Garmin refuses to service GIA63W LRUs

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N333GX
Airports: KJYO Leesburg VA
Has thanked: 230 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"

Post by CFIDave »

Since Diamond Canada routinely installs used GIA63Ws into non-WAAS aircraft (and is genuinely interested in helping Diamond owners upgrade to WAAS), I suggest you call Diamond Customer Support and ask them for assistance. Even if Diamond doesn't do the installation, they may have a connection into Garmin and/or advice on how to make this a legal install for your preferred maintenance shop.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
User avatar
Sandy
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:30 pm
First Name: Sanford
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N159PS
Airports: KPDK
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"

Post by Sandy »

If the company cannot confirm the chain of possession, they are picking up an unknown liability. Sounds like lawyers got to the engineers.
Colin, I consider you to be a friend, but as I have both an engineering degree (EE from MIT) and a law degree, I'm curious about your qualification to make that statement. In particular, Garmin confirmed that they originally made and sold the units, albeit not to me or to Diamond. To the extent that they had any liability as their manufacturer, then that liability would "go away" only if the units were trashed (a la Cessna and the Skycatchers or Beach and the Starships), so if your comment was intended to say that Garmin's liability as a manufacturer would go away if the units were trashed, then I must agree with you. On the other hand, had Garmin taken the units in, and then gone over them, and had they found that any repairs were needed and made (something we do not know), then Garmin would only be liable as they are with respect to any other LRU that they have serviced and returned to the fleet. "Chain of possession" could, probably, have been ascertained by Garmin, as they (and I) have the Serial Numbers of the units, and as they pointed out to me the name of the (very well known) aircraft company that purchased the units, I would think that if the units had ever been returned to Garmin for service/replacement/etc., then Garmin would have their history.

As I was not asking Garmin to simply "switch out" my unknown (re performance) units with known good ones, I assume that Garmin could have put them on their test equipment and confirmed their status, and they could have then told me if they were unrepairable for some reason. That is not what they did, though. They wanted the units to be trashed.

As another, somewhat related issue, I wonder why Garmin created the GIA64, all of which are WAAS-capable, as I understand it, yet they did not make them backwards compatible with the GIA63W.

As I have said, I was not against paying Garmin, Garmin was against working on the units or even checking them.
Since Diamond Canada routinely installs used GIA63Ws into non-WAAS aircraft (and is genuinely interested in helping Diamond owners upgrade to WAAS), I suggest you call Diamond Customer Support and ask them for assistance. Even if Diamond doesn't do the installation, they may have a connection into Garmin and/or advice on how to make this a legal install for your preferred maintenance shop.
Dave, I do know your qualifications, but there is clearly a disconnect between what Diamond Canada does and what Garmin has been doing. While I had considered having the units installed by Diamond, in London, and while I had actually spoken to them about scheduling installation, as you can understand, I would not have expected them to install units that Garmin had not, already, confirmed to be properly operational. While many consider that a "yellow tag" ( FAA Form 8130-3, Airworthiness Approval Tag) is needed to install something in a certified plane, that is not a legal requirement, although it may be required by a particular mechanic or repair station as part of their own procedures, whereby I had wanted to present the units as being certified by Garmin to be operational. It was only when I gave the units to a local Garmin dealer that I learned that Garmin would not even look at them.

Sandy
TJS
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 2:04 am
First Name: Tim
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: CGMTS
Airports:
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"

Post by TJS »

Hi Sandy, I sent you a PM.
User avatar
Sandy
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:30 pm
First Name: Sanford
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N159PS
Airports: KPDK
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"

Post by Sandy »

TJS,

I tried to reply, but for some reason when I send PMs they are getting “stuck” in my Outbox.

As everyone I’ve met who is involved in aviation already has my contact information, it’s set out below. Feel free to call or email me.

Sandy
sandy@asman.com
404-663-5300 Cell
User avatar
Keith M
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:54 am
First Name: Keith
Aircraft Type: DA40D
Airports: EGNH
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"

Post by Keith M »

Sandy, the problem with publishing your email address in a public forum is that it will be scraped by spammers. Suggest you edit it, so it's not so obviously an email address.

Keith
User avatar
Sandy
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:30 pm
First Name: Sanford
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N159PS
Airports: KPDK
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: The G1000 project - "The next step"

Post by Sandy »

Thanks, Keith, but my contact info is totally “out there”, already.

Sandy
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
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"

Post by pietromarx »

Sandy wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:43 pm As another, somewhat related issue, I wonder why Garmin created the GIA64, all of which are WAAS-capable, as I understand it, yet they did not make them backwards compatible with the GIA63W.
This is one of a series of related questions. Garmin likely has component sourcing issues for the older units (e.g. the chips and other components are not available to manufacture new ones). This said, they could have dealt with compatibility through software as the interfaces are all well understood (e.g. ethernet, RS422, etc.).
Sandy wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:43 pm While many consider that a "yellow tag" ( FAA Form 8130-3, Airworthiness Approval Tag) is needed to install something in a certified plane, that is not a legal requirement, although it may be required by a particular mechanic or repair station as part of their own procedures, whereby I had wanted to present the units as being certified by Garmin to be operational.
Didn't know this, but interesting. This makes the situation that more annoying. There could be a secondary market for these avionics, but between Garmin's choice to not support extra-airplane units, Diamond's failure to drive update availability, and the yellow tag side, it is hard to see how the chokehold placed upon us and our airplanes can ever be loosened.
User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
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: Garmin refuses to service GIA63W LRUs

Post by Colin »

Sounds like lawyers got to the engineers.
I'm curious about your qualification to make that statement.
Only life experience. Engineers that I have met ALWAYS want to solve the problem. I've never met one who said, "No, I can't touch that part, it might allow you to come after me with a liability claim." They always want to solve the problem, preferably with the most efficient solution. As Mr. Marx points out, there are probably software solutions to some of these problems and Garmin could be solving them, but they aren't.

There are three forces I see at play when I peek inside big companies: legal, marketing, and profit. The engineers at Apple do not want to create a phone that is useless in two years. Not all of the ones I have met, anyway. The same is true of the mechanics and engineers I have met in Diamond and in their service centers.

Since I can't see the marketing angle on refusing to service your units I am going to put money on the lawyers. Could be profit, but since you aren't ABLE to buy a new unit from them that seems unlikely too.
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)
User avatar
Sandy
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:30 pm
First Name: Sanford
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N159PS
Airports: KPDK
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Garmin refuses to service GIA63W LRUs

Post by Sandy »

Colin, as an attorney I have often told clients that when they do not wish to do something, that they are free to blame me, the lawyer. On the other hand, the lawyers do not really have the same stake in the profitability of a company that management and marketing do, and most lawyers at large corporations realize that they are negative inputs when it comes to the bottom line. I believe that we can both agree that true engineers generally want to find an "elegant" solution to a particular problem. So, from my own experience, having spent 22 years inside of Fortune 100 companies, when a company resorts to saying it has a "policy" to not service/repair/certify a piece of used equipment (and in the case of GIA63Ws used is the only game in town), and points the finger at "liability" issues, they are simply using that as a feeble excuse to help eliminate units from the fleet (while following my own advice to blame the lawyers). Sure, the fewer units that are out there, the less liability they have, and they certainly make a lot more money/profit by selling new units, while accepting the new liability with the new profits, and to hell with the older serviceable units and the customers who have them.

A very attractive aspect of Diamond aircraft is that since they started to install Garmin G1000 units, they are all virtually the same, and any of us could get into another of the same type without any feeling other than one of familiarity with the panel and layout. Such standardization also provides the manufacturer with a very straightforward approach to things like panel layout, writing harnesses, and the location of ancillary devices, all of which simplify and standardize manufacturing. On the other hand, that benefit becomes outweighed when the avionics manufacturer takes advantage of the aircraft purchaser by making it financially unrealistic to upgrade their panel, and that, then, becomes the time when the aircraft manufacturer who wishes to retain its customer base needs to make it clear to their avionics supplier(s) that others are eager to fill the panels of new models.

Alternatively, perhaps it should be a matter of legislation or regulation to require a manufacturer who wishes to "retire" a particular product to then have to dedicate the design (hardware and software) to the public, in which case we could see whether anyone out there has a willingness to step in to fill the void. While I generally agree that an innovator should be able to retain all of the benefits of his/her/its design without legislative interference, when it comes to certain items, for which governmental approval is required in order to bring them to market, the government is saying that there is no "right" to manufacture and sell those products, but that they can do so only as a "privilege" when so licensed by the government. Accordingly, if one wants the privilege of supplying a product in such areas, they should accept the obligation to either continue their production/servicing, or they should make it possible for others to do so.

Personally, I have a very difficult time believing that parts cannot be sourced or that the GIA64 could not have been made backward compatible with the GIA63W, either through hardware or (more likely) software design.

Sandy
User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
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: Garmin refuses to service GIA63W LRUs

Post by Colin »

You are claiming the motivation is profit rather than a true concern for liability, but they can't sell you a new unit, right? These are the units which are no longer manufactured. If you want to get WAAS then you currently have *no* path and, eventually, would have to upgrade to a G1000Nxi system, no?

Adding regulation always causes delay in change and the manufacturers use it as an excuse to raise their prices. But I do like the "right to repair" laws and I feel like forcing them to be more open on the designs would be a big help.

I think what I would propose, since we seem to be looking at a ten year lifespan for the hardware, is that if they are "retiring" a piece of hardware they have to release the IP. That way they could stop making a GIA63W, but since they have to release the specifications (not necessarily their design, but what the inputs and outputs are), then someone could step in and start building replacements. Sort of like generic drugs. Some people wouldn't fly with generic LRUs, and that would be fine. But it would give the fleet a longer life.
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)
Post Reply