HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker)
Subject: Holding entry flashcards
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:24:01 GMT

So here I sit, ICE hooked up, breakpoint set, script running.  What to
do until it crashes, read news.  There's this fella posting to
comp.lang.postscript wants some PS code to draw a DG.  Well, says I,
bet that fella wants to make a little spinner to play holding entry
games.  I'm about the worst PS programmer at Adobe, time to practice,
have fun, do a pilot a favor.  The result was so cute I figured the
whole net just had to have it.

Send the following to your favorite PS printer take a quick look and
decide what type of holding entry you're going to do.  Edit the
last line to make it print as many pages as you can stand.

Please don't send critiques, I KNOW it's real amateur PS code, but it
was fun....

%!PS-Adobe
% Draw hold entry flash cards

/arrowhead {
newpath
0 rad arrowlength add moveto
headwidth -2 div headlength -1 mul rlineto
headwidth 2 div dup dup dup  headwidth 0 rcurveto
headwidth -2 div headlength rlineto fill } def

/arrownumber {
newpath
0 rad moveto 
0 arrowlength rlineto stroke 
arrowhead
2 string cvs 
0 rad arrowlength add textoffset add moveto
dup stringwidth pop -2 div 0 rmoveto
show } def 

/hash {
newpath
0 rad moveto
0 hashlength rlineto
stroke } def

/plane {
newpath
0 hashlength moveto
0 arrowlength -1.5 mul rlineto stroke
0 0 moveto
hashlength -1 mul 0 rmoveto arrowlength 0 rlineto stroke
0 arrowlength -0.8 mul moveto
hashlength -2 div 0 rmoveto hashlength 0 rlineto stroke
} def

/lubberline {
newpath
0 rad .6 mul moveto 0 rad .95 mul lineto stroke } def

/DG { %xpos ypos diameter heading
gsave
/heading exch def
/diameter exch def
/ypos exch 72 mul def
/xpos exch 72 mul def
/rad diameter 2 div 72 mul def
/arrowlength diameter 8 div 72 mul def
/headlength arrowlength 3 div def
/headwidth headlength 2 div def
/hashlength diameter 16 div 72 mul def
/textheight diameter 16 div 72 mul def
/textoffset diameter 24 div 72 mul def
hashlength 20 div setlinewidth
/Helvetica findfont textheight scalefont setfont
 
%main
xpos ypos translate  
plane
lubberline
heading -1 mul rotate
0 3 33 {
arrownumber
6 { -5 rotate hash} repeat
} for

grestore
} def

/maxint 2147483647 def

/randheading {
rand
maxint div
360 mul cvi } def

/randturn {
rand
maxint 2 div lt {(Left Turns)} {(Right Turns)} ifelse } def

/leftcen 2.25 def
/rightcen 6.25 def
/topcen 8.5 def
/botcen 3 def

/flashcard {
/y exch def
/x exch def
x y 2 randheading DG
x 1.5 sub 72 mul y 1.9 sub 72 mul moveto 
(Hold on the ) show randheading 10 string cvs show ( radial) show
(    ) show randturn show } def

/cards4 {
leftcen topcen flashcard
rightcen topcen flashcard
leftcen botcen flashcard
rightcen botcen flashcard
showpage } def

/Helvetica findfont 12 scalefont setfont
1 {cards4} repeat



From: glenb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Glen Baker)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:17:46 GMT
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Organization: What, me? Organized?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:

> Do they require actual flight testing over a long period of time
> or can you just provide a "proof of concept" like, for example, thrust 
> reversers that never deploy in flight?

 Hmm. My father has a real nice photo that he took out of the window of
 a 737 showing the #2 engine reverser fully deployed...and the coast of
 Puget Sound about 5000 feet below. Fun flight!

 ..glen
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Good pictures, was:  prevalence of engine failures
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Jul25.024508.20134@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:30:25 GMT

David> == David Lesher <wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu> 

 David> A friend at UAL once promised, but never delivered, alas, a
 David> picture of a five - engine DC-8.  You see, they need a way to
 David> get that spare to & from Hawaii, and it's easier to hang it out
 David> there.....

I've seen photos (no live ones, alas) of a 747 with a spare engine
tucked under one wing (in a really nice coffee-table book of commercial
aircraft, in this case).  Very interesting shot.

(The book's British, so they talk about getting the spare *to* JFK...
funny how your perspective changes... :-)
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
   ``The First Amendment is often inconvenient.  But that is besides the
  point.  Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
         to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Product Liability (was Re: Active noise-canceling headsets)
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:30:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.

In article <1992Jul24.183452.20437@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com writes:
>In article <BrwL88.GqD@taligent.com>, cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:
>> Uh, huh.  And the next time I get injured by a genuinely defective
>> product, or by serious negligence, I get sued by the employees of the
>> company or the children of the negligent person for increasing the risk
>> of them losing their jobs, or of their parent being unable to support
>> them.
>
>If the liability resulted from a genuinely defective product then I don't
>see what your problem is.  But even if you were only 20% responsible for
>the incident, then if the resulting lawsuit contributes to increased costs
>for my aircraft or headset or whatever, then you are 20% responsible for
>for whatever that contribution to increased costs is.

My posting didn't have anything to do with joint and several liability
(the technical name for what we're talking about).  For that matter,
the original proposal didn't address j&s either; rather, it allowed
someone to sue someone for filing a lawsuit that hurt them.  Personally,
I don't think the solution to frivolous lawsuits is giving more basis
on which to sue.  The abuse potential of that idea is astonishing.

I have a couple of useful suggestions:

Right now, failure to follow accepted practice, regulations, and laws
are not positive defenses against product liability lawsuits.  The
classic case is of the pilot who took off, drunk, in an overloaded
Piper single, and crashed.  His family _successfully_ (at least
initially) sued Piper on the basis of the aircraft not being
crashworthy.  I would rather see that Piper had a positive defense (and
the judge dismiss the case) on the basis that the pilot did not follow
regulations and procedures, and that contributed to the accident.

Second, I'd like to see the judge (as opposed to the jury) set a
minimum amount that is an acceptable award, and have _that_ used as the
basis for j&s liability rather than the whole amount.  For example, in
a $1,000,000 award, with responsiblity assigned as Deep Pockets 1, 10%,
Deep Pockets 2, 10%, and Shallow Pockets, 80%, the claimant could only
collect more than, say, a judge-set amount of $100,000 if it could be
done by following the 10-10-80 split.

Lastly, a time limit on product liability claims (I forget the legal
term for this) of 10-15 years.
--
-- Christophe

"Be calm.  Look cute."
From: PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Multiple simultaneous engine failures
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:24:42 GMT

I remember a story from the 1960's about a DC-8 on approach to SFO
(I think) that had ALL FOUR engines quit simultaneously.  (I can
only imagine the scene in the cockpit!)  somehow, it landed safely;
but I don't remember hearing anything about WHY the engines quit.
Anyone else remember this?

Phil Jern
From: jrp@bohra.cpg.oz.au (John Pitman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: United cargo door
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:07:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Power Software

Hi there,
You may be interested to hear there was a story in the local press here about
a NZ guy whose son was lost in the united cargo door event. He got honolulu
and examined the 747 personally, took pictures, looked at all the service data
etc, spoke to many people in the industry in USA, and concluded BEFORE the door
was recovered that it was NOT ground crew failure, or pure bad mechanicals in
the door latches, but that there was an electrical short which caused partial
release of the latches. he then nagged FAA to reopen the case, and when they 
recovered the door, the latches were exactly where he said they would be, and
the FAA re-issued the report. It said they were asking for electrical isolation
of the door from the cockpit after latching shut from outside to be fitted.
BTW, Amex paid out the insurance on his son (150K$) within 7 days.
jp
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Cleared to enter the TCA... Helpfull hint.
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:19:05 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> I find it helpfull when flying near an ARSA (or TCA)
> to lower the altimeter setting (or just turn off the transponer)

"...an incorrect altimeter setting has no effect on the MODE C
altitude information transmitted by your transponders (transponders
are preset at 29.92)" AIM 4-18 (c).

91.215 (c) Transponder-on Operation.  While in the airspace as
speicified in paragraph (b) [TCA's, over 12,500, ...] of this
section or all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft
equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in acccordance
with section 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder,
including Mode C equipment if installed,
From: pvf@alantec.com (Paul Fries)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Gee Bee R2 was Re: Airshow Report
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:53:50 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>OK, so how does the average airplane, not designed for the ragged edge as the
>Gee Bee was, avoid an aileron-induced stall of the wing with the aileron down
>at high angles of attack? The description would seem to apply to any aircraft
>at high alpha.

(I am presuming this is in response to my post, so I will respond.)

I think that the "ragged edge" aspect of the Gee Bee is what causes the
problem in the first place.  The Gee Bee has a very thin airfoil with
very sharp stall characteristics.  To fly it slowly, you need to be
quite close to the stalling AOA.

I don't know enough about this to go further (besides I don't want to
get blasted to badly for what I have already written).  I was mostly
just trying to repeat what the article in Sport Aviation said.  So,
anybody who can help me out here, please do.

Paul Fries
pvf@alantec.com
From: dominop@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Philippos A. Peleties)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Coffee cups in the cockpit (Re: A320 yarns)
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:52:53 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul28.170234.5642@aero.org> lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.124325.10642@bony1.bony.com> richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul26.154142.17373@sctc.com> beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede) writes:
>>>bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>>
>
>	This was a very interesting event, and I urge everyone to
>	read the NTSB accident report.  It's far more complex, and
>	quite a bit different, than Richard reports.  And also
>	very fascinating.
>
>	The report is NTSB report number NTSB/AAR-86/03.
>
>-- 
>Larry Miller		The Aerospace Corporation
>PO Box 92957		LA, CA 90009-2957
>lmiller@aero.org	310-336-5597
>(4 line .sig: keeps the .sig police happy)



Any anonymous ftp places for getting the report? Or is it on a paying
basis only (from NTSB)? 


Philip Peleties

-- 


I speak for myself, I think for myself, I work for myself ... but I don't want
to play by myself ... so bring your toys and let's share ...
From: jimm@simsol.UUCP (Jim Morris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: employer reimbursement of flying expenses
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:12:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: simsol.163
Organization: Systems Simulation Solutions, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Jul10.064411.3268@cco.caltech.edu>, czim@hume.cns.caltech.edu (Chris Ziomkowski) writes:
> In article <1992Jul09.214226.91552@cs.cmu.edu>, dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
> |> In email, Klein Gilhousen proposed an interesting topic for discussion:

> |> count as income.  So there are only two issues.  First, if you're
> |> self-employed, can you deduct the full cost of taking a GA plane, even if
> |> it's more expensive than airline coach fare?  The answer is:  it depends on
> |> whether there is reasonable business justification for the added expense.  A
> 
> Which raises an interesting question for me. I'm self employed, and a few
> months back I had to fly to San Jose on business. I was going to fly
> ...
> Given these circumstances and concerns, I think it is perfectly reasonable
> to deduct the full cost of my GA travel every time I go see him. I need
> that reliability. 

My brother-in-law is a CPA who has numerous clients that own their own
airplanes, fly on business and deduct the full expenses, many of them
much higher than commercial fares.  They have been doing this for years
and have never even been audited, much less anything worse.

The bottom line is this: It is none of the IRS's business if you want
to spend $5,000 flying your own plane on business to a destination that
you could travel for $500 commercially. You can deduct the entire
$5,000 if the trip is legitimate business. I do this myself and have
been doing so for three years without a peep from the IRS.
From: schinner@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:22:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Ramp checks--unreasonable search
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation


>They've already prosecuted (persecuted) pilots flying IFR
>with outdated sectionals.  I read about the case in IFR
>magazine a couple of years ago.

Am I the only one who thinks this is utterly ridiculous?  If I am flying
through Wyoming on an IFR flight plan, why do I need a current sectional?
My Jepps are current, and I have Cheyenne sectional that is about 3 months
out of date - just in case I need to avoid a mountain that probably hasn't
moved in those three months.

Give me a break...

I don't believe, either, that a current sectional, or any sectional, is
required for VFR flight.  All that is required by the FAR's is that you
know what is on the sectional.

The other day, I pop on out to the local aerodrome to fly over to Mt. St.
Helens.  I tried to get a sectional to replace my old one (now about a month
old), but they have none.  Sold out - trying to get more, but they don't seem
to be shipping.  So, from what the majority of the posters to this thread are
saying is that if I make the flight anyway, I bust an FAR.  The ARSA hasn't
changed, there isn't any new airspace, but there is a new frequency down
at McMinnville - who cares.

Somehow, I am not yet convinced...

---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schinnerer  -  PP-ASEL-IA       |  Hewlett Packard
Mooney - 350X  -  "Buster"          |  Vancouver, WA
email - schinner@vcd.hp.com         |  (206) 944-3324
---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: spagiola@amy5.stanford.edu (Stefano P. Pagiola)
Subject: Re: United drops 737-400 in favor of A-320
Reply-To: spagiola@leland.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 01:05:30 GMT

Karl Swartz writes
>>From what I hear from UAL friends, the speed/range issue was  
crucial;  
>>737-400s (or the proposed stretched -600) would be very slow on the  
>>fairly long sectors that UAL wants to use these birds on.
> 
> Range I can see, but was speed really *that* much of an issue?

Apparently yes, according to several people I know at UA.  The 737 is  
notoriously rather slow; when you're thinking of using an aircraft  
primarily on 1,000mile and more sectors, that starts to hit you.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: hopkins@gvlf9-o.gvl.unisys.com (Bill Hopkins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Fun things to do near airports in Oregon, Washington, and BC?
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:33:10 GMT
Reply-To: hopkins@gvl.unisys.com
Organization: Paramax Systems Corp (A Unisys Company), Great Valley Labs, PA

In article <1992Jul25.053835.9306@microsoft.com> joero@microsoft.com (Joe Robison) writes:
>
>The Museum of Flight is indeed at Boeing Field. The static displays are
>pretty rstandard (though they have an aerocar and an SR-71, which
>is a nice contrast) but the history of Boeing and commercial aviation
>in the Red Barn (where Boeing started) is very interesting.

I had a chance to visit there 4 years ago (aerocar but no SR-71 then)
and found it very interesting to compare my East-coast misinformation
with the "truth according to Boeing."  I hadn't realized that ol'
Bill Boeing had invented aviation with almost no help at all!

	Bill (of course I'm exaggerating) Hopkins

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hopkins@GVL.Unisys.Com          Paramax Systems Corporation (A Unisys Company)
215-648-2854 or 363-7464        Great Valley Labs, PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
MXE 016 radial, 8 nmi              Opening my mouth is not company policy.
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: 747 Loop ANSWER
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

MP> .SO TO END THE DEBATE I TELL YOU THIS:
  > .
  > .You can ROLL a 707...
  > .You cannot ROLL a 747
  > .and both cannot be looped.

And I have it on good authority (from a very senior 747 pilot) that it
can be both looped and rolled.

Another 74 jockey has done a roll in a sim, but with the motion shut
off.  (It was "Save the Sim" week!  <~> )

        D/ (HPN)

 * OLX 2.2 * Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                                     
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:21:50 GMT

In article <92204.174222ROPBB@CUNYVM.BITNET> ROPBB@CUNYVM.BITNET (Bliss B. Siman) writes:
>I may be in the wrong place, but I hope you guys will put up with me. I am a
>very fearful flyer faced with a trip to Barcelona on Friday and just discovered
>the plane is a 767 which I am told has only two engines.  So I get on to find o
>ut what people are saying about a 2 engine plane across the Atlantic and read
>what seems very light-hearted banter about engine failure.  Can anyone respond
>to my concerns--flying TWA, by the way--which will help insure that I make the
>flight. My daughter and husband will kill me if I back out, but right now I am
>REAL upset.  Any help would be appreciated.

First of all, please do not confuse the recent engine failure banter which
is about light piston engine airplanes with the transport category aircraft
you will be flying.  Airliners, in general, have higher certification
standards than general aviation airplanes.  Over water airliners have
higher standards still.


How's this:  Sorry, I can't remember the reference.  Either this month's
Flying of an edition of Av Leak.

Engines were recently pulled from a Lockheed L-1011 with over 20,000
hours of flight time on them!  That's over 2 years of continuous operation!
They have been on the plane for over 5 years (more like 10) with normal
maintenance and inspections.

Not to be outdone, a competitor announced similar statistics with engines
pulled from a Boeing 747.

If it is any consolation, I would be much more concerned about driving
to the airport than flying to Europe.

Relax and have a great flight!

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh)
Subject: Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Was: Re: Cessna sholdr harn review (BAS))
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 14:09:46 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Jul24.003051.9688@u.washington.edu> seymour@milton.u.washington.edu (Richard Seymour) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.230634.25322@dg-rtp.dg.com> waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh) writes:
>(actually, i've seen the same suggestion twice...)
>  .on keeping the shoulder belt of a Cessna harness from falling off the buckle
>>Take the shoulder strap, and pass it under the lap belt and bring it
>>back over the top and clip it. *MUCH* better at keeping the clip attached.
>
>in my NOT so humble opinion... this is a BAD idea...
> (1) the 180-degree bend in the shoulder belt will -greatly- reduce its 
>      strength under load (about 50%, if i remember correctly)

I don't buy this - each of the 3 parts making up the seatbelt has
a bend in it, that's how the tightening mechanism works.

> (2) during a crash (and possibly a light one instead of a heavy one) the
>      shoulder belt will attempt to straighten out... thereby rotating the
>      lap-belt buckle through any soft flesh-colored material which might 
>      be pressed against it...

This would not be very nice, but it's certainly a lot better than
wearing the instrument panel on your face because the shoulder strap
had unhooked at an unfortunate moment.

Mat

Matthew Waugh			waugh@dg-rtp.dg.com
RTP Network Services 		
Data General Corp.		
RTP, NC. (919)-248-6034
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.aeronautics
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Coffe cups in the cockpit (Re: A320 yarns)
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:46:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.154142.17373@sctc.com> beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede) writes:
>I guess the bottom line is: do the flight-control systems move yoke
>and pedals when ``flying'' the plane?  I'm not talking about little
>stability-augmentation sorts of movements, I'm talking about directing
>the path of the plane in gross fashion.  Throttles should do the same.

On the A320, the sidesticks are just big joysticks with no active 
feedback--they're hooked up to springs, which permit slight control
movements, but increasing resistence to more force.  They are not 
interconnected, either: each pilot can do his own thing; the inputs are 
algebraically added.

On the 777, there will apparently be a back-drive mechanism to make the 
control columns feel conventional.

I'm not sure the "if the stick moves, the throttle should, too" idea is 
right, though.  From an interface perspective, I could live with a "feel-
less" sidestick (provided the sticks were mechanically coupled), but not the 
static throttles.  

But then again, even though I could live with feel-less sidesticks, they 
would probably be very dangerous in an airplane without protections--in 
fact, a pet theory of mine is that Airbus made the marketing decision to use 
sidesticks and FBW FIRST, and then developed its FBW interface with *hard* 
protections as the weight/performance problems they might engender cropped
up during R&D.  One good indicator of this is the "existential," consider-
all-cases design of the FBW in the final airplane.  But we'll never 
know. :-)





---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: rec.aviation