HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jerryb@jerber.sandiego.sgi.com (Jerry Bransford)
Subject: Civil Air Patrol/CAP thoughts
Keywords: Civil Air Patrol/CAP
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:44:19 GMT

Any constructive comments on joining the Civil Air Patrol program?  I just
received my license and have considered joining the CAP organization to
gain flying experience and do something useful with my license (flying 200
miles for a hamburger lunch is not my idea of useful things to do with a
license).

I've already received CAP's squadron locations and an information packet,
but hearing from someone with first hand CAP knowledge would be great.  I
understand 200 hours of PIC is required to fly in the left-hand seat, but
that's OK, I can do a pretty good job on radios (also have a ham radio
license), etc until I get my 200 hours PIC. 

If I decide to join, the Oceanside California squadron is the closest
location to where I live.  Anyone a member of that squadron or know of
it??

Finally, just how closely aligned with the USAF is CAP?  I was in the Air
Force from 1966 to 1970 (a loonnnggg time ago!) and don't want to feel like
I've rejoined the USAF again.  I was younger and 'more agreeable' then.  I
liked the Air Force, but I'm not going to be able to put up with uniform
inspections, etc again.

Regards,
Jerry Bransford


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry Bransford			
Silicon Graphics
(619) 546-0409
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho)
Subject: Re: public perception of
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:30:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

(At the risk of turning this newsgroup into a discussion about
Northern Exposure...)

In article <1992Nov13.155530.7291@col.hp.com> cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best) writes:
> someone else writes:
>> cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best) writes:
>> > [Comment about Maggie O'Connell and her plane in NE]
>>
>> The only time I'VE seen her plane, she and Joel were in it, and
>> the engine failed!  Great PR!
>
>Okay, I better follow up my own post with:
>   but she handled it well - better than the general public
>   would think.

I seem to remember another episode where Maggie flew Joel
to Anchorage for a medical conference.  That trip was
uneventful (well, the flight itself...no comment about
the goings-on while they were in Anchorage! :) ).

>And - good point about Maurice!  A perfect situation for
>another pilot.

Agreed!  Of course, it could be that none of the airstrips
in the Greater Sicily Area are large enough for any sort of
plane that Maurice would be happy with.  I certainly can't
see him putting around in a Super Cub!
-- 
Pete Duniho         "Give me a fish, or a mountain, to scale..."
peted@microsoft.com              -- Toy Matinee
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulator,rec.aviation.student
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Re: FS 4.0 instruction, power <-> airspeed 
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: Vis-Orb Tragnetics Recorporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:37:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.212846.28309@ccad.uiowa.edu>, yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis) writes:
>
[about FS4.0 instruction mode]
>During the approach lesson I noticed it said to use power
>to control the airspeed.  I was taught that power controls altitude
>and elevator controls airspeed, at least within certain envelope limits.
>
>Because of that I was wondering, is this kind of advice shared by
>all instructors, or each uses their own ideas for teaching?


	Well, in all the gliders I teach in, I've *never* instructed the use
of power to control airspeed. :-)


Raymond L. Swartz Jr. (rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu)
================================================================================
Excel in everything -- specialization is for insects!! (paraphrase of R.H.)
Fantasy: Wave soaring over Olympus Mons on Mars
================================================================================
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Questionable Questions on
Date: 14 Nov 92 22:53:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

KBK> .7128.  What minimum equipment is required for VFR operation within a
   > .Terminal Control Area?
   > .A. Two-way radio communications equipment and a transponder.
   > .B. Two-way radio communications equipment, a transponder, and an
   > .encoding altimeter.
   > .C. Two-way radio communications equipment, a transponder, an encoding
   > .altimeter, and a VOR or TACAN receiver.

KBK> .I picked (B), because FAR 91.131 (c) and (d) seem to require Mode C in
   > .a TCA.  The answer in the back of the book is (A)

You forgot 91.131(c)(1).  A VOR or Tacan receiver is required as well.
Go for (C).

KBK> .              Figure 12. Surface Aviation Weather Report
   > .                INK SA 1854 CLR 15 106/77/63/1112G18/000
   > .                [irrelevant lines deleted]

KBK> .7465. (Refer to figure 12.) What are the wind conditions at Wink,
   > .Texas (INK)?
   > .A. Calm.
   > .      o
   > .B. 110  at 12 knots, peak gusts 18 knots
   > .      o
   > .C. 111  at 2 knots, peak gusts 18 knots.

KBK> .The answer key gives C -- IN TWO PLACES.  This has got to be a
   > .misprint, right?

Right.  Go with (B).  And send that answer key back to ASA with a nasty
letter.  Tell them to send you the right one.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                                    
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky)
Subject: difference between Vx and Vy
Organization: IBM, Austin
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 20:56:46 GMT

Hello,

Beginning student here.  An experienced pilot friend of mine and I were
having a disagreement over the the difference between Vx and Vy.  Here's
what I have learned:

	Vx = best angle of climb speed; the speed that will give you the
	     greatest gain in altitude over a given horizontal distance
	Vy = best rate of climb speed; the speed that will give you the
	     greatest gain in altitude over a given period of time

To me this says: 1) your altitude will be greater if you use Vx over a
given distance than if you had used Vy.  2) your altitude will be greater
if you use Vy over a given period of time than if you had used Vx.  

Ok, I will try to represent my understanding of these definitions 
graphically as best I can using ASCII:

1) 	     |                        *  Vx altitude
	     |                     +       
	     |                  +     *  Vy altitude
  altitude   |               +     +
  	     |            +    +
	     |         +   +
	     |      +  +
	     |   ++
	     |+
	     +--------------------------
	          horizontal distance

2) 	     |                        *  Vy altitude
	     |                     +       
	     |                  +     *  Vx altitude
  altitude   |               +     +
  	     |            +    +
	     |         +   +
	     |      +  +
	     |   ++
	     |+
	     +--------------------------
	          time

Or another way I have imagined it is to sort of combine the above two 
graphs and show the paths of the planes in space over a given amount 
of time.

3) 	     |                        
	     |                            
	     |                         * Vy altitude (plane is higher than
  altitude   |                     +     plane using Vx after a given amount
  	     |Vx altitude *    +	 of time but is lower than plane using
	     |         +   +             Vx at any given horizontal distance 
	     |      +  +                 from the orgin)
	     |   ++
	     |+
	     +--------------------------
	          horizontal distance

My friend claims that I am mistaken, though.  He says that the term "best 
rate of climb" is really a misnomer since you will be higher using Vx even
over the same *period of time*.  I don't totally understand his argument.
He says Vy is a "more efficient" rate of climb and that's why you wouldn't
use Vx all the time (or something like that).  So who is right?  Can anybody 
clear this up for me?

thanks,

Bill
squirrel.austin.ibm.com!chesky@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com
From: randy@khan.gatech.edu (Randal T. Abler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: difference between Vx and Vy
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:32:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Nov17.205646.19539@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com> chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky) writes:
> [ ... graphical presentation of Vx & Vy ]
>My friend claims that I am mistaken, though.  He says that the term "best 
>rate of climb" is really a misnomer since you will be higher using Vx even
>over the same *period of time*.  I don't totally understand his argument.
>He says Vy is a "more efficient" rate of climb and that's why you wouldn't
>use Vx all the time (or something like that).  So who is right?  Can anybody 
>clear this up for me?

You are correct.  Vx gets you the most altitude per unit horizontal distance,
Vy gets you the most altitude per unit time.  You can verify this
by getting in a plane doing a take-off climb out at Vx and note how high 
you are at the end of the runway compared to a normal climb.  If your
plane is equipped with a Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI), then it can
be used to measure rate of climb (feet per minute) to compare climb
rates at different airspeed.  To be fair, you have to do this at
the same altitude for each airspeed, since climb rate varies with
altitude, temperature, barometric pressure, and weight.  If you
try this on the same day starting at the same altitude for each
airspeed you'll get a good comparison.  Ask your instructor if you 
can try it briefly on you next lesson.

To add to the puzzle, some aircraft have "enroute climb" or "normal
climb" airspeeds that are higher than Vy.  Usually this is done to
get better airflow for cooling the engine and to provide better visibility
since a climb at Vy may result in the nose of the airplane blocking your
view of the horizon and any other airplanes in front of you.


-- 
Randal  Abler   	randy@cerl.gatech.edu		 
CERL/EE Georgia Tech
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Visiting Alaska
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:29:49 GMT
Organization: HP General Systems Division

OK.  I didn't feel like spending Thanksgiving by myself sooooo I decided to
go visit my sister.  "What's the big deal?" you say.  The big deal is that
she lives in Anchorage, as in Alaska.

Do you know how long I've fantasized about flying a 185 around Alaska?

Well, I don't have a 185.  So I'm going up there on an MD-80 that belongs to
Alaska Airlines.  But I was hoping that while I'm there I might be able to
ride along with someone and maybe even get some stick time.

I'm arriving in ANC next Wed the 25th and leaving Sunday morning.  I know
that this is short notice but I just decided yesterday to go.

Any pointers that y'all can provide would be much appreciated.

Mark
-- 
Mark Cousins                Hewlett-Packard Co.        mtc@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs    19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659             Cupertino, CA  95014          FAX: (408) 447-4364
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Questionable Questions on
Date: 17 Nov 1992 07:38:20 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Here's an uninformed opinion:  Weren't VOR's required
in TCA's up until 1990 or so?   I recall studying
this for my PP written in 1989, then when reviewing
to take my first BFR I found that it wasn't there
anymore.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulator,rec.aviation.student
From: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis)
Subject: FS 4.0 instruction, power <-> airspeed 
Organization: CAD-Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:28:46 GMT


I haven't played with the instruction mode of FS 4.0 since before
I got my licence so I hadn't noticed most of the instructions
but a couple of days ago I tried it just for the heck of it.

During the approach lesson I noticed it said to use power
to control the airspeed.  I was taught that power controls altitude
and elevator controls airspeed, at least within certain envelope limits.

Because of that I was wondering, is this kind of advice shared by
all instructors, or each uses their own ideas for teaching?

-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: kkalan@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Kalan)
Subject: Re: FAA approved or not
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:15:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.030617.21240@nntp.uoregon.edu> margolin@oregon.uoregon.edu (Brian Margolin) writes:
>This is my first time on this newsgroup.  I want to get my private pilots
>liscence (I think I've had enough of FS 4.0) and want some advice.  Does it
>matter whether or not a particular school is FAA approved or not?  It seems
>that the FAA schools operate under part 61 and the non-FAA approved schools
>operate under part 41.  Also, is it important to learn at a larger airport
>with a tower or is it okay to learn at a smaller airport with no tower? 
>The school at the larger airport (this is the FAA approved school)
>suggested that it was better to learn at a larger airport because you learn
>how to use the radio and deal with heavy traffic situations right away.  
>
>Thanks,
>Brian
>Margolin

As far a schools go, I would pick the one with the best instructor, and
wouldn't care if it's a part 61 or 141 school.  It typically takes
about 70 hours of training before you get your ticket.

I would opt for the larger airport.  I learned out of MDW (Midway airport,
Chicago) which is an ARSA and next to O'Hara (TCA).  When I started I thought
it was impossible to talk on the radio and fly the plane at the same time,
but believe it or not you will learn to do both.  Now I have no problem
with the radios what so ever and am comfortable going to any airport.
(MDW was much busier when I started than it is now.)

I know people who learned at an uncontrolled field, and they are not comfortable
with the radios or flying in an ARSA.  Their instructor never took them
into MDW so they could get the feel for it.  This is not true for everyone,
but was in this case.  They now are taking some lessons at MDW so they can
fly out of there.

If you do go for the smaller airport (and there is nothing wrong with this, and
may even be cheaper), make sure your instructor takes you into an ARSA
a few times to get you comfortable with it so your not limited to where
you fly.  You wont regret it.

Just my 2 cents worth. 

Ken Kalan
PP ASEL
kgk@nwu.edu

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: margolin@oregon.uoregon.edu (Brian Margolin)
Subject: FAA approved or not
Organization: Institute of Molecular Biology
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 03:06:17 GMT

This is my first time on this newsgroup.  I want to get my private pilots
liscence (I think I've had enough of FS 4.0) and want some advice.  Does it
matter whether or not a particular school is FAA approved or not?  It seems
that the FAA schools operate under part 61 and the non-FAA approved schools
operate under part 41.  Also, is it important to learn at a larger airport
with a tower or is it okay to learn at a smaller airport with no tower? 
The school at the larger airport (this is the FAA approved school)
suggested that it was better to learn at a larger airport because you learn
how to use the radio and deal with heavy traffic situations right away.  

Thanks,
Brian
Margolin
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulator,rec.aviation.student
From: ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)
Subject: Re: FS 4.0 instruction, power <-> airspeed 
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:05:13 GMT

yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis) writes:


>I haven't played with the instruction mode of FS 4.0 since before
>I got my licence so I hadn't noticed most of the instructions
>but a couple of days ago I tried it just for the heck of it.

>During the approach lesson I noticed it said to use power
>to control the airspeed.  I was taught that power controls altitude
>and elevator controls airspeed, at least within certain envelope limits.

>Because of that I was wondering, is this kind of advice shared by
>all instructors, or each uses their own ideas for teaching?

Hi,
	One time during my training I fell below the approach speed on
	final (never happens now. NOT!) and I was told (loudly, for my
	soft spoken instructor) to ADD power.  We later discussed this
	and he told me (obviously) that pitching down to gain A/S at
	100 ft was not the best way to do it.  That of course is not 
	to say that attitude control at higher altitudes is not the
	proper way to control A/S.  Power control gives you control 
	over the distance you travel on final (unlike a glider).

					Don't mean to tell anybody
					how to fly.

					A. Ng
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Questionable Question
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:03:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

PIA> .This would seem to be the correct answer, not C. If you look at FAR 91.13
   > .it states:

PIA> .  (1) For IFR operations. An operable VOR or TACAN receiver and;

Mea Culpa!!  That's what I get for grabbing the nearest copy of the FARs
instead of the latest.  This changed in Jun '91, and the "For IFR..."
was added.  (B) is now indeed correct.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: difference between Vx and Vy
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:05:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <1992Nov17.205646.19539@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com>, chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky) writes:
> 
> Or another way I have imagined it is to sort of combine the above two 
> graphs and show the paths of the planes in space over a given amount 
> of time.
> 
> 3) 	     |                        
> 	     |                            
> 	     |                         * Vy altitude (plane is higher than
> altitude   |                     +     plane using Vx after a given amount
>   	     |Vx altitude *    +	 of time but is lower than plane using
> 	     |         +   +             Vx at any given horizontal distance 
> 	     |      +  +                 from the orgin)
> 	     |   ++
> 	     |+
> 	     +--------------------------
> 	          horizontal distance
> 
> My friend claims that I am mistaken, though.  He says that the term "best 
> rate of climb" is really a misnomer since you will be higher using Vx even
> over the same *period of time*.  I don't totally understand his argument.

	It sounds as if he doen't totally understand his argument either.
	Your interpretation is correct.

> He says Vy is a "more efficient" rate of climb and that's why you wouldn't
> use Vx all the time (or something like that).  So who is right?  Can anybody 
> clear this up for me?

	There are various measures of efficiency.  If your objective is
	to get from point A to point B as fast as possible, then
	Vy beats Vx and a faster cruise-climb beats Vy.  If your objective
	is to minimize fuel use,  Vy is a reasonable choice to minimize
	how much time you spend at low altitude and rich mixture settings.

	It's clear that Vx is preferable when obstacle clearance is important.
	Obstacle clearance need not be the standard 50-foot tree off the
	end of the runway -- At high density altitudes you may need to
	use Vx to (for example) climb out of the Tahoe basin on a
	summer day.

	When obstacle clearance isn't important, Vy is usually preferable
	for two reasons:

	1)  You gain altitude as quickly as possible.  If your engine
	    quits, the extra altitude gives you more options for landing.

	    This assumes that at least some correlation between engine
	    failure and how long it's been running, especially at full
	    throttle.  Vy also gets you out of prime bird-strike airspace
	    as fast as possible.  An engine is unlikely to fail as a function
	    of how steep the climb path is.  If it fails at some absolute
	    altitude due to mixture problems, it doesn't matter what speed
	    you use to reach that altitude.

	2)  Climbing at Vx can be harder on the engine.  In some aircraft
	    cooling may be marginal for full-throttle operation at this
	    lower speed.  Spending a lot of time climbing at Vx instead of
	    Vy or a higher speed could show up as reduced time between
	    overhauls.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Questionable Questions on
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:56:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

DA> .Here's an uninformed opinion:  Weren't VOR's required
  > .in TCA's up until 1990 or so?   I recall studying
  > .this for my PP written in 1989, then when reviewing
  > .to take my first BFR I found that it wasn't there
  > .anymore.

Yes, I got caught by that one also.  As near as I can tell, it changed
in July '91.  Now, it's just IFR flights in the TCA.  (And, pray tell,
what IFR flight WON'T have a VOR??  <~>)

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: kennykb@dssv01.crd.ge.com (Kevin B. Kenny)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Questionable Questions on
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:49:27 GMT
Reply-To: kennykb@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE R&D, Information Architectures & Management Program


We're discussing the question:

7128.  What minimum equipment is required for VFR operation within a
Terminal Control Area?
A. Two-way radio communications equipment and a transponder.
B. Two-way radio communications equipment, a transponder, and an
   encoding altimeter.
C. Two-way radio communications equipment, a transponder, an encoding
   altimeter, and a VOR or TACAN receiver.

In article <272@tucson.sie.arizona.edu>, bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill
Ganoe) writes:

|> VOR or Tacan is required only for IFR under 92.131(c)(1), so that probably
|> doesn't qualify for "minimum".  Further, 91.131(d) refers to 91.215(d)
|> which allows ATC to make exceptions to the requirement for an encoding
|> altimeter.  Thus answer A (as listed in the ASA manual) is most likely
|> correct for "minimum" equipment.

Uhhh, but ATC can waive the transponder requirement entirely, and even
the radio requirement (ask Ron Wanttaja sometime about his experience
operating NORDO in a TCA).  Given that ATC can bless you to fly
without any of this stuff, isn't (B) still the better choice?

73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin