HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, deckard@mr.med.ge.com (Todd Deckard 4-6606 MRCE) writes:

>As a faithful net lurker I have to admit one of the things I find the
>most distasteful is posts about crash notices.  Its the sorriest form
of >hanger flying.  Oh, I suppose, opening up the accident situation for

A lot of folks have detailed their reasoning in support of
net.accident reports and subsequent discussion so I'm not going to jump
on that bandwagon.  The bottom line is that we've seen a high
level of support for the concept in general, tempered somewhat by some caveats
about the quality of the reports and discussions.

This generally high level of support jibes quite well with the fact that
the major flying rags have always stated that their most popular
features year after year are the "I Learned About Flying From That"
(near/minor accident type) and "Aftermath" (post accident analysis type)
articles.  Most pilots want this kind of information.

As a group I don't think pilots are ghouls and accident gawkers.  In fact
I'd contend that we're probably less so than the general public.  We are
however, extraordinarily interested in what went wrong.  I think that's
the best, not the worst part of hangar flying.  

And BTW, should I ever make a fatal flying mistake, I'd hope that
someone would take the time to figure out what went wrong and discuss it
with others.  In general, I believe that this *can* be done without an
air of "moral superiority", but if not...  hey, I can live with it :-)

BTW^2.  Todd as a self-proclaimed net lurker I hope you haven't been put
off by the responses to your posting.  For the most part I think people
have disagreed with you in a reasonable and rational manner.  Such
discussion is also the best part of net.hangar flying.

Scott Turner  scott@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Systems Division
Turbo Arrow N2134N  "Baby"

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: lmcgee@bondo.corp.sgi.com (Lee McGee)
Subject: Stay off the rudder!
Reply-To: lmcgee@sgi.com	
Organization: Silicon Graphics Corp IS 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:09:14 GMT

In article <92266.215322VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu>, VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
|> If you get into strong turbulence, IFR, stay off the rudder and you won't 
|> get into a spin.  I had never heard that, but it makes some prima facie 
|> sense.

Actually, I have read that it is possible to do a spin entry with 
your feet flat on the floor.  William Kershner described the technique for the Cessna Aerobat in his Basic Aerobatics Course book.  Had something to do with aileron use to get adverse yaw, plus throttle for torque effect, if I 
remember correctly. Strong turbulence and aileron overcontrol might lead
to a situation like that.

Fly the airplane, they say.

-- 
________________________________________________________________

Lee McGee
Silicon Graphics, Inc		"Simplicity, then add lightness"
lmcgee@sgi.com			   
PHONE (415) 390-2403	        
FAX   (415) 961-9584	         
PAGE  (415) 807-2246
From: peterson@specxn.enet.dec.com (Harlo Peterson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Stay off the rudder!
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:34:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: nntpd2.1992Oct6.174556.22431
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Colorado Springs


In article <BvpE8E.361@access.digex.com>, stephens@access.digex.com
 (John Stephens) writes...
>In article <1992Oct5.161019.23694@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>
> peterson@specxn.enet.dec.com (Harlo Peterson) writes:
>>
>>
>>Another way to look at what's happening is that turbulance is caused by wind
>>gusts that may hit the plane from any direction.  The vertical component of
>>the gust hits the bottom of the plane and will act to move the tail up or
>>down.  This is countered with elevator control.  The horizontal
>>component will move the tail sideways.  This is countered with rudder.
>>A gust will not directly cause a rolling movement. The roll that is observed
>>is caused by the yaw causing one wing to fly faster than the other.  Using
>>aileron to counter the gust is less effective than using rudder as rudder
>>is countering the direct cause of both the yaw and the roll.  Using aileron
>>counters the roll and only indirectly the yaw with a delay in action even
>>then.
>>
>I diagree that "A gust will not directly cause a rolling movement."
>If you define a gust to be ONLY a change in apparent wind speed and
>not direction, then i agree, but in turbulence, try and distinguish
>between a gust and wind shear in general. (A gust is just one type
>of shear.)
> 
>If you have never been tossed up on your ear (30-degree plus) roll,
>then you have never flown in more than "light turbulence".  I can't
>believe that!  

I am talking about a change in velocity (a vector) which covers both speed and
direction.

To get a rolling movement directly requires different wind forces on each
wing.  You can get this in certain cases such as in rotors or flying on the
edge of a vertical gust. In most cases though, the roll seen is the result
of a gust caused yaw. Correcting the yaw does much more for recovery than
trying to correct the roll.  In reality you do both.  What people do wrong
though is trying to correct the effects of turbulance with aileron only.  It
is better to be agressive with rudder as the primary control and use aileron
to handle whats left.

--
Harlo Peterson                       Digital Equipment Corporation
      harlo.peterson@cxn.mts.dec.com 1110 Chapel Hills Drive (CXN2/35)
      719-260-3003                   Colorado Springs, CO 80920-3995
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Long Runway -- No Taxiway
Keywords: landing, taxi, aircraft
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:06:46 GMT

In article <1CE00001.oumrud@lemoore.UUCP> Kevin@lemoore.ati.com writes:
>
>[Story of landing on long runway with no taxiway and backtaxiing on the]
>[active runway deleted]
>However, it was rather uncomfortable watching aircraft
>landing infront of me. Most had stopped and turned off onto the intersecting
>runway. A few others, such as me, rolled out beside me. Question,
>what is the general procedure in this case? Is there an FAA policy
>that gives an answer?
>

Actually, it sound like you did what was reasonable and necessary to
safely operate your aircraft.  It does disturb me that others were
landing in front of you while you were back taxiing.  I consider THAT
to be dangerous.  I might even consider those aircraft completing
their landing roll next to you as you were taxiing to be operating
in a "careless and reckless" manner (assuming no emergency).

>If I totally blew it, don't rake me over the burners too badly ;-).
>I've noticed a lot of that going on around here lately!  :-)
>

Yeah, isn't that a shame?

:-) BTW, you'll have to find someone else to rake you over the burners.
:-) I'm not rated in a balloon [yet].

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (sorry ... sigh )
Keywords: PIC, logging
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:26:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.000352.9011@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
> On the other hand, what do you report to your insurance company when
> they ask for things like time in model, etc.?  For high-time pilots this
> won't make any difference, but for lower time pilots an extra 60 hours could
> make a difference in the premium.

You should report total time -- i.e., pre-private dual plus solo plus
post-private pilot-in-command time.  What the insurance companies care
about is how much time you've put in flying the equipment.  Passenger time,
however, doesn't count.

> Also, doesn't pre-PP-SEL time count toward the 125 hours required for the
> instrument checkride?

Yes.  The flight experience requirements for the instrument rating are
detailed in 61.65(e)(1):

    (1) A total of 125 hours of pilot flight time, of which 50 hours are
	as pilot in command in cross-country flight in a powered aircraft
	with other than a student pilot certificate. Each cross-country
	flight must have a landing at a point more than 50 nautical miles
	from the original departure point.

The 50 cross-country hours, obviously, must come after the pilot obtains a
student (or recreational) pilot certificate.  To answer that other
all-too-frequent question, yes, the word "landing" means that you must
actually land at the airport for the flight to count as a cross-country.
You can't count a long sightseeing flight in which no appropriately-distant
landing is made, nor can you count an instrument training flight at which
only missed approaches were made.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: leonam@aix.rpi.edu (Marcus B. Leonard)
Subject: Obsolete Chart Exchange
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:39:20 GMT

Will trade my old New York, Washington, Cincinatti, Detroit, and Montreal
sectionals, Washington TCA charts, and NE AFD's for your charts from the
northwest (Seattle, Klamath Falls, Salt Lake, Great Falls, Billings, etc.).

Send email if interested.

				Marc Leonard
				leonam@rpi.edu
From: wisch@Apple.COM (Ed Wischmeyer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Rule Number One
Summary: Another stressed out pilot temporarily grounded
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:51:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA



63319

>             NEVER FLY WHEN YOU'RE TIRED OR SHORT TEMPERED.

At the flight instructor refresher clinics that AOPA Flight Safety Foundation
puts on, they have a long discussion on stress, both self-induced stress and
"stress" stress. One acronym to review before committing aviation is

I - illness
M - medication
S - stress
A - alcohol
F - fatigue
E - eating.

The acronym for checking stress is "TAPES", but I'll have to go look that one
up.

I've found that the stress check applies not only to flying airplanes, but
also to working on them.

I haven't been near the ARSA Fighter in the last 3 weeks due to job
"redeployment" stress. Maybe this week I'll be able to go back to it - 10
minutes of fixing and then a bunch of flying.

Ed Wischmeyer
ATP/CFII temporarily grounded due to stress
and *accident*free* during that time frame!!
From: woof@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Steve Wolf)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: How about:  Too cold to fly?
Date: 25 Sep 92 21:22:20 GMT
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO

In article <Lyon_Jim-220992105402@130.252.132.127>, Lyon_Jim@Tandem.Com
(Jim Lyon) wrote:

> In January of 1990, Fairbanks, Alaska, reported a record of 181 degrees
> below zero (Fahrenheit),

Harumph.  I'd believe -81F, but not -181F.

Virtually simultaneously, in article
<1992Sep22.171829.17643@equalizer.cray.com>, bruceh@cray.com (Bruce T. Hill)
wrote:

>                                     Makes you wonder what kind of takeoff
> performance was possible in these conditions.

I heard that on that -181F day in Fairbanks, due to the 0ft. takeoff
roll possible at such a low density altitude, all the planes had to be
securely tied down so they wouldn't spontaneously lift off the ground
like so many hot air balloons.  Scary!
--
Steve Wolf				PHONE: (303) 229-2088
Hewlett-Packard				UUCP:  hplabs!fc.hp.com!woof
Fort Collins, CO			ARPA:  woof@fc.hp.com

(Oh, yeah: :-)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Recent flight experience
Keywords: PIC, logging
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:34:54 GMT

In article <1a88nfINNo5j@smaug.West.Sun.COM> brianh@pongo.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Horn) writes:
>
>Whoa!  Wait a sec!  To quote:
>
>FAR 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command
>(c) General experience.  No person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft
>carrying passengers, nor of an aircraft certificated for more than one
>required pilot flight crewmember, unless within the preceeding 90 days, he
>has made three takeoffs and three landings as the sole manipulator of the
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>flight controls in an aircraft of the same category and class and, if a type
>rating is required, of the same type...

The interesting part this clause is that YOU must operate the aircraft.
In particular, CFIs cannot use their student's landings to count towards
their currency, although they probably can use them toward the totals
on the 8710-1.  To get into technicalities, if a friend is at the
controls and you are ACTING PIC due to insurance requirements, etc.,
his T/O & Landings do not count towards your currency although it is
almost impossible for the FAA/insurance carrier to prove it.

Now to make it interesting, I contend that instrument approaches flown
by a student in IMC *DOES* count towards a CFII's IFR currency if we meet
the requirements of "what constitutes an approach?" since there is
no "sole manipulator" clause for IFR currency.

Kerry
From: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Another trivia question
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:32:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science

In Kansas, my brother goes flying with a friend in a Bucker Jungman
(sp?).  In the flight, he does rolls, loops, inverted, spins, and
other aerobatic maneuvers.  Neither pilot wears a parachute.  The
airplane and the pilots are realtively young (no grandfathered rules).
The flight is legal.  How?

PS: I couldn't figure it out, he had to tell me.

Mike Ciholas
mikec@lcs.mit.edu
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:16407 rec.aviation.misc:32
From: stote@tomcat.den.mmc.com (M. Stote)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: aircraft with the same names as land vehicles
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:01:12 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group

In article <hrose.718213988@play>, hrose@psych.mun.ca (Herbert Rose) writes:
|> radack@ces.cwru.edu (Gerald Radack) writes:
|> 
|> >Have you ever noticed that there many models of aircraft share names with
|> >models of cars or trucks? For example,
|> 
|> >	Cessna Citation...........Chevy Citation
|> >	Cessna Caravan............Dodge Caravan
|> >	Piper Cherokee............Jeep Cherokee
|>   On a side note of this, I rolled a Caravan once.  Unfortunately it was
|>   a Dodge.  Very fortunately no one was hurt at all.
|> 
|>   Tonya

Another bit of trivia:
The Lancair was originally named the Lancer.  Name change was forced because
of a conflict with I think the Dodge Lancer.

--
Mike Stoughton
stote@den.mmc.com
From: dunn@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Steve Dunn)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 22:43:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Sky Soaring in Hollister?
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

>/ hpcc01:rec.aviation / dhoward@doffice.Corp.Sun.COM (Dave Howard) / 11:24 am  Sep 21, 1992 /

>Does anyone have any information on Sky Soaring
>moving to Hollister?  Their old number has had
>a recording (for some time) that states they are
>trying to open up operations again.

I was at Hollister a month or so ago and observed the 2-33 that I 
had been flying (90S) at Fremont, but they haven't contacted me as
yet.  I have to believe they will when they have an operation going
again.   It's been about a year since they shut down.   Maybe they
sold the hardware to a local at Hollister and faded off into the sunset.

It's very strange.   Most CFI's don't like starving to death.

Happy landings!

Steve

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: steve@netcom.com (Stephen Williams)
Subject: Re: trivia question for IFR types: did I have an IFR clearance?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 01:00:54 GMT
Organization: Organizations Anonymous


In article <1992Sep22.180856.17536@telebit.com> brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman) writes:

># nobody has said anything like "cleared to the XXX airport",
>
>Irrelevant.  You're cleared for the approach, which is a clearance to the
>airport.
>

Minor nit: you are cleared to execute the approach procedure, but
not to land.  But as the poster stated, you ARE now IFR.

--Steve Williams
PP-AMEL-IA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: stankus@d31mf2.Stanford.EDU (John J. Stankus)
Subject: Austin and Central TEXAS flying activities  Question
Originator: stankus@leland.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:30:30 GMT


My dad back in Austin Texas is interested in Flying activities going on
back there.  I have seen mention earlier of Central Texas Flyin s and 
an Odd month flying get together.  I was wondering if these were still 
going on or if there are other activities happening.

Unfortunately my dad doesn't have net access at the moment(btw if anyone
knows of a way to get internet access in Austin I would be interested in
hearing about it), so you can either call him at 512-258-5520 (his name is 
Jack Stankus) or email me and I'll pass the info on to him.

Thank you 

John J. Stankus					Chemistry Department
stankus@leland.stanford.edu			Stanford University
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.products
Subject: Re: New Old Radios
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:13:27 GMT
Reply-To: glenns@eas.gatech.edu
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Group W Bench

In <1992Oct5.121522.16220@cfctech.cfc.com> joel@cfctech.cfc.com (joel lessenberry) writes:

>So, I appealing to the Net. Does anyone have, know of, or even have
>an idea of where I could find some stuff????

>	Audio Panel with mkb
>	Nav Comm ILS GS    either separate or together
>	ADF	
>	DME		   if its cheap

(posting at the request of the poster, or I'd email this...)

Sounds like a job for <trumpet fanfare> _Trade-A-Plane_!

Check your local FBO or well-stocked bookstore (don't bother with
WaldenWimps or B. Dimwits, they won't have it.... check a Real Bookstore
that's locally owned and actually has a care....) for that big
yellow newsprint thingy with the globe on the front.... they'll 
have a section on radios, etc in the classy-frieds, as well as 
page after page of display ads to sort thru.... 

You may even want to write and subscribe.... the front page always has
a subscription form on it (as well as a cute cartoon).  

Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
"Allegheny 587, up periscope, hard right rudder, ground-point-nine."
From: battlec@cs.rpi.edu (Clark Battle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: Re: Hunting for thermals.
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:17:03 GMT

Rush Limbaugh is also a good source of rising hot air!  :^)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: sund@tde.lth.se (Lars Sundstr|m)
Subject: Info on soaring in Oz wanted
Organization: Applied Electronics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Distribution: rec.aviation.soaring
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:32:43 GMT


I will visit Oz(Melbourne) in mid-November and I'm planning to try
thermal gliding. Disappointed with the poor weather here in Sweden and
the sea-breeze destroying most of the thermal I'm really looking
forward to this. I don't have much experience yet - about 27 hours in
a Twin-Astir and Astir CS(Grob).

So, I would like to know:

1. Approx, how much does it cost
2. What kind of gliders are popular
3. How powerful thermal can be exepected
   (I'm used to typically 1-3m/s)
1-3 m)
4. Typically, how high can you climb without getting into controlled air 

Thanks in advance

--
Lars Sundstrom, Lund University, Department of Applied Electronics,
Box 118, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden Phone: +46-46109513 Fax:+46-46129948
Internet: sund@tde.lth.se
--
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: ford@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Scratching
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:47:38 GMT

imsl1@jane.uh.edu (MIKE BROOKS) writes:

>In addition to the existing thermalling thread,
>does anyone have tips about thermalling when
>at ,say, 1000 feet (and sweating)?

>Being blown downwind takes on added significance
>while trying to keep the field in sight.

>Hints? -- Or do I just need to "thermal better"
>down low? BTW -- my personal cutoff at this time
>is 1100' AGL -- I'm not looking to thermal into the
>ground, just practice low saves.

Here in the Midwest we get a lot of practice in scratching.  I have had
three saves at 500' AGL this season (2 of them in one cross-country
flight).  Thermals down below 1000' tend to be smaller and more
turbulent than they are at higher altitudes.  For this reason and the
fact that you are fairly close to the ground, I like to fly about 5 mph
faster than optimum thermalling speed.  One of the thermals that saved
me was causing "jumps" of 10 mph in my airspeed.  Get lots of practice
near your home airport before trying this on a cross-country.

One of the harder parts of scratching is judging whether a bump you feel
is a bona-fide thermal that you can stay in or a "teaser" before you
initiate a turn.  I like to have 2-3 seconds of good lift before
turning.  A couple of other rules that I use for scratching below 1000'
on a cross-country are
  1) have a good landing field very close by
  2) abandon the thermal if I don't get lift all the way around the
     first turn (or any turn thereafter if I'm still below 1000').

Everyone should have there own personal cutoff altitude, below which you
are committed to land, regardless of what lift you encounter.

Happy scratching!

Kevin Ford
ford@symcom.math.uiuc.edu



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Scratching
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 12:22:35 GMT

In article <2OCT199214342932@jane.uh.edu> imsl1@jane.uh.edu (MIKE BROOKS) writes:
> In addition to the existing thermalling thread,
> does anyone have tips about thermalling when
> at ,say, 1000 feet (and sweating)?
> 
> Prior to pattern entry at my home field, I can
> usually find some 0-sink to 1/2-knot lift to
> work for a while, but I can never sustain it
> well enough to make the save and climb out.
> 
> Hints? -- Or do I just need to "thermal better"
> down low? BTW -- my personal cutoff at this time
> is 1100' AGL -- I'm not looking to thermal into the
> ground, just practice low saves.


Yeah, I usually find the best thermals of the day while on base leg
for landing :-(


I've just started flying for the season (it's early spring here in New
Zealand) -- actually the last two weeks are essentially my first
gliding in about five years -- and the lift isn't all that good yet.
This last Wednesday was a windless blue day and a very pleasant day to
be on the field, but by the time I got into the air at 3:30 pm it was
dying.  I managed to do 39 minutes in the Blanik from a 2500 ft tow, but
I don't think I gained any height at any stage during the flight -- just
slowed the descent to 20 or 30 fpm in various very weak thermals.  The
one exception to the "no climb" claim I just made is that at 1100 ft,
getting close to the circuit, I found a little lift.  About five
minutes of scratching got me to 1200 ft, but two minutes later I was
back down to 1100 ft again and gave it away...


The good news is that after two dual flights -- a brief and very rough
flight two weeks ago in rotor conditions and a flight of stalls,
incipient spins, steep turns and a simulated field landing this week
-- I've been cleared to get out of the Blanik into the K6 next time.
Hopefully that will be this week.
-- 
Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz   Twisted pair: +64 4 477 2116
BIX: brucehoult                 Last Resort:  PO Box 4145 Wellington, NZ
"Cray's producing a 500 MIPS personal computer with 256MB RAM and 8 GB
hard disk that fits in your pocket!"   "Great!  Is it PC compatible?"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring