Comment iPad anywhere near "mission critical" reliability? (Score 2) 220
I'm really uncomfortable with this, being as the iPad is a consumer-grade device built as cheaply as possible with it's #1 function being generating profit for Apple, and I don't think the device was designed with critical use in mind. It's made to be *just* reliable and durable enough that the warranty return rate isn't too high, and no more. (If I were Apple I'd be really uncomfortable with people using them for anything more than entertainment! for liability purposes!)
From what I've seen using iPhones in a business environment, they're NOWHERE NEAR being what I would consider business class devices- we've had many of them not survive 1 day of use before breaking. Not that they weren't dropped or abused, but that's life of mobile devices and I imagine daily use in a cockpit isn't any cakewalk.
I guess I'm a bit of an Apple-hater at my core, but even considering this I just don't think this is smart at all. Appropriate devices can certainly be built- there are specific military standards for devices durability in the field, lots of devices built to those standards, and that could be a minimal starting point. I would think the FAA should publish (or adopt an existing) standard for non mounted cockpit devices?
I used an old Sanyo "rugged" phone until I upgraded to an Android recently. It had survived too many drops onto concrete to count, being dropped in a lake at least twice, and even flying off the top of my car at 40+mph (took a long time to find the battery!)- it looked like hell but it never failed. Had to reboot it about twice in the 5 years I used it. Lots of other devices are designed to be, and are, that tough. That's the kind of reliability you have to have for a critical device.