HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:07:14 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <C1A1L9.ILu@well.sf.ca.us> brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher) writes:
!In <C19xGH.I2p@iphase.com!, grima@iphase.com (Gary Rima) writes:

!! Mike, your Bonanza (and my C210) are CAR 3 certified airplanes as opposed
!! to the newer FAR 23.  As such, they are _not_ prohibited from flight in
!! known icing!

!Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual, for
!Bonanza F33A [serial numbers] CE-674 and After, Limitations section,
!p. 2-10:

!                        "WARNING
!
!           FLIGHT IN KNOWN ICING CONDITIONS IS
!           PROHIBITED."

!It is my understanding that aircraft manufactured after some date in the
!1970s and which are not certified for flight in known icing carry the
!prohibition regardless of whether they were certified under CAR 3 (as is
!the case for all Bonanzas; the title page of my POH says "FAA Approved ...
!based on CAR 3") or FAR 23.

Now this gets interesting. 

The POH for a 1970's F33A SN CE-309 (or there abouts) which has
NOT be continuously updated (the aircraft is no longer in our
possession) does not contain the FLIGHT IN KNOWN ICING
CONDITIONS IS PROHIBITED statement.

However, the POH for a 1969 E33A SN CE-280 which I have
continuously kept up-dated DOES contain the FLIGHT IN KNOWN
ICING CONDITIONS IS PROHIBITED statement.

The date on the page is October 1979 and is in the Limitations
section of the POH.

Research anyone?

Dave Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: wayne@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Rick Wayne)
Subject: please help clear up my confusion over feeders, transitions, etc.
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 21:25:37 GMT

my wife and i were helping each other review IFR procedures today, and it 
brought up a long-standing source of confusion for me.  i've always had a
hard time figuring out what to do about feeders and transition routes, and
whether they're part of the approach or not.

for example, if you have the NOS plates for EC-3 (WI & IL), please refer to
page 53, ILS RWY 18L for MDH.  from Marion VOR is a feeder route (along with
a radial to identify HEMPA).  it has a course, distance, and altitude noted.
*i* say that if i'm, say, east of Marion, and hear

	"cardinal 35247 is cleared for the ILS 18L at Carbondale..."

that i can descend to 2400 once i've crossed MWA and am established on the 298
radial.  1992 AIM 5-46 (a), "When cleared for the approach, the published off
airway (feeder) routes that lead from the en route structure to the IAF are part
of the approach clearance."

janet says, on the other hand, that the feeder routes do not constitute "...a
segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure..." under FAR
91.175 (i) (1992 edition again).

by contrast, the same approach procedure includes a NoPT route from Centralia
VOR to HEMPA on the 184 radial that has the heavy line of the "procedure track"
(page G1 of the Legend).  this also has an altitude, and we're both in agreement
that "cleared for the approach" means you can descend to that altitude.

anybody know how to get in touch with IFR Refresher from the Internet?  this
might be a good example for a quiz.

thanks,

rick
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: DME/Radar rquired--why--Answer
Keywords: DME, Radar, Answer, IFR
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:40:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: pony.1993Jan26.174038.28354
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <2688@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
> 
>P.S. Note that for an ILS the FAF is identified by GS
>intersection at a particular altitude. Look closely at the IAP
>and note that there is an arrow with the notation of 2000
>pointing to a short line segment to the LEFT of the X indicating
>the FAF fix. Also note the indication of 1979 above the FAF. This
>is the altitude plane defining the FAF. The number 1979 is really
>the only way that you have of checking the accuracy of the GS
>receiver WHILE on the approach.
>

This also means that the FAF on an ILS can change based on the
altitude you are cleared to intercept the GS.  Example, assume the
depicted intercept altitude is 2000, but ATC instructs:  "Maintain
two thousand five hundred until GS interception."
  or, alternatively,
"Maintain one thousand five hundred, cleared for the approach".
The FAF is thus moved "out" or "in" respectively.

I've actually heard this at O'Hare over the aircraft radio:
	"United 123, maintain seven thousand, intercept the glideslope,
	 cleared for the approach."
I'm not familiar with the ORD approach, but I assume that the GS
intercept point is along the final approach segment.

Comments?

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: mikec@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Subject: Re: GPS Instrumentation
Keywords: Radar, DME, approach
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:30:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.161054.23835@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
>[Dakota using 4 GPS sensors to determine attitude]
>
>The thing you have to realizes is that this experiment is using 
>GPS to detect ``differential'' positions as opposed to ``absolute''
>positions. (I am not using differential here in the sense of
>``differential GPS''.) That is, they are measuring the location of
>one point on the aircraft *with respect to another point on the aircraft*.
>This can be done with *much* greater accuracy that one can measure 
>the ``absolute'' location of the aircraft in space.  This is similar
>to measuring runout:  It is very easy to measure runouts on the order
>of 0.0001 with a dial indicator, but it is very hard to locate a point
>in space with that accuracy when the domain of the measurement is
>even as small as a cube a few tens of inches on a side...
>
>Thus, this result doesn't directly relate to the use of GPS for
>instrument approaches.

Well, not exactly.  You see you *are* trying to measure your position
with respect to another point, albeit not on the aircraft, but the
runway.  Thus the instrument landing system is a *relative* positon as
well (of course, there is no absolute position, what you call absolute
is just relative to an accepted mapping of the earth).

So, in fact, the "differential" used in the Dakota experiment and the
"differential" of DGPS are in much the same sense.  That is, comparing
the relative location of two GPS antennas, be they on wingtips, or on
an aircraft and runway beacon.  Of course, the closer the two GPS
antennas are, the better the relative distance can be calculated
(since the signals are passing through more similar atmosphere and
other factors).

Thus a demonstration that you can detect *very* small distances in the
GPS signal and correlate them does have some bearing on the instrument
approach discussion.  In the Dakota experiment, distances of less than
a millimeter could be measured.  Even if a landing system was a
thousand times worse, this is still 1 meter accuracy which is
certainly high enough to do precision approaches.

Mike Ciholas
mikec@lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:09:38 GMT

In article <skip.236.728052169@mitre.org> skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.112830.24208@crash> jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson) writes:
>>
>>My question to the fellow netters is...can I file an IFR flight plan, and
>>fly it, including the approach, etc., by myself? Of course, in VFR conditions.
>With the cooperation (and approval!) of your instructor, the flight can be a 
>legal and complete IFR flight...  It's all legal as the 
>instructor is with you at each step, and he is PIC for the flight according 
>to the FARs.  

>Separate subject is how to log the flight in your logbook.  PIC time for you 
>is the entire flight minus any time in actual IMC.  Simulated and actual 
>instrument times are the actual times under the hood or in IMC respectively.

You should be able to log 100% of your time as PIC, including actual
IMC, based on the "sole manipulator of the controls" provision.

pmf
pp-asmel-ia
mooney n5632j
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 01:24:45 GMT


In article <skip.236.728052169@mitre.org>, skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:

[...description of flying IFR with instructor as 'passenger' deleted...]

I did this too, and I found it most helpful. My instructor let me take on
as much of the workload as I could handle, and would bail me out just before
I'd bust an altitude or clearance or such. Excellent training, if you're
confident enough to handle the stress.

|>Separate subject is how to log the flight in your logbook.  PIC time for you 
|>is the entire flight minus any time in actual IMC.  Simulated and actual 
|>instrument times are the actual times under the hood or in IMC respectively.

As I understand it, you can log PIC in IMC if there's a CFII in the right
seat, but not if it's just a brave instrument rated pilot. The DE checked
my logbook and accepted all my 9+ hours IMC X-C time as PIC X-C time without
question. I know he looked pretty carefully, because we had a discussion
about whether the simulators I 'flew' were approved for IFR training.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL-IA -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:46:27 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1993Jan26.125148.14554@onetouch.COM> phil@onetouch.COM (Philip D. Turner) writes:
>Only an instrument rated pilot can file an IFR flight plan.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AND current (6/6/6)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Decending through ice.
From: <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 22 Jan 1993 00:57:08 EST
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

Okay... So I'm at OXD airport and a v-tail bonanza comes in with 1" of
ice falling from the leading edges.  Suppose this is me comming from
Florida.  Is it a safe to decend through 5000' light rime to land?
If not, was the Bonanza pilot not wise or what?  (I wish I coulda asked
him).

Forgive me for the persistence of the topic but this is one I want to
be sure of.  Thanks for the info, its been very helpful.

Shawn Chaney,
Oxford, Ohio (OXD)
From: olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: ANSWER to Instrument approach quiz
Date: 22 Jan 1993 05:33:05 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: hing.ai.mit.edu

Three days ago, I posted the following little quiz question:

> Here are five 'fixes' or 'points' found in instrument approach procedures:

>  1. Initial Approach Fix (IAF)
>  2. Final Approach Fix (FAF)
>  3. Stepdown Fix
>  4. Visual Descent Point (VDP)
>  5. Missed Approach Point (MAP)

> Two (and only two) of these are required parts of _every_ instrument 
> approach.  Which two?

Here's my original answer: #1 (IAF), and #5 (MAP).

I got seven answers, and three of them said IAF and MAP (the others
said FAF and MAP).

The FAF is not required on every approach.  There are many approaches
using on-airport NDB's or VOR's which have no FAF: one begins descent
to MDA upon completion of the procedure turn.  The NDB-A approach to
Provincetown, Massachusetts (PVC) is an example of one such approach.

Also, a full ILS approach does not really use a FAF _per_ _se_, but
rather a glideslope intercept point, whose location will depend on the
intercept altitude.  (It does have a well-defined MAP: the point where
the center of the glideslope is at Decision Height.)

Every approach has a MAP, since the pilot's decision to land or miss
the approach is common to all approaches.  I originally thought that
every approach also had at least one IAF, by definition.  However, in
looking through TERPS to verify my answer, I now see that the IAF can
also be dispensed with in some circumstances, although it is merely
replaced by an Intermediate Fix (IF).  So my question and original
answer were technically wrong (only the MAP is required everywhere),
but in practice there will always be an IAF or something like it.

Here are some possible points and segments in an instrument approach
procedure.  (Optional items are given in brackets.)

 [Feeder Route]
 [Initial Approach Fix (IAF)]
 [Initial approach segment]
 [Procedure Turn]
 [Intermediate fix]
 [Intermediate segment]
 [Final Approach Fix (FAF)]
Final approach segment
 [Stepdown Fix]
 [Visual Descent Point (VDP)]
Missed Approach Point (MAP)
Missed approach segment
-- 
Jim Olsen   olsen@cag.lcs.mit.edu   "Tache d'etre heureux." -- St-Exupery
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: DME/Radar rquired--why--Answer
Keywords: DME, Radar, Answer, IFR
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:00:29 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <skip.238.728055792@mitre.org! skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
!In article <2688@usna.NAVY.MIL! dfr@usna.navy.mil 
!(PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:

!Your answer is interesting but one issue is still left unresolved.  As I 
!pointed out in my answer, the logic you apply to this approach would appear 
!to be applicable to the Portland ILS RWY 29 approach (Portland, Maine) which 
!is almost identical to the Provincetown approach (except for distances, 
!altitudes, and angles of course) in that it is an over-water approach 
!without OM.  However the Portland approach does not require DME or radar.  
!Why?

How about a different designer and I am not kidding. Don't forget the
human factor.

Dave Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: ths@lanl.gov (Ted Spitzmiller)
Subject: IFR Quiz Follow-up
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:55:24 GMT

For those who saw a previous posting by me, my apologies for posting the wrong file!  If you have a TROFF formatter you might find it worth processing.  

Anyway, I had a few comments to the IFR quiz about required fixes.  Here is my
understanding:

1.  ALL instrument approaches MUST have an IAF.  When vectored, the controller
    will establish a RADAR IAF when he/she says "Piper 12345 is 5 miles from
    the marker, turn left heading 240, maintain 8000 until established
    on the localizer, cleared for the Zorch ILS rwy 21.

2.  All instrument approaches MUST have a MAP.  

3.  The remaining fixes are approach dependent.

The Visual and Contact approaches (by definition) use "visual" references for approach identification, not electronic aids. 

As for the famous SJC "slam-dunk" set-up, I would suggest that somebody
remind Bay Approach that the controllers handbook at one time required
glideslope intercepts to be made from "below" the GS.  Is this no longer
a procedure?  

Can any of our controller friends verify or correct my understanding?

Thanks

ted 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: bass@convex.com (Brad F. Bass)
Subject: Re: ANSWER to Instrument approach quiz
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:29:48 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

lee@deneb.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider) writes:
>I believe that there are approaches with no IAF and no intermediate fix.  The
>examples I have seen of this are ILS's in busy areas where the only way to get
>established on the localizer is by radar vectors, and once on the localizer
>there is no fix until DH.

All of the approaches into Addison, Texas, (ADS) are of this type -- no
IAF and Radar Vectors required. (the RNAV and VOR-A approach don't count
because Love VOR has been decomissioned)
--
Brad Bass		"...we're in deep voodoo..."
bass@convex.com			Ross Perot on trickle-down economics
Convex Computer Corp.	
Richardson, Texas	
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: jallred@spdg.com (John Allred)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: Stratos Product Development Group (Seattle)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:14:46 GMT

In article <C17o4o.IK8@fc.hp.com> woof@fc.hp.com (Steve Wolf) writes:
>On a slightly different topic (the legality issue), my understanding is
>that an AIRMET for possible icing is quite different than a PIREP
>reporting known icing.  FSS seems to slap ice AIRMETs over the entire US
>some days, but the icing itself is usually quite localized.  The AIRMET
>doesn't regulate pilots out of the sky; the PIREP does.

Several of my instructors disagree with you.  I'm in the process of
getting my instrument rating in one of the hot spots (as it were) for
icing on the planet (Seattle), so icing is a Big Deal.  Forcast Icing
(as in an AIRMET) is considered known icing.  So is a PIREP.

(BTW, they brought the Concorde and Beech Starship out here just to
ice them up and see what happens.)

John (jallred@spdg.com)
PP-ASEL, -G, -IA (under construction)
--
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: completed the c152 ferry, greensboro-sandyeggo. finally home...
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:48:13 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

In article <greg.727934016@saltydog>, greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
> In <1993Jan22.180757.27292@nlm.nih.gov> masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:
> 
> >I ran a DUAT briefing on your route of flight that morning and said to
> >myself, "Dennis is stuck.  No legal alternates anywhere on the east
> >coast within a 152's range."  (It stayed this way two more days).

and then...

> Interesting, it was just this type of system that kept us in Washington,
> DC over the holidays a bit longer than we had planned.  Post Christmas saw
> nthe entire east coast (and then some), from NYC to Iowa in basic IFR
> conditions.

There seems to be a lot of interest in the weather conditions at the time
of Greg's flight, which were a bit unusual to say the least, so I thought 
I'd add this data point...

At the same time Greg was getting his plane washed, I was flying back from
San Diego to Boston, via Houston (airlines, sigh).  Except for a few areas
over the southwest which were scattered to broken, virtually the entire route, 
all 3500 miles or whatever, was overcast.  I've never seen anything close to 
this before.  San Diego and Houston were both IFR (this was 2 days into the 
SoCal flooding).  Back at home, the Weather Channel showed overcast over 
most of the northern parts of the country as well. 

So from my own experience combined with what's been written to the net, it
seems that nearly the entire 48 states were covered with overcast at that 
time, and a very high percentage was IFR.
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Sponsored account, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Flying into Ice
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

> .The problem with this is that in Ohio we have icing nearly every day from
> .November to March.  If IFRR is true, an IFR rating is useless in the winter
> .time (unless you have a plane with the equip.[$$$]).

No, it's useless unless you have a bizjet.  Even singles and light twins
that are certified for known icing can only handle MILD icing
conditions.  IMHO, "known icing" certification of a single or light twin
is a cruel hoax which misleads pilots into overestimating their ability
to handle icing.  And that can have fatal consequences.

> .                                             My idea is that if you
> .have the plane with enough muscle to climb through it (barring severe or
> .moderate ice), then it's OK.  So if I'm in an Archer trying to climb
> .through light to moderate icing to 5000k am I gonna 1) die 2) go to jail
> .or 3) make it to Florida ???  Can someone clear this up for me?

Hopefully you'll make it, but how do you KNOW whether you can climb
through it successfully?  How do you know whether or when the light
icing will turn into severe icing, and turn the Archer into an unflyable
lump?

It's much safer to get out of the icing ASAP, and not have to worry
about whether the Archer ( and the pilot) can handle it or not.

I'm a minority voice in the wilderness (so it seems...) that would like
to see IFR students get some experience with icing.  The problem is that
it's hard to come up with consistently safe scenarios for that training.
Every IFR pilot will run into icing conditions sooner or later.  The
general consensus is that the safest philosophy is to get out of it
ASAP.  Then you minimize the risks associated with icing.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: niles@parc.xerox.com (Les Niles)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: DME/Radar rquired--why--Answer
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:22:22 GMT
	<1993Jan27.134933.6814@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA

In article <1993Jan27.134933.6814@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> gersh@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (John R. Gersh) writes:
>...
>A very interesting case, however, is the Portsmouth approach (Pease
>International Tradeport, used to be Pease AFB). There are two
>approaches, ILS-34 and ILS/DME 34. As far as I can tell, these two
>approaches are identical (a straightforward ILS approach, but with no
>marker beacons, nothing odd about the miss), except that the ILS/DME 
>approach has a 50' lower DH! (And lower a lower visibility minimum for 
>cats D,E.)
>So what _is_ going on here??
Until a few months ago, there was a 50 foot DH penalty for an inop
MM.  With no MM installed, that penalty would always be there on the
ILS-34, but the ILS/DME-34 could use a DME fix instead of the MM.  

Now that the 50 ft penalty has gone away, the distinction between the
ILS-34 and ILS/DME 34 approaches *should* disappear, but since
they're considered different approaches, the ILS-34 probably requires
recertification at the lower DH -- it doesn't get taken care of by a
global change to the inop components table.

  -les  niles@parc.xerox.com
        Skylane N2461G
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Instrument approach quiz
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:40:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.041726.25435@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
   In article <1jhflrINNium@life.ai.mit.edu> olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU
    (James Olsen) writes:

   >  2. Final Approach Fix (FAF)

   # 2 is required; the FAF is the point at which one 
   starts a descent from the transition altitude.

Do you really mean transition altitude? The reason I ask is that
"transition altitude" has a well-defined international meaning, namely
the highest level where the altimeter is set to show altitude. Above
the transition altitude the altimeter is set to the standard setting.
In ICAO terms, the transition altitude in the U.S. would be 18000
feet.

This is not just a formality either, the term "transition altitude" is
actually used operationally in this sense.


Is "transition altitude" used in a different sense in the U.S.?

--
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