HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:23:52 EDT
From: <VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: airway colors, again

I found two new postings today about the old
airways.  Dick Z. regrets having missed out on them.
This is by no means a criticism, and indeed it would
be fun to fly one--for fun.  But when for real, they
weren't much fun.   There were only four "radials."
Anywhere in between, you were "lost."  If all you heard
was an "N" (dah dit), you could be ten or a hundred miles
north of the station, or ten or a hundred miles south.
(The quadrant that included 360 degrees was always N, but
of course the four "radials" were not necessarily at right
angles.
     If you thought you were in the north quadrant, you
headed south and turned down the volume until you could just
barely hear a signal.  If you were right, the signal got louder.
If you were wrong, it faded out and you turned 180 degrees.
     Eventually you reached one of the radials but you didn't
know which one, so you did a 90.  That put you either back into
the N quadrant or into the A; then you knew which leg you had
intercepted, so you picked up that leg's heading and then did
zig-zags as you drifted off the "beam," as indicated by hearing
the A or the N louder than the other letter.
    When over the station you entered the "cone of silence"--
no signal at all.  From there on you did something about like
the current VOR approach.  Procedure turn, back through the
"low cone," then time yourself to the airport.  It was usually
on one of the "beams," but I think not always; you just picked
up the proper heading.
     These ranges were in the 200-400 (+/-) kh part of the
 spectrum, os when you needed them most, you couldn't hear them
 for the static.
      No, gimme the VORs anyday.
      Mark C. said something about using the ADF to fly those
 ranges.  That could be done, since the ADFs would receive
 those frequencies, but usually just a plain low-frequency
 receiver was used.  With a "coffee grinder" dial, so that
even finding the station could be difficult if the signal was
weak and the noise loud.
                         vince norris, penn state u.
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: What do you do during long boring flights? 
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 20:23:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

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. 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro)
Subject: more on taxi clearances
Organization: Franz Inc., Berkeley, CA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:05:04 GMT

 The Aug 1992 Callback makes an interesting point about taxi clearances.
Suppose you are parked on the west side of a field with a north/south
runway (18/36).  The taxiway parallel to this runway is on the east 
side of the field (so in order to take off you have to taxi across
18/36 at midfield to reach the taxiway).   36 is the active runway.  
Next to the runup area for 36 are the gas pumps.  

 You call up ground and ask to taxi to 36 and  are told 'taxi to 36'.
The person in the plane next to you then calls ground and asks to taxi to
the gas pumps and is told 'taxi to the gas pumps'.   

 You both are going to essentially the same part of the field following
the same path yet the rules state you must hold short of 18/36 yet 
the fellow going to the gas pumps can cross 18/36 without getting 
further permission.

 I guess that it makes sense in that the guy going to the gas pumps doesn't
necessarily know which runway is active yet if you are taxing to 36 you 
certainly know that it is an active runway.

 What this says that if you happen to be taxing behind someone and they
cross a runway without asking permission this doesn't mean that you can 
necessarily play follow the leader and also cross that runway.   

-sean
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Alphabet Airpspace
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:43:04 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> Special VFR will be available in all class B to E airspace unless otherwise
> noted.  Basically if you can get an IFR clearance you can get special VFR.

I don't understand the last statement.  If I can get an IFR clearance,
I don't need special VFR.  If you mean, I can get special VFR anywhere
I can get an IFR clearance, that's untrue.  The places where Special
VFR is specifically prohibitted are mostly in Class B/C airspace now.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: Leasing back your aircraft
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:46:39 PDT

I keep toying with the idea of buying my own airplane. However, I don't
think I'll fly it often enough to justify its purchase.

Then I thought about leasing it back to one of the local FBO's, if I do
decide to purchase it.

I'd like to inquire the net.wisdom about this practice, however. Is this a
good idea? Would the plane get abused a lot? The plane I have in mind is
a 172, so it would be used for IFR training for the most part (the FBO I
have in mind uses 152's for primary training). Wouldn't this more or less
limit the amount of abuse it would take?

Anyways, I'd love to hear from anyone who's leasing back his or her plane.

Thank you.
______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
From: randy@rls.UUCP (randall l. smith)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:03:00 GMT
Organization: The Internet

ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:
>> Take the PCB's as an example, that stuff is dangerous.
>
> Bad Example, this is one of the overhyped issues of the eighties.
> The effects of PCB itself are entirely transient.  

Transient?  Something that will *never* naturally break down?  Something
that is so distributed in our natural environment that it shows up in
Inuit and Serengeti natives livers?

Overhyped?  Something that has obliterated fourty some species of shore
birds in the great lakes region alone?  You obviously missed a *very*
recent PBS show from the Audobon Society about PCB's.

There is an island off Milwaukee? that is made of entirely sludge dreged
from the harbor bottom and it is a defacto toxic waste site because of
intense concentrations of PCB's.  They can't afford to move the island
because it will release more PCB's than leaving it there.  No humans are
allowed on the island.  Because there is nohuman visitation, birds are
using it as a sanctuary.  Birth defects and death are ubiquitious. 

Some fools even say PCB's are "going away".  Sure.  It's being
distributed evenly throughout the environment.  The Great Lakes native
fish population is decimated due to PCB's.  The PCB's prevent normal
development of the fry and they never develop into mature fish. 
The Great Lakes fishing industry is destroyed primarily due to PCB's.

Sorry Ron, you could not be more wrong.

Re: flyovers of illegal toxic waste sites
> Well, you may not like it, but it's not against the constitution.  The
> constitution only guarantees that you are secure in your home and your
> person, not whats visible to the naked eye in your back yard.

Well finally, I have to agree.

BTW, Margarette is doing a wonderful service for us all.  Keep on flyin'.

Cheers!

- randy

uucp: randy@rls.uucp
bang: <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy
inet: rls!randy@cis.ohio-state.edu
It seems like the less a statesman amounts to, the more he loves the flag.
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Date: 26 Aug 92 07:45:58 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:

>Little twinket?  Raising the noise level?  John from what I've read in
>the last several weeks you are definately in the minority.  Personally,
>I'm an admirer.  We aren't talking about guns and ammo and mistaken
>identities here we're talking about willfully trashing the environment.
> I disagree with your analogy.

No we're not.   We're talking about a busy-body poking her nose into
things she likely knows nothing about.  Are the drums full of evil
assault baby-killing CHEMICALS or are they empty?  Is that color in
the pond EABKC or is it an algae bloom?  To her type, that does not
matter.  Just call 'em all in and to hell with the harrassment or cost
suffered by her victims.  The old ends-justify-the-means argument 
does not fly here any more than it does elsewhere.

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?

John


-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:43:12 GMT
Subject: Re: High Altitude Leaning Question
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation


A while back I wrote:
>..I would like to know the proper procedure for leaning an engine prior to
>takeoff from a high altitude field.

>Now, if you have a turbocharged engine, follow the POH religiously!...  
>..  In most cases, it will be full rich or a specific fuel flow..

In article <1992Aug25.230329.934@cirrus.com>, gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal
Ramachandran) (Hi Gopal) adds:
>Another complication is in airplanes where before you can lean the
>engine for the best power, you have to adjust multiple controls to get
>the right manifold pressure! I'm talking about aircraft with manually
>controlled waste gates (typically Rajay turbocharger installations)
>such as in early Piper Aerostars and Twin Comanches, early Turbo
>Mooneys, etc
>	

Ah, yes.  And just how many knobs and levers can *you* handle and keep the
airplane out of the ditch? :-)

I used to fly a Twin Comanche that had the Rajay installation.  It had the
normal 6-lever quadrant, plus two vernier turbo controls down near the floor
under the quadrant, in a place guaranteed to give you vertigo if you tried to
adjust them while IFR.  I never tried to use them on takeoff.  Just too much
to do.  I suppose that, if you had a single with such an installation, you
could do it, but I never wanted to mess with all the workload on takeoff.  If
you tried to adjust them on the takeoff roll, I think you'd be airborne before
you got the turbos going enough to help much.  Plus, you would stand a great
risk of running off the runway since you couldn't see very well while
adjusting them.  You could also do a full power runup while holding the brakes
and making the adjustments, but the props would certainly take a beating.

But the Twin Comanche is such a sweet airplane, it might be worth the trouble.

Bill Standerfer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights? 
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 02:23:41 GMT

erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg) writes:

>In article <j2gnm#n.hchong@netcom.com> 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. 

>I'm surprised no one mentioned this, but here's where flying has a
>definite advantage over driving:  set autopilot, set alarmclock (or
>alarm watch), snooze.  Arrive refreshed!

BEEP BEEP BEEP >< TRAFFIC ALERT, 12 O'CLOCK, 1 MILE, YOUR ALTITUDE, OPPISITE
DIRECTION <> BEEP BEEP BEEP

CRUNCH! and maybe an ouch or two.

Try this: Get an intercom (you DO use headsets don't you?) with input
jacks. I have Peltor 7004 STEREO headsets...my buddies i/c that i use
(i/c=intercom) has input jacks for stereo's etc...so I brought my CD player
with me...and litened to music..whenever the controller came on..<i got
vfr following> the music would cut out..very nice...or just don't
get flight following and n'joy uninterupted muzak!

The headsets are great for this..I plugged my headsets into my 
stereo system..they sound GREAT..
--
Generic Signature:
Marshal Perlman - Huntington Beach - California - USA - Earth - Milky Way
yaW ykliM - htraE - ASU - ainrofilaC - hcaeB notgnitnuH - namlreP lahsraM
                                                        :erutangiS cireneG
From: dld80@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Donald Dusza)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Carrier version of the F-86F Sabre
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:07:32 GMT
Reply-To: dld80@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Donald Dusza)
Distribution: rec
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Aug28.164512.12801@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu writes:
>Steinar Bang writes
>> Watching a British documentary series ("The Nuclear Age")
>> on the telly yesterday, I saw what looked like a carrier version of
>> the F-86F (ie. a version without the nose radome of the later
>> versions) Sabre.
>> 
>> It had a long nose undercarriage like the carrier Phantoms and
>> foldable wings.
>> 
>> It was only a short glimpse, so I can't be certain, and I have  
>never
>> heard about such a version, so... can anybody confirm/deny?
>
>Confirmed.  I believe it was called the FJ Fury, but I'm sure some  
>ex-Navy guy will jump all over me if i'm wrong on the exact name.
>
>--
>-
>Stefano Pagiola
>Food Research Institute, Stanford University
>spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)

My father was an engine mechanic in the Marines years ago who worked on the
FJ-3 Fury.  If my memory is correct it is basicly the same as an F-86 with only
4 nose mounted machine guns(?) instead of the 6 in the Sabre.  Squadron Signal
Publications has a good book on the Sabre and on the Fury.  (If anyone is
interested or is an ex-Marine, my father was stationed at Ft. Beuford(sp?) in
South Carolina with VMF-333, Shamrocks I believe.)

                                               Don 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,news.answers
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:54:32 EDT
From: <VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: clip-on polaroids

In response to questions about the availability of polaroid
clip-on sun glasses:  Although these may be hard to find in
drugstores, etc., they are easily available from fishing
supply catalogs such as Orvis, Cabelas, Gander Mountain,
and others.  As usual, Orvis is the most expensive at
$11.50 (and would you believe a"better" pair for $45?
Gander Mountain has polarized flip-up clip-ons for $4.99.
Box 248, Hwy W, Wilmot, WI 53192.  No connection, just
a satisfied customer.
                     vince norris, penn state u.
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:14242 sci.aeronautics:1886 news.groups:17207
From: kls@ditka.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.aeronautics,news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.aeronautics.airl
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:37:38 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California

In article <4481.164.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) writes:
>RD> .    1. Do you support an airliners group at ALL?

...

>RD> .    4. Do you feel that an airliners group should be moderated?
>
>No.  Not until that step appears necessary to reduce the noise level.

As the proposed moderator I feel compelled to respond.  In general
I prefer unmoderated newsgroups.  I feel no burning desire to play
net.god, neither by moderating a newsgroup nor by any other means.
My initial reaction to the proposal that the group be moderated was
only a bit short of "hell no."

Obviously my opinions have changed.  Robert Dorsett collected some
impressive statistics on airliners postings (and other topics) in
rec.aviation, and the numbers clearly demonstrated just how many
posts were simply duplicates or echos of what others had said.

For a good case study, take a look in sci.aeronautics.  Several days
ago, someone posted a question about a beer commercial featuring what
he thought was an F-16XL.  One dozen followups ensued, split over two
separate threads, a substantial number of which speculated or said it
was a Saab Draken (spelled with one or two 'a's and 'k's -- there were
various permutations, none of which were clearly correct, and I have
no reference that's authoritative) and then said "yeah, that's what I
thought it was too."

A similar cascade happened after the Air Inter A320 crash and other
topics, airliner and otherwise, have likewise elicited a flurry of
marginal articles.

I'm not saying the entire thread should be killed in these cases,
just that a floodgate to control these bursts, and to filter random,
groundless speculation where needed, would make the group much more
pleasant for most folks to read.  (Alas, as moderator, I wouldn't get
to enjoy that same benefit. :-( )

Making an airliners a moderated group is a position I feel I must
support, however grudgingly.

-- 
Karl Swartz	|INet	kls@ditka.chicago.com
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
"Unix is a fractal thicket." (Mark Barnett)
From: jac@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Judy Cadmus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Overloaded Cherokee Crash comments
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:26:50 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Devon Engineering Offices

In article <5909.2a9b5d03@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
>Some comments:
>
>This whole accident scene appears to be stupidity to the nth power. Consider
>the factors:
>
>* pre-solo Student Pilot
>* without Instructor
>* at Night
>* in IMC
>* with passengers
>* plane loaded out of weigh and balance
>
>This kind of abject stupidity gives general aviation a bad name. Maynard had 
>hoped to get his commercial license - here's one vote against giving him any 
>license ever again.
   .
   .
   .
   .
>
>The truth is, most aircraft fly just fine with a dead fan. Pilots undergo an
>intense amount of training to deal with the engine-out situation. Even if
>the engine goes dead, people aren't likely to get killed.
>

I have observed from reading Aviation Safety that most of the accidents
involving a forced landing are not fatal.  Many result in no injuries or minor
injuries.  Consequently, most of the VFR into IMC accidents reported in
Aviation Safety are fatal.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Judy Cadmus  PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Skylane N42202                                  jac@asns.tredydev.unisys.com
From: jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhard)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 14:40:53 GMT
Subject: Re: DME Answers
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

> Finally, when VORs are in maintenance mode they broadcast T-E-S-T instead of
> their normal ident, and their signal is not guaranteed to be usable for air
> navigation.  I've actually heard the T-E-S-T ident once in 1900+ hours of
> flying.  It's conceivable that the same could occur with a DME, although
> I've never heard it personally.  I suppose this would be another reason to
> ident the DME separately, but most people wouldn't bother.

Interesting...  The GLL VORTAC (NE of Denver) just changed frequency
from 112.8 to 114.2.  While it was NOTAMED out of service (OTS), its id
was "- .  ...  -", which is to say, for those of you who do not "read"
morse code, "T E S T".  I listened to this for a week...  then it
changed back to "GLL".  Then, for the past week, Denver Center has been
giving vectors toward GLL vor.  When the aircraft still does not report
"proceeding direct Gill", by 30 DME, Center recites the new frequency
for the vor.  It makes me wonder where the airline pilots got their
briefing, since it has been in the NOTAMS and the FSS briefings for
quite a while.

BTW, Denver Departure also moved from 121.1 to 126.1, but there is still
a lot of traffic attempting contact on the old frequency.

Jer/ Eberhard, (SLASH), HAM = N0FZD     | Hewlett-Packard - MS99, 1UP10,15'East
Pilot: COMM, INST, CFI-Airplane & Glider| 3404 East Harmony Road (303) 229-2861
CAP CFI, Check & Mission, Pikes Peak 218| Fort Collins, Colorado  80525-9599 
EMAIL:  jle@fc.hp.com or Jer_Eberhard@fc.hp.com
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GA Safety (was: stupid pilot tricks)
Date: 31 Aug 92 08:00:50 GMT
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA

In article <1992Aug25.202406.19244@peck.com>, I wrote:
> It appears to me that my insurance dollar gives me substantially better
> coverage for the airplane than for the car.  Thus, one could argue that the
> insurance companies seem to "think" (and I use that term very loosely) that
> flying is safer than driving.

Several people have pointed out by e-mail, and in article
<1992Aug28.214638.10488@sctc.com> beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede) writes:
> I'm not an actuary, but I think you'd better factor in the expected
> amount of use expected of an airplane and a car.  If the average is 5
> hr/month vs. 40 hr/month, then it appears they think the car is the
> lesser risk (the high limits can be disregarded, I think; high limits
> of coverage cost very little for a car, since few claims occur of that
> size -- I pay an extra $96/year to raise the collision/PI coverage on
> all my cars from 100K to 1000K).

An interesting point.  In both cases, the insurance companies _do_ know how
much I use the respective vehicles.  The automotive insurer knows that I
drive about 12K miles/year, which in California with an average speed of
40mph (very conservative (!)) is about 300 hours/year.  Each year, the
aviation insurer asks me about my flying time, and the answer there is
typically 400-500 hours/year.

One thing which seems to be generally regarded as true in flying is the
more you do it, the less likely you are to be make a boo-boo.  In other
words, exposure time is not an issue -- in fact, _lack_ of exposure is morel
likely to be a problem than lots of exposure.  With automobiles, I agree --
the more exposure you have, the more you'll pay for insurance.  I have had
conversations with my auto insurance agent about things like "well, if I
were to tell you that I drove X miles per week to and from work, what would
that do do my rate?" and the answer always is "the more you drive, the more
we want you to pay."

The reader may draw whatever conclusions he or she wishes from this post.
:-)

						Geoff
From: wsanders@ffeine.Sun.COM (Wiley Sanders)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: 727 IN MIA
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:30:06 GMT
Organization: Tradeshow Tech Support
NNTP-Posting-Host: ffeine.corp.sun.com

Pictures on the news of MIA almost made me physically ill.
There was an aerial view of some GA hangars, and couldn't
make out anything that looked like a complete airplane,
just hundreds of pieces of shredded metal. 
   Here are this morning's NOTAMs:

!MIA 08/080 MIA ARTCC RCO SITES FREQ 281.5 127.0 319.1 135.22
381.45 132.4 296.7 323.0 124.7 134.6 269.05 132.95 OTS
!MIA 08/078 MIA HIWAS OUTLET OTS
!MIA 08/072 MIA EFAS OUTLET 122.0/132.725 OTS
!MIA 08/070 MIA ARPT CLSD EXCP PPR 305-876-7399
!MIA 08/068 MIA AFSS OTS
!MIA 08/077 BSY VORTAC UNMON/VOICE OTS 
!MIA 08/071 BSY VORTAC OTS 
!TMB 08/010 TMB ARPT CLSD 
!TMB 08/009 TMB ILS GS OTS 
!MIA 08/001 HWO CTAF 128.8 OTS
!FLL 08/019 FLL VOR/DME UNMON 
!FLL 08/021 FLL 9L ILS GS OTS 
!FLL 08/022 FLL 9L ALS OTS 
!FLL 08/014 FLL 13-31 CLSD 1200-2100 DLY EXCP 15 MIN PPR
TIL 272100
!MIA 08/079 X51 ARPT CLSD

--
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to
have a mind as being wasteful. How true that is."     -Dan Quayle