Columbia Aircraf: 300 Worker Lay Off Due To Garmin G1000 Issues

GARMIN G1000 PROBLEM AFFECTS GA DELIVERIES
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195931)
A problem with a component of the Garmin G1000 glass panel, a popular
choice for avionics in many general aviation aircraft, has stalled
production and delayed deliveries at factories around the country as
Garmin searches for a fix. The problem stems from a sudden increase in
failure rates in recent flight tests of new GRS 77 AHRS (Attitude
Heading Reference System) units used in G1000 installations, Garmin
said on Tuesday. A component failure in the GRS 77 results in a loss
of attitude information on the primary flight display. "After
communication with Garmin's OEM partners and the FAA, it was
determined that in all G1000 installations, continued safe flight can
be conducted with the stand-by attitude indicator and other available
instruments," the company said in a statement. "If pilots should
experience a failure of the GRS 77 AHRS, they should follow standard
procedures and refer to the standby attitude indicator."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195931

COLUMBIA LAYS OFF 300, CITES GARMIN G1000 ISSUE
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195932)
At Columbia Aircraft in Bend, Ore., the company announced on Monday ()
that it would halt its production line and lay off about 300 workers
until problems with Garmin G1000s could be resolved. Although Garmin
says the AHRS problem does not require limitations on use of the
aircraft, Columbia spokesman Randy Bolinger told AVweb that,
nonetheless, "the FAA will not allow us to complete Certificates of
Airworthiness with a known defect. The FAA will allow us to certify
the aircraft already on the assembly line for VFR only." Columbia said
in its statement that the production line will "grind to a halt" until
a fix is found and parts shipments are restored.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195932

GARMIN SNAFU ALSO AFFECTS OTHER AIRFRAMERS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195933)
At Cessna Aircraft in Wichita, Kan., production has continued despite
the G1000 problems, Director of Corporate Communications Doug Oliver
told AVweb on Tuesday. "We anticipate a resolution from Garmin
literally any minute," he said. However, deliveries of single-engine
piston aircraft are suspended until the issue is resolved. "Mustang
deliveries were originally suspended as well," Oliver said, "but due
to its lower production rate its avionics systems were installed some
time ago, before the suspect batch was produced. This has, of course,
been confirmed through testing and approved by the FAA." Oliver said
he doesn't anticipate any impact on production at Cessna. At Diamond
Aircraft, spokeswoman Heike Larson told AVweb that production will
continue.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195933

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

GARMIN G1000 PROBLEM AFFECTS GA DELIVERIES
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195931)

The situation is quite unfortunate, but perhaps the "known defect" comment
and that units installed earlier at Cessna don't fail in some predictable
way indicate that the problem has been identified. Sounds to me like a
component issue rather than a design issue, and if so, should be resolved
fairly quickly.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote:


Sounds to me like a component issue rather than a design issue

Yep. The nightmare of all mfrs that pull components from all over the world
into a complex, integrated product.

As a G1000 owner, I know I own a perishable system. How long before the
unavailability of a critical component makes it unmaintainable?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

On Aug 17, 4:44 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:

Sounds to me like a component issue rather than a design issue

Yep. The nightmare of all mfrs that pull components from all over the world
into a complex, integrated product.

As a G1000 owner, I know I own a perishable system. How long before the
unavailability of a critical component makes it unmaintainable?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

You better hope that Garmin does a lifetime buy on critical end-of-
life components to be able to support it for decades to come. All big
avionics companies do this as a matter of course since their product
life-cycles tend to outlast commercial electronics by many
generations. Processors and memory ICs tend to be the parts that have
the shortest life-cycles and need to be stockpiled.

Dean W
AeroLEDs LLC
www.aeroleds.com

Recently, Dan Luke posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:


Sounds to me like a component issue rather than a design issue

Yep. The nightmare of all mfrs that pull components from all over
the world into a complex, integrated product.

As a G1000 owner, I know I own a perishable system. How long before
the unavailability of a critical component makes it unmaintainable?

Since the G1000 system is modular, a different configuration of components
could be made functionally equivalent or superior to the current design of
any of its modules, so it should be able to be maintained indefinitely.
This doesn't follow the computer-oriented model of selling system
"upgrades", but that is a different matter.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote ...
Since the G1000 system is modular, a different configuration of components
could be made functionally equivalent or superior to the current design of
any of its modules, so it should be able to be maintained indefinitely.
This doesn't follow the computer-oriented model of selling system
"upgrades", but that is a different matter.


Two thought provoking sentences, but I don't see how the second supports
the first.

And where (at what levels) do you see the G1000 system as being modular? I
see the "system" as almost a "single box", and when components fail or
portions become obsolete (ie transponder upgrade to ADS-B, or internal
processing speed vs newer box) it might be cost effective to just dump the
whole box.

On another line, how well has Garmin demonstrated its understanding (or
commitmant) to the fact that lifecycle of GA avionics is 20+ years? In my
opinion: not much. Or maybe my opinion is based on the above, that I don't
view the G1000 as very modular or upgradable !?!

In article .com,
wrote:

You better hope that Garmin does a lifetime buy on critical end-of-
life components to be able to support it for decades to come. All big
avionics companies do this as a matter of course since their product
life-cycles tend to outlast commercial electronics by many
generations. Processors and memory ICs tend to be the parts that have
the shortest life-cycles and need to be stockpiled.

Not just stockpiled, but jealously hoarded and rationed.

A bunch of years ago I was doing a repair job on a piece of lab equipment
which had an embedded process control computer made by HP. One of the
eproms had been damaged. I tried to order a new eprom from HP but was told
they were no longer available. It took a while, but when I finally got to
the right person and explained to them that I had a piece of dead gear and
needed this part to fix it, the answer suddenly became, "Oh, of course
we've still got a few stashed away and can sell you one".

Recently, Mike Isaksen posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote ...
Since the G1000 system is modular, a different configuration of
components could be made functionally equivalent or superior to the
current design of any of its modules, so it should be able to be
maintained indefinitely. This doesn't follow the computer-oriented
model of selling system "upgrades", but that is a different matter.


Two thought provoking sentences, but I don't see how the second
supports the first.

And where (at what levels) do you see the G1000 system as being
modular?

The G1000 seminar that I attended showed some of the various modules
located in the tail section of a Cessna. For example, the AHRS module that
is having failure issues is a separate unit ("box") from other components.
Garmin describes the G1000 as an "integrated system" of components:

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/ma...D=153&pID=6420

I see the "system" as almost a "single box", and when
components fail or portions become obsolete (ie transponder upgrade
to ADS-B, or internal processing speed vs newer box) it might be cost
effective to just dump the whole box.

That's part of the "different matter" I wrote of previously. ;-)
The possibility or practicality of replacing the whole system does not
mean that the system could not be maintained or even improved by replacing
modules with updated components and/or design. This is a fairly common
practice in other areas of electronics where the system is modular and has
a high purchase price.

On another line, how well has Garmin demonstrated its understanding
(or commitmant) to the fact that lifecycle of GA avionics is 20+
years? In my opinion: not much. Or maybe my opinion is based on the
above, that I don't view the G1000 as very modular or upgradable !?!

More than likely. ;-)

Neil

"Mike Isaksen" wrote in message
news:wTBxi.3779$5y3.3374@trndny07...
On another line, how well has Garmin demonstrated its understanding (or
commitmant) to the fact that lifecycle of GA avionics is 20+ years? In my
opinion: not much. Or maybe my opinion is based on the above, that I don't
view the G1000 as very modular or upgradable !?!

This should be a major concern!

As an example of what can happen, I would mention the telecommunications
industry. At one time, the lifecycle of a typical telephone PBX system was 20+
years. Now, the computer networking industry (Cisco in particular) makes
telephone systems and the product lifecycle time is suddenly equivalent to that
of the computer industry. We switched to Cisco about 4 years ago. Already, we
have "upgraded" much of our hardware because it is no longer supported by Cisco
and are on our 5th generation of the operating system.

I think I can safely predict that 10 years from now, Garman will not be
supporting the first generation of their G1000 line, if they are even still in
that business!

Vaughn

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:22:53 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


That's part of the "different matter" I wrote of previously. ;-)
The possibility or practicality of replacing the whole system does not
mean that the system could not be maintained or even improved by replacing
modules with updated components and/or design. This is a fairly common
practice in other areas of electronics where the system is modular and has
a high purchase price.

A-La the GIA63 becoming the GIA63W for WAAS? I think they're on the
3rd revision of the GEA and at least the 3rd revision of the GDU1040.