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