Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:40:31 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1781398@logan.com>
From: "Tom Gourley" <tom.gourley@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] [Fwd: Re Cudos to Brent]
Reply-to: "Tom Gourley" <tom.gourley@verizon.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <list-1780037@logan.com>

"After many attempts to have the issue corrected, their evaluation was that 
it still was a flawed piece of equipment.  Pinpoint was viewed as a solution 
to the problem --- a solid instrument with no history of failure."

Based on recent reports posted here on the LML it does indeed sound like the 
Pinpoint GADAHRS is working well.  I see no reason to doubt those who have 
flown it and stated that it lives up to their expectations.  Likewise I see 
no reason to doubt those who are flying with Crossbow 42x AHRS and also have 
reported that it is performing as it should.  This is all good news.  That 
said, the accuracy of the last part of the above statement bothers me a bit. 
At the time D2 announced switching to the Pinpoint it had no history of 
failure because, as far as I can tell, it simply had no history.  It was 
many months after the announcement before I heard of one flying in a 
customer's airplane.  D2 may have had the best of intentions in making the 
switch but I think they were overly optimistic as to how quickly Pinpoints 
could be delivered.  After more years than I care to admit developing 
electronic products, primarily for the computer industry, I've found that 
missed schedules are all too common.  Of course, being an engineer I always 
blame it on marketing for setting unrealistic schedules and then combining 
that with feature creep :-)  Marketing then blames it on engineering for 
being unable to accurately forecast unforseen problems.  And so it goes...

Tom Gourley