From a report I’ve read, avoinic shops who have done upgrades will tell you “find the GIA63W’s and we will do the rest”.
Not quite correct for all airframes because it’s software dependent. There are 3 generations of GIA63W and e.g. DA42 TDI can use only the oldest one.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Then the question will be, why doesn’t the data provider do something to fix it.
Very simple: Because the market for it is too small. The problem we are talking about does only apply to pilots that fly enough IFR that they are willing to pay 1k+ per year for showing Jep Charts on their avionics but not enough to invest in a WAAS upgrade. I assume that there are very few IFR pilots that still have non WAAS avionics in Europe.
And these few pilots are obviously not willing to pay the work that is required to issue a special data set for them but demand from Jeppesen that they socialize the extra cost on the majority of those customers who do not need it.
Airborne_Again wrote:
In that case I would (rightly, I believe) be upset and demand a free software upgrade and I think that’s more similar to PetitCessnaVoyageur’s situation.
In that case I assume you are not the best friend of your consumer electronics dealer. I have quite a collection of devices with similar limitations as you mentioned: CD players that won’t be able to play 700MB CDs (although RedBook doesn’t explicitly limit the size to 650MB), Digital cameras that can only work with memory cards up to a specific size, etc. For none of this I would get a refund after 10 years.
In addition to that, there is also the legal side of the issue: In most countries, the consumer rights for warranty on products are time limited. In Germany e.g. as a consumer you have 2 years time to claim that a good you have bought does not have the properties the seller promised. If you do not show it in this time, it’s bad luck of the buyer.
This is a necessary limitation, as no business has the financial capacity to reserve for potential guarantee claims decades after the product has been sold.
To use your example: If you believe that your DVD-Player should also work with DVDs with more than 16 chapters, you need to test that within the first 2 years (in Germany – in other countries the timing will obviously be different). If you don’t care to test this feature within this timeframe, it obviously can’t be that important…
Malibuflyer wrote:
In that case I assume you are not the best friend of your consumer electronics dealer. I have quite a collection of devices with similar limitations as you mentioned: CD players that won’t be able to play 700MB CDs (although RedBook doesn’t explicitly limit the size to 650MB), Digital cameras that can only work with memory cards up to a specific size, etc. For none of this I would get a refund after 10 years.
You talk about “devices”. I talked about a very expensive integrated system which makes a big difference from the owner’s point of view. (Of course this is a strong argument against integrated systems, but we all know that.)
If your issue with the camera is that it can’t accept memory cards with a new format, then it is one thing which I would accept. Size limits on memory cards are usually not size limits as such but that the device can’t handle the new formats that are needed for larger sizes.
If the device could not handle all cases they claimed from the beginning (e.g. your CD example) then I consider that an original fault that the manufacturer should address.
And of course I know what the law in the EU says. That’s not what we’re discussing.
Emir wrote:
Not quite correct for all airframes because it’s software dependent. There are 3 generations of GIA63W and e.g. DA42 TDI can use only the oldest one.
This is correct of course. I should have written it like this, as the Mooney guy even gives the part number. So it is vital to confirm with the avionic shop which ones to source according to airframe and hardware installed.
Thanks for the correction, that is quite important.
Airborne_Again wrote:
If the device could not handle all cases they claimed from the beginning (e.g. your CD example) then I consider that an original fault that the manufacturer should address.And of course I know what the law in the EU says. That’s not what we’re discussing.
In my opinion we also need to make sure that we do not have a discussion on “ethics” when it comes to the duties of the manufacturer but on written law when it comes to the expectations of the customer. Either we have a legal discussion (which is quite clear) or a “ethics discussion” on both sides.
From an ethics point of view, one could argue that the cases you quoted of “theoretically within the technical standards but not seen so far in the wild” are not really relevant. The manufacturer created a software that could handle all practically available datasets at time of purchase and that even remained true for another 7 years. They might or might have not know that under the specified standards (btw. is there a formal standard specification for that kind of data ?) also other datasets are possible but it has just been irrelevant – and btw. irrelevant for both the seller and the customer.
There is a phrase often used in the UK, which I think perfectly suits this case, and the ethics/PR situation.
I hope I quote it correctly:-
“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and flies like a duck, it probably is a duck”
In this case continuing to sell a product which can no longer do the job intended is to me a both a con and possibly a PR disaster.
I think that one is originally American, but yes it is a very good one 
A PR disaster is however impossible in this case.
gallois wrote:
In this case continuing to sell a product which can no longer do the job intended is to me a both a con and possibly a PR disaster.
Fully agree! But this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a product that has been sold 7 years ago!
Despite the fact that the catalogue of the Garmin Webshop still lists the product as “available” (but you can not order it there) there is no evidence at all that Garmin is still selling the enablement card to owners of Non-WAAS G1000.
