Joe at JPI not a man of his word

[Walter Atkinson]

If only your experience with JP were rare...

[rmorris]

I did a similar post on AOPA (I spread the word when a company does well, why not when they do poorly, eh?)...any way, a very lively discussion of JPI and their business practices is taking plac here:
http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=80717&page=2

I had no idea how many people would jump into the fray, so quickly. Apparently JP has been building a reputation, and not necessairly a good one.

A bunch of posts recommending folks look at EI products instead...while I have loved (literally, and had always told anyone who would listen) my EDM 760, maybe its time for a switch to another brand.

[Walter Atkinson]

My experience is that JPI produces the best hardware (next to the Xerion AuRacle) and that EI has the best customer service. Too bad EI won't address their software and owner's manual issues, which are significant. Insight has serious problems with their software and display in the G3.

As many of you know, I've been teaching the use and interpretation of engine monitor data for over a decade. It's a shame that JPI, EI, and Insight can't do what Xerion did--create a very good piece of hardware, software, and provide good customer service.

As the King of Siam said, "Tiz a puzzlement."

[rick bell]

i had to replace some probes and they fast, fair and efficient - go figure from you posts??
usually when these incident happen both parties are not listening to each other. when it
has happened to me i went down the hall skipping assuming

[JeffAxel]

I have a G3 in my P210, no display problems so far, maybe 25 hours or so. Lots of information on that screen too. If your JPI 760 is working though, I would just keep it. Had a 760 in my P337 and loved it, I would not want to change it for a G3....I had an older Insight monitor in the p210, so the upgrade made sense.

[Walter Atkinson]

Originally Posted by JeffAxel

I have a G3 in my P210, no display problems so far, maybe 25 hours or so. Lots of information on that screen too. If your JPI 760 is working though, I would just keep it. Had a 760 in my P337 and loved it, I would not want to change it for a G3....I had an older Insight monitor in the p210, so the upgrade made sense.

Let me repeat: I have owned and flown behind several different Insight monitors. The 602, 603 and 610 as well as the 1200. They were good monitors for their times. I still like the 610.

As far as I know, there is no problem with the G3 "display" itself--only HOW it displays the information and how the data is interpreted by the monitor software. As a result of my earlier post, the Insight people called me today requesting a conference call with their engineers concerning the issues I have raised. I am more than willing to take the time to speak with them and show them the data. The call is scheduled for tomorrow morning and is likely to last longer than they think it will. I have thoroughly read their manuals, flown behind the monitors, and they have some issues of scientific fact that need to be addressed in the G3 and it's manual. That they called me to discuss these issues is something I take as a positive step. I hope they do want to "get things right" as far as the known science and physics are concerned. The G3 software has one particular thing so wrong that it is dangerous. Another is equally mistaken but less dangerous. I am hopeful that these will be corrected.

Someone once said that the job of aviation design engineers is to create something that the pilot must learn to ignore! That should not be the case with something as useful and critical as an engine monitor.

I will report back concerning our telephone conference.

[rick bell]

you state that insight is dangerous in one area and a second problem that is almost as dangerous, I'm deeply concerned that you did not post a general warning of your concerns when your determinations were known backed up with a post of your documented findings. i find this morally reprehensible to allow other individuals to be in harms way when it could be prevented or at the least made aware of the serious defect that you claim are inherent with this device