HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: snd@elan.cs.princeton.edu (Stefanos Damianakis)
Subject: New Prelude For '93 ?!?
Followup-To: snd@cs.princeton.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Princeton University
Date: 11 Apr 92 13:48:47

I don't recall which mag I read this in last month, but it said something
about the Prelude "moving up" next year. Has anyone heard anything about
this? IF this is true, why would they move up a car that was redone the
year before? (they should, at the very least, fix the dash!)

-stef

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: moodyblu@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew Weisberg)
Subject: Re: landing: flaps or not
Keywords: to flap or not to flap
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:04:14 GMT

In <1992Apr14.044049.23786@CS.ORST.EDU> mpucket@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Margaret Puckette) writes:


>moodyblu@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew Weisberg) writes:
>>
>>I inquried with my instructor about this and he said flaps are a
>>crutch and that you should learn without them and then you can use them if
>>you need them. 

>Ahhhh....but did he explain to you *when* you might need them, and *why*?

>Flaps are just another tool for making a safe landing under certain
>circumstances.  I teach my students to be proficient landing with full,
>partial, and no flaps, and I set up scenarios for when they might want
>to choose one configuration over another.

I guess I should clarify a bit on the wording of my question..

I have been taught to use them like on soft field landings, short field
take offs, coming in steeper, etc.  Just in general though, I have been
taught not to use them and I had a feeling most people were taught to use
them...

Matt


--
===============================================================================
| Matt Weisberg, KF8OH        MILLIWAYS - Computers, Peripherals & Consulting |
| moodyblu@camelot.bradley.edu            Authorized Altima & D-Link Dealer   |
| Packet: KF8OH @ N9HWO                         Southfield, Michigan          |
|              Voice: (313) 350-0503    BBS: (313) 553-9274
===============================================================================
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Old Airplane Advertisements
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:26:12 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



I get a kick out of the airline ads in magazines from the late Fifties
and early Sixties.  Aside from their featuring lots of really ]<ool 
piston- and turboprop-powered airplanes, it's interesting to see 
pictures of people dressed in their Sunday best just because they're 
flying someplace.  All the men in the ads are wearing suits and fedoras,
and all the women are wearing formal dresses, white gloves and Jackie
Kennedy-style pillbox hats, as though they were on their way to a 
wedding or something.

One of my earliest memories from the time I was first becoming magazine-
conscious was of the Beechcraft ads that appeared in the National Geographic,
back when general aviation was a growth industry.  The main content of
the ads changed from time to time, but they all had silhouettes of the 
entire Beechcraft line across the bottom: Musketeer, Debonair, Bonanza
(V-tail only in those days, of course), Travel Air, Baron, 18, etc.



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: randys@hpcvra.cv.hp.com (Randy Stockberger)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: landing: flaps or not
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:11:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvra.101820010
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA

Dave Allen writes:
> ... But I'd like to send the message "use full flaps unless you've got a
> good reason not to". Your tires, airframe, brakes etc will like you for
> it, and the guy behind you will be amazed at how soon you turn off.

I disagree with you on this.  If I understand what you are trying to
say, you think the airplane should be landed at the slowest safe speed,
because a low speed is safer and easier on equipment.

I agree with this, but full flaps is not the best way to do it.  When
you put out the first ten degrees of flaps, at least in the Cessna 172,
the stall speed drops about five knots.  The next ten degrees drops
stall speed by about three knots, and going from twenty degrees flaps to
forty degrees flaps only drops the stall speed by two more knots.  The
forty degree setting adds a lot of drag and steepens the descent
dramatically.

As an experiment, go someplace with a VASI.  Set up a long stabilized
approach on the glide slope at 55 knots and twenty degrees flaps.  When
you have things stabilized note the power setting.  Now, put out forty
degrees of flaps, add power and retrim to stay on the VASI at 55 knots.
Note the new power setting.

The difference in landing speed between twenty degrees flaps and forty
degrees flaps in a 172 is small, only two or three knots.  It takes a
lot more power to land with forty degrees flaps.

Forty degrees flaps means that:

* When power is removed there is more pitch and yaw to compensate for.

* If the plane loses power it will land farther from the runway.

* The vertical speed is higher with forty degrees flaps, the flare must
  be more aggressive to compensate for it.  The timing for the flare is
  also more critical.

On the other hand, if there is a hill or trees blocking the approach, a
172 with forty degrees flaps, 80 KIAS and 800 rpm can really lose
altitude.
--
  Randy Stockberger
  randys@cv.hp.com
  503-750-3589
--
From: robg@Apple.COM (Rob Griffiths)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: IFR FAR interpretation question
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:28:31 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

Today I went off on my long IFR cross country (detailed in another
posting).

While doing the planning, however, I came across a somewhat confusing
(surprise!) section in the FARs.  Quoting 91.65 (c (4)):

   "Cross-country flying in simulated or actual IFR conditions
    on Federal airways or as routed by ATC, including one such
    trip of at least 250 nautical miles, including VOR, ADF,
    and ILS approaches at different airports."

The issue is:  Do all three airports have to be over 50nm away?
On my flight, they were.  But, could I really have picked one airport
that was over 50nm, and two other ones local to my area?  From
some earlier discussions, it would appear that as long as one airport
were 50nm away, I could count all the time as cross-country time
and meet the mileage requirement.

My instructor plays it very conservatively, so we filed at three 
different airports, all of which are 50nm away from our home field.
How about other net.CFI's?  Any opinions (from this bunch? Nah! :-) ?

-rob.
-- 
Rob Griffiths    "The beatings will continue until morale improves..."
robg@apple.com   PP-ASEL, -IA nearing completion ... B52s/REM/Erasure!
From: myers@ut-emx.uucp (Eric Myers)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Delayed Reaction
Keywords: ASRS
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:31:15 GMT
Organization: Center for Relativity, University of Texas

In article <122140090@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/
Eberhard) writes: 
>Please file a NASA ARC Form 277, "Aviation Safety Reporting Program (ASRP).
>Sit down with your instructor, or another trusted pilot and fill in the
>form and send it in.  You have 10 days and the clock is ticking!

  The 10 day limit is for obtaining immunity against certification action,
which is apparently not a factor here.  Even if the 10 days have past,
for this kind of incident you should file the report!
-- 
Eric Myers		"Frankie say '\relax'"
		
Center for Relativity, Department of Physics, University of Texas at Austin
myers@emx.utexas.edu  |   myers@utaphy.bitnet   |   myers@ut-emx.UUCP
From: bill@mpd.tandem.com (Bill Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Delayed Reaction
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:17:24 GMT

In article <9204062101.AA21140@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM writes: Pat> Path:
devnull!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!u
cbvax!CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM!PJERN

Story about a near miss between a Cessna and an Aerostar deleted..

> Lastly, if the Aerostar did indeed have me in sight, I think they
> cut it irresponsibly close.  By the rules, they did have the right
> of way, but standing on those rights could have killed us all.
> 

I'm not sure if I agree with you here.  The Aerostar crew had a tough
decision to
make.  If they changed course to avoid you, they might have conflicted with a
course change you initiated.  The problem is a classic one in any right of way
situation when one party 'don't play by the rules'.

Bill Baker, Comm SEL/IA, CFII.
bill@mpd.tandem.com
From: ted@equinox.unr.edu (Ted Sarbin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Lighter-than-air craft?
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:40:51 GMT
Organization: Huh?

In article <1992Apr13.143900.9922@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
 >All right.  Let's talk lighter-than-air.
 >
 >My wife has just informed me what my anniversary present will be
 >this year:  a ride in a hot air balloon!
 >                         I'm going to try to get our pilot (assuming he
 >is appropriately rated) to give me about .1 or .2 of instruction while
 >we are up there.
 >

Assuredly, your pilot will be suitably rated.  This is because ALL
lighter than air pilots holding commercial licenses are authorized to
give flight instruction.  Since this is a commercial operation your
pilot will necessarily have a commercial rating. Years ago,
commercial glider pilots were also authorized to give flight instruction.

 >Where can I read up on piloting hot air balloons?  They didn't cover
 >that in Jeppesen!  :-) 

Contact the manufacturers (see ads in aviation magazines).

						Ted Sarbin
						Comm Pilot - LTA-Hot Air Only
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: landing: flaps or not
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:12:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <moodyblu.703211844@camelot> moodyblu@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew Weisberg) writes:
>
>of landing and I said that my instructor has been teching me to land
>without using flaps (cessna 152 adn 172).  She was suprised as was another
>
>crutch and that you should learn without them and then you can use them if
>yuou need them.  So far, in my 55 hours most of my landings have been
>flapless.  Although, we have done flap landings too.
>
>So can someone tell me.  Are there others out there who are learning/being
>taught this way? I am curious to hear what other views are on this?
>

	Congratulations to you and your instructor.
   I have a counter example.   A friend locally was talking to me about my
   Sonerai.   When I told him it had no flaps, he asked how I could land it.
   The sad part was he was a student pilot with nearly 40 hrs and about
   ready for sign off.  He was under the assumption that flaps were
   absolutely required.   Go figure.......

	I offered to take him out and demonstrate no flap landings, but he
   has since dropped out of flying.   Seems his instructor got into a spin
   during stall practice and it scared the student out of ever wanting to 
   fly again.   I seriously wonder about the qualifications of that 
   instructor.  No spins, no T&Gs, no sod, no non-flap landings, no flying ??


-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under construction)	(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: TCA/ARSA Busting FAA Sanctions!!
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:28:50 GMT

In article <22466@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>That means that if the FAA accuses you of a violation and you believe
>you're innocent, you have a real problem:
>
>	1. If you decide not to fight it, you must actually
>	   admit guilt, even if you think you did nothing wrong, and
>
>	2. The FAA might then decide to pull your license anyway,
>
>	3. in which case you can't appeal because you've already
>	   admitted guilt.
>
>Sounds a little like Catch-22 to me.

Yes, it's a catch-22, but it doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
Unlike other violations, such as careless/reckless, or busting
visibility minimums, a TCA/ARSA violation is based on objective fact.

This is not to say that the FAA doesn't make mistakes.  But if they
have radar and radio records that show you clearly in the TCA or ARSA
in violoation, it seems like you'd have a very hard time fighting the
charge.  I believe that you *can* get ahold of the records before you
enter your "plea".  If the records show an ambiguous situation, then
you probably have a good chance of winning a fight, if the FAA decides
to take action at all.  If the records show a clear violation, why
screw around worrying that you had to admit guilt in order to get 
the training option?

pmf
From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw)
Subject: Re: ADF Receivers
Organization: Motorola
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:22:10 GMT

In article <23043@goofy.Apple.COM>, rcm@apple.com (Robert Monsen) writes:

> One final question is whether I need an ADF at all. I'm getting my instrument
> rating, and thus having one will simplify the training/checkride. However,
> I don't want to buy it just for that. Do you folks actually use them
> for anything other than locating the LOM and listening to the ball game?
> 
You will be required to show ADF proficiency during your IA 
checkride.  And I don't mean, "Do you know the score?". 8-)

Bob Furtaw
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: withrow@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES WITHROW)
Subject: Location of Public-Domain Flight-Planning Software?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 15 Apr 1992 11:58 EST  

Is there a location where I can ftp to to obtain the complete NAV 
distribution as well as the most recent version of FPLAN?  The FAQ lists 
cica.cica.indiana.edu (129.79.20.22).  This machine apparently had a 
hardware failure and files have been lost.  The machine 129.79.20.84
replacing the 129.79.20.22 does not have the "Aviation" directory. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Withrow                         |  
NASA LeRC  MS: 333/2                |
21000 Brookpark Rd.                 |   I can't spell and I don't care!
Cleveland OH  44135  (216) 433-8315 |     withrow@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Subject: Re: PC flight planning software
Organization: UMCC
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 13:17:04 GMT

>I got a copy of this great flight planning software, and I thought I'd
>pass the information along.
>
>The company that puts this package out is Navigate, Inc, and their mailing
>address is PO Box 4493, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359.
>
>For $5 you can get the program, which is shareware, and if you like it you
>can then register.

It is available via ftp somewhere?  

-- 
Jon Zeeff (NIC handle JZ)	 zeeff@console.ais.org
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bryan@intellistor.com (John Bryan)
Subject: Re: Instrument Checkride Passed!
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:10:14 GMT

In <1992Apr13.164123.23993@intellistor.com> bryan@intellistor.com (John Bryan) writes:

>When I finished my instrument check ride, I talked to my instructor
>about this. He told me that when we was first instrument rated, he ...
>minima of 1 mile visibility and 800' ceilings. He went on to comment

Okay, okay, I know better. I mean, "when *he* was first instrument
rated..."  My grammar hasn't gotten that bad yet!

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John T. Bryan       | e-mail: bryan@intellistor.com
Intellistor, Inc.   | UUCP:   ...!csn!arrayb!bryan
Longmont, CO        | USPS:   2402 Clover Basin Drive, 80503
(303) 682-6527      | PP-ASEL/IA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Instrument Checkride Passed!
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 20:25:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Last week, almost a year to the day since I first stepped
foot in a GA aircraft, I passed my Instrument Checkride!

The oral was straightforward, primarily going over
emergency situations and allowing the D.E. to give me
some pointers based on how he handled some hairy situations
in his past.

I planned my XC from RST (Rochester, MN) to OMA (Omaha, NE)
and we set out as filed.  10 minutes enroute we cancelled 
IFR and did basic airwork (unusual attitudes, steep turns,
timed turns, partial panel maneuvers).  Then the D.E.
announced, "711WR is cleared direct to AUM for the VOR 
36 approach.  Frequency change approved."  He said nothing
for 15 minutes as I executed the approach and the missed.
We then entered a few turns in a VOR hold and received 
vectors for an ILS back at RST folowed by a circling NDB
approach to a a full stop.  Total air time:  1.7 hours.

Overall, the flight was fairly straightforward, possibly
because the D.E. had flown with me for my Private
ticket as well.  One thing I didn't catch for about a 
minute was why I seemed to require a surprisingly nose-high
attitude to recover to S&L after the unusual attitudes --
then I realized he had reset the horizon on the AI.


Statistics at the time of the checkride:

Total flight time:            149 hours
Simulated instrument time:     46 hours
Actual instrument time:         5 hours
Duration of Instrument Training: 3 months

My instrument training was about evenly split
between a C-150 ($16/hr dry tach), C-172 ($20/hr
dry tach), and PA-28-161 ($19/hr dry tach).

Since I did my training during a Minnesota winter, 
most of my actual instrument time was during my 
cross-country to Florida.  Now I just have to wait
until things warm up here enough to raise the freezing
level a few thousand feet.

Any thoughts about other rec.aviators' first 
solo IMC flights?  What were (are) your personal
minimums as a low total time / low IMC time pilot?


-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller)
Subject: Re: Instrument Checkride Passed!
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:04:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.164123.23993@intellistor.com> bryan@intellistor.com (John Bryan) writes:
>In <davjqjc.rkaplan@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
>
>>Any thoughts about other rec.aviators' first 
>>solo IMC flights?  What were (are) your personal
>>minimums as a low total time / low IMC time pilot?
>
>When I finished my instrument check ride, I talked to my instructor
>about this. He told me that when we was first instrument rated, he set
>minima of 1 mile visibility and 800' ceilings. He went on to comment
>that that was overly conservative and that he knew my flying well
>enough that he recommended 3/4 mile visibility and 500' ceilings until
>I'd gained some experience.

	My sense is that we need to take type of approach into
	consideration.  For example, 200 & 1/2 may be fine for a day
	time ILS approach.  But you might not want even 500 & 1 for a
	circling approach at night.  Circling approaches after an ILS
	are very difficult for all the reasons you're read about,
	PLUS, it's very difficult to make the mental and physical
	transition from a stableized ILS to the wacky world of a low
	pattern circling approach.

	Here's my rule:  No circling approaches at night (except at
	SMO, my home base :) ).

________________

Glossary:
	ILS	Instrument landing system, an electronic approach system
		giving both lateral and vertical guidance to the runway
	SMO	Santa Monica, California
-- 
Larry Miller
The Aerospace Corporation
lmiller@aero.org
310-336-5597
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Fun Weekend Destinations in the Midwest?
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 03:26:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Can anyone suggest any fun (and hopefully scenic) destinations
for a weekend flying trip in the Midwest?  I'd be
interested in anything within, say, a 250 mile radius or
so of Minneapolis.




-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Tricky Gnosis)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Comet at Ohare
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:25:21 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Distribution: rec.aviation
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <CKD.92Apr1171041@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) 
writes:

>I might start an airliner-fans mailing list or something... it's tempting.

Great idea!


>Last time I was in western Washington I visited Boeing-Everett, and the
>first 747 was sitting on the line there.  Apparently it is going to wind
>up at the Museum of Flight (the 367-80 is headed for NASM, no?).


How long ago was this?  I saw the first 747 parked at McCarran Field in 
Las Vegas several years ago, still in its original red and white paint job,
apparently in long-term storage.  There was also another interesting plane
there, an apparently civilian C-124 Globemaster -- either white or natural
aluminum (I don't remember) with a blue stripe.  Anybody know anything about 
that one?



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Newsgroups: rec.aviation