HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In the case of no burner (no heat available to be added to
the air inside the envelope), the air will gradually cool and
the balloon will reach an equilibrium descent rate which is
dependent on envelope volume, shape, and the combined weight
of the system (passengers, basket, fuel, and envelope).

This "terminal descent" rate typically varies from 400fpm
to about 1200 fpm.  The incidence of fatalities or severe
injuries from this type of occurrence is minimal, as 1000fpm
is about 12mph.  Of course, you want to keep your knees away from
the tanks and not hit any power lines.

Most balloon systems provide some level of redundancy in the
fuel system (unless you fly a Semco).  There are either two
primary fuel manifolds (Raven/Aerostar, Cameron, Thunder&Colt)
or a primary manifold and a separate liquid feed "Fire Two"
system (Barnes/Firefly/Galaxy).  Either system provides a
source of fuel unless you have exhausted your entire fuel supply.

A pilot light failure, while unlikely, is the reason for carrying
spare ignition sources (strikers, BIC lighters, matchbooks, etc.)
in the balloon.  An emergency pilot can be made by opening a
blast valve slightly and lighting the main burner, or by cracking
the "Fire Two" valve and lighting the propane vapor.  As long
as you have any flame hanging around the burner jets, you can
fly normally long enough to land. 

When this type of situation occurs, it doesn't take long to light
the burner and open the blast valve.   Several pilots who have
experience with earlier balloon systems fly with a striker around
one hand.  
 *******************************************************************
 Alan Sanderson      Hewlett-Packard  ISD       alans@hp-ptp.HP.COM
 US Snail:           1266 Kifer Rd. MS101S      MaBell: 408-746-5714
                     Sunnyvale, CA 94086        FAX:    408-746-5890
 N29711 Cameron V-77 "Mixed Bag"   N555JT Cameron D-96 "Yellowstone"
 Disclaimer:  <Standard Disclaimer Applies> 
 ********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky)
Subject: Kerry saves me $1800
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:45:31 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


After I posted about the damage to my Seneca's nosewheel assembly due to
oversteering by some unknown tug operator, Kerry Kurasaki sent me mail
about a similar incident, where the insurance company paid for the repairs.

Duh.  Double-duh.  Why hadn't I called my agent?  No excuse, sir.

I called.  They were very sympathetic.  They will pay for everyting, minus
the $50 not-in-motion deductible.  (Even though the pin apparently snapped
while taxiing, the initial damage to the trunion was done during a tow, so
the adjuster decided to treat the whole thing as not-in-motion.)  An
appraiser will visit my mechanic in the next day or two to look at the
parts.  I'm in Indiana at the moment (with a rented Cherokee Six); with
luck my plane will be airworthy by time I'm home.

Estimate of the bill:  $1250 for a new nose gear trunnion (3 month delay
while Piper makes one), plus $400 for the centering pin (rush shipped from
England), plus probably 3 hours of labor.  $1800 bucks total, and AIG will
pay all but the last $50.

Thank you, AIG.  And thank you, Kerry!

-- Dave

PS: the plane will be flyable with the damaged trunnion, so I won't be
grounded for 3 months.  But with the damaged trunnion there is no longer any
protection against oversteering, or even of turning too sharply with the
rudder pedals.  The FBO who *probably* did the damage has decided they will
not tow my airplane until the trunnion has been replaced; they're going to
push it around by hand for the next 3 months.  Sorry, guys.
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: "remain clear of the ARSA
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:11:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

GB> . Right. Now I'm faced with some real nifty alternatives:

GB> .   1) Fly down the valley, skirt the ARSA by hugging the hills, fly
  > .      under the marine layer, out to sea, and wait for Approach to pull
  > .      their heads out.

GB> .   2) Turn around within the confines of the valley, below 2500 MSL and
  > .      head east (actually not as bad as it sounds, the valley *is*
  > .      wide enough, it's just sorta annoying and requires a bit of
  > .      attention").

GB> .   3) "Monterey Approach 36Z. Say date. Say time. Say initials."

GB> . What's the "right" thing to do??

Alternative 3) isn't going to do much except antagonize the controller.
And it doesn't provide you with any useful information.  You know the
date and time, and that info is on the tapes.  And the facility manager
knows who's on the position at any time.  Did the controller do anything
improper?  If so, contact the facility manager and ask that the tapes be
held.  (They are routinely held, but only for 15 days)

Why not outline your desires, make a request, and ask how long a
delay to expect.  The "remain clear" is an easy way for the controller
to keep things in hand until he can sort 'em out.  The delay may be
minimal or none, if you're not providing him with a conundrum to
resolve.

Can't you get a discrete squawk and ARSA clearance from FSS before
takeoff?

        Best,
         D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: "remain clear of the
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:03:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

JK> .So, I propose that it would be legal for the aircraft to penetrate the
  > .ARSA, at which point you must comply with any instructions (which would
  > .probably be to get the heck out).  Anyone care to validate my theory? :)

Depends.  One could be under the ARSA and in controlled airspace.  Your
theory only holds if one is in uncontrolled airspace when receiving the
"Remain clear..." instruction.

        D/ (@ HPN)

 * OLX 2.2 * Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: aluke@slimer.webo.dg.com (Andy Luke)
Subject: Re: Small Children in GA aircraft
Date: 29 Jul 92 10:23:55
Organization: Data General Corp., Westboro, MA

>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 92 02:05:18 GMT, gdw@po.CWRU.Edu (Gary D. Wright) said:


> So.....does anyone in this gang have experiences/expertise in this 
> matter?  How young can (should) passengers be?  Any FAA dictates 
> concerning this?  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  
 
  My daughters are 1yr & 4yr old and they have flown with me since
they were born.  They wear standard rifle rangle type headsets w/o 
complaint.  I might add they look "cute as a button" sitting in their 
car seat(s) wearing them in the plane.  Occasionally they pull them 
out of position (under 2yr age) but a quick readjustment fixes that.  
I purposely don't use standard DC type headsets because the radio
would quickly bore the kids and I really don't want them singing or
crying while talking to ATC or on short final.  Since I hate to travel
without my wife & kids its the best way we've found.  We also use them
at motorsports events (cars & motorcycles) as well as airshows to 
dampen the jets noise.  
 
  Speaking of airshows, while attending last year's Hanscom Field 
show with 600,000+ people and lots of kids, we didn't see a single 
kid with any type of hearing protection.  Come on folks, protect 
those kids ears.  Many parents commented on my kids wearing them and
realized it was a good idea.  
 
--
    +========================================================>
       Andy Luke, N1FOD, PP-ASEL
       Data General Corp.         aluke@slimer.webo.dg.com
       Westboro, MA 01580         Andy_Luke@DGC.ceo.dg.com
    +========================================================>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best)
Subject: Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Was: Re: Cessna sholdr harn review 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:04:58 GMT
Organization: your service

> There is a wholly different problem with four point harnesses hitched
> to the airframe that hasn't been brought up yet... 

----------

Something else that hasn't been mentioned: the shoulder harness,
being attached to the frame with no recoil mechanism, keeps you
from leaning forward far enough to scan the skies ABOVE you.

I'm always tempted to just not wear it - but there must be some
FAR that says if it's there, ya gotta wear it.  (anyone?)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: sheehan@indiana.edu (Mark C. Sheehan)
Subject: Where to land for W-P AFB visit?
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:15:19 GMT

With a pilot friend, I'm planning a fly-in visit to the USAF Museum at 
Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, OH this summer. Short of setting down 
(illegally I assume) on the runway outside the museum, I'm collecting 
opinions on the most convenient airfield at which to land in the Dayton 
area.

Please let me know if you have a recommendation (or the name of a place 
to avoid!).

Thanks.

Mark Sheehan
sheehan@indiana.edu
From: netnews@leadsv.UUCP (Leads Network News)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: unreliable VOR navigation
Keywords: n
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:00:28 GMT
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale

>Granted, I have really bad radios in the Mooney, but I have seen the
>"dancing needles syndrome", too.  It happens alot when I am relatively
>low with respect to the station.  Distance matters a little, but altitude
>is the prominent factor.
From: claude@leadse9.UUCP (Claude Goldsmith)
Signal "scalloping" is a constant problem with VOR navigation.  A
major contributor to this is "multi-path" propagation.  That is, the
signal arrives at a single point in space by 2 or more paths of
different lengths.  

An insensitive receiver can complicate the problem by increasing the
amount of "noise" that accompanies the signal.  Some designs are
better than others in separating signal from noise.  The effect of
noise on the needle can sometimes be similar to multi-path.

Multi-path is caused by reflections of the signal off of terrain and
structures.  As a result of those reflections, the strongest signal
that you receive may not actually be the signal for the radial that
you are on.  Since the geometry of your position relative to the
station and the reflecting surfaces is constantly changing, so are the
signals that you are receiving.  The result is your CDI wandering back
and forth.  Multi-path is not a function of the nav receiver.  It is a
function of the environment.  It is more apparent on some some nav
receivers because the CDI is less damped.  

The manufacturer of the equipment knows that wandering CDI's, whether
caused by noise on the signal or multi-path, are annoying to the pilot
and a problem for some autopilots.  They include circuitry to
integrate the signal over time and display the results.  On those
displays the needle seems to be steady or only move slowly.

Some manufacturers feel that seeing the needle move around gives the
pilot important information about the quality of the received signal;
so they include less damping.  It then becomes the pilots
responsibility/task to smooth out (average) the course information.

This same kind of needle dance can also be observed when flying the
LOC/ILS.  



Claude Goldsmith, CFII <claude@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com>
 twisted-pair (408) 742-7514	      | Opinions expressed are not 
 on the air - WB6UOO                  | necessarily those of my 
 through the air - Mooney N6416U      | employer.
From: james@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (James E. Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: ANR headsets
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:12:18 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University


My club has been lucky enough to be chosen as a beta site for the Bose
ANR headsets and I have been trying them lately.  I haven't had any problems
with sounds that I need to hear.  For example, I have begun taking lessons
towards an instrument rating and so I need to hear and interpret more sounds,
i.e. middle marker, idents, etc.  I have also been trying to pay more attention
to engine sounds, since if that changes (all other things being equal) my
altitude will probably begin to change.  I have had any problems hearing 
these changes with the ANR headsets.

Now, if only I can afford a pair... :-)

--
-------------------------

James E. Jones, Jr.
College of Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, Massachusetts 02115

internet: james@nueng.coe.northeastern.edu
BITnet:  james@nuhub
Phone: (617)437-4430
FAX: (617)437-2501

*** All comments made are my own,                 ***
*** they are not those of Northeastern University ***
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Protecting your logbook
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:03:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> Would the photocopies of logbook/endorsements be legal?

I would expect for keeping track of time, XEROX's would be perfect.
I've heard of people reconstructing lost log books (acceptible to
the FAA) with less accurate information than that.  This of course
is probably the most dramatic loss when you lose the logs, the
endorsements can be replaced pretty easily if you remember which
instructor made them.  I have no idea if just showing a xerox
of the endorsement is good enough, but the FAA is pretty wierd
when it comes to copyies of documents.  So any required endorsement
(forget all those old Solo signoffs) that is required (Flight
Review, complex/tail wheel endorsements), I'd get resigned in
my replacement log.

-Ron..

Reminds, me it's been a while since I backed mine up.  I think I;ll
fire up the ol' copier before I leave for OSH.
From: mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Out of Date Charts (was: Ramp checks...)
Keywords: FARs Legal Navigation Charts
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:35:05 GMT
Reply-To: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Organization: UDT-CV (ITO)

|> 	...       My fear is that they might try something because
|> 	I have 3 or 4 sectionals in my bag that are expired, along
|> 	with current versions of same.  ...

I keep numerous charts around long after they have expired.  Some I
keep for backup use, others just because I an obsessive packrat who
can't seem to throw anything away.  For all of my IFR charts I always
have (and use) the current charts independent of whether or not I am
carrying an expired one.  For some of my out-of-home-area sectionals
that I have acquired over the years, I am carrying long expired charts
without current replacements (I think the Great Falls sectional I have
expired in 1982).  Anyway, my general procedure is to (using a red
highlighter) write OBSOLETE in big letters across the front of a chart
as soon as it expires.  If the chart is one that I commonly use (such
as LO 1&2) I will note the corrections on the new chart and may strike
out the erroneous figures on the old chart and ink in the correct values.
Then I might make a note on the front such as "Corrected for Oregon and
California north of San Jose".  I find that this is good practice even
if I don't carry the obsolete chart since it forces me to review the new
chart and take note of what has changed.  However, after following the
discussion, I am wondering about the legality of what I am doing.  Am I
OK or not?

Mark Rowe             email: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Hewlett Packard       voice: (503) 750-3246
Corvallis, OR         FAX:   (503) 750-3788
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: C-130 in the ice
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Date: 31 Jul 1992 20:23:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com


In article <1992Jul31.155726.6780@nlm.nih.gov> masys@nlm.nih.gov 
(Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:

>You sure, Geoff?  My colleagues at the National Science Foundation tell
>me it was an NSF C-130 supporting International Geophysical Year research;
>NSF just didn't have the money to repair it and left it on the ice for
>a number of years till they got an appropriation to recover it.


I read an article about such an incident involving a Navy ski-Herk that
crashed on the ice in 1971; as I remember, there were accompanying 
photographs that showed the distinctive Navy paint scheme with the 
black line along the side, curving upward to meet the lower edge of the
windshield, and the two-letter tail code common on USN and USMC C-130s.  

Anyway, the plane was dug out after 19 or 20 years and repaired on-site 
to a degree that allowed it to be flown out, and it was refurbished back
in the States and placed back into service.  Unfortunately, I don't 
remember where I saw this article.  It might've been in the newspaper
or in one of the monthly aviation magazines like _Flying_ or _Air
Progress_.

Could it have been a Navy aircraft _supporting_ the National Science
Foundation, perhaps?  I don't know much about the NSF, but it doesn't 
sound very likely that they'd have their own airplanes, at least of
that size.


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: randys@hpcvra.cv.hp.com (Randy Stockberger)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Help me spend money! Plane advice needed.
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:49:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA

My wife has just earned her PP-ASEL, so it's time to think about buying
an airplane.  I would like to tap into the collective wisdom of rec.aviation
and see what you think.

My wife, my two kids and I currently weigh in at around 500 lbs.
This will increase a little in the next few years since my kids are
at that age.  We also like to take luggage when we travel.

We are looking for a four seater that has a useful load of four hours
fuel and 650 lbs or a little better.  The plane will be used for local
sight seeing, vacations and recreational flying.

The characteristics we used when selecting the following aircraft are:

Common.  If we select a common airframe there will always be some amount
of support for parts, regardless of whether it is an orphan or not.

Affordable.  This means different things to different people.  We would
like something that we can fly for $25 to $40 per hour for fuel, engine
reserve and maintenance.  This does not include insurance or hangar,
since those costs are almost constant for any airplane we will consider.

Good service ceiling.  We live in a valley in Oregon, surrounded by
mountains.  It is easy to fly in and out of the valley without going
to oxygen altitudes, but being able to climb to 12,000+ feet on a hot
summer day is desirable.  I am not, however, interested in a
turbocharger.

Non-retractable.  We are both low time pilots and first time plane
owners.  A retractable would, for us, increase costs without
significantly increasing utility.

Due to dollar concerns we would probably buy a plane built in the mid
1970's with around 3500 hours on the airframe.

This list of attributes has led me to three airplanes:

* Piper Archer: 180 hp and simple systems.  We've heard they are nice to
  fly and we are going to arrange a flight sometime in the next few weeks.
  We both learned on Cessnas so they represent the greatest unknown.

* Cessna 177B Cardinal: 180 hp, huge interior, flys nice, but some
  pilots can make it porpoise on landing.  The airframe is not real
  common.

* Cessna 182 Skylane: 230 hp, common, stable, excellent payload.  I
  have some concerns about economy with a six cylinder that drinks 12 or
  13 gal per hour.

Which (finally) brings me to the questions I would like to ask the net.

* What are your thoughts on my selection criteria?  Are we worrying about
  the right things?

* Are there other airplanes we should add to the list?

* What are your experiences with these (or other) airplanes?

Feel free to post directly to the net or email a response to me, I will
summarize, unless you indicate that you wish your mail to remain private
(or unless nobody responds).

Thanks
--
  Randy Stockberger
  randys@cv.hp.com
  503-750-3589 (work)
  503-757-1292 (home)
--
From: lihan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Bruce G. Bostwick)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: unreliable VOR navigation
Keywords: n
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:11:49 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <19784@leadsv.UUCP> netnews@leadsv.UUCP (Leads Network News) writes:

[lots of stuff about VOR oscillation deleted]
>An insensitive receiver can complicate the problem by increasing the
>amount of "noise" that accompanies the signal.  Some designs are
>better than others in separating signal from noise.  The effect of
>noise on the needle can sometimes be similar to multi-path.
>
>Multi-path is caused by reflections of the signal off of terrain and
>structures.  As a result of those reflections, the strongest signal
>that you receive may not actually be the signal for the radial that
>you are on.  Since the geometry of your position relative to the
>station and the reflecting surfaces is constantly changing, so are the
>signals that you are receiving.  The result is your CDI wandering back
>and forth.  Multi-path is not a function of the nav receiver.  It is a
>function of the environment.  It is more apparent on some some nav
>receivers because the CDI is less damped.  

Don't forget that at certain engine speeds the prop blades can cause
this oscillation -- the interruption frequency of a two-blade (or a
slow three-blade) prop can be rather close to the subcarrier
modulation of the VOR signal (the wavering whistle you hear on the
IDENT mode along with the Morse identifier).  At the right combination
of relative bearing to the VOR and engine speed this oscillation can
be almost full-scale.  Yes, it's extremely bothersome.


-- 
<BGB>
lihan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu        /     "I can't complain,
(really Bruce Bostwick)        /   but sometimes I still do"
from the great state of TEXAS /         --Joe Walsh--
From: xde@xtxde.UUCP (Dave Evans)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Active noise-canceling headsets
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:17:35 CDT
Organization: Not

In article <1992Jul22.220740.16987@col.hp.com> davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
writes:
> Well, maybe we expected this one...
> Just got a monthly newletter with an article about a gear-up landing.
> The pilot got a runway change at the last minute and didn't get the gear
> down. He was using an active noise-canceling headset. After the "landing"
> he took off the headset, and you already know the first thing he heard -
> the gear warning horn.
> 
> Naturally he's suing the headset manufacturer. The author's point was that
> there's just too much that we need to hear in an aircraft, and too much
> that we don't hear with a noise-canceling headset. I know some have stated
> that you still hear the engine and everything just fine. Well, not so for
> this guy... So, exercise appropriate caution, especially if you're in the
> kind with the disappearing rollers.
> 
> dave allen - Fly because you love it.

I was going to buy one of these headsets, but heard warning that 
things like engine noises, or lack of engine noise, you would want to hear, so
I've just gotten used to wearing earplugs under my DC's, and that works out
great, much quieter, but still enough to hear.

-- 

   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   - Dave Evans   ...!vpnet.chi.il.us!xtxde!xde - Insert something here -
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: woof@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Steve Wolf)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:12:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Rudder pedals while driving???
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO