X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 12:17:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.216.49] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.6) with ESMTPS id 6458214 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:21:35 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.216.49; envelope-from=mehapgood@gmail.com Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w8so1047834qac.8 for ; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 07:20:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.166.74 with SMTP id l10mr610638qay.114.1378563659574; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 07:20:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.2.70] (rrcs-70-61-86-226.midsouth.biz.rr.com. [70.61.86.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 10sm5628056qal.0.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 07 Sep 2013 07:20:57 -0700 (PDT) References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-C31734F7-5E61-4684-ABF1-43C464C5AFA4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Original-Message-Id: <82715A99-7A7D-49D7-A9CA-95F757DADC32@gmail.com> X-Original-Cc: "lml@lancaironline.net" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10B329) From: Matt Hapgood Subject: Re: [LML] Re: iPad overheated & quit! X-Original-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 10:20:57 -0400 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Apple-Mail-C31734F7-5E61-4684-ABF1-43C464C5AFA4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Colyn, I couldn't agree more with your comments. Having experienced what you descr= ibe and read Brent Reagan's comments years ago, it just fits the story. Arg= uing with it is kinda goofy. I have a multi-thousand dollar diving watch. It costs a lot and costs a stu= pid amount to service regularly. I also have a $50 swatch. Yes, the dive w= atch even breaks occasionally. Do you think they have the same failure rate= 100 feet underwater?!? Which one would you rather depend on with your life= ? The cockpit of a Boeing or airbus is very different than a hot and less shad= ed Lancair cockpit. Matt On Sep 7, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: > Panel Avionics - produced only in the thousands, incredible costs associat= ed with R&D and certification, built to operate in a hostile environment, er= ror rate =3D errors / (flight hours X thousands) > =20 > Consumer electronics - produced in the millions with reasonable R&D costs a= nd much simpler certification, built to be operated by children and old peop= le, 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 > In a message dated 9/6/2013 10:59:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time, pjdmiller= @gmail.com writes: > 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 wrote: >=20 > > No that is not an insane comment. > > A Garmin fails because either you exceeded the fairly stringent environm= ental specs, or there was a chip that was in a bad corner of the tolerance m= atrix, 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 environm= ent. > >=20 > > You are leading people astray if you are implying that the fact that gar= mins 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 t= he 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 b= ehave the same. > >=20 > >=20 > > -- > > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.h= tml > >=20 > >=20 > > -- > > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.h= tml >=20 >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm= l --Apple-Mail-C31734F7-5E61-4684-ABF1-43C464C5AFA4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Colyn,

I coul= dn't agree more with your comments.  Having experienced what you descri= be and read Brent Reagan's comments years ago, it just fits the story.  = ;Arguing with it is kinda goofy.

I have a multi-tho= usand dollar diving watch.  It costs a lot and costs a stupid amount to= service regularly.  I also have a $50 swatch.  Yes, the dive watc= h even breaks occasionally.  Do you think they have the same failure ra= te 100 feet underwater?!?  Which one would you rather depend on with yo= ur life?

The cockpit of a Boeing or airbus is very d= ifferent than a hot and less shaded Lancair cockpit.

Matt

On Sep 7, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Sk= y2high@aol.com wrote:

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 a= nd=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 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=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 m= odel=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 aren= 't=20 many certified manufacturers that give you a warranty much past the burn i= n=20 period are there?   Certified boxes fail and sometimes they aren= 't=20 even in sunlight when they fail.  Cheltons fail, Avidynes fail, Garmi= ns=20 fail.  They all fail.  You are making a silly argument suggestin= g=20 iPad can't be used in sunlight.  In the same extreme sunlight, I will= get=20 my face, arm and lips burned.  It is simply a matter of keeping temps= =20 down in a reasonable range and out of direct sunlight and that goes for th= is=20 pilot too.   Suggesting an iPad "predictably fails" is no differ= ent=20 than any other device that exceeds the operating specs. But suggesting the= y=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, th= ey=20 are better.   Having a second in the bag is an affordable and ea= sy=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 comes= 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 in= a=20 certified jet.  Who would have thought?

If you have stats that= =20 show Garmins or any other brand have an economically better failure rate t= han=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 al= l=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 insane=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 corne= r 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 s= it=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 no= t in=20 their intended environment.
>
> You are leading people astray= 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.
>
> On= Sep=20 6, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Paul Miller wrote:
>
> Well that's just= an=20 insane comment.  Might as well say if I disconnect the cooling air fr= om=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 beh= ave=20 the same.
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub=20 http://ma= il.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>
>
>=20= --
> For archives and unsub=20 http://ma= il.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html


--
For=20 archives and unsub=20 http://mail= .lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
= --Apple-Mail-C31734F7-5E61-4684-ABF1-43C464C5AFA4--