HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clayton@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: The Bad BFR
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:36:39 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <5418@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.boeing.com>, prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:
> 
> number of people to learn that I *like* Biennial Flight Reviews.

Biennial Flight Reviews should be enjoyed.  This is a time where you can ask
questions, try a new airplane, get a new ticket, or just get better!

 
> I arrived a bit early for the appointment, and was handed the aircraft
> owner's manual and the standard FBO questionaire.  I finished digging out
> the performance and other specs about the time the instructor walked in.
> I was all ready to learn about constant speed prop operation, and was
> curious about some of the systems diagrams.
> 
> The instructor said, "All done?  Let's go fly," and walked back out the
> door.

Stop. Do you have questions?  If you do ask now this is where you can find out
if you have a thorough, competent instructor, not sombody "just building time".
This is also where, when checking out you *must* get preliminary questions 
answered.

I was once getting an IFR check (for fun) I was scheduled with an instructor I
never had meet before.  The visibility at the day of the ride was 5 miles,
ceiling 2000'.  I had checked the plane and was ready.  Asking the instructor
if he was ready he replied "I never fly IFR when checking out anyone".  I never
flew with him.

> 
> All right, I thought.  I guess he'll discuss the systems on the rather
> longish walk out to the airplane.
> 
> He kept a grumpy silence all the way out.  "What can you tell me about how
> the Decathlon flies?" I asked. 
> 
> "Stalls sharp.  Sinks fast with power off."  He started to untie the 
> airplane without another word.  "Uhhhh.... I'll preflight," I said.  I did so.
> 
> "Anything I should know about the plane?"
> 
> "Nahhh... let's go."

Is this sombody you really want to fly with?  Will he provide a learning
experience and a fun flight?  Sounds like one of my Naval IP's.  I didn't have
a choice then.

> 
> Yep, I should have insisted.  I should have sat the guy down and extracted
> a full systems and FARs discussion.  But I don't think he wanted to take
> the time.  It was his operation, his airplane, his call.
> 

This is YOUR BFR, YOUR time.  Not his.  Use it.  What you learn here can easily
save your life!


Well if you made it through that...  
Unfortunately there are bad instructors out there.  Please take the time and
find out about your instructor.  This can only help you.

By the way I'll be happy to give you a BFR and explain a Constant Speed prop.

					Clayton@usu
From: ulick@dvorak.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: annual flight reviews
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:46:25 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

An ambigously worded paragraph in our local FSDO`s organ caused me to
call and ask them about AFR's.  They told me that I was indeed granfathered
and that the regulation will be in force from August 31, 1993.  I had been
inquiring because I am about to get checked out in a Sundowner and wanted 
to see if I should combine it with an AFR and do it on August 1 or 2 instead
of July 31, so it would maximise my flying legality.  Anyway, the FSDO told
me that if I do my BFR in August 93 (when it is due, anyway), it will be
a BFR and I will not need to do another flight review till August '95.  Now
my question (a little too hypothetical to ask them, but I know how much some
of you guys like discussing these questions :-) ),  What if I do my BFR (or
AFR) in August 1995 and still have less than 400 hours, but by August 1996
have more than 400, will I need to do a BFR then or will my AFR become a
BFR and allow me to fly without review till August 1997?

(Well, I hope to have an IR then to make this question moot, but right now
on a graduate student stipend I am doing only 20-30 hours a year, at which
rate it will be at least 2003 by the time I have 400 hours which would also 
make the question irrelevent.)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
+ 'There was a  master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL       +
+    born in the holy land of Indiana,      + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
+ in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556          +
+      B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt.      +    ulick@bach.helios.nd.edu   +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: pdb1@ra.msstate.edu (Philip D Bridges)
Subject: Request for V-22 casualty list
Summary: Request V-22 casualty list
Keywords: V-22,aircraft accident,casualties
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:24:02 GMT

Could someone please e-mail me the names of those killed in the
V-22 crash at Pax River. There is a good possibility that one
of those killed was a former student of our program.

Philip Bridges   Department of Aerospace Engineering
Mississippi State University  (601) 325-3623
pdb1@ra.msstate.edu
From: dls@genrad.com (Diana L. Syriac)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Cleared to enter the TCA...required?
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:01:57 GMT
Organization: GenRad, Inc.

In article <1992Jul23.114130.13697@genrad.com> dls@genrad.com (Diana L. Syriac) writes:
>(Note, BEDford to MancHesTer,NH is about 30 NM, BEDford to Pease, ME is about
>35 NM, BEDford to ProViDence,RI is about 35 NM, BEDford to Great Barrington, 
 ^^ 40                                    ^^ 45
>MA, the furthest MA airport from BEDford, is about 45 NM....big choice we 
                                                    ^^ 95

At 7am in the morning, my eyes aren't calibrated right....

However, choices are still rather small.  Looking on an IFR chart for all
airports IN MAssachusetts GREATER than 50 NM from BEDford with ILS approaches,
the choices are:  Provincetown (if you go right over Boston), Hyannis,
Otis AFB (a military base, off limits), Nantucket (over the water > gliding
distance...off limits to CAP planes by regs unless you have proper flotation
devices), Martha's Vineyard (over the water > gliding distance, off limits),
Westover AFB (a military base, off limits), and Westfield.


Diana
->Diana L. Syriac (Carlson) dls@genrad.com	Ham: KC1SP (Sweet Pea)      <-
->I'D RATHER BE FLYING!	P-ASEL, INST		CAP: 1LT, Freedom 690 Mobile<-
->AD ASTRA, PER ASPERA				Airplane: C-172 N6513E	    <-
->GenRad, MS/6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742  (508)369-4400 x2459   <-
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: FTP "SEAS" SITE
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 23:09:43 GMT

some one gave me a FTP site address w/ "SEAS" in it for flight stuff..

can i get it again..thanks
--
==============================  *  Marshal Perlman               * DO
=-> mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu <-=  *  Huntington Beach, California  * NOT
==============================  *  (Surf City, U.S.A)            * EAT
* Yeltsin is the Russian word for Retsin * CAUTION: RADIOACTIVE MESSAGE
From: ken@systech.com (Ken Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Little Iron
Keywords: corporate flying
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:09:28 GMT
Organization: Systech Corp., San Diego, CA


I know that some people are in aviation so that they can (eventually)
fly for the airlines (the Big Iron).

Does anybody out there want to be a Corporate pilot?

It seems like it would be a kick to be a Lear/Citation/MU-2 driver,
not flying the same route day after day after day...

But what are the downsides to this story?  Are these jobs few and
far between?  Is the pay really low?  Are these jobs just considered
'stepping stones' to airline jobs?  Do the pilots have to empty the
holding tanks after the bigwigs get off?

Just wondering...


Ken Brown          (619) 453-7400 x234
Systech Corp.      ken@systech.com
San Diego, CA

"If it ain't broke, don't break it."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bspain@riker (Bradley K Spain)
Subject: Re: good charts - was  Re: Ramp checks--unreasonable search
Keywords: Charts, Ramp Checks. 
Organization: California Polytechnic State University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:45:29 GMT

In article <2540038@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com> schinner@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer) writes:
A
>I don't believe, either, that a current sectional, or any sectional, is
>required for VFR flight.  All that is required by the FAR's is that you
>know what is on the sectional.

This appears to be true! 
>
>The other day, I pop on out to the local aerodrome to fly over to Mt. St.
>Helens.  I tried to get a sectional to replace my old one (now about a month
>old), but they have none.  Sold out - trying to get more, but they don't seem
>to be shipping. ....

Jim,
	Having the correct charts is just good practice and safe flying.  But
you are not busting an FAR for flying w/o one.  But if you are having trouble 
getting the charts call Sporty's Pilot Shop 1-800-LIFTOFF.  A VFR chart 
subscription is only $5.50 each and are automatically shipped the same day NOS
ships them to Sporty's. 


********************************************************
Brad Spain     WarHawk 26                 

Fixed wing pilots merely fly but,  
Helicopter drivers beat the air into submission

bspain@riker.acs.calpoly.edu    bspain@hypnos.calpoly.edu                  
********************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Airline Safety Review
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:34:02 GMT

In article <pvf.712548012@diablo> pvf@alantec.com (Paul Fries) writes:
>For instance, when a pilot is tapping the keys for the rate of descent,
>he is probably NOT looking at the display to see that there is an extra
>zero on the 300 fpm he was trying to set.  Bingo, 3000 fpm descent.
>
>Had there been an uncalibrated knob with a display on the computer the
>story would have been different.  First, he would look at the knob and
>grab it with his fingers.  Now, with the knob firmly in hand, he would
>look at computer display for the descent readout.  Finally, he would
>turn the knob while looking at the display to set the desired rate.

The interface under discussion is an uncalibrated knob, with a really
pretty LCD interface on top of it.  The pilot reaches to the glareshield, 
twists the knob while looking at the display, and the numbers whirl around.  
TWO numbers, that is.  If the knob is left IN, the numbers mean "vertical 
speed x 100".  If the knob is pulled OUT, the numbers mean "approach 
path / 10."  To wit:
        3 0    = 3000 fpm up
       -3 0    = 3000 fpm down
        3.0    = 3.0 degrees up
       -3.0    = 3.0 degrees down.

The difference is a tiny, tiny little dot between the "3" and the "0".

Other airplanes have similar interfaces: the main difference is that
there is no FPA mode, and the knob does exactly one thing.  Many inter-
faces "combine" the knob; the 747-200, for instance, has a "floating wheel"
which indicates rate of climb, thus combining the input and indicator.  
Works great.  



>Good points of this approach include:
>
>        1) You see the input as the computer sees it, cause the knob
>           doesn't give you any of the information you are looking for.

Well, the computer sees it as binary, but that's not the way *I* want to
see it. :-)   I want a nice, clear display indicating "three thousand feet 
down" or "flight path angle of 3.0 degrees down."  That's the core problem:
how to develop feedback that is both easy to read and clear and comprehensive.


>There have been various avionics devices that have tried keypad entry
>over the years (some lorans for instance) and I have never seen a
>review that applauded such an input device.
>
>So WHY would they put such a thing on a high end, commercial airliner
>type, system?

They don't, and it's not used.  I don't even think that FMS flight plans let 
you command V/S--it's just the speed mode you want to climb at, plus the 
altitude that you're going to.  And there's lots of error-checking built into 
that interface (can't fly Houston-New York via Tokyo :-)).  The whole idea
of FMS is to take care of flight-management details, producing the most
*economical* profile for wherever you want to get to.






---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Active noise-canceling headsets
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:09:22 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

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.
>

I'm willing to wager a nickel that he would not have heard the horn
even if his headset was off!  I regularly fly with a Telex ANR and the
active suppression works primarily against the lower frequencies (< 100 Hz)
And yes, you can hear the stall warning horn.  I did last night quite
clearly from the back seat of a C-182.

The case you describe is rather classic.  Last minute distraction prevents
the pilot from completing the checklist.  etc.

This particular incident has me rather upset.  I hate it when people are
not willing to accept responsibility for their actions and are quick to
blame someone else.  Perhaps his point is that we should not wear headsets
at all?

Anyone care to join me in a class action suit against the headset man-
ufacturers?  The reason:  headsets bring out the stupidity in the wearers.

Just plain mad this morning.  Sigh!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Jul23.134236.7577@xn.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Jul23.212507.23292@EE.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:22:18 GMT

Anthony> == Anthony E. Siegman <siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU> 

 Anthony>    Except of course for the famous case, discussed in this
 Anthony> group a year or so, in which a mechanic doing maintenance on a
 Anthony> United Airlines trijet under some kind of confusing
 Anthony> circumstances made the same minor mistake -- something
 Anthony> involving a missing O-ring for an oil plug -- on all three
 Anthony> engines, and the plane, in passenger service, subsequently
 Anthony> lost _all three engines_, a significant distance out _over
 Anthony> water_, somewhere off Miami.

 Anthony>    [It did turn out OK; they restarted at least one engine and got
 Anthony> back safely in the end.]

It was an Eastern TriStar (TriStars seem to have all their problems in
Florida :)  The problem was that the mechanics were getting parts given
to them by the supply person with the O rings installed; when the supply
guy was out, they went in and got the parts...but the supply person
hadn't installed the O rings.

This is a lovely example of why strict procedures for who does what,
which are inherent in the ETOPS spec, are important for ETOPS-style
operations...in some ways, a twinjet doing ETOPS is more reliable than a
trijet on the same route, because of the extra attention that has to be
paid to an ETOPS aircraft.
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
   ``The First Amendment is often inconvenient.  But that is besides the
  point.  Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
         to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker)
Subject: Re: Questions about airspace incursions/Mode C
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:58:49 GMT

In article <1940101@hpgrla.gr.hp.com> joell@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Joel Larner) writes:
>I am not in the know enough to answer your questions, however I will
>provide one piece of advice: file a NASA ASRS report!!!  What you 
>did may be OK, or not produce any follow up, but either way you will
>cover yourself with the ASRS report if it is mailed within 10 days.
>
>Good Luck,
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Joel Larner - Hewlett Packard, Greeley Storage Division
>CAP SAR Pilot            email:  joell@hpgrjq.gr.hp.com
>                           CAP:  Pikes Peak 293
>                    In The Air:  N182H


I'll keep posting against this tale until someone comes up with a
reference to prove it.  I think you'll find that the rule about
ASRS reports is written to prevent the "authorities" from reading
ASRS reports looking for people to bust.  If you busted airspace
and they noticed and they have evidence other than your ASRS report,
the ASRS report is not a get out of jail free card.

I just cannot believe that number of people who believe this story.
I'm going into the air charter business, and every night when I get
home I'm going to mail in an ASRS report that says, "oops, I flew
a charter and I don't have a commercial license" that way they can't
lock me up.

mike
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Suit filed against Bell Helicopter
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:56:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.163744.13628@odin.corp.sgi.com>, amazon@annexia.esd.sgi.com (Stormwind) writes:
|> now NOTE that the prosecutor's attorney specifically
|> mentioned that although things indicated it was the *pilot's*
|> fault, and even though they had no indication of 
|> manufacturing defects, they're suing the manufacturers
|> *anyways*.  they're claiming at this time that if they
|> don't find that the manufacturers did anything wrong, they'll
|> dismiss the suit against them.

I don't remember where I read/heard this, but this is apparently
common practice with lawsuits.  Why?  Because once the suit is filed
you cannot ADD any plaintiffs.  So if in the process of investigating 
the lawsuit the prosecution discovers adequate reason to add a party to
the suit, they CANNOT.  Apparently some consider that to be unfair:  a
party provides information with the understanding that they have no need
to defend themselves, then later discover they essentially incriminated
themselves.  Defendants can be easily DROPPED from a suit, but not ADDED.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it does explain why lawsuits
typically name everyone in sight.  I think this rule should be
counterbalanced with judges declaring suits to be frivolous.

|> my head whirls.  so they're going to sue the pilot,
|> who just happens to be *dead*,

Yeah, that one amazes me too!

|> because.  why don't they sue the audience for 
|> not making stevie play longer and thus not take
|> off at all?  better yet, why not sue the whole state 
|> of wisconsin for wanting the concert in the first
|> place?

And for providing the airport that the heliocopter used (since
the state of Wisconsin puts a goodly amount of tax dollars in to
its airports)!

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
From: lee@bluefuzz.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Earth Inductor Compass
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:37:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Jul27.184143.15201@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>
>     In response to the requests for information on the earth inductor
>compass, I will quote from the book:

Wonderful!

>     So, it would appear that the earth inductor compass is some sort
>of spinning coil and a precursor to our modern gyro heading indicators.
>It clearly needs a source of electrical power to operate. 

I believe that the Spirit of St. Louis had no electrical system.  It certainly
had no lights and no radios.  Lindbergh looked at the instruments at night
with a flashlight.  Any power for instruments, like an needle and ball, came
from a venturi; in fact he worried more about the venturi freezing than from
ice accumulating on the airframe.  I think that the needle and ball was his
only venturi-powered instrument.  He had an airspeed indicator, an adjustable
altimeter, and the compasses.

>Does anybody know if he had an old fashioned back up compass with him?

Yes, he had a magnetic card compass as well, but it oscillated badly and he
preferred the earth-inductor compass.

He claims to have encountered a major magnetic "storm" (probably a local
magnetic anomaly) such that for many minutes BOTH compasses were waving back
and forth over more than 30 degrees and virtually useless.

So, I can figure out that a rotating coil in a magnetic field would generate a
current.  But how does a rotating coil tell you the alignment of the magnetic
field it is rotating in?
-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gdw@po.CWRU.Edu (Gary D. Wright)
Subject: Small Children in GA aircraft
Reply-To: gdw@po.CWRU.Edu (Gary D. Wright)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 02:05:18 GMT


I've just begun training in a 172 towards my private ticket.  I was
impressed both by the ambient noise level in the cockpit, and the
effective attenuation (24dB or so) of the headset I used.  Unfortunately,
I have a two-year old son that shares his dad's obsession with aircraft.
I can't imagine a way to keep the noise out of his ears; I know the 
headphones would be removed post haste.  It is my wish to (soon) fly
with wife & child to exotic locations (we live in Cleveland you see).

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.  
-- 
Gary D. Wright                       "Somewhere, back in the 60's, we got
Dir., Ctr for Music & Tech               Art confused with Entertainment."
CWRU Music Department                         American composer Donald Erb
gdw@po.cwru.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: United flight's cargo door?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Jul17.211446.28008@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Jul22.030226.10959@microsoft.com> <jcmorris.711815153@mwunix>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:05:56 GMT

Joe> == Joe Morris <jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org> 

 Joe> The 747s (and I suspect all large birds now) have blowout panels
 Joe> which are designed to relieve the stress caused by excessive
 Joe> pressure diffrentials between the passenger cabin and the cargo
 Joe> bays.  The UA 747 which was the subject of the start of this
 Joe> thread was equipped with the panels; the NTSB report noted that
 Joe> the panels were found in the open position.

There was some discussion (in both _Blind Trust_ and _The Last Nine
Minutes_) of the lack of adequate through-floor venting in the DC-10 at
the time of the Ermenonville crash.

Interesting note: when _The Last Nine Minutes_ was written, the THY
crash was the only jumbo hull loss at the time (1976--I can't think of
any before that, anyway).  Of course, the DC-10's hydraulics were
rerouted after this, which contributed to the AA crash at ORD...ack.
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
   ``The First Amendment is often inconvenient.  But that is besides the
  point.  Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
         to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155