Jump to content

Avidyne IFD 540/440-Garmin 500 software bug


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, thinwing said:

750 out no room in panel...7.00 was working with 10.10....but not 10.2..,,they tested 10.2 with 6.21 and claim no issues...

How about a GTN 650?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Godfather said:

Your 500 was not working with the older software so I'm not sure what form of bs Avidyne is trying to use blame Garmin for this.  Might be a good time to buy a nice 750 ;) ...both sell for around 12.5 used if you can find one. 

Better be careful Godfather...you risk being labeled a narcissist by the all righteous virtuous and so full of themselves peanut gallery! :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2017 at 9:21 PM, Godfather said:

Not good. What do they want you to do?  Personally I'd just buy a used 530w asap and get up in the air and dump it when they figure the problem out. Then EVERY single day of Oshkosh I would express to them the importance of having backup units for their customers...

They have hundreds of used Garmin units being passed through to their resellers just distribute a few to customers like you. 

NOT impressed. 

This solidifies my opinion that Avidyne is going after the masses trying to replace all the 430's, they are not ready or able to satisfy the customers with high end panels. PLEASE Avidyne, prove me wrong.  

What they want him to do is sit by quietly be compassionate and very grateful because, after all, they're working so diligently to figure it out! Don't mind the trivial details that he has no use of his airplane indefinitely and they're holding on to his money!

They will not send him an even used GNS530W because that would mean they accept inferiority. How would that look?! Avidyne surrendering to a used Garmin!   

I do have a suggestion for Avidyne. Pick one of the following options and do it fast:

-take back your boxes and refund this gentleman's money plus avionics shop dianostic fees, or

-buy him a brand new GTN and pay installation, or

-pay him 1000$ per diem his airplane is grounded and he waits for you to figure it out. If he is agreeable.

Sound reasonable and fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe the shop shouldn't have installed the latest G500 software until they found out whether it was compatible with Avidyne 10.2.

Others are using 10.2 with their G500 successfully - they are just cautious to update the G500 software only after it's been tested by Avidyne first.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

Or maybe the shop shouldn't have installed the latest G500 software until they found out whether it was compatible with Avidyne 10.2.

Others are using 10.2 with their G500 successfully - they are just cautious to update the G500 software only after it's been tested by Avidyne first.

except the G500 software was out and installed before Avidyne came out with their software update. one of the questions I asked earlier in the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, orionflt said:

except the G500 software was out and installed before Avidyne came out with their software update. one of the questions I asked earlier in the thread.

If I understand correctly 10.2 was finished and went off to the FAA before the Garmin 500 update came out. They couldn't have known what updates Garmin had in the works before sending it off to the FAA. Granted the FAA didn't approve 10.2 until March 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LANCECASPER said:

If I understand correctly 10.2 was finished and went off to the FAA before the Garmin 500 update came out. They couldn't have known what updates Garmin had in the works before sending it off to the FAA. Granted the FAA didn't approve 10.2 until March 6.

that may be true, but with Garmin's update coming out before their 10.2 release, they should have noted that the release was not tested with the latest update and recommend not installing it until they tested compatibility. second issue I have with it is that they didn't seem to know if Garmin even released a recent update. hopefully it was marketing that didn't know this and the tech group was already testing it but it was not presented that way early on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Or maybe the shop shouldn't have installed the latest G500 software until they found out whether it was compatible with Avidyne 10.2.

Others are using 10.2 with their G500 successfully - they are just cautious to update the G500 software only after it's been tested by Avidyne first.

The testing they did for approval / continued to do until people complained about the compatibility (182 running 6.21) is two years overdue for the update.  I don't consider waiting two years after a software release being a beta tester.  They don't need to continue trying to stay ahead of Garmin...BUT IMO it is the responsibility of Avidyne to download the latest updates for devices they port into and provide notifications to install shops and end users to not continue with certain updates. It would surprise me if the Avidyne static test bed was updated to the newest version within 6 months of a given release. 

I'm not pro Garmin. In fact I'm not buying a g500 for my panel upgrade. But I feel Avidyne procrastinated on this issue and believe it is completely their responsibility to make it right for the few users that are currently having a problem. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Or maybe the shop shouldn't have installed the latest G500 software until they found out whether it was compatible with Avidyne 10.2.

Others are using 10.2 with their G500 successfully - they are just cautious to update the G500 software only after it's been tested by Avidyne first.

Hi Lance..it did not happen like that..I brought the problem to the tech with 10.2 and two year old garmin g 500 software

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Or maybe the shop shouldn't have installed the latest G500 software until they found out whether it was compatible with Avidyne 10.2.

Others are using 10.2 with their G500 successfully - they are just cautious to update the G500 software only after it's been tested by Avidyne first.

Ps..could you put me in touch of these "others"I am having trouble locating them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

except the G500 software was out and installed before Avidyne came out with their software update. one of the questions I asked earlier in the thread.


This firmware incompatibility issue is found in a number of industries and isn't unique to avionics. When Apple launches a new firmware update for their iOS products, it's the EFB app guys who tell you whether to upgrade to the new firmware or not. There is always going to be this crossing ships thing going on in avionics because there is no motivation for them to work together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 


This firmware incompatibility issue is found in a number of industries and isn't unique to avionics. When Apple launches a new firmware update for their iOS products, it's the EFB app guys who tell you whether to upgrade to the new firmware or not. There is always going to be this crossing ships thing going on in avionics because there is no motivation for them to work together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

I agree, but what I was responding to was this particular situation where thinwing G500 software was installed long before the update was released. to make matters worse he was not running the latest release but one that was several years old.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, orionflt said:

I agree, but what I was responding to was this particular situation where thinwing G500 software was installed long before the update was released. to make matters worse he was not running the latest release but one that was several years old.

That pretty much sums up the situation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but what I was responding to was this particular situation where thinwing G500 software was installed long before the update was released. to make matters worse he was not running the latest release but one that was several years old.


It happens that way today for a lot of things. Ask all those Apple app makers what happens when a new iOS release is implemented. Is it right? I don't know but I'm sure Apple has it written into their developer agreements.

And as Don Kaye will tell you, this is why going with a vendor with an integrated solution will eliminate a lot of these incompatible issues.

What is happening here is the pitfall of working across avionics vendors. Trust me, I know this world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Marauder said:

 


It happens that way today for a lot of things. Ask all those Apple app makers what happens when a new iOS release is implemented. Is it right? I don't know but I'm sure Apple has it written into their developer agreements.

And as Don Kaye will tell you, this is why going with a vendor with an integrated solution will eliminate a lot of these incompatible issues.

What is happening here is the pitfall of working across avionics vendors. Trust me, I know this world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

It's not the same thing and not what happened here. Incompatibilities happen. 

The issue here is that you have a company, Avidyne, who sold equipment and subsequently released untested software for it. If they knew they should've warned the customer. If they didn't know there's no excuse, they should've known. By failing to do this they misled their customers. Now after it came out they continue to perpetuate the problem by essentially telling their customer to wait...we are working on it! 

Some are ready to complain about Garmin with their intergrated solutions but you know what, they work. They may seem pricey but when you think about these headaches such as Avidyne is giving their customers, Garmin is a bargain! I'm no fan of monopolies either, if you want to call it that, but this is the landscape of avionics today. It may change but until it changes this is what we have. 

Also a lot of folks are complaining about BK and their unorthodox practices. How is that any different conceptually from what Avidyne did? The customer is the one who pays the big bucks and suffers in the end. Both are wrong. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the same thing and not what happened here. Incompatibilities happen. 
The issue here is that you have a company, Avidyne, who sold equipment and subsequently released untested software for it. If they knew they should've warned the customer. If they didn't know there's no excuse, they should've known. By failing to do this they misled their customers. Now after it came out they continue to perpetuate the problem by essentially telling their customer to wait...we are working on it! 
Some are ready to complain about Garmin with their intergrated solutions but you know what, they work. They may seem pricey but when you think about these headaches such as Avidyne is giving their customers, Garmin is a bargain! I'm no fan of monopolies either, if you want to call it that, but this is the landscape of avionics today. It may change but until it changes this is what we have. 
Also a lot of folks are complaining about BK and their unorthodox practices. How is that any different conceptually from what Avidyne did? The customer is the one who pays the big bucks and suffers in the end. Both are wrong. 
 


It is the same thing. You develop a product, test it against a configuration you believe is standard and find that a permutation exists that causes it to fail. You go back and correct it.

Here is an example. Garmin Pilot releases 8.7 and finds a number of issues and releases 8.7.1. Oscar can tell you 8.7.1 prevented him from filing SFRA flight plans and I had a number of issues with the checklist features. For Oscar, it was an inconvenience, for me, having a checklist that I was acting up was an issue. I resorted to using my paper versions until it was corrected. Was it a Garmin issue created by failing to test it properly? Was Apple hardware involved? It took Garmin weeks to release 8.7.2.

d23fe04789a23e1eca2071b895fdf799.png

As for this issue, if someone produces an Avidyne internal email which says, "hey, this firmware has compatibility issues, but heck we can deal with the fallout later", then you have a smoking gun.

The reality is when it comes to software and firmware, stuff happens. It's how quickly the company acknowledges the issue and works through the issues whether they caused it or not is th gauge of a good company to do business with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...You develop a product, test it against a configuration you believe is standard..."

Sorry, I find this unacceptable. I really do. When you decide to reverse engineer software for a 20K$ box that drives the pfd/mfd you bear the responsibility to exhaust all testing leaving no stone unturned and make darn sure it works. Especially with the leading pfd/mfd. If you don't then you are embarrasing your company and jepardizing its reputation.

Your other option is to develop an intergrated solution of your own.

"Stuff happens" only when you're incompetent or you simply don't care because it's a small number of customers affected. 

The apple analogy is not very relevant for obvious reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...You develop a product, test it against a configuration you believe is standard..."
Sorry, I find this unacceptable. I really do. When you decide to reverse engineer software for a 20K$ box you bear the responsibility to exhaust all testing leaving no stone unturned and make darn sure it works. Especially with the leading pfd/mfd. If you don't then you are embarrasing your company and jepardizing its reputation.
Your other option is to develop an intergrated solution of your own.
"Stuff happens" only when you're incompetent or you simply don't care because it's a small number of customers affected. 
 


So, as a dentist, you're telling me you have been perfect? Never had a patient seek care elsewhere? The world is imperfect, it's how you deal with it that counts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 


It is the same thing. You develop a product, test it against a configuration you believe is standard and find that a permutation exists that causes it to fail. You go back and correct it.

Here is an example. Garmin Pilot releases 8.7 and finds a number of issues and releases 8.7.1. Oscar can tell you 8.7.1 prevented him from filing SFRA flight plans and I had a number of issues with the checklist features. For Oscar, it was an inconvenience, for me, having a checklist that I was acting up was an issue. I resorted to using my paper versions until it was corrected. Was it a Garmin issue created by failing to test it properly? Was Apple hardware involved? It took Garmin weeks to release 8.7.2.

d23fe04789a23e1eca2071b895fdf799.png

As for this issue, if someone produces an Avidyne internal email which says, "hey, this firmware has compatibility issues, but heck we can deal with the fallout later", then you have a smoking gun.

The reality is when it comes to software and firmware, stuff happens. It's how quickly the company acknowledges the issue and works through the issues whether they caused it or not is th gauge of a good company to do business with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

ok Chris, no argument on the issue of coding errors of items that got missed or didn't fail during beta testing. the big question comes down to is when your building a system that interacts to another system that you have to reverse engineer what procedures do you put in place to ensure the best compatibility?

given you are not going to be working with the latest revision but wouldn't you be testing on it as soon as it came out? especially if your final release is submitted for approval?

wouldn't you ensure that your release would be compatible with a software version that had been out for over 2 years? in fact, since you are probably in the initial stages of development when it comes out wouldn't you base your build on that version knowing you still have a a year or 2 until it gets deployed? 

in this ever changing world of electronics and avionics the companies that get ahead are the ones that are primarily proactive not reactive. yes Avidyne is fighting an uphill battle because Garmin is the big dog but they should not be playing catch up in this situation. the software release that they have compatibility problems with is over 2 years old, even if their build is based on the release before that they should have been testing with the newer release looking for issues and deciphering code changes. and then doing the same thing with the release in Nov. 

I wont speak for others but Avidyne lost a lot of credibility with me when they blamed the issue with their new release on a Garmin software update that had been out for over 2 years instead of stating that they found an issue with their release and working with the small group of individuals who are affected. they may not feel this issue is that big of a deal but do you want to blast off into hard IMC on their word that your instruments are going to come back up with airspeed? what if you lose airspeed indications in flight, do you lose your display?

Just my thoughts on this situation.

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's clear a few things up here. I don't think we ever solely blamed Garmin for this issue. In an earlier post, I even said we are not playing the blame game. What I recommended, is that the user of the G500 check their software update and verify they had the same one that we had in one of our test bed aircraft since it was recently flown with zero issues. We have customers out there with the G500/600 who have a later than 6.21 software and the Release 10.2 with no issues.  So, you can see that this has a few layers of complexity in troubleshooting and identifying the single cause. In all cases of the issue, it only exists when taxiing on the ground, in no circumstance has this been reported in the air. We feel like we have a good idea of where the problem lies but won't know until the conclusion of the ongoing tests. This issue is the main driving factor in our next release, 10.2.1 and it has our full attention. To answer an earlier question on a timeline for the next release, our goal is to have it out as soon as possible. With a minor release like this one, it has a more streamlined approval process with its primary focus not introducing new features that impact TSOs. 

I invite anyone that suggests we don't test our software rigorously before it is sent to our customers or the FAA for approval to come to either our Concord, MA or Melbourne, FL for a visit with our engineers or our manufacturing facility. We will be more than happy to give you a glimpse at what all of our releases go through both on the hardware and software side.

@thinwing PM me your full contact information, we will be happy to work out the warranty claim with your shop so that you or your shop aren't burdened by all this. Additionally, I believe you said your shop, Executive Autopilots, had been working with our Tech Support team on this issue? We have a tech support rep that has taken the lead on this issue, TJ Sutton. Can you verify that they are working with him?

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter reminds of someone who is unhappy with a purchase but will spend the rest of his life explaining loudly all of the benefits of his decision so that others will do exactly what he did.  
Misery loves company, there's safety in numbers, you can pick your own adage.  His spiel is coming across as kinda stale and self-serving at this point.


What I don't get is being a Garmin fanatic as he is, why doesn't he have a complete Garmin suite of avionics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 


What I don't get is being a Garmin fanatic as he is, why doesn't he have a complete Garmin suite of avionics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Obviously because the KI-256 or whatever he has is more reliable than the fickle, prone to breaking Aspen/G500. Swiss watch over digital all day :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AviSimpson you did state that you were not playing the blame game, but the way it was presented made it sound that way, then your lack positive knowledge that Garmin released new software hurt your initial credibility in handling the issue. ("Development and internal testing of 10.2 ended months before 10.2 was FAA approved. At some point we have to lock down the release for any further changes. It's possible their release came out during that time.") then to find out that your software was tested on a version several updates older. didn't help!

One of the other things that was not disclosed until later in the thread is what version of software your release was tested against, I also searched for any release note stating the same info and could not locate any. not saying that info is not out there, but it is not readily available to aid in troubleshooting. 

the biggest reason I feel that there is a credibility issue is the wall thinwing seemed to hit looking for an alternative solution to the situation. I am glad to see that you are working with him to resolve that.

I am absolutely sure your engineers work hard and test to avoid any issues as I am sure they have been burning the midnight oil to identify and fix this issue, the down fall in this situation is public relations. when your customers are making statements that they feel they are getting nowhere and will have to wait for a solution or make equipment changes your public relations have failed.

Just to clear things up, I am not against Avidyne, I like and recommend your products on a regular basis. I currently run a 430 in my own plane and would upgrade to the Avidyne before installing something else. (even after this). yes I have criticized you on this forum (and this forum only) the point I brought out were valid and based on the poor information provided to questions asked. I would hope that you would use that info to help improve the communication between the company and end user. 

I am not very eloquent  with my words, I've been told that i can often be too harsh, I just have a tendency to tell it the way I see it and not sugar coat it. for that I apologize if I offended anyone. 

Brian         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Don't you have a backup AH, if so whats the problem launching.  Before glass, we had this, and it is what i fly ifr with all the time.  So if you have a backup AH then you should be able to launch happily IFR.  65 knots rotate up 5 degrees, check pos climb etc etc.

IMG_0736.thumb.JPG.f47bcd40bfdd00df7ff70209428240fc.JPG

Hi there Andrew..your AI and HSI look just like mine did 8 yrs ago before they were taken out and traded in for a G500...Anyway..it doesn't matter that I could launch into fog using only the backup (not legal here in us because it's a known deficiency in primary AI) what matters is my wife is not ok with it..what can I tell you ,sometimes she calls the shots!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.