HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe)
Subject: Re: [IN]sensible students
Reply-To: mark@.cv.hp.com
Organization: UDT-CV (ITO)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:44:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.194532.22807@pony.Ingres.COM>, kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.173216.25902@cbnews.cb.att.com> tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester) writes:
>>>>                     ...  How does a CFI handle a student that does
>>>>not seem "sensable."  Have any CFIs out there had a student that you
>>>>had to say "You a not mature enough to be a pilot" ?
>>>
>>>                                                      ... I would
>>>pass the word to as many local flight schools as possible what my
>>>experiences were.  
>>
>>	And open yourself to a horendous slander suit. ...
> 
> I consider this a responsibility of being a CFI to ...
> ...                 And reporting them to the FAA/FSDO as
> necessary if their actions do not improve over time.
> 
> w.r.t. slander and legal action.  ...
> 
> If "passing the word" consists of describing your observations without
> adding color, or using the phrase "in my opinion, Joe X is unsafe because
> he did Y while I was in the right seat", then I don't see where there
> is much of a case for slander.

I don't know that slander is necessarily the major concern here.  It seems
that a student is paying the instructor for services.  By doing so there
may be an obligation assumed by the CFI to act in the interest of his/her
student rather than the interest of society.  I too am not a lawyer, but
I think the situation may be similiar to that of a lawyer and his client.
The lawyer is under obligation to represent the best interests of his/her
client independent of the best interests of society.  Maybe its different
with the instructor/student relationship.  (Yes, I know you could argue
that reporting the student to the FAA is in the student's best interest
but would a court agree with you?)

Even if the instructor assumes no obligation to put the student's interests
before society's, there is still the issue of confidentiality or privacy.
The courts have been pretty liberal in their interpretation of a person's
rights in this area.  Again I think that the student by paying for the
instruction may acquire some legal rights here.

Before the flames fly, I would like to say that I support the view that
has the instructor doing whatever necessary to prevent an unsafe student
from being licensed to fly; however, our legal system does not always take
the moral high ground.

Mark Rowe             PP-SEL G I              Comanche N5943P
From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Mr Spitfire spits the dummy...news
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:22:30 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <17v6trINNi8s@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000) writes:
> The guy punched out at a very low altitude and in a very difficult
> attitude (almost straight down), but the ejection system miraculously
> saved him from significant injury. I wonder if that will sell many MIG 29s.

That crash is commonly refered to as the "Soviet Ejection Seat Demo".
While I don't know if it sold any Migs, the engineers can certainly take
pride in how well their ejection seat worked.  Imagine what the press would
have been like if the pilot had not been able to eject.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:40:52 GMT
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Organization: HP General Systems Division
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jeremy Brest) writes:

>hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>
>>Usually, we listen to radio in the cars during long solo drive, but what do 
>>you do for long solo flights (assuming FAA does not permit radio)?  Please 
>>email if you think it is illegal and don't want FAA to see it. 
>
>Don't you have an ADF?

The audio fidelity of every ADF I've used is so bad that I switch it off in
frustration.  OK for the ballgame, I guess -- although even for that it's
torture -- but positively unusable for Mozart.

So I use ADF only for approaches, although someday it might be fun to try out
one of those colored airways!

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


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: "Andrew" takes WWII planes (fwd)
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 11:21:30 GMT

In article <1529@seqp4.sequoia.com> cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell) writes:
>
>If I owned a plane in Florida (even a non-classic) the first thing I'd
>do when I found out a major storm was headed my way would be to fly it
>a few states away.
>
It isn't just Florida.  If one of those hummers churns up the Chesapeake
my 182 is going to Ohio! (Just position 400 miles and a mountain range
between the bird and the storm).

Island living isn't always a breeze...

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf)
Subject: Re: Headset/intercom incompatibilities
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
	<Aug.31.19.10.18.1992.3417@pilot.njin.net>
	<1992Aug31.235427.6157@ica.ivy.isc.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:04:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.235427.6157@ica.ivy.isc.com> willcr@bud.sos.ivy.isc.com (Will Crowder) writes:

   It seems that there might be a market for some sort of adjustable
   impedance/level matching device.

   Has anyone heard of such a beast?  Anyone want to design one?

Yes. It is called the PS-Engineering PM-1000 intercom. All it takes
is independent inputs from each mike.
Costs a little more...
Worth it ...

					Skip "Geez I ought to buy stock" Egdorf
					hwe@lanl.gov
					N8849W
From: raf@nyqrn.UUCP (Hugh Sider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Finding toxic waste/Additional data
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:05:05 GMT

> I'll bet you'd be appalled if she went snooping around other people's
> property while on the ground.  Why does being in a plane suddenly
> make it acceptable to you?

   Either is apparently acceptable to the US government.  I apologize
 to all for poor documentation, I'm remembering an NPR report.
 There is an environmental regulation enforcement body in Mass
 which inspects reported sites from the ground and air before
 revealing their interest to the suspect parties.

     One of the things which made this report stick in my mind
 was the enthusiasm of the pilot they employed.  Apparently a
 non-trivial part of his pay was job satisfaction, flying for
 a cause.

     Both drive-by and fly-by inspections were conducted without
 search warrants of any kind.  This is apparently quite legal.
 So is reporting suspect behavior made public in any way, including
 being visible from the air.  Remember that most people are
 not qualified to judge what is/is not environmentaly unsound
 practice.  One thing our assailant is ignoring in his flames is
 the fact that Ms. Puckette's (Sorry if I'm misspelling your name,
 no reference currently available) original post described the
 characteristics of legal behavior as well as suspect behavior.
 I took this as a sign of professionalism, and give more respect
 to the entire post because of it.

-Hugh Sider    <jjmhome!nyqrn!raf@transfer.stratus.com>
 Wishing I had more time to learn to fly...

P.S.
 As an exercise for the reader, draw a moral parrallel between
 flames on the net and terrorism in politics.
                                           -Raf
From: jon@csinc.UUCP (Jon Barber)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Proposed MSP Fly-in (Was uamwfi, or something like that)
Keywords: MSP fly-in
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:09:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Control Systems, Inc., St. Paul MN


Being only a lurker and gonnabee pilot, but having flown out of smaller 
airports many times with friends, employers, and lately, my brother,
I can't help but wonder why those of you considering a fly-in to the
Twin Cities would want to use MSP.

It seems that the smaller fields (Flying Cloud, Holman, Crystal, etc.)
would be less hassle, and still offer the services of the main Inter-
national airport.  Maybe youse guys are a bit masochistic, or something?

Wouldn't cheaper fuel, (probably) lower landing fees, no Big Iron, etc.,
be positive factors?  Just the time and distance taxiing would be enough
to keep me away from MSP.

Am I being a weinie?  Or is the difference more a perceived one than an
actual?

Jon

___

Jon Barber, Comtrol Corp.  St. Paul, MN ....uunet!csinc!jon

If you find any opinions in this posting, not is it purely co-incidental, 
but it's my opinion, only.  My employers won't let me speak for them.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mmd@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (madeline.m.dwyer)
Subject: avionics shops, FL or Northeast?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:14:34 GMT


Seeing the discussions on replacement avionics has prompted
the posting of this query.  (Note: please forgive my sloppy 
avionics IDs.  I don't have the exact list with me.)
 
Anyone have any comments on good avionics shops in either
the Northeast US or Florida?

A problem with our DME is hastening our search for such a
shop.  The old RFI interference from the DME, KN64?, to the
ADF, for which King has an installation bulletin, needs to
go in to be corrected.  We also want to make the following 
changes:

 1)upgrade the two KX170/175 radios - (I lean to the
   KX155's, spouse wants the slide-ins (McCoys?))
 2)add autopilot (probably wing-leveler only)
 3)upgrade intercom
 4)possibly add a fan

We'd like to go to a good avionics shop.  The Archer is
in NJ from April through November, and in Daytona Beach,
Florida for the other part of the year (the plane, not us, 
unhappily).  That means that we're flexible around those 
two geographic areas.

Any information on shops and also on avionics would
be greatly appreciated.  If desired, e-mail to me and
I will post a summary if sufficient replies are received
and there is interest for such a summary.

Thank you.

Madeline Dwyer             - AT&T BL - WH         201-386-6389
madeline.m.dwyer@att.com  whmmd@gcmisf.att.com  att!gcmisf!whmmd
<<std.disclaimer>>
From: jeq@i88.isc.com (Jonathan E. Quist)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: More propping large engines
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:24:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: i88.1992Sep03.202428.21302
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL

In article <lacbfuINN832@peaches.cs.utexas.edu> bunda@cs.utexas.edu (John Bunda) writes:
>Because I am experienced with hand-propping my plane, I'm less afraid
>of it than other nose-dragger city-slicker pilots like me.  But don't
>get me wrong, I still avoid it assiduously.  It's just something else
>in my bag of tricks.  I've never had one kick back at me, and I've
>never seen it, but I've heard it can happen.  I'd consider

Based on my experience, I'd add that for occaisional hand proppers,
if when the engine first fires and starts running you don't feel
an adrenaline rush and an urge to get the hell away from the prop,
you probably don't have adequate respect for the thing, and shouldn't
hand start anymore.  (Those with single seat, wire-braced, open-cockpit
planes may not entirely agree with this.  Ron?  :')
-- 
Jonathan E. Quist                              INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
jeq@i88.isc.com  '71 CL450-K4 "Gleep", DoD #094        Naperville, IL
        There are many things a person should experience in a lifetime.
       Among them are an infant's first cry, and an infant's first laugh.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: wayne@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Rick Wayne)
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Reply-To: wayne@schaefer.UUCP (Rick Wayne)
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 23:38:58 GMT

i, too, have tried connecting to my softcomm's audio input, but i find
that it squelches conversation.  you quickly become conditioned not to
interrupt the music, since voice wipes it out entirely.  since i usually
fly with a companion, conversation is the Higher Good.

i think.  for IFR flight, though, it sure is tempting.
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: There I was - mag check
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:30:04 GMT
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA

In article <1992Aug26.185809.20661@i88.isc.com> ericth@i88.isc.com
(Eric Thiele) forwards a tale where someone forgot to put the mags on
"both" before taking off.
> After landing I taxied back to the run-up area and went through the
> pre-takeoff list again.   Let's see now, mags both... oops..  Seems that
> I had forgotton to go back to both after checking the right mag.  I have
> yet to figure out why I didn't think to check the mag switch in the air.
> Ever since, I've always checked the mag switch as I'm advancing the throttle.

If I were to "back-seat analyze" this from the standpoint of a CFI and an
FAA Accident Prevention Counselor, I'd say

(1) Good for you.  You got the plane back on the ground unharmed.

(2) It sound like you might have forgotten something on your (first)
    pre-takeoff checklist.  Were you using a _written_ checklist?  Were
    you doing things _thoroughly_?  Were you perhaps distracted during
    execution of that initial checklist?

(3) I'd suggest that ad-hoc changes, like always checking the mags as you
    advance the throttle, are not a good solution.  The next time it might be
    something else -- carb heat, fuel pump, parking brake, flaps, whatever.
    The best solution is to _use_a_written_checklist_.  Honest.

This was ...

> Another anonymous tale - But I've also committed this one myself! - ET

There's really no reason that something like this needs to be posted
anonymously.  Pilots are human.  Pilots make misteaks.  Pilots can learn
from mistakes made by other pilots -- and by comments which other pilots
might have about their actions.  And comments can be made gently and
positively -- as, I hope, these were.

There are times when anonymity might be advised, but I'd like to suggest
that this probably isn't one of them.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: randy@khan.gatech.edu (Randal T. Abler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Comparing Tach and Hobbs rates?
Date: 29 Aug 92 19:25:40 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Aug28.162042.18025@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
> [ questioning Tach vs Hobbs hours ]

For comparison, our C172 runs about .8 hrs tach  per hobbs hour,
and our C152s run about .7 hrs tach per hobbs hr.  
These figures are long term averages.

The C152's are used pretty strictly as trainers, so they
see a lot of pattern work, and short (1 hr) flights were the
ground overhead adds more to the cost.  The C172 does more
air work, instrument work, and cross country.  Don't have
figures YET on the C172RG, but initially that will mostly be
short "checkout" flights, so it probably is not a good datapoint.

I'd prefer to rent a plane by "Tach" hours.  If you reduce the RPM for
quiter flight (and to be nicer to the engine) then your cost goes down.
If you sit on the ramp or runup area waiting for an IFR release
(or even just a turn to take-off) you are paying less since the
engine is turning over slower, so waiting is a little less painful.
 

-- 
Randal T. Abler   	randy@cerl.gatech.edu		 
CERL/EE Georgia Tech     
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Instrument Training
Keywords: IFR Instrument Training
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:44:18 GMT

In article <71685@apple.Apple.COM> rcm@Apple.COM (Robert Charles Monsen) writes:
> Use Jepps. They are much better/more convenient than NOS + Notams. Its

In article <71691@apple.Apple.COM> robg@Apple.COM (Rob Griffiths) writes:
> Uh-oh, here we go again! :-)  Actually, when stating something like
> this, you should probably add "in my opinion." ...
> My advice:  Try both, stick with the one that you prefer.  That's 
> what I tried, and found the Jepps preferable.  I used a buddy's
> Jepps until I had decided which route to take.

Indeed.  Different people have different preferences.  Since one of the
major _in_conveniences of Jepp is learning to deal with the interfiling
of updates, students might be well advised to get their own subscription.

Horrors!  Well, don't panic.  There's a special deal available for instrument
students:  For $48, you get initial charts, a binder, and 4 month
subscription to the updates.  When the 4 months expire, you can convert to a
"regular" subscription.  Unfortunately, this is a rather obscure program.
You need to send in a special form to Jepp, signed by a CFI.  If there are
any instrument students (or even pre-instrument-students) out there who would
like to avail themselves of this service and can't find the forms, I'd be
happy to send you one via snail mail.  (I should have a supply around here
somewhere.)  If you want, I'll even sign the place on the form that says "CFI
signature required"...  Send me a self-addressed, stamped standard (long)
envelope ($.29 postage) -- 3075 Marston Way, San Jose, CA 95148.

						Geoff
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:57:09 EDT
From: <VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: airway colors

Geoff asks why four airway colors. Green and Red airways
wre east-west (more or less); Blue and amber were north-
south.  Why two colors for each direction?  I suspect it
was to keep the numbers down to one or two digits.
     My memory doesn't correspond with Kit Cosper's.  It
wasn't necessary to rotate the antenna to fly the old
"crowfoot" range.  But a lot of flying in those days was
with the Bendix "bird dog," which did require rotating the
antenna if one didn't have an ADF (automatic direction
finding) radi  What is now called an NDB approach was then
called an ADF approach, and often they were made using a
commercial broadcasting station--which I guess is still the
case in developing coutries.
     There was no way, in an airplane or anywhere else, to
detect the "color" of an airway.  It was just a name.  Flying
the airways merely required one to know an A from an N, but it
was a good bit more difficult than using a VOR and of course,
any given station had only four "radials."

     Now I have a related question.  Night VFR cross countries
were made by flying from one lighted beacon to the next.  They were
ten miles apart along the airways.  Each beacon, in addition to a
rotating light, emitted a morse code letter.  There were ten letters
(for 100 miles), then the sequence began again.  The ten letters
spelled out either a word or a sentence (like the "Every good boy
does fine" mnemonic device that stands for the keys on a piano).
I have completely forgotten what that mnenomic device was.  Can
any one out there remember?
                            vince norris, penn state u.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: britton@eng.umd.edu (Yvonne C. Britton)
Subject: AIRSHOWS??
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 17:51:33 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: britton@valkyrie.eng.umd.edu


Hello,

   Could somebody or many people please tell me of any airshows that will be 
coming up: this year or in the coming years to come.  I like to try to stay
informed so I may be able to attend them.  I ussually do not know of the airshow
until the week of the show; by then it is to late to add to my schedule.
   Thanks! By the way, sorry for any spalling errors.

Thanks again,
Yvonne Britton
britton@eng.umd.edu
From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: I love kids who love airplanes
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:15:37 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep2.214734.24921@tera.com> erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg)
 writes:
>
>As we were passing Devil's Slide (a very steep section of coast
>dropping some 1500 feet to the water) she noticed the cars on Highway
>1 which is cut right into the steep section.  She got even more
>excited by the cars and said "CAAAA!  CAAAA!".  There was a short
>pause, then she turned to her mother, pointed up at the wing out the
>window and said "paaane".
>
>She had deduced that because the cars and water were down, she must be
>up ... in a plane.


Actually, what she was really saying was "dad, you forgot to screw the
fuel cap on AGAIN...."   :-)

--Andy    stadler@apple.com

(anyone see The Simpsons last week?  Homer's brother builds a baby-talk
 translator.  The translations were hilarious- "I've soiled myself.  How
 embarassing."  "Please lavish me with attention."  "This leash demeans
 us both.")
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: FAA Proposal to eliminate IFR Pop Up Clearances
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:26:21 GMT

In article <1431@seqp4.sequoia.com> cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell),
writing about an incredibly stupid notice of proposed rulemaking from the
FAA, said:
> Isn't there some internal investigation of the effects of proposed rules
> before they are made public? Surely the FAA should review the possible
> impact of such rules before proposing them publicly?
>
> It makes them look like a bunch of bumbling idiots when they have to
> retract some of the extremely flawed rules they propose... Not to mention
> the heartburn it causes some of us on the receiving end...

I remember responding to the FAA on some other totally idiotic proposed
rule (I think it was the one which _defined_ icing conditions as "+5C or
below"), and suggested in my response to the NPRM that

   o  NPRMs which affect large numbers of pilots should be mailed
      by the FAA to _all_ pilots with current medicals

   o  Such NPRMs should have sufficiently long response periods (at least
      4 months from the date of mailing) that individual pilots might
      actually have a chance to respond to these NPRMs.

As I recall, the icing NPRM which got my attention was one of those
"maximally short-fused" ones which was only published in the Federal
Register -- and I only found out about it either through the net or via a
short-publication-cycle newsletter.  I had to write my response the day I
heard about it and send that response by Federal Express in order for them
to receive the response by the deadline.  Truly absurd.

Having requirements such as the ones suggested above placed on the FAA
would also have the possibly positive effect of making new rules much more
expensive to promulgate.  (It's not so amusing to read the analysis in the
Federal Register of the cost of new rules -- and it's even sadder to look
at the analysis and understand how absurdly the FAA underestimates these
costs.)

Now, how do we get the FAA to issue an NPRM on _this_ rule?  :-)

						Geoff