HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: why IFR = "real pilot"
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:01:07 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

In article <1k6q1lINNnlh@hp-col.col.hp.com>, davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen) writes:
> Whew. It doesn't seem to take much to declare open season on IFR pilots.
> 
>  From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
> >If you want to "play with the big boys," go right ahead, but for Pete's
> >sake don't refer to the rest of us as lesser pilots than you because you
> >happen to have spent the money to get an IFR license.

(a minor nit, but this was not my quote)

(stuff deleted)

> Steve P says exactly what I'm wanting to say...
> 
>  From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
> >Why do pilots have to look down on other pilots who don't do the same type of 
> >flying that they do?  ...But when pilots talk down about other groups of
> >pilots, I don't blame the public for being afraid of us.
> 
> Unfortunately most of your article was contrary to your own advice...

That was not my intent.  I *was* defending the VFR folks from what I (and
others who have responded via email) believe was a condescending attitude, 
but I had no intention of degrading anyone else.  I mentioned a couple of 
times that different types of pilots have different types of skills, but 
that that makes us different, not better or worse.

> >the IFR ticket that lets you play with the big boys.  Filing IFR means that
> >you share critical skills and knowledge with the pros, and with the ATC
> >system designed to support them.
> 
> He didn't say IFR pilots are "better", but a lot of folks went non-linear.

Not explicitly.  But just look at the subject line... Why IFR = "Real Pilot".
There were enough other implications in the original message (and, I think,
in a previous thread which I've now lost) that a lot of us felt we were 
being insulted (ie- we're not "Real Pilots").
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: United Airlines: Infos and slides sought!
Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Keywords: United
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:52:24 GMT

In article <1jju0uEINNi5o@uni-erlangen.de>
almeierh@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Axel Meierhoefer) writes:
> I just have read the articles about United's new color scheme
> in 'sci.aeronautics.airliners'.

And it is indeed in that newsgroup which this, and Axel's other thread,
belong.  Please keep them there.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jan_cocatre-zilgien@qms1.life.uiuc.edu (J.H. Cocatre-Zilgien)
Subject: Helicopter vs. Airplane pilot seat
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc
Organization: U of Ill @ Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:00:55 GMT

Can anyone tell me why the pilot seat is to the right in helicopters and to
the left in airplanes?  In countries with many horses around (i.e.
England), people drive to the left because people used to "climb" on their
horses from the sidewalk by putting their left foot in the left stirrup and
gracefully swishing their right leg around.  Guess they do it the same in
the 1st Air Cav...
From: waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh)
Subject: Club Interest Mailing List
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 15:26:35 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.


A week or so ago Jeff Dunkle posted a question about flying clubs,
and got some 8 responses. In response to the huge wave of interest,
we have setup an Airplane Club Interest mailing list, for those
interested in operating a flying club. In my personal opinion a
flying club operates more than one aircraft, one aircraft is a
partnership, which has a different set of problems. Thats just my 
opinion, the mailing list will be whatever people send to it. 
Information on how to subscribe is included below.

Thanks		Mat


Welcome to the airplane clubs interest mailing list. To send
a message to the members of the mailing list, send to 
	airplane-clubs@dg-rtp.dg.com
To communicate with the administrator of the list about problems, 
subscriptions or being removed from the list, send to 
	airplane-clubs-request@dg-rtp.dg.com

Thanks		Mat Waugh

Matthew Waugh			waugh@dg-rtp.dg.com
RTP Network Services 		
Data General Corp.		
RTP, NC. (919)-248-6034
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting
From: ah595@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric J. Hess)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Kalamazoo Air Show
Date: 25 Jan 1993 13:45:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ah595@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric J. Hess)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Could someone with any information on the airshow drop me a line?
I'd like to know what's going to be there.  I went in '91 but was
a bit disappointed;  alot of the acts had to cancel because of the
Gulf war.  

Thanks,
Eric
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: maverick@camelot.bradley.edu (Darin Petersen)
Subject: scenic flight
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: rec
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:51:38 GMT

     Last week on a clear night in Chicago, I decided to call up a couple
friends to go flying.  I like night flying because Chicago has a lot of
lights.  Ever since I got my PP, I've always tried to furthur my abilities
and do new things.  That night was good for doing so.  

I started at DuPage in the usual 172.  After warming the engine, I 
called for taxi-clearance.  I've never taxied on taxiways that were a sheet
of ice.  It can be pretty tricky!  Anyway, after taking off, I called
O'hare to see if I could get an overflight.  (BTW, for those not familiar,
DuPage is about 15 miles WSW from o'hare under the TCA)  My friend was
video-taping from the back-seat.  The controller came back and said in a
discouraging voice, "er, 9NY, ahhh, well,(sounding friendlier now) why not
 climb to 5500,turn heading 330 and I'll vector you in...."
I thought this was a good opportunity because O'hare is pretty busy to be
letting people play in their airspace.  So I got to enter a busy TCA for
the first time.  Flying over chicago at 5500 is VERY SCENIC.  AFter the
overflight, we took a heading of 130 degrees toward the lakeshore as we
overflew an ocean of city lights from residential neighborhoods.   We
intercepted the shoreline at Meigs field, and went north at about 1400
agl.....below the level of the Sears tower skydeck.  There was a layer of
clouds along the shoreline at about 2000 agl.  It was a strange sensation
of being so close to clouds.  I think the antennas on the Sears tower were
in the clouds.  After the exciting part of the city was behind us, we
turned back west to return to DuPage overflying many familiar areas.  

Most people like to fly over their house and other familiar stuff, but when
you live less than a mile from O'hare's boundry, getting the chance to see
all that is familiar on the ground from the air is a rare treat.

  
--
            __|__          Darin Petersen - PP-ASEL
     ________(*)________  Maverick@buhub.bradley.edu
            o/ \o
From: hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: In the "System"
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:39:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.171015.28364@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:

> 
> Another poster asked why I took offense about people implying that
> instrument ratings were a good thing.  I don't; what bothers me is
> when they imply that official ratings are the way to measure piloting
> skills or that someone *without* an instrument rating is somehow an
> unsafe pilot.  

i'll be the first to concur that posession of a ticket may not equal
the skill level it represents. recency of experience erodes away ifr
skills, usually. 
someone without an instrument rating, has limited skills, and *may* be
unsafe. to wit, a night cross country. matt, i know you know what can
happen, but those who haven't encountered clouds unsuspecting at night,
are in for a surprise.
*you cannot see the clouds at night under dark skies, over dark
terrain*  
the vfr only pilot undertaking a night cross country *may* be unsafe.

> 
> Touretzky, in a post long ago, said that all serious pilots in the
> Pittsburgh area were instrument rated.  Hurvitz goes on to say:
>
that's because dave knows.   hi dave.  :)

> >without that instrument ticket your pilot skills are severely limited.

i stand by my earlier statement above, and re-iterate it.

> What limits me is my *plane*, which isn't IFR equipped.

now there i have no rebuttal. i'll bet it's a fun airplane. flying
without the wizz bang stuff can be fun. ifr stuff aside, i'm the first
one to admit i love flying..  :)

> 
> I don't fly to get from here to there.  I fly because it's a blast and
> to punch holes in the sky.  That doesn't mean I'm unsafe.  It just means
> I have no use for an instrument rating.
>
absolutely. just realize that you may encounter unavoidable situations,
if you expose yourself to certain grey flying environments (ie night
xcountry). and flying is definitely a BLAST.    clear prop man !

 
> Mr. Hurvitz presumably flies to get from here to there.  He's probably
> reasonably good at it.  He needs an instrument rating; I don't.  I
> have absolutely no argument with his claim that he needs an IFR ticket;
> what I object to is his implicit claim that I do as well.
> 
> 						Matt Ginsberg

solid rebuttal..


dennis hurvitz	
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher)
Subject: Re: In the "System"
Organization: none, in Reno NV USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:21:36 GMT

Are insrument-rated pilots "better" pilots than those not so rated but who
have aerobatic skills?

Bam! Bam!  <sound of gavel strikes>  The questions are ruled out of order
as not meaningful.  <OK, I'm self-appointed, but I work cheap.>

Are instrument-rated pilots *safer* pilots than those not so rated?  My
insurance company thinks so, as evidenced by its premium schedule.  Does
this imply that each instrument pilot is safer than every pilot not so
rated?  Of course not.  It does imply that (the company thinks that) a
given pilot becomes safer with an instrument rating.

Does either instrument training or aerobatic training make one a "better"
pilot?  Of course!  Both increase piloting skills.  By the way, with
respect to instrument training, those skills encompass more than cockpit
management, task juggling, and ATC/rules/procedures; they include precise
control of the aircraft. (Is it possible to increase precision flying
skills without training that is specifically geared to instrument flying?
Sure!)  I'm instrument rated, but I'm looking forward to some aerobatic
(and tailwheel) training starting tomorrow -- literally, in a Citabria
out of Reno/Stead.

--
brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rosso@roscoe.csd.sgi.com (Ross Oliver)
Subject: Re: Lawsuits
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:55:21 GMT

In article <C1F90E.2ID@tss.com>, burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
|>
|> [description of dubious lawsuit against Piper deleted]
|>
|> This is yet another of the amazing cases where somebody does something 
|> wildly stupid in an airplane and the manufacturer is blamed for the result.
|> Can you imagine going back to sue GM, Ford, and Chrysler for every death
|> that occurs in an older car that wasn't required to have shoulder belts?
|> Especially if the driver did something stupid to cause the accident?


Actually, auto makers are faced with hundreds of such lawsuits ever year.
If greedy lawyers can be drawn to Piper, just think how many drool over
going after GM.  However, auto manufacturers have been more successful
in keeping these suits in the federal courts instead of the more variable
state courts.  Their argument is that automobiles are built to federal
standards, and therefore are out of the jursidiction of state courts.
Aircraft manufacturers have not been successful with this argument.  The
Piper case is the first time a federal agency (the FAA) has stepped in and basically told the state court, "this is none of your business."  It will
be interesting to see if Piper can push this argument to its logical
conclusion, and finally get aircraft liability suits out of state courts.


Ross Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             God will forgive me, it's His job.
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: FBOs at JFK?
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 21:47:29 GMT


In article <C1EBqG.Gv4@acsu.buffalo.edu>, hull@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Jon Hull) writes:
|>A friend of mine (without net access) will be making
|>a flight from Buffalo to JFK at the end of this week to pick up
|>some folks at JFK airport in New York.
|>They will be staying over the weekend in New York
|>and will need to tie down the plane (a Cherokee six) at JFK.
|>Any recommendations about FBOs at JFK would be appreciated.
|>Also, if you have any other information that you think might
|>be helpful, please let me know.

A few months ago, a group of flying buddies and I were contemplating
a trip to NYC. We had the idea of flying into LaGuardia because one
of the group knows someone who works at the TRACON there (I think that
was the excuse). I was told the landing fee for a light single at LGA
was in the neighborhood of $250, and AvGas was not available. We looked
into JFK just for kicks, and I believe it was a bit better, something
around $75/landing off peak, but still no AvGas.

I'd strongly suggest calling ahead (this is all from memory, nach) before
emptying your wallet unexpectedly. For $75 you can catch a cab from JFK
to one of the GA reliever airports and still have enough left over to
cover the landing/tie-down fees, not to mention being able to refuel.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL-IA -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
From: ingham@lacerta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Return to Truckee
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:47:08 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: lacerta.unm.edu
Keywords: n

In article <19805@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com> claude@color3.UUCP (Claude
Goldsmith) writes about someone damaging their arrow by taxing into a
snowbank.

I recently had a (less expensive) similar event.

I taxied 46L into a snowbank at Santa Fe.  A bit embarassing to call the
tower and tell them that I need to get out to push the airplane out of
the snow...

No damage other than to my ego.

-- 
Kenneth Ingham WD5BBT
ingham@i-pi.com or ingham@ariel.unm.edu (NeXTMail OK)
Hummin' little Grumman N9646L
From: ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Subject: Re: In the "System"
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:10:15 GMT

In article <742@oscar.UUCP> hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz) writes:

>time to step up to the plate my friend. a person can learn alot more
>about flying aerobatics in 20 hours of dual, than one can learn about
>flying ifr in the same 20 hours.

Really?  I can't speak for the IFR side of this, but if I think about
the acro abilities of both me and people I've taught after 20 hours,
all you're likely to know is how to fly safe versions of the basic
maneuvers.

Another poster asked why I took offense about people implying that
instrument ratings were a good thing.  I don't; what bothers me is
when they imply that official ratings are the way to measure piloting
skills or that someone *without* an instrument rating is somehow an
unsafe pilot.  

Touretzky, in a post long ago, said that all serious pilots in the
Pittsburgh area were instrument rated.  Hurvitz goes on to say:

>without that instrument ticket your pilot skills are severely limited.
>
>[story about being grounded by a thin fog layer]

>i refuse to accept the rationalization from those non
>rated that they are just as good. i think they are lacking an important
>foundation. bite the bullet and finish your training. 

What limits me is my *plane*, which isn't IFR equipped.

I don't fly to get from here to there.  I fly because it's a blast and
to punch holes in the sky.  That doesn't mean I'm unsafe.  It just means
I have no use for an instrument rating.

Mr. Hurvitz presumably flies to get from here to there.  He's probably
reasonably good at it.  He needs an instrument rating; I don't.  I
have absolutely no argument with his claim that he needs an IFR ticket;
what I object to is his implicit claim that I do as well.

						Matt Ginsberg

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: What is the authoritative source for airspace dbs?
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:48:05 GMT

What is the authoritative source for the vor.txt, airports.txt, and others?
By ``authoritative'' I mean either a FAA source or one that is traceable
to the FAA.

Please note: I am *not* asking for anonymous ftp locations for these.

Thanks!

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: ronnie@media.mit.edu (Ron Schnell)
Subject: Re: go to Farmingdale  [Re: FBOs at JFK?]
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:57:04 GMT

In article <CSTACY.93Jan26121449@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> cstacy@ai.mit.edu (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>It might be much more economical to use another airport.
>I would reccomend Republic airport in Farmingdale (FRG).


I've flown in to JFK several times (not in a couple of years, though), and
have not had any problems, except taxiing is a pain.  As long as you
land during off-peak times, it is not expensive, and the people are
very helpful.

I always prefer flying in to the busiest airports, because the services
are always the best.  Of course it isn't much fun to be sitting
on the ground with a gate hold, which has happened to me at least once.

#Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Subject: Re: Vacuum pump inquiry
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 04:48:29 GMT

In article <8fNhxLO00Uh784vmkm@andrew.cmu.edu> Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Concept:  Put the vacuum pumps on a "preventive maintenance" replacement
>program every 600 hours, rather than waiting for failures.  These planes
>are flown IFR frequently and, despite the alt. vac. system, we'd be 
>more "comfortable" with time changes rather than operating the pumps to
>failure.  Our vac pumps do fail between engine overhauls, as I suspect
>most folks do.  (Is that a true assumption?)

Mine failed ~500 hours after MOH. There's no record of replacement (except
for the entry for the one *I* put in), so it lasted over 7,000 hours,
according to the logs. If you believe that, I have some ocean front property
in Valdosta, Georgia for you.

>Information wanting to confirm:
>
>Our understanding is that Sigma Tec does not make available "rebuild
>kits" to the field for their vac. pumps, while some other vendors do. 
>True?  Any net experience rebuilding your own vac pumps? 
>Thoughts/expereince with specific brands?

Mine is an "Airborne" dry pump, and there are kits available for it, so I
checked into this when mine quit. My A&P said that he was only authorized
to remove and replace. Kupper's shop doesn't have the equipment to rebuild
one. He said that the core must be honed to fit the new vanes that come in
the kit, and that this is machining to fine tolerances. Sort of like
line-boring the journals on a crankshaft - not something you want to tackle
lightly.

The rebuild operation is one that should be done by a shop authorized to
"yellow tag" the result.

As an aside, there is a shop in Knoxville, Tennessee named "Aircraft Product
Supply Co." which advertises in TAP. They have extremely low prices (about
$160 for mine) for rebuilt pumps. I bought one from them and would avoid
them for a couple of reasons.

  1. They charge a core fee which is excessive. When you get the rebuilt
     pump, you will discover that they charge you for any broken parts in
     your old one. You can easily wind up spending more for the rebuilt
     than for a new one.
  2. They provide a fascimile of an FAA service center yellow tag with the
     pump. This is typed on white paper and doesn't look real official. My
     A&P was real reluctant to sign off on this one. The slip *does* claim
     that the work was done with FAA-PMA parts and is signed by an A&P.

On the plus side, the pump has about 20 hours on it and still works.

I think that I would opt for a venturi backup in your situation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | If it were not possible to allow a little energetic
George Patterson -  | discussion between opposing factions, there would
                    | be no market for tire irons or band-aids.
                    |                             Sam Venable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis)
Subject: Info on Maule MX-7?
Organization: CAD-Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:00:32 GMT

The latest issue of trade-a-plane has an ad for a maule mx-7 at $45K.
I called the number and the sales rep said they are selling a limited
number of airplanes w/o avionics at that prices.  He claimed the
performance of the plane is similar to an 172.

So I'm thinking, $45 + $10 for avionics and radios = C172 performance.
Something sounds too good to be true ... any ideas or experiences
with the plane ???

Thanks in advance.
-- 
Yiannis E. Papelis,            - Electrical & Computer Engineering, U of Iowa
Center of Computer Aided Design- Home of the Iowa Driving Simulator & future
e-mail: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu - home of the National Advanced Driving Simulator
From: jpp@StarConn.com (John Pettitt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: Leasebacks & tax considerations
Date: 21 Jan 93 07:00:12 GMT
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>This is a fairly serious issue to be considered by anyone considering
>a leaseback as a tax shelter.  I know many FBOs play up the tax advantages
>of leasebacks, but I have yet to be able to verify that this is in fact
>a legal shelter that will survive an audit (other than the anecdotal 
>posting about West Valley Flying Club's setup).

They key to the WVFC setup (as my accountant explained it to me) is that
WVFC chrges me $5/hr for acting as my agent in leasing the plane to
members.  If they paid me $57/hr for the plane and then charged the
members $62 it would be passive but since I charge the members $62 and
pay them $5 for collecting it on my behalf its active.  Confused ? I
thought you would be.  Still the net result is that an IRS employee has
told me that WVFC leasebacks have survived audit.

I now have the complete 1992 figures for N81034 - if anybody is
interested (and subject to me talking to skip who owns the other half) I
will post them as an example leaseback.

BTW if you think leasbacks are complicated try looking at the UK/US dual
taxation rules  :-(



-- 
John Pettitt, CEO, Dolmus Inc.			jpp@starconn.com
Archer N81034					apple!starnet!jpp
Me, say that, never: It's a forged posting!	Fax:   +1 415 390 0581
						Voice: +1 415 390 0693
Organization: Sponsored account, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA