lCambridge 302 Security Fail

On Dec 8, 6:23*pm, " wrote:
I believe my problem yesterday may have been being
to quick to transfer flight info. after aircraft came to a stop. I
hope, anyway. This was the first burp on a unit with over 900 hours on
it. Lets see what happens tomorrow.

I often start a transfer before even getting out of the cockpit.

In over 800 hours of use with 2 second logging interval, I've only had
a single security failure. I have no clue how often the memory has
wrapped, though.

-Tom

On Dec 12, 4:06*am, Tim Newport-Peace ] wrote:

Andy, I think you are being a little harsh.

Peter, I appologize. When I read my response later I realized it was
inappropriate.

I just get a bit wound up when people associate the security fail
problem with the hardware seal of the unit. Resealing the units does
not fix the problem. The root cause remains and the problem will
happen again.

Just to be sure there is no ambiguity here - 302 flight logs can, and
sometimes do, report security failure when the instrument indicates
that the hardware seal is good.

Andy

Thank you Tim for pointing out the obvious. I was suggesting that it is
necessary on a 302A (which has no on-screen display) it is useful to check
that the unit is sealed; if it is a bad seal it can be fixed. The security
fail message gives no indication of the cause of verification fail. The
charge from RD is zero profit in my case, regarded as part of product
support. I don't think Dickie makes a fortune either.

I would be delighted if CAI could sort this, and several other issues.
Unfortunately there is no development or debugging capability at CAI, and
I can do nothing about that.

For what it's worth, I firmly believe that the memory wrap is a complete
red-herring; units that downloaded fligths with failed verification later
downloaded the same flight with different utility software OK. I suspect
from investigation, based on limited information available to me that the
problem units use a different flash memory from the original design due to
the original memory going out of production. This may give rise to timing
issues.


At 01:51 12 December 2008, Andy wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:45=A0pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
Hooked up to a PDA or PC with a terminal program. typ VER .

The 302A will give a text message, concluding (if there is a bad
electronic seal) with 'Security Fail'.

If so, in UK send it to me at RD Aviation or Dickie Feakes where it
can
b=
e
resealed (after checking the memory battery voltage and replacing if
necessary).

The security fail report does not indicate that the seal is bad.
Please assist Cambridge with fixing the design problem rather than
using it to solicit business!

Andy

Question, it seems you don't know before the flight if you will get a
security fail. If after a flight the seal is good but you get a security
fail would this invalidate a badge flight?


At 20:00 12 December 2008, Peter Purdie wrote:
Thank you Tim for pointing out the obvious. I was suggesting that it is
necessary on a 302A (which has no on-screen display) it is useful to
check
that the unit is sealed; if it is a bad seal it can be fixed. The
security
fail message gives no indication of the cause of verification fail. The
charge from RD is zero profit in my case, regarded as part of product
support. I don't think Dickie makes a fortune either.

I would be delighted if CAI could sort this, and several other issues.
Unfortunately there is no development or debugging capability at CAI,
and
I can do nothing about that.

For what it's worth, I firmly believe that the memory wrap is a
complete
red-herring; units that downloaded fligths with failed verification
later
downloaded the same flight with different utility software OK. I
suspect
from investigation, based on limited information available to me that
the
problem units use a different flash memory from the original design due
to
the original memory going out of production. This may give rise to
timing
issues.


At 01:51 12 December 2008, Andy wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:45=A0pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
Hooked up to a PDA or PC with a terminal program. typ VER .

The 302A will give a text message, concluding (if there is a bad
electronic seal) with 'Security Fail'.

If so, in UK send it to me at RD Aviation or Dickie Feakes where it
can
b=
e
resealed (after checking the memory battery voltage and replacing if
necessary).

The security fail report does not indicate that the seal is bad.
Please assist Cambridge with fixing the design problem rather than
using it to solicit business!

Andy

Question, it seems you don't know before a flight if you will get a
security fail. If after a flight the seal is good but you get the security
fail would it invalidate a badge flight?



At 20:00 12 December 2008, Peter Purdie wrote:
Thank you Tim for pointing out the obvious. I was suggesting that it is
necessary on a 302A (which has no on-screen display) it is useful to
check
that the unit is sealed; if it is a bad seal it can be fixed. The
security
fail message gives no indication of the cause of verification fail. The
charge from RD is zero profit in my case, regarded as part of product
support. I don't think Dickie makes a fortune either.

I would be delighted if CAI could sort this, and several other issues.
Unfortunately there is no development or debugging capability at CAI,
and
I can do nothing about that.

For what it's worth, I firmly believe that the memory wrap is a
complete
red-herring; units that downloaded fligths with failed verification
later
downloaded the same flight with different utility software OK. I
suspect
from investigation, based on limited information available to me that
the
problem units use a different flash memory from the original design due
to
the original memory going out of production. This may give rise to
timing
issues.


At 01:51 12 December 2008, Andy wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:45=A0pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
Hooked up to a PDA or PC with a terminal program. typ VER .

The 302A will give a text message, concluding (if there is a bad
electronic seal) with 'Security Fail'.

If so, in UK send it to me at RD Aviation or Dickie Feakes where it
can
b=
e
resealed (after checking the memory battery voltage and replacing if
necessary).

The security fail report does not indicate that the seal is bad.
Please assist Cambridge with fixing the design problem rather than
using it to solicit business!

Andy

At 20:00 12 December 2008, Peter Purdie wrote:
Thank you Tim for pointing out the obvious. I was suggesting that it is
necessary on a 302A (which has no on-screen display) it is useful to
check
that the unit is sealed; if it is a bad seal it can be fixed. The
security
fail message gives no indication of the cause of verification fail. The
charge from RD is zero profit in my case, regarded as part of product
support. I don't think Dickie makes a fortune either.

I would be delighted if CAI could sort this, and several other issues.
Unfortunately there is no development or debugging capability at CAI,
and
I can do nothing about that.

For what it's worth, I firmly believe that the memory wrap is a
complete
red-herring; units that downloaded fligths with failed verification
later
downloaded the same flight with different utility software OK. I
suspect
from investigation, based on limited information available to me that
the
problem units use a different flash memory from the original design due
to
the original memory going out of production. This may give rise to
timing
issues.


At 01:51 12 December 2008, Andy wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:45=A0pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
Hooked up to a PDA or PC with a terminal program. typ VER .

The 302A will give a text message, concluding (if there is a bad
electronic seal) with 'Security Fail'.

If so, in UK send it to me at RD Aviation or Dickie Feakes where it
can
b=
e
resealed (after checking the memory battery voltage and replacing if
necessary).

The security fail report does not indicate that the seal is bad.
Please assist Cambridge with fixing the design problem rather than
using it to solicit business!

Andy

On Dec 12, 12:00*pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
Thank you Tim for pointing out the obvious. *I was suggesting that it is
necessary on a 302A (which has no on-screen display) it is useful to check
that the unit is sealed; if it is a bad seal it can be fixed. The security
fail message gives no indication of the cause of verification fail. The
charge from RD is zero profit in my case, regarded as part of product
support. I don't think Dickie makes a fortune either.

I would be delighted if CAI could sort this, and several other issues.
Unfortunately there is no development or debugging capability at CAI, and
I can do nothing about that.

For what it's worth, I firmly believe that the memory wrap is a complete
red-herring; units that downloaded fligths with failed verification later
downloaded the same flight with different utility software OK. *I suspect
from investigation, based on limited information available to me that the
problem units use a different flash memory from the original design due to
the original memory going out of production. *This may give rise to timing
issues. *

At 01:51 12 December 2008, Andy wrote:

On Dec 11, 3:45=A0pm, Peter Purdie *wrote:
Hooked up to a PDA or PC with a terminal program. typ VER .

The 302A will give a text message, concluding (if there is a bad
electronic seal) with 'Security Fail'.

If so, in UK send it to me at RD Aviation or Dickie Feakes where it
can
b=
e
resealed (after checking the memory battery voltage and replacing if
necessary).

The security fail report does not indicate that the seal is bad.
Please assist Cambridge with fixing the design problem rather than
using it to solicit business!

Andy



Some units may later download flights OK if you try different
utilities, and some units some may not. I've had two different C302s
that once they start getting security fails (with good seals) that no
utility (latest Cambridge utility on PDA or PC or DATA-CAM2, or
Naviter Connect Me) would get security fails on subsequent flights (I
tried 2 or 3 in each case), until a CLEAR LOG was done.

I think the real answer is that nodody knows for sure what is
happening and all we can do is wait and see if the latest flash memory
chip change improves things. But until then, based on my experience, I
would suggest clearing the log before any critical flight, in the
(unproven) hope that this may decrease the likelihood of this
occurring (it is however scientifically proven that this will keep
elephants away).


Darryl