HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Safety and design rankings (was Re: Flight controls)
X-Submission-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 02:34:17 CST
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212170834.AA17343@cactus.org>
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:35:15 PST

In article <airliners.1992.173@ohare.Chicago.COM> you write:
>> was a replacement ... perhaps away from Smiths?  Having observed the
>> trials and tribulations of friends with MGs and their Smiths electrics
>> I'm not enthusiastic about a Smiths FMS!  :-)
>
>Me too!  But then, I *am* biased on this issue.  :-)  However, I do not
>believe that the part of Smiths that supports cars and the part that
>designs avionics has a whole lot to do with each other.  I suspect (but
>do not know for certain) that Boeing's choice of Smiths might be related
>to trying to get some competition in this area.

And if we're going to pick on Smiths for that, we should note that Delco
Electronics, which produced the INS used on just about every airliner produced
in the late 60's and 70's, was a subsidiary of General Motors. :-)  Same 
logo as the car-stereo systems, too. :-)

But boy, is Smiths' 737 engine display tacky. :-)




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme)
Subject: Re: Airbus safety
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:16:27 GMT
	<airliners.1992.130@ohare.Chicago.COM>
	<airliners.1992.148@ohare.Chicago.COM>
	<airliners.1992.153@ohare.Chicago.COM>
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Mpls. MN, USA.
X-Submission-Message-Id: <HOYME.92Dec16131627@schrodinger.src.honeywell.com>
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:00:45 PST


In article <airliners.1992.153@ohare.Chicago.COM> Robert Dorsett <rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu> writes:

> The problem is that software is so much more easily changed than hardware, 
> that we could very well start an avionics equivalent of "creeping featurism."
> Changing the way a stick behaves can be done in just one firmware update: no 
> need to develop new tooling, production techniques, train assemblers and
> maintenance engineers, offer the retrofit during the next C check, etc.  
> Just the internal development process, which one can assume is faster and 
> cheaper than for hardware.  But, by virtue of this ease, it's also more 
> *unstable* than hardware-based solutions.

> Evidence to support this position?  The A320 has about 4M of code.  The A330/
> A340, 10M.  It's happening as we speak...  

> Do any Honeywell people reading know how big the 777 EFCS is going to be?

Well, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.  I can only speak (and
only in vauge terms, of course) about the portion of the 777 that
Honeywell is producing.  Honeywell's Airplane Information Management
System (AIMS) contains the FMS function similar to previous generation
airplanes, but does not encompass the autopilot (Rockwell Collins) nor
the FBW Flight Controls (GEC).  The FMS alone requires about 2Mbytes of
executable code.  It also requires a Nav Data Base and RAM for
operation.  I do not know the complexity of the other components of the
"EFCS".  Of course, Displays could be considered another part of the
system.  That function lives in AIMS on the 777.


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org>
Subject: Hysterical movie goof
X-Submission-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:11:38 -0500
X-Submission-Message-Id: <199212122111.AA26421@loiosh.eff.org>
Date: 13 Dec 92 12:14:17 PST

I was just watching a movie on TV ("Gotcha").  One of the characters
flew to Paris, and there was the obligatory "airplane landing" shot to
establish that he "really flew" there...

...on an Air France Cargo 747.  (The side titles very clearly had three
words, though the last was hard to read; however, the "under-nose"
titles indicated the 747 cargo variant with a nose door.)

Wonder what the in-flight meal was...
From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Happy Holidays!
Date: 18 Dec 92 12:51:00 GMT
Organization: Chicago Software Works
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:48:08 GMT
X-Submission-Message-ID: <1992Dec18.124808.6922@ohare.Chicago.COM>

I'll be in Chicago for the holidays, starting tomorrow (courtesy
a United 747 for the obligatory airliner content!) until after
Christmas.  My brother has network access so I'll be processing
submissions to the group from there, though response will not be
quite as timely as I usually try to maintain.  My machines here
in California will be cared for, so you needn't (and shouldn't)
change how you submit articles.

I hope the holidays are safe and happy for all of you, and I'll
look forward to the continuing interesting airliners discussions
and debates in the new year!

-- 
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
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Yet more on the El Al crash
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:11:42 GMT
X-Submission-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 00:56:54 CST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212140656.AA22726@cactus.org>



Today, I ran across a copy of a real, live, 747-200 Airplane Flight Manual.  
The AFM is the manufacturer's legal statement of airplane capabilities; it 
is custom-outfitted for each customer configuration, must be kept up to date, 
and is kept in the actual airplane: it's the bottom line for normal 
operations, , "outranking" even normal pilot Operations Manuals, which 
present processed data, based on the AFM, in a more user-friendly format.

It contained some information which might be of interest to the net, 
particularly given the impression some people seemed to have of the 
ramifications of a two-engine failure.  I'm also referring to the AvLeak 
of October 12 for particulars on the flight.

The manual describes a 747-200, with CF6-50E engines, which produce a 
static thrust of ~52,000 lbs.  The El Al airplane was powered with JT9D-7J's,
which produce ~50,000 lbs of thrust).  So it's not entirely applicable to 
the El Al crash, and I emphasize that the following is simply a "what-if,"
using the crash profile.  We'll use a basic operating weight empty of 170,000
kgs, and the actual cargo load of 114,000 kg and the fuel load of 70,000 kgs.
That gives us a gross weight of 354,000 kgs.

The crash airplane achieved a maximum altitude of 5000' at 285 knots.  It later
achieved a maximum airspeed of 313 knots at 4900'.  About six minutes after 
the initial failure, the captain reported problems with flaps.  By the time 
the plane had descended to 2900', 25 seconds later, the crew issued a mayday 
call, indicating they were losing control; impact was 45 seconds after that.  
The slowest airspeed the airplane attained was 260 knots or so.

The AFM gives some information that wasn't available during the original
discussion.

Such as:

    - 2-engine operation is *certainly* an in-envelope contingency.
    - It is possible to maintain altitude at up to 360,000 kgs.
    
Some numbers.  Draw your own conclusions: again, we're talking a different
airplane, with different thrust capabilities.

1.  Placarded flap speed limits.  We can assume that if the crash airplane
was following these limits, it was at flaps-up by the time the failure 
occurred.

    1    275 knots
    5    250 knots
    10   238 knots
    20   231 knots
    25   205 knots

2.  Gear-up stall speeds at 355,000 kgs:

    Flaps    Speed
    1        203 knots
    5        153 knots
    10       150 knots
    20       144 knots
    
    25       124 knots (landing flaps: assumes weight is down to 295,000 kgs).
    
3.  At 355,000 kgs, *with two engines out*, our -200 would have been able 
to maintain level flight.  It should also have been able to establish a climb 
gradient of 0.4% (175 ft./min) at 280 knots, the prescribed en route climb 
speed for this condition.




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: todamhyp@unlv.edu (Brian M. Huey)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Tire burn-out during landings
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:08:05 GMT
Organization: University of Nevada at Las Vegas, College of Engineering
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 18:06:49 GMT
X-Submission-Message-ID: <1992Dec18.180649.15191@unlv.edu>

I realize this a relatively basic question (I think) nevertheless:

	I am neither a pilot nor an airliner engineer. However,
everytime I watch a airliner land, a cloud of smoke is produced when
the wheels come in contact from the ground due to friction. Couldn't
this cloud and the effect of friction be lessened by inducing a
angular velocity upon the wheels to match the airliners speed with
respect to the runway?

-- 
DISCLAIMER: I can neither confirm nor deny any opinions
expressed in this article directly reflect my own personal or
political views and furthermore, if they did, I would not be at
liberty to yield such an explanation of these alleged opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Wright)
Subject: Re: Yet more on the El Al crash
X-Submission-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:15:58 GMT
Organization: Boeing
X-Submission-Message-Id: <BzBHMM.2np@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:19:47 PST

In article <airliners.1992.158@ohare.Chicago.COM> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>
>The manual describes a 747-200, with CF6-50E engines, which produce a 
>static thrust of ~52,000 lbs.  The El Al airplane was powered with JT9D-7J's,
>which produce ~50,000 lbs of thrust).  So it's not entirely applicable to 
>the El Al crash, and I emphasize that the following is simply a "what-if,"

  There is also a difference in engine mountings, fairings, and low speed
behavior.  You could find a significant change in CLmax because of these
things.

>
>---
>Robert Dorsett
>rdd@cactus.org
>...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd


-- 
 ________Greg Wright____________     "I struggle to be brief     
| gregory@bcstec.ca.boeing.com  |     and become obscure."         
|     gregory@halcyon.com       |                             
|____uunet!bcstec!gregory_______|               NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON.

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Aha!  The three-man 767 rears its ugly head...
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:08:08 GMT
X-Submission-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 05:36:50 CST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212201136.AA13911@cactus.org>


I knew I wasn't going mad...  In a recent post, I commented on a three-man
767.  Karl hadn't heard of it, which surprised me, so I went looking for
it--and couldn't find it--which surprised me even more.  I finally ran across
this blurb.

I have no recollection of a picture of one of these critters, though.  Can
someone clear up this matter?


FI, 3/20/82, p. 685:

"So far, most of the "live" flight-test experience has been with a three-
pilot-configured flightdeck on the first four 767s.  [...]  All 757s, and 
the fifth and many subsequent 767s will have a two-pilot-configured cockpit.  
In the two-man flightdeck, the early 767's conventional bank of engine 
instruments on the center panel is replaced by the two CRT screens.  These are 
the display element of the engine-indicating/crew-alerting system (EICAS),
which replaces normal engine instruments and continually scans the aircraft 
systems for abnormalities, relaying any findings."


I interpret that as meaning the three-man ships had electromechanical in-
struments, which means there had to be a real, live, flight engineer.

I am certain three of the four were retrofitted to two-man configuration,
but am almost certain the first one lingers on, somewhere.  Memory suggests
it's Boeing's 767 testbed.  The maddening thing is, I read an article within
the last two or three years, which went into all this in great detail, but
I can't remember where it was published...  This article seemed to indicate
that the customer (UAL, I THINK) which initially wanted three-man ships saw
the two-man configuration, fell in love with it, and abandoned all plans for
three-man operation.




R.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Subject: Re: hydraulic problems with DC-10's??
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:50:15 GMT
Organization: Boeing
X-Submission-Message-Id: <BzBzvt.vo@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:19:50 PST

In article <airliners.1992.106@ohare.Chicago.COM> weiss@ada.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) writes:

  [Much aero-techie argument deleted]

>In any case, my point is that there would have been a severe weight unbalance
>between the wings, and I have doubts that it could have been countered by the
>ailerons.  The whole reason that there was a negative roll moment was that the
>left wing STALLED, not that it lost lift directly from the retracting slats.
>I'm still not convinced that even WITH the slats extended it could have been
>prevented.

As one gentleman pointed out earlier, there is a history of airplanes
losing engines and remaining perfectly controllable.  A 737-200 lost one, I
believe it was the #2, on takeoff just last week.  It impacted along the side 
of the runway, the airplane turned around without further incident and
landed safely.  While certainly not as common as an airline misplacing your
luggage :-), engine departures do happen and the airplanes do tend to land
without further damage or excitement.

-- 
Terry
drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Subject: Re: Hysterical movie goof
X-Submission-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:33:23 GMT
Organization: Chicago Software Works
X-Submission-Message-ID: <1992Dec15.073323.297@ohare.Chicago.COM>
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:13:28 PST

In article <airliners.1992.160@ohare.Chicago.COM> ncole@nyx.cs.du.edu (Noah Cole) writes:

>I think that it would be interesting to list all of the errors that
>TV and Film writers make in the airline/avation market.

I agree.  But TV and film is a bit far afield from airliners; perhaps
rec.arts.movies would be a better place.  If someone compiles a list
I'll consider it as for sci.aeronautics.airliners.

One bit of film goof trivia that perhaps *is* directly relavnt to
airliners is in United's safety video.  As has been mentioned else-
where on Usenet, the shot of folks sliding down the emergency slides
in the DC-10 version depicts a 747, as can be identified by the doors
and the fact that they open out to the side, not inside and up.  The
757 appears to use the same shot (awfully high up and it doesn't look
like a narrow-body aircraft).

One question I've had about this film, besides where they could find
a flight attendent or model who could smile so continuously, is what
type of aircraft the opener of the cockpit was taken on.  I always
manage to think about it when the scene is almost over.

>For example, on Dir Hard II many of the flights were not wide-bodied
>flights that came from the West VCoast etc..

Are you suggesting that all flights from the West Coast are wide
bodies?  That's hardly the case, of course.

-- 
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
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: weinss@rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Hysterical movie goof
X-Submission-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:28:11 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
X-Submission-Message-Id: <+-j2lnh@rpi.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:07:14 PST

	At one time (i.e. 1st half of 20th century ?), it was common for 
people flying between places without regular comercial airline service to 
hitch rides with either cargo or military planes.
	Scientists going to Antartica still do this and reporters needing 
local transportation in Vietnam when roads were closed did during the war 
there.  (In 'Nam, helicopters were more common though because it was too 
expensive to build a runway that might get blown up.)

Stephen Weinstein
weinss@rpi.edu
I will be away from the net and e-mail 12/17-1/10.
If more college students voted (and could afford lobbyists), there would
be more financial aid.

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: barney@skat.usc.edu (Barney Lum)
Subject: Re: 737 Crash In Colorado Springs
X-Submission-Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:05:01 -0800
Organization: USC University Computing Services, Los Angeles
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1gbhcdINN23m@sol.usc.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:06:27 PST

rbarnick@mitre.org (Barnick, R.) writes:
>In March 1991 a UAL 737 went down on final approach into COS.  The final
>accident investigation report was released a couple of days ago and carried
>no cause.  
   [ ... possible "hushing of report" due to UA's situation with
         gender/hiring/crewmember second-hand story by friend...]

>It seems odd that the final accident report that came out indeed did say
>nothing.  

(the following is derived from UPI articles in The Wall Street Journal
       and clari.news.aviation )

   The final report issued by the National Transportation Safety Board 
   did not "say nothing", but rather was unable to come to a definite 
   conclusion as to the cause of the crash.  However, it did indicate 
   two  "most likely" events leading to the crash:

      1) malfunction in the directional control system.
	  (The rudder is referenced, but could not be id'd as causal) 
      2) unusually severe atmospheric disturbance. (rotor)

The articles go on to say that it's the "first time since 1974 that the 
board could not identify the cause of a major aviation accident."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >|            
              >|      barney@usc.edu  Barney@USCVM
 -->  -->  --> |   =======    ---    ---    ---    ---    ---   ---    ---  
              >|      Permanent Student Pilot, On the Numbers   
              >|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------






Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Amazing new telescope (actually more false advertising)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:25:47 GMT

While flicking through the cable channels in hope of finding something worth
watching I stumbled on QVC (a "shopping" channel). They were selling an
amazingly powerful telescope - so powerful that it would "show the phases
of the moons of Venus". Adding a little astronomical knowledge, the announcer
commented that Venus' moons show phases, just like ours. It would not only
show the rings of Saturn, but also its moons, as well as ground features and
clouds (his comments seemed to indicate these features were visible on the
moons). Adding a little astronomical history, he assured viewers that this
telescope would show all the planets that Galileo saw, which are of course,
all the planets except for Pluto. Equally versatile on deep sky objects, this
'scope would show spiral galaxies (this was accompanied by whirling arms, I
guess to show the spiral nature of galaxies) and regular galaxies. AND, of
course, it was capable of 450x power (as are most very small telescopes
these days). Makes me wonder if I should junk my 13" Coulter and get one of
these amazing new 'scopes.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================

P.S. It appeared to be a 60mm Meade refractor on an equatorial mount for
about $140.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: peters@mcnc.org (Charles Ross Peters)
Subject: Celestron C-5
Organization: MCNC Center for Microelectronics, RTP, NC
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:41:07 GMT


Has anyone out there had any experience with the new Celestron
C-5 telescope?  I am especially interested in the quality of
the optics.  Howvever, I also wonder how stable the one armed
fork mount is.

Charles Peters
peters@mcnc.org


Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Communication through Event Horizon possible
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:19:09 GMT

In article <Bz2rB8.4y2@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
writes:

>and palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
>
>> One cannot measure the form factor of a black hole from outside. Only the
>> aggregate mass affects the gravitational field outside the hole.
>
>     That generally true statement applies to the singularity at the center.
>What about a significant mass inside the event horizon before it joins the
>singularity?  For that matter, what about a large mass half inside and half
>outside the event horizon?  Are you saying that as it passes inside, the
>inside portion instantly begins acting as if it were already at the center?

The statement was made in the implicit context of conventional black hole
mythology, the appropriate frame in which to answer the question given that it
was from a relatively unsophisticated questioner, and a particularly
appropriate one for me to answer in, too, since I've mentioned before that I
don't know GR, and I'm certainly not up to speed on all the relevant black hole
problem solutions to GR. [God, that was one sentence!]

In conventional black hole mythology a large mass can't get "half inside and
half outside the event horizon" by starting from the outside of a previously
extant black hole. I don't know if there is a solution in which a mass
undergoes collapse into a black hole with part of another mass partially inside
and partially outside the event horizon, whatever that may mean.

The meaning of the word "before" in your question is obscure. Is there an
operational definition of "before" (or "at the same time", or other temporal
naiveties) relating to events inside the event horizon relative to the frame of
an observer outside?

I think this is a question to be unasked, if you'll pardon my zen.

I share with you an understandable distaste for treating these questions
seriously as scientific questions, Tom, since the possibility of empirical
falsification of the answers is, to say the least, problematic. This is the
season to be jolly, however, and I've just assigned grades to my astronomy
students with the magnanimity and generosity appropriate to the season. I
offered my answer to this query in the same spirit.

Happy fig day to all!

Leigh
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 15.12.1992.
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:29:00 MET
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 15.12.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7355 18S 76W Hsx   40   a
7360 18S 35W Eho  310   b
7362 06S 49W Eki  590   b    2
7363 08S 07W Cao   90   b
7364 08N 11W Hsx   50   a
7366 12S 19E Dao   80   b
7367 15S 52W Axx    0   a
7368 33S 36E Cso   40   b    4


No optical or x-ray flares yesterday observed.


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.astro