X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 13:07:03 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.6) with ESMTPS id 6458423 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 13:01:22 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.192.175; envelope-from=pjdmiller@gmail.com Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q10so4521867pdj.34 for ; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:00:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.178.35 with SMTP id cv3mr2705384pbc.160.1378573247052; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:00:47 -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 xs1sm5882975pac.7.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:00:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Miller Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C2FE6572-A76D-432C-8A86-14F90D60772F" X-Original-Message-Id: <1C857CA2-84ED-463C-ADBF-DB9E5C0A1778@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\)) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: iPad overheated & quit! X-Original-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 11:00:44 -0600 References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) --Apple-Mail=_C2FE6572-A76D-432C-8A86-14F90D60772F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii you usually grace us with interesting stats and data we can chew on. = unfortunately, this post adds little meat to either argument and zero = backup to the "spend more equals better reliability and function" = nonsense we get from the certified box makers. =20 If its good enough for American Airlines then I'm probably ok too. Why = don't you send your estimate of reliability to AA for a comment? Unless = you know more than the airline does... Paul On 2013-09-07, at 7:56 AM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote: > Panel Avionics - produced only in the thousands, incredible costs = associated with R&D and certification, built to operate in a hostile = environment, error rate =3D errors / (flight hours X thousands) > =20 > Consumer electronics - produced in the millions with reasonable R&D = costs and much simpler certification, built to be operated by children = and old 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........... --Apple-Mail=_C2FE6572-A76D-432C-8A86-14F90D60772F Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii you usually grace us with interesting stats and data we can chew on. unfortunately, this post adds little meat to either argument and zero backup to the "spend more equals better reliability and function" nonsense we get from the certified box makers.

If its good enough for American Airlines then I'm probably ok too. Why don't you send your estimate of reliability to AA for a comment? Unless you know more than the airline does...

Paul

On 2013-09-07, at 7:56 AM, Sky2high@aol.com wrote:

Panel Avionics - produced only in the thousands, incredible costs associated with R&D and certification, built to operate in a hostile environment, error rate = errors / (flight hours X thousands)

Consumer electronics - produced in the millions with reasonable R&D costs and much simpler certification, built to be operated by children and old people, error rate = errors / (tons of operating hours X millions)

Yep, looks comparable to me.

Grayhawk

PS getting two may not be enough...........

--Apple-Mail=_C2FE6572-A76D-432C-8A86-14F90D60772F--