HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)
Subject: Re: War story and story request
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:09:40 GMT

tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester) writes:

>In article <1992Jul24.202006.21675@Cadence.COM> maples@Cadence.COM
> (Ken Maples) writes:
>>Rod has a great question and I'd like to see as many personal stories as
>>possible:  How many of us have had significant mechanical problems in the
>>air and how many hours in the air did it take for you to have that problem.

Here goes --

110 hours -- Electrical system failed in Cessna 172 at night during
practice instrument approaches at Purdue University (LAF) -- cause --
voltage regulator

200 hours -- Cessna 172 -- Vacuum pump failed on night VFR from Muncie
Indiana (MIE) to Dayton General (MGY)

250 hours -- Left engine in a Aztec packed it in -- fuel pump went nuts and
starting pumping 60 GPH (for you jet types -- that's 360 PPH) through the
engine.  Reducing to idle cutoff did not help.  Had to shut off the engine
with the mags rather than reducing to idle cut-off.

290 hours -- Cessna 182RG -- Artifical horizion failed on VFR flight from
Champaign Urbana (CMI) to Dayton General (MGY).  The AH was flopping around
like a dead fish

--
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
Steve.Bridges@DaytonOH.NCR.COM   | Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM    | AOPA #916233
Reserve sci.military moderator   | PP-ASEL, AMEL (I want a P-38 type rating)
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Friday, 24 Jul 1992 01:59:10 CET
From: <KCHAN@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: updated navigation data available

Can someone please post the IP address for seas.smu.edu? Our machine
can only handle the numeric addresses!
Thanks


-----
Khee Chan
PROFS: esoc(kchan)   BITNET/EARN: kchan@esoc   SPAN: jplsp::kchan
INTERNET: kchan@jplsp.jpl.nasa.gov             COMPUSERVE: 73750,1402
-----
From: schinner@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Bogus Landing Fees
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:11:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA, USA

The other day, I got a letter - a bill, actually - notifying me of my
$12 landing fee at Westchester County Airport in White Plains, New York.

Hmmmmmm, I have never been to New York - well, not since 1975 - and when
I was there, I certainly didn't have Buster with me since I was only 10
years old.  So, I wrote back and told them that 350X was indeed securely
tied down in Vancouver, WA on 6-15-92.

We'll see how this turns out.  Anyone else have this happen to them.

---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schinnerer  -  PP-ASEL-IA       |  Hewlett Packard
Mooney - 350X  -  "Buster"          |  Vancouver, WA
email - schinner@vcd.hp.com         |  (206) 944-3324
---------------------------------------------------------
From: thisted@galton.uchicago.edu (Ronald A. Thisted)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Protecting your logbook
Summary: Electronic logs
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:37:44 GMT
Organization: Dept of Statistics, Univ of Chicago

In article <122140212@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> myshatyn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM
(Mike Myshatyn) writes:

>In addition to [keeping a xerox of his logbook in a safety deposit
>box], I ... keep an electronic copy of my logbook.  The electronic
>version won't do me any good legally (w.r.t.  the FAA) but I use it
>[for other purposes].

IMHO, there is no reason why a electronic logbook couldn't satisfy the
FAA, as all that is required by FAR 61.51(a) is that training and
flight experience "be shown by a reliable record".  There are two
potential obstacles.

First, the fact that it is easy to edit a computer file without
leaving a trace might create doubt as to the "reliability" of the
record, but if sufficient information is included so that cross-checks
could (in principle) be made [say with FBO or fuel purchase records,
or correlating Hobbs readings to claimed flight experience], the
credibility of the computerized record is enhanced.  What form might
editing take?  Creating false entries claiming nonexistent experience
is no easier on a computerize record; deleting entries without leaving
a trail is certainly easier, but the FARs do not require that *all*
relevant experience be logged, just any that is used to meet the
requirements for a certificate or rating.

Second, the logbook is the place where endorsements are recorded
(BFRs, complex checkouts, taildragger endorsement, etc).  Until we
have a standard for digital signatures, this may pose a problem for
the electronic logbook.  (Of course, for some operations such as
certain solo flights by recreational pilots, he or she must carry his
or her logbook on such flights, but I am assuming that the electronic
logbook is on a portable computer, so that's not a problem).

Actually, the endorsement problem probably isn't a problem at all.
Part 61.51 repeatedly refers to a "logbook (or other record required
by this section)", which suggests that a written record for
endorsements coupled with an electronic record of flight experience
would satisfy both the letter and the spirit of the logging
requirements.

Ron Thisted
Department of Statistics/The University of Chicago
thisted@galton.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.aeronautics,comp.human-factors
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Subject: Re: Coffe cups in the cockpit (Re: A320 yarns)
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 21:13:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.133757.17508@bony1.bony.com>, richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) writes:
> In article <1992Jul14.231110.14387@col.hp.com> davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen) writes:
> >rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
> >> There are at least five major ways to disengage FMS's or autopilots--2 pickle
> >> switches, control column force, glareshield off-switch, circuit breaker,
> >> and internal self-diagnostic disengage. ...
> 
> Why are there *five* ways to disingage the autopilot? There should be
> only one switch, with a circuit breaker for backup. 

	I won't try to answer precisely that question because I'm not
	sufficiently familiar with the cockpits and procedures involved,
	and I also wonder if some of the redundant switches are appropriate.
	However, this is in some ways similar to the cruise control
	on my car, which can be disengaged in 7 ways that I'm aware of:

	    (1) "coast" switch on steering wheel [temporary disengage]
	    (2) "off" switch on steering wheel
	    (3) clutch pedal
	    (4) brake pedal
	    (5) high deceleration force
	    (6) speed drops below 10 mph less than current setting
	    (7) speed drops below 25 mph

	It may also have a self-diagnostic disengage in addition to those
	speed criteria.  Another guess that I'd have to check on is
	that it might disengage if speed exceeds 10 mph above the current
	setting.  In the cruise control case there's a good reason for
	most of these shutoff methods, though there's room to debate how
	useful the "coast" and "off" switches are.

	The essence is that there are often good safety-driven reasons
	for multiple controls to produce the same effect -- disengaging
	an automatic control and returning full control to the human
	operator.  Some of the problems reported with modern avionics
	involve difficulty in disengaging FMS's or autopilots, or denying
	pilots authority to assume full control through FBW systems.

	I agree with those who are concerned about automation preempting
	human judgement and control.  In the case of the A320, it appears
	likely to be a contributing factor in at least one and possibly
	up to three crashes.  It may be hard to prove whether the greater
	fault rests with the avionics, the crew, or the interface between
	the two.  IMHO though some elements of the human factors design
	in that interface are more appropriate for the avionics than
	for the humans, and that produces some definite problems.


	BTW, this followup is cross-posted to comp.human-factors as well as
	sci.aeronautics and rec.aviation; if you follow up, please edit
	the Newsgroups: line appropriately.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak)
Subject: Re: Coffee cups in the cockpit (Re: A320 yarns)
Organization: multi-cellular
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 12:43:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.154142.17373@sctc.com> beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede) writes:
>bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

[...]
>
>I think it unlikely properly-trained pilots would get in a tug-of-war
>with the computer, since that would be stupid.  I find it more likely
>they could get in trouble because their mental model of the aircraft
>was not the same as reality (i.e., they think throttles are off,
>really they're at 110%, or some such).

[...]

This is *precisely* the problem. 

There was a China Airlines 747 which did a roll followed by a 20,000
foot dive for that reason. When the airplane was crusing at 30,000
feet one of its outboard engines flame-out. The autopilot applied
whatever controls were needed to handle the resulting yaw. To restart
the engine, the 747 had to descent to a lower altitude.

When the captain took over from the autopilot he didn't expect the
control forces to be what they were and the airplane got away from
him. 

...richie



-- 
* Richie Bielak   (212)-815-3072   | "Your brain is a liquid-cooled parallel  *
* Internet:       richieb@bony.com | super-computer". He pointed to his nose, *
* Bang {uupsi,uunet}!bony1!richieb | "This is the fan."                       *
*    - Strictly my opinions -      |                     - David Chudnovsky - *
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:26:23 GMT
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ

In article <1992Jul29.060349.1201@quick.com> srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett) writes:
> > >I cannot recall seeing a single documented account of a commercial jet
> > >aircraft in which two engines failed.
> > 
> > I believe it was Southern Airways that lost both engines in a DC-9 flying through a thunderstorm. They put it down on a highway with some survivors.

If it had three engines, I'm sure all three would have failed too.
Thus I don't count this as a case.

The point is that it is *extremely* rare for "exactly two" engines to
fail -- much rarer than for "all" engines to fail.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
From: jimm@simsol.UUCP (Jim Morris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: employer reimbursement of flying expenses
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:50:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: simsol.164
Organization: Systems Simulation Solutions, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Jul22.004911.188152@cs.cmu.edu>, dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
> 
> > The bottom line is this: It is none of the IRS's business if you want
> > to spend $5,000 flying your own plane on business to a destination that
> > you could travel for $500 commercially.  You can deduct the entire 
> > $5,000 if the trip is legitimate business.
> 
> That may be your personal opinion, but it ain't the law.  Do you really
> believe that ANY expense at all is deductible as long as it has some
> relation to a business activity?  That's absurd.  Suppose I have to visit a
> client in LA.  Rather than paying $800 to fly USAir, I decide to rent a 100
> foot yacht in Baltimore and sail it through the Panama canal.  This costs me
> $80,000.  The sole reason for my trip to LA is to see this client; I have no
> personal business there.  Does that mean I can deduct the full $80,000 as a
> business travel expense?  Just try it and see, bucko!
> 
So, I suppose you would say that if in my business I purchase a $25,000
copy machine when a $5,000 copy machine would have done just fine that
the IRS is going to question my fully depreciating the $25,000 copy
machine. No way, Jose! I repeat, the IRS is not in the business of
questioning your judgment on whether you overspend on legitimate
business expenses.  They may question the business legitimacy of the
expense, but not the amount.

Several years ago, there was no limit on the value one could write off
for a company car (Today, there is a limit of about $16,000).  At that
time I purchased a $65,000 Porsche as my company car for my consulting
business.  I used the car about 60% for business and 40% for personal
use. I kept a comprehensive log of my use of the car for business
purposes. I WAS audited by the IRS (for general reasons, not just
because of the car) and was allowed to depreciate 60% of the full
depreciable value (20% of %65,000) in that year. All my prior year
deductions on the car were not questioned. The auditing agent did not
even ask me why I needed an expensive sports car for my company car. He
knew it was none of his business.  I was even allowed to write off 60% of
$1,400 I paid for a new set of tires in that year.

I will overlook your calling me "bucko" if you will overlook me calling
you "Jose".
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kleing@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Klein Gilhousen)
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:09:54 GMT

Klein Gilhousen, Golden Eagle N421KG
Qualcomm, Inc.
From: bspain@riker (Bradley K Spain)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: EM2
Keywords: Air Aruba, EM2
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:04:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California Polytechnic State University

In article <1992Jul30.211010.15379@pbhyb.PacBell.COM> ajcueva@pbhyb.PacBell.COM (Al Cuevas) writes:
>....   What is an EM2?
>Thanks,
>
>Al Cuevas
>Pacific Bell
>510-823-1498

Al,
	I believe that an EM2 is a Brazilian 19 seater popular with the 
commuters.


********************************************************
Brad Spain     WarHawk 26                 

Fixed wing pilots merely fly but,  
Helicopter drivers beat the air into submission

bspain@riker.acs.calpoly.edu    bspain@hypnos.calpoly.edu                  
********************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: aero@europa.ecn.uoknor.edu (Aero Student Account)
Subject: Re: Gee Bee R2 was Re: Airshow Report
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:11:34 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>OK, so how does the average airplane, not designed for the ragged edge as the
>Gee Bee was, avoid an aileron-induced stall of the wing with the aileron down
>at high angles of attack? The description would seem to apply to any aircraft
>at high alpha.

There are a couple of reasons why this does not happen on most aircraft.
First of all, wings generally do not stall all at once.  Even a straight wing
with no twist will stall at the root first because the root is at a higher
effective angle of attack.

Here's a fairly straightforward, qualitative way
to understand this: 

As you know, a wing produces lift because of a pressure differential between
the upper and lower surfaces.  Now, at the wing tip this differential is zero
since the air is free to move around the tip to equalize the pressure.  As we
move inboard, the differential increases.  Therefore, more lift is produced.
For a given wing, lift is proportional to the effective angle of attack.
Therefore, the effective angle of attack must be greatest at the middle.

So, even a straight wing stalls at the root first.  However, if the wing
is tapered, it may stall somewhere else first.  It is particularly undesirable
if the wing stalls at the tip first, since the pilot will then lose roll
control during a stall.  For this reason, the wings of most general aviation
aircraft have washout, or twist, so that the tip is always at a smaller angle
of attack than the root.  This also causes the root to stall first.
If the designer of the general aviation aircraft does his job right, the 
root will always stall before the tip, even with maximum aileron deflection.

The R-2's wing is pretty much elliptical in shape.  This shape is the
optimum for an untwisted wing and will stall first at the root in level
flight.  However, it would be susceptible to stalling at the tip if an
aileron is deflected at high angle of attack.  I assume that, since the
wing was optimized so highly, and the plane was intended only to go fast,
washout was not included because it does result in a small drag penalty.
This penalty is minimal compared to the safety margin gained for general
aviation aircraft, but might not be for racing.

Most of the stuff taught in ground school about lift, drag, etc. (at least
at mine) deals with the aerodynamics of wing sections, or airfoils.  If
you want to learn the basics of how air flows over three dimensional wings,
a good place to start would be to study Prandtl's lifting line theory.  Any
undergraduate aerodynamics textbook will have a chapter on it.

--------
Jonathan A. Bishop
aero@neptune.ecn.uoknor.edu

"Yippee!  That may have been a small one for Neil,
 but it was a big one for me."
                            --Pete Conrad
From: jimm@simsol.UUCP (Jim Morris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: "remain clear of the ARSA..."
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:16:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: simsol.167
Organization: Systems Simulation Solutions, Beaverton, OR

In article <7480331@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com>, glenb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Glen Baker) writes:
>  Well I think they're just peachy too. However I have been denied access
>  many many times. Now, maybe there was so much traffic that they were
>  actually doing me a favor by keeping me out of congested airspace. 

Is it always just the Monterey ARSA or others. I have to admit that the
only ARSA I ever transition VFR is the Portland ARSA, although I have
done it many times and never been denied access. I also have flown
around it on numerous occasions when it was easy to do so.

I would think that if I was denied access to an ARSA and could not go
around it or through it because of weather, that I would get pretty
damned testy right then and there, being careful to explain that I
could not continue my flight without going through the ARSA. Being
insistent with a good reason should do the trick. If I didn't have a
good reason, I would probably just go over it or around it. I would
be pissed, but I would understand that it is just the way things are
today (see related posting from me on this same day).
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gratclif@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gregory W Ratcliff)
Subject: Re: In-flight radar from ground stations?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:08:55 GMT

Seems like I could scare together the stuff to do this now.  
As I remember there is a site on the internet with wx images
and with my 9600 baud 440mhz tcp/ip connection via ham radio...
to a laptop with vga...... serial port to the loran to determine
position... yea, sure no problem.

Does anyone know where realtime wx is on the net?

Happy Flying,

greg

-- 
Gregory W. Ratcliff  
gratcliff@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu  on the net
nz8r@w8cqk 	 on the air
N1697X     	 in the air
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Subject: Re: War story and story request
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:52:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.202006.21675@Cadence.COM> maples@Cadence.COM
 (Ken Maples) writes:
>Rod has a great question and I'd like to see as many personal stories as
>possible:  How many of us have had significant mechanical problems in the
>air and how many hours in the air did it take for you to have that problem.
>
	20 hrs.   dual instruction  engine backfired and loosened the prop
	on an Aeronca champ.  vibration was terrible.  reduced power and 
	nursed it back to the field.

	175 hr.s partial failure on takeoff.  Cherokee 140 (PA28) 
	Muffler baffle broke loose and blocked exhaust.  I barely cleared the
	trees at end of runway, nursed some altitude to get back to field.
	4 on board.
	(times approximate)


-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jgodsil@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Joseph Godsil)
Subject: Re: Dogs in Planes
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:32:27 GMT

In article <152oqeINNas@agate.berkeley.edu> morishig@sizzlean.berkeley.edu (Nina Morishige) writes:
>                                . . . Has anyone got any experience 
>flying with their dogs, or is it probably a bad idea?

 My brother has an Irish Terrier that he routinely brings down with
 him from Anoka County, MN.  He just sits in the back seat and sleeps
 away the flight [the dog that is :-)].

 -Joe 
-- 
  Joseph M. Godsil  (jgodsil@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
  National Center for Supercomputing Applications
  Networking Development
  #include <std.disclaimer>
From: ericth@i88.isc.com (Eric Thiele)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Little Iron
Keywords: corporate flying
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:15:11 GMT
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL

A friend-of-a-friend is a corporate pilot.  For a *large* petroleum company.

He's been flying Lears for at least 5 years, and he is looking to get out of
the job...  The key seems to be that he recently got that other license, 
SEL-PP (Single Enjoyable Life - Permanently Paralyzed) - yes, he got married.

The job is essentially identical to a personal chaffeur.  Your personal life
exists only in the gaps between sudden, unplanned, long duration trips.  You
sit there in Podunk, twiddling your thumbs waiting for the bigwigs to return.
You are bored to tears, sitting someplace you may never have heard of, and you
don't want to be there.  This CAN be OK - when he's known that the bigwigs'll
be occupied for several days, he's taken the plane for joyrides: e.g., from
Denver to Chicago to pick up a buddy, then off to New York for the night,
picking up women who can't say no to a ride in a Learjet, then back to Denver
before the bigwigs need him.  No, I don't know how he gets away with it.  But
apparently there're ways...  As I say, now that he's married, this end of the
job isn't available to him ethically, so there's nothing more to the job that
he likes.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.aeronautics
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: What's in earth-inductor
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:54:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

LC> .From the way Lindbergh talks about using it, it seems to have a needle lik
  > .VOR CDI that indicates whether one is left or right of a specified course.

I believe that an 'earth inductor compass' is what's now called a
flux-gate compass, but with a meter readout rather than a tracking
needle.  (Some differences in implementation, but the theory's the
same...)  The meter was nulled with a knob when you were on course, and
thereafter you centered the needle.

Similar to the setup used for a slaved gyrocompass.

        Best,
         D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                
Newsgroups: rec.aviation