HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (sorry ... sigh )
Keywords: PIC, logging
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:03:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.202839.25915@tc.fluke.COM> xcskier@tc.fluke.COM (John Gilbert) writes:
>What I haven't seen addressed here, and seems ambiguous in the FAR's, is the
>case of a post-solo student.  When filling out the application for PP-G, I
>left PIC time blank.  I had solo hours, but from reading the FAR's, as in (2)
>above, you have to be at least a recreational pilot or PP to log as PIC.
>
>The DE asks "Well if you weren't PIC, who in the glider was?"  The implication
>is that someone was, and that person was me.  So I put solo hours as PIC
>hours, and sent it in.  FAA sent me the license.

It's not ambiguous at all in the FARs, but very few people get it
right, even DEs and the ilk.  It is very *nonintuitive*, which causes
many people to latch onto the intuitive answer even though it's not
what the FARs say.

A soloing student pilot clearly is PIC of the aircraft (after, who else
is?).  The student pilot, however, does not log PIC time, since the
definition of PIC time requires that, in order to log the time, you
must be *rated* (in class, category and type if applicable) for the
aircraft.  A student pilot is not rated for the aircraft, and therefore
cannot log PIC time.

The student pilot logs solo time.  Now, many logbooks include just one
column for both PIC and solo time, leading to even *more* confusion, as
if that wasn't enough already.  Technically, when applying for an
airman's certificate, you should separate out solo and PIC time, and
put them down appropriate.  However, the FAA mainly looks at the hours
for statistical purposes and to make sure that the minimum time
requirements for the rating have been met, and there are many even in
the FAA that don't understand FAR 61.51.

>So what about it.  Do solo hours count as PIC, especially towards my
>commercial rating?

Unfortunately, no.
--
-- Christophe

"Black is the color of non-conformity.  Everyone has to have it."
	T-shirt company executive
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Stay off the rudder!
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:08:35 GMT

In article <23758@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>
>> I just read a new idea (to me), passed along by
>> Greg Travis:  If you get into strong turbulence,
>> IFR, stay off the rudder and you won't get into a spin.
>
>If you get into strong turbulence, IFR, stay off the elevator
>and you won't get into a spin.  You can't spin if you don't stall.
>You can't stall if you don't haul back on the elevator.
>
>In the kind of turbulence we're talking about here, the throttle
>should do a fine job of altitude control.

Well, I can say that if you use the rudder properly, you won't get
into a spin either.  Having flown in my share of light and moderate
turbulence, I like keeping my feet on the rudders to reduce the yaw.
As you transition into larger (especially longer) airplanes, good
rudder usage will make it orders of magnitudes more comfortable for
the passengers, especially those in the 5th and 6th seats.

I assume that by the time you have 7 & 8 seats, the plane is equipped
with a yaw damper (or two).

Kerry
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Jet performance yet once again (Re: Too hot to fly?!?!)
Date: 26 Sep 1992 12:19:19 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

The HP-7 I flew on out of Guatemala City used deionized
water/booze ;-} injection in the Rolls-Royce Darts turboprops.

The pilot told me this was because of the a/p's slight ;-] altitude.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (sorry ... sigh )
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:10:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.155743.121@cbnews.cb.att.com> tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester) writes:
>	Eh ??   Excuse me but....
>
>	61.51 item 2 "Pilot in Command Flight Time"
>
>    "for which the pilot is rated OR IS THE SOLE OCCUPANT OF THE AIRCRAFT"
>
>    Excuse for shouting.... ;-)    How do you get "quite explicit"
>    out of that.  Sounds to me like a student logs pic on solo.
>    No one else in in the aircraft. Period.

Very amusing, Grasshopper, but that's not what 61.51(c)(2)(i) says;
there's a very important clause at the start that you've left out.
Here are 61.51(c)(1) and (2)(i) in their entirety:

(c)	Logging of pilot time:

	(1) Solo flight time. A pilot may log as solo flight time only
	that flight time when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft.
	However, a student pilot may also log as solo flight time that
	time during which he acts as the pilot in command of an airship
	requiring more than one flight crewmember.

	(2) Pilot-in-command flight time.

	(i) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log as
	pilot in command time only that flight time during which that
	pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft
	for which the pilot is rated, or when the pilot is the sole
	occupant of the aircraft, or, except for a recreational pilot,
	when acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more
	than one pilot is required under the type certification of the
	aircraft, or the regulations under which the flight is
	conducted.

OK, there we have it.  Note that the part you left out of
61.51(c)(2)(i) explicitly says that a "recreational, private, or
commercial pilot" may log PIC time.  A student pilot is none of these
(there are special rules in (ii) and (iii) for ATPs and CFIs).  Note
that there is a separate class of time, solo time, defined for student
pilots.

My statement stands: There is no provision in the FARs to allow student
pilots to log PIC time.  Period.
--
-- Christophe

"He presented it with a length of string, and then passed on to the
Statue of Corrupted Endevour, there to await the arrival of autumn."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind)
Subject: Re: Unfamiliar phraseologies
Organization: X Industries, Heavy Weapons R&D
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:51:11 GMT

(Yiannis Papelis) writes:
>ME: 'warrior XXXXX over small_city, at 3500, with zulu, inbound for 
>landing, student pilot'
>
>ATC: (at a very slow, clear voice with a 'fatherly' tone): OK warrior XXX,
>now listen carefully, there is a big airplane with two engines
>over your left shoulder, do you see it?

hee hee.  on one of my solo x-countries,
i girded my loins and braved one of the 
local ARSAs.  prior to this, i very 
carefully went over the radio communications
with my instructor.  "ah, you'll do fine."
he said.  "if you really wanna wow 'em, 
say it exactly the way you just did and 
add 'student pilot'".

off i went.  as i approached the ARSA, i
heard no fewer than three seperate pilots
calling up who didn't give complete information
(who i am, where i am, how high i am, where
i'm going and what i want).  approach had to
ask several questions of each of them.  then
it was my turn, in my best i'm-in-so-much-
control-i'm-bored-to-death voice:

me: bay approach, cessna xxx over south county
at 4,500, inbound for palo alto, request clearance
through the ARSA, student pilot.

(in retrospect the "clearance" part was 
gilding the lily)

there was a short pause.

bay:  ummmmmmmm......student pilot, stand by.

me:  cessna xxx standing by.

several seconds later:
bay:  ahhh, student pilot, go ahead.

me: bay approach, cessna xxx over south county
at 4,500, inbound for palo alto, request clearance
through the ARSA, student pilot.

bay: cessna xxx, squawk xyzp and remain 
clear of san jose to the southwest.

two things i noted:
1) everybody else after me decided to
use the same "who i am, etc" format.
this got many giggles out of me, since
approach no longer had to ask 18 gazillion
questions.

2) bay refrained from vectoring me all
over the area.

my instructor also found observation #1
to be profoundly amusing, especially since
he had meant the 'student pilot' bit as 
a joke...

			stormwind

			hell's amazon
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GTE CONTEL DUAT new features
Date: 1 Oct 1992 15:23:34 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

It's a good thing CONTEL DUAT is available on the INTERNET, because
I'd never use it otherwise.  Certainly not with the stupid Golden Eagle
diskette, I got.  It is the most attrocious communications program
I've seen in a long time, and it doesn't handle my modem properly
(surely Telebits aren't that odd of a modem, I use it with half a dozen
other programs.  Why don't you guys take a look at something like TAPCIS).  
When getting weather, it's about the same as kermit (though it doesn't work as
well).

Also, how about a mailbox inside of DUAT for customer comments?

-Ron "Your lack of input has caused a timeout" Natalie
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: steve@netcom.com (Stephen Williams)
Subject: Remote purchase?
Reply-To: steve@icarus.net.netcom.com
Organization: Organizations Anonymous
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:24:12 GMT

I'm thinking of buying an airplane from an individual in
Phoenix, Arizona which is about 650 miles from where I
live (Oakland, CA). This means that a trip to see and
touch it would cost a lot of time and money if I rent
a plane to fly there.

Is is common for one to buy a craft remotely, making the
trip only to pick it up? I would get a Pre-purchase done
by a shop near the plane, and use their third-party eye
as a judge. I have tried out an equivilent plane based
closer to where I live and am pleased.

And for you Californians, what about the sales tax for
such an adventure (I mean "purchase.") Will I need to
pay sales tax, and if so how and where do I get the
appropriate paperwork.

I'm new at this, can you tell?-)
Steve Williams
steve@icarus.net.netcom.com
From: GORDON@UKCEVM1.VNET.IBM.COM (Gordon C Smith, IBM Greenford, UK.)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 09:00:13 BST
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: View at Fresno/Van Neuys
Reply-To: GORDON@UKCEVM1.VNET.IBM.COM
Disclaimer: Any opinion detected in this posting is not that of IBM.

Sorry, the last one went off in my hand!

 I am taking a short trip to California next month. I have several
aviation related plans, but I have a couple of questions which I hope
someone may be able to answer. (Actually it's the same question about
two locations!).
 Can anyone tell me if it is possible to view any of the military air
movements at Fresno and Van Neuys (sp?). Are there any good places to
view and perhaps photograph the ramp and/or approach at either of these
fields?
 Cheers, Gordon


News-Software: Usenet 3.0
X-X-From: Gordon Smith

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tostan@dumbo.lerc.nasa.gov (Stan Mohler)
Subject: $10 HEADSET: WILL IT WORK?           
Keywords: softcomm, headset
Organization: Nasa Lewis Research Center ( Cleveland )
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:58:37 GMT

Hello-
I have a $10 8-ohm pair of headphones used for listening to my shortwave radio.
I briefly plugged it into my rental Cessna headphone jack, and I could hear the 
radio fine.  I still have to use the regular boom microphone, but I save $150 
over regular headsets!  

One thing bothers me: aircraft headsets are a couple thousand ohms impedance.  
But this thing is definately 8 ohms.  Will I damage the aircraft radio if I use 
it more?  Until I know, I won't use it.  

-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Mohler
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Subject: Re: gear-down check
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:58:40 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler) writes:
> I believe that the people objecting to ATC's "check gear down" (and ATC them-
> selves, given the stated liability concerns) are confusing "shift of repons-
> ibility" with "backup and double-check."  

It's not that we on the net are confusing the two. It's that we know that
lawyers can't tell the difference. They casually translate "backup" or
"double-check" into total responsibility (when there's no one else to go
after). :-(

I appreciate the occasional double-checks I receive from ATC. Coming into
Albuquerque one night, tower asked if my gear was down because he didn't
see a landing light. On the newer Bonanzas, there's a landing light on the
nose strut, and it's usually on. I appreciated his checking, but if we put
something like that in writing, the lawyers would have another field day.
Someday can we add up all the good things that DON'T happen because of all
the liability MIS-use. (Yes, someone's suing a shoe-lace manufacturer because
they didn't tie their shoe laces, tripped, and fell, and the manufacturer
had not put an instruction like "laces must be properly tied before walking"
on their product.)

And if I expected a double-check from ATC, I would (being human) tend to
stop doing my own double-check/triple-check/whatever. :-(

Ya know, I really wish we had air-time to ask "How ya doin' tonight?" Then
we'd know if someone were over-stressed, over-clearance-amended, or otherwise
ripe for forgetting something.

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (sorry ... sigh )
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:53:30 GMT

In article <BvI7oy.1IC@taligent.com> cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:
>Here are 61.51(c)(1) and (2)(i) in their entirety:
>...
>	(2) Pilot-in-command flight time.
>
>	(i) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log as
>	pilot in command time only that flight time during which that
>	pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft
>	for which the pilot is rated, or when the pilot is the sole
>	occupant of the aircraft, or, except for a recreational pilot,
>	when acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more
>	than one pilot is required under the type certification of the
>	aircraft, or the regulations under which the flight is
>	conducted.
>
>OK, there we have it.  Note that the part you left out of
>61.51(c)(2)(i) explicitly says that a "recreational, private, or
>commercial pilot" may log PIC time.  A student pilot is none of these
>(there are special rules in (ii) and (iii) for ATPs and CFIs).  Note
>that there is a separate class of time, solo time, defined for student
>pilots.

Hmmm...this brings up another question.  When I got my multi rating, I
actually had some solo time (my CFI signed me off solo to fly from PAO
down to Reid-Hillview, to meet the DE).  I logged this time as solo,
but not PIC since I wasn't rated in the airplane (until the return
flight :-)  But now as I read 61.51(c)(2), I think that time could
have been logged as PIC.  I am a prevate pilot, and was the sole
occupant of the airplane.  Both the DE and my instructor told me *not*
to log that solo flight as PIC time, and I didn't really think too
hard about it at the time since I wasn't all that concerned about an
additional 0.5 of PIC in the log.

Opinions?

pmf
pp-asmel-ia
mooney n5632j
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: Aviation's Smallest Giant Has Gone West
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:06:21 GMT

robie@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD)) writes:

> [a very well-written eulogy for Paul Garber]

Here is the text of the obituary from the Washington Post:

   -0-

SMITHSONIAN AIR MUSEUM CURATOR PAUL E. GARBER DIES

  Paul E. Garber, who acquired most of the prize airplanes for the
Smithsonian Institution's world-renowned aeronautical collection,
died Sept. 23 at Arlington Hospital.  He was 93.

  Mr. Garber was the first curator of the Smithsonian's National Air
Museum.  His most famous acquisition came as the result of a well-
timed telegram.

  Mr. Garber was at home one morning in 1927 when he heard on the
radio that Charles Lindbergh had taken off on his nonstop voyage
across the Atlantic.  Sensing history, he drafted the message to
Lindbergh.

  "I must have written that cable before Lindbergh had ever flown 
over New England," Mr. Garber told The Washington Post in an
interview five years ago.  The cable, asking Lindbergh to give
his plane to the Smithsonian, was awaiting the aviator in Paris
after he completed the solo flight.  On April 30, 1928, Mr. Garber
stood on the runway of Washington's Bolling Field and watched
Lindbergh land the Spirit of St. Louis for the last time.

  It was a big catch for Mr. Garber, who hoined the Smithsonian
in 1920, but it wasn't his last.  Throughout his life, he traveled
across the country in the Smithsonian Institution's name, acquiring
most of its collection of historic aircraft.

  Mr. Garber also helped the museum land the Curtiss NC-4 -- the
first aircraft to fly across the Atlantic -- and the Wright brothers'
Kitty Hawk Flyer.  "The fantastic collection of aircraft, which
has made the museum such a national and international attraction,
owes its very existence to Paul Garber's zeal for collecting,"
Martin Harwit, the director of the Smithsonian's Air and Space
Museum, said in a statement.

  Mr. Garber was born in Atlantic City on August 31, 1899, four
years before Orville and Wilbur Wright made the first successful
flight near Kitty Hawk, N.C.  Mr. Garber, who knew Orville Wright
well, watched the Wright brothers test the first military plane
in 1909 on an airfield in Fort Myer [Virginia, across the Potomac
from Washington].

  The government made Mr. Garber retire in 1969 at age 70, but he
continued working long hours as Historian Emeritus and Ramsey
Fellow in the Air and Space Museum for many years.  "I think I've
always loved flying because it's such a new experience for humanity
and it all began right when I was born," Mr. Garber said in 1987
upon being named honorary director of the National Air and Space
Museum for a day.

     -0-

>Fly high in eternity, Mr. Garber, you will be sadly missed.

Amen.

Joe Morris / MITRE
From: jmp@trsvax.tandy.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Medical exam (was Re: Beginner need
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:33:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:ads.com:6467:trsvax:91300006:000:1789
Nf-From: trsvax.tandy.com!jmp    Sep 29 09:33:00 1992


 >/* Written  4:01 pm  Sep 28, 1992 by ads.com!charleen in trsvax:rec.aviation */
 >/* ---------- "Medical exam (was Re: Beginner need" ---------- */
 >Here's another "beginner" question I didn't see addressed in the FAQ or
 >Geoff's private pilot handout.
 >
 >What exactly are they looking for in the medical examination?  Is
 >hypertension (controlled by medication) going to be a problem?
 >
 >Thanks,
 >Charleen
 >

 Two weeks ago I wouldn't have known the answer to this (or been very
 concerned about it).  One week ago, I went to donate blood, and the
 blood mobile people wouldn't take it because my BP was too high.  (I
 suggested that if they drained some, it might lower the pressure, but
 no go :).  At any rate, I visited my doctor and called AOPA, the
 number for the medical questions listed in AOPA PILOT magazine.  

 AOPA has sent me information on this condition.  I would suggest that
 members get this information directly, but I will summarize below.

	1.	Your BP must be controllable to no worse that 170/100.
		To this end, when you report for your medical exam,
		you must submit three blood pressure readings by your
		physician/cardiologist.

	2.	You must submit a resting EKG at the time of your medical
		exam.

	3.	You must submit a statement from your physician/car-
		diologist that there are no observed side effects from
		your medication, and the name of your medication.  (There
		are some 60 medications approved, and only about five or
		six hypertension medications that are mentioned as not
		acceptable).

 If you prepare before your medical, the AME is permitted to issue your
 medical on the spot, (assuming your otherwise qualify), without having
 to defer to Oklahoma City.

 This was certainly good news to me.

 John		jmp@trsvax.tandy.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Airplanes with horns 
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:57:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.172248.9156@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (ed Hutton ext. 6488) writes:
|> Any reason not to use the "horn" as a back-up
|> to the vacuum pump? Seems a lot cheaper and simpler than an electric back-up pump.
|> 

At low speeds this works fine, but for the folks that feel the need to spend
BIG $$$ to go faster, the extra cost of back-up under the cowl is small
relative to the cost of the whole plane. And somehow it would look just a
little out of place to have one of those big external venturi horns hanging out
of, say, a 250 mph aircraft.  I have seen a ad for an external venturi for
use as a backup.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: hrose@psych.mun.ca (Herbert Rose)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Logging PIC in Canada (sorry ... sigh )
Keywords: PIC, logging
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:39:11 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

q1hl@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Nameless CS Student) writes:

>Perhaps the weirdest thing about Canadian time-logging is that
>time spent as PIC of another class of aircraft is included in
>totals- a pilot with 100 hours PIC in glider and 50 hours PIC
>in powered aircraft can legitimately say that s/he has 150 hours
>PIC when it comes to meeting minimum PIC requirements for a
>powered rating.

I was told that only 25 % of glider time can be used towards a power
rating.  Just the same it is better than nothing.
From: billa@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bill Arnold)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:33:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Plain View = Plane View? (was: Flying for the Environment: Legal opinion)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation


Concerning Jan's discussion of Plane View, or Plain View, she
raised some interesting questions concerning the extent to which
a person (or government) can get a plain view of something.

A recent article in TIME magazine (I forget the date) described
some ways in which "big brother" watches people.  I read the article
and got ill.  Jan's mention of the "X-ray machine" is probably
right on target, and her closet might be in plain view.

Bill Arnold
billa@hpfcma.fc.hp.com
"No guarantees."

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Subject: Re: Stay off the rudder!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:50:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.162333.23749@umbc3.umbc.edu>
robie@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD)) writes
about what to do if you're in a cloud without IFR instrumentation:

>Some even suggested that the safest way to descend through clouds was to
>induce a spin, then recover as you broke out.  I never followed the
>wisdom of this unless, of course you happened to be over the only crack
>in the cloud cover and you could see that it was safe to descend at that
>one particular spot.

The reason for the spin maneuver is that it's the fastest stable way
to get out of the clouds, thereby minimizing the collision danger.  (A
dive isn't stable; you'll overspeed.) Of course, it's only appropriate
if you know you've got enough clearance below the clouds to recover.

					Matt Ginsberg

From: billa@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bill Arnold)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:45:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Remote purchase?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA