HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pfluegerm@gtephx.UUCP (Mike Pflueger)
Subject: Leap year (was Re: 5 in a 4 seater (was: Small crash)
Organization: AG Communication Systems - Phoenix, AZ
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:24:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.185629.14514@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>, mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe) writes:
> >> ...  There is an excpetion, tho:  individuals who "have not
> >> reached their second birthday" may ride in an adult's lap.
> 
> > So what happens if the child is seven years old but was born on February
> > 29th? :-) :-) (Sorry about that, but I saw a production of Pirates of
> > Penzance last night and this one was just too good to pass up.)
> 
> [...some stuff deleted...]
>                                         Personally, I would argue that
> you should remove your smileys.  If your birthday is Feb. 29th then you
> will reach a birthday only once every four years and will be eight years
> old before you reach your second birthday.

I passed my private checkride Feb 29.  I asked the DE if that meant I
only needed a BFR every 8 years - said it sounded good to him.

:-)
-- 
Mike Pflueger, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ      PP-ASEL
    UUCP: ...!{ncar!noao!enuucp | att}!gtephx!pfluegerm
INTERNET: gtephx!pfluegerm@enuucp.eas.asu.edu
  Packet: WD8KPZ @ KB7TV.AZ.USA.NA    Work: 602-582-7049    FAX: 602-582-7624
From: bunda@cs.utexas.edu (John Bunda)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Propping big engines
Date: 1 Sep 1992 10:00:17 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: peaches.cs.utexas.edu

In article <17v8qoINNibk@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000) writes:
>Getting home, I asked the founder of the club about it, and he
>opined that he would have propped it.
>Hmm, now I weigh 165 and he weighs about 180--not much difference.
>The engine is a Conti IO520 on a 210 (with a 3 bladed prop, no less).

I weigh 135, so much for body weight as a factor.  I don't doubt that
I *could* hand-prop a 210, and I certainly would try it in a pinch.
More times than I care to remember, I have hand-propped Cessna 182s
(Cont O-470).  It is not difficult, but forget all those tips you read
about keeping your hands flat on the prop blade, it just can't be done
that way, this ain't no C-65.  If it doesn't start at least kicking on 
the first, oh, ten pulls, or so, you're talking about quite a workout.
I won't explain technique here, it's best to learn by doing with someone 
who knows how.  I would not attempt this without someone who knows
what they are doing at the controls, though.  

Of course it's more dangerous than jump-starting, but jeeze,
they did it for years on big round engines a lot more intimidating
than these wimpy pancake motors we use now (not that these wimpy
pancake motors can't chop you to bits in a hurry).  At the same
time, I think too many pilots have an inordinate fear of this
procedure that was once common even on huge engines.

If your club president is truly experienced at this, I say take 
him up on his offer of a demonstration, try it a few times and get the
hang of it.

-John








-- 
John Bunda * bunda@cs.utexas.edu * {uunet,harvard}!cs.utexas.edu!bunda
From: willcr@bud.sos.ivy.isc.com (Will Crowder)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Logging time for the Inst
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:04:45 GMT
Reply-To: willcr@ivy.isc.com
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp.

In article <1992Sep1.203058.15913@eco.twg.com>, reece@eco.twg.com
(Reece R. Pollack) writes:

|> I have to agree with Dick on the importance of proper and complete IFR
|> training. When I read about people getting their -IA rating with little
|> or no actual IMC experience, I cringe. Most people (myself included)
|> transition to simulated instrument by turning control over to the
|> instructor or safety pilot, and only taking control back when they're
|> comfortably oriented. This just isn't the way it happens in actual IMC.

The only reason I hand the controls over to my instructor (or now,
safety pilot) is to get the hood on properly and comfortably, which
also isn't necessary in "actual".  My instructor also would not let me
just sit there and get oriented.  As soon as the hood was on, he said
"Your airplane!"  He'd usually have us 50' or so off altitude and 10
degrees off heading just to give me something to do right away.  Once,
after getting the hood on and seeing how far off the clearance (not
busting it, just close) he had flown us, I said, "You put that airplane
back where you found it!"  :)

We also did some "zero-zero" takeoffs which were quite educational.
[What did I learn?  Don't do them!  :)]

I agree, however, with all of the points in this thread about the
importance of proper and complete IFR training.  I also think that
having some "actual" in the logbook before the rating is a good thing,
although that's not always possible.  I've even heard of instructors
(CFII's even) with *no* actual IFR time!  That seems pretty absurd.

|> "My eyes search the sky, desperately for rain..."

I'll second that emotion!

Will
PP-ASEL-IA
-- 
Will Crowder                        | "Any airplane you can't roll ain't
Senior Member of Technical Staff    |    no damn good!"
(willcr@ivy.isc.com)                |       -- Tex Johnston
INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.           |
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: singh@leland.Stanford.EDU (Harinder Singh)
Subject: Q.) A fatal crash in Concord, CA??
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 19:39:03 GMT



	Anyone know details of a fatal GA crash in Concord, CA in the last few
days?? 

	Thx,

		Inder
From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: crossing a runway, and instructor relations
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:21:47 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

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.  
>
>[A new] instructor got all hot and bothered about my obvious
>intent to motor on across after just looking, and he made me stop.
>"When you're in this airplane, you will *always* stop and ask for
>permission to cross a runway!"

	Your instructor is wrong.  A clearance to taxi TO a runway
	is also permission to cross ALL intervening runways.  BUT,
	it is NOT permission to cross the runway you're taxiing to
	(for example, the taxiway crosses the active and continues
	on the other side).  There was a lengthy discussion on this
	in the most recent Callback (the NASA ASRS publication).

-- 
Larry Miller		The Aerospace Corporation
lmiller@aero.org	PO Box 92957		
310-336-5597		LA, CA 90009-2957
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw)
Subject: Re: Principle of ILS/LOC (was Re: Principle of VOR)
Organization: Motorola
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:05:46 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation

In article <EGDORF.92Aug31154900@zaphod.lanl.gov>, egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov
(Skip Egdorf) wrote:
> 
> In article <greg.714949186@saltydog> greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
>    In <EGDORF.92Aug27135630@zaphod.lanl.gov> egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf) writes:
>    >An instructor stated in a conversation last night "ILS channels
>    >are always on odd tenths (108.1, 108.3, ...) while VORs are on
>    >even (108.2, 108.4) so that the unit can channel a different receiver
>    >for the ILS and the VOR."
> 
The AIM is clear on the question.  It states that 40 channels from 108.10
to 111.95 are reserved for localizer frequencies. The associated glide
slope channel chart, in the AIM, shows only odd hundreds, 50 KHz channel
spacing used (108.10, 108.15, etc).  All others up to 117.95 MHz are
available for VORs.

So, if one says all the localizer frequencies are on odd (hundred KHz)
channel, that's right.  But, there are further limitations.  If one says
all the VOR channels are on even frequncies, that's NOT right.

The nav receiver has logic tied into the frequency selector in order to
switch in the appropriate technology in order to decode the VOR or
Localizer properly.  This is why the FAA will not slip in a localizer on an
inappropriate frequency...your receiver will not recognize it. If you
listen quietly, before engine start, you might hear a relay click when
changing between these frequencies in the older radios (Mark 12).  Actually
I think the relay is in the VOA-5 or 9 in order to switch out the OBS when
on a localizer frequency.

I like to bring this point out to my instrument students.  Most pilots know
the navigation break at 118 MHz (108.00 to 117.95 are nav frequencies, with
108 reserved for VOT).  Knowing the 112 MHz break and the "odd" rule, helps
prevent picking up a VOR frequency for a localaizer frequency when
referencing an IAP. Sure, there are more clues, but the more knowledgable a
pilot, the less of a chance for mistakes.


Bob Furtaw - W8IL
All disclaimers ever written by anybody apply. :-)
From: hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (ed Hutton ext. 6488)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Keywords: ponds, plumes, piles, and stains
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:43:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncrcae.1992Aug26.174316.3703
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.

In article <!fbnqxq@dixie.com> guess_who@dixie.com (That Econazi Guy) writes:
>
>Tut, tut, Ed.   You can do better than that.
>
>John

	You are correct. Have a nice day.
Ed

-- 
edward.hutton@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ed Hutton)    
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: The Proper Scope of rec.aviation articles
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 04:25:09 GMT

In article <5901@transfer.stratus.com> spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
>
>In my opinion, at least until the group is reorganized, anything having to 
>do with aviation in any way, should be welcome here without people saying
>the discussion should be taken elsewhere.  You might not want to see 
>environmental posts (to take one example) here, but I do and so do thousands
>of other netters.  As has been suggested so many times, learn to use a kill 
>file so you don't have to waste your time with subjects (or authors) you 
>don't want to read.  Believe me, there are subjects that have come up here 
>that I'd *love* to kick out of this group, but as long as some people are 
>interested in the subject I don't feel it's my right to do so.  

You miss the point entirely. The objection is not about material that one
is *disinterested* in. On the contrary, it is about mixing propaganda into
the description of flying activities in a way that any further discussion
of the propaganda would become irrelevant to the group. You see to balance
one point of view, people with other points of view would need to provide
a flying story of their own to present it. Perhaps, in this case it is easy
to swallow being such a politically correct position. But, if you can
imagine the propaganda to be from a camp that you do not agree with....
Would you be comfortable with a fundamentalist that *posted the details of
his cause* because he/she happened to be flying to promote religion? How about
pro-choice activists? Anti-abortion activists?

If you are suggesting that it is fine to debate the propaganda as a
followup to such posts, then your position is agreeable although impractical.

Not all of Margaret's posts are propaganda. The fact that she is doing 
something with her plane is wonderful. Descriptions of the types of flight,
conditions of flight, etc., are all relevant and often interesting to
read. However, at times she tends to push the motivations, results and 
judgments regarding the cause that she believes in in an implicit way
that would seem natural to the people that buy into it completely (even 
if from a rather superficial point of view) but seem unfair to those that
see the description as a rather narrow view that is of disservice to a
group that is not represented here.

All that one could ask when someone posts a story about flying for a 
cause, especially one that is controversial, is that they push the flying 
and not the cause. This is quite different from asking someone not to
post if it is related to a cause.

venky
From: andrea@diasonx.UUCP (Andrea Larsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Gear down
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:28:27 GMT
Reply-To: andrea@diasonx.UUCP (Andrea Larsen)
Organization: Diasonics Inc. -- Milpitas, California


This is just a test. Sorry guys.
From: ingham@vesta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Cost of capital (was: Flying saves money (sic))
Keywords: money
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:28:29 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug27.235822.852@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> mark@.cv.hp.com writes:
>but a more significant oversight in the above analysis in the opportunity
>costs (or financing costs) associated with the two investments.  Assuming
>a 10% return (high today but not over the long haul), tying up $25K in a
>car will cost you about $2,500/yr in lost return on capital; whereas tying
>up $40K in a plane will cost about $4,000/yr.  Thats another $1500/yr for
>the plane (or $0.10/mile).  The difference is worse (for flying) if you
>assume the vehicles are financed rather than owned since not only are the
>rates likely to be higher, but financing on a new car can generally be
>gotten at a lower rate than for a plane (new or used).

I have to respectfully disagree with Mark here.

First, 46L has been going *UP* in value, even as I fly it.
Specifically, in the 2.5 years I have owned 46L, the book value has
risen ~20%.  Probably not what one could get with carefully invested
money, but better than the average savings account.

I am not alone in this area.  Having spoken to several owners, their
planes are also rising in value.  Probably not enough to cover
financing, but enough to make a big difference in the cost of capital.
After all, in 5 years, my airplane will be worth more than I paid for
it.  Cars tend not to appreciate.

As for the financing, I owned my truck (86 Jeep Comanche) free and
clear.  I took a loan out on it (and my wife's car) to pay for 46L, so
I got the same rates that someone purchasing a (used) vehicle would.
It also means that if I forget to make payments, I bicycle to the
airport (hmmm, have to choose a closer airport :-).

-- 
Kenneth Ingham WD5BBT
ingham@i-pi.com or ingham@ariel.unm.edu (NeXTMail OK)
Hummin' little Grumman N9646L
From: facemire@Software.ORG (Jeffrey Facemire)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Oops, the throttle came off!
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:07:24 GMT
Reply-To: facemire@Software.ORG
Organization: Software Productivity Consortium, Herndon, Virginia

Yes, I've heard of this and it also was right after an annual.  Ironically,
though, it was also a Grumman Tiger (which was being flown by my instructor
at the time who was also the owner of the Tiger).

He chose the Geoff Peck #3 method of slowly retarding the mixture control
to reduce power and then when the runway was guaranteed, closing the mixture
all of the way.  The landing was uneventful (read: a success).  The culprit
in this situation was (as I remember) a worn bracket in which the end of the
throttle cable fit into.  Now, why this wasn't caught in the Annual, I'll never
know.

Jeff Facemire
facemire@software.org
From: mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: more about instrument time
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:21:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvusn.1992Aug26.012131.29572
Reply-To: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Distribution: rec
Organization: UDT-CV (ITO)

In article <1992Aug25.192320.16682@bradley.bradley.edu>, maverick@buhub.bradley.edu (Darin Petersen) writes:
  ...
> 1)  should I get as much simulator time as possible?
>     and do I pay for an instructor while on the simulator?

No and Yes

> 2)  Is logging some hood time with a flying friend a good idea 
>     to save on the expensive dual time.  

It can be.  If you at a point where what you need is instruction then
logging hours with a buddy isn't going to help much.  However, it is
likely that there will come times when what you need is practice.
Generally this occurs with things like learning to simultaneously follow
a localizer and glide slope.  You need an instructor to teach the
techniques and critique your initial efforts, but once you are doing
the right things what you need is to practice approaches.  Now given
that you can fly three approaches with a friend for the price of two
with an instructor, sure go up with a friend.

> 3)  Can I expect to need well over the minimum forty hours as is the
>     case with the private ticket?

Shot in the dark guess -> probably over the minimum but not well over.

> any other advice about instrument training will be greatly appreciated.

The above comments are based mostly on my experiences in getting my
instrument rating.  Your mileage may vary, and independent of whatever
advice you get from the net, be sure to discuss these issues with your
instrument instructor.

Mark Rowe            PP-SEL G I             Comanche N5943P
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Assembling gliders
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:51:51 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1992Aug26.213522.2232@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:
>
>Speaking of disconnected controls, have any of you rec.aviators ever landed a
>Cessnoid 152 or 172 without the elevator?  Whenever I review the emerg procs
>in the manual I dutifully work through the description of landing with trim &
>throttle only.  I wonder how tricky it is to actually do - I suppose
>one of these days I'll collar my instructor and suggest we try it. 

Barry Schiff describes an experiment with a *very* seasoned pilot
taking a C-150 or other small trainer around the pattern with only trim.
He didn't make it the first time.  Putting the flaps down was a big
mistake since it required tremendous trim change.  He finally got the
plane down OK on something like his third try.

The lessons:
   Flaps required tremendous changes in pitch.  If you are using flaps
   set them once, rather than trying to add them in stages in a 'normal'
   pattern.  Probably use only half flaps also.

   Small power adjustments (100 RPM or so) could be managed relatively
   easily with the trim.

   If you were landing for *real* without trim, you probably want
   to fly the plane to the ground, impacting on the nose wheel if
   necessary.  A slight power adjustment to raise the nose might be
   attempted, but don't try to flare.  You'll either climb, then stall
   50' off the runway, or run out of runway.

I haven't tried this myself yet, but it does seem like an interesting
experiment.

Kerry
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:35:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: There I was - mag check/Stupid Pilot Tricks
Organization: HP General Systems Division
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, fskevin@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER)) writes:

>Next on the list: In short wing Pipers the right tank should be used only
>for level flight below 1/3 full due to peculiar plumbing. So while flying
>with a friend over his new house with his family and friends watching from
>the ground, I proceed with a steep turn on the right tank and the engine
>quits for a one second eternity. I switched the tanks and the engine quickly
>came to life. When I landed, I must have read my placard ten times over,
>"RIGHT TANK LEVEL FLIGHT ONLY WITH LESS THAN 1/3 FULL"

I don't understand.  Assuming that the ball is more-or-less in the middle, the
gas will be in the same place in the tank, level flight or turning.  Must be
peculiar plumbing indeed!

Mark
--
Mark Cousins                Hewlett-Packard Co.        mtc@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs    19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659             Cupertino, CA  95014          FAX: (408) 447-4364

From: woof@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Steve Wolf)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:21:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Newspaper reports: Overloaded Cherokee Crash
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In article <5908.2a9b5cb8@hayes.com>, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

> Initial reports from investigators with the NTSB indicated that the 1962
> Piper Cherokee's engine may have failed on takeoff.
  :
  :
> The pilot, 20-year-old David Maynard of Stone Mountain, said the engine
> on the single-engine Piper Cherokee airplane stalled when the craft was
> some 100 feet off the ground.

Looks like both papers made the "stalled airplane == engine quit"
mistake.  I'd guess that Mr. Maynard actually reported that the _airplane_
stalled, not that the _engine_ on the airplane stalled.

> "He was excited about flying, period. Eventually, he wanted to get his 
> commercial license," Fowler said.

Is an aviation career for this person now out of the question?  Can
people recover from severe judgement errors as far as the FAA is
concerned, or are they prohibited from flying for the rest of their
life?
--
Steve Wolf				PHONE: (303) 229-2088
Hewlett-Packard				UUCP:  hplabs!fc.hp.com!woof
Fort Collins, CO			ARPA:  woof@fc.hp.com
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: There I was - mag check
Date: 27 Aug 1992 16:17:14 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <168507915.BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis) writes:
>So if your routine is Both - Right - Both - Left - Both, this will
>reduce the chances of inadvertently not getting the switch back to the
>"Both" position prior to takeoff.

I had always wondered why they specified the check in that order...

BTW, this brings up a related problem: In the AA-5 series aircraft (at least),
where the starter is engaged by a separate button and the mag switch is
supposed to be set on Left during starting, forgetting to switch to Both
immediately after start can be a problem: when you go to check the right mag,
if you go by counting clicks, you shut the mags off entirely instead. Two
cures: 1) Use the verschlaggener (sp?) start checklist, and 2) *look* at the
mag switch when you do the mag check at runup.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mazanec@convex.com (Robert Mazanec)
Subject: Re: Aviation related internet sites
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:14:56 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Now that I've slurped in your sources, here is my list:
    cica.cica.indiana.edu	129.79.20.22			Navigation data
    eecs.nwu.edu		129.105.5.103			Planning
    fs-1.vincent.iastate.edu	129.186.254.151	/pub/weather	Satellite photos
    rascal.ics.utexas.edu	128.83.138.20			Misc
    VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU		128.174.5.98	phil.515	Satellite photos

enjoy,
bob
--
Robert L. Mazanec @ Convex Computer Corp.
mazanec@convex.com

DISCLAIMER: You think they PAY me to say this stuff??