HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ett@alfred.carleton.ca (E. Todd Taylor)
Subject: TV show on home building
Keywords: Rogers, when, where
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: ont
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:14:15 GMT

Apparently on the local Rogers community channel (Ottawa area), they 
featured owner built aircraft and talked to builders about their 
experiences.  I understand that the show aired sometime over the last 
couple of weekends or so.  I want to know the date, time and the show it
was featured on, so that I can buy a copy of the transcript or a
video of it.  If anyone knows more details, please tell me right away.
Oh, the local crew isn't up to searching for me, unless I give them
specific info...geez, you'd think they would have a dB with keywords
of some kind eh?

advTHXance,

Todd


-- 
Carleton University                          E-mail: todd_taylor@carleton.ca 
Dept. of Physical Plant                      Office:(613) 788-2600 x8557
Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6                              Fax:(613) 788-4383
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: schinner@vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer)
Subject: Homebuilt IFR in Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:50:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

So, now that we know we can fly our homebuilts in Canada, can fly them
IFR?

---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schinnerer  -  PP-ASEL-IA       |  Hewlett Packard
Mooney - 350X  -  "Buster"          |  Vancouver, WA
email - schinner@vcd.hp.com         |  (206) 944-3324
---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: Painting strategies?
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:19:02 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <289.148.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us 
(Paul Burnett) writes:
>Does anybody ever consider the weight of paint reducing the payload of
>the plane?  I know it's not much <G>, but you could probably get a few
>pounds of paint on a small plane, couldn't you?

The weight of paint is not insignificant ... see the discussion of
the unpainted Streak Eagle in the rec.avaition.military.  Also, if
memory serves me correctly, in an article I read recently about the
lancaster bomber recently restored in hamilton, ont, can, I think
they used several _hundred_ pounds of paint on it. 
----
#include <std.disclaimer>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Subject: Re: Flying homebuilts outside USA.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:13:46 GMT
Keywords: regulations.

In article <1992Nov17.115817@xerox.com> spencer.wbst129@xerox.com (Andrew Spencer) writes:
>
>If I were to build say, a Lancair, could I fly it in Canada or Mexico?
>
    No!  The US experimental registration is restricted to US air space.
-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: gbraun@beech.mitre.org (Gary A. Braun)
Subject: Wanted: Info on Cri-Cri
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:12:02 GMT

I am looking for anyone who has personal experience with building, owning or  
flying a Cri-Cri.  For those that don't know, the Cri-Cri is a tiny, 1-person,  
twin engined airplane.  I heard a lot about it 10 years ago and I think Zenair  
of Canada stills sells plans.  It seems like an inexpensive way to have an  
aerobatic airplane (British Ferries has a aerobatic team using these), and the  
idea of two engines for reliability is appealing.  Any info?

Gary
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: CMSC28@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Mark Hickey)
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers
Organization: Motorola
Date: 16 Nov 1992 11:35:27 CST

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
To: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)


DH>I'm waiting for a craft that works on the Frisbee principle
  >of flying.  You could conceivably build a flying machine that
  >is frisbee shaped, with a rotating outer hull.

>As in Jules Verne's gun in _From the Earth to the Moon_, launch would b
>hard on the occupants, wouldn't it?  <G>
>---
> . QMPro 1.0 07-2042 . ...from San Jose, CA

Yeah, but just think... with a little practice, he could land it on
a large, finger-shaped pole!  (I wouldn't want to be in it if the
cockpit bearings froze up, though... YAAaaaAAAaaaAAAaaa*splat*)
Mark Hickey
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: spencer.wbst129@xerox.com (Andrew Spencer)
Subject: Ice and Laminar flow wings question
Originator: spencer@triton
Keywords: ice, laminar
Organization: Xerox Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:01:51 GMT


I have been thinking of building a Lancair someday (If I can ever afford
it :-().  The thought of ice on those wings scares me (even more than
it does on the Pathfinder I fly now).  Does anyone have and info on this?

thanks,
andrew.
-- 
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-       _!_       -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Andrew Spencer              +-+-+-+ ______(_)______ +-+-+-+   Xerox Corporation
spencer.wbst129@xerox.com   -+-+-+-      ! ! !      -+-+-+-   Webster, New York
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Ultra Lights
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:39:25 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <Bxwx6t.E7I@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
sharpe@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Randall Sharpe) writes:

> They were all the rage a while ago but
> now nothing. Can somebody direct me to a place where I can get plans?

Any of the magazines devoted to the homebuilt industry are loaded with
ads for Ultralights.  "Kitplanes", EAA's "Sport Aviation" and
"Experimenter" are the three most popular.  The "Experimenter" is a
magazine devoted almost exclusively to Ultralights and Ultralight
aviation.  Ultralights have definately not gone away, there are new
designs every year and the older designs are constantly being refined.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Painting strategies?
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:44:58 GMT

In article <311.148.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us>
paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) writes:
>
>> >Nitrate Lacquers (don't think anyone makes these anymore...)
>> 
>> Wanna bet?  <G>  The cheap spray cans of paint at the local hardware
>> store are nitrocellulose-based lacquer.
>
A little story about nitrate-dope aircraft finishes:
At last years' owner-assisted annual, I was working in a large hangar
next to a Maule which was having some work done on its main gear.
The fabric was hanging down next to the main gear, and the A&P was
using a hand held disc grinder to smooth a welded joint.  A spark from
the grinder hit the doped fabric and *presto*, a brilliant flame and
copious smoke filled the hangar.  A fire extinguisher was within reach,
and they got the flames smothered in perhaps 20 seconds or less, but
not before a couple of square feet of fabric went up in flames.
As we stood around after the evacuation, and the smoke was clearing,
the A&P said this was pretty common with nitrate finishes.

So if your tube & fabric sweetheart has a nitrate dope finish and a
forced landing is immanent, you might want to get those doors open for
an instantaneous egress after touchdown; no telling what might make
a spark in the wrong place.  Those flames spread so fast that I would
estimate less than a minute before the entire airframe would be
engulfed; very impressive indeed.  An inflight fire in such a bird
is a sobering thought...

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Prop-speed reduction units and torsional vibration
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:17:55 GMT
 <1992Nov16.183309.6770@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Nov16.183309.6770@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
mpaton@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Michael J Paton) writes:

> If Bill Husa is proposing
> (and no, I haven't read the article) to leave resonances in the operating
> range and absorb them, then he'd better give some very serious thought as
> to how he is going to dissipate energy which may range from 5 to 95% of the
> engine power output. In a car suspension system it is the "shock absorber"
> which dissipates excess vibrational energy as heat, and race type vehicles
> can easily require much higher heat dissipation rated units. 

As a matter of fact, he used a cars suspension as an example of how a
torsional coupling should work in his article.  He said the springs
absorb the force of the deflection and the shock absorbers damp the
oscillation.

Thanks for your comment.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: milgram@eng.umd.edu (Judah Milgram)
Subject: Re: Mini 500 Heli
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 19:25:05 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <uh311ae.721831567@sunmanager> uh311ae@sunmanager.LRZ-Muenchen.DE (Henrik Klagges) writes:

>d) doesn't have some of the obvious flaws that the Rotorway Exec 90 has,
>   e.g., ... 
>   the Exec
>   90 has its main rotor turning into the wrong direction (all commercial
>   /military helis in the US turn counterclockwise), whis is very dange-
>   rous for pilots relying on their reflexes eg in a dynamic rollover.

How is direction of rotation important in a dynamic rollover situation?

(By the way, there are numerous Aerospatiale products flying in the States, 
all of which have their advancing side on the left. The US Coast Guard is 
flying a Dauphin variant.)


Judah Milgram

From: pauls@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Paul Stafford)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:17:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Gross Wt. of a homebuilt
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt

 I did the same thing on my RV4- the design gross is 1500, I put 1600#. Like
 lester, the FAA didn't even look at it. When you consider that the FAA regs
 allow planes in Alaska to operate routinely ( no paperwork) at 10% over
 design gross weight, you've got to think it doesn't matter too much,
 as long as you are reasonable. consider also that you can operate any airplane
 at 20% over gross weight with a ferry permit, allowing you to carry enough
 fuel to make the trip. 

  The C of G is far more important. 

  One last thing- don't expect the performance figures to match- they rarely
  do even at design gross weight, much less at higher weight.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: "Eldo Hildebrand, UNB,Fredericton,NB" <ELDO@UNB.CA>
Subject: RE: Gross Wt. of a homebuilt
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:32:44 GMT

In article <BxoIq5.3G0@vcd.hp.com> schinner@vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer) writes:
>Say I want to build an RV-6.  The specs say that it has a gross weight of
>1600lbs.  By the time I get all my radios and fuel and people in the plane,
>the whole mess weighs 1650lbs.  Can I, as the builder/manufacturer, increase
>the legal gross weight to 1650?  Would I have to do some flight testing
>to verify the new number?  For that matter, what sets the gross weight number?
>
>As an aside, will my insurance be voided while flying over gross in a
>homebuilt, even though the plane has demonstrated the capability to haul
>that load?

I am not sure of the insurance aspect of your question; however I
expect that your insurance policy, agent, or company would be better
to adviseyou there.  Your homebuilt (or any aircraft for that
matter) is designed for a particular load limit in a specific
category.  For example: I have a video from Chris Heintz (Zenair
Ltd.) that says on the packaging that his CH 601 HD has a design
Gross Weight of 1200 LBS at a design load of +/- 6 G.  This means
that the aircraft for proper performance should not be loaded beyond
1200 LBS (C of G within limits of course).  But that aircraft in
turbulance or an unusual maneuver (perhaps a loop) will not start to
bend until it is subjected to 6 times the force of gravity.  This
limit is based on the stress analysis of the structure built to the
drawings.  In the case of Chris' design I know that 6 G load limit
has another factor of about 1.5 before things start to actually
break since the ultimate load is always beyond the yield limit for
your materials.  My particular project has a much lower load limit
of + 3.0 and -1.9 G because it is not to be registered in the
aerobatic category (I think it is in the utility category but don't
quote me on the numbers or the category).

If the RV has a load limit of +/- 6 G than it won't break at 1650,
but it may be a little poor on performance and you may need to be
much more careful about your C of G.  Whether it is legal or not
will be another sotry best left up to your designer and the FAA.  My
own project has a Gross of 1850 LBS but Chris Heintz had a specially
built version of the same aircraft loaded to about 2700 LBS for a
cross Canada Flight in the seventies and he did it all legally
although not without some considerable paperwork!!

Hope this helps!

Eldo Hildebrand (ELDO@UNB.CA)
University of New Brunswick
P.O. Box 4400
Fredericton,N.B. E3B 5A3
Tel. 506 453 4521
Fax  506 453 3568
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Painting strategies?
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:42:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

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

CKS>>>Also, don't forget that the overspray "dust" that gets all over the floor
   >>>(and in some of the most amazing places!) is legally classified as a toxi
   >>>waste. Dispose of it according to local law....

I forgot to address this...not only is the above true (and serious), the
solvent vapors and particulate overspray getting into the air may incur
the wrath of the local Air Quality Management District if you're in
California.  The vapors may cause smog.

The solvent vapors discharged are also flammable - I don't recall
anybody mentioning this recently - I'd hate to see somebody's finished
project disappear in a vapor-phase explosion....

---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                                                                                                          
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: pilla@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (michael.a.pilla)
Subject: Re: Painting strategies?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:28:32 GMT

In article <316.148.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us> paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)  writes:
>The reason you can't buy Zinc Chromate is because of the chromate, not
>the solvent vapors - chromates are carcinogens.  Did you notice any zinc
>chromate in non-spray containers?  I bet you didn't....

I have been following this thread with interest since I recently
had to shave my beard in order to get an adequate seal with my
charcoal-type respirator.  The things one does for homebuilding :-)

However, I think it is still possible to get Zinc Chromate in
spray cans; go to your local paint supply house and order
	Krylon Industrial Metal Primer #1346
I think you'll find it still available (as recently as last
Spring, for me) and considerably cheaper than the usual aviation
sources.  Yup, good ole' ZC ...

Mike Pilla
From: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Painting strategies?
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:41:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett) 

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

CKS>This is just a point of information about the above attibution, I
   >didn't post the information Paul is attributing to me, I was asked to
   >post it by Steve Cornelius

I understood that....  <G>

CKS>...I tried to buy some Zinc Chromate primer in spray cans
   >it was considered too dangerous

Oh, my - we're gonna have to have Internet open up a whole new newsgroup
for us if this keeps up....  <G>

The reason you can't buy Zinc Chromate is because of the chromate, not
the solvent vapors - chromates are carcinogens.  Did you notice any zinc
chromate in non-spray containers?  I bet you didn't....

---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-8688 . ...from San Jose, CA
                                                       
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.piloting
From: verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Difficulties with fuel in Greenland
Organization: AOSG
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:10:03 GMT

>avia%spaero.kharkov.ua@relay.ussr.eu.net
                              ^^^^ 
>
>>In the packet of info in Canada's AIP there is a section on going
>>to Europe in a single or a twin that can not keep altitude on one engine

Given the address of the poster, perhaps he's going the other way?

Tony V.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: stellabo@phage.cshl.org (Fred Stellabotte in Computer Center - CSHL)
Subject: Place to eat near Maryland or Del
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:02:14 GMT

I am planning a flight south from NY to Maryland or
Del. .. This Sunday .. Just for lunch ..

Can anyone suggest a Airport with a restrant that has
good seafood ..??

What about Tangeir Island ..?? has any one been there ..?
Is anything open this time of the year ..??

Thanks in advance ...

-Fred
_______________________________________________________________________
  >| ====  Fred J. Stellabotte                     stellabo@cshl.org  
  >| ====  Computer Systems Manager
  >| ====  CFIA SEL MEL Commerical Instrument         
  >| ==== ___________________________________________________________
  >| ====  Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory         Voice: (516)367-8420
  >| ====  1 Bungtown Road                         Fax: (516)367-8845
  >| ====  Cold Spring Harbor, New York 11724                     
_______________________________________________________________________
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Civil Air Patrol/CAP thoughts
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:29:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.

wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher) writes:

>Others said
># With the CAP stype uniforms, Cousin It
># from the Addams family would fit.

>Cousin It ain't the question....
>Will they accept Thing in an Ercoupe?

Not having the other half of the fingerprint card filled in might cause
a few problems!  I guess it wouldn't be too bad - one of the members in
my squadron is missing four fingers from his left hand - we just noted that
on the fingerprint card, and it went through OK.  As for the Ercoupe, if
Thing's licensed and current, no problem!
-- 
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
From: bcarroll@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Bryan Carroll)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:45:12 GMT
Subject: Flying if FUN!
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr

I just returned from a flight whose purpose (maintenance) was not 
particularly attractive, but the process once again affirmed my 
decision to get the IFR rating.  The mission was to return the shop
pilot to the shop location and then return home.  (SJC-SCK-SJC) 

The flight up was wonderful!  A high ceiling made the departure 
less of a worry and then we were in the soup.  That lasted up to
about 4,000 when we broke out to bright sunshine.  The approach
into SCK (ILS 29R) was also a bit challenging, but with comfortable
margins to enjoy it.  Reported weather was -X, 700 Scattered, 2300
Overcast, visibility 2 in fog.  What made it a little interesting
is the 15 knot TAIL wind on the approach which ended in a circle 
to land on 11R.  

The flight back was even better!  We never did get clearly on top,
but kept going around and through the large columns of clouds that
were not protruding out of the undercast.  It was a real kick to 
through and around these clouds with bright sunshine all around!
The approach at SJC (the ILS is back!) was uneventful but fun
as always.  Things were very busy (as usual) and we had to 
fly half way to the next county before being vectored back to
the ILS, but that just gave me some more time in the clouds.

What a day!
Bryan
N201PC
From: schoen@slcs.slb.com (Eric Schoen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Visual Apch vs Charted Visual Flight Procedure (was Re: Contact VS Visual)
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:23:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Schlumberger Laboratory for Computer Science

In article <1d743dINNsq5@sol.usc.edu> barney@sol.usc.edu (Barney Lum) writes:
> Isn't a Visual approach a published instrument procedure with routes/altitudes
> parameters?

There's something called a charted visual flight procedure that's what you
describe.  There are hard altitudes and routes to follow, ceiling and
visibility minimums, and you identify fixes visually.  Around here, DFW has
one that uses Texas Stadium as one of its landmarks. I also remember that SFO
has at least a couple.  I've never seen one for anything but a major terminal.

By contrast, a visual approach allows you to proceed to the airport by any
reasonable means, so long as you have either the airport in sight or the
aircraft you are following to the airport in sight.  

Eric

-- 
Eric Schoen
Schlumberger Laboratory for Computer Science 
Internet: schoen@slcs.slb.com   In the air: N201DR
USMail: P.O. Box 200015, Austin, TX, 78720-0015
From: dls@freedom.genrad.com (Diana L. Carlson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: RADAR REQUIRED for IAF
Date: 23 Nov 1992 07:02:36 -0500
Organization: GenRad, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: freedom.genrad.com
Keywords: Approach

In article <1elm19INNdiq@bigboote.WPI.EDU> tpc@wpi.WPI.EDU (Terence Pau Crochetiere) writes:
>
>Looking at the NDB 29 approach chart from the NOS, it looks like the term
>RADAR REQUIRED was ommitted for the entire approach. REVER is the only IAF
>and a procedure turn is NA. Therefore, it seems that radar would be need
>to insure that you could get lined up on the inbound course. The only other
>way would be to fly around until you wound up inbound on the 290 bearing to
>the SKR NDB. Therefore, radar is essential to the approach.
     ^^^

Shaker Hill NDB has not been reliable for over a year.  Half the time I 
listen to Atis, it says "Shaker Hill NDB unmonitored".  The other half it
says "Shaker Hill NDB out of service".  I've heard rumors that they're 
going to remove the NDB due to its poor performance.  I suspect this is
the reason for the NOTAM.  Note that BEDford has at least three other
instrument approaches, including ILS 29, ILS 11, VOR 23.

Diana


-- 
->Diana L. (Syriac) Carlson dls@genrad.com	Ham: KC1SP (Sweet Pea)      <-
->I'D RATHER BE FLYING!	P-ASEL, INST		CAP: CPT, Freedom 690 Mobile<-
->AD ASTRA, PER ASPERA				Airplane: C-172 N6513E	    <-
->GenRad, MS/6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742  (508)369-4400 x2459   <-
From: tpc@wpi.WPI.EDU (Terence Pau Crochetiere)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: RADAR REQUIRED for IAF
Date: 21 Nov 1992 15:53:13 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
Keywords: Approach


Looking at the NDB 29 approach chart from the NOS, it looks like the term
RADAR REQUIRED was ommitted for the entire approach. REVER is the only IAF
and a procedure turn is NA. Therefore, it seems that radar would be need
to insure that you could get lined up on the inbound course. The only other
way would be to fly around until you wound up inbound on the 290 bearing to
the SKR NDB. Therefore, radar is essential to the approach.

This is only my view. Anyone please correct me if I'm in error.



Terry Crochetiere, ASEL, IA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr