HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rex@eng.umd.edu (Rex Root)
Subject: Re: Cellular phones again!  Argh!!
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 19:02:04 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park


It seems to me that the original poster on this latest, beat-to-death, thread
was questioning the legalities of Macy's dept. store advertising a particular
phone for use in a/c .......... Guess this should be sent over to rec.legal
(or some such)

Just thought I'd try to divert this runaway topic :-)

	*******************************************************

   Rex L. Root Jr.  PP-ASEL-G              "I only fly inverted on purpose."   
   Electrical Engineering Dept.
   University of Maryland                               ()   ()
   College Park, Maryland  20742                  _______\___/_______
   e-mail: rex@eng.umd.edu                            |   ( )   |
   voice: (301) 405-3688                         ---------------------
   FAX: (301) 314-9281                                     T
From: jimm@simsol.UUCP (Jim Morris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flying to Oregon: Questions.
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:58:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: simsol.176
Organization: Systems Simulation Solutions, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Aug20.010320.23589@sol.UVic.CA>, mvogel@sirius.UVic.CA (Mark  Vogel) writes:
> The thought is to maybe clear customs in Portland and investigate a

I would clear customs at Port Angeles or Boeing Field if I were you.  They are
better equipped to handle customs arrivals.  Also, you might not want to land
at Portland (see below).

> gigantic bookstore I hear resides in that city, then on south, possibly to

Powell's bookstore. Downtown.

> Eugene or some suitably distant destination.  I would like to spend two nights
> in Oregon, preferably camping.
> 
> I'm looking for any wisdom out there on:  busyness/appropriateness of Portland
> International as a way into Portland ... friendly FBO's (free tiedowns? cheap

Hillsboro, on the west side is a lot less busy than Portland International,
at least with regards to big iron.  Tie down at Hillsboro Helicopters or
Aero Air.  I don't know about rental cars, but I am sure they are available
somewhere. Look in Flight Guide or Jepp Guide.

Hillsboro is somewhat farther from downtown than Portland International.
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Manuverability of 727
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:50:27 GMT
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.

On 14 Aug 92 22:36:37 GMT, danodom@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dan Odom) said:

Dan> My friends and I were wondering ...

Dan> Exactly how manuverabe is a 727?

Depends on what you mean by maneuverable.  I wouldn't take one into a
dogfight with an F-4, so I'd have to say it's not very maneuverable.
Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable.

I've never seen a doghouse plot for a 727, so I can't be more specific.

As a transport goes, though, it's not bad.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
--
From: kzk00@ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Precision Circling Approaches
Keywords: IFR
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:19:55 GMT
Reply-To: kzk00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>
>>The precise workings of Instrument Approach Procedures are not in the
>>AIM, they are in the TERPS manual...
>
>Unfortunately, TERPS isn't very specific on this point.  An ILS approach
>procedure is usually published as three procedures on one plate:
>Straight-in ILS, Straight-in Localizer, and Circling.  Is the Circling
>approach a full-ILS or a Localizer procedure?
>
>TERPS paragraph 941 (describing full-ILS procedures) says:
>
>   MISSED APPROACH POINT (MAP).  The missed approach point is a
>   point on the final approach course where the height of the
>   glide slope equals the authorized decision height.
>
>Since a circling approach doesn't have a DH, one can probably assume
>that the circling approach is not based on full-ILS criteria, and that
>therefore the localizer-only MAP should be used.
>
>Given this, should the descent to circling MDA start at glideslope
>intercept and be done on the glide slope, or should it start at FAF and
>ignore the glide slope, or is either acceptable at pilot's discretion?


Don't assume that because you do a circle-to-land, it's no longer an ILS
approach. Actually, in my original posting I referred to the Arcata, CA
ILS 32 approach, which does not authorize a LOC approach. There you must
descend on the glideslope. (That's not for bureaucratic reasons, there
is a lot of terrain: glideslope intercept is at 5,200 feet, 4,982 feet
above the airport!)

So, if you have a choice between an ILS circle-to-land and a LOC circle-to-
land, the ILS version puts the FAF at glideslope intercept and you must
follow the glideslope to MDA, the LOC version has the FAF at the Outer
Marker and descent to MDA is at your discretion. From there on, it's
business as usual.

I heard that a note will be added to TERPS to clarify this point.

Klaus Kraemer, PP-ASEL IA, Mooney N201MX
From: lafford@serum.kodak.com (Rick Lafford)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GLiding instruction
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:28:39 GMT
Reply-To: lafford@serum.kodak.com (Rick Lafford)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

My usual practice is to have my 'spare' hand on the spoiler handle
during the early part of the tow. This does a bunch of things:

 o	assures me they are closed and locked.
 o	prevents them from coming open during a bounced take-off.
 o	keeps students from pulling them at the wrong moments!
 o	gives me a place to park my hand until I move it to the 
 	flaps or trim control.

In the Blanik, some witty engineer put the rear seat release right next
to the spoiler lever. Great position! I can hold the spoilers closed
yet still have a hand near the release.

BTW - the scariest thing we've had happen to an instructor is a student
freezing on the controls after entering a practice spin. After much 
swatting to no effect, the instructor put all his strength into the 
opposite rudder bar, breaking the torque tube attaching the front pedals
and recovering the glider. This student was PPL/ASEL commercial instrument
certified! A scary prospect if ever I've seen one. 

Who needs spin training anyway. ;-)

	Rick

Rick Lafford  Eastman Kodak Co.  | If you vote for the same old
Clinical Products Div.                  | lot, you'll get what you've
lafford@serum.kodak.com            | always got.  - me
From: bdboyle@maverick1.erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: ATC communications (was Re: "remain clear of the ARSA...")
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:24:37 GMT
Reply-To: bdboyle@maverick1.erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Organization: Exxon Research & Engineering


Of course, as an English professor of mine once noted, it is the tendency
of  any user of a language (civilizations included...) to try and shorten
the length of any given phraseology, regardless of attempts to standardize
it.  Our wise and enormous Uncle Sam can dictate the dictionary, but
can he make us use it if there is a more efficient way to use the bandwidth?
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: I give up...
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:57:38 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

G'day,

I think this was Greg's post

!In article <greg.714322752@saltydog! greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
!Two REAL-LIFE (tm) examples to illustrate the COMPLETE futility of filling
!in the route portion in the NE:
!
!As Filed Route #1 (to be picked up over CMK in VFR conditions):
!
!CMK (Carmel VORTAC, over Danbury, CT) ORW COSSY MVY
!(specifically to limit the over-water portion)
!
!What I got:
!
!CMK HFD TMU MVY
!(fish-food)

I have had success with putting `Single engine minimize overwater flight'
in the remarks section of the flight plan.  This way from the Baltimore-
Washington area north to Boston I have always gotten V16 vice V308-V139
which takes you a ways out to sea.

!As Filed Route #2 (picked up before departing MVY in IFR conditions)
!
!MVY TMU CMK SAX ETX HAR JST LBE
!(exactly 3:50 cruise, leaving me with 1:40 fuel at my destination (LBE) -
! plenty to get to my alternate (AGC) which was forecast VFR)
!
!What I got:
!
!MVY PVD PUT BAF V292 V408 LHY JST LBE
!(which was a 5:20 minute flight.  I had to shoot an approach into
!Wilkes-Barre (near LHY) three hours into the flight for fuel)

Once I had figured the required time I would have called them
back and refused the clearance informing them that they had
just ran me out of fuel well before my destination. I've actually
done this. I got what I had asked for but with a delay on the
ground. You can negotiate with these guys. It's one of the reasons
that I prefer to depart IFR from an uncontrolled field after
getting my clearance via telephone. If there is a major change
in routing, then I frequently say `let me look at that I'll
call you back'. Actually saves money as well as maybe your life.

If I had received the re-route in the air I would have
simply said unable the route is beyond the range of the aircraft.
I've also done this but it is much harder because you need to
calculate the fuel use when you're busy. In the case where I
did this we started along the new route but my co-pilot (an ATP)
looked at it and said no-way we'll run out of fuel. When informed
ATC they re-cleared us along the original route.

Your milage will vary. NO FLAME INTENDED!

!You'll note that in each of these cases the only common portions are the
!origination and destination points; leaving me with some question about
!my lost comm procedures (once at LHY it was clear that I could NOT complete
!the flight to LBE or my alternate.  However, the ENTIRE east coast that
!day was IFR.  Had I had a comm failure, I would have been faced with shooting
!an approach to an airport that did not expect me at all.  In reality, I
!probably would have COMPLETELY deviated from my filed or given
!route and proceeded NW hoping to break out before the fuel gave out)

Dave Rogers

BTW, don't try to go through the Phil. TCA even IFR. It don't work
(at least for me). They'll almost always reroute you to the West
(via Lancaster from here!) I hate those guys!
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: ATC communications (was Re: "remain clear of the ARSA...")
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:38:38 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD

In article <1992Aug15.031723.19180@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us> philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) writes:
!!!!One of the issues I had to consider was non-standard air traffic control
!!!!phraseology (e.g. "leaving four point five for six").

!If you just learn to replace the "for" with "climbing" or "descending"
!(as the case may be), and a "thousand" on the end, you'll be 95% of
!the way there.  "leaving four point five climbing six thousand" is
!still technically non-standard, but OK.  It would be better if you
!dropped the "leaving" too, since the "climbing" or "descending" gives
!the info that you're changing altitude.

When at one altitude and cleared to a higher altitude I sometimes say

Bonanza 2255A upto xxxxx thousand
or
upto xxxxx thousand for 55A

Similarly for descents except down to.

Not standard, of course, but short and full of info. After all, with
mode C he already knows your current altitude so why repeat it.

One can criticize this because the word to sounds like the number 2.

Dave Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: pilla@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (michael.a.pilla)
Subject: Re: Building a Christavia, #12 plans problems?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:09:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.144849.25866@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>
> Building a Christavia - Plans comment
>
>I don't mind fudging plans now and again if I know what I'm doing and
>have experience, I used to do that all the time as an auto mechanic,
>but I went to school for that and I knew what I was doing.  As I've
>said, this is my first airplane and I'm reluctant to make construction
>deviations on my own.  I've been calling Ron when I felt it necessary,
>but I'm getting the distinct impression he feels the calls aren't
>really necessary, that I could have figured things out for myself. 
>Maybe that's true, perhaps others attempting to build this airplane see
>these problems and just brush them aside and build it like they know it
>should be built.  But I feel I'm probably pretty average as a first
>time homebuilder, and as such, I'm probably feeling the same way anyone
>else would.   I wonder if other builders could speak to the
>completeness and accuracy of the plans they are working with? 

Your experiences are similar to my Skybolt experiences back in
'79.  It, too, was my first project.  I suspect that "plans
built" planes are more difficult for first time builders than
"kit built" planes.  Over the years, a small group of us have
been restoring Cubs, Champs, ..., flying them for a year,
selling, restoring a new one, ...  I learned the tradeoff that
are necessary when looking at the original blueprints for
production aircraft and realizing the field changes that are
necessary to accommodate production differences.  Now that I am
building a RV-4, I am finding errors in the plans, parts
callout, ..., but I feel more confident.  I suspect that if I
were a strict neophyte, I would be on the phone a lot more than
I am :-)  (Actually, as far as *banging* metal goes, I am a
neophyte.  My experience has been primarily welding, wood,
fabric, and some composite work; no metal/riveting before the
RV-4, but I am learning and enjoying the process.  There is
something visceral about "driving/bucking" rivets :-)

Mike Pilla
From: os360051@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (T. Kurt Bond)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Q: Other flying clubs in WV area?
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:05:10 GMT
Organization: West Virginia Network for Educational Telecomputing


	I'm a member of the Elkins (West Virginia) Pilots' Club, whose mission
in life is providing a means to fly inexpensively.  Our 'fleet' consists of a
pair of 172's, one for student training and one for IFR and cross countries.
In the past, the Club has restricted itself to keeping the airplanes flying,
and the Club solvent; there's been little or no social activity among the
membership, and member turnover is predictably high.  Folks come in, finish
their training, and drop out at an excessive rate.

	We elected a new president in July, much to the surprise of all
present (including the electee!)  He wants to hook up with other clubs with
similar characteristics (20-30 members, about 25% students; 1 instructor; 
2-5 aircraft; etc.), with a view towards visiting some of the closer ones to
see how they are conducted.  He's interested in ways to build the social
interaction, enhance flying safety, keep the member costs down, and reduce
the turnover problem.

	I told him about the Net (he's non-computer-literate), and he asked if
I'd post this query and see what kind of response comes back.  Elkins is
located in east-central West Virginia, so "close" flying clubs would be in
eastern Ohio, west or central Pennsylvania, Maryland, or Virginia.

	Thanks for any help!

-- 
--
Phil Loftis, PP-ASEL (@135 hrs)
   PDL@mtnet2.wvnet.edu  
   os360051@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: pjern@chinet.chi.il.us (Phil Jern)
Subject: Flying/Driving Habits
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:34:26 GMT

Well, I never thought I'd have anything to post on this subject, but I
recently realized that I do have some crossover between flying and driving.

One thing I caught myself doing while recently driving back to Indiana from
New Jersey was to continually scan the skies for traffic as I rolled west
on I-70.  It would take driving under a bridge to snap me out of it.

The other thing I did was to reach for the flap handle coming down a steep
hill, while looking at the continuation of the street I was on, which
looked a little like a runway, for some reason:  I felt like I was too high
and needed some more flaps.  The sudden slowing of the car snapped me back
to reality :)
-- 
Phil Jern  ---  pjern@chinet.chi.il.us  --- PROFS: CHGVMIC1(PJERN)
My opinions are probably not IBM-Compatible, and represent only
my own warped sense of reality.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: TRSA's
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:25:24 GMT

I pointed this out in mail to the original poster, but I thought it
was worth mentioning here.

You can safely ignore a TRSA, but the ATA is still there.  You still
can't fly within the ATA without talking to the tower.  And there
still may be a control zone there, too.

As for the fate of TRSAs:  they are being phased out.  They will probably
all have been phased out (either converted to ARSAs or removed) by the
time we switch to alphabet soup airspace.

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
From: dougg@kbsw1.uucp (Doug Gerecht 806 1031)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: New ARSA question
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:50:57 GMT
	<1992Aug12.052121.25348@StarConn.com>
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

I've had this happen in the DEN TCA.  I was circling over downtown,
smack dab in the middle of the TCA.  When I requested a heading back
toward BJC the controller immediately cleared my request and told me
to squawk 1200.  I thought it a little strange.  Then again, it was
11:00 at night.  I don't think there was any traffic in the way.
 
-- 

		dougg@kentek.com	Doug Gerecht
From: wendt@CS.ColoState.EDU (alan l wendt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Gear down
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:28:43 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

>In article <2051@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
>
>Oh, yeah, I just got back from BUF where I climbed to 9000 feet
>in the Bonanza WITH THE GEAR DOWN! That's what 25+ hours in
>a straight legged 182 will do to you.
>

I did that last week out of Huntsville North heading for Springfield in
my Bellanca.  When I finally noticed the gear switch and selected up the
gear politely declined.  It also declined to go down.  I don't think that
I oversped it because most of the way was climb at 110-120 mph.

I decided to land in Jackson Tennessee, which turned out to be a good
choice because it has the emergency equipment needed for commercial
ops but only has a few commercial flights per day.  Also the FSS
for Western TN is located at the airport.  The folks there were great;
they shut their airport down for about 45 minutes before I landed and
probably two hours while they were scraping up the plane.

I made some low passes for inspection, used the emergency gear dump,
and did a few dives-and-pullups.  The emergency gear descent got the mains
down but the nosegear was cocked back slightly.  Did a "soft-field" landing
to keep the nose gear off as long as possible, it hit at about 45mph and
promptly collapsed.  We dug a 30-foot groove right down the center of
the runway.

After we stopped and exited, the folks on the ground tried to raise up the
nose and the right main collapsed.  We should have bolted down the mains
first!  Overall damage -- bent prop, some scraped fiberglass, engine will
require partial teardown but is not expected to be in trouble.  A long day.
Next time (god forbid) I may try to stop the prop and level it.

Alan Wendt
From: schinner@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:38:23 GMT
Subject: Metro-III flight questions
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

Over the weekend, I had an opportunity to fly on a Fairchild Metro-III
from Portland to Seattle.  Pretty neat plane.  During the flight, I was
trying to figure out what was going on.  I could see into the cockpit,
but couldn't see everything.  I did see the VSI at 2000fpm all the way
up to 14000.

Questions/Comments

1)  Why didn't the pilots reduce power once we leveled out at 14000.
    The noise level was way higher than my Mooney.

2)  In fact, I didn't detect *any* change in power level...*EVER*.  That
    horrible droning continued onto the runway until we had slowed down
    enough to make the turn onto the taxiway.  Also, the movement in the
    power controls was indetectable to me, perhaps due to the angle from
    which I was viewing.

I am real curious as to the power profile of a flight in a turbo-prop.  There
didn't seem to be any similarity beteen that airplane and my Mooney.

On the way back we were on a Dash-8.  *REALLY* NICE RIDE!!!

---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schinnerer  -  PP-ASEL-IA       |  Hewlett Packard
Mooney - 350X  -  "Buster"          |  Vancouver, WA
email - schinner@vcd.hp.com         |  (206) 944-3324
---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Commercial and Military Simulators
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:30:49 GMT

bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>        On a side issue, what happens to the military simulators when
>aircraft are removed from service? Seems like one way to get close to
>owning a military jet without having a megabuck income ( I am aware
>that the similators use specialised computer systems to drive the image
>projectors ).

I don't know of any military simulator whose aircraft has been removed
from service. Usually these types stay around for decades. Any simulator
more than ten years old is as hopelessly antiquated as a 1960's vintage
computer. In many ways the PC simulators of today can provide the image
complexity of simulators of the '70s. Of course, they don't have the
display or cockpit. In any case, there were very few military simulators
built during the '70s, and many of those lacked a visual system.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Scanner Recomendations.
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:33:57 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <9208131729.AA11177@acf3.NYU.EDU>, cruz@ACF3.NYU.EDU (Nancy Cruz) 
writes:
> Hi, I am interested in purchasing a scanner to pick up Air Bands.
> Can anyone recomend one.  I saw one made by Sony called IC-PRO-80 on sale 
> for 319.00.  Has anyone had any experience with this model?

I have a Sony Air-8 which I purchased from Sporty's about 5-6 years
ago.  Nothing but exemplary performance from it in all that time.  It
finally got fried in January by a malfunctioning ac/dc converter.

I'm going to have Sony repair it in time (I hope) for the Reno
Air Races.  In retrospect however, I gotta tell ya, I would be
more likely to buy a transciever now if I were starting over.  Having
a backup transceiver would be handy when flying and they all scan
the Aviation band.  Of course the Sony also scans the county sheriff
frequnecies...


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com
SHO  GOZE