X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from omr-m07.mx.aol.com ([64.12.143.81] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.6) with ESMTPS id 6458178 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 09:57:30 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.143.81; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-ma05.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-ma05.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.12]) by omr-m07.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 8B8787003545A for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 09:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-mtd002b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mtd002.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.235.197]) by mtaomg-ma05.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 5D36DE000082 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 09:56:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com Full-name: Sky2high Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 09:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: iPad overheated & quit! To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_e577f.6f02170d.3f5c8aa6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 168 X-Originating-IP: [67.175.156.123] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1378562214; bh=30hoZJiLjneGQ0xI05Yllj+5IHWUq5HSGljVDWUgnfc=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=uUuRO4e9zkz1/ORoo5TrOGeZXVqJcrgRjuYMmSj/l3fqUIyW8LFrtTB3J9orgVgnK RenY2EK/OsAOEbyhzUogMM9O30duJBAbBwf4OnFuM6GpBFWQvrCtgKdDX7pd+vzgnl J/2jAKH73LIpBSMuAj4z/e+hbP5nkc08gcepYeLw= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d290c522b30a6434a --part1_e577f.6f02170d.3f5c8aa6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Panel Avionics - produced only in the thousands, incredible costs =20 associated with R&D and certification, built to operate in a hostile envir= onment,=20 error rate =3D errors / (flight hours X thousands) =20 Consumer electronics - produced in the millions with reasonable R&D costs= =20 and much simpler certification, built to be operated by children and old= =20 people, error rate =3D errors / (tons of operating hours X millions) =20 Yep, looks comparable to me. =20 Grayhawk =20 PS getting two may not be enough........... =20 =20 In a message dated 9/6/2013 10:59:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time, =20 pjdmiller@gmail.com writes: I lead nobody astray. But I suspect you might be optimistic about the = =20 reality of the label of "certified" in day to day use. It's no solution to = =20 potential failure. Having electronics subjected to a battery of lightning= =20 and water tests has no bearing on whether they will or will not fail. The= y=20 still fail. And they fail without being subjected to lightning and water= =20 too. Many Garmins go back to the shop for chips, buttons, screens, knobs= ,=20 memory and other failures. You can't send one back unless you shell out= =20 more than three iPads! How economical is that especially when you look a= t=20 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= =20 or required expensive factory repairs or an expensive warranty to backstop= =20 potential repairs. There aren't many certified manufacturers that give you= =20 a warranty much past the burn in period are there? Certified boxes fail= =20 and sometimes they aren't even in sunlight when they fail. Cheltons fail,= =20 Avidynes fail, Garmins fail. They all fail. You are making a silly=20 argument suggesting iPad can't be used in sunlight. In the same extreme s= unlight,=20 I will get my face, arm and lips burned. It is simply a matter of keeping= =20 temps down in a reasonable range and out of direct sunlight and that goes= =20 for this pilot too. Suggesting an iPad "predictably fails" is no=20 different than any other device that exceeds the operating specs. But sugg= esting=20 they aren't for use in the cockpit is really over the top Colyn. Probab= ly=20 hundreds of thousands are in use every day in sunlight and they continue t= o=20 provide the airlines and this pilot much more information at a small=20 fraction of the cost of the "certified" devices. And, they are better. = =20 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= =20 and can't be updated easily and the other comes off the shelf, is=20 inexpensive to own and duplicate and=E2=80=A6is used by the airlines. Go = figure. An=20 uncertified iPad providing guidance in a certified jet. Who would have th= ought? If you have stats that show Garmins or any other brand have an=20 economically better failure rate than consumer electronics like the iPad I= 'd like to=20 see it. I'm betting if you double up on the iPad for an extra $300-$400 yo= ur=20 panel device loses in all categories of reliability and usefulness. I= =20 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=20 environmental specs, or there was a chip that was in a bad corner of the t= olerance=20 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= =20 if they are in their intended environment. >=20 > Having two ipads does nothing if they are not in their intended=20 environment. >=20 > You are leading people astray if you are implying that the fact that=20 garmins fail sometimes makes them no better than an ipad subjected to the = same=20 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= =20 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= =20 behave the same. >=20 >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html >=20 >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html -- For archives and unsub =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --part1_e577f.6f02170d.3f5c8aa6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
Panel Avionics - produced only in the thousands, incredible costs= =20 associated with R&D and certification, built to operate in a hostile=20 environment, error rate =3D errors / (flight hours X thousands)
 
Consumer electronics - produced in the millions with reasonable R&= D=20 costs and much simpler certification, built to be operated by children= and=20 old people, error rate =3D errors / (tons of operating hours X millions)
 
Yep, looks comparable to me.
 
Grayhawk
 
PS getting two may not be enough...........
 
In a message dated 9/6/2013 10:59:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 pjdmiller@gmail.com writes:
= I lead=20 nobody astray.   But I suspect you might be optimistic about th= e=20 reality of the label of "certified" in day to day use. It's no solution t= o=20 potential failure.  Having electronics subjected to a battery of=20 lightning and water tests has no bearing on whether they will or will not= =20 fail.  They still fail. And they fail without being subjected to=20 lightning and water too.   Many Garmins go back to the shop for= =20 chips, buttons, screens, knobs, memory and other failures.  You can'= t=20 send one back unless you shell out more than three iPads!   How= =20 economical is that especially when you look at the cost of deriving that = model=20 and delivering it to the panel?

Almost every high-cost piece of=20 certified equipment I've owned has failed or required expensive factory= =20 repairs or an expensive warranty to backstop potential repairs. There are= n't=20 many certified manufacturers that give you a warranty much past the burn = in=20 period are there?   Certified boxes fail and sometimes they are= n't=20 even in sunlight when they fail.  Cheltons fail, Avidynes fail, Garm= ins=20 fail.  They all fail.  You are making a silly argument suggesti= ng=20 iPad can't be used in sunlight.  In the same extreme sunlight, I wil= l get=20 my face, arm and lips burned.  It is simply a matter of keeping temp= s=20 down in a reasonable range and out of direct sunlight and that goes for t= his=20 pilot too.   Suggesting an iPad "predictably fails" is no diffe= rent=20 than any other device that exceeds the operating specs. But suggesting th= ey=20 aren't for use in the cockpit is really over the top Colyn.  = =20 Probably hundreds of thousands are in use every day in sunlight and they= =20 continue to provide the airlines and this pilot much more information at = a=20 small fraction of the cost of the  "certified" devices.  And, t= hey=20 are better.   Having a second in the bag is an affordable and e= asy=20 backup.  

These boxes and iPads both have a place. = ; One=20 costs an incredible amount and can't be updated easily and the other come= s off=20 the shelf, is inexpensive to own and duplicate and=E2=80=A6is used by the= =20 airlines.  Go figure.  An uncertified iPad providing guidance i= n a=20 certified jet.  Who would have thought?

If you have stats tha= t=20 show Garmins or any other brand have an economically better failure rate = than=20 consumer electronics like the iPad I'd like to see it. I'm betting if you= =20 double up on the iPad for an extra $300-$400 your panel device loses in a= ll=20 categories of reliability and usefulness.     I could be= =20 wrong.

Paul

On 2013-09-06, at 5:55 PM, Colyn Case=20 <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:

> No that is not an insa= ne=20 comment.
> A Garmin fails because either you exceeded the fairly=20 stringent environmental specs, or there was a chip that was in a bad corn= er of=20 the tolerance matrix, or something else that is statistically fairly low= =20 probability.
> An ipad fails reliably because it wasn't designed to= sit=20 in the sun.
>
> Having two garmins definitely lowers the=20 probability of having both fail if they are in their intended=20 environment.
>
> Having two ipads does nothing if they are n= ot in=20 their intended environment.
>
> You are leading people astra= y if=20 you are implying that the fact that garmins fail sometimes makes them no= =20 better than an ipad subjected to the same environment.
>
> O= n Sep=20 6, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Paul Miller wrote:
>
> Well that's jus= t an=20 insane comment.  Might as well say if I disconnect the cooling air f= rom=20 two Garmins they will both overheat.   So what Colyn?
>= =20
> Paul
> On 2013-09-06, at 8:49 AM, Colyn Case=20 <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> kinda.
>= ;>=20 If you put two ipads on your glare shield in the sun, likely both will be= have=20 the same.
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>
> >=20 --
> For archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html


--
For= =20 archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --part1_e577f.6f02170d.3f5c8aa6_boundary--