HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: todd@valinor.mythical.com (Todd Lawrence)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 11:46:36 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: (What? Organized??) - Mythical Computer Systems

> I also think a good CFII imparts some of the "tricks of the trade" onto
> the student to help reduce his workload.
> 
> For example, IFR ground school "teaches" about NDB bearings, or
> holding pattern entries which require addition of headings, etc.
> (Lessee, carry the one, oops, must borrow 360 degrees, etc.).  In
> flight, these computations don't really work, or they work too well...
> in any case, they ADD a lot of work for the student.
> 
> I try to teach graphical solutions that shortcut the computations.
> Use the DG, look at the heading you are on, superimpose the NDB
> bearing onto the DG face, turn to that heading at the appropriate
> time, etc.  Don't think, don't add, just put the picture there and
> turn to it.  Similar descriptions for left and right 45 degree turns.
> Use the pointers on the face, don't compute.
> 
> Add many of these "little" tricks together, and you can save tremendous
> bandwidth to devote to other tasks.
> 
> Sorry, I don't have a list compounded... yet.  Maybe someday.
> 
> Kerry


I agree on this 100%, When I was instructing full time I _ALWAYS_ 
stressed the "Non Mathamatical" approach to doing anything in the
cockpit.. in fact I believe that there is really no 
bearing/entry/intercept problem that the pilot cannot figure out in 5 
seconds simply by looking at the instruments, Those 45 degree pointers 
are there to help you and that they do, also for fixed card NDB problems 
simply mentally superimpose the ndb pointer onto your DG (Again using the 
pointers as guidelines) don't worry about getting it down to the degree, 
simply round off to the closest 5 degrees or so to initiate your inital 
intercept then go for precision when you get your needle up in the top 10 
15 degrees or so.. I have had over 50 Instrument signoffs and have never 
had to stress mental mathamatics as a procedure.. (Probably because I 
cannot really do any math in my head!), but all kidding aside as Kerry 
stated it's all well and good to know the mathamatical methods (for the 
written test), but when you get up in the air/busy you will never be able 
to do this stuff in your head.. It just wont work.. I have about 500hrs 
of hard instrument time and have never even had to figure out a 
reciprocal in my head, the obs will always do it for you and never make a 
mistake.. (although I have always been a little envious of you pilots who 
can figure out Instant reciprocals..:) ), My general rule to instrument 
training and flying.. If it requires me to add two numbers it's too 
hard.. keep it simple.. 

Capt. Todd Lawrence
CFIAIMEI/AGI - ATP B-1900/Usair Express
(Opin's Mine and not USAirs..)


 Todd Lawrence   
 LOD! Communications                 internet:  todd@valinor.mythical.com
 IMF Data Acquisition Group          uucp    :  uunet!valinor!todd
 -Maybe he just ran off the cliff, like a lemming... -mar/lod
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Intersection names
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:59:11 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

After mentioning the CRATR ONE STAR in the original post of this thread,
I noticed that it has been supplanted by SPARTAN ONE, as of about two
weeks ago.
 
Oh well.
 
Brian
From: yurkon@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu (John Yurkon)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Getting into a TCA without the magic words
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:02:26 GMT
Reply-To: yurkon@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu (John Yurkon)
Organization: National Superconducting Cyclotron Lab.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rudolf.nscl.msu.edu


In article <1992Dec21.163616.20042@eecs.nwu.edu>, phil@pex.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:

>"Cessna 73502, climb and maintain 4000".  TCA (whose floor is 3000 to
>3600 around here)?  We don't care 'bout no stinkin' TCA!  :-)
>...

I'm embarrased to admit thats why I almost always file IFR on a x-country.  So I don't have to worry as much about busting some airspace.

	John
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:29:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.235527.2158@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>
>> 3. Are my feelings of frustration and worthlessness normal?  :^)  Every
>> time I think I have everything under control, my CFII points out something
>> that I have screwed up.  My division of attention seems to need the most
>> work.  Any individual task is easy, putting them all together is proving
>> difficult.
>
>
[stuff deleted]
>
>Also, A good CFII won't always point out only things which go wrong -- he
>or she will point out those things which are going _right_ and then
>suggest that you might fix those things which are going wrong by doing X.
>(Or maybe X and Y.)
>

I also think a good CFII imparts some of the "tricks of the trade" onto
the student to help reduce his workload.

For example, IFR ground school "teaches" about NDB bearings, or
holding pattern entries which require addition of headings, etc.
(Lessee, carry the one, oops, must borrow 360 degrees, etc.).  In
flight, these computations don't really work, or they work too well...
in any case, they ADD a lot of work for the student.

I try to teach graphical solutions that shortcut the computations.
Use the DG, look at the heading you are on, superimpose the NDB
bearing onto the DG face, turn to that heading at the appropriate
time, etc.  Don't think, don't add, just put the picture there and
turn to it.  Similar descriptions for left and right 45 degree turns.
Use the pointers on the face, don't compute.

Add many of these "little" tricks together, and you can save tremendous
bandwidth to devote to other tasks.

Sorry, I don't have a list compounded... yet.  Maybe someday.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student,eunet.aviation
From: wolfgang@bigfoot.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp (TUB))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.student,eunet.aviation
Subject: Re: nice Christmas gift
Date: 31 Dec 92 12:24:56 GMT
Reply-To: wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de
Followup-To: rec.aviation.ifr
Organization: GMD-FIRST, Berlin
In-reply-to: aboyd@quantum.on.ca's message of 23 Dec 92 15:04:42 GMT

In article <5chrr#=@quantum.on.ca> aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd) writes:
   In article <WD.92Dec22110209@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de> wd@cs.tu-berlin.de 
   (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:

   >the requirements for the training cover the rest: 200 hours groundschool
    (for the IFR)

   I fervently hope that's a typo ... we don't have any ground school
   requirement.  Just show up and write the test.  Jeez, I hope no one
   from our (can) DOT is reading this, it'll give them really awful ideas ...

Nope, that's what it is, 200 hours *required* groundschool (that's the
order of magnitude, maybe a few more or less).

   >The examiner (as it later turns out only pretends to be) exploding;

   Perhaps it's just a language thing, but I don't quite understand
   the point of your examiner's behaviour.  I am sure that he knows that
   "hurrying up" your preparations on the ground is a good way to kill
   yourself and your passengers.

   Maybe it's just his style to lean on the applicants during the ride
   to see what cracks develop, but I it sure sounds like unnecessary
   sadism to me.

That's it: it was his style to rty to put me under pressure
(fortunately to no avail :-)
--
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de
diestelkamp@kmx.gmd.dbp.de
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: Bob Noel
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 12:34:09 GMT

In article <380.185.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
writes:

stuff deleted

>The DGPS ground equipment wouldn't be located in anywhere near as
>vulnerable an area as current ILS equipment.  And it wouldn't be
>susceptible to weather, or vehicle intrusion, as current ILS equipment.
>It's also far simpler, and cheap enough that redundancy is a distinct
>possibility.  Especially with wide-area DGPS.
>

GPS is line-of-sight.  To provide coverage down to the DH it (the
DGPS ground station) will be sited in manner similiar to MLS.  Thus,
you can't have wide-area DGPS.


>O> .and as usual, nobody seems to worry about the integrity of GPS or DGPS.
>
>No, the FCC is very worried about integrity.  That's one of the reasons
>why they have not approved GPS for _any_ usage yet.  But there's good
>evidence that GPS will have higher availability than the current nav.
>systems.  (No single point of failure, for the most part...)

1. I assume you mean the FAA is worried

2. There's good evidence that DGPS will *not* have the availability
of current nav systems for precision approaches wrt sufficiently 
low VDOP.

3. availability <> integrity

4. what I meant to get across was:  I lot of what I read about GPS (of
any flavor) gushes about the accuracy (usually under ideal conditions)
and completely ignores the other requirements that must be met
by precision approach systems.  My general impression is that GPS
proponents are  puzzled as to why the FAA isn't embracing GPS 
(after all, it's a very accurate system).


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler)
Subject: Re: Getting into a TCA without the magic words
Organization: Tandem Computers
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:47:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.205853.7681@linus.mitre.org>, Bob Noel writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec21.163616.20042@eecs.nwu.edu>, phil@pex.eecs.nwu.edu
|> (William LeFebvre) writes:
|> >
|> >>"Cessna 73502, climb and maintain 4000".  TCA (whose floor is 3000 to
|> >>3600 around here)?  We don't care 'bout no stinkin' TCA!  :-)
|> >>...
|> 
|> sometimes being IFR doesn't help.  I haven't had the problem, but my
|> instrument instructor almost never has had the pleasure of an 
|> IFR clearance that would pentrate the Boston TCA (for flights between
|> BED and Falmouth).  He was always amused ;-) with the
|> radar vectors that kept him just outside the TCA.
|> 
That's like trying to get a fairly direct routing that takes you through
the LA TCA.  No matter how you file it, they end up giving you a clearance
that takes you all the way around it.  Luckily, up here in the S.F. Bay
Area, Bay Approach doesn't always do that, though they do keep you out of
the way of the approach corridor to SFO (pretty logical!).  In fact, the
typical vectors they give you pretty much parallel the normal informal
VFR corridors that they use for VFR transitions through the TCA.

- Len Fishler -
fishler_len@tandem.com
PP-ASEL-IA
Centurion N3784Y RHV
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Getting into a TCA without the magic words
Date: 23 Dec 1992 18:49:50 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: qadata.col.hp.com

yurkon@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu (John Yurkon) writes:
> I'm embarrased to admit thats why I almost always file IFR on a x-country.
> So I don't have to worry as much about busting some airspace.

An IFR flight plan makes controlled airspace disappear, but not things like
restricted areas. We still have to be aware and avoid them. :-)

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
From: ewv@craycos.com (Eric Varsanyi)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 30 Dec 92 04:50:40 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

>GPS is line-of-sight.  To provide coverage down to the DH it (the
>DGPS ground station) will be sited in manner similiar to MLS.  Thus,
>you can't have wide-area DGPS.

Wide-area DGPS is in the research state by the Coast Guard. Regular DGPS
which provides 100-200 NM coverage per station is implemented along the
eastern seaboard and in one area of the great lakes (I don't remember where,
the paper is at home). The accuracy they REQUIRE for harbor approach and
traffic control is 8-12 meters absolute. With a GDOP > 3.2 (which is what
you get 24 hours a day, worldwide starting in mid 93) they exceed this
requirement. With a good GDOP (<3.2) they are MEASURING accuracies of
about 5 meters close to the stations (20NM). They also get corrected
velocity accuracy of .01 Knots. With DGPS you know in less that 1 sec 
that a satellite signal is unhealthy. Since the current DGPS signal is
in the low frequency AM area (2??-4?? Khz) you don't really need line
of sight. There is no dependence on the DGPS signal as anything other
than a data link (100 bps), you can do all sorts of evil things to it
(including non-detministic delays) and still use it.

I have an idea, instead of beating on DGPS without actual facts, call
the coast guard GPSIC (GPS information center, 703-866-3806) and order
the papers they've written on DGPS, read them, then comment on the
system. They even have a bulletin board system you can download the
papers from. I'm witholding technical comment on MLS since I don't know a
lot about it (other than the obvious scaling and functionality issues).

>2. There's good evidence that DGPS will *not* have the availability
>of current nav systems for precision approaches wrt sufficiently 
>low VDOP.

Please quote a reference. With a full constellation the VDOP should be
sufficient to give 5 M accuracy. If you can get me within 10 meters of the
end of the runway I'll have a pretty damn good chance of seeing it.

>3. availability <> integrity

Integrity is carefully monitored in the DGPS scenario, read up on it, greater
minds than me have actually thought about this stuff.

>by precision approach systems.  My general impression is that GPS
>proponents are  puzzled as to why the FAA isn't embracing GPS 
>(after all, it's a very accurate system).

I think its less being puzzled and more being disgusted with the expected
10-20 year red tape cycle. With GPS/DGPS this does seem to be moving along
amazingly fast so there is hope. 

I still think there is incredible power (financial) in being able to
use equipment for navigation that will also be useable by ground
vehicles. There is relativly little chance that MLS will ever be
useable by ground based traffic. As an analog, which parts are cheaper
on your typical Cessna, the Delco alternator or the McAuley prop?

-Eric
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: Bob Noel
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:05:37 GMT

In article <1gt6nsINNil7@life.ai.mit.edu> olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
writes:
>
>MLS is a Microwave *Landing* System, and a very good one, if you are
>flying to an MLS-equipped airport (i.e., a big airport).  

wrong.  MLS is *NOT* a "big airport" only system.  In fact, Canadians
are using MLS to provide precision approaches to smaller airports
that are unsuitable for ILS.

>However, it does not help with enroute navigation

yes, obviously (or at least it should be obvious) a system that can
handle enroute and landing (and departure) can have advantages with
respect to panel space.

>nor with small airports that
>won't qualify for MLS, much less with airports that don't have any
>instrument approach aids at all.
>

wrong.  see above.


>GPS is a *Global* Positioning System.  Since it is available everywhere,

Will the availability of the veritical accuracy of GPS (I believe the term
is VDOP) be sufficient for Cat II or III requirements?  btw, an 
availability of "most of the time" isn't good enough.


>it can potentially
>give much greater value.  It is likely to eventually offer:
>
> - enroute navigation
>
> - non-precision approaches (very good ones), even at airports with
>   *no* ground equipment
>
> - precision approaches with ground equipment even cheaper than MLS

ground equipment is only part of the total system cost.

>
>Therefore, the question will probably not be "MLS or GPS", but "GPS or
>GPS+MLS".  MLS will have a tough time winning that one, especially in GA.
>

If, repeat IF, GPS can provide the integrity required for Cat I,II or III
approaches (and veritical accuracy), it won't be much of a contest.  

Bob Noel
My views are my own, not MITRE's
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

PB> .>However, such a tower would be an obstruction that mustn't be
  > .>allowed to penetrate protected airspace.  A tower sufficiently
  > .>far away as to not be a navigational hazard would also be low
  > .>on the horizon.  In that case, you still need to worry about
  > .>line-of-sight down to the DH (and below - for margin).  My gut
  > .>reaction is that such a tower would be too low on the horizon
  > .>for visibility for almost any runway.

As I mentioned in a msg. to Bob Noel, the DGPS signal is NOT line-of
sight.  It can be transmitted on virtually any frequency, including
being piggybacked on NDBs.  (This has a nasty side-effect, so wouldn't
be done in practice, but it's been successfully tested.)

PB> .Excuse me if I don't have the terms exactly correct, but my point is
  > .that a GPS receiver can display the equivalent of a warning flag if
  > .the GDOP exceeds a certain threshold.  What would that threshold be?
  > .Perhaps it could be set prior to an particular approach, preferably by
  > .calling the entire approach plan out of a database.

Yes, and that's a requirement even for enroute use.  The TSO'd units
will incorporate this 'flag.'

Bob Noel correctly addresses the critical VDOP problem, but this too has
been considered, and even in worst case situations, there are several
possible techniques to eliminate the problem.

PB> .GDOP's can also be forecasted, so it wouldn't be hard to NOTAM an
  > .approach out of service during periods of time that the GDOP is
  > .expected to be insufficient.

Not really acceptable as a routine situation.  But with the full
constellation up, and DGPS installed (as it _must_ be for precision
approach use) this will not be a problem.

  > .                                        I wonder if we should give
  > .more consideration to how we can do things differently to take
  > .advantage of the unique capabilities of the system?

Don't expect to see any "real" GPS approaches for a while, just because
of that issue.  The initial approaches will be "overlay" approaches
where existing approaches are used with GPS coordinate info.  But the
FAA is definitely looking at improving things with the unique
capabilities of GPS-based systems.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: Ian_Staines@mindlink.bc.ca (Ian Staines)
Subject: CH Flight stick Throttle
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:41:31 GMT

I am unable to get the throttle controle on my CH Flightstick to work with
FS4 or ATP.  I assume that this feature is supposed to work with these
programs.  I am using the joystick directly into my games port, without any
"Y" splitter.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: stauffer@src.honeywell.com (Don Stauffer)
Subject: Strike Eagle III problems
To: rec.aviation.simulators
Posted-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 08: 18:43 CST
Organization: mailEnteringNews at Honeywell SRC
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:18:43 GMT
Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 08: 18:44 CST

   I recently purchased SE III, and am having a problem I havent seen
mentioned.  I have tried to call MP, but their support number is eternally
busy.
   After running the install program numerous times, when I try to run
the game itself, it tells me I have to run the install program first.  It
seems as if the configuration file is not being written to my drive.  Does
anyone know what the file is called?  There seems to be no menu selection
for writing a file to disk in the install menu.  I therefore assume that
writing the currently selected configuration or setup file is automatic
upon selecting "exit to DOS".  Is this true?  When I do select this
selection, the DOS prompt appears awfully fast, and not a hint is mentioned
about writing the file to DOS.  I notice no disk activity.  Is this normal?
   Don in Minneapolis
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: CH Virtual Pilot (PC Yoke)
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:02:09 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <1992Dec22.072751.20781@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) 
writes:
> Yes, I have MAXX yoke and I seen this CH thing at Comdex and I love this
> new one.  I called CH in trying to get one but failed, darn it, where did 
> you get yours?  (We demand to know!!!!!) 


They have them over at Comp USA in Santa Clara on El Camino Real...


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: wallace@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Glenn Wallace)
Subject: Comanche and Voxel Space : uncovered!
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:31:08 GMT

Oh! What fun - what joy!

I've figured it all out (almost) - my initial brain-only musings were 100%!

I've about 80% finished a Comanche terrain to bitmap (editable)
converter. (one direction right now..... back the other way coming
soon, that's the easy bit!)

So, you can edit the terrain and shading with a decent bitmap editor...

Altering the terrain makes the missions more interesting.... objects are
placed on the terrain (only stored as an inital X,Y pos, no Z pos...) so
no problems with fuel drums and tanks ending up inside moutains.

I'm struggling with the last bit of the RLE encoding they're using. My
maths must be abysmal! Either that or theirs is!

Is anyone interested in the details I know now, or just wanna wait for
the program?

Of course, the *first* thing I do will be to make a 'girlie' terrain
landscape!!! Good way to recycle those old GIF pictures... fly around
them!!!

Glenn

Glenn Wallace (g.wallace@trl.oz.au)  == A Man Without a Country

"Could you please direct me to my own reality? I seem to have misplaced
it...."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: treptau@parafoil.cray.com (Jeff Treptau  {66673 CF/DEV})
Subject: Falcon 3.0d Install Problems
Keywords: Falcon
Reply-To: treptau@romulus.cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Dec 92 11:19:51 CST



I thought that something was mentioned on this group before regarding this, but
I must have missed it. I just purchased Falcon, and when I went to install
it, the install made it to the point where it copies the files from the 4th disk, and starts decompressing. The program then exits to the dos prompt, and
falcon3.exe does not exist. I tried calling SH tech support, but they are
impossible to reach. I tried it with booting from a floppy which contained
their autoexec.bat and config.sys from disk 1, but still no success.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, since I really want to play Falcon!!


Thanks,
Jeff


--
treptau@romulus.cray.com                 | The views expressed above are
Jeff Treptau                             | solely those of the writer, and
Cray Research, Development Bldg.         | are not representative of Cray
900 Lowater Rd. Chippewa Falls, WI 54729 | Research, Inc.