HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Where oh where is mpuckett?
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:29:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.170920.6221@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:

|> I suspect that Bill is including me in the list of deplorable ones
|> here, so let me take a minute to reply.

For the record, I do not have any specific people in mind.  I am much
better at remembering instances than I am at remembering names.

|> First, I disagree that people's feelings are far more important than
|> flying knowledge and technique.  The "do bad, feel good" attitudes of
|> the 80's don't make for happy pilots.  They make for dead pilots.

That isn't exactly what I meant.  I do believe that it is important
that we convey correct and accurate information, especially with
aviation.  I have nothing against constructive criticism and healthy
discussions.  But there is never any reason to resort to name calling
and character assassination, of which I have seen plenty here recently.

|> That said, there are two things that I believe deserve criticism in
|> a forum as public as this one:

Criticism, yes.  But CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.  NOT rude and destructive
comments which have little to do with the facts at hand.  Don't ask me
for specific examples....I don't archive rec.aviation.  And many such
criticisms should be taken up privately.  There is much to be said for
the christian principle of taking up a grievance with a "brother"
privately first, and only speaking of it publically when private
discussion and confrontation have failed.

I have talked with several people who won't post certain things to
this group because they just don't want to deal with the potential
criticism.  And there are now two well-known cases of prominent individuals
dropping off of rec.aviation because others were too harsh with them.
This indicates to me that there is something *seriously wrong* with our
global hangar.  As one individual put it:  "some things I'd rather take up
with my next checkride DE than post to the net."

|> The criticism should be sharper -- but always reasoned -- if the
|> implication of the message is potentially dangerous

And much criticism on this list in the recent past has NOT been reasoned.
That is exactly my complaint.

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Subject: Re: GLiding instruction
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:39:28 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

In article <18AUG199210200746@vxcrna.cern.ch>, cohler@vxcrna.cern.ch (Mike Cohler) writes:
>...the pupil froze on the controls and the instructor was unable
>to over-ride the locked out air brakes.
>... what YOU have done or would do to prevent
>the same thing occuring again ?

reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack) writes:
> I'm told the solution is for the instructor to carry a large multicell
> flashlight like a MagLite.

I wonder if a touch of mace would be justifyable in a life/death situation.
Might manage to get the frozen pilot's hands off the controls while they
rubbed their eyes?

Would tranquilizing darts work fast enough?

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Precision Circling Approaches
Keywords: IFR
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 03:08:21 GMT

In article <24Hs02qn1eRz01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kzk00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer) writes:
>In article <71196@apple.Apple.COM> rcm@Apple.COM (Robert Charles Monsen) writes:
>>I have a question about circling procedures on an ILS. The question is,
>>where is the MAP?

>An ILS approach clearance "circle to land" ... is a precision
>approach up to the point where the glideslope intercepts the MDA ...
>At this point, the approach becomes a non-precision approach, and ...
>the MAP is now determined by timing (usually), not by arrival at a
>certain altitude.

>The precise workings of Instrument Approach Procedures are not in the
>AIM, they are in the TERPS manual...

Unfortunately, TERPS isn't very specific on this point.  An ILS approach
procedure is usually published as three procedures on one plate:
Straight-in ILS, Straight-in Localizer, and Circling.  Is the Circling
approach a full-ILS or a Localizer procedure?

TERPS paragraph 941 (describing full-ILS procedures) says:

   MISSED APPROACH POINT (MAP).  The missed approach point is a
   point on the final approach course where the height of the
   glide slope equals the authorized decision height.

Since a circling approach doesn't have a DH, one can probably assume
that the circling approach is not based on full-ILS criteria, and that
therefore the localizer-only MAP should be used.

Given this, should the descent to circling MDA start at glideslope
intercept and be done on the glide slope, or should it start at FAF and
ignore the glide slope, or is either acceptable at pilot's discretion?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Building a Christavia, #12 plans problems?
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:26:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Aug14.172615.8132
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug13.144849.25866@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>
> Building a Christavia - Plans comment
>
>(Good article on plan deviations and frustrations deleted)
>
>these problems and just brush them aside and build it like they know it
>should be built.  But I feel I'm probably pretty average as a first
>time homebuilder, and as such, I'm probably feeling the same way anyone
>else would.   I wonder if other builders could speak to the
>completeness and accuracy of the plans they are working with? 
>
>Corky (slightly daunted now but still moving ahead) Scott

	Welcome to the club !   And some people wonder why they are called
	expirimental !   The Sonerai plans had many such "discrepancies".
	Even more so was the areas left to the imagination of the builder.

	Canopy skirting and attach methods is one particular area I
	remember as being very vague.   But then I suppose thats one 
	reason it took me 8 years to finish. 

	Now if ONLY I could find a long enough field to fly out of.
	I have been kicked off of CMH by the FAA due to bad publicity 
	from a previous fatal accident of a homebuilt (just missed
	an apartment building, crashed and burned)

	I am hoping for Rickenbacker which has 12000+ ft. of runway 8-)

	Now I could feel REAL safe at that.  Take off fly and land
	and never have to turn !!!o

	Don't give up Corky.  Persistance does pay eventually !!
	(I hope )




-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White)
Subject: Re: Telex mikes and ham-radio sets
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:11:51 GMT

 jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
> Has anyone ever tried using the Telex 100TRA dynamic microphone on Drake 
> amateur radio sets?

All aircraft radios, without exception, are set up for carbon mics.
Many installations use dynamic mics with internal transistor amps
powered by the bias provided by the radio for the carbon mic.  You
could use the aircraft mic on the Drake rig only if you provided a
source of power to the mic.  Seems to me it would be much easier
just to get the right plug and use an ordinary mic; the usual sort
of mic (e.g., Shure 444) is *much* better for SSB, anyway.  The
plugs can be had at any hamfest.  73...

Mike, N4PDY

************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
From: tetsuji@rai.juice.or.jp (Tetsuji Rai)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Principle of VOR
Date: 18 Aug 92 10:51:01 GMT
Organization: Rai's home in Tokyo


Hi, netters:

    Very fundamental question(I suppose).
    What is the principle of VOR system ?   I've ever read that the difference
between phases of two waves(a wave for reference and a wave whose phase is 
different according to the direction ?) specifies the angle(or radial), but 
only one frequency is assigned to a VOR.   I think I should misunderstand, 
but cannot find further description.
   Does anyone tell me ????

  Thank you!

---
RRR              Tetsuji Rai    tetsuji@rai.juice.or.jp
R  R   aaa   i    5-12-21, Toyotamakita, Nerimaku, Tokyo 176, Japan
RRR   a  a   i   voice: +81-3-3557-3936   fax: +81-3-3993-0323
R  R  aaaaa  i
From: rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Funny things you read
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:51:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: i88.1992Aug13.145100.24457
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL

In article <1992Aug10.081003.2552@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>In article <1992Aug3.154226.21472@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu
>(William LeFebvre) writes about the Shore Visual Approach RWY 36 to Meigs
>airport in Chicago:
>> At the bottom of the plate, it says "If Meigs weather is below charted
>> visual approach minimums pilots will be provided vectors to Gary Muni
>> (GYY) or Midway's (MDW) final approach for landing.  If IFR is cancelled,
>> pilots shoudl advise ATC 'Cancelling IFR and proceeding VFR to MEIGS.'"
>>
>> Note that the VFR minimums are actually lower than this approach's
>> minimums.  Weird, huh?
>
>Not at all.
...

we have a argument about the definition of "weird" here :-)

Meigs is a north/south strip with the curious trait of extending Chicago's
eastern boundary about 200 feet farther east than one normally could. in
other words, it's IN Lake Michigan. the approach for each end is over
water, the place looks like an island, and there are probably at most 2
days a year where there is NOT a direct crosswind due to lake effect, and
that crosswind can get nasty real quick (they don't call it the Windy
City for nothing!).

some of you may remember the Bears-Eagles football playoff game a few
years back where fog moved onto the stadium at the end of the first
half. one minute, visibility was unlimited, the next minute, you could
MAYBE see 15 yards on the field. that fog extended only 3 or so BLOCKS
further west than the stadium! Soldier Field is a 5 minute walk from Meigs.

>Most wise single-engine pilots will simply not execute these approaches in
>actual conditions.  In the winter, the clouds, if they are there, are almost
>always icy, so a missed approach may not be an option.  Gulp.

amen!

Rich Miller
ex-Schempp-Hirth Discus JBX and
ex-Rolladen-Schneider LS-4 TQ
rmiller@i88.isc.com
From: peggy.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: FBO's at Lawrence
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:57:54 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton

Million Air is usually higer priced than other FBO's
at the same field. They seem to service corporate
customers. However, they usually have good pilot services
(which you can use even if you aren't tied down).
I am not familiar with the air field to which you
refer however.
Peggy Golden
Warrior 38897
Boca Raton, FL
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Regional differences in IFR route assignment (was: I give up...)
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:55:21 GMT
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA

In article <greg.714330300@saltydog> greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
> Well, Dave Rogers says that he gets what he files in the NE and I
> believe him.  But I don't know how he does it. ...
> Going to or from MVY, for example, is a complete mystery to me.  The first
> time I did it, I tried to file over NYC.  HaHa.  The second time I did it
> I tried the route they had given me the first time.  No good.  And
> so on...

A few years ago, I wanted to go from Hanscom Field (BED) near Boston to
Trenton NJ (TTN).  The weather was really, really icky -- low IFR at both
ends, horrible headwinds, and icing at the 4,000 foot level near the coast,
lowering inland and north.  I was flying a single-engine airplane (naturally
-- doing this in a glider would have been a bit dicey! :-) ), and as a
result was unwilling to accept extended overwater routings.

Well, I filed something obvious like BED BOSOX V419 GRAYM V99 HFD V299 BDR
V433 METRO TTN.  The V433 segment just happens to utilize this VOR named ...
LGA.  And I was departing at, oh, 4pm.  Bedford clearance was happy to give
me a completely different routing, which was unacceptable.  I told them so,
and after a moderate amount of, um, discussion, they came back with the route
I'd filed.  I got airborne, and Boston approach and center seemed to be
relatively happy with that routing.

Of course, when I got handed off to New York, they tried anything they could
think of to change my routing.  How about higher?  Nope -- icing.  How about
offshore?  Nope -- single engine.  How about this nice northerly route?
Unable -- MEA is above the freezing level.  I got to use the "unable" word
more than a few times in a row.  Eventually, they persuaded me to go over a
certain other VOR named ... JFK.

So I blithely proceeded straight over Kenedy airport at 3,000 feet during the
middle of the evening Pan Am (Pan Am?  remember Pan Am?) departure push --
all those international 747 Heavies flying around in the same cloud.  New
York Approach seemed to be having a good time with it -- "80G, traffic at
your two o'clock, a heavy 747 Clipper" ... "80G IMC" ... "Clipper 80G,
traffic at your eleven o'clock, another heavy 747".  Yes, they started calling
me Clipper 80G.  :-)  At least they didn't call me 80G Heavy!  With the 70-80
knot headwinds, they probably should have called me 80G Slow!

So, the moral of the story.  Can you get the routing you want in the
northeast, or the New York area?  Yes, but you have to be *very*
persistent.  And it helps if you have a good reason for your request.

						Geoff
From: ericth@i88.isc.com (Eric Thiele)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: "There I was" offer (Was: Encore for mpucket)
Keywords: rec.aviation, netiquette, Never Again
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:30:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: i88.1992Aug19.153057.19872
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL

1)  Welcome Back, Margaret!

2)  Hoorah!!!!!!  The Dark Side loses this round
2a)  Now who can rat on shellEy and share her email address, so maybe we can
     pull her back to the fold too - even if she is doubly dejected that
     VSCS was lost to Harris...

3)  I'd like to hear the "lots more eco-flying stories"

4)  I'd like to hear how you got out of your light gas tanks story - how you 
    got there, and how you got out of it in one piece

5)  I'm gonna volunteer again (psst... wanna Capt. Haynes tape, cheap?)
    
    I'm a student pilot, currently terrorizing the cows & farmers 40 miles 
    west of Chicago.  I.e., I am Mr. LowTime.  Hence, anything I'd post in this
    vain will be instantly recognized as not my doing.  So, I'm personally safe
    from net.flames.personal_attacks.invective.you.idiot.  Well, mostly safe.
    But basically, I'm also Mr. Asbestos

    And I assert that I'm an honest, trustworthy sort good at keeping my mouth 
    shut when the need arises.  Eagle Scout and all that :-)

    If you have an aviation story worth telling, but you're worried about 
    getting abused on the net, email it to me (ericth@i88.isc.com).  I will
    guarantee all identifying header/signature stuff will be stripped off your
    story, and I will post it to rec.aviation with Subject "There I was".  You
    just have to do your own "change the names to protect the guilty" in the
    text of your story.

Eric Thiele
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jaap@cs.ruu.nl (Jaap Romers)
Subject: Re: portable scanners
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:08:15 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <1992Aug20.072220.16291@walter.cray.com> gregf@eastrg1.cray.com (Greg Fairbrother) writes:

>I attend many air shows each  year and would like to purchase a portable
>scanner to listen to the pilots.  I would especially like to listen to
>the military teams like the thunderbirds and blue angels.  There seems to
>be two different aircraft bands one for commercial and one for goverment.
>
>During an air show which band is used for military jets?  I am looking at
>a scanner from Radio Shack but none of their portable scanners have the
>goverment aircraft band.  Could you recommend a brand that would have
>this capability?
>

A friend of my just bought a Yupiteru VT 225 here in The Netherlands.
The scanner seems to have a very good performance. This scanner is
tuned on the civil and military airbands. The frequency range is:

	108-142 Mhz	Civil Airband and some Military Air-to-Air
	220-400 Mhz	Military Airband.

By the way, here are some freq's of military teams:


 
U.S.N. BLUE ANGELS:       ground support       121.90                          
                          nbfm rpt.            142.025  in/out  142.625
                          common airshow       123.40   123.00
                          maintenance ch.10    143.60
                          air to air           241.40  250.80   251.60
                                               275.35  360.40   384.40
                                               395.90  391.90
 
U.S.A.F. THUNDERBIRDS     operations           120.45
                          common airshow       123.40
                          air-air tactical     140.40  141.85
                          air to air           236.60  solo 5-6  236.55
                                               241.40  273.50   283.50
                          team leader          250.85  
                          air to air           294.70  322.30   322.60
                          air-air tactical     394.0   382.90
                          ground support nbfm  413.025
 
U.S.A. GOLDEN KNIGHTS     operations           32.30
                          air coordination     123.40
                          primary              42.35
 
CANADIAN SNOWBIRDS        ch.1   275.80  ch.2   295.60  ch.3   310.80
                          ch.4   227.60  ch.5   243.40  ch.6   240.50
                          ch.7   378.50  ch.8   266.30  ch.9   294.50
                          ch.10  322.80  ch.11  245.70  ch.12  316.50
                          ch.13  344.50  ch.14  356.60  ch.15  236.60
                          ch.16  283.90  ch.17  363.80  ch.18  289.40
                          ch.19  245.0   ch.20  239.80
 
NONMILITARY FLIGHT TEAMS  common airshow   123.40  123.45
                          showtime control 126.40
                          brazilian A.F.   130.55  130.655  132.25


Well, buy a airband scanner and have fun !!!

Greetings,

jaap
From: andyg@rapids.austin.ibm.com (Andy Gillam)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Advice on stopover at JFK, and scanner question.
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:50:37 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

In article <POPOVICH.92Aug11140616@morningside.cs.columbia.edu> popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich) writes:
>Also if it looks even remotely like it could conceivably be used as a
>weapon.  To some extent, this is understandable, but some security
>people take it to ridiculous extremes.
 
Ain't that the truth!  Having attended college on a track scholarship, I
once was denied boarding because I was carrying my shotput in a handheld
container.  
("Possible weapon!")  

Riiight.

-Andy Gillam
-- 
DISCLAIMER:  Any information contained herein in no way represents 
             the views and/or opinions of my employer.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: re: soft release
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: Vis-Orb Tragnetics Recorporation
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:45:00 GMT

In article <1605@shaman.wv.tek.com>, donovanh@sptekwv1.wv.tek.com (Donovan Hammer;685-2499;60-850;;sptekwv1) writes:
>
>Richard Larson wrote:
>> When I mentioned soft release in response to noisy Schweizer
>> release mechanisms I had no idea it would stir up so much 
>> response.
>
>For the record, Schweizer has an advisor bulletin stating that
>releases be performed under little or no tension.  I have a
>copy for anyone to refer to if they need to.


	Bzzt.  Wrong answer.  I have the bulletin that followed the one you are
talking about.  They had found a problem in the release hooks, and recommended
soft releases "until the problem is corrected".  Once the fix is made, they
explicitly recommend AGAINST soft releases.  I have the appropriate paperwork,
that my local FAA examiner sent me after a disagreement agout this came up on
my CFIG check flight.  We used to do soft releases after the original bulletin
came out, even though we had repaired the problem.  We have since corrected the
procedure to do a hard release.



>I have over 1200 tows on one side or the other of the tow rope
>and I've never seen any problems created by the soft release.
>As a CFIG, I can attest  to the fact that a low time pilot or
>student will not cause too much slack rope.  To the contrary,
>they will usually produce substantial tension on the rope when
>they srew up.  Also, it's not that likely that they will kite
>up on the tow plane either.  As Richard pointed out the 10 ft
>of height gained does not cause any undew problems for the tow
>pilot.  I have alot more troubles when towing an over aggresive
>CFIG who climbs to moon in oder to show his student that he can
>put in a big ol' loop before practicing slack rope removal.


	The problem I've seen with soft releases is with students who don't
climb very much before they start their decent, and thereby fly into the
dangling rope after the release.  Just last weekend we had a BANG! sound after
a hard release, because the student took his time starting the clearing turn
and flew back into the ring.

Ray Swartz
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: New ARSA question
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:41:20 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <1992Aug12.212205.29603@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.052121.25348@StarConn.com>, jpp@StarConn.com (John Pettitt) writes:
>> If ATC gives you `sqwak VFR frequency change approved' while you are
>> still in the ARSA (heading out but some says to go) are you legal ?

>EXCELLENT QUESTION!  This very thing happened to me, but I was in a TCA!

I have been cleared through the Seattle TCA many times, nearly always squawking 1200.
However, I have always been given a code when flying thru an ARSA.  My guess is that
if there are only a few planes up there, they are easy to track.  When the place
gets crowded you need to chnge your code to help them keep track of who's who.

There have been times when I have been in the TCA, decending to a known destination,
and I have been told "radar services terminated."  However, this has always been as
I am nearing the destination ATA.  I have always assumed that as long as I am staying
my course, and am soon to be under the TCA, all is OK.

-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL