Team Digifly World writes:

This is EXTREMELY important and it needs to be rectified ASAP,
please publish the correct information on the OZ Report this morning in order to
try to minimize the damages already wrongfully done.

There is no such thing as a BUG in our firmware, these fake news are causing
unnecessary chaos among the Digifly users and creating a negative image based on
something that is not true.

The issue with the eight waypoints has NOTHING to do with a bug, it is directly
related to the naming protocol implemented years ago, as you very well know,
when instruments did not have the possibility of storing altitude data on a
specific altitude field.

This problem has been caused by the person who created the file, for sure this
was unintentional, but this person did not take into account the naming protocol
normally used.

The Digifly AIR is simply taking the information wrongfully provided by the
waypoints' names and interpreting it as the altitude. The instrument has no bug
nor is it doing anything wrong. This is being caused by the human, not the
machine... Moreover, keep in mind that any instrument currently applying the
naming protocol would have the same outcome.

In the future, please, please contact us if you need any sort of information or
clarification before you publish news that are not true and, especially in this
case, news that are causing such an unfair negative impact.

Let us know if you need any further information or clarification and we will be
more than happy to do so.

I wrote back to them:

The article says that the author does not know if there is an
issue with the altitude values being only displays or whether they are actually
used for final glides. Can you tell us if they are actually used?

BTW, we haven’t used your naming convention for at least two decades.

BTW, also for PR purposes I suggest not reacting with anger but with kindness.
It helps your image.

Matt Pruett <<matt>>,
Digifly customer and the author of the afore mentioned article,
writes:

I could see the waypoint name being used as a failover if the
altitude is not provided in the WPTfile. But if the altitude is provided then
the waypoint name certainly should not override it. I think it's fair to say
that this functionally is anachronistic, if it surprises everyone I mentioned it
to and multiple effected waypoints can be found in one of the largest meets in
the world. Is it even in the manual?