I was saddened to hear of the end of D2A -- for Kirk, Amy and the rest
of the crowd, for everyone who took the plunge with them and ordered
their product and for the industry generally, which lost an innovative
player.  Then I saw Brent's post and have been torn between suggesting
that he get professional help and asking him to send me a lid or two of
whatever that stuff is.

D2A, like most small companies, took on the character of its founder and
therefore existed on a generous allotment of optimism, a valuable
commodity for getting companies started but less valuable for running
them successfully.  The venture was risky from the start and it turns
out that, like the great majority of new businesses, this one did not
finally work out.  Too bad -- it was a noble experiment and opened up
doors that others will find it easier to walk through because of D2A.

That said, the claim that D2A fell victim to a well-organized and
financed plot to do it in is, quite frankly, paranoid (in the clinical
sense.)  As one who advises public companies in order to pay the fuel
bills, I can assure those who are worried about Gramin's ultimate future
that it is highly unlikely that its stockholders will force management
to resign as a result of its foray into experimental avionics.  The cost
of the effort, whether successful or not, is unlikely to be even a blip
on Garmin's P&L.  They are a big company.  On the other hand, as a
one-time upstart in a market full of establised giants (with the
certification barrier to competition promising that no effort to deal
with potential competitors was necessary)Garmin has reason to understand
what happens when you leave the back door open.  Remember King and
Narco?  AT&T?  With experimental growing fast as a category, it would be
foolhardy for Garmin not to take advantage of the ability to beta test
new technologies before certification.  I assume their current offering
is simply a first step.

Then, of course, there is the Crossbow/Advanced Flight Systems "plot".
It is hard to address with any level of gravity such a fantasy but, for
the record:

The 42X was tested better than most experimental products.
Notwithstanding that testing, it turned out that the product had some
glitches in some installations (but not all -- mine never had the
problem.)  When the matter came to their attention, Crossbow addressed
it seriously, identified and fixed the problem and stood behind its
products by providing free upgrades.  At all times during this difficult
process, Crossbow was serious, accurate in its public statements and
easily available to customers with questions.  Contrasted with the
comparable statements of D2A/Pinpoint, this attitude appears both
professional and refreshing.

To the best of my knowledge, AFS is preparing to offer an EFIS, although
my understanding is that it will not be a Chelton clone and will not
have some of its features.  In offering the EFIS, it is working with
Crossbow as the leading AHRS manufacutrer in the world.  The concept
that there is something wrong, or unamerican about that is a bit
mind-boggling especially for someone who seems, for other purposes, to
be an advocate of freedom generally and a free market in particular.  As
builders of experimental aircraft, we do all believe in freedom, don't
we?

Brent claims, after checking with Chelton to have a considerable amount
of information as to what Chelton will or won't do to support former D2A
customers.  It is therefore stunning to read Chelton's actual statement
(which it says is the only statement that should be relied on while
prohibiting its employees from making any other statement.)  The actual
statement says only that Chelton has terminated D2A as a distributor,
that it has no outstanding orders from D2A (which should come as news to
a bunch of builders and pilots who were led to believe otherwise) and
disclaims any responsibility for D2A's customers.

This is a sad situation for a lot of people.  It is not made better by
making up fairy tails about the wicked witch of the west and the
grintch.