HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcm@Apple.COM (Robert Charles Monsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Alternate Vacuum (was: Re: Single Engine IFR)
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:12:12 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

I'm wondering about reliable alternatives to the manifold pressure alternate
vacuum system. Why not use a little electric motor to run a vacuum pump? Why
don't I see these around? Would it be expensive to do? Heavy? Too much load
on the electrical system? It seems to have the advantage that you can put it
anyplace there is electricity and a vacuum hose...

Another advantage is that it runs off the battery, so you don't lose vacuum
on engine failure (like you do with the manifold pressure alternates). You
could even hook it up to a vacuum sensor, and have it automatically go on
when it senses low vac...

Bob Monsen
Orion Network Systems
Berkeley Ca
N35644
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:53:42 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR

Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.ifr: 11-Nov-92 Re: Single Engine IFR
by Ed Falk@peregrine.Sun.CO 
> How about single-engine-night-IMC-over-rugged-terrain-with-icing-lightning-
> and-radio-problems?  Never again.

I'd rather meet Claude Van Damm in a dark ally, at night, after he
thought I just left his girl friend's appartment.
From: km11480@medtronic.COM (Keith A. Meisel)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR/Night VFR
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:16:56 GMT
Reply-To: km11480@medtronic.COM
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.

My PP-ASEL instructor, on our night cross-country, explained the secret to 
making emergency landings at night.

"Keep your landing light off til you're altimeter shows you about 100'
above ground, then switch on your landing light.

"If you don't like what you see, turn off the light!" (:-)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Night VFR
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 13:34:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov09.200741.20465@microsoft.com> peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho) writes:

>So, what do other people think about night VFR?  I'm guessing
>that most people fly night VFR, and most of those people don't
>wear parachutes. 

The single greatest risk of night VFR is inadvertently flying into
clouds.  On moonless nights or nights with a high overcast you simply
cannot see some forms of clouds, and stumbling into them is a remarkable
sensory experience--much spookier than IMC encounters during the daytime.
Suddenly all ground and sky references are gone, replaced by bizarre 
ghostly reflections of nav lights and/or strobes (it will only take you
a second to decide to turn those strobes off!) and if you are flying
a strutted Cessna, you'll get that eery hollow howl that brand C planes
make inside of clouds.  (Why is it that Cessnas howl and moan inside of
clouds?)  

IMHO, any non-instrument-rated pilot who wishes to fly night VFR cross
countries should go up with an instructor on an IFR flight plan and
punch into a few clouds in the dark.  It will, quite literally, open
your eyes and make you reconsider the terms under which you attempt
night VFR beyond local ops.

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Standby vacuum system
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:57:02 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

Will whoever sent me the cute little discussion on the Sphincter Flight
standby vacuum, send me it again...

-Ron
From: joell@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Joel Larner)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:15:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Greeley, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr

> How do you feel about flying single engine in IMC? Does it fall under the
> single-engine-over-rugged-terrain category? Or is it even more unnerving?

A good majority of the people on the net, own or fly single engine aircraft
and many of them in IFR.  You will find that most people feel very
comfortable about single engine IFR.  I certainly do.  You do have to
make realistic decisions on where you are going to fly.  For example,
a normally aspirated Cessna 182, which is an excellent aircraft in the
Colorado rockies during VFR conditions, is not to good for IFR, I.E. I
would not do it.  The realistic ceiling for a 182 is around 15000 to 
16000.  The MEA's are around 15000 - 16000.  Therefore, the aircraft
will work to get up there and then have no margin.  If you are on an
airway at the MEA of 15000 and you catch a downdraft, you are in real
trouble.  If you build up ice, again you are in real trouble with
nowhere to go.  So you can see, it may not be the best of ideas.  

However, a much more powerful single engine aircraft (turbo, etc.)
may be quite good even over the mountains.  So you must judge the
abilities of the aircraft and pilot for the conditions/terrain you
will be flying in.

-------------------------------------------------------
Joel Larner - Hewlett Packard, Greeley Storage Division
CAP SAR Pilot            email:  joell@hpgrjq.gr.hp.com
                           CAP:  Pikes Peak 293
                    In The Air:  N182H
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:32:31 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR

Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.ifr: 9-Nov-92 Re: Single Engine IFR
by Peter Duniho@microsoft.c 
> days.  I just finished reading "A Gift of Wings," the first Richard
> Bach book I've read.  (good stuff, by the way).  In a number of
> his stories, he mentions that he would _never_ fly at night without
> a parachute.  Why?  He figures that at night, he's as good as dead,
> because he won't be able to find a good landing spot in the dark.
> (He does make exceptions when he's in a well-lit area, and isn't
> going too far from known airports).  So, rather than try to put the
> plane down, he'll just bail out if the engine quits.

I'm a PP/ASEL/Inst and have made 400 sport parachute jumps.  At night,
in IMC, over unknown terrain, I'd stay with the plane, unless the plane
was big enough not to be landed slowly and/or the terrain was known to
be particularly ominous.

The instructor who soloed me in a J-3 often stated, quite seriously,
that something the size of a Cub could be minimum sink slip crash landed
survivably in an area the size of a golf course.  A Skyhawk with a
normal load is usually controllable, with the stall horn blaring of
course, down to the high 40s kts indicated.  That's a pretty low energy
configuration and, if you had to "crash land" at night in IMC at least
provides a fighting chance for survivability.

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Alternate Vacuum (was: Re: Single Engine IFR)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<BxEJ6y.BB8@access.digex.com> <74124@apple.apple.COM>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:42:03 GMT

In article <74124@apple.apple.COM> rcm@Apple.COM (Robert Charles Monsen) writes:
   I'm wondering about reliable alternatives to the manifold pressure alternate
   vacuum system. Why not use a little electric motor to run a vacuum pump? Why
   don't I see these around? Would it be expensive to do? Heavy? Too much load
   on the electrical system? It seems to have the advantage that you can put it
   anyplace there is electricity and a vacuum hose...

One of the PA28s of my club has such a pump. I believe it was even
factory installed.

It does use *lots* of electric power. When you check the pump during
preflight, all other electrical stuff have to be off and you should
run the pump for as short a time as possible. If you have to use it
during flight, you should turn off as much electrical equipment as
possible. If you don't, circuit breakers will begin to blow.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:35:50 GMT

In <1ddvqhINNlrb@topaz.bds.com> ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) writes:

>> The fact that I only have one engine doesn't bother me.

>How about only one vacuum source?

I don't know about you, but I remember the time when my engine driven
vacuum pump went out in partial IMC.  At that time there was a distinct
sucking sound coming from the area directly on top of the pilot's seat.

I am now getting ready to market the "Sphincter-Flite" backup vacuum
system and am willing to extend a 10% discount to fellow rec.aviators.

greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker)
Subject: Re: Visual Apch vs Charted Visual Flight Procedure (was Re: Contact VS Visual)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:57:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.172315.1963@slcs.slb.com> schoen@slcs.slb.com (Eric Schoen) writes:
>
>There's something called a charted visual flight procedure that's what you
....
>has at least a couple.  I've never seen one for anything but a major terminal.

Well, is San Jose "major".  They always have great names too.  SFO is often
flying "simultaneous Quiet Bridge and TippToe visual approaches" and SJC
has the "Fairgrounds Visual".  So for a charted visual flight procedure do you
still have to have either the airport or the aircraft you are following in sight?
From listening to the SFO final approach freq, I'd say yes.
>
>By contrast, a visual approach allows you to proceed to the airport by any
>reasonable means, so long as you have either the airport in sight or the
>aircraft you are following to the airport in sight.  

Thanks to all who pointed this omission out to me.

I got an e-mail message asking if radar is required for a visual approach.
Having had my face in the regs a lot lately I say, no, what say the net?

And while on that subject, what is the character of center radar these days?  I
realize that the San Francisco Bay Area has very complete coverage, but it seems
like the whole world does.  Between Klamath and Sun River Oregon where there
is just plain nothing, one can get rader vectors well below MEA, and thus avoid
oxygen or a big detour.  Or off airway in the wilds of southwestern South Dakota
and Northern Nebraska I got radar coverage, but of course it's flat as hell there
and I was at 10,000.  Where and at what altitudes is there no radar coverage
available???

Mike



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: krol@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Ed Krol)
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:11:25 GMT

It's really a red herring I think.  What about vfr on top?  What
about night vfr.  All you do in either of those visual cases is set up
a glide and hope for the best.  I think the bottom line is You rarely fly
in instrument conditions over 0/0.  Usually IFR flights are conducted
to enhance safety in marginal vfr conditions.  So you break out of the
clouds at 900' agl and look for a field.  How is that different than 
flying at 1000' vfr.

BTW- I wouldn't want my engine to quite vfr either.
From: randy@khan.gatech.edu (Randal T. Abler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:13:15 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Nov4.110153.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>How do you feel about flying single engine in IMC? Does it fall under the
>single-engine-over-rugged-terrain category? Or is it even more unnerving?

If I know the plane I'm flying is mechanically sound, I'm comfortable
flying single engine IFR/IMC.  I would be reluctant to jump into an 
unfamiliar plane (even if it is a make/model that I have plenty of time in),
and head off into the clouds.  Although I don't totally ignore the engine,
I'm more concerned about the things on the dash - radios, gyros, compass,
and the systems driving them (vacuum & electrical systems).  A lot of avionics 
problems are the hard to pin down, transient type that you don't want to 
discover while on approach.  In VMC (with ground contact) you could loose
every instrument on your panel and still be able to find a place to 
put the airplane down with reasonable safety.  Instrument/Avionics failures
are harder to deal with while IMC, which is why partial panel and
lost com procedures are part of IFR training. 
 
This is one compelling reason for owning your 
own airplane (someday ...), or at least getting familiar with a limited
number of rental planes that you fly regularly.

It is still a matter of risk assesment & management in making a go/no-go
decision.  Factor in things like (no particular order):
	terrian over which you're flying	(mountains obscured by clouds ...) 
	passenger experience
	pilot proficiency 
	weather - icing, ceilings, thunderstorms
	trip length
	facilities at destination 
	possible alternates
	aircraft capabilities (ceiling, range, speed)
	equipment (avionics, stormscope, de-icing ...)

A slight twist on the original question: how do the pilots rated
for both single & multi engine feel about single engine IMC?  Is it
based on the redundancy of two engines, or on the additional capabilities
and equipment that are typical in many twin engine planes. 


 

-- 
Randal  Abler   	randy@cerl.gatech.edu		 
CERL/EE Georgia Tech
From: brianh@smaug.West.Sun.COM (Brian Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Contact VS Visual
Date: 4 Nov 1992 21:23:36 -0800
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <1992Nov5.020423.16186@adobe.com> mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker) writes:
> Hmmm, isn't there one more distinction?  For a visual you have to have the
> airport in sight and must be able to keep the airport in sight for the entire
> approach.

Well, not quite.  Either the airport in sight OR the the aircraft you are
following to the airfield must be in sight.

[rest deleted]
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Contact VS Visual (Re: How to cancel, when you can't)
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:45:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.020423.16186@adobe.com> mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker) writes:
>Hmmm, isn't there one more distinction?  For a visual you have ot have the airport
>in sight and must be able to keep the airport in sight for the entire approach.

Close.  In a visual, you must be able to keep either airport or specific
traffic (which you are following to the airport) in sight.
--
-- Christophe

"I draw the line at Styrofoam packing kernels, you sick pervert."
From: gersh@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (John R. Gersh)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Night VFR
Summary: Not just clouds!
Keywords: IFR, night
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:54:56 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab

In article <1992Nov12.133428.15234@nlm.nih.gov> Dr. Daniel R. Masys writes:
>
>The single greatest risk of night VFR is inadvertently flying into
>clouds.  

	[Good description of what it's like]

>IMHO, any non-instrument-rated pilot who wishes to fly night VFR cross
>countries should go up with an instructor on an IFR flight plan and
>punch into a few clouds in the dark.  


Amen! It's not just clouds that are the problem, though that is
probably the greatest hazard, as Dr. Dan says. In general, you ought
to be prepared, in many conditions of night flight, for flight without
outside references. A moonless or overcast night flight over unlit terrain
or a large body of water can quickly drive you to flying by reference
to instruments alone.

I remember a flight, long ago, before I was instrument rated, from 
Frederick, MD, to Martha's Vineyard, MA. It was in the afternoon, and 
I had planned to arrive just before dark (though I was night current). 
I neglected to account for the fact that dusk will arrive half an hour 
earlier at a destination half a time zone to the east, and got there when 
it was fairly well dark. 

Everything was fine until I went out over the ocean on downwind for
MVY. There were, relatively suddenly, no visual cues _at all._  I was
flying into the proverbial black hole. The turn from downwind to base, 
the base leg of the pattern, and most of the turn to final were done by 
instrument reference alone. I was well along in my instrument training at 
the time and managed it OK, but it was, as Dan said, a real eye opener.


				- John Gersh



---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gersh                                     gersh@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Johns Hopkins Rd., Laurel, MD 20723		       (301) 953-5503
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Date: 11 Nov 1992 22:59:24 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <1992Nov4.110153.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>
>How do you feel about flying single engine in IMC? Does it fall under the
>single-engine-over-rugged-terrain category? Or is it even more unnerving?

How about single-engine-night-IMC-over-rugged-terrain-with-icing-lightning-
and-radio-problems?  Never again.

(Oh, did I mention the St. Elmo's fire in the cockpit?)

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: colangel@cliff.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC)
Subject: Accelerated IFR Programs
Organization: IGOAL
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:24:31 GMT

What's the word on those "accelerated" IFR programs?  You know, the ones you see in back 
of Flying Magazine that run about two weeks.  I'm very interested in hearing from someone 
who's gone that route.  I will probably do it with Bolivar Aviation in Tenn. if I decide it's 
worth it.

Thanks,
       Mike
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From:  (Bob Noel)
Subject: Re: Single Engine IFR
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:27:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.110153.1@pomona.claremont.edu>, jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have the following question for the netters.ifr:
> 
> How do you feel about flying single engine in IMC? Does it fall under the
> single-engine-over-rugged-terrain category? Or is it even more unnerving?
> 
> Thank you.
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
> 
> 

The fact that I only have one engine doesn't bother me.  I'm much more
concerned with the lack of weather-avoidance equipment (e.g., stormscope)
and lack of de-icing equipment.  For me, these "lacks" are significant 
factors when considering go/no-go and routes of flight.

Bob Noel
My views are my own, not MITRE's

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh)
Subject: Re: "We're in the pipe, five by five"
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 02:54:21 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <KCOLLETT.92Nov5121538@pacific.urbana.mcd.mot.com> kcollett@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Kendall Collett) writes:
>Could 5x5 be the cross-sectional dimensions of the "pipe"?  (Not sure
>what the units would be...)

Inches - it was a movie, they made it up. Reminds me of the director 
for the film "Field of Dreams". People, critics, everybody had commented
on the imperfections and flaws in the way Shoeless Joe Jackson was
portrayed. "You know the one thing they didn't comment on, the fact
that he's dead", was his comment. If you start with the premise that
you can make a dead baseball player live again in a cornfield in Iowa,
if he bats with his right knuckle under or over his extended left
index finger is a pretty silly argument to have. Well likewise if you
start with the premise that you can make a precision approach in a
spaceship to a planet other than earth, discussing if the glideslope is
measured in, feet, miles, transmission strength or milli-heffalumps
is fairly pointless.

I'm sorry, I just felt I had to share that, I'm sure you feel I
shouldn't have.

Mat

Matthew Waugh			waugh@dg-rtp.dg.com
RTP Network Services 		
Data General Corp.		
RTP, NC. (919)-248-6034
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: eap@everest.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Ripcord.
Originator: eap@everest.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, California
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 18:10:53 GMT

>
>>But that name would not be appropriate for a modern TV program.
>>Ripcords are virtually never used for main parachutes anymore.
>>The only ripcord on most rigs is for the reserve.
>
>
>You mean static lines are the norm now?  I thought static lines were
>only used for a student parachutist's first jump or two.  Seems to me
>that being able to control the opening of one's parachute would be
>part of the rush involved with jumping out of a perfectly good airplane.
>

Yes, static lines are (sometimes) still used for training.  But the
norm for experienced parachutists is a so-called "hand-deploy",
whereby the pilot chute (that provides the drag to pull the main
canopy out of the container/bag) is held out to the side of the
parachutists' body (into "clean air"), as opposed to a "ripcord"
system, where the pilot chute is spring loaded and jumps off the
persons back. There are variations on the types of hand-deploy
systems, too.

-Eric
From: mpeters@wtcd.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Michael Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:38:22 GMT
Reply-To: mpeters@wtcd.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Michael Peters)
Distribution: usa
Organization: WIN Management Services - Dayton, OH


Masayuki Karahashi writes:
>I don't want to sell it since I believe I will be flying eventually and I
>am also contemplating gliders while I am trying to get my medical, so once
>I start gliders, it will be useful...

It's true that you do not need a medical for your glider ticket, but you
do have to sign something that says there is no hnown medical problems that
would affect your flying.  If you could not fly power due to heart problems,
you really could not fly gliders.  Could this be a liability issue, if
something would happen while flying alone, and you were aware of your problem?

How about trying one of the more sophisticated type of ultralights.  I
believe the EAA's Paul Poberninski (sp?) is flying a Sorrel Hiperlight, which
qualifies as an ultralight, due to medical problems.  There is no medical
or medical waiver required to fly ultralights.

I hope everything works out for you!

-- 
Michael Peters
WIN Management Services
Michael.Peters@wtcd.DaytonOH.NCR.COM
...!uunet!ncrcom!wtcp!wtcd!mpeters
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:17183 rec.aviation.misc:525