My P-47 was damaged while fighting

[Keith J. Crapper]

My P-47 was badly damaged fighting off some enemy Zeros , can anyone
give me advice to repair it before the enemy attacks again?

[Stu Gotts]

Just reboot. It should be okay then.

On 26 Mar 2004 01:04:41 -0800, (Keith J. Crapper)
wrote:

>My P-47 was badly damaged fighting off some enemy Zeros , can anyone
>give me advice to repair it before the enemy attacks again?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Keith J. Crapper" > wrote in message
om...
> My P-47 was badly damaged fighting off some enemy Zeros , can anyone
> give me advice to repair it before the enemy attacks again?

My advice is getting yourself into some detox program.

[Paul Folbrecht]

Tools|Options - Set "Aircraft Can Receive Damage" to "Off".

Keith J. Crapper wrote:
> My P-47 was badly damaged fighting off some enemy Zeros , can anyone
> give me advice to repair it before the enemy attacks again?

[MLenoch]

>Subject: Re: My P-47 was damaged while fighting

>Just reboot. It should be okay then.
>

Funny; my Frontier Airlines Airbus departure last week was delayed while the
mechanics did a reboot on the brake/antiskid computer. We eventually departed
2 hours late.
VL

[Tom Sixkiller]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: My P-47 was damaged while fighting
>
> >Just reboot. It should be okay then.
> >
>
> Funny; my Frontier Airlines Airbus departure last week was delayed while
the
> mechanics did a reboot on the brake/antiskid computer. We eventually
departed
> 2 hours late.

Damn oversized AUTOEXEC.BAT files.

[Dennis O'Connor]

We are going to hear more and more of this... WIth GA going to glass panels,
we are going to start hearing of crashes and fatals due to software crashing
<sigh>...

denny - I love electronics but I'm still using steam gauges for the
important stuff...

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: My P-47 was damaged while fighting
>
> >Just reboot. It should be okay then.
> >
>
> Funny; my Frontier Airlines Airbus departure last week was delayed while
the
> mechanics did a reboot on the brake/antiskid computer. We eventually
departed
> 2 hours late.
> VL

[Dan Luke]

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote:
> WIth GA going to glass panels, we are going to start hearing of
> crashes and fatals due to software crashing

I seriously doubt it. Glass panels are nothing new: can you site any
accidents due to s/w crashes in bizjets or airliners?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Dennis O'Connor" wrote:
> > WIth GA going to glass panels, we are going to start hearing of
> > crashes and fatals due to software crashing
>
> I seriously doubt it. Glass panels are nothing new: can you site any
> accidents due to s/w crashes in bizjets or airliners?

I know of a bizjet that departed controlled flight near Geneva, Switzerland
about four years ago. The crew was only able to regain control by shutting
down all the electronic avionics. They were getting extreme oscillations in
pitch and altitude excursions in excess of 6,000 feet.

I seem to recall that the famous video of an Airbus 320 descending into the
trees near Paris had something to do with a dispute between the pilot and
the software about what the airplane was going to do. The software won and
the plane landed off runway. There have been several other incidents which
have led pilots' unions and others to question whether their are serious
bugs in the navigation system.

An Osprey crashed on December 11, 2000 when the software failed and the crew
could not reset the computers. They pushed the reset button eight times in
ten seconds and the computers failed to respond.

KAL 801 descended below glide slope and crashed into terrain because of
software failure on the ground.

There have already been GA crashes due to software failures of GPS and other
avionics. The distraction alone is often enough to cause the pilot to lose
control of the aircraft. I can easily see a pilot losing control of a
perfectly good airplane because his panel suddenly displayed the blue screen
of death. This is largely a training issue. As these systems become more
popular we will have to develop better training to help pilots deal with
emergencies in these systems. Too many pilots think that they would never be
so stupid as to crash an airplane just because their airspeed indicator quit
working. Do not think for a second that you are immune to such distractions.
Nobody is razor sharp 100% of the time.

I think that overall the glass cockpits will reduce the number of accidents.
They provide greater situational awareness and often introduce things like
better weather information, TAWS and traffic avoidance to the GA cockpit.
This can only help pilots with better decision making. The benefits far
outweigh the problems they introduce.

The glass cockpits will not make GA as safe as airlines, though. The biggest
killer in GA is low level maneuvering, with commercial pilots getting more
than their share of the accidents. Glass does nothing to prevent this.
People are still going to buzz their girlfriends, fly in canyons and
mountain passes, augur in while correcting back to final, etc. A glass
cockpit does not give your airplane any capabilities it did not have before,
so if you decide to fly inside a canyon you still run the risk of
encountering terrain that rises faster than you can climb with no room to
turn around and escape.

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> I know of a bizjet that departed controlled flight near Geneva,
> Switzerland about four years ago. The crew was only able to
> regain control by shutting down all the electronic avionics.
> They were getting extreme oscillations in
> pitch and altitude excursions in excess of 6,000 feet.

Was that due to a software crash?

> I seem to recall that the famous video of an Airbus 320 descending
into the
> trees near Paris had something to do with a dispute between the pilot
and
> the software about what the airplane was going to do.

Not due to a software crash.

> An Osprey crashed on December 11, 2000 when the software failed
> and the crew could not reset the computers. They pushed the reset
> button eight times in ten seconds and the computers failed to respond.

That's one.

> KAL 801 descended below glide slope and crashed into terrain
> because of software failure on the ground.

But not a software failure in the airplane?

> I can easily see a pilot losing control of a perfectly good airplane
> because his panel suddenly displayed the blue screen of death.

I can too, I just don't think it's going to happen enough to be a
serious safety issue, if at all.

> I think that overall the glass cockpits will reduce the number of
> accidents.

I hope so. It hasn't worked out that way for Cirrus, but it's still
early days.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> > I think that overall the glass cockpits will reduce the number of
> > accidents.
>
> I hope so. It hasn't worked out that way for Cirrus, but it's still
> early days.

The Cirrus has had a lot of problems, but I don't think that any of them are
because of the glass cockpit. Most of them seem to come from pilots getting
behind the airplane or performing unauthorized maneuvers.

Your distinction between software failure and software crash is noted, but I
suspect that such fine points are lost on dead people. :-)

My own airplane has an MX-20 in it which uses Windows NT 4.0 for its
operating system. If that thing ever crashes I would like to think that I
would still maintain control of the airplane. Still, the temptation to stop
flying and troubleshoot the failed equipment seems to be overwhelming for a
lot of pilots.

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:

> The Cirrus has had a lot of problems, but I don't think that any of
> them are because of the glass cockpit.

Not at all. But I think Cirrus had hoped the glass cockpit would
prevent accidents due to loss of situational awareness, yet there have
been several.

> Your distinction between software failure and software crash is noted,
but I
> suspect that such fine points are lost on dead people. :-)

Ha! True, but that *was* what Denny was worrying about.

> Still, the temptation to stop flying and troubleshoot the failed
equipment
> seems to be overwhelming for a lot of pilots.

That can happen with a burned out light bulb, as an EAL crew proved in
the Everglades.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)