HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Overloaded Cherokee Crash comments
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:04:26 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Aug26.224309.7470@eecs.nwu.edu>, phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
> 
> One question I ask myself is:  "how well educated was he by
> his instructor?"  Did his instructor go over the rules governing student
> pilots during the first lesson?  Yes, the pilot has an obligation to
> follow FARs, but his instructor also has an obligation to educate him
> in the FARs.  Either the instructor didn't tell him that it was illegal
> and stupid to fly without and instructor and with passengers, OR this
> guy is a complete mush-head who doesn't listen to what he is taught.

My understanding is that this guy was permitted to use the Cherokee in question
but ONLY with an instructor. That was the requirement stipulated by the
aircraft owner. The "mush-head" evidence is somewhat overwhelming.

> Part of it in this case was likely the media.  I noticed in the second
> story that the article said "the engine stalled".  Perhaps the pilot
> said "the plane stalled" and the uneducated media turned that in to
> "the engine stalled" which then later got turned in to "the engine died."
> After all, when a car engine dies mysteriously, we say "the car stalled"
> or "the engine stalled".  But in a plane, the word "stall" has a VERY
> different and very specific meaning.

I've seen this, too, but I don't think it applies here. In this particular
case, no mention was given to the flying characteristics of the plane. The
pilot specifically mentioned the engine.

BTW, the investigators determined late last week that the aircraft was
loaded outside of the weight and balance limits and this was the primary
cause of the accident.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.
From: hempy@ms.uky.edu (David Hempy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Looking for Dj Merrill
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:23:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

Please excuse this post, everyone else.

Dj, all mail sent to <deej@grouse.umvse.maine.edu> gets bounced back.
Please send me a message if you are still on the net.

--
David Hempy <hempy@ms.uky.edu>                  Ultralight IFR: I Follow Roads.
-- 
David Hempy  <hempy@ms.uky.edu>                Ultralight IFR: I Follow Roads.
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Dear Abby (Re: Scary Stories...)
Keywords: Never again, confessions
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:03:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Aug23.032356.19713@leela.cs.orst.edu> mpucket@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Margaret Puckette) writes:

G'day Margaret "Dear Abby" Puckette,
!
!Since I posted that article about flames discouraging the telling of
!scary stories, I've received dozens of accounts of such stories
!through email...DON'T WORRY, I'M NOT TELLING!  These have made for
!some incredible reading, folks!  I am even more convinced we need
!a method of relating your experiences to the net, and using the
!model provided by NASA in its ASRS program, that method should
!allow for both *amnesty* and *anonymity*.  Any ideas out there?
!
!My own Never Again story was so humbling, I found I had this need
!to *confess* it to pilot friends, and this felt therapeutic, like
!asking forgiveness for sins.  But it, like your own hair-raising
!experiences, was an expensive education that others can avoid...
!kinda like reading Dear Abby.  This is a safety issue!  This is
!a prime benefit of this group, and there's a rather large pool
!of first hand experiences to choose from!

I can't think of anyone better than you to do this. How about it?

Delete names and  N numbers and with permission republish.

Dave "Gear Down" Rogers
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Number of U.S. Pilots  (was Number of small aircraft wanted)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:25:14 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <1940106@hpgrla.gr.hp.com>, leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin) 
writes:
> Based on my personal observations, many people (> 50%) get their pilot's
> license and then don't use it.  After a few inactive months, they no
> longer trust their flying skills and thus lose the desire to bore holes
> in the sky.
> 
> I don't know why this happens, except perhaps because they've failed to
> establish other aviation-related goals.  For them, a pilot's license is
> a goal in itself and, once achieved, it leaves them at a loss as to what
> to do next.

I'm one of those people without a goal in mind who think that a 
Private Pilots license is a goal in itself.  Somehow I and quite a few
others seem to manage to still eek out some enjoyment from aviation and
flying without devoting myself to complications.  I have been flying
since 1977, without an IFR license or even a commercial license, and
I don't have any plans to get either one of them.

I'm not at a loss for what to do next -- I'm still learning how to fly
and the thought that it is necessary or required that I go after 
additional ratings in order to have the interest or reason to expand
my abilities and skills is flat wrong.  I think you're wrong to say
that 50% of the people who get pilot's licenses are then left with
no confidence and never fly again.

My observation is that in spite of our lack of motivation, VFR pilots
are able to find much pleasure in flying not only in the local area
but on trips as well.  I have flown to Canada, the Grand Canyon,
to Oshkosh, and Indianapolis two times.  In all those trips, where I was
delayed by weather, having an IFR license would have
made a difference only once or twice.  I don't fly in thunderstorms.


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com
SHO  GOZE
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:18:22 GMT
Subject: Aircraft for sale... Pioneer Flightstar!
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

	
	Ultralight Aircraft for sale....

	Pioneer FLIGHTSTAR

	-Full/conventional 3-axis control with wing length alierons
	 for snappy roll rates.
	-Excellent flight characteristics.
	-Fully strut braced... design tested to +6 and -4 g's.
	-Tricycle gear with nosewheel steering.
	-Adjustable, 3-blade composite prop (Ivoprop... the best).
	-"Teleflex" control cables.
	-Full instrumentation pod.
	-Large full-length windscreen.
	-Upgraded wheels for better soft-field landings
	-Kawasaki 440 engine with tuned exhaust
	-Ballistic parachute recovery system (full canopy in 2-3 seconds)
	-5 ga. fuel capacity
	-Great condition, _always_ hangared.
	-Ultralights require no registration, and no pilot's license!
	-This is a great machine.... well maintained.  It is hangared at
	 Liberty Field in Petaluma CA, one hour north of San Francisco.

	-Asking $4400.

	Please leave mail for questions or offers...

	-Mike-

			 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: smith@ur-guh.com (Russ Smith)
Subject: Logging time for the Instrument rating
Keywords: non-faq question
Reply-To: smith@ur-guh.com
Organization: Ur-Guh Complex Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:03:59 GMT


[Wrong, this one -isn't- answered by the FAQ.]

Background -- I'm an Instrument-rating wannabe. Currently building X-Country
time, watching King's videos, and looking into schools/instruction for the
flying requirements. Got a price sheet from one of the FBO's at Manassas (the
one on the east side -- East Coast...). Picked myself up off the floor after
recovering from my faint.

Their "special package deal" was 40 hours of IFR flight instruction in a 172
for $2600 nonrefundably paid up front.

Actually, not a bad price for 40 hours, but I asked myself "Do I -really- need
40 hours of IFR flight instruction?" and "Do I -really- want to commit ~$3000 to a
cause when it might not be necessary to achieve my goal?" and, if yes and
yes are the answers, "How in the world do I justify both to myself and my SO
such an up front cost!?" [and this in addition to East Coast's requirement that
one ALREADY have logged 35 hours of post-PPSEL X-Country time].

The short answers, of course, are no, no, and no way.

I've been told that one can overlap the required 50 hours X-Country with the
40 hours Instrument flying and can save even more bucks by doing 25 of those
IFR hours with a non-instructor safety pilot (semiFAQ). Furthermore, my reading of
the FARs says that one can count -ALL- previous instrument instruction time
toward the 15 hours left over needed to be done with an instructor. I have
about 5.5 hours of hood work done as a student pilot earning my PPSEL; nothing
I read disallows this time (indeed, some wording implies that it IS countable).

Foreground -- so what's the learned opinion on logged time requirements for the
Instrument rating? Do I really need only a minimum of about 9 hours instrument
instruction to meet all IFR instruction requirements? [this question does -not-
ask if I need only a MAXIMUM of 9 hours...]. Is buying a package deal such as
the above as bad an idea as I think it is? Can one count student training
instrument time toward Instrument rating requirements as well?

Any and all responses and/or enlightenments appreciated.

Russ <Smith@ur-guh.com>
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: "Andrew" takes WWII planes (fwd)
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:49:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> If I owned a plane in Florida (even a non-classic) the first thing I'd
> do when I found out a major storm was headed my way would be to fly it
> a few states away. 

The useful load (both weight and volume) is a lot higher in my car
than it is in my plane.  Faced with losing some key personal
possesions that are irreplaceable or the potential of losing a
plane that's insured, which would you choose?  Still, it would seem
that it would behoove an "emergency airlift operation."  Maybe you
can get one or more of the insurance companies to band together
that would fly a bunch of on-call pilots to the area and make off
with all the planes...
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: MIA still closed?
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 03:58:53 GMT

Anbybody know if miami airport is still closed?

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: Be nice to your engine
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:27:24 GMT

masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:

>It may not be nicer to the engine to run at low power levels.  When I
>picked up a factory reman Lycoming at Carter Aviation in Tennessee, I
>asked the flambouyant Bobby Carter what I should do to be sure to make
>it to TBO.  "Son", he said, "don't baby it.  Just run it hard and often."
>Since Bobby has heard the stories that went along with several tens of
>thousands of engine exchanges, I think he's likely to be right.

He may have been referring to the "run-in" period.  New (or rebuilt)
engines need to be run at full power for -x- hours (-x- is a function of
who you're talking to, but usually is at least 25 or so and often more)
in order to properly seat the piston rings.  A commonly-repeated symptom
of an engine which was babied during this period is perpetually high
oil consumption.

Some mechanics say that you should run it full-bore forever; others say
that after the initial run-in it doesn't matter as long as you don't take
the low-power idea to an extreme.

In my case (C-182RG, Lycoming O-540 redlined at 2400 RPM/235 HP) I usually
don't have the opportunity to run it at really high power settings because
most of my flight time is up at altitudes where the MP is quite limited.
So far (14 years and counting) the only engine problem found in the
annuals (all given by people who I feel will *not* let a dubious engine
go by without comment) was a need to resurface the exhaust port on a 
cylinder -- which we believe was caused by a manufacturing error.

Joe Morris / MITRE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller)
Subject: Re: GLIDER: stall landings (Was: Transition Glider to Power)
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:34:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.172523.9113@dikas.no> jon@dikas.no (Jon Marthins) writes:
>After gliding clubs started to buy those new (expensive) fibreglass
>two-seaters (ASK-21, Grob Twin Astir etc.) for basic training, we've
>experienced that students didn't learn to land properly.  They usely made 
>high speed/high energy landings on the main wheel, with little airbrakes
>deployed.  The reason for this is that these types of gliders do not
>handle very well if you pull up the nose too early and too much.  The
>glider "falls through" very sudden and if hard enough the undercarriage
>breaks....
>
>The result is that many clubs have gone back to Blanik, K-7, K-13, Bergfalke
>etc. for basic training.  

an important argument for emphasizing cross country flying during early
and solo training (not doing it necessarily, but making it a goal).
landing hot is fine at the home airport, but without the coaxing to go
out cross country, a student may never realize just how sneaky the real
world can be. i can't think of many glider drivers that don't have at
least one story about going into one of those prototypical English farm
fields (trees, short, fence on the end, maybe rocks). a high energy
landing will just guarantee damage there.

after having spent the last several months in a Cessna 152, it is even more
apparent to me how the drag component of the landing configuration
forces changes in the way to handle a landing. when a 152 starts to settle
just before touchdown, you had better get its nose up or you may bust
the nose wheel. lift the nose on a Discus and you are going to climb
until you stall, probably at 20+ feet, and then you may bust the nose
(and your back :-((( ). the 152 may be 5:1 in the landing configuration,
the Discus may be as much as 42:1 depending on where the spoilers are.

notice that the Blanik, etc. all have more drag in the landing
configuration and hence are more docile on landing because they will
soak up extra energy more easily. they are trainers because they give
more forgiveness to student mistakes (and more reaction time to the
instructor!). but there is a point where pilots should be using their own
skills to maintain a safe margin around them rather than counting on the
aircraft to bail them out. otherwise, if something breaks ...

Rich Miller
ex-Schempp-Hirth Discus JBX and
ex-Rolladen-Schneider LS-4 TQ
rmiller@i88.isc.com
{sun, amdahl, att (maybe)}!laidbak!rmiller
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: crossing a runway
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:33:01 GMT
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA

In article <1992Aug27.210236.10932@aosg.gsf.dec.com>
verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com writes:
> FAR quiz number 3 zillion:  You are going out to the  active runway X
> and the controller instructs you to hold short of runway Y.  Later, the
> controller instructs you to stop to let an other aircraft in front of you
> and then tells you to continue.  Question: are you still required to hold 
> short of runway Y?

Yes, you are still required to hold short of runway Y.  The "hold short"
part of the clearance was never superseded -- the simple "continue"
instruction in all probability applied to the "stop to let pass"
instruction.  In any case, you should (a) take the conservative approach
and not cross the runway, and (b) query the controller if you have any
questions.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: osh@cray.com (O'Shaughnessy John)
Subject: Re: Flying saves money (sic)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc, Mendota Heights, MN
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:48:38 CDT


At least in the USA, the flying is subsidized too.  Someone pays for the 
airports, the air traffic controllers, the free state avaiation maps (at least
here in Minnesota).  These all come from the taxpayer.  There has been some
talk of increasing "user fees" for general aviation users to reduce the 
amount of money requested from the general funds.  I believe that this was one
area that Ross Perot was considering for his deficit reduction plan.


John


-- 
-----
John M. O'Shaughnessy					osh@a00308.cray.com
Cray Research, Inc.	Voice: 612.683.7322		Fax: 612.683.7509
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Query about rec.av reorganization
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:11:54 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Yes, the group is going to be divided into six groups.  The frequently
asked questions and other administrative postings will be now be
designated Class A news.  Discussions of flight safety will be
Class B news.  Class C news will discuss IFR and other cross country
concernts.  Class D news will be reserved for glider operations.
Class E news will contain the periodic fuel price postings and
fly-in announcents.  There is no Class F news.  Class G news will
be used for profanity and character assasinations (note there will
be a dark red line drawn around Class G news on charts).
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: crossing a runway
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:09:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug27.210236.10932@aosg.gsf.dec.com> verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com writes:
>
>FAR quiz number 3 zillion:  You are going out to the  active runway X
>and the controller instructs you to hold short of runway Y.  Later, the
>controller instructs you to stop to let an other aircraft in front of you
>and then tells you to continue.  Question: are you still required to hold 
>short of runway Y?

	If this is an academic exercise, then ignore my answer.

	If its a practical exam, then.....

	I would DEFINITELY hold short and ask for clearance.
	The controller may not know the FARS to this level of detail
	and it is MY arse out on the runway.

	Better safe than a dead egg head on FARS.
	you may be right, .......................dead right .....:-(
-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
From: psun@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Peter C. Sun)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Soviet MIG 19 - Price and market demand
Keywords: Mig 19
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:49:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

I am making an inquiry for a friend who is interested in making a study
of the market for the Soviet Mig 19.
He would like to know the estimated market price. (How much you willing to pay)
		      the consumer market. (Who's likely to buy one)
		      the market demand. (How many can you sell)

I think aircraft collectors would be most knowledgeble in this subject.

Thanks in advance.

Peter Sun

email:	psun@ecn.purdue.edu	or	psun@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: Principle of ILS/LOC (was Re: Principle of VOR)
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:59:46 GMT

In <EGDORF.92Aug27135630@zaphod.lanl.gov> egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) writes:

>An instructor stated in a conversation last night "ILS channels
>are always on odd tenths (108.1, 108.3, ...) while VORs are on
>even (108.2, 108.4) so that the unit can channel a different receiver
>for the ILS and the VOR."

The instructor was wrong, at least about VORs.  I count dozens of
VORs on "odd" channels - Boiler VOR in Lafayette, IN is
115.1 for instance.

greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: goodin@kpc.com (Rich Goodin - Consultant)
Subject: Re: Colored airways in the lower 48
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Santa Clara Ca.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:37:21 GMT


I don't know if it's a "real" airway or not.  It goes from Manteo, NC down the
coast past Hatteras to Ocracoke Island.  When I flew it last I was cleared, not
for the airway, but direct Hatteras NDB direct Ocracoke NDB.  It was an
interesting flight in that you are out of both radio and radar contact with
Washington Center for most of the flight.  It was wierd to be cleared for the 
NDB approach into Ocracoke while still 20 minutes out.  I always wondered if
they held the airspace for me from the time I was cleared for the approach
until I called up by phone.

Rich Goodin
Goodin & Associates, Inc.
currently: goodin@kpc.com
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Building your own (dirt) runway?
Date: 1 Sep 92 11:47:07 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH



> In article <8#bndrj.hchong@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
> > Any one has any idea/knowledge/experience of building your own (dirt)
> > runway, to be used only by you (maybe a 152 or a 172)?

I spoke with a person who was attempting to build a strip out in
Washington, he currently lives in VT.  It isn't physically building the
strip that is creating a problem, it's the town zoning regulations and
noise pollution that is dragging things out.  He virtually has to file
an environmental impact statement.  If you are anywhere near neighbors,
it's likely they will have some say in the building of a backyard
strip.  If they don't care, as in the case of this person, the town has
some things to say about it.

Corky Scott.