X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:58:19 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.6) with ESMTPS id 6458707 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:06:13 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.47; envelope-from=pjdmiller@gmail.com Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id kl13so4762756pab.34 for ; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 15:05:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.176.132 with SMTP id ci4mr10454883pbc.7.1378591536767; Sat, 07 Sep 2013 15:05:36 -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 qp10sm7001398pab.13.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 07 Sep 2013 15:05:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Miller Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1732532D-6EEB-41AE-B8C5-E1A66F5D2B43" X-Original-Message-Id: <0A5B106B-B564-4156-934A-F6CD2D6D061A@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 16:05:33 -0600 References: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) --Apple-Mail=_1732532D-6EEB-41AE-B8C5-E1A66F5D2B43 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Jon: with respect to your experience (I am just a user without your = industry experience), I don't see the link between higher standards and = extended longevity/reliability in the airplane. I think it is a great = exercise to put these units through the paces and identify weaknesses in = a design but I propose as an argument that the higher standard for = testing does not translate into a more reliable unit or a longer lasting = unit in actual use in the airplane. I believe the consumer drives a good product into success or allows a = bad product to die. My personal experience is that [DO 160] units fail = as much or more than any consumer device I've owned in the cockpit = (Macbook, ipad, iphone, palmpad, HP-pad, DELL8100/8300, Fujitsu x 3 = versions). All of my consumer devices worked in the planes I flew and = provided XM, Wxworx, charts, Flitestar or moving maps and yet my DO 160 = devices (Transponder, radar, MFD, PFD, radAlt) have failed in multiple = aircraft with multiple manufacturers and are really expensive to revive. = Are Chelton units still getting sent back to Texas with internal = failures? Which is the better value, which has better reliability and = which can get back flying in less time with fewer costs? Did testing = really provide pilots with a benefit? I'm not convinced it did. In your KX 155 example, did that excellent durability come from the = standards imposed by testing (your DO160 reference) or were these radios = just built really well to begin with by Mr. King and successors?=20 Fortunately, in experimental aircraft we can choose whether to populate = the space with almost any box we want. I'm suggesting that the best = indicator of usefulness in flight is not the box that gets dunked in = water and fire and still works in the lab. It is the box that delivers = the information you need to fly, has good value, can be replaced or = repaired without sacrificing budgets and is easily duplicated for = backups. Garmin brought us panel mounted units with increased utility. = Then it brought us portable units (G696) with a hefty price point but = more utility. Then Apple stumbled into the cockpit by allowing open = access to iOS developers and the price point dropped and the amount of = useable information in the cockpit per dollar jumped In my book by a = factor of 100 from just a few years ago. The panel cracks are beginning to show. Shadin now has a "certified" = data port to the ipad for distributing ARINC 429 info. How long will it = be before I take my consumer aviation "box" home to program the flight = then plug it into the Legacy panel and have it fly the route to = destination with all the latest data, AHARS, including roll steering = commands to the Tru-Trak? Only it might cost me $300 instead of = $20,000. Will it be an iPad or something morphed by Garmin or someone = else? I bet it will happen. =20 On 2013-09-07, at 1:50 PM, Jon Hadlich wrote: > Even though the certified boxes do fail, they are tested to a much = higher standard (DO 160) than the mass produced portable products. In = the long run , the certified box might outlast the mass produced = product. How many KX 155's are out there still providing reliable = service? > Even though the FAA has allowed the use of the mass produced product = in the cockpit of the airlines, I'm pretty sure it's in an advisory = capacity only, ie charts. The primary flight displays and maps are still = the tried and true FAA certified avionics. >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Jon Hadlich > AI Systems > (541) 815-7381 --Apple-Mail=_1732532D-6EEB-41AE-B8C5-E1A66F5D2B43 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Jon: = with respect to your experience (I am just a user without your industry = experience), I don't see the link between higher standards and extended = longevity/reliability in the airplane.  I think it is a great = exercise to put these units through the paces and identify weaknesses in = a design but I propose as an argument that the higher standard for = testing does not translate into a more reliable unit or a longer lasting = unit in actual use in the airplane.

I believe the = consumer drives a good product into success or allows a bad product to = die.  My personal experience is that [DO 160] units fail as much or = more than any consumer device I've owned in the cockpit (Macbook, ipad, = iphone, palmpad, HP-pad, DELL8100/8300, Fujitsu x 3 versions).   = All of my consumer devices worked in the planes I flew and provided XM, = Wxworx, charts, Flitestar or moving maps and yet my DO 160 devices = (Transponder, radar, MFD, PFD, radAlt) have failed in multiple aircraft = with multiple manufacturers and are really expensive to revive. =  Are Chelton units still getting sent back to Texas with internal = failures?  Which is the better value, which has better reliability = and which can get back flying in less time with fewer costs?  Did = testing really provide pilots with a benefit?  I'm not convinced it = did.

In your KX 155 example, did that = excellent durability come from the standards imposed by testing (your = DO160 reference) or were these radios just built really well to begin = with by Mr. King and = successors? 

Fortunately, in experimental = aircraft we can choose whether to populate the space with almost any box = we want.  I'm suggesting that the best indicator of usefulness in = flight is not the box that gets dunked in water and fire and still works = in the lab.  It is the box that delivers the information you need = to fly, has good value, can be replaced or repaired without sacrificing = budgets and is easily duplicated for backups.  Garmin brought us = panel mounted units with increased utility.   Then it brought us = portable units (G696) with a hefty price point but more utility.   = Then Apple stumbled into the cockpit by allowing open access to iOS = developers and the price point dropped and the amount of useable = information in the cockpit per dollar jumped In my book by a factor = of 100 from just a few years ago.

The panel = cracks are beginning to show.   Shadin now has a "certified" data = port to the ipad for distributing ARINC 429 info.  How long will it = be before I take my consumer aviation "box" home to program the flight = then plug it into the Legacy panel and have it fly the route to = destination with all the latest data, AHARS, including roll steering = commands to the Tru-Trak?  Only it might cost me $300 instead of = $20,000.  Will it be an iPad or something morphed by Garmin or = someone else?   I bet it will = happen.

   
On = 2013-09-07, at 1:50 PM, Jon Hadlich <hackmo15@gmail.com> = wrote:

Even though the certified boxes do = fail, they are tested to a much higher standard (DO 160) than the mass = produced portable products. In the long run , the certified box might = outlast the mass produced product. How many KX 155's are out there still = providing reliable service?
Even though the FAA has allowed the use of the mass produced = product in the cockpit of the airlines, I'm pretty sure it's in an = advisory capacity only, ie charts. The primary flight displays and maps = are still the tried and true FAA certified avionics.


--
Jon Hadlich
AI Systems
(541) = 815-7381

= --Apple-Mail=_1732532D-6EEB-41AE-B8C5-E1A66F5D2B43--