Garmin GI275 Mandatory SB for certain installations but still recommend for others...

[hammdo]

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/aviationalerts/gi-275-multi-function-instrument-software-version-v2-41-update/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GarminServiceDocumentNotifications+(Garmin+|+Service+Document+Notifications)
 

Just in case folks didn't see this...

-Don

[David Lloyd]

Thanks for posting that Don.  Going to the shop Tuesday for other reasons but will get the GI275 v2.41 update done.  This is to make the dual 275 installation relying on a singe pitot-static system "more robust."  Within certain parameters, Garmin considers this update to be mandatory and covered by warranty.

Also getting the GNX375 v3.11 update.  This is to fix a few unnamed software issues that also affect the GNC355 and GNS175.  Big part of the update is to improve the display of position of ADSB traffic.  Garmin considers this update to be recommended.  

[RobertGary1]

Thank you. I’ll be calling my shop for this. They should cover under warranty even though technically in dont qualify because I kept my vacuum backup indicator. 

[DXB]

17 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Thank you. I’ll be calling my shop for this. They should cover under warranty even though technically in dont qualify because I kept my vacuum backup indicator. 

I wonder if this SB was at least partly in response to the frightening simultaneous failure of both your units?    I wonder how many other folks have had it.  I have a single GI275 mainly as backup, but still the v2.41 update seems like a good idea. Firmware updates have generally been free for me at least when I go back to my installer.  

[PT20J]

Garmin pretty much has a “never apologize, never explain” policy. But I believe it makes sense to keep all Garmin equipment current on updates. They may not explain the details, but they don’t incur the cost to create, test and roll out an update without good reason.

Skip

[PilotX]

Guess I’ll be checking my 275s today. We did just update them last week. Given the date of the SB I wonder if the update came out before the bulletin. 

[David Lloyd]

On 9/25/2021 at 9:37 PM, PT20J said:

Garmin pretty much has a “never apologize, never explain” policy. But I believe it makes sense to keep all Garmin equipment current on updates. They may not explain the details, but they don’t incur the cost to create, test and roll out an update without good reason.

Skip

Add to that, never admit, never discuss.  Most large companies have the same policies.  When there is a problem it is frustrating to encounter a stone wall of silence.  I understand the thinking, still, it is frustrating none the less. 

Unrelated to this, I did receive a call this morning (9/27) from Garmin Support to discuss a 275/glideslope/autopilot issue that has been unresolved at the shop.  Discussing the wiring diagrams confirmed my suspicion of a miswiring problem.  I was asked if aware of the new software release and Garmin took the problem of the few reported in-flight realignments very seriously.  

[RobertGary1]

On 9/26/2021 at 8:00 AM, PilotX said:

Guess I’ll be checking my 275s today. We did just update them last week. Given the date of the SB I wonder if the update came out before the bulletin. 

My shop wants to wait a week to see how others find the update. They installed 2.41 2 weeks ago and it crashed the unit. Garmin then recalled it. So the question is if this is the same 2.41 reissued or did they recycle the version number ?

[PT20J]

4 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

My shop wants to wait a week to see how others find the update. They installed 2.41 2 weeks ago and it crashed the unit. Garmin then recalled it. So the question is if this is the same 2.41 reissued or did they recycle the version number ?

I’ve been involved with a lot of software development and I’ve never heard of recalling an update because it is often difficult to roll back to a previous version as frequently updates are patches and not full builds. Generally a bad version is just quickly followed with another update to correct the problem. You have to roll the version number. Imagine the support nightmare trying to figure out which version of a version someone in the field has.

Skip

[RobertGary1]

12 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I’ve been involved with a lot of software development and I’ve never heard of recalling an update because it is often difficult to roll back to a previous version as frequently updates are patches and not full builds. Generally a bad version is just quickly followed with another update to correct the problem. You have to roll the version number. Imagine the support nightmare trying to figure out which version of a version someone in the field has.

Skip

They called Garmin who told them to reinstall 2.40. The next day they saw 2.41 was no longer available. Then later it reappeared. 
agreed it’s bad practice but not sure of garmins software processes 

[RobertGary1]

19 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I’ve been involved with a lot of software development and I’ve never heard of recalling an update because it is often difficult to roll back to a previous version as frequently updates are patches and not full builds. Generally a bad version is just quickly followed with another update to correct the problem. You have to roll the version number. Imagine the support nightmare trying to figure out which version of a version someone in the field has.

Skip

I should also say as a Silicon Valley guy we do often recall software, especially firmware in high availability devices. 

[PT20J]

3 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

They called Garmin who told them to reinstall 2.40. The next day they saw 2.41 was no longer available. Then later it reappeared. 
agreed it’s bad practice but not sure of garmins software processes 

I should know better than to opine on other's software release and configuration management processes. But still, if this is really the way that Garmin does it, it does not give me a warm fuzzy. Garmin pushes a lot of software revisions with few details. Every place I've been we had detailed release notes that detailed features added, defects fixed and known issues. I'll try not to think about this as I'm flying my new Garmin panel in the clouds. But, I am installing a AV-20 so I'll have a non-Garmin tie breaker if the G3X and G5 miscompare. Mishandling by the crew after a miscompare between the captain's PFD and the first officer's PFD with no quick way to resolve it led to the crash of a West Air Sweden jet. Some bad software design didn't help them (the miscompare annunciation was removed as part of a decluttering function when the captain's erroneous display pitched up excessively). They were probably better pilots than me.

Skip

[PT20J]

It appears I was unfair to Garmin. I recently began subscribing to Service Alerts and missed this one in my email (probably because it arrived in my inbox 3 hours after the Service Document announcing the fix -- version 2.41). 

ISSUE If the aircraft’s pitot tube becomes obstructed due to the pitot tube cover being left on, icing blockage, and/or other debris obstruction, the GI 275 airspeed input can be interrupted. This interruption may cause both GI 275 units to enter alignment mode during certain maneuvers. If this occurs, it will result in the temporary loss of all attitude information from both GI 275 units.

PILOT ACTION If the GI 275 dual-AHRS configuration is the only source of attitude in an aircraft without a redundant pitot source, do not fly in instrument meteorological conditions. If the GI 275 Attitude display enters alignment mode during flight, when appropriate, establish wings level (stable flight with assumed bank angles less than 5 degrees) to allow the units to realign and recover attitude display.

RESOLUTION This issue will be resolved with the incorporation of Service Bulletin 2183, which authorizes the installation of GI 275 Software Version 2.41. This service bulletin is available and is considered mandatory for installations with no tertiary source of attitude information and no redundant source of pitot pressure.

Skip

2182A.pdf2182A.pdf

[carusoam]

See if @Fly_M20R Is cruising by…. C first stumbled upon the red Xs caused by an errant pitot cover left in place…

Kind of an eye opener…

We might be seeing Big G’s response time, in real time…

Big G has shown us some programming issues in the past…

But, their version control has been really good…

 

Of course we all have gotten better with our knowledge of software, firmware, and hardware updates…

IOS15 (?) is coming up soon….  iPad related, nothing to do with Garmin… 

PP thoughts only, not a software guy…

Best regards,

-a-

[David Lloyd]

I got 2.41 installed on my 275s yesterday, all still works as it should.  Garmin warranty covered that.

I got 3.11 installed on my 375 yesterday, not as smoothly.  These updates may include several new updates under one general heading.  3.11 updated about 8 or so different things.  Included was a GPS update, version 8.1.  Included as part of the package, it was not on the list that should be updated.  Installer thought it may have been a paperwork error and installed it.  The 375 map showed position and heading, same as my iPad.  The 275s both had a lost GPS message and would not show a course of any other information.  Installer backed 8.1 out and replaced with 8.0, worked fine.  Garmin did not cover that.

[LANCECASPER]

Not just with Garmin, but with any of the glass PFDs, how does this get past the FAA on certification? Wouldn't one of the first things they do in testing it be to see how it does if there's a loss of airspeed input (pitot)? Having two of the same instruments when they both are subject to the same failure is not redundancy.

[Ragsf15e]

35 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Not just with Garmin, but with any of the glass PFDs, how does this get past the FAA on certification? Wouldn't one of the first things they do in testing it be to see how it does if there's a loss of airspeed input (pitot)? Having two of the same instruments when they both are subject to the same failure is not redundancy.

In house certification authorization?  Ala Boeing 737Max?

[RobertGary1]

5 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Not just with Garmin, but with any of the glass PFDs, how does this get past the FAA on certification? Wouldn't one of the first things they do in testing it be to see how it does if there's a loss of airspeed input (pitot)? Having two of the same instruments when they both are subject to the same failure is not redundancy.

Honesty it’s hard to reproduce. At least one member her plugged up his pitot tube and tried to reproduce what I saw. Personally I think winds affects it. The 275 reverts to gps to correct AHRS slew but if the winds are gusty I’m guessing it’s not good enough. 

[PT20J]

It seems a strange problem. If it’s like the other Garmin AHRS it has GPS, magnetometer and air data inputs for aiding and only uses air data when either GPS or magnetometer data is unavailable or erroneous.

Skip

[DCarlton]

I haven't installed an AV-30 yet or a GI275 and I'm still dismayed by the attraction to all electronic panel for IFR aircraft.  Hasn't Aspen, Uavionix, Sandia and Garmin **ALL** had issues with their vacuum replacement gages (ADs and/or SBs)?  Agree with all the comments and concerns wondering how these issues make it through the test and certification process. To this day, I can't help but admire the simplicity of devices that have proven for decades to work well off of air or vacuum pressure with no batteries, no electronics and no software... and no marriage to Garmin.   

Edited September 30, 2021 by DCarlton

[carusoam]

Back in the day…. Life was simple…

The problem with that… Life was simple…. (A quote I heard in college decades ago…)

Please affirm you don’t really want to go back… 

 

Imagine for a moment…

You design something that is so highly technical, and build it… to do so takes a team of hundreds of multi-talented people…. Many iterations… keeping everyone up to date with every change and advancement uses skills of extraneous people like project engineers….

You then hand this box off to some government organization who has to understand everything you did… and confirm that it works as intended….

So now your job includes bringing up a completely independent team of different people…. Repeat the process with them… so they can magically see something that you (in the know) have accidentally, or criminally? Left out….

 

Sure… it takes extra effort to get the new devices to work correctly… get installed correctly… and serviced correctly…

I still wouldn’t want to go back to an analog only world….

Now I need to go find my typewriter… it was a magical device… 

Imagine what it was like designing and building those simple mechanical devices…  the challenges were the same… nobody had email or cad drawings… when something went wrong… you never heard about it…  when you did, the information was hard to find amongst the errors brought on by playing ‘telephone’…

So… go with the new stuff… once it has been proven… the leading edge in avionics and other electronics has been called the bleeding edge for some reason…

Best regards,

-a-

[DCarlton]

10 hours ago, carusoam said:

Back in the day…. Life was simple…

The problem with that… Life was simple…. (A quote I heard in college decades ago…)

Please affirm you don’t really want to go back… 

 

Imagine for a moment…

You design something that is so highly technical, and build it… to do so takes a team of hundreds of multi-talented people…. Many iterations… keeping everyone up to date with every change and advancement uses skills of extraneous people like project engineers….

You then hand this box off to some government organization who has to understand everything you did… and confirm that it works as intended….

So now your job includes bringing up a completely independent team of different people…. Repeat the process with them… so they can magically see something that you (in the know) have accidentally, or criminally? Left out….

 

Sure… it takes extra effort to get the new devices to work correctly… get installed correctly… and serviced correctly…

I still wouldn’t want to go back to an analog only world….

Now I need to go find my typewriter… it was a magical device… 

Imagine what it was like designing and building those simple mechanical devices…  the challenges were the same… nobody had email or cad drawings… when something went wrong… you never heard about it…  when you did, the information was hard to find amongst the errors brought on by playing ‘telephone’…

So… go with the new stuff… once it has been proven… the leading edge in avionics and other electronics has been called the bleeding edge for some reason…

Best regards,

-a-

I don't have to imagine.  I was a DOD Systems Engineer and Test Engineer for 35 years.  I'm sure the FAA is under tremendous pressure to get new cheaper systems through the certification process.  Testing is always underestimated and underfunded and I'm sure the FAA is trying to do it all with other peoples money.  The FAA needs to be accountable for issues that escape the certification process.  ADs on aging systems nearing the end of their service life is understandable.  ADs on newly certified systems need to be addressed transparently by the manufacturer and the FAA.  So many of these systems seem to have had issues that someone needs to question the process (if we even still care about certification).  Now if we're willing to be test pilots or fly an experimental home built, that's another tangent.    

[DXB]

On 9/30/2021 at 12:01 AM, carusoam said:

the leading edge in avionics and other electronics has been called the bleeding edge for some reason…

 

Under this metaphor, I visualized the older technology's market share getting sliced; perhaps it's actually the early adopter of the new technology that's bleeding