Joe at JPI not a man of his word

[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

[Walter Atkinson]

Originally Posted by 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

Rick:

I think it unreasonable for anyone to expect me to visit every aviation internet forum and post such a message. I have been very forthcoming on many internet fora for over a decade about JPI, EI, and Insight as well as Garmin and Avidyne concerning their engine monitors. Rick, late-comers are welcomed to the party. It's good to have you interested.

The fact that you are upset that there could be erroneous material in any manufacturer's manual is understandable. Being upset at me for not publicly degrading a company is, IMO, misguided.

For starters, look at the G3 manual and determine at how it identifies that an engine is experiencing pre-ignition. The G3 software is not in harmony with the known effects of pre-ignition on EGT. It will mis-inform the pilot. They have detonation wrong, too. These could be seriously dangerous issues, don't you think? I had informed them of these errors (and others, along with supporting data) several years ago.

I am encouraged that someone at Insight seems interested in examining these issues at this time. I applaud that.

[Walter Atkinson]

Gentlemen:

I spent 1+20 on the phone this morning with Dan Broerse of Insight concerning the G3 and the issues that I think should be best addressed to make it a better, more useful instrument. Our conversation was extremely beneficial. I have committed to continue our conversation and provide any hard data that he may find useful to make appropriate changes to their pilot manual and the instrument. We spent adequate time on the science and the physics and were able to identify the contradictions within the pilot manual.

I was impressed with Dan's approach and his sincere desire to understand these issues. This was time well spent for me and I hope for him as well.

If he is able to effect the appropriate changes it should be beneficial to Insight as well as their customers.