HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: New Nonprecision Approaches?
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:25:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequoia Computer Systems

In article <1992Aug19.032712.3623@xn.ll.mit.edu>, olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes:
> Does anyone know what's going on with the effort to establish new
> non-precision approaches at small airports?
> 
> First, there was a push to establish VOR/DME approches, where
> applicable.  Then the new LORAN approaches were published.  For some
> time, all the LORAN approaches (and a number of the VOR/DME ones) have
> been under semi-permanent NOTAM's making them Not Authorized.

I believe that what happened here was that Northstar and some of the other
manufacturers pointed out to the FAA that the LORAN can drop out, and take
several minutes to sync up again. As far as I know, LORAN approaches are
on permanent hold.

> Now, the current edition of Aviation Week says that FAA testing of
> non-precision GPS approaches will start this year, with new approaches
> being published (and certified receivers available) in early 1993.

Yup, the GPS approaches are being tested with a Baron based at Stow, MA.

> What gives?  Is the FAA pursuing LORAN and VOR/DME too, or has it
> chosen GPS as the preferred non-precision approach aid for the future?

I don't know about VOR/DME. As I said, I think the LORAN approaches are
on permanent hold. In my mind, GPS is certainly better for this sort of
thing than LORAN. LORAN's performance is going to be worst just at the
times you'll need it to shoot approaches. The price of GPS has dropped
much quicker than I thought it would, and it seems to still be dropping.
I'd spend the extra money for a GPS unit (actually, the Baron being
used to test the GPS approaches has a Northstar M2 with both LORAN and
GPS in it, and this is probably what I'll get).

				PC
--
cantrell@sequoia.com
-- 
cantrell@sequoia.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: Trainer Stolen & Returned 3 times
Organization: Pomona College
Distribution: usa
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:04:36 PDT

In article <1992Sep03.221050.23352@i88.isc.com>, ericth@i88.isc.com (Eric Thiele) writes:
> Early this morning, a twin engine Cessna 152 was stolen from, and subsequently 

A twin C152...Hm....

Okay, so I got my Private last year on a 152. Will I have to contact the
FAA and have them fixed my license, to read Aircraft MultiEngine Land?

Congrats on your solo!
______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: Assembling gliders
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:04:03 GMT

kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.140558.3912@brtph560.bnr.ca> rlarsen@bnr.ca (Richard Larsen P220) writes:
>[Story of SGS 1-35 accident deleted]
>>
>>He had forgotten to hookup the ailerons. How often is assembly a problem
>>or cause of accidents? Has anyone ever had a wing come off?

{Some stuff deleted)

>Of course one can always forget the wing attach bolts, but I haven't seen
>that ..... yet.

I've read of one case - a 1-26 pilot came out to the field, set up, and
went flying.  No problems, but no lift either.  So he landed and started
to disassemble his glider.  Partway through the disassembly, wave started.
He re-assembled the bird, and launched.  About 30 minutes into the
flight, a wing came off.  Investigation showed that he had forgotten
the wing attach bolt safety pins, and the bolts had worked their way
out of the connector.  This is similar to the classic gear-up landing
where the checklist is interrupted halfway through, and the gear is
forgotten.  Unfortunately, this assembly checklist error was fatal.
(Note - I've forgotten where I read of this accident - Soaring, or
maybe the net?  Anyway, I apologize for any error I may have injected -
I'm pretty sure the gist of it is correct.)
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe)
Subject: Re: Comparing Tach and Hobbs rates?
Reply-To: mark@.cv.hp.com
Organization: UDT-CV (ITO)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:48:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.060528.20934@peck.com>, geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
   ...
> What about instrument students?  Instrument training is relatively benign
> to aircraft, and charging on the tach is immensely humane -- all that time
> waiting for ATC, either on the ground or in holding patterns, becomes less
> expensive for the student.

This can be particularly important when your paying an instructor.  For all
instruction I have had the instructor time was the same as the plane time.
Does any instructor charge clock time independent of Hobb's or tach?  For
people who have planes without Hobb's meters do you log tach time or some
estimate of clock time?  Does anybody with a Hobb's meter log something
other than Hobb's time?

>        ...  However, the renter also has no incentive to shop for cheap
> gas.  One solution is to pay a fixed per-gallon cost, such as the price
> paid at the home airport.  This isn't all that good an idea, though, as
> some price-conscious renter might decide "gee, gas here at Gouging
> International is $2.84/gallon, but if I can just squeak home, it'll be
> only $2.12/gallon, and it'll be paid for -- so I'll go with what's left in
> the tanks."  (Bzzzzt!)

I would think an FBO could discourage this with a penalty for pushing it.
For example with 30 gallon tanks the FBO would reimburse the normal rate
for refueling the first 25 gallons in each tank, but charge an additional
$2 per gallon beyond that (this would require off-field receipts to be
broken out on a per tank basis, though the principle still works if the
total is simply divided by number of tanks).  Adjust the figures as
necessary for desired reserve given normal consumption figures and amount
of unuseable fuel.  Actually there is a problem with this scheme for off-
field sites since it assumes the tanks will always be topped off, but it
might work for the home field.  A further advantage of a scheme like this
would be in encouraging some pilot diligence.  A pilot who, knowing that
the flight will end with "somewhere around 10 gallons of fuel left" might
not give it another thought may now do some fuel calculations to see if
he or she is in the "penalty".  Just a thought.

Mark Rowe             PP-SEL G I              Comanche N5943P
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Flying saves money (sic)
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:26:21 GMT

In article <greg.715453752@saltydog>, greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:

|> Most, if not all, airlines do not use Flight Service except for
|> EFAS and HIWAS.

|> It is my understanding that Flight Service is pretty much 100% for
|> GA.

But the weather information network infrastructure that underlies EFAS,
flight service, control zones, etc., are certainly essential for all forms
of aviation.  United may have their own weather interpreters, but surely
some of the information they are getting is coming from the same source
that flight service gets its info from.

And EFAS and flight watch are all part of flight service.  And who do
they file pilot reports with?

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: fultz@scs.carleton.ca (Brian Fultz)
Subject: Re: Lighted airways beacon codes
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:14:05 GMT

In article <jcmorris.714870453@mwunix> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
>I recently posted a response to a query (since expired) asking for the
>mnemonic for the Morse code characters used in the old lighted airways
>beacons.  
>I finally found a copy of the mnemonic, and it turns out that I had
>four of the six characters right.  Here's the proper key:
>
>  When Undertaking Very Hard Routes Keep Directions By Good Methods
>  1    2           3    4    5      6    7          8  9   10
>
>The beacons were keyed by the 10-mile segment of the route.  If terrain
>required that two or more beacons be placed in a single 10-mile block,
>both beacons displayed the same code but were charted with a letter
>suffix.
>
>
>PS and OBtrivia: I keep having to stop myself from mixing this mnemonic up
>with the one which goes "Oh Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me Right Now (Smooch)".
>For ten points extra credit, identify the branch of science which uses
>the character sequence OBAFGKMRNS and tell what it represents; for five
>more points name the science fiction story which used the mnemonic to
>resolve a dilimma.


I am just a computer basher but I now both answers.  The sequence is the
decay path of stars from birth to death ( in a super nova ).  The book
is part of the "Berserker" novels I think.  The hero has to decide if
one of two ships is the badie or the good guy.  At one point he notes
one ships crew using OBAFGKMRNS to keep the string straight and "knows"
a computer would never need such an aid.  So thats the good guy, the other
must be the badie.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis)
Subject: Re: umwaufi report
Organization: CAD-Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:25:25 GMT

In some article phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>
>I think a fly-in at MSP would be a wonderful idea.  I would vote for 
>Mall of America (it would be a very different sort of fly-in, no?)
>           We could schedule it for November and call it the
>Upper Mid West Christmas Shopping Spree Fly In (umwcssfi)!  :-)

Oh great, on top of a $250 bill for the plane, I'll have a $2000 bill
for christmas shopping :-), 
I can just see it now, 'no that xmas tree will NOT fit in the archer', or
'no we cannot buy that, because we would exceed 200 lbs in the
baggage compartment'.  -:) -:)  -:) -:)


-- 
Yiannis E. Papelis,            - Electrical & Computer Engineering, U of Iowa
Center of Computer Aided Design- Home of the Iowa Driving Simulator & future
e-mail: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu - home of the National Advanced Driving Simulator
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Subject: Re: Reasons to fly (was Number of U.S Pilots)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:45:32 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

dls@genrad.com (Diana L. Syriac) writes:

>2.  Join the 99's and FLY to their meeting every month plus half a dozen 

ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
> They won't let me join.  Wrong sex, or something like that.

If you have a wife, she can join, making you a 49-1/2 according the their
rules.

dave allen - Fly because you love it - even if you only count for half. :-)
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: crossing a runway, and instructor relations
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:53:56 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> The FAA says that an ATC instruction to "taxi to" a runway is a
> clearance to cross any inactive runways between here and there.  

Not just inactive ones, too!

AIM 4-68.  TAXIING:
   a. General:
    5.  When ATC clears an aircraft to "taci to" an assigned
    runway , the absence of holding instructions authorizes
    the aircraft to "cross" all runways which the taxiway
    intersects except the assigned takeoff runway.  It does
    not include authorization to "taxi onto" or "cross" the
    assigned takeoff runway at any point.  In order to
    preclude misunderstandings in radio communications, ATC
    will not use the word "cleared" in conjunction with
    auhtorization to taxi.

> "When you're in this airplane, you
> will *always* stop and ask for permission to cross a runway!"
> Who is correct?  What should I do?
	
You are.  If you can't reason with the instructor and you are worried
about annoying the operator of the flight school, ask the chief pilot.
141 schools and FBO's that double as 135 operations will have one in
charge.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jkr@cray.com (John Renwick)
Subject: Re: how to do a mag check?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 31 Aug 92 08:06:19 CDT

Two clicks first or one, the method you choose doesn't help if
you don't *think* about what you're doing.  Think: turn off one,
observe the drop, turn on both, observe the return to normal
RPM.  Do the same with the other.  Observing the return to normal
RPM assures that your mag switch worked properly AND that you're
going to depart with the switch on both.

By the way, when I made my not-on-both boo-boo, it was on a
mountain flying checkout in a C-150 at gross in the Sierras in
September (I don't remember the temperature).  On one mag the
engine would seem to miss just once every few minutes.  The miss
was at first so quiet and infrequent that we shrugged it off, but
it got worse over time.  The single-mag rate of climb was less
than 100FPM at around 9000 feet, and I couldn't clear the pass I
was aiming for (I needed around 11,000).  On BOTH it gave me
about 50 RPM more, which was enough to get me over the pass.  Not
much margin in a fully-loaded C-150, is there?
-- 
- John Renwick
J-3 Cub N62088
jkr@cray.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jeremy Brest)
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:22:58 GMT

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?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Keywords: ponds, plumes, piles, and stains
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 04:35:06 GMT

In article <71659@apple.Apple.COM> stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.123144.18737@walter.bellcore.com>
> venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
>>
>>Would it be reasonable, in addition to requiring civility, to expect a 
>>restraint on controversial topics that is only marginally related to 
>>rec.aviation?
>
>I must absolutely disagree.  Does this mean we must only write about 100%
>pure flying?
>

Sigh. No. All it means is that when you write about flying related to
*controversial* issues, you stress the flying not the issue. Judgement
is called for but that is something pilots are used to without having to 
go into the extreme examples that you outlined, no?

venky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: KIWI AIRLINES [MD-11 NOTE too] *
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 00:33:41 GMT

spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Marshal "Airborne" Perlman writes
>..
>> FRONTIER: Big 'F' for "Forgot to put the gear up" (personal story).

>Do tell...

I was yonger..so I don't remember much..but I was a aviation buff
ever since I moved to California when I was 5 <I wound up in the cockpit
of an IN-FLIGHT 747 on that NJ to CA flight.my mom thought I was lost..hah>

I was flying out of Denver (I think..don't quite remember)...and our
DC-9 was flyin' along...there was this terrible noise from the bottom
of the plane....I don't still know what caused it...but about 2 minutes 
after everyone was freaked out due to the noise...the captain gets on the
i/c and says.."Sorry about that noise folks..the gear is now up and locked".

Now..I was younge at the time..but that means...THE GEAR WAS DOWN. <this
was about 3 or 4 minutes after take off.>
--
Generic Signature:
Marshal Perlman - Huntington Beach - California - USA - Earth - Milky Way
yaW ykliM - htraE - ASU - ainrofilaC - hcaeB notgnitnuH - namlreP lahsraM
                                                        :erutangiS cireneG
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Airplane pollution (was toxic waste)
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:51:17 GMT

In article <6839@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) writes:
|> In article <RFINCH.92Sep2085532@venice.water.ca.gov> rfinch@water.ca.gov (Ralph Finch) writes:
|> >the environmental impact of airplane use, which just from gasoline
|> >consumption alone must be much worse than an automobile, especially
|> >when you consider that airplane engines don't have any emission
|> >controls.  
|> 
|> This is especially true during full-rich operation, where maybe 20% of the
|> fuel is vaporized for cooling, but unburned. 
|> 
|> But I wonder what the relative pollutant contribution of recip aircraft 
|> engines is when the mixture is leaned normally. Seems like optimum mixture,
|> constant power settings, better engine condition compared to the average car,
|> less idle time, etc. are factors that might reduce our emissions somewhat.
|> 
|> Anyone know more about this?

On my last trip to LA from San Jose (last weekend) I got 15 nautical (air) mpg
(17 smpg). Just read a story about a kitplane (Velocity) that took a 5000 mile
vacation and got 21 smpg at an average speed of 185 mph. When you go faster in
an auto your milage drops quickly. What milage will a Masarati get at 185? How
many tickets will the car get? (sorry, not an environmental consideration)

Do not forget that 95% of the gasoline in America is burned in automobiles.

None of these numbers are definitive, but they give a first order aprox.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:02:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Number of U.S. Pilots  (was Number of small aircraft wanted)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In article <1940106@hpgrla.gr.hp.com>, leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin) 
writes:
> Based on my personal observations, many people (> 50%) get their pilot's
> license and then don't use it.  After a few inactive months, they no
> longer trust their flying skills and thus lose the desire to bore holes
> in the sky.
> 

The 50% number seems pretty high, but you could be right.  Rather than a skill
issue, however, I think a large part of it is simply the cost associated with
flying and staying current, leading to inactivity and finally giving it up for
long periods of time or completely.  I also think that the same could be said
of instrument pilots.  I know a lot of instrument rated pilots who have had
the rating for years, but who don't feel that they fly enough instruments to
be confident.

Another factor that I've seen is that, after a few $100 burgers by yourself,
most people have the "Is that all there is?" feeling about flying.  I think a
new pilot runs out of reasons to fly after a short while.  I suggest that
finding friends to fly with on a regular basis is a good way to have a reason
to fly and keep your skills fresh.  We've flown with a group for about 15 years
and it gives everyone a reason to get out and go somewhere.  You get to meet
new people and talk flying.

> I don't know why this happens, except perhaps because they've failed to
> establish other aviation-related goals.  For them, a pilot's license is
> a goal in itself and, once achieved, it leaves them at a loss as to what
> to do next.

To a lot of pilots, *flying* is the only goal.  I know several pilots who are
quite happy as VFR pilots.  In fact, at least one has been quite happy as a VFR
pilot for over 40 years.  For me, flying is *the* goal, but I also have
several secondary goals that dictate that I have an instrument rating, etc.

Bill Standerfer
From: novick@ogicse.ogi.edu (David G. Novick)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: scenic tours
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:36:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.42309
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

Jeff Knell's description of the details for overflying the Grand
Canyon reminded me of a scenic overflight I was lucky to take
part in.  This happened around 1976, and probably would not take
place today for obvious reasons.

I was returning from the East Coast to Eugene, OR, via San Francisco
on United Airlines in the early summer.  The plane's route was basically
direct, staying just east of Interstate 5.  The early afternoon sunshine
was glorious and the views of the mountains were superb.

As we passed east of Medford, OR, we could see Crater Lake just off to
our right.  At that point in the flight, the pilot came over the
intercom and announced that, as it was such a nice day, why don't we
tour Crater Lake?  The plane then proceeded to fly over to and then
completely around the lake in a big, lazy circle.  Incredible!

This excursion probably added 12 minutes to our flight, but I didn't
hear a single complaint from passengers, least of all me.  Nothing
like this ever happened again for me on a commercial flight.

--David "still waiting" Novick

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  David G. Novick   | Department of Computer Science and Engineering
 novick@cse.ogi.edu | Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology 
 tel (503) 690-1156 | 19600 N.W. Von Neumann Drive
 fax (503) 690-1029 | Beaverton, OR 97006-1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hdnea@usho0e.hou281.chevron.com (David Neal)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Building your own (dirt) runway?
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:00:51 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Aug31.155055.16347@eng.umd.edu> rex@eng.umd.edu (Rex Root) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.081448.16785@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>>
>>Ah, but does Home Depot have ILSes?  :-)
>>
>They probably have a weather vane that could be painted orange instead
>of buying a wind sock from Sportys.


Don't laugh.

I don't know what an ILS system would cost. But here at Chevron
I have been to demonstrations of several differential GPS systems.

Most anyone can setup a DGPS (differential GPS) system.
A local company sells a base station for $16,500 + 2,800 for a
30W UHF transmitter and modem. But $12,500 of the cost is
their 12 channel GPS engine. You can replace it with a lower cost
six channel system ($2K-$5K).

For use in the plane you need a GPS system that can use DGPS
directly, or to spend another $2,800 for a UHF modem and receiver,
assuming your GPS unit speaks RTCN 104. Motorola sells a unit for
$4,395 that receives standard and DGPS. Or just the guts to the
unit for $1,800 for you experimenters out there. Garmin and Trimble
may have similar units for less.

This might seem expensive, but DGPS scales pretty well. Communications
and Measurement Technologies LTD (0442 258333) sells VHF and HF
DGPS systems that start at $50,000 but have 100-500 Kilometer ranges.

Of course since the FAA's baby MLS would be threatened by
such a system, we all know how far it will go.

Finally, RTCA and the FAA are holding a conference Oct 19
on GPS. Call (301) 949-7477 if you would like to attend.
That's not a commercial endorsement BTW, I just got the
number from Bob Warner at the EAA 5 mins ago and had
never heard of RTCA before that.

-- 
--
David Neal -- hdnea@hou281.chevron.com 
Conserve water, California's deserts need more cotton farms.