X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:59:18 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.6) with ESMTPS id 6457794 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 20:34:25 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.192.181; envelope-from=pjdmiller@gmail.com Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id g10so3875339pdj.40 for ; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:33:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.114.132 with SMTP id jg4mr5748482pbb.109.1378514028882; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:33:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.143] (S010620aa4b008706.cg.shawcable.net. [174.0.112.194]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xe9sm392087pbc.21.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: iPad overheated & quit! From: Paul Miller In-Reply-To: X-Original-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 18:33:45 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Message-Id: References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) I lead nobody astray. But I suspect you might be optimistic about the = reality of the label of "certified" in day to day use. It's no solution = to potential failure. Having electronics subjected to a battery of = lightning and water tests has no bearing on whether they will or will = not fail. They still fail. And they fail without being subjected to = lightning and water too. Many Garmins go back to the shop for chips, = buttons, screens, knobs, memory and other failures. You can't send one = back unless you shell out more than three iPads! How economical is = that especially when you look at the cost of deriving that model and = delivering it to the panel? Almost every high-cost piece of certified equipment I've owned has = failed or required expensive factory repairs or an expensive warranty to = backstop potential repairs. There aren't many certified manufacturers = that give you a warranty much past the burn in period are there? = Certified boxes fail and sometimes they aren't even in sunlight when = they fail. Cheltons fail, Avidynes fail, Garmins fail. They all fail. = You are making a silly argument suggesting iPad can't be used in = sunlight. In the same extreme sunlight, I will get my face, arm and = lips burned. It is simply a matter of keeping temps down in a = reasonable range and out of direct sunlight and that goes for this pilot = too. Suggesting an iPad "predictably fails" is no different than any = other device that exceeds the operating specs. But suggesting they = aren't for use in the cockpit is really over the top Colyn. Probably = hundreds of thousands are in use every day in sunlight and they continue = to provide the airlines and this pilot much more information at a small = fraction of the cost of the "certified" devices. And, they are better. = Having a second in the bag is an affordable and easy backup. =20 These boxes and iPads both have a place. One costs an incredible amount = and can't be updated easily and the other comes off the shelf, is = inexpensive to own and duplicate and=85is used by the airlines. Go = figure. An uncertified iPad providing guidance in a certified jet. Who = would have thought? If you have stats that show Garmins or any other brand have an = economically better failure rate than consumer electronics like the iPad = I'd like to see it. I'm betting if you double up on the iPad for an = extra $300-$400 your panel device loses in all categories of reliability = and usefulness. I could be wrong. Paul On 2013-09-06, at 5:55 PM, Colyn Case wrote: > No that is not an insane comment. > A Garmin fails because either you exceeded the fairly stringent = environmental specs, or there was a chip that was in a bad corner of the = tolerance matrix, or something else that is statistically fairly low = probability. > An ipad fails reliably because it wasn't designed to sit in the sun. >=20 > Having two garmins definitely lowers the probability of having both = fail if they are in their intended environment. >=20 > Having two ipads does nothing if they are not in their intended = environment. >=20 > You are leading people astray if you are implying that the fact that = garmins fail sometimes makes them no better than an ipad subjected to = the same environment. >=20 > On Sep 6, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Paul Miller wrote: >=20 > Well that's just an insane comment. Might as well say if I disconnect = the cooling air from two Garmins they will both overheat. So what = Colyn? >=20 > Paul > On 2013-09-06, at 8:49 AM, Colyn Case wrote: >=20 >> kinda. >> If you put two ipads on your glare shield in the sun, likely both = will behave the same. >=20 >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html >=20 >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html