So I expect Diamond aircrafts to have the same problem with Chartview as I have.
Emir, you’re welcomed to share on Diamond forum if you want.
Edit; for those who may be concerned, note my coverage is Central Europe VFR + IFR. During troubleshooting process with jeppesen, we have demonstrated that, for a given cycle, IFR only database would not cause the bug. VFR + IFR would cause it. In the latter case, i have also tried subsetting smaller area without positive result.
On Cessnas, even with WAAS, you can’t update your G1000 GDUs above 13.11. I think other aircrafts have the same limitation, @Emir may tell us for Diamond.
DA42 TDI is still on 9.x WAAS or not but Diamond promised to deliver 15.x by the end of this year (which will not happen) and postponed it for the next one.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
@Malibuflyer we could do an experiment.
Happy to do it – but I can already tell you the answer: “Sure it is available but it doesn’t make any sense for you as you do not have a G1000 in your plane and therefore you can not use it”. The part No. refers to the JeppView-Unlock Card that is working with all versions of the G1000. For some it makes still sense to buy and use and for others it doesn’t.
PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:
Also, would you tell us what kind of avionics you fly with ?
Sure: Triple G500txi (Pilot, Co-Pilot and EIS), GTN750, GTN650, etc.
Malibuflyer wrote:
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.
What a strange sentence.
I repeat: going “WAAS” is not a solution for Cessna aircrafts. To solve the problem, you have to bring your GDU (= the screens) to software revision 15.25 and newer. On Cessnas, even with WAAS, you can’t update your G1000 GDUs above 13.11. I think other aircrafts have the same limitation, @Emir may tell us for Diamond.
Malibuflyer wrote:
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.
@Malibuflyer we could do an experiment. Would you ask your avionics shop to request availability for PN#010-00330-53 ? I’d like the answer comes from you.
Also, would you tell us what kind of avionics you fly with ?
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.
I think that one is originally American, but yes it is a very good one 
A PR disaster is however impossible in this case.
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.
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.
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.
