resources into holding the meeting is a very good sign.)

One comment I'd like to make on the September 2019 letter and the related agenda item: the ability to have such work done at workshops other than London and Vienna is essential. It's not just a matter of travel cost and convenience. For me, it's a show-stopper. The return trip to Neustast is well over 100 hours, and to London involves way too much water. Either way, the plane would run out of airworthiness before it got back home. At the very least, being able to do the upgrades at a Diamond Service Center is essential; at any Garmin authorised facility would be better.

(Actually, thinking this through a bit more, I doubt that either DAC or DAI could legally do maintenance on a VH registered aircraft anyway.)

As to why Diamond and Garmin should care about my remote aeroplane anyway? My family is getting close to the limits of the DA40. I keep looking at DA42s longingly, but then reality bites - why the hell would I go through this uncertainty again? No matter what I buy, it won't be a new plane (my pockets aren't deep enough). So Diamond hasn't lost a sale. But, by buying their used one, I will be enabling someone else to upgrade to a new one. Would the SR20/22 owners that replace their birds every few years kep doing it if no-one bought used planes? There is still a sound business reason for a factory to support the existing fleet, rather than just concentrating on the "next sale". The support might just create that sale.

greg wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:07 pm One comment I'd like to make on the September 2019 letter and the related agenda item: the ability to have such work done at workshops other than London and Vienna is essential. It's not just a matter of travel cost and convenience. For me, it's a show-stopper. The return trip to Neustast is well over 100 hours, and to London involves way too much water. Either way, the plane would run out of airworthiness before it got back home. At the very least, being able to do the upgrades at a Diamond Service Center is essential; at any Garmin authorised facility would be better.

For me it's only 45 min flight to Wiener Neustadt but I also believe that this is essential if DAI/Garmin really want to offer upgrades. Simply because of the fact that these two factories don't have the capacity to service so many aircrafts who would potentially commit for an upgrade. Plus their labor cost is much higher than usual. In addition, my mechanic, besides running DAI authorised service, is also Garmin authorised service center which performed several G500, TXi and GTN installations, so I believe such facility is fully capable of performing such upgrade.

Due to travel restrictions and general concerns over COVID-19, the meeting will now be conducted entirely via video conference. It will take place on Thursday (3/26) and DAN members can anticipate an update on Saturday (3/28).

We appreciate the wiliness of Diamond’s CEO and Garmin’s OEM manager to be creative during these very challenging times.

Since it's going to be via video conferencing, couldn't we all join in to listen in? Clearly we don't all need to be able to speak.

ZAV wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:58 am Since it's going to be via video conferencing, couldn't we all join in to listen in? Clearly we don't all need to be able to speak.

I don’t think this would be acceptable form. First of all, it was not planned like this, so we can’t change it. Second, if the “speaking” meeting participants don’t know who the “listeners” are and whether they might record the meeting, they will refrain from open talk - simply that’s how it is - and this will cripple meeting achievements. Third, I’m not sure if the platform, that will be used, has such capability.

ememic99 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 4:31 am

ZAV wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:58 am Since it's going to be via video conferencing, couldn't we all join in to listen in? Clearly we don't all need to be able to speak.

I don’t think this would be acceptable form. First of all, it was not planned like this, so we can’t change it. Second, if the “speaking” meeting participants don’t know who the “listeners” are and whether they might record the meeting, they will refrain from open talk - simply that’s how it is - and this will cripple meeting achievements. Third, I’m not sure if the platform, that will be used, has such capability.

Completely agree. It would turn a high level negotiation into a panel discussion. These people need to debate without endless second guessing. Our DAN representatives have more than earned their place at the table and any benefit of the doubt.