lCambridge 302 Security Fail

Check on the test page (cycle through on button press until you get the
sensor readings, turn the knob until you see either 'Good Seal' or 'Bad
Seal' . Sometimes even with good seal there is a download verification
fail, repeating the download can give a good security.

Make sure you are using the most recent utility; older versions often give
intermittent results.

At 13:40 08 December 2008, Andy wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:34=A0pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

Cambridge is still working on this AFAIK

Who would that be? I thought everyone at Cambridge involved with
software and hardware development had moved on. I hope that'd not
true but I know that most of the people I have ever had contact with
are gone.


I have never erased my 302 and it has recorded well over 500 hours at
2 second interval. I have experienced the security fail problem I
think twice. It's interesting that a security fail on one flight will
not usually give a security fail on the next or subsequent flights.
Sending it back is probably a waste of money unless you need a
calibration. If the log memory was full for the one with security
fail it was still full for the subsequent flights.

Since Cambridge had a date/time math error in the utility code I
wonder if there is a date/time problem in the 302. Anyone willing to
post the start/end dates/times of any 302 logs with security fail?

Andy

Peter Purdie wrote:
Check on the test page (cycle through on button press until you get the
sensor readings, turn the knob until you see either 'Good Seal' or 'Bad
Seal' . Sometimes even with good seal there is a download verification
fail, repeating the download can give a good security.

Make sure you are using the most recent utility; older versions often give
intermittent results.

At 13:40 08 December 2008, Andy wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:34=A0pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

Cambridge is still working on this AFAIK
Who would that be? I thought everyone at Cambridge involved with
software and hardware development had moved on. I hope that'd not
true but I know that most of the people I have ever had contact with
are gone.


I have never erased my 302 and it has recorded well over 500 hours at
2 second interval. I have experienced the security fail problem I
think twice. It's interesting that a security fail on one flight will
not usually give a security fail on the next or subsequent flights.
Sending it back is probably a waste of money unless you need a
calibration. If the log memory was full for the one with security
fail it was still full for the subsequent flights.

Since Cambridge had a date/time math error in the utility code I
wonder if there is a date/time problem in the 302. Anyone willing to
post the start/end dates/times of any 302 logs with security fail?

Andy


Take a look at the Cambridge web site under What's New,
http://www.cambridge-aero.com/whatsnew.htm.
They mention a fix for "A more robust flash memory for the 302, designed
to minimize a rare 'security fail' bug". I get the security failed once
in a while when the recording buffer wraps. Clearing the memory as
mentioned in earlier posts works also.

David Laitinen

On Dec 8, 8:26*am, David Laitinen wrote:

They mention a fix for "A more robust flash memory for the 302, designed
to minimize a rare 'security fail' bug".

I wonder if they really found the root cause or if this a shotgun
fix. Has anyone with the flash update seen the problem?

I get the security failed once in a while when the recording buffer wraps..

What is the indication that the buffer has wrapped and how are you
associating it with the security fail?

Andy

My 302 should be returned from Cambridge today. I had cleared the
memory before sending and still had the security fail problem.
WHen I spoke with the Tech at Cambridge, he told me my battery
showed 3.9 v and spec is 4 and that was likely causing the problem.

Bob

Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:28 pm, TonyV wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
Oh well you have not been periodically clearing the log memory on your
Cambridge 302 have you?
Gary Kammerer, while still at Cambridge, told me that this was no longer
necessary with the latest firmware.

Tony v.

I don't believe that is true (but would be very happy to be
corrected). I think they've been trying lots of things. At one point
it was thought to the be the fault of the download utility, then the
firmware, ... and so the story goes on. My latest 302 failed and I
believe it was running at the latest firmware rev. Cambridge is still
working on this AFAIK, and the flash memory is the current suspect. At
least as the last time I talked to them (a month ago). I'd be clearing
the log memory....

Darryl

I regret that displays a woeful lack of knowledge of the only tech at CAI.
The volatile memory that loses the security when the case is opened will
happily retain its data well below 3.0V.

At 18:22 08 December 2008, Bob Backer wrote:
My 302 should be returned from Cambridge today. I had cleared the
memory before sending and still had the security fail problem.
WHen I spoke with the Tech at Cambridge, he told me my battery
showed 3.9 v and spec is 4 and that was likely causing the problem.

Bob

Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:28 pm, TonyV wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
Oh well you have not been periodically clearing the log memory on
your
Cambridge 302 have you?
Gary Kammerer, while still at Cambridge, told me that this was no
longer
necessary with the latest firmware.

Tony v.

I don't believe that is true (but would be very happy to be
corrected). I think they've been trying lots of things. At one point
it was thought to the be the fault of the download utility, then the
firmware, ... and so the story goes on. My latest 302 failed and I
believe it was running at the latest firmware rev. Cambridge is still
working on this AFAIK, and the flash memory is the current suspect. At
least as the last time I talked to them (a month ago). I'd be
clearing
the log memory....

Darryl

I regret that displays a woeful lack of knowledge of the only tech at CAI.
The volatile memory that loses the security when the case is opened will
happily retain its data well below 3.0V.

At 18:22 08 December 2008, Bob Backer wrote:
My 302 should be returned from Cambridge today. I had cleared the
memory before sending and still had the security fail problem.
WHen I spoke with the Tech at Cambridge, he told me my battery
showed 3.9 v and spec is 4 and that was likely causing the problem.

Bob

Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:28 pm, TonyV wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
Oh well you have not been periodically clearing the log memory on
your
Cambridge 302 have you?
Gary Kammerer, while still at Cambridge, told me that this was no
longer
necessary with the latest firmware.

Tony v.

I don't believe that is true (but would be very happy to be
corrected). I think they've been trying lots of things. At one point
it was thought to the be the fault of the download utility, then the
firmware, ... and so the story goes on. My latest 302 failed and I
believe it was running at the latest firmware rev. Cambridge is still
working on this AFAIK, and the flash memory is the current suspect. At
least as the last time I talked to them (a month ago). I'd be
clearing
the log memory....

Darryl

I regret that displays a woeful lack of knowledge of the only tech at CAI.
The volatile memory that loses the security when the case is opened will
happily retain its data well below 3.0V.

At 18:22 08 December 2008, Bob Backer wrote:
My 302 should be returned from Cambridge today. I had cleared the
memory before sending and still had the security fail problem.
WHen I spoke with the Tech at Cambridge, he told me my battery
showed 3.9 v and spec is 4 and that was likely causing the problem.

Bob

Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:28 pm, TonyV wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
Oh well you have not been periodically clearing the log memory on
your
Cambridge 302 have you?
Gary Kammerer, while still at Cambridge, told me that this was no
longer
necessary with the latest firmware.

Tony v.

I don't believe that is true (but would be very happy to be
corrected). I think they've been trying lots of things. At one point
it was thought to the be the fault of the download utility, then the
firmware, ... and so the story goes on. My latest 302 failed and I
believe it was running at the latest firmware rev. Cambridge is still
working on this AFAIK, and the flash memory is the current suspect. At
least as the last time I talked to them (a month ago). I'd be
clearing
the log memory....

Darryl

I regret that displays a woeful lack of knowledge of the only tech at CAI.
The volatile memory that loses the security when the case is opened will
happily retain its data well below 3.0V.

At 18:22 08 December 2008, Bob Backer wrote:
My 302 should be returned from Cambridge today. I had cleared the
memory before sending and still had the security fail problem.
WHen I spoke with the Tech at Cambridge, he told me my battery
showed 3.9 v and spec is 4 and that was likely causing the problem.

Bob

Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:28 pm, TonyV wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
Oh well you have not been periodically clearing the log memory on
your
Cambridge 302 have you?
Gary Kammerer, while still at Cambridge, told me that this was no
longer
necessary with the latest firmware.

Tony v.

I don't believe that is true (but would be very happy to be
corrected). I think they've been trying lots of things. At one point
it was thought to the be the fault of the download utility, then the
firmware, ... and so the story goes on. My latest 302 failed and I
believe it was running at the latest firmware rev. Cambridge is still
working on this AFAIK, and the flash memory is the current suspect. At
least as the last time I talked to them (a month ago). I'd be
clearing
the log memory....

Darryl

I regret that displays a woeful lack of knowledge of the only tech at CAI.
The volatile memory that loses the security when the case is opened will
happily retain its data well below 3.0V.

At 18:22 08 December 2008, Bob Backer wrote:
My 302 should be returned from Cambridge today. I had cleared the
memory before sending and still had the security fail problem.
WHen I spoke with the Tech at Cambridge, he told me my battery
showed 3.9 v and spec is 4 and that was likely causing the problem.

Bob

Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:28 pm, TonyV wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
Oh well you have not been periodically clearing the log memory on
your
Cambridge 302 have you?
Gary Kammerer, while still at Cambridge, told me that this was no
longer
necessary with the latest firmware.

Tony v.

I don't believe that is true (but would be very happy to be
corrected). I think they've been trying lots of things. At one point
it was thought to the be the fault of the download utility, then the
firmware, ... and so the story goes on. My latest 302 failed and I
believe it was running at the latest firmware rev. Cambridge is still
working on this AFAIK, and the flash memory is the current suspect. At
least as the last time I talked to them (a month ago). I'd be
clearing
the log memory....

Darryl

On Dec 8, 5:40*am, Andy wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:34*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

Cambridge is still working on this AFAIK

Who would that be? *I thought everyone at Cambridge involved with
software and hardware development had moved on. * I hope that'd not
true but I know that most of the people I have ever had contact with
are gone.

I have never erased my 302 and it has recorded well over 500 hours at
2 second interval. *I have experienced the security fail problem I
think twice. *It's interesting that a security fail on one flight will
not usually give a security fail on the next or subsequent flights.
Sending it back is probably a waste of money unless you need a
calibration. * If the log memory was full for the one with security
fail it was still full for the subsequent flights.

Since Cambridge had a date/time math error in the utility code I
wonder if there is a date/time problem in the 302. *Anyone willing to
post the start/end dates/times of any 302 logs with security fail?

Andy

There are different symptoms and probably different causes. The
security fails I have experienced do not go away if you retry or use
different download tools and all subsequent flight will fail. As I
noted on my blog but should have said inline, if you see a bad seal
message on the device that is a different problem - a real bad seal
that needs to be fixed.

There was no obvious date/time problem on failed logs. An example
flight with such a security fail is here
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...htId=482183925

So again if I saw a fail like this I would definitly take the
precaution of erasing the log memory before the next flight.

Darryl