HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brianh@pongo.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Air Lifeline experience
Date: 26 Aug 1992 18:58:41 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <5924@transfer.stratus.com> lee@bluefuzz.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider) writes:
>My biggest problem was remembering to respond "Lifeguard 2908F" even when
>addressed that way :-)  Air Lifeline flights do qualify as Lifeguard status,
>which can get you priority in some cases, tho its never a big deal since you
>aren't transporting life-critical patients.

Please don't do this.  That is *not* what Lifeguard was intended for.
To quote the AIM:

193. Aircraft Call Signs
 b. Air Ambulance Flights -
     Because of the priority afforded air ambulance flights in the ATC system,
extreme discretion is necessary when using the term "LIFEGUARD."
It is only intended for those missions of an urgent medical nature and to
be utilized only for that portion of the flight requiring expeditious
handling.  When requested by the pilot, necessary notification to expeditite
ground handling of patients, etc., is provided by ATC; however, when possible,
this information should be passed in advance through nonATC communication
systems.
    (1)  Civilian air ambulance flights responding to medical emergencies
(first call to an accident scene, carrying patients, organ donors, organs,
or other urgently needed lifesaving medical material) will be expedited by
ATC when necessary.  When expeditious handling is necessary, add the word
"LIFEGUARD" in the remarks section of the flight plan.  In radio communcations,
use the call sign "LIFEGUARD" followed by the aircraft type and registration
letters/numbers.

BTW, I have been flying for AirLifeLine for over three years now (and
Angel Flight).
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Advice for Grand Canyon Trip
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:46:52 GMT

In article <139880127@hplred.HP.COM>, sivaram@hplred.HP.COM (S. Sivaramakrishnan) writes:

|> I would invite comments on sights to overfly/avoid, "cliff-hanging"
|> restaurants, and 1-page summary of "How to make a $1000000 by gambling".

This one is easy.  You can make a small fortune in gambling.  The only 
requirement is that you start out with a large fortune.

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: isen@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.s.isenberg)
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:12:43 GMT
Summary: How to spot illegal dumping from the air
Keywords: Slicks and Tanker Trucks too

mpucket@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Margaret Puckette) writes:
>There are some tell-tale clues that make an operation look
>suspect, especially one involved in the illegal storage or dumping of
>toxic materials:
>
>    * Ponds - These will almost always be square or rectangular . . .
>    * Plumes - This is a discolored discharge like the one Kevin . . .
>    * 55-gallon drums - a legitimate operation utilizing toxic materials . . .
>    * Piles - Just like the drums, there are often piles of *stuff* . . .

At the Official FAA Air Safety Seminar at which I proudly accepted a
99s Operation Skywatch Award for having spotted and reported an oil slick 
from the air (Thank you Margaret, for reminding me that one person
CAN make a difference, even here in the East Coast Armpit), I learned
of two other cues to illegal toxic pollution:

     * Slicks - A no-brainer, but an oil slick of any size on any body 
       of water IS ILLEGAL and sometimes, if it is not too big or too
       small, it can be cleaned up. (Turning in the Bad Guys is only
       one reason to Make That Call, not the ONLY one . . .)

     * Tank Trucks -- A favorite New Jersey trick is to drive a tanker
       full of toxic waste onto a landfill, or into the woods, and
       open the valves.  Tank trucks have no legitimate reason to
       be in landfills whatsoever -- their presence there means only 
       One Thing.  Tank trucks in the woods that have puddles of liquid 
       around them are also to be suspect.

I have a bunch of wallet sized Operation Skywatch cards with environmental
hotline phone numbers for the Northeast U.S. on them.  For me, it's the
6th document I carry, after the ARROW paperwork.  If you want one, 
email me or call the Operation Skywatch officer on 212-264-8917!

David "that's twinkETTE to you" Isenberg

        "Magpie -- the West ain't never gonna die
         just as long as you can fly,
         You coyote in the sky . . ."  Ian Tyson
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: "Andrew" takes WWII planes (fwd)
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:31:14 GMT

In article <1529@seqp4.sequoia.com> cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell) writes:
>In article <BtM411.7w0@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>> 
>> However, I've been informed by someone who is involved indirectly with
>> the Kermit Weeks Air Museum, that his collection of WWII and vintage
>> aircraft is considered a ``near total loss'' following Hurricane Andrew.
>> [...]

>I'm really sorry to hear about this, it's a terrible loss to us all, and
>especially to the people who restored these aircraft.
>
>I have a question, though:
>
>At least for the flyable aircraft, don't people/museums who have such
>collections make contingency plans to fly such aircraft away when such
>a storm threatens?

Most do, yes.

>I realize that in the case of California earthquakes, not much can be done
>(yet), but there was plenty of warning in the case of Hurricane Andrew.
>I'm sure they wouldn't lack volunteer pilots :-) Why were they left in
>the path of the storm?

Apparently the answer is several-fold.

1) Not all the airplanes could (or can) fly, so that answers the question
   right away for a number.
2) Andrew's storm track and wind speed estimates indicated that the storm
   wasn't going to be as severe as it ended up being at Tamiami.
3) The main hangar was designed and built with large (Stage 4?  Stage 5?)
   hurricanes in mind.  The design and construction was supposed to be able
   to withstand at least what it was hit by.  Of course, it turns out that
   sometimes even when we think we know the answer, we don't (ala, the
   "unsinkable" Titanic).
4) I've head a couple of people say that nobody, but nobody, flies those
   airplanes.  Even if so, if you were unsure of the safety of your
   aircraft, those kind of convictions tend to slip away.

In the end, it probably centered around the facilities being designed for
this very exact sequence of events - and it didn't work.  

>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. If I didn't have the time, I'm sure I could find a
>few hungry CFIs who would do it for me for almost nothing.

Never have to worry about hurricanes in Minnesota...   :-)

But with the advance warning that was given, it would seem probable that
qualified, competent pilots could have been lined up.  But that's not a
guarantee.  When you talk about extremely rare vintage warbirds, there
simply are not many qualified pilots about.

-- 
Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics
rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu                             University of Minnesota
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bass@convex.com (Brad F. Bass)
Subject: Re: Kneeboards
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:06:10 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <9208311634.AA18019@acf3.NYU.EDU> cruz@ACF3.NYU.EDU (Nancy Cruz) writes:
>        Can anyone shed any light on the kneeboard subject,
>along with any good or bad experiences with such?

When I was doing my instrument training, I was amazed at the amount of
paper a pilot has to keep track of.  I borrowed lots of stuff -- some
from my CFII, some from friends -- so that I could figure out what
would work for me.  I tried laboards, clipboards, yokeboards,
kneeboards, weird combinations of velcro, you-name-it.

What I finally decided on I built myself, rationalizing that I didn't
want to spend lots of money on some fancy commercial product that
didn't work the way I wanted it to.  Here's what I use:

Homemade Kneeboard - A 5x7 piece of masonite with two prism-shaped
pieces of wood glued to the back so that it'll be steady on my thigh.
I bought a belt and buckle at a fabric store for a dollar.

Homemade Yokeboard - A regular clipboard, cut down to fit a NOS book.
It's held in place with several pieces of velcro on the Cessna-style
yoke.  More velcro in strategic places and on the ends of pens and
pencils helps too.

Over the course of several weeks, lots of modifications were made to
get them the way I wanted them.  Total cost of materials: $7.

Good luck.
--
Brad Bass		It is a well-known phenomenon that computer programs,
bass@convex.com		left to themselves, will cease to work. This is known
Convex Computer Corp.	as "Bit Rot".  Programs NOT left to themselves also
Richardson, Texas	cease to work.  This is known as "enhancement".
From: seymour@milton.u.washington.edu (Richard Seymour)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Hawker Siddeley Vulcan
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:53:23 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <bakc.112.714980629@giraffe.ru.ac.za> bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za
   (MR KR COMAN) writes: (as a follow up to my comment:)
>>So, come on, all you rec.aviators!  dig deep and let's collectively buy 
>> a Vulcan... lots of room to camp under its wings at Oshkosh...

>Aah yes, but wouldn't this end up like the problem facing the dog that 
>chased the bus?   Once he caught it, he didn't know what to do with it!!

No Problem.... we'll just have Ron W's Fly Baby Club adopt it
                     as their IFR plane.  (same great view...)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: usgjdo@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Julie D. Oster)
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Keywords: Slicks and Tanker Trucks too
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:35:37 GMT

isen@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.s.isenberg) writes:

>mpucket@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Margaret Puckette) writes:

>At the Official FAA Air Safety Seminar at which I proudly accepted a
>99s Operation Skywatch Award for having spotted and reported an oil slick 
>from the air (Thank you Margaret, for reminding me that one person
>CAN make a difference, even here in the East Coast Armpit), I learned
>of two other cues to illegal toxic pollution:

Congratulations!!
I am the  Chairman of the 99's North Georgia Chapter. I am in the process of 
establishing an Operation Skywatch program in Georgia. The program which
was initially developed (12 years ago) by our First Canadian Chapter in Ontario
as a partnership with their Ministry of the Environment, has been quite 
successful.
A few months ago a young (Georgia) family was featured on the local news. They
had recently purchased their first home only to discover that it (along with
many others in the development) had been built on a (illegal) toxic waste
buriel site. This incident is not the first of its kind nor, I suspect, will
it be the last. This is one example of the type of incident that could possibly
be prevented through services such as those provided by Margaret (and numerous
others).
While much is gained through discussions on the technical aspects of aviation,
if our parleys were strictly limited to widget aerodynamics or interpretations
of the latest changes to a FAR we'd be an awful boring lot. Not a descriptor
likely to be used by most in referencing the personality trait of those of us
who have taken advantage of man's (aided) ability to modify the effects of
gravity. 
Expressing one's concern regarding their right to privacy is a valid point.
A personal assault on another individual's character, intelligience and 
motives can hardly be construed as a constructive (intelligient) 
contribution to any conversation. GA has a sufficient share of PR problems
without being percieved as a group of aerial peeping Toms. 
Personally, a large portion of the satisfaction of flying is a from the
panoramic view of this planet, something the alot of us probobly tend
to take for granted. What scares me (you did ask) is not someone sneaking
a peek into my back yard; What scares me is the posibility that those
generations (of aviators) that follow will not have that view. _THAT_ is
what scares me (you did ask)!
Now. Let's get back to electronic hanger flying......

===============================================================================
Julie "I'm wearing my flame-retardant flight suit" Oster 
Georgia State University	usgjdo@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
Atlanta, Georgia
From: chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: inop equipment
Date: 3 Sep 1992 03:03:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep2.180634.17297@col.hp.com> davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen) writes:
...
>But as far as I know there is a provision that you may label the gauge
>"INOP" and go flying (at least in the general direction with the general
>intention of getting it fixed).

I read FAR 91.213 to say that inop equipment must also be disabled, so
logged in the aircraft maintenance records, and determined to be safe by
either the pilot or qualified mechanic. THEN you can go flying.

Common practice may be to tag an "inop" label on the inop item, and then
press on. But, for the typical GA rental class airplane without an MEL, 
I don't believe that's enough.  As I recall, those are "and"s between the
paragraphs in 91.213, not "or"s.

Let's see: I'm not referring to MEL equipped aircraft, in-flight failures,
and the ridiculous examples, like faded seatcovers. AND, I don't have the
trusty FAR with me, so, I hope (and think) the above statements are
essentially correct.

It is interesting (and sort of fun), however to think of the gray area of
what constitutes inop equipment. clock; wind-up clock; cigarette lighter;
VOR on a VFR flight (not required, but ...); ripped seat cushion; REALLY
RIPPED seat cushion; missing seat cushion; missing seat; scavenge pump on a
310; stuck primer on a Cutlass; VOR 2 more than 4 degrees different from
VOR1; VOR2 45 degrees different from VOR1.  I'm not sure about some of
these.

Lonnie
-- 
Lonnie C. Martin    lonnie@hydrogen.cchem.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Glass Goose
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:40:38 GMT

In article <BtnJu8.GA4@vcd.hp.com>, schinner@vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer) writes:
|> : Over the last few years of reading kit plane magazines I've come
|> : across two or three reports of doggy performance from the Sea Hawker.
|> : I don't know why the plane and its troubles havn't seen more press but
|> : I guess it just never became very popular (mayhap because of these
|> : reported problems).
|> : 
|> : 						Dave Bridgham
|> 
|> On a similar note, the Osprey-2 amphibian is of a similar class, that is,
|> 160hp and two seats, but is a mono-plane.  Is there any net.wisdom on
|> this airplane?  Does it dog along, too, or is it a good design?
|> 

The SeaHawker has severe problems with separation of the flow around the
fuselage. The Osprey dose not have that problem, although I talked with
one builder that was not happy with the gear (it colapsed, but no serious
dammage).

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: when to file "Lifeguard"
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:10:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> Flying patients is *not* emergency medical transportation.

It depends, in some transplant situations it is necessary to get both
the organ and the recipient to the same place, and while the patient
may not be healty, they may need expeditious handling and not be in
need of continuous medical care on the way to the transplant hospital.

-Ron
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:14780 soc.motss:38070 ne.motss:477
From: hoey@husc8.harvard.edu (Steven Hoey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,soc.motss,ne.motss
Subject: GPA/My email address
Summary: Emacs and I don't get along
Date: 3 Sep 92 07:58:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Sep3.035814.15331
Distribution: na

In my article(s) about the Gay Pilots' Association, I note that people can
write my email address for more information.  However, the last line of the
article(s) I posted was cut off.  Here is my address:
		hoey@husc.harvard.edu
Please include "GPA" in the header of any email.  Thanks!


-----
Steve Hoey
hoey@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Calibrating Tachs (was Re: Comparing Tach and Hobbs rates?)
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:42:24 GMT

In <1992Aug31.130146.4608@nlm.nih.gov> masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:

> This fact can be used to
>determine whether your tachometer is calibrated correctly.  You simply
>set the manifold pressure to get 2350 rpm, then fly for exactly 30 minutes
>(or some other multiple of 6 min = 1/10 hr.)  Compare the number of tenths
>displayed in the tach window.

A better, more accurate, and faster way to check tach is the following:

Go out the the airport at night.  Bring big friends with guns because
you might get hijacked.  Get in your plane, start the engine and taxi
to a spot on the ramp illuminated by sodium lamps.

Turn the plane so that you are facing directly away from the sodium
lamp.  Rev up the engine.  The prop will appear motionless at exactly 1800 RPM.
When you have the prop "stopped" look at your tach and note what it says.
In my case, the tach reads 1700RPM - i.e. it is 100RPM too low.  I simply
add 100 RPM to whatever I see on the tach to get the real RPM.

I think you'll also see a stopped prop at 2400RPM, but my engine won't
develop that much static thrust.  You guys with CS props could report.  I'm
a math bimbo so I can't verify it theoretically.

Of course if you live in some freakish country that uses 50hz power the
relevant speed will be 1500RPM.

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: brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: area awareness 
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:18:35 GMT

amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind) writes:

# a side thought just occurred to me: as pilots, we look at things
# differently.  we have to examine our environment very carefully for
# clues to position, signs of other aircraft in the vicinity.  has anyone
# experienced an increase in the amount of detail you notice in your
# day-to-day environment after becoming involved in flying?  do you look
# up more often, or note large landmarks?

Yeah, I'm forever orienting myself toward Sunol Pass, and scanning like
mad for traffic...  :-)

For pilots not familiar with the Bay Area, Sunol Pass is the main route
out of and in to the Bay Area to the east.  It's about 15 miles East of
Palo Alto, my home base.  There's a TCA cutout over Sunol Pass, so if
you're headed anywhere roughly eastbound, the easiest way to avoid the
TCA is toward Sunol Pass.  In addition to all the east-west VFR traffic,
SUNOL intersection (roughly over Sunol Pass, interestingly enough :-) is
an IFR arrival gate for jet traffic inbound to Oakland from points East;
they tend to pass over not too many thousand feet above Sunol Pass, since
they're only about 20 miles from touchdown at that point.  Furthermore,
much traffic passes north/south up and down the Bay, past the western
end of Sunol Pass.  All in all, it's a pretty busy chunk of airspace (the
busiest in the Bay Area other than some of the airports themselves, I'd
venture to say)...


-Brent
--
Brent Chapman                                   Great Circle Associates
Brent@GreatCircle.COM                           1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841                                 Mountain View, CA  94041
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Overloaded Cherokee Crash comments
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:29:22 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

Some comments:

This whole accident scene appears to be stupidity to the nth power. Consider
the factors:

* pre-solo Student Pilot
* without Instructor
* at Night
* in IMC
* with passengers
* plane loaded out of weigh and balance

This kind of abject stupidity gives general aviation a bad name. Maynard had 
hoped to get his commercial license - here's one vote against giving him any 
license ever again.

--

Second, why is it that pilots who perform such acts of stupidity are first to 
blame the plane's engine? The general public will probably never see the report 
that indicates the engine was just fine. The general public doesn't know 
enough about aviation to identify the abjectly stupid actions and place the
blame where it belongs. So they go away with the impression that these small
aircraft are unreliable - dangerous even. The engine just burps a little bit,
and you're dead. Very dangerous.

The truth is, most aircraft fly just fine with a dead fan. Pilots undergo an
intense amount of training to deal with the engine-out situation. Even if
the engine goes dead, people aren't likely to get killed.


-- 
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.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Carrier version of the F-86F Sabre
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 16:45:12 GMT

Steinar Bang writes
> Watching a British documentary series ("The Nuclear Age")
> on the telly yesterday, I saw what looked like a carrier version of
> the F-86F (ie. a version without the nose radome of the later
> versions) Sabre.
> 
> It had a long nose undercarriage like the carrier Phantoms and
> foldable wings.
> 
> It was only a short glimpse, so I can't be certain, and I have  
never
> heard about such a version, so... can anybody confirm/deny?

Confirmed.  I believe it was called the FJ Fury, but I'm sure some  
ex-Navy guy will jump all over me if i'm wrong on the exact name.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation