X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 07:54:44 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm23-vm1.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com ([98.139.213.141] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.6) with ESMTPS id 6459499 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 20:00:30 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.213.141; envelope-from=rjones2000@sbcglobal.net Received: from [98.139.215.142] by nm23.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Sep 2013 23:59:55 -0000 Received: from [68.142.230.77] by tm13.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Sep 2013 23:59:55 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp234.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Sep 2013 23:59:55 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 263805.65026.bm@smtp234.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: GPjwtfsVM1lzq2cm.tl2eWfmL2GHXqOYWboZLrJgyxcx.A4 S4948RtwhE5JveNwGP6dcZeZW7A44rC2ScY.jRYdwRDuymFPEp1IrwGrdrhg JuAOYQq7rt0Qq7425s6CxaDL5wIry5VqElJWk7tX8dyNWLZNtStcyV9bKnhq 8RX.ZmOcVPPzbS09bWu8ztK4y_7mEMpYYl4GlfKFCuxMtZd5JQOMCmuX18wD i6MoZ.XI2QaCnJchDXE557SQj6rm3hcgAlrTksXe5jbFNjeRLwuO7S.7gEK9 RnW8eDacJY4j_U.wiGnTaqBM6fIyc0f1ZaNqaJCH8381WDpWJFDKFS1o59TS e1pNLDbbHuzQdHzL6JFl7muMHMckt7Kf76plOEchdot4MWOQkhTLLBfImSKp upraellD7FSKTg_3vI4rHlcOgPMNdq_xBGLLPu30uLV196zoXfDw8PRKfIuL FxD0fOdH5KJrSadL2y_1deLRyJ0gnzaB.VbdpOXmj4qfYnOUVAZgcvrVEN1g JfT6TT4HRl_ERurSRY.G5WKazI9yjWtK4qvolrSlJRNxuaXUIKHHD9vlr0aK aT_Eyjlb0b83b1kpdAI.Nd2uj.h274fBJ6drKtQUcvSQ2aqDwq_Kr.0uFLcE nosaZC3oQ8plKu14LgyVD8bO..KdvxEEJA6r5o4EeLg-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: qom3qKeswBCS7l.XERKRbiNwk_aq93o2mA-- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.71.11.40] (rjones2000@12.26.179.202 with ) by smtp234.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 08 Sep 2013 23:59:55 +0000 UTC Subject: Re: [LML] Re: iPad overheated & quit! References: From: Ron Jones Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2D14B7A9-1534-450C-9BB3-EE26C97EC384 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B350) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <86828E38-6164-4960-AE2E-668CC8EA4F52@sbcglobal.net> X-Original-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 18:59:53 -0500 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-2D14B7A9-1534-450C-9BB3-EE26C97EC384 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, about the only thing you can do is go to settings and be sure the scre= en is full bright. Maybe you could also turn off Auto-Brightness feature, bu= t that shouldn't matter.=20 The iPad screen is reflective. You have to find a good viewing angle. Anti-r= eflective screens not only reduce the reflection, they also reduce the brigh= tness. This isn't good as full bright on the iPad is marginal in a bright, s= unny cockpit anyway.=20 Now, beginning with the iPad 3, the screen is both brighter and has better c= ontrast. It sports the retina display (higher resolution). I have both an iP= ad 1 and a 3. The 3 is MUCH better in the cockpit. It is still washed out so= mewhat, not to mention reflective, but it works okay. Just okay.=20 As a side note, none of my many laptops have been useable in a bright enviro= nment. The iPad is definitely better, but its no Chelton or Garmin. Still, I= love Foreflight and all its capabilities, so I will muddle along with the i= Pad even though the screen is less than ideal.=20 So the upshot? Get at least an iPad 3. It's better than the 1 or 2.=20 Course, that's just one man's opinion.=20 Ron Sent from Ron's iPhone ... On Sep 8, 2013, at 6:43 PM, "William A. Hogarty" wro= te: > I'm enjoying this discussion... Learning a lot. But I haven't learned t= he trick to > using my Ipad 1. Cant see the display in the cockpit because of sunlight.= Installed > a glareshield on the Ipad. Still cant read the display in the daylight. > =20 > Obviously, I'm missing something pretty basic. Can anyone help me out? > =20 > Thanks, Bill Hogarty >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Paul Miller wrote: >> I lead nobody astray. But I suspect you might be optimistic about the r= eality of the label of "certified" in day to day use. It's no solution to po= tential failure. Having electronics subjected to a battery of lightning and= water tests has no bearing on whether they will or will not fail. They sti= ll fail. And they fail without being subjected to lightning and water too. = Many Garmins go back to the shop for chips, buttons, screens, knobs, memory= and other failures. You can't send one back unless you shell out more than= three iPads! How economical is that especially when you look at the cost o= f deriving that model and delivering it to the panel? >>=20 >> Almost every high-cost piece of certified equipment I've owned has failed= or required expensive factory repairs or an expensive warranty to backstop p= otential 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 >> 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 economical= ly better failure rate than consumer electronics like the iPad I'd like to s= ee 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 environ= mental 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. >> > >> > Having two garmins definitely lowers the probability of having both fai= l if they are in their intended environment. >> > >> > Having two ipads does nothing if they are not in their intended environ= ment. >> > >> > You are leading people astray if you are implying that the fact that ga= rmins fail sometimes makes them no better than an ipad subjected to the same= environment. >> > >> > On Sep 6, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Paul Miller wrote: >> > >> > 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? >> > >> > Paul >> > On 2013-09-06, at 8:49 AM, Colyn Case wrote: >> > >> >> kinda. >> >> If you put two ipads on your glare shield in the sun, likely both will= behave the same. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.= html >> > >> > >> > -- >> > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.= html >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml >=20 --Apple-Mail-2D14B7A9-1534-450C-9BB3-EE26C97EC384 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill, about the only thing you can do i= s go to settings and be sure the screen is full bright. Maybe you could also= turn off Auto-Brightness feature, but that shouldn't matter. 

The iPad screen is reflective. You have to find a good view= ing angle. Anti-reflective screens not only reduce the reflection, they also= reduce the brightness. This isn't good as full bright on the iPad is margin= al in a bright, sunny cockpit anyway. 

Now, be= ginning with the iPad 3, the screen is both brighter and has better contrast= . It sports the retina display (higher resolution). I have both an iPad 1 an= d a 3. The 3 is MUCH better in the cockpit. It is still washed out somewhat,= not to mention reflective, but it works okay. Just okay. 
As a side note, none of my many laptops have been useable in a b= right environment. The iPad is definitely better, but its no Chelton or Garm= in. Still, I love Foreflight and all its capabilities, so I will muddle alon= g with the iPad even though the screen is less than ideal. 
<= br>
So the upshot? Get at least an iPad 3. It's better than the 1 o= r 2. 

Course, that's just one man's opinion.&n= bsp;

Ron



Sent from= Ron's iPhone ...

On Sep 8, 2013, at 6:43 PM, "William A. Hoga= rty" <billhogarty@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

I'm enjoying this discussion...  Learning a lot.   But I hav= en't learned the trick to
using my Ipad 1.  Cant see the dis= play in the cockpit because of sunlight.  Installed
a glaresh= ield on the Ipad.  Still cant read the display in the daylight.
 
Obviously, I'm missing something pretty basic.  C= an anyone help me out?
 
Thanks, Bill Hogarty
=


On Fri, S= ep 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Paul Miller <pjdmiller@gmail.com> wro= te:
I lead nobody astray.   But I suspect you= might be optimistic about the reality of the label of "certified" in day to= day use. It's no solution to potential failure.  Having electronics su= bjected to a battery of lightning and water tests has no bearing on whether t= hey will or will not fail.  They still fail. And they fail without bein= g subjected to lightning and water too.   Many Garmins go back to the s= hop for chips, buttons, screens, knobs, memory and other failures.  You= can't send one back unless you shell out more than three iPads!   How e= conomical is that especially when you look at the cost of deriving that mode= l and delivering it to the panel?

Almost every high-cost piece of certified equipment I've owned has failed or= required expensive factory repairs or an expensive warranty to backstop pot= ential repairs. There aren't many certified manufacturers that give you a wa= rranty much past the burn in period are there?   Certified boxes fail a= nd sometimes they aren't even in sunlight when they fail.  Cheltons fai= l, Avidynes fail, Garmins fail.  They all fail.  You are making a s= illy argument suggesting iPad can't be used in sunlight.  In the same e= xtreme sunlight, I will get my face, arm and lips burned.  It is simply= a matter of keeping temps down in a reasonable range and out of direct sunl= ight and that goes for this pilot too.   Suggesting an iPad "predictabl= y fails" is no different than any other device that exceeds the operating sp= ecs. But suggesting they aren't for use in the cockpit is really over the to= p Colyn.   Probably hundreds of thousands are in use every day in sunli= ght and they continue to provide the airlines and this pilot much more infor= mation at a small fraction of the cost of the  "certified" devices. &nb= sp;And, they are better.   Having a second in the bag is an affordable a= nd easy backup.

These boxes and iPads both have a place.  One costs an incredible amoun= t and can't be updated easily and the other comes off the shelf, is inexpens= ive to own and duplicate and=E2=80=A6is used by the airlines.  Go figur= e.  An uncertified iPad providing guidance in a certified jet.  Wh= o would have thought?

If you have stats that show Garmins or any other brand have an economically b= etter failure rate than consumer electronics like the iPad I'd like to see i= t. I'm betting if you double up on the iPad for an extra $300-$400 your pane= l device loses in all categories of reliability and usefulness.    = ; I could be wrong.

Paul

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

> No that is not an insane comment.
> A Garmin fails because either you exceeded the fairly stringent environ= mental 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. >
> Having two garmins definitely lowers the probability of having both fai= l if they are in their intended environment.
>
> Having two ipads does nothing if they are not in their intended environ= ment.
>
> You are leading people astray if you are implying that the fact that ga= rmins fail sometimes makes them no better than an ipad subjected to the same= environment.
>
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Paul Miller wrote:
>
> Well that's just an insane comment.  Might as well say if I discon= nect the cooling air from two Garmins they will both overheat.   So wha= t Colyn?
>
> Paul
> On 2013-09-06, at 8:49 AM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> kinda.
>> If you put two ipads on your glare shield in the sun, likely both w= ill behave the same.
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lm= l/List.html
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lm= l/List.html


--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/Lis= t.html

= --Apple-Mail-2D14B7A9-1534-450C-9BB3-EE26C97EC384--