HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: system@gnd1.wtp.contel.com (Marty Anilane)
Subject: Re: GTE CONTEL DUAT new features
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: system@gnd1.wtp.contel.com
Organization: GTE Government Systems, Federal Systems Division, Chantilly, VA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:38:53 GMT

In article <2229@usna.NAVY.MIL>, dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes...
>In article <5314@rosie.NeXT.COM> amm@NeXT.COM (Alan M. Marcum) writes:
>!John Stephens writes
>!! I am not a regular user of the CONTEL Duat -- I am much more
>!! familiar with ... DTC ...
>!
>!Why do I use Contel?  Because I can telnet to duat.Contel.COM
>![131.131.7.105].  Period.
> 
>Since we seem to be `voting' on which DUAT service we like best
>I'll add my vote. 
> 
>Currently I prefer DTC mainly because I like their user interface
>somewhat better than Contel. DTC also seems to be a bit faster.
In what way does it seem faster?

Using procomm I logged in via plain 2400 baud connection to both 
services. From the time I hit carriage return to the time I was 
prompted for entry by the service was:

	DTC      51 seconds
	CONTEL   32 seconds

Requesting a weather brief for a DIRECT flight from IAD to BOS 
and using infinite scrolling, the time until the disclaimer prompt
was presented was:

	DTC 	50
	CONTEL  49

which shows no significant difference in that case.

>Finally I have learned a trick with DTC that allows a very fast
>download -- set cols = 24 rows = 999. (You might be able to
>do the same thing with Contel)
Yes you can! Set the lines per page to 0. (On DTC you should set
the rows to 0 for infinite scrolling.) On contel, you should leave 
the columns at 80.

> 
>I use Contel from the office over the Internet but it runs at
>about 1/4 to 1/3 speed in comparison to on the PC with a
>2400 baud modem. 

Most Internet customers find that the speeds are 2 to 3 times 
faster because we run the service at 19,200 into the backbone.

What is the speed of your connection to the backbone?

>Have not succeeded in getting the Telebit to
>work with either DTC or Contel using Procomm.
>
Contel now has 9600/4800/2400/1200/300 baud modems with MNP 5
and V.42 available.

It is possible that the Telebit modem defaults to settings that will
not talk to our or DTC's modems. Call our help line at 1-800-345-3828
to see if they have some suggestions.

>Dave Rogers
----------------
 Marty Anilane, GTE Contel Federal Systems, P.O. Box 10814, Chantilly VA. 22021
 Internet: "system@gnd1.wtp.gtefsd.com"    (703) 818-4413
----------------
From: chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What Constitutes "Cross Country"
Date: 4 Oct 1992 19:50:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Cross Country,X-country,Legal

In article <BvM1KB.33J@access.digex.com> stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens) writes:
>
>What legally constitutes a cross-country flight?
>
...
>PIC is not IFR rated, etc.  For the Private ticket, X-country flights must 
>include a landing at an airport at least 50 miles away.  For the IFR ticket, 
>at least 50 hours of solo X-country time must have been logged, etc.
...

It is _MORE THAN_ 50 nm, not "at least" 50 nm.

As for the rest of the question, a landing not at the airport of origin
makes the flight cross-country. The instructor I train with now argues that
"cross-country" time should not include time spent in multiple approaches,
or other practice that significantly extends the ATE. This seems
reasonable, but I have not seen any clear reference in the FAR or AIM.

Landing, as I understand, means that a tire squeaks; T&G counts; low or
missed approach does not count.

Lonnie 

-- 
Lonnie C. Martin    lonnie@hydrogen.cchem.berkeley.edu
From: kzk00@ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Recent flight experience
Keywords: PIC, logging
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:41:12 GMT
Reply-To: kzk00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1a88nfINNo5j@smaug.West.Sun.COM> brianh@pongo.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Horn) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.212236.8426@microsoft.com> peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho) writes:
>>As surprising as it may seem (at least, _I_ was surprised), this
>>rule does not actually say that you have to have had three
>>take-offs and landings within the last 90 days in order to
>>be current to take passengers.  Rather, if you have not flown
>>within the past 90 days, you must first make the requisite
>
>Whoa!  Wait a sec!  To quote:
>
>FAR 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command
>(c) General experience.  No person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft
>carrying passengers, nor of an aircraft certificated for more than one
>required pilot flight crewmember, unless within the preceeding 90 days, he
>has made three takeoffs and three landings as the sole manipulator of the
>flight controls in an aircraft of the same category and class and, if a type
>rating is required, of the same type...
>
>This one seems pretty straight forwarded.  One *must* have the 3 takeoffs
>and landings in the last 90 days or they are *not* current for *acting* as
>PIC for passengers (etc).


Exactly that was my first reaction, too. But then, later in the same
paragraph, it says:
For the purpose of meeting the requirements of the paragraph, a person may
act as pilot-in-command of a flight under day VFR or day IFR if no persons
or property other than as necessary for his compliance thereunder, are
carried.
So I think the original poster's head instructor at least has a point.
And if it's nothing but the conclusion that I end up with again and
again: Whenever you believe you understand an FAR, you are wrong.
It would be interesting to call the FAA in at least three different
places; they will probably give four different responses.
Klaus.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (sorry ... sigh )
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
	<1992Sep25.175703.8828@eng.umd.edu>
	<1992Sep28.212236.8426@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:05:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.212236.8426@microsoft.com> peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho) writes:

> As surprising as it may seem (at least, _I_ was surprised), this
> rule does not actually say that you have to have had three
> take-offs and landings within the last 90 days in order to
> be current to take passengers.  Rather, if you have not flown
> within the past 90 days, you must first make the requisite
> three take-offs and landings (full stop if night-time or
> taildragger) before loading the passengers up.  If you've
> flown even just once within the past 90 days, you're not
> required to make those extra three (or two, if you count the
> other one time you flew) take-offs and landings.

But this would in effect *voiden* the "3 landings within 90 days"
requirement:
If it's sufficient to have flown *once* within the past 90
days, go fly once *now* and you are current.
Unless you want to interpret it in yet another way (this is
becoming wild speculation): as long as you remain current, it's sufficient
to fly once every 90 days to remain current; once you have lost
currency you have to make 3 landings. This doesn't sound very
reasonable to me; comments anyone ?
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg)
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (sorry ... sigh )
Keywords: PIC, logging
Organization: Tera Computer Company, Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:19:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.193434.4675@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>Aargh.  The logging question again.  Definitively, now:
>
>(2)  You may log PIC whenever you are the sole manipulator of the controls
>     in an aircraft for which you are rated.

This "sole manipulator" bit just caught my eye.

Let's say I'm tooling around with an instructor for no apparent reason
except to help him/her earn a living and practice some maneuvers my
wife doesn't like.  We decide to practice something, say accelerated
stalls.  I do a (sloppy) one, and he/she says "the airplane's mine"
and shows me how he/she likes to see them done.

In the legal limit, I'm not the "sole manipulator of the controls"
during the demonstration, so I can't log the time of the demo, right?

In practice, of course, it usually takes less than 0.1 hours for such
a demo, so it doesn't affect the log book, right?

Erik

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: smith@ur-guh.com (Russ Smith)
Subject: Re: Small plane crash near East Chattam, CT (?)
Reply-To: smith@ur-guh.com
Organization: Ur-Guh Complex Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:47:20 GMT

In article <581@seqp4.sequoia.com> cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell) says:

>This was an acquaintance (buddy? fellow airport bum?) of mine. A fixed
>wing CFII...He's a very capable pilot and instructor...In
>any case, I just wanted to set the record straight that this was not some
>private pilot...most of the instuctors/commercial pilots I know would fly in
>those conditions...

Which is to say that even well-experienced pilot friends of well-experienced frequent
net contributors sometimes make lousy-judgement mistakes, sometimes even fatal ones.

I am a low time (< 150 hours) inexperienced pilot; take my opinions with a pound
of salt.

I was introduced to small planes by flying right seat in a UofMD Grummann (sp?) Tiger
(at least, I -think- it was a Tiger (early 80's)). Once while leaving Lee Airport
in Annapolis (after lunch (:->) -- free flying time gets people to do crazy things
during their lunch "breaks") we were hit by 10G20 type crosswinds -- our
right wingtip came within millimeters of the runway surface  and I still remember
the stall warning -- no fun. The pilot was a well-experienced Aerospace Engineer
pilot who ate, breathed, and lived planes and especially this one (he'd used it
extensively for his Master's research, flown it upside down in mock dogfights (fun
stuff that, I was right seat there, too!), and had even flown backseat in an F4
more than a few times --  he -knew- what he was doing (and is probably the only
reason we didn't cartwheel off the end of the strip). Can't imagine what a 40 knot
gust would have done.

That plane (and many other types) was not docile going slow in a good crosswind.

Be careful out there.

Russ <Smith@ur-guh.com>

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Subject: Partial panel ? (was:Re: Stay off the rudder!)
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
	<1992Oct5.161218.18416@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
	<1992Oct5.200118.18558@ee.rochester.edu>
	<1992Oct5.231603.24358@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:48:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.231603.24358@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie) writes:

> All IFR pilots are required to do some training with the vacuum instruments
> out (this usually means with the attitude indicator non-functional). It
> is possible to use the needle and ball as an attitute indicator (but *I*
> can't do it). I would suppose that the magnetic compass could help a
> little, since it tilts to one side when you bank. You'd have to be very
> precise.

This is one thing I have never really understood; I know (in principal,
and I have tried it a couple of times with instructor), how to fly
on this sort of partial panel, but the question that always came
up was: The "needle" (or the turn indicator [not the ball]) is a gyroscope
instrument, so if the vacuum system fails, how come this one does not fail ?
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: Partial panel ? (was:Re: Stay off the rudder!)
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:13:02 GMT

In article <WD.92Oct6114803@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de> wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:

>This is one thing I have never really understood; I know (in principal,
>and I have tried it a couple of times with instructor), how to fly
>on this sort of partial panel, but the question that always came
>up was: The "needle" (or the turn indicator [not the ball]) is a gyroscope
>instrument, so if the vacuum system fails, how come this one does not fail ?

Partial panel training is based on the loss of vacuum pump, not loss
of gyros, per se.  Most DGs and AIs are vacuum driven while most (if
not all) turn indicators are electrical.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: alegria@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (carlos.a.alegria)
Subject: Re: Medical waivers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:37:04 GMT

From article <xfsz1z@rpi.edu>, by bohn@ptolemy2.rdrc.rpi.edu (Jan Bohn):
> 
> My vision on one eye is not correctable to 20/40 so I was required to
> obtain a waiver.  This was not too complicated:
> 
> (1) FAA required an initial statement from an eye specialist ($50).
> (2) FAA then required that I'd have a medical flight check (1 hour rental).
> 
> They then mailed me a life-time waiver...
> 
> Throughout this process, the FAA acted promptly, the whole process
> taking less than two months (consider US mail and scheduling of exams),
> and they did not charge me for their services (issuing the waiver and
> providing a medical flight examiner---giving me a dual instruction for the
> price of a solo flight!).


All this talk refers to eyeglasses and vision in general....
So let me change the topic a bit...I have a good
friend that really wants to learn to fly and she will be attending
ground school shortly. She is deaf. I am curious, what are the
restrictions that the FAA puts on people that are deaf or
hard of hearing? I could think of restrictions regarding flying
in controlled airspace...are there any others?


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: fields-doug@CS.YALE.EDU (Doug Fields)
Subject: Re: Private Pilots
Organization: Yale University, CS, New Haven, CT, Admiral's Account
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:47:21 GMT

In article <BvGHp8.Mz7@world.std.com> aps@world.std.com (Armando P. Stettner) writes:
>I did my private pilot in about 3 months.  I flew about three times
>a week.  This also included switching from a less experienced instructor
>(seemingly interested only in building his time) to a retired American
>Airlines 747 captain/instructor.

Same for me; three months and two days from the day I stepped in to the
day I passed my (second) checkride. About three times a week. I must admit
though it was much more than $3000, probably more like $4500. I didn't spare
any expense, though.

Hey, it was fun. The "hour" long lessons once I got into the solo stage I'd
just go up, work on maneuvers, then fly somewhere (within the 25nm limit)
and come back. I was going to have fun getting it, and using it (which is
a blast). So, hey, it costs a little more... But instruction time is
tax free! :)

Cheers,

Doug
-- 
Doug Fields    fields-doug@yale.edu    203-436-3082 VOICE
  PP-ASEL   doug%admiral.uucp@yale.edu    661-2996 FAX
   N1NJN          fiedoup@yalevm           -2873 DATA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com (Dave Medin)
Subject: Re: Partial panel ? (was:Re: Stay off the rudder!)
Reply-To: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville AL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:11:26 GMT

In article <WD.92Oct6114803@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de>, wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct5.231603.24358@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie) writes:
|> 
|> > All IFR pilots are required to do some training with the vacuum instruments
|> > out (this usually means with the attitude indicator non-functional). It
|> > is possible to use the needle and ball as an attitute indicator (but *I*
|> > can't do it). I would suppose that the magnetic compass could help a
|> > little, since it tilts to one side when you bank. You'd have to be very
|> > precise.
|> 
|> This is one thing I have never really understood; I know (in principal,
|> and I have tried it a couple of times with instructor), how to fly
|> on this sort of partial panel, but the question that always came
|> up was: The "needle" (or the turn indicator [not the ball]) is a gyroscope
|> instrument, so if the vacuum system fails, how come this one does not fail ?

The TC needle is typically an electric-powered gyro...

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
       Dave Medin			Phone:	(205) 730-3169 (w)
    Intergraph Corp.				(205) 837-1174 (h)
       M/S GD3004
  Huntsville, AL 35894 		Internet: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com
				UUCP:  ...uunet!ingr!b30!catbyte!medin

   ******* Everywhere You Look (at least around my office) *******

 * The opinions expressed here are mine (or those of my machine)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: ses3n@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Sharon Elizabeth Silverman)
Subject: Re: Private Pilots
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:24:54 GMT

I would recommend a ground school course, as well as a Gleim book,
for student pilots. There is a lot of info we pilots need to know 
to be safe that is not covered in the book. The FAA can't test us 
on everything!
	                           Blue skies! Sharon


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Partial panel ? (was:Re: Stay off the rudder!)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:59:32 GMT

In article <skip.143.718373582@mitre.org> skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
>In article <WD.92Oct6114803@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de> wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:
>
>>This is one thing I have never really understood; I know (in principal,
>>and I have tried it a couple of times with instructor), how to fly
>>on this sort of partial panel, but the question that always came
>>up was: The "needle" (or the turn indicator [not the ball]) is a gyroscope
>>instrument, so if the vacuum system fails, how come this one does not fail ?
>
>Partial panel training is based on the loss of vacuum pump, not loss
>of gyros, per se.  Most DGs and AIs are vacuum driven while most (if
>not all) turn indicators are electrical.

Ahh, the advantages of 2 engines, 2 vacuum pumps, 2 alternators, 2 AHs, 2 DGs.
But, it does cost just a bit more to maintain.

******************************************************************************
Mike "Dragonmaster" Serafin    PP-ASMEL-I      email=serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com
1964 C310I N48WM                                             Texas Instruments 
HQZ (Hudson Muni, Mesquite TX)                                   Dallas, Texas
******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Learning to fly articles
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:12:08 GMT

Let's try this again ...

The appropriate newsgroup for articles on learning to fly (or wanting to
learn to fly, or checkrides, or what-have-you) is

		>>> rec.aviation.student <<<

and *not* the newsgroup you are now reading.  Please direct future
articles on this topic to that newsgroup.

Thank you for your patience and cooperation during this initial period
of the "new" rec.aviation.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Private Pilots
Organization: AOSG
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:21:32 GMT

>I *strongly* disagree about the Gliem books.  I used Gleim's "Private Pilot and
>Recreational Pilot, FAA Written Exam, Fifth (1990-1992) Edition" and I hated
>it.  I found it to be poorly written and poorly organized. 

Ain't it amazing how peoples opinions can differ.  I used Gleim for my private
and my commercial and have just bought one for my CFI.  They work for me
(Private score 97% (60 question exam), commercial 94%).

Tony V.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Subject: Re: wanna be a pilot with eye-glasses???
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Distribution: eunet
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:32:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.232600.5132@nic.funet.fi> asunta@convex.csc.FI (Miika Asunta) writes:
> I have about -6 in both eyes.
> 
> Have I any chance to become a private pilot?

I can't tell you about the Finnish regs, but a suggestion:
Post this to eunet.aviation, and you may find more readers
that are particulalrly interested in European regs.
So far I see you get two follow-ups, yet both talk
specifically about US regs (which may, at the most,
be interesting for you, but of no real help).

Flame protection ON
And for all Americans who don't like this ad for
eunet.aviation: see the distribution line; if this
slipped through to you, fix that problem on your machine.
Flame protection OFF
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Private Pilots
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:52:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.212454.1763@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, ses3n@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Sharon Elizabeth Silverman) writes:
|> I would recommend a ground school course, as well as a Gleim book,
|> for student pilots. There is a lot of info we pilots need to know 
|> to be safe that is not covered in the book. The FAA can't test us 
|> on everything!

I think the point here is that there are things you need to learn to
know how to fly properly and safely, and then there are things you have
to know just to pass the written test.  On a Venn diagram, this would
be two circles with a small intersection.  I found the Gleim books to
be a good study tool just for passing the written, but there were many
other tools I used to _learn_ about flying.  I used the Sporty's tapes
(I don't recommend tapes), the Jeppeson flight traning manual, the FAA's
flight training manual, and a couple of other books.  I didn't do a 
formal ground school.  Rather, when I had questions that weren't clear
from the material I was using, I clarified it with my instructor.  This
method of learning worked very well for me.  Presumably, you could pass
the written test with only the Gleim (even that is questionable) but
you won't understand flying by memorizing how to give a right answer to
a test question.

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (HOWARD PETRI)
Subject: Re: Private Pilots
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: INDIANA U. CYCLOTRON FACILITY, BLOOMINGTON, IN
Distribution:  world
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:38:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.174319.11819@nmsu.edu>, calamity@acca.nmsu.edu (Calamity Jane) writes...

     Here is another bench mark. I did my PPSEL in 1990 in 4.5 months
for $3500 in a Citabria (taildragger). I flew an average of 3 hours 
per week-sometimes more. I did the ground school on my own using
Gleim, Kershner, and some older Sanderson manuals--I like to read
alot. I aleady had a glider pilots rating when I started power
flying. I took my checkride at about 65 hours. 

Howard Petri
Pegasus N599JH