HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, earlb@ssd.intel.com (Earl Brabandt) writes:

>                                                              Which brings 
>   up pet peeve of mine.  Those of us that fly instrument approaches 
>   (practice or otherwise) should announce our position in plain terms 
>   and avoid referencing fixes that are only found on instrument charts.
>   A student practicing in the pattern has probably never even seen 
>   an approach plate and he certainly isn't going to know where "outer 
>   marker" or "LAKER inbound on the ILS" is!  It's better to announce 
>   using "five miles north" or something like that so everyone understands 
>   where you are.

I think Earl's right here, on the other hand...

One of my pet peeves is instructors teaching in an area who don't bother
teaching their primary students the local environment.  I strongly
believe that one of the items an instructor ought to cover pre-solo is a
basic overview of the local instrument approachs as well as approach
terminology.  Like it or not, a lot of instrument pilots are going to be
announcing things like "Nowhere traffic, Slug 1234 is procedure turn
inbound, ILS 33 approach."  Just a bit of training about approach
nomenclature buys the student most of what s/he needs to know about
where that traffic is likely to be.

Even given a non-precision, circling approach (Nowhere traffic, Slug
1234 is VOR inbound, VOR Alpha approach), if the student knows where the
VOR is relative to the airport, s/he can usually figure things out.


Scott Turner  scott@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Systems Division
Turbo Arrow N2134N  "Baby"
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: gear-down check
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:55:37 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <6060.164.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) writes:
!SB! .!I could understand where the FAA would want to limit its liability.  Afte
!  ! .!what would happen if they forgot to ask just one time?
!
!SB! .It's still the pilot's responsibility to make sure the gear is down, after
!  ! .all the pilot is still in command.  It's just that I feel that it might
!  ! .eliminate those gear up accidents that we all hear about.
!
!But it's true that if you always expect something, you tend to rely on
!it.  All the Tower types I know agree that they'd sure say something if
!they noticed it.  But requiring them to check each arriving aircraft
!could be something of a burden.
!
!Just having them say "Check gear down" doesn't make much sense.  Don't
!people use checklists? (;-})

After starting this question I've stayed out of the discussion to see
what develops.

Yes, people use checklists. Ever missed an item? I have. It's easy
to do if you are distracted by say an ATC call or your passenger
calling traffic, etc.

The Tower types claim it's a burden. Is safety a burden?
Adding "Check gear down" to their standard spiel would not
be an intolerable burden in the interests of safety.

The military uses this technique. To all those who say pilots would
rely on it and thus accidents would increase I ask do the military
have a higher incidence of inadvertent gear up landings.  The answer
is NO.

Not using this technique to reduce inadvertent gear up landings at
tower controlled airports is a case were the `lawyer types' have
let perceived liability concerns compromise safety. We should
really protest this trend. However, our voice, i.e., the AOPA
is evidentally not interested in following up on it.

Dave Rogers
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Any comments about the El Al crash?
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:53:09 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <LHE.92Oct6082922@yang.sics.se> lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) writes:
>... Today I read that the 747 engine mounts
>are designed so that the engines actually fall off the aircraft if
>they have been damaged enough.
>This latter statement seems totally incredible. I would have dismissed
>it straight away if it wasn't for alleged quotes by Boing people
>supporting it.

Imagine a small balsa wood plane with a rubberband propeller.  Wind it up real
tight and put it on a table.  Let go, then stick your finger (ouch, I mean
a pencil) into the propeller.  If it is going fast enough the plane will
flip over, because the energy must go somewhere; and since the prop cannot
turn, the plane will try to turn around the prop.

Now imagine a large heavy turbine rotating very fast.  There is an enormous amount
of energy in the momentum of the engine.  Now imagine something happening to 
instantaneously stop the turbine.  Where does that energy go?  It must go somewhere.  
In the case of a jet engine, an enormouse moment is created that has the potential
to flip the plane or actually rip the wing off.  This is not a good scenario.
Therefore, jet engines are typically mounted in such a way that the mounts will
fail rather than allow the structure to fail in such an event.  The mounts are
designed to fail in a controlled way so that the engine will break away without
causing other structural damage to the aircraft, and allowing it to remain
airworthy.  This happens infrequently, but it does happen.

I am not a spokesman in any way for Boeing, and have no knowledge about this
accident other than what I have heard in the press.  However, it makes me
wonder because it appears that two engines were lost.  What are the odds of
two simultaneous mount pin failures or two simultaneous catastrophic engine 
failures resulting in the engine departing the aircraft?  Not too good, I imagine.


-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Chopper FAA rules and misc
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:12:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1614@seqp4.sequoia.com>, cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.064030.14978@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
> > Can some chopper pilot onboard describe how it is governed by the FAA?
> 
> > Like do you have to behave the same way at airport (taking off acting
> > like a plane)?
> > Can you just land anywhere as long as the property owner says ok? (like going
> > to a friend's place in the country)
> 
> The FAA certainly doesn't care about where you takeoff and land with a
> helicopter. However, I'm not aware that they particularly care about
> airplanes either. As I've stated in the past, I'm not aware of any FAA
> regulation which restricts airplanes from landing off-airport. States
> and local towns are a different matter...

Beware the "careless and reckless" rule.  Even if there's no other rule 
against doing something like landing off-field, if the FAA thinks you've 
endangered other people by landing in that school field (which I'm not 
implying was suggested in Paul's response), they can nail you.

-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: davehyde@TECNET1.JCTE.JCS.MIL
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Ballasting a glider
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:43:46 GMT

In article <108650003@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> Rich Carr <rjc@hpfcso.fc.hp.com>
summarizes:

>> NO!! NO!! NO!!
>> Sorry folks, but the polar does change as a function of wing loading.
>> If you look at the polars for the new breed of gliders it is *very* obvious
>> that it changes. Additionally, if you look at some glider adverts,
>> the best glide ratio improves with greater wing loading.
>>

>>As you note, this flies in the face of basic aerodynamic theory.  Can
>>you provide some pointers to these new polars?

>The Reynolds number effects should only amount to a percent or so
>difference in glide ratio over the glider's speed range.  This is
>pretty small compared to the cruise advantage of higher wing loading.

>Rich Carr

I'm not a glider pilot (and I don't play one on TV) but...check the polars?
Are they tail-on?  If the addition of ballast changes the pitching moment, the
elevator to trim will change, which will change the drag polar.  This is called

trim drag.  If tail lift (either positive or negative, usually negative) must
increase in _magnitude_, i.e. more nose up (tail down, more up elevator) due to

more ballast fwd of the cg the increased induced drag of the additional tail
lift will cause the drag polar to shift.  Helpful?  What a mouthful!
BTW I would think that this could be designed around by careful incorporation
of ballast tanks.  You tell me (and I'm sure people will).

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "Go and get your own opinions, these are mine."
From: dth@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David Hightower)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What makes a pilot fly? Money!
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:47:39 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <BvKwwD.Ft0@ithaca.com> eric@ithaca.com (Eric Wagner) writes:
>
>Plane rental 52 hrs      = $2300
>Flight instr 30 hrs      = $ 600
>Ground instr 13 hrs      = $ 200

This is interesting.  I wonder how wide the differences 
are in training rates.

I'm currently in the PP program, and I'm paying the following:

	C-152		$22.00/Hr (Dry)
	
	Fuel		$1.80/Gal (100LL)

	Instruction
	Basic 		$12.00/Hr (through PP)
	Advanced	$15.00/Hr (Instrument, ME, Complex Acft)
	Aerobatic	$20.00/Hr (Citabria)

Are these rates better (or worse) than the averages?  What exactly 
are the averages?

On a related note, our FAA Examiner here charges $125.00 for a 
PP-ASEL checkride.  Is this average?

Dave

_________________________________________________________________________
Dave Hightower		|    opinion? I'm allowed to have an opinion?
dth@cis.ufl.edu		| well, if I DID have one, it'd be mine, all mine!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: myshatyn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mike Myshatyn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: El Al Boeing crash on Amsterdam
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:20:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Gregory R. Travis writes:

> A 747-anything will fly on no engines just fine, thank you.  
                      ^^^
More like glide.

> A 747 with all four turning is pretty underpowered as it is.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Excuse me?  Underpowered?

Actually  in  addition  to  climb  capability  you also  have to deal  with
controllability.  Having  all your  (remaining)  thrust  on one side of the
aircraft may or may not be controllable with rudder.

--
 Mike Myshatyn    Bonanza N4896J           Hewlett-Packard Company
   ASEL/AMEL COMM, INSTR, CFI-IA           User-Interface Technology Division
 ...!hplabs!fc.hp.com!myshatyn             Ft. Collins, CO  80525
 or ... myshatyn@fc.hp.com                 (303) 229-4067
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:16696 rec.aviation.answers:3 news.answers:3479
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Can a 747 fly for 24hrs ?
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:02:29 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Oct13.200214.23053@bmerh85.bnr.ca> rivan@bnr.ca writes:

! I am just wondering if there is a speed at which a 747 could fly
!for 24 hrs.  Range isn't so much important as time aloft.  Also
!any bets on how much it would cost to charter of of these
!babys for a day.  Im no miliionaire so the cost is moot
!but what the hell I can dream.

Well I don't know about a 747 but how about $12,000 Florida to
DC area and return for a Lear Jet.

Dave Rogers

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: Rescue Questions
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:35:30 GMT

kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:

>For some reasons, most ELTs seem to go off about 9:00-10:00 PM resulting
>in calls to ELT teams about 11:00-Midnight and locating the ELT about
>4:00 AM.  I wonder if this is a universal constant like pi, e, etc.

If anything, I think your times are a little early...  I can't remember
the last time I got a CAP alert _before_ midnight...  :-)

Seriously, this pattern seems to be even more consistent for full-blown
"missing aircraft" searches, but I think there are understandable
reasons for that.  The family doesn't get _really_ worried until late
afternoon or evening (not necessarily the same afternoon the aircraft
went missing, mind you; often not until two or three days later), then
they call the Police or Sheriff.

It generally takes law enforcement a couple of hours to interview the
family and figure out who to call next.  I can't really criticize the
law enforcement folks for not being 100% conversant with missing
aircraft procedures, because it's probably a pretty uncommon event for
any given department and certainly for any average officer or watch
commander. 

It takes the FAA another hour or two to do their own checks to see if
any of their facilities know what happened, and finally word gets up to
the AFRCC.

AFRCC opens a mission then calls the Wing duty MCO (Mission Control
Officer) for the state in question, who then rousts and briefs an MC
(Mission Coordinator; the actual tactical hands-on manager for a given
mission), who in turn starts tripping pagers and calling up alerting
officers, and BINGO, my beeper goes off or my phone rings at 2 am (I'm
my squadron alerting officer), and I get to spend the next hour or so
waking up everybody ELSE in unit and getting myself prepared for a
pre-dawn departure to the search base.  Oh, joy...

Folks, do yourself, the other fine folks in CAP, and me a favor: file
and use flight plans...


-Brent
--
Brent Chapman                                   Great Circle Associates
Brent@GreatCircle.COM                           1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841                                 Mountain View, CA  94041
From: martinl@torolab6.VNET.IBM.COM
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 10:45:50 EDT
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Redout Revisited
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0

Several days ago, I posted a question 'What is Redout?'. I got a few
responses, most via email, but unfortunatly no new information.

In my post I said that neither myself or my flying friends have experienced
this phenomena. Perhaps I should qualify why we might have more information
on this that the average aviation ethusiast. We all fly Pitts'. We all
fly Advanced or Unlimited, or can do the figures. This means 6-7 Gs positive,
5 Gs negative. Thats right - every time I go to the airport, I push 5 Gs
negative. Its uncomfortable, I get bruises on my hips from the harness, and
have a lot of fun. None of us has ever experienced redout - loss of vision
or the overwhelming of senses caused by too much blood in the brain. One
pilot in particular states that negative Gs are safer than positive Gs -
you won't lose consiousness.

Some of the monoplane drivers in Unlimited see more negative Gs. The Russians
are supposedly pushing -9 in the Sukhois. I have heard secondhand that at
-7 or -8, the lower eyelid starts to drift upwards, partially obscuring the
vision. (You will see more loads in a monoplane mainly because they move
faster, and to get the same radius corners, you will have to push or pull
harder.)

I have heard only one instance of a ruptured blood vessel. One of our group
was teaching a student outside manuvers, and sometime during the flight some
capillaries burst in both eyes. The white part of the eye went bright red.
The student felt nothing, and his vision was not affected. A trip was made to
the emergency room of the local hospital, but the doctors were not concerned.

I would still be interested in any information or stories on 'redout'.

As a related question, are there any military fighters capable of extended
negative G flight? I dont mean 'the specs say +9 -7 ', but an airplane
where the fuel and other systems will actually function for an extended
period of time inverted. I was talking to a Tomcat pilot at an airshow
earlier this year, and he told me although the F-14 is stressed for some
huge loads, inverted flight is only good for about 20 s before fuel supply
becomes a problem. He said that the only negative manuver (about -1 G) they
do is a pushover into a bomb run. Does anybody know of any air force that
teaches their pilots outside stuff?
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:16571 rec.aviation.misc:87
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: qu. on bay tour on 10/10
Date: 10 Oct 92 16:45:37 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <1992Oct6.191149.1129@riacs.edu>, venky@sas.arc.nasa.gov (Venky 
Srinivasan) writes:
> I was planning on taking some visitors on a bay tour this
> saturday -- 10/10/92. Someone told me that there were
> supposed to be some show  near SF (not the Moffett field
> Airshow) scheduled for that weekend, and therefore that Bay
> Tours may not be allowed. Does anyone have any info on this?

Fleet week is occuring on Saturday and Sunday.  The Blue Angels will
be performing on the waterfront of SF.  Check your Notams!


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com
SHO  GOZE
From: martinl@torolab6.VNET.IBM.COM
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 15:21:19 EDT
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Going Outside in Jets.. was Redout
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0

I just got a email from somebody watching the Blue Angels practice. He said
he saw one of them push up to vertical. Pretty impressive. Berry, keep us
posted.

A friend just told me that the standard F18 is only good for a few seconds
inverted, until the engines are oil starved. The Blue Angels jets have been
modified for up to 60 seconds or so of inverted flight.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: blean@rwb.esd.sgi.com (Bob Blean)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: maule M8
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:25:40 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <BvvBMM.2r5@fc.hp.com>, billa@fc.hp.com (Bill Arnold) writes:
|> Bob Blean (blean@rwb.esd.sgi.com) wrote:

|> If you are interested in a Maule, I really recommend getting their
|> newsletter (you can get it from the factory).  My opinion ended up

Thanks -- I didn't know that.  There is a non-factory news letter that I
do get, but I did not know about a factory one.

|> being that the Maule is a fine airplane in terms of utility, but not
|> so good in terms of finish, insurance, and maintenance.

The utility is what caught my eye -- not "bush", but just general
utility.  Did you come up with any rough idea on the insurance and maintenance
costs compared to similar planes?


-- Bob
("Our life is frittered away by detail.  Simplify, simplify."  H.D. Thoreau)
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:23:49 GMT
Subject: Re: More approach adventures
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In article <3400268@hpcc01.corp.hp.com>, mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
writes:
>This adventure was to Napa.  I picked up the ATIS and they were calling M8 OVC
>2 F, with the LOC 36L approach.  Sounds good.  I got set up and the Oakland
>Center informed told me to "hold at SGD as published on the VOR approach
>chart, expect further clearance at 1815."  Well, OK -- but why the other
>chart?
>

At this point, you probably should have questioned the controller about what he
had up his sleeve for you.

>I was just slowing to cross the VOR at holding speed (about a mile out) and
>they called me back -- "change of plans -- [...]
>

This should have been the second clue that things weren't going the way you
planned.  Again, question the controller at the first hint that things are
different than you thought.

>Another few minutes goes by.  "You're 2 miles from SEAPO, cleared VOR-6
>approach to Napa County."  What?  That plate's on the floor!  I question him,
>mentioning that the ATIS said that the LOC 36 approach was in use.  He said
>that no it isn't.  Great.
>

When I prepare for an approach, I'll get out *all* the charts for the airport,
just in case something like this happens.  Good preparation will save the day
more often not.

>That was my fifth actual approach since I got my rating in July.  Each one has
>been different, and they seem to be getting more challenging.  I intend to
>keep this up :-)

This is a good example of how the little things combine to make a potentially
serious situation.  Mark handled it well because he knew the area and approach
well.  However, there were already two strikes.  The third might have been, for
example, this same event happening at an unfamiliar airport, leading to more
serious consequences.

Good preparation and a healthy distrust of "the system" go a long way to
keeping you out of sticky situations.

Bill Standerfer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.piloting
From: jac@asns.tredydev.unisys.com (Judy Cadmus)
Subject: Heard On The Air
Followup-To: rec.aviation.piloting
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Tredyffrin Engineering Offices
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:30:52 GMT


The following exchange occured between me and a PHL Approach Controller
yesterday while on an IFR Training flight from N10-PNE-N10.  This was my first
IFR flight since we got the plane back a few weeks ago from being re-painted.

PHL Approach:  "Skylane two zero two, understand you just got the plane
                re-painted."

Me, wondering how in the world he knew:  "Two zero two, that's affirmative."

PHL Approach:  "Yeah, let's see, it's gray and white with a maroon stripe.  It
                shows up really well on our radar."

Me:            "Well, you must have some pretty good radar."

PHL Approach:  "Yeah, you know, with this new technology..."      


It turned out that a friend of ours who is a controller at PHL and is also 
based at our airport was working in the tower at the time, and informed my
friendly controller of our newly painted Skylane.  
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Judy Cadmus  PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Skylane N42202                                  jac@asns.tredydev.unisys.com


Xref: sparky rec.aviation:16520 rec.aviation.homebuilt:95
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Pitching Moment ... OOPS! (was:Seawinds Sea Plane Kit)
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:50:22 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Oct8.162548.16634@news.arc.nasa.gov> doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>In an earlier posting I wrote about pitching moment from high thrustline
>engine placement. Marcus Leonard wrote:
>> ... I don't think this is right.  The pitching moment due
>>to the engine is equal to the thrust multiplied by the distance from the
>>thrust line to the CG.  It does not matter where along the thrust line the
>>engine is located.
>
>He is right, and I was wrong. I should have done the 2 lines of trig before 
>posting and destroying my net.credibility. 

I have not been following this thread however it does matter where
along the thrust line the engine is located. Here's why.

There are 2 moments associated with a propeller:

1. Direct thrust moment.

This is equal to the thrust times the perpendicular distance from
the thrust line to the cg.

2. Propeller normal force moment.

A propeller at an angle of attack to the airstream generates
a force `in the plane' of the propeller disk. The propeller
normal force generates a moment equal to the propeller
normal force times the distance from the propeller disk
to the cg. So it does matter where along the `thrust' line
the propeller is located.

Ref. See Etkin `Dynamics of Flight'

Dave Rogers