HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: Number of U.S. Pilots (was Number of small aircraft wanted)
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:14:21 GMT

bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer) writes:

>Another factor that I've seen is that, after a few $100 burgers by yourself,
>most people have the "Is that all there is?" feeling about flying.  I think a
>new pilot runs out of reasons to fly after a short while.  

This was a primary factor leading to my involvement with Civil Air
Patrol.  My thoughts ran along the lines of "Gee, I'm getting pretty
good at this stuff, and I've taken just about everybody I know flying,
and I've been to just about every fly-in spot within 100 miles; now
what?"  I was starting to work through the cross product of "people I
know" and "places to go", but I was starting to have trouble keeping
track of who I'd taken where without consulting my logbook...  :-)

Involvement with CAP was, in turn, a major factor in the decision to
transition from the 172 to the 182 ("Gee, a 172 can't carry much of a
crew, and it doesn't have much of a range, and it really doesn't have
the power for comfortably searching even the coastal mountains in
California") and go get my instrument rating ("Gee, we have all these
night live organ transport flights, which require instrument ratings to
fly on, and it's so much easier to launch at dawn in the Bay Area with
an instrument rating, without having to wait for the fog to burn off.").

I really love flying for CAP.  The training and the mission flying are
incredibly interesting; much more so than just "getting from here to
there".  And of all the different types of flying we do (and there's
quite a few), my absolute favorite is countour flying on a search search;
low, slow, rock & roll!!!  :-)


-Brent
--
Brent Chapman                                   Great Circle Associates
Brent@GreatCircle.COM                           1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841                                 Mountain View, CA  94041
From: kzk00@ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Two planes collide over Santa Paula Airport
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:46:42 GMT
Reply-To: kzk00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>
>But of course, the real reason for this particular crash was that
>neither of the pilots had filed a flight plan...
>
There was a hint on the net about the CTAF frequencies having changed.
I just checked with my local shop: The LAX Sectional, the A/FD, and the
"Blue book" (I forgot the title, have been using it for too long: Pilot's
Guide to California Airports ??) all list 122.9; the "little brown book"
(Flight Guide) says 122.7.
Now THAT might be a frightful thing: Both pilots dutifully listening and
making their reports - but on different frequencies.
This also reminded me of how long, as a VFR pilot, I relied on these books
which were updated only once in a very long while. Now I'm using Jepps
(the IFR stuff), and their review cycle of every two weeks or so
highlights the constant change.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: smith@ur-guh.com (Russ Smith)
Subject: Re: Headset/intercom incompatibilities
Keywords: headset, intercom
Reply-To: smith@ur-guh.com
Organization: Ur-Guh Complex Inc.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:23:11 GMT

I just bought a couple Peltor 7004's and a Flightcom IIsx intercom. The
intercom's infosheet says that some headsets may need to have their
microphones adjusted to be compatible. They mention an adjustment screw 
physically located on the headset microphone. This may be the cause of
the problem your friend's seen (heard?).

I experienced the identical problem when I had the Squelch misadjusted on the
intercom. This is probably NOT the cause of your friend's problem.

The above headsets/intercom combo seems to work just fine -- I've very little
experience with same, though, so don't take such praise as other than faint...

[just took my SO for her first GA plane ride last Sunday. Fun stuff...]

Russ <Smith@ur-guh.com>
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 31 Aug 1992 17:46:53 EDT
From: robert eric beckwith <IO20081@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Malibu strikes tree on IMC approach

     Friday a Malibu on his second aproach into Sanford ME,
first one was a missed, struck a tree with the right wing
He was able to fly to Portland ME and make a landing.
He did not have good control as due to the damage and went off
the runway after landing, but he was OK.   From what I saw
of the aircraft about a 2 foot wide by 1 ft deep impact about
the middle of his right wing...   all I can say he was very lucky.
We did have some foggy hazy weather last week, but I wonder how
far below minimums he was. (only 1 on board).
    Also about a week ago a Baron went in leaving Oxford ME,
Both engines quit slightly after takeoff approx 400 agl.  The pilot
and the pax were injured. He crashed into some small trees.
From what I heard it was a training flight with an instructor.
Saw the crash (someone had it on video tape) and saw the aircraft
afterwards, The plane came out of it in rather good shape, typical
strong Beech.
.........rb
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: david@infopro.com (Dragon [David Fiedler])
Subject: Re: Air Lifeline experience
Organization: InfoPro Systems: Writers, Consultants, and Dragons
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 17:12:29 GMT

rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:

>However, in general, the commercial pilot is trained to handle the
>aircraft ^^^^^^^^^^ in a more precise manner and has demonstrated
>these skills to an  objective examiner.  That's why the private/commercial
>distinction is there.  It is unwise for AirLifeline and/or
>the pilot himself to be the judge of whether a given private
>rated pilot is competent to handle commercial-level risk
>management.

How do we know what is "commercial-level risk management"? I'm sure you 
don't mean to say that a private pilot isn't capable of deciding for
him/herself whether a particular flight is safe to make.

>If the issue is semi-urgent transport of medical cargo
>(rarely is such a need an "emergency" except some organs
>for transport, and then see the paragraph above), THEN
>there may be a quite appropriate role for AirLifeline
>and the private pilot.  However, this still does not 
>justify the private pilot's lowering his weather
>minimums.

I think you have pretty well described the typical AirLifeLine mission.
From the brochure: "AirLifeLine is a non-profit, benevolent organization,
that provides free flight transportation for people with a financial and
medical need...AirLifeLine also flies time-critical cargo such as human
organs, tissue and blood to be used for transplants and other types of
surgery".  

AirLifeLine is *not* an air ambulance service and this has been stated 
many times.  I've flown quite a few missions for them and they have
*never* asked me to take a flight I didn't think I could handle, nor would
I. People shouldn't lower their minimums, that's why minimums exist. The
time savings from AirLifeLine come from using airplanes as transportation,
not from taking unneccessary risks. And the clients tend to be people who
would deteroriate physically were free air transportation not available; 
they don't *have* the option of spending more money for commercial flights.
-- 
David Fiedler    UUCP:{netcomsv,utoday}!infopro!david               AIR: N3717R
"The future is tekon."   Internet: david@infopro.com or david@utoday.com 
USMail:InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220 Rescue CA 95672 Phone:916/677-5870 FAX:-5873
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Airspace and Traffic Control Question (was Re: TRSA's)
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:54:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

>> On the sectional, Newport shows a purple ATA boundary.  There is no tower.
>
>That's not an ATA boundry.  Airport Traffic Areas are not depicted on
>charts and ATA's don't exist unless there's an operating control
>tower.

Upon further thought, it occurred to me that the original poster may
have been referring to a ARSA (segmented magenta circle) which
is usally twice the size of the 5 mile ATA/Transition Area/Control
Zone.

ARSA's (to be Class C airspace) requires two way communication with
ATC prior to entering (and as soon as practicable when taking off
in one).  You usually call approach control (not center) prior to
entering.

-Ron
From: bryan@intellistor.com (John Bryan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: crossing a runway, and instructor relations
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:45:18 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.

In <1992Aug27.174324.9230@eco.twg.com> reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack) writes:

>It looks like the AIM has been quoted enough, so I'll spare the text. :-)

>When you join AOPA, you get this massive book which contains, among other
>useful information, a copy of the AIM and many parts of the FARs. Toss
>this in your flight bag.

What's this massive book?  How come I didn't get one when I joined or
renewed?  Where's my copy of Aviation USA, eh?  I marked the box on my
renewal form but have yet to see my copy show up.  What's going on?  Is
it a conspiracy?  I'll bet it is!
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GA Safety (was: stupid pilot tricks)
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:07:44 GMT
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center

In article <1992Aug25.003932.4989@tss.com>, burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
|> ..... previous postings deleted .....
|> With this same argument I can say the following:  If I abide by the rules,
|> don't speed, don't tailgate, don't drink and drive, maintain my car, etc.,
|> then my chances are much better in a car than the overall statistics reflect.
|> I can do the same with a motorcycle and with an airplane. 
                            ^^^^^^^^^^

I have thought much about this, and I conclude otherwise. The biggest risk
on a motorcycle is not being seen by the cars, and having them squash you
like a bug. This is based upon several years of riding.

But in an airplane the greatest risk is flying from VFR into IFR without
proper training. Then comes the things like low flying and other forms
of acting foolish. So simple behavior modification can do MUCH to improve
your personal safety in an airplane, but on a bike it is up to the attention
span and range of others, and thus not modified nearly as much by personal 
behavior.

But certianly you are right: you can die from doing this. It is said that
in aviation takeoffs are optional but landings are manditory. Much the same
is true for life. The continuation is always optional, but the end is inevitable.
We have to accept that our actions have risks to ourselves and others, in
particular the folks we convince to fly with us. We should give them an honest
view of the statistics, explain how the statistics apply to the kind of flying
you might be doing together, and let them decide without undue pressure.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: gaynier@elec.uq.oz.au (Ron Gaynier)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: High or low tow normal?
Date: 24 Aug 92 03:39:46 GMT
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland

In <1992Aug24.023142.29796@nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au> cstone@nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au (Charlie Stone 4915162) writes:

"|"In article <1992Aug22.134447.8450@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> kaye@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Kaye Stott) writes:
"|">
"|">dinsdale@berlioz.nsc.com (Steve McRobert) writes:
"|">>
"|">>BTW, in camden australia the take off straight into low tow.  I can't
"|">>remember whether we climbed to normal high tow position before releasing
"|">>can anyone in aus enlighten me?
"|">>
"|">In Western Australia, and, as far as I know, in the rest of the country,
"|">low tow is the standard position these days. We practice high tow as
"|">students, but never use it except for hook-ups.
"|">
"|"I was also taught to soft release, but about mid 1970s that practice was stopped.
"|"This was also in Western Australia (Narrogin GC).  Perhaps Kaye can enlighten
"|"me,  do you actually release while still in the low tow position? or do you
"|"move up through the slipstream before release and starting the clearing turn?

I'm not Kaye but I can give you the current aerotow practice in Australia.
After separation from the ground the glider flies level with the ground at 
aproximately 6 to 10 feet. This puts the glider initially in the high tow
position (never seen anyone fly low tow while the tug is still on the ground;-)
and it remains there until the tug is established in a positive climb (~100ft). 
The glider then transitions through the slip stream to the low tow position. The
release is done with normal tension on the rope, the glider is not to transition
to the high tow position before release (the GFA is very adamant on this point).
Because aerotow in Australia is done in the low tow position most gliders are 
equipped with a nose release and I've yet to see any "American heavy metal". This 
is the GFA approved procedure as near as I can remember without having my 
Instructor's Handbook in front of me. I know alot of pilots who would prefer to 
transition back to high tow before release.

Ron Gaynier

BTW I've given more thought to the "Gliders don't do stall on landings"
discussion and I now agree that I don't do stall on landings though they
are low energy. 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: Oops, the throttle came off!
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 04:30:45 GMT

In article <JCRAWFOR.92Aug25161932@chseq.oracle.com> jcrawfor@oracle.com (John Crawford) writes:
>
>After takeoff/climbout, he pulled back on the throttle only to find
>no resistance and no power reduction.
>
>...began a gradual descent into a long, low final approach.  The low 
>approach obviously minimized speed increases due to the descent just 
>before touchdown.   Upon landing at around 100, he simply turned off
>the ignition and braked to a stop.

Would anyone else in this position have chosen to turn the ignition off
once the field was made and made a dead-stick landing? I can't decide
whether one is necessarily better than the other. There are trade-offs 
involved in either choice. Any comments?

venky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: crossing a runway, and instructor relations
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:44:15 GMT

cstacy@ai.mit.edu (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

>The FAA says that an ATC instruction to "taxi to" a runway is a
>clearance to cross any inactive runways between here and there.  
>I get these all the time like,
> "Cherokee 12AZ, taxi to runway <far away> via <obvious taxiway> and
>  <taxiway that intersects the other runway>."

 [...]

>Now I'm getting checked out in a new type airplane, and the other evening
>was my first time with this instructor.  When I followed my normal
>procedure the other evening, the instructor got all hot and bothered
>about my obvious intent to motor on across after just looking, and he
>made me stop. He asked if I shouldn't verify that with the controller.  
>I said OK, and did that, and we went across.  But I explained that
>we had been cleared to taxi to the runway, and I thought that instruction
>implied we could cross the inactive runway.  He made like he didn't
>particularly believe this, and said, "When you're in this airplane, you
>will *always* stop and ask for permission to cross a runway!"

The FAR's (and AIM and ACs etc) are quite specific: at a controlled 
airport a clearance to taxi from your present position to a runway 
always implies a clearance to cross all runways along the way unless
ATC includes a specific instruction to the contrary:

FAR 91.129 
   [...]
   (h) CLEARANCES REQUIRED
       [...] A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff runway assigned to 
       the aircraft is not a clearance to [enter that runway] but
       is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi
       route [...].  A clearance to "taxi to" any point other than 
       an assigned takeoff runway is a clearance to cross all runways
       that intersect the taxi route to that point.

The AIM restates this, and adds the note:

       [...] In order to preclude misunderstandings in radio 
       communications, ATC will not use the word "cleared" in conjunction
       with authorization for aircraft to taxi.

It's clearly a very good idea for you to visually check a runway you're
about to cross for any unexpected traffic; I teach that and recommend
S-turns of whatever enthusiasm is required to get a clear view of
any traffic *from either direction*.

On the other hand, unless you're unsure of the clearance, or of your 
position on the airport relative to the active runway, or if you see
traffic which just might represent a conflict, there's no need to
call the tower.  

Based on your description, the way your instructor reacted doesn't match
with regulations, recommended procedures, or common practice.  You shouldn't
be hesitant to check with ATC if there anything doesn't feel right, but
routinely asking for an explicit clearance just clogs the ground control
frequency, annoying both the controller and other pilots trying to get a
word in edgewise.

Joe Morris 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Instrument Training
Keywords: IFR Instrument Training
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:10:12 GMT

Another great way to go for the instrument rating, especially for you big iron
wannabees is to take a combination multi-instrument course.  I did mine at The
Aviator in Addison, TX.  Cost: $4995 for 45 hours in fully equipped BE76
(Duchess).  Cost includes instructor.  Does not include flight tests.  I think
it has gone up a bit since 3 years ago somewhere around $5500 now. If you can
afford it these are some neat programs, and don't cost considerably more than
most 172's with CFII.  

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw)
Subject: Re: crossing a runway, and instructor relations
Organization: Motorola
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:50:34 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation

In article <1992Sep3.132445.11102@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>,
glennw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (glenn.r.wesley) wrote:
> 
> > In article <CSTACY.92Aug26144058@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> cstacy@ai.mit.edu (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> >
> >The FAA says that an ATC instruction to "taxi to" a runway is a
> >clearance to cross any inactive runways between here and there.  
                          ^^^^^^^^ 
True but incomplete.  Actually "taxi to" includes "all runways that
intercept the taxi route to that point."

BTW, I would never enter any runway or taxiway without looking for cross
traffic regardless of the clearance.

Bob Furtaw - W8IL
All disclaimers ever written by anybody apply. :-)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tostan@bert.lerc.nasa.gov (Stan Mohler)
Subject: Re: Blimp touch and goes...
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:26:20 GMT

Hey, I rode the Goodyear blimp last year!  Wanna know how??  My sister bought
a couple Goodyear tires which came with a COUPON for a FREE RIDE in the blimp
here in Cleveland!  She gave it to me!  It was the SMOOTHEST ride of my life!
And those people down on the golf course really looked up and stared as we
drifted about 100 feet above them!

 
-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Mohler			|     phone: 216-826-6629
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|    
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: tostan@bert.lerc.nasa.gov 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL)
Subject: Re: Towing Mooneys
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:33:28 GMT

In article <BERRY.92Aug21112954@athos.pei.com> berry@athos.pei.com (Berry  
Kercheval) writes:
> >>>>> On 15 Aug 92 22:17:46 GMT, dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu said:
> 
> David> In article <19832@leadsv.UUCP>, netnews@leadsv.UUCP (Leads
> David> Network News) writes: 
> 
> David> Otherwise, the only method of moving the plane (I'm talking
> David> single-engine) is to have one person sit on the tail to lift
> David> the nosewheel and point it in the direction it needs to be
> David> rolled.
> 
> The FBO that services my Musketeer has a nifty tug.  It vaguely
> resembles a self-propelled lawnmower, and has a swiveling platform
> that slips under the nosewheel.  Then the operator can tow the plane
> as he likes, swivelling as far as he likes without worrying about
> nosewheel turning limits, since the platform swivels instead of the
> nosewheel. Indeed, the nosewheel doesn't have to turn at all!
> 
>I don't know why everybody doesn't use them

I work as a lineman at an FBO, and I can tell you why we don't use tugs when  
dealing with most singles.  The stress placed on the nose strut when braking is  
great and will, over time, cause damage to aircraft nose gear, especially the  
bearing hubs or bolts where the towbar is attached to.  We use a '53 military  
jeep with clamp hitches on both bumpers as our tug, and I NEVER take it out of  
first or exceed walking speed while towing an aircraft.  Needless to say, when  
you start braking, the towbar comes foreward and starts hitting the front of  
the clamp hitch, and on many light planes the nosewheel bounces (probably about  
25"or so).

The only singles I've ever towed myself are Bonanzas and Navions (there seems  
to be a lot of Navion owners out here!), but you'd get quite a workout moving  
them by (hand) towbar.  Most 172s, 152s, Cherokees, etc. are light enough to  
tow by hand (and I've moved 172s about a quarter of a mile from one end of the  
ramp to the other by hand, no big deal).

Also, if you've ever checked a Cessna POH, you will see that it says never to  
move the nosewheel all the way to the stops while moving it.  However, there  
are no turn limits marked on any (single-engined, that is) that I've ever seen,  
and when using a tug, it's easy to look in the rearview and see the turn limits  
on a twin, but you have no idea with most single-engined aircraft (Bonanzas  
being the one exception I've ever seen).

The moral? Don't move aircraft with a tug unless their size and weight warrants  
it!!!