HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: Radar/DME required--why? (HYA Decommissioned)
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:38:13 GMT

In article <1jkc2aINN441@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> 
drobinow@hummer.East.Sun.COM 
(David Robinowitz - Sun Microsystems Labs BOS) writes:

>Isn't HYA out of service?

Yes.  According to personal experience, NY Sectional, Jepp US (LO) 25, and 
Jepp NOTAM, the HYA VOR has been decommissioned.  (It's being moved to 
a new location on the Cape).  Oddly the Airways which depend on HYA still 
exist and HYA has become an intersection.  Now that begs the question of how 
to IFR navigate in this area with only NAV receivers (no DME or certified 
Loran).  My guess is that navigation along V167 through PEAKE or SCUPP 
towards HYA will REQUIRE radar vecors on the last segment to (old) HYA since 
there is no VOR to navigate FROM along these segments.  V141 is no problem 
as ACK and BOS VORs can be used to define HYA intersection turn point.

FYI, the Jepp NOTAM says "Hyannis VORTAC decmsnd.  Hyans Int desig (N41 
42.7 W070 13.0) and all airways realigned thereto."  The Jepp US (LO) 25 
chart has been updated to show the HYANS intersection (surrounded by a VOR 
compass rose).
From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: please help clear up my confusion over feeders, transitions, etc.
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:56:57 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: groucho.aero.org

In article <skip.234.727964981@mitre.org> skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.212537.19761@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> wayne@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Rick Wayne) writes:

	Discussion of when you can descend to a published altitude
	given an approach clearance.

		It's important to consider why this regulation
		(maintain last assigned altitude until on an
		established segment of the approach) came about.
		This goes back to the TWA 727 accident outside Dulles
		several years ago in which the aircraft was
		cleared for the approach while not on a published
		segment (though he WAS on the localizer final 
		approach course, just considerably NW).  The pilot
		believed he could descend to the altitude on the next
		published segment.  Unfortunately there was a hill
		in between.  There was a long discussion in the NTSB
		report as to whether this was a radar approach or not,
		and what it means to be "cleared for the approach."

		But the bottom line is that it is SAFE to descend to a
		published altitude for your current segment.  If not
		on a published segment, maintain the last assigned
		altitude until on a published segment.

		These altitude restrictions are invariably not given
		to protect lower flying aircraft; they are given to
		protect you.

		[Does this all make sense?]
-- 
Larry Miller		The Aerospace Corporation
lmiller@aero.org	PO Box 92957		
310-336-5597		LA, CA 90009-2957
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: DME/Radar rquired--why--Answer
Date: 27 Jan 1993 10:47:30 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.cs.tu-berlin.de
In-reply-to: kerry@Ingres.COM's message of 26 Jan 93 17:40:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.174038.28354@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:

[ FAF changes, if cleared altitude is different from standard ]
> 
> Comments?

Technically, the poinmt at which you intercept the glide on an ILS
is called final approach *point* (FAP). The FAP may or may not
coincide with the FAF, and in fact an FAF is not necessary for
every approach (as pointed out earlier).
This is stressed by the fact that in our (European, based on ICAO) rules
for setting up a MDA for a non-precision approach, it is *explicitely*
considered whether the approach has a FAF or not; in the first case,
a margin of 75' is added, in the latter case this becomes 90'.
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:43:39 GMT

In article <skip.236.728052169@mitre.org>,
 skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:

| [logging] PIC time for you is the entire flight minus any
| time in actual IMC.

Please note that the faq contradicts this assertion. quoting:

Q6: I'm a private pilot.  How should I log time in instrument conditions?

A:  The key concept here, and in most logging questions, is that the
    requirements for LOGGING pilot time (in FAR 61.51) are completely
    distinct from the requirements for ACTING as pilot in command.

    If
        (1) you are the sole manipulator of the controls, and
        (2) you have at least a private certificate for that category
            and class of aircraft
    then
        you may log the time as pilot in command.

    It does _not_ matter whether or not you are in visual or instrument
    conditions, nor whether or not you have a "high-performance" endorsement
    and are flying an retractable-gear airplane.  (If you are flying in IMC
    and are not instrument rated, you must have a current, instrument rated
    pilot who is rated to fly the aircraft in the plane with you. The
    instrument-rated pilot then _acts_ as pilot in command while you fly and
    log time as sole manipulator; the other pilot may also log the time spent
    in actual instrument conditions as pilot in command.)

Please note also that I posed this to a DFE who agreed with Geoff's analysis
with one exception:  He claimed that if you were doing this in a retrac
*without* the endorsement you *wouldn't* be ``rated'' for the aircraft.  I
think Geoff is right and the DFE is wrong, but there it is...

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:53:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: saltydog.greg.727995222
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc

In <1993Jan25.112830.24208@crash> jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson) writes:

>My question to the fellow netters is...can I file an IFR flight plan, [as a
 student IFR pilot, not currently IFR rated - grt]
>and fly it, including the approach, etc., by myself? Of course, in VFR conditions.

>The idea is to practice everything involved with an IFR flight.

Sorry, but the answer is no.

greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Organization: Sponsored account, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:04:47 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Jumping VSI/Altimeter

During a recent IFR flight from Pittsburgh area to Cleveland's Cuyahoga
Co. airport I experienced the following:


1979 C-172 with a single external static port and alternate static
source (internal)
Initial conditions:
Stable, non-turbulant rain...ceiling 700 ft agl on departure.
Cruse at 110kts @ 6,000, in solid cloud/steady rain, oat 45 - 50 d. F.

Suddenly the VSI and the altimeter both "jumped" indications....the VSI
going to 500 F/M decent, and the altimeter dropping about 120 feet
down....both happening at the same time...instantly.  There was no
turbulance...and the plane really did not loose any altitude.  After
about 5 to 10 seconds...the readings receeded to nominal indications. 
During about 1 hour flying in these conditions, the indication "hiccup"
happened about 6 times.  Most indications were "down" but one or two
were equal magnitude..."up".

I switched to alternate static (inside) source, and things seemed more
stable but (probably a mistake on my part) i re-selected outside static
port because of about the 80 foot delta in altitude indication on inside
static source...and I was in solid/actual conditions.  The ILS at
Cuyahoga was nominal, breaking out at about 1,000 agl.

The return flight, the next day, was in nearly identical conditions,
this time at 5,000 feet...and the same "sudden deviations" happened
again several times.  I had occasion to fly the plane a third time the
day after the return flight, in clear weather, and subfreezing
temperatures, to 3,000 feet for about half an hour....no such deviations
occurred.  The plane's static system is being checked but the results,
if any problems are found, aren't available to report.

The club's resident know-it-all remembers reading an article which
discusses stable water film sometimes getting into the static port via
capillary action which might cause such deviations.

Asking for collective net wisdom.  Anyone with similar experiences, or
good ideas what was happening?

Jeff Dunkle <jd5f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Circle W Flying Club

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: grima@iphase.com (Gary Rima)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: Interphase Corporation, Dallas Texas
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:09:53 GMT

In article <C17vyq.M8r@fc.hp.com> myshatyn@fc.hp.com (Mike Myshatyn) writes:
>Steve Wolf (woof@fc.hp.com) wrote:
>
>: On a slightly different topic (the legality issue), my understanding is
>: that an AIRMET for possible icing is quite different than a PIREP
>: reporting known icing.  FSS seems to slap ice AIRMETs over the entire US
>: some days, but the icing itself is usually quite localized.  
>: The AIRMET doesn't regulate pilots out of the sky; the PIREP does.
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I disagree  with this also.  As with many things  related to the FAA - YOUR
>MILEAGE MAY VARY.  Never say never.  If you went out and bent something you
>don't think the FAA would nail you for at least being Careless and Reckless
>for ignnoring an Airmet?  Clearly REPORTED icing adds more fuel to the fire
>(so to speak),  but would not dimish the  importance  of the icing  warning
>that is given in an Airmet or Sigmet.
>
>
Oh, what the hell, I might as well chime in here and disagree with both of
you!  Mike, your Bonanza (and my C210) are CAR 3 certified airplanes as
opposed to the newer FAR 23.  As such, they are _not_ prohibited from flight
in known icing!  Note that nowhere in Part 91 does it say that flight into
known icing is prohibited.  The relevant reference is to the section that says
that you must operate the aircraft in accordance with (certification) limits
as outlined in the AFM.  FAR 23 certification requires that flight into "known
icing" be prohibited unless the aircraft has certified deicing equipment.
CAR 3, under which most of our aging fleet of aircraft was certified, has no
such prohibition.

Now, of course, I'm sure the FAA reserves the right to ding you for careless
and reckless _anytime_ you bend something.  They can't get you specifically
for flight into known icing, though, since in your plane there are no regs
prohibiting that.  (Note that a while back FAA did try to require that all
CAR 3 aircraft be placarded against flight into known icing.  This would have
been legally binding, since CAR 3 requires that the airplane be operated in
accordance with all required placards.  This was shot down, however, and never
put into effect.)

-Gary-

-- 
Gary L. Rima						Interphase Corp.
PP-ASEL-IA						(214) 919-9226
Centurion N7358E					garyr@iphase.com
N0GR							CompuServe 76050,231
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: Robert Noel
Subject: Re: GPS Instrumentation
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:25:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.033020.28201@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
mikec@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.161054.23835@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
>>[Dakota using 4 GPS sensors to determine attitude]
>>
>>The thing you have to realizes is that this experiment is using 
>>GPS to detect ``differential'' positions as opposed to ``absolute''
>>positions. (I am not using differential here in the sense of
>>``differential GPS''.) That is, they are measuring the location of
>>one point on the aircraft *with respect to another point on the aircraft*.
>>This can be done with *much* greater accuracy that one can measure 
>>the ``absolute'' location of the aircraft in space.  This is similar
>>to measuring runout:  It is very easy to measure runouts on the order
>>of 0.0001 with a dial indicator, but it is very hard to locate a point
>>in space with that accuracy when the domain of the measurement is
>>even as small as a cube a few tens of inches on a side...
>>
>>Thus, this result doesn't directly relate to the use of GPS for
>>instrument approaches.
>
>Well, not exactly.  You see you *are* trying to measure your position
>with respect to another point, albeit not on the aircraft, but the
>runway.  Thus the instrument landing system is a *relative* positon as
>well (of course, there is no absolute position, what you call absolute
>is just relative to an accepted mapping of the earth).
>
>So, in fact, the "differential" used in the Dakota experiment and the
>"differential" of DGPS are in much the same sense.  That is, comparing
>the relative location of two GPS antennas, be they on wingtips, or on
>an aircraft and runway beacon.  Of course, the closer the two GPS
>antennas are, the better the relative distance can be calculated
>(since the signals are passing through more similar atmosphere and
>other factors).
>
>Thus a demonstration that you can detect *very* small distances in the
>GPS signal and correlate them does have some bearing on the instrument
>approach discussion.  In the Dakota experiment, distances of less than
>a millimeter could be measured.  Even if a landing system was a
>thousand times worse, this is still 1 meter accuracy which is
>certainly high enough to do precision approaches.
>


apples and oranges (I think).  

measuring the relative position of multiple antennas
(with a single receiver) is not the same as measuring
the relative position of multiple antennas when each
antenna has its own receiver.

Bob Noel
my view's are my own, not MITRE's

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: ths@lanl.gov (Ted Spitzmiller)
Subject: IFR Quiz
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:09:08 GMT

.TY "Reference"
.ps 10
.ll 4.5i
.po .25i
.pl 10.0i
.ce
\fBFlight Plan\fR
.ps 8
.TS
expand box tab(!);
l| l| l| l| l| l| l| l.
.sp -.4
Type !A/C id ! A/C Type !TAS!Departure Airport !  ETD  !  AT  !Altitude
.sp .5
.TE
.TS
expand tab(!);
l s s s s s s s.
.sp -.5
Route
.TE
.sp -.5
.TS
expand box tab(!);
l| l| l| l| l| l| l| l.
.sp -.4
Destination!Enroute HM!Remarks       !Fuel HM!Alternate   !Pilot ID        !Souls!Color
.sp .5
.TE
.sp -.75
.hl
.sp -1.9
.hl
.ps 10
.vs -2
.sp -1
.TS
tab(!);
l || l.
\fBDeparture Clearance                 !Holding Crearance\fR

Limit _________________________________!Direction ____________
Route _________________________________!Fix ___________________
Altitude _______________________________!Radial/Bearing _____________
Special Instructions _______________________!DME OB Leg _____________
_______________________________________!Turns ___________
Report ________________________________!Altitude __________________
TX Code ____________EFC/Void __________!EFC/EAC Time _____________
Facility_______________Freq ___________!Special _______________
.TE
.vs +7
.ce
.b
Departure Procedure / Enroute Changes
.r
.TS
center expand tab(!);
c | c | c | c | c | c | c.
Limit ! Route/Vector ! Altitude ! Facility ! Freq ! Report !EFC
.sp -.5
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.TE
.ce
.b
Flight Log
.r
.vs -9
.TS
box expand tab(!);
l|c| c| c| c| c| c|c.
Check Point      !Course!MEA!Leg!ETE/ATE!ETA/ATA!GS!Fuel  
_
1.
_
2.
_
3.
_
4.
_
5.
_
6.
_
7.
_
8.
_
9.
_
.TE
.sp -.3
.TS
tab(!);
l l l l l lll l.
\fBTotal      !! !     !Distance:     !   Time:    !     !      !Fuel:
.TE
.nf
MUST LAND TIME: ATD ______ +Fuel ______ -45min res _____ = _______
 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: DME/Radar rquired--why--Answer
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<WD.93Jan27114724@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:37:29 GMT

In article <WD.93Jan27114724@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de> wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:
   Technically, the poinmt at which you intercept the glide on an ILS
   is called final approach *point* (FAP). 

I believe that the FAA uses the term "FAF" for both the FAF and FAP.

   The FAP may or may not
   coincide with the FAF, and in fact an FAF is not necessary for
   every approach (as pointed out earlier).
   This is stressed by the fact that in our (European, based on ICAO) rules
   for setting up a MDA for a non-precision approach, it is *explicitely*
   considered whether the approach has a FAF or not; in the first case,
   a margin of 75' is added, in the latter case this becomes 90'.

A good example of an approach without a FAF is an NDB or VOR (*not*
VORDME) approach where the facility on located on, or very close to,
the airport and there is no other suitable facility that can be used
to define a FAF.

Usually an NDB approach would use a locator at approximately 4 miles
from the runway as both the IAF and the FAF. The MAP would be
determined by timing from the FAF. If the NDB is too close to the
runway, it cannot be used as the FAF, but it can be used as the MAP.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: none, in Reno NV USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:39:08 GMT

In <C19xGH.I2p@iphase.com>, grima@iphase.com (Gary Rima) writes:

> Mike, your Bonanza (and my C210) are CAR 3 certified airplanes as opposed
> to the newer FAR 23.  As such, they are _not_ prohibited from flight in
> known icing!

Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual, for
Bonanza F33A [serial numbers] CE-674 and After, Limitations section,
p. 2-10:

                        "WARNING

           FLIGHT IN KNOWN ICING CONDITIONS IS
           PROHIBITED."

It is my understanding that aircraft manufactured after some date in the
1970s and which are not certified for flight in known icing carry the
prohibition regardless of whether they were certified under CAR 3 (as is
the case for all Bonanzas; the title page of my POH says "FAA Approved ...
based on CAR 3") or FAR 23.

--
brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher)
From: scottcr@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:36:38 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1993Jan26.174627.29000@pony.Ingres.COM>, kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.125148.14554@onetouch.COM> phil@onetouch.COM (Philip D. Turner) writes:
>>Only an instrument rated pilot can file an IFR flight plan.
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AND current (6/6/6)

This is the way I understood it.  Interestingly enough during my

inst checkride with DE (Robert Riney) He asked me to "file".

I indicated that I understood that I was not allowed this,

and he told me that "in this case it's legal".

I was not going to argue with him, so I filed, with him

listening.  This was about 30 mos ago.  During the same checkride,

I noticed that he was not wearing the shoulder belt just prior

to takeoff;  I informed him of this, and he insisted that he just

wear the lapbelt;  I was somewhat suspicious at being set up at

this point, but did not argue ( the other inst. candidate who

came with me that day got into a heated argument with the DE

about this, and was finally convinced when the DE asked: "do you

want to take the checkride or not?)

Anyway I passed, so I asked no questions.
 

-- 
Chris Scott,  C/E Public Radio,  Western KY Univ,  (502) 745-3834
SCOTTCR@WKUVX1.BITNET      fx off: 745-2084     fx hm: 781-1232
From: olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Radar/DME required--why?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 23:10:10 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hing.ai.mit.edu
Keywords: Radar, DME, approach

In article <1993Jan20.022711.25550@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:

[I wrote:] >> A cross-radial VOR fix has a +/- 3.6-degree error margin,

>VOR is less accurate than that.  Consider that you can legally check
>a VOR with an airborne fix +/- 6 degrees ... Approach procedures have
>to consider the worst case calibration/ operational errors.

Sigh.  Approaches do not in fact assume worst-case errors.  The
3.6-degree error margin is straight from TERPS, paragraph 285.  You
might keep this in mind next time you do a VOR check.

However, I have concluded that my original answer to the Radar/DME
question was probably wrong.  After looking at the Portland, ME (PWM)
overwater ILS approach, I see that it has pretty much the same FAF
error as the one in Provincetown (PVC).  At PWM, they have probably
made the extra FAF error acceptable by displacing the missed-approach
surface by the amount of the excessive FAF error (0.2 NM), as allowed
by TERPS paragraph 287.  I see no reason why this would not be
possible at PVC, since it appears that the only things to run into on
missed approach would be a few codfish.

My current answer to the question is that Radar or DME is required
because the Hyannis VOR is (or was, before decommissioning) unusable
on part of the approach course between WOMEK and the FAF (on the
335-345 radials beyond 12 NM below 5000').  Without DME or radar, one
might have gotten a false indication of FAF passage from the
then-unusable VOR, hence the Radar/DME requirement.

-- 
Jim Olsen   olsen@cag.lcs.mit.edu   "Tache d'etre heureux." -- St-Exupery
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: phil@onetouch.COM (Philip D. Turner)
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Organization: MCS/OneTouch, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:51:48 GMT

jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson) writes:

>Hello,

>I'm not instrument rated yet, but getting close to it. We've done some cross
>country trips with the instructor, including the 'long' one.

>My question to the fellow netters is...can I file an IFR flight plan, and
>fly it, including the approach, etc., by myself? Of course, in VFR conditions.

>The idea is to practice everything involved with an IFR flight.

Only an instrument rated pilot can file an IFR flight plan.
-- 
Phil Turner					phil@onetouch.COM
Columbus, OH	 				...!uunet!onetouch!phil
There's more than one way to skin a cat:
	Way number 27 -- Use an electric sander.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: DME/Radar rquired--why--Answer
Keywords: DME, Radar, Answer, IFR
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:43:12 GMT

In article <2688@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil 
(PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:

...

Your answer is interesting but one issue is still left unresolved.  As I 
pointed out in my answer, the logic you apply to this approach would appear 
to be applicable to the Portland ILS RWY 29 approach (Portland, Maine) which 
is almost identical to the Provincetown approach (except for distances, 
altitudes, and angles of course) in that it is an over-water approach 
without OM.  However the Portland approach does not require DME or radar.  
Why?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: World's newest IFR Pilot
From: <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 24 Jan 1993 00:52:19 EST
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

After a day of moderate turbulence, 30 kt. winds and hellish Cincy
Lunken approaches, I have become the world's newest Instrument Rated
Pilot and boy does it feel good!

Shawn Chaney, Private Pilot, (Instrument Rated)
Oxford, Ohio
AOPA #010788506
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr