HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: Hartzell Prop AD Modified
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 16:04:57 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems, Ltd.

In article <2510384@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> scott@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Turner) writes:
>One of the most pervasive AD's in GA has just undergone a modification.
>The dreaded Hartzell "Y" series prop AD, affecting virtually every
>Hartzell constant speed prop used in light aircraft has been changed
>from requiring a mandatory teardown and inspection every 2000 Hrs or 5 years

>Why do I sound so pleased?  Guess who's prop was scheduled for
>inspection this month due to the 5 year limit!

Lucky guy.  Up here, ALL constant speed props must be overhauled every
five years, regardless of the hours you put on the prop.  I think it's
every FOUR frigging years if the plane isn't always hangared indoors.

The DOT recently made a "big concession" which allows to you do an 
"inspection" instead of an "overhaul" every second time.  Big deal.  

The "inspection" on my macauley prop last year cost me $2000.  That 
didn't include removal, shipping & re-installation, either.  

Funny thing is that the prop was in darn near perfect condition.  The
shop said they rarely saw a prop in such good condition - I think I probably
put less than 400 hrs tach time on the prop since it's last mandatory 
overhaul in '86, and I'm _very_ careful about what I taxi over.

The shop had to change a $500 ferrule.  It wasn't worn out, it's just 
that you can only take them apart & reassemble them 4 times (gotta drill 
a hole each time, four holes is the max).  And, yes, an "inspection" up 
here means complete disassembly, parts replacement, blades repainted, etc. 
Sounds & feels to the pocketbook just like an overhaul.

Our government up here just *loves* spending money.  Growf.
From: hastie@alta.mips.com (Glenn Hastie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Joining West Valley Flying Club?
Date: 13 Apr 1992 19:18:46 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Reply-To: hastie@alta.mips.com (Glenn Hastie)
NNTP-Posting-Host: alta.mips.com

In article <1992Apr13.171406.23056@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes:
|> 
|> 3. Stanford (which only takes Stanford affiliated folk) seems to be the
|> cheapest, at least for the aircraft.  Don't know much about the instructors,
|> either.
|> 

If you are talking about the Stanford Flying Club located at PAO, they take
anyone with money in their pocket.  Also, consider the relatively high annual
fees before deciding that the aircraft rental rates are low.

Before signing with any club, talk with instructors and current students if
possible.  Be proactive, and hang around the office for awhile to see how people
are treated, hang out on the ramp and talk to people flying the aircraft.

Had I to do it over, I would be flying in a different club right now.  But, I do
like my current instructor and will hang in with him and the club until I have
my IR.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn I. Hastie	  (408) 524-7431	MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
MS 6-01					930 DeGuigne Dr.
hastie@mips.com				Sunnyvale, CA  94086
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: spagiola@amy5.stanford.edu (Stefano P. Pagiola)
Subject: Fair fares
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 15:46:31 GMT

Should we interpret the current hulabaloo about the new 'fair fares'  
as an admission that fares have be unfair?

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@leland.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)


-- NewsGrazer, a NeXTstep(tm) news reader, posting --
M>UQR=&8P7&%N<VE[7&9O;G1T8FQ<9C!<9FYI;"!4:6UE<RU2;VUA;CM]"EQM
M87)G;#$R,`I<;6%R9W(Q,C`*>UQC;VQO<G1B;%QR960P7&=R965N,%QB;'5E
M,#M]"EQP87)D7'1X-38P7'1X,3$R,%QT>#$V.#!<='@R,C0P7'1X,C@P,%QT
M>#,S-C!<='@S.3(P7'1X-#0X,%QT>#4P-#!<='@U-C`P7&8P7&(P7&DP7'5L
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:*$YE6%1-86EL(&5N8V]U<F%G960I7`H*?0IE
`
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: leonam@jec326.its.rpi.edu (Marcus B. Leonard)
Subject: Re: Luscombe 8A designator
Summary: check DUATS
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:56:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.141756.19230@midway.uchicago.edu> rick@franck.uchicago.edu (Rick Ernst) writes:
>> Roger Ritter asks about the designator for a Luscombe 8A
>According to Terry Lankford's "Pilot's Guide to Weather Reports, Forecasts,
>and Flight Planning," Luscombes/Silvaires are designated SL8 by ATC.

These designators are also available (indirectly) through DUATS.  From the
main menu, choose "modify default parameters".  Then choose "Acft Type/
special Equip." (8).  At the prompt where it asks you for your designator, 
type "?cessna" or "?piper" or "?luscombe", and it will list all the designators
for that manufacturer's aircraft.  (Note: don't actually enter a new value
here unless you want it to appear as the default aircraft type when you file a
flight plan.)

				Marc Leonard
				leonam@rpi.edu
From: rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: How NOT to get your IFR rating :-)
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:37:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <10917@rls.UUCP> randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) writes:

>What is the net consensus of a consistant mean time between lessons for
>the "average" student?  What was your experience?

My IFR took 6 months--average was a little less than once a week.
I'm sure it would have taken a much shorter time if I'd been able
to go out a little more than twice a week.

If you are really in a hurry, PIC (professional instrument courses, or
something) can get  you through it in only 10 days, but it is full
time and $$$$.

-- 

-Rob Strand

   From Bitnet: rob@ucscvm  From Internet: rob@ucscvm.ucsc.edu
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GPS -- A Potentially Dangerous Technology
Keywords: GPS, Navigation, Defense
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:06:12 GMT
Reply-To: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Organization: SICS, Kista (Stockholm), Sweden
Originator: lhe@yang.sics.se

In article <1992Apr8.153402.23474@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, mikec@tabasco (Mike Ciholas) writes:
>If your country doesn't have VORs, or LORAN, then you will certainly
>look upon GPS as a major advance.  50% of all european airplanes carry
>GPS.  Only 5% of US.

What is your source for the statement "50% of all european airplanes
carry GPS". I don't believe this for a second. I don't even believe
the slightly more plausible statement that 50% of all european
airliners carry GPS. (Btw: We have lots of VOR(TAC)s in Europe.)

>I agree that the system needs to be thoroughly tested.  But, there are
>many checks and balances built into the GPS system that other systems
>don't have.  For example, on final approach, typically you are
>depending on one localizer and one glideslope transmitter.  You can't
>really monitor the signals very well since you can't place a receiver
>in the glide path!

But you do! There are monitors for both localiser and glideslope. You
also have the glide path check altitude when you cross the outer
marker.

(There are also monitors for VORs).
-- 
-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Lighter-than-air craft?
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:39:00 GMT

All right.  Let's talk lighter-than-air.

My wife has just informed me what my anniversary present will be
this year:  a ride in a hot air balloon!  This is still about 6
weeks away, but I'm already eagerly looking forward to it (counting
the days).  She suggested that I take my log book along, something
that had quite honestly not occurred to me right away.  But as long 
as my wife doesn't mind, I'm going to try to get our pilot (assuming he
is appropriately rated) to give me about .1 or .2 of instruction while
we are up there.

Where can I read up on piloting hot air balloons?  They didn't cover
that in Jeppesen!  :-)  If I ask this guy to give me a mini-lesson, I
don't want to seem like a total dunce.

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
From: pilla@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (michael.a.pilla)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Extending US (FAR) related threads towards worldwide discussions
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:45:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <WOLFGANG.92Apr14123828@sam.first.gmd.de> wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de writes:
>Can we find a net.consensus on this issue ?
>I for one could restrict myself to not extending these discussions, if
>rec.aviation.land.usa decides you don't like it.
>What do people think ?

I value the input of the world wide discussions.  It is easy enough to
read the appropriate FARs; especially after someone on the net has
pointed out the appropriate sections.  However, the opinions of others
with indications of the circumstances behind the different regulations
provides me with a better understanding of all regulations, in general.

Besides, I get to travel and try to fly wherever I visit; it is nice to
have been exposed to some of the "subtleties" over a period of time.
Kind of like "osmosis" taking place, I would guess. :-)

Mike Pilla
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Chesapeake Bay Fly-In
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:12:12 GMT
Distribution: rec.aviation
Organization: National Library of Medicine

Call for Participation!
When:  Sunday, May 3, 12 noon to about 3 pm or so
Where: Fly-In to Bay Bridge Airport (W29) on Kent Island,
       Stevensville, Maryland.  Van transportation provided to
       the Masys' Sea Wings estate on the southeast tip of the
       island.
What:  Picnic on the lawn, Build-your-own-sandwich buffet ($5)
       Meet famous net.authors Ron Wanttaja (_Kitplane Construction_)
         and Bill Robie (_Southern Aviator_)
       Swim in the pool if you wish
       Boat rides on the bay, tide permitting
       Paper airplane competition for stupendous prizes (e.g.,
          Air Usenet patches)
       Perhaps a private aerobatic demonstration over the bay

If you think you'll be coming, send email to masys@lhc.nlm.nih.gov with:
Names and net.names of your party, aircraft type & number or other mode
of transportation.

Driving and boating directions, loran coordinates will be emailed to 
those needing them.

Y'all come!

Dan Masys
masys@lhc.nlm.nih.gov
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ray@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov 
Subject: Re: Aviation on a metric basis ?
Originator: hazari@dagger.larc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
            <WOLFGANG.92Apr10115843@sam.first.gmd.de>
            <9210416.5142@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:29:32 GMT

In article <9210416.5142@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> ggr@corowa.acci.com.au (Greg Rose) writes:
>>In article <mferrare.702889446@adelphi> mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Mark Ferraretto) writes:
>>>   An advantage of measuring distances in nautical miles is that it is a 
>>>   'natural' distance.  Ie 1nm = 1 minute of latitude.
>
>Now, how about the movement to use grads for all angles and
>coordinates... any takers? (1 centi-grad = 1 km, think how easy all
>our navigation will become...)
>
>[ :-) just in case it is deemed necessary.]

I thought 1 centi-grad(e) = 33.8 fahrenheit, or, slightly above freezing.

[ :-) same reason]

Ray Balister
From: robg@Apple.COM (Rob Griffiths)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: IFR FAR interpretation question
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:36:10 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <65257@apple.Apple.COM> I wrote: 
>
>While doing the planning, however, I came across a somewhat confusing
>(surprise!) section in the FARs.  Quoting 91.65 (c (4)):
                                           ^^^^^ what???

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

For those of you with sore fingers from flipping through section 91,
please turn now to section 61.  This is, of course, the proper
area to look in for IFR requirements...

Sorry for the error.  Another good case of my fingers working faster
than my brain... (Thanks for the catch, Bill!).

-rob. "Gee, hope there aren't section number questions on the IFR written"
-- 
Rob Griffiths    "The beatings will continue until morale improves..."
robg@apple.com   PP-ASEL, -IA nearing completion ... B52s/REM/Erasure!
From: PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Working on the instrument instrument rating
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:57:25 GMT

Now that the written is out of the way, I'm ready to get started
in earnest on the flight training part of my instrument rating.
I have found an instructor who is building twin-engine time
who will arrange a Twin Comanche for 77/hr wet/dual. That's not
a typo.  I can get my multi/instrument in one swell foop.

Any comments/ideas out there?  I am naturally a little nervous
about moving into a twin, (especially if I like it|), but this
particular instructor has a sterling reputation, and has some
fairly advanced ideas.  i.e., he has a voice-activated tape
recorder and tapes all lessons, so that you can take the
tapes home and review them after each flight, etc.

The way I figure it, $77/hr is about the rate one pays for dual
in a 172 most places.  I haven't agreed completely to the deal,
but I figure having 50 hours of multi time wouldn't hurt later on.
It's certainly a hard deal to pass up.  I'm just looking for opinions
(and I *know* I'll get them here.... :))

Phil Jern (pjern@chgvmic1.vnet.ibm.com) OS/2 Evangelist.
From: jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhard)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:34:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Delayed Reaction
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

> cut it irresponsibly close.  By the rules, they did have the right
> of way, but standing on those rights could have killed us all.

Yes, that is irresponsibly close.  Did he really see you, or was he like
you "down in the cockpit" and not looking outside.  He could have said
that he saw you just to cover his butt.

The other pilot probably filed an ASRS, but who knows what story he told
NASA.  You did not look out the window enough and had a near mid-air.
Describe this situation to NASA and help make the airspace system safer
for us all.

What should you do about this at this time?

Now is the time to learn about the rest of the system.
Please file a NASA ARC Form 277, "Aviation Safety Reporting Program (ASRP).

These forms are available from:

1.  Any FAA facility, including FSSs.

2.  NASA ASRS
    Post Office Box 189
    Moffett Field, California  94035

3.  Request by telephone from AOPA 800 USA-AOPA.

FAA Adviaory Circular 00-46C describes the ASRP.

Sit down with your instructor, or another trusted pilot and fill in the
form and send it in.  You have 10 days and the clock is ticking!

Jer/ Eberhard, FAA Accident Prevention Counselor

Jer/ Eberhard, (SLASH), HAM = N0FZD     | Hewlett-Packard - MS99, 1UP10,15'East
Pilot: COMM, INST, CFI-Airplane & Glider| 3404 East Harmony Road (303) 229-2861
CAP CFI, Check & Mission, Pikes Peak 218| Fort Collins, Colorado  80525-9599 
EMAIL:  jle@fc.hp.com or Jer_Eberhard@fc.hp.com
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Another PP-ASEL license issued...
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:18:02 GMT
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)


Usually I try to conserve network bandwidth, but there are some occasions
where you've just got to tell the world about something you've done, and
this is one of them.

On Saturday afternoon, April 11th, 1992, I became a Private Pilot (ASEL).

If I'd shown any sense at all, I would have put off my checkride. I'd done
all my training in the winter, with below-sea-level density altitudes, and
crystal-clear visibility. Saturday was hazy, with visibilities just above
5nm, and temperatures headed for the 80s. GAI is at 539MSL, and by the time
the checkride was over, the AWOS was reporting a density altitude of 1900MSL.
To top it all off, the Westminster VORTAC went (EMI) down *while* I was trying
to intercept a radial.

I'd like to say that I performed brilliantly, but I really was not having
one of my better days. Having passed anyway, I'll pass on this piece of
advice to all the students who may wondering what to do when everything
seems to be going wrong on your checkride:

	First and foremost, FLY THE AIRPLANE. Everything else
	is secondary to safe, controlled, flight.

Despite everything I did wrong or imprecisely, no matter how many times
I got kinda lost in the haze, there was never any doubt that I was in
control of the airplane. Even when I over-leaned the engine in cruise
and it started to stumble, I beat the DE to the mixture control.

My DE has a quotation on his office wall. I read it before I took off, but
it didn't mean as much to me as it did after I landed. I can't quote it
from memory, but in essence it says, "Every checkride should be looked upon,
not has a barrier to be overcome, but as a learning experience."


For the record:

	Total Logged:	59.4		First dual flight: Nov 23rd, 1991
	Total Dual:	36.9		First solo flight: Jan 12th, 1992
	Total Solo:	22.5		Checkride passed:  Apr 11th, 1992
	Dual X-C:	 4.9		
	Solo X-C:	10.6
	Dual Inst:	 3.2		Aircraft: PA28-151 Warrior N7022C
	Dual Night:	 4.0			  "Toot-Toot-Charlie"
	Night TO&L:	  14


I'm looking forward to meeting some of the netters at Richmond on
the 26th! Look for a Piper Archer with tail number N6151H.

--
Reece R. Pollack
Private Pilot -- Octopus Flying Club
Wishing I already had my instrument rating...
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Numbers vs. Seat Pants (was Re: 172 checkout)
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:42:41 GMT

Well, I'm going to take a moment here to pholosophize about this whole
soth (seat of the pants) discussion vs. numbers vs. checklists.  Here's 
what the whole issue boils down to in my mind.  First of all, in order to
be a safe pilot you should have a resonable faculty for rational thinking
(not as obvious as it might seem).  Secondly, I personally believe that I
understand how my own mind works better than people who don't know me.
I know what works for me.  Now, for me personally, it helps me a lot to
work from a check list from the point of starting the engine until 
takeoff.  It helps me avoid stupid little things like setting my attitude
indicator, or turning on my tail beacon. On the other hand, I prefer to
pre-flight without a checklist because I like to be more thorough in looking
the plane over and the checklist gets in the way of doing what is most
effective for me. It might not be the same for others. Once I'm in the
air, I do know the numbers that make for a smooth, safe, efficient flight.
But, the bottom line is to do what makes sense and I don't like fumbling
through a lot of checklists while I'm flying the plane, reading a map,
setting frequencies, etc.  It gets in my way.  I feel very comfortable
going through my pre-landing and after-landing checklists mentally.  Again,
this might not be true for everybody. The bottom line (I'm a bottom line
kinda guy I guess) is that nobody can tell another person every detail of
what will make them the safest pilot. Hopefully a pilot is intelligent and
self-reflective enough to understand his/her own limitations, abilities,
and thinking process. There are no magic formulas, only suggestions of
possible ways to deal with things.  Each person has to decide which
suggestions to adopt and which to reject.



-- 

	Jim Burke				
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Air race (was: AIR USENET Patches
Date: 12 Apr 1992 16:38:03 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Apr12.064245.13539@bang.uucp> bam@bang.uucp (Bret A. Marquis) writes:
>An owner built and flown Venture won this years SunNFun, Sun 100 race.  
>Won with an average speed from brake release at 301.43 mph.

Wow.

BMW 325i owners just _think_ they have a pocket rocket...
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
         "Grow up children. Purchase lives." -- Geoff Collyer
From: PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Wringing out the Written
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:41:30 GMT

I took my instrument written today.

Went pretty well, I was out of there in an hour, feeling pretty good
about it.  We'll see about that in about 3 weeks :)
I had been studying at home a little, but not feeling like I was making
much progress, so I enrolled for the weekend cram-course at the local
pilot factory (ACA at Flying W airport).

I suppose most of those courses are similar, in that you actually
sit down and take some version of the test about 5 times over the
weekend, which really just leads to learning how to take the test.
Now, don't flame me over this, I knew what it was, and wanted the
practice anyway before going for the real thing.  I think it really
worked well for me: your mileage and test scores may vary.

Last night I sat down with the lists of questions I missed and my
FAR/AIM, Jepp, Kershner, and a few Diet Cokes and began going through
the questions I had missed on the practice tests.  (I had taken 5
practice tests, and missed 54 out of 300 questions).

I went back to each question I missed, looked up the correct answer,
and reasoned out why I had answered it incorrectly the first time.
A surprising number of questions were missed for mundane reasons:
choosing minima for the wrong category aircraft, not using _all_
of the information available (there's a particularly nasty example of
this regarding minimums at Stapleton in the test guide), and in a couple
of cases, apparently answering the wrong question in the right space.

I'm fairly certain of passing, but don't want to pressure myself with
a public prediction of my score. (or embarrass myself, if it comes
to that|)   I'll post when I get the results back.

Phil Jern
Getting ever closer to the instrument rating - only 21 years since
PP-ASEL.
From: halk@outermarker.Eng.Sun.COM (Hal Kempthorne)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Near mid-airs - was: Delayed Reaction
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:03:00 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: outermarker

In article <1992Apr9.053926.21632@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes:
>
>Either the other party sees you and can react to your changes, or they
>don't see you and you're the only one who can take action to avoid a
>collision. If they don't take any action, you MUST assume that they don't
>see you.
>
>However, that can be hard to apply in practice.

No kidding!  I just can't think fast enough to consider alternatives
when I see another aircraft 600 feet away opposite direction.  The 
only thing I've ever been taught is "DIVE".  In the two cases in the
last two years there has been another aircraft close to me they were
coming up from below!  Fortunately, my reactions weren't quick enough
for me to dive.  Maybe I subconciously knew they were going to pass
below and behind me.

The probability of a mid-air is very, very low except maybe here in the
Bay Area, especially east of PAO.  Maybe this is something worth giving 
some training about and simulating!!


--
Hal Kempthorne
Debonair N6134V
Newsgroups: rec.aviation