Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 12:17:47 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6458376@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.41; envelope-from=2thman1@gmail.com
References: <list-6458256@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-6458256@logan.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: John Barrett <2thman1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: iPad overheated & quit!

Colyn,

point well made and very apparent, but the contrary idea of a couple of over=
 the counter items such as the iPad, one active and one in reserve tested to=
 the standards alluded to by Skyhawk leads to a utilitarian level of service=
 alternative that competes favorably on some levels.  No one ever contemplat=
ed a non certified gear alternative before and it is not in our culture (yet=
) to accept it as valid.  It's sort of like heresy.  The concept that you ha=
ve to have certified TSO boxes in the aircraft to safely fly IFR or whatever=
 is being challenged and likely to be overturned.  I'm not talking about leg=
al concepts but rather what is real.

As Paul said I could be wrong.
John

Sent from my iPad


On Sep 7, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I stand by what I said
> My point is simply that Ipads, while wonderful machines (I have on in my c=
ockpit), are not built to the same environmental requirements as panel mount=
ed gear and the user must be aware of that.  =20
>=20
>=20
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Paul Miller wrote:
>=20
> I lead nobody astray.   But I suspect you might be optimistic about the re=
ality of the label of "certified" in day to day use. It's no solution to pot=
ential failure.  Having electronics subjected to a battery of lightning and w=
ater 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.   M=
any Garmins go back to the shop for chips, buttons, screens, knobs, memory a=
nd other failures.  You can't send one back unless you shell out more than t=
hree iPads!   How economical is that especially when you look at the cost of=
 deriving that model and delivering it to the panel?
>=20
> Almost every high-cost piece of certified equipment I've owned has failed o=
r required expensive factory repairs or an expensive warranty to backstop po=
tential repairs. There aren't many certified manufacturers that give you a w=
arranty much past the burn in period are there?   Certified boxes fail and s=
ometimes they aren't even in sunlight when they fail.  Cheltons fail, Avidyn=
es fail, Garmins fail.  They all fail.  You are making a silly argument sugg=
esting 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 d=
own in a reasonable range and out of direct sunlight and that goes for this p=
ilot too.   Suggesting an iPad "predictably fails" is no different than any o=
ther 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 tho=
usands are in use every day in sunlight and they continue to provide the air=
lines and this pilot much more information at a small fraction of the cost o=
f the  "certified" devices.  And, they are better.   Having a second in the b=
ag is an affordable and easy backup.  =20
>=20
> These boxes and iPads both have a place.  One costs an incredible amount a=
nd can't be updated easily and the other comes off the shelf, is inexpensive=
 to own and duplicate and=E2=80=A6is used by the airlines.  Go figure.  An u=
ncertified iPad providing guidance in a certified jet.  Who would have thoug=
ht?
>=20
> If you have stats that show Garmins or any other brand have an economicall=
y better failure rate than consumer electronics like the iPad I'd like to se=
e it. I'm betting if you double up on the iPad for an extra $300-$400 your p=
anel device loses in all categories of reliability and usefulness.     I cou=
ld be wrong.
>=20
> Paul
>=20
> On 2013-09-06, at 5:55 PM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:
>=20
>> No that is not an insane comment.
>> A Garmin fails because either you exceeded the fairly stringent environme=
ntal specs, or there was a chip that was in a bad corner of the tolerance ma=
trix, 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 i=
f they are in their intended environment.
>>=20
>> Having two ipads does nothing if they are not in their intended environme=
nt.
>>=20
>> You are leading people astray if you are implying that the fact that garm=
ins fail sometimes makes them no better than an ipad subjected to the same e=
nvironment.
>>=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 th=
e cooling air from two Garmins they will both overheat.   So what Colyn?
>>=20
>> Paul
>> On 2013-09-06, at 8:49 AM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>=20
>>> kinda.
>>> If you put two ipads on your glare shield in the sun, likely both will b=
ehave the same.
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht=
ml
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht=
ml
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm=
l
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm=
l