HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Postscript Checklists for 150/152/172 ?
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:17:41 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Aug25.185412.18203@watson.ibm.com> c1durko@watson.ibm..com () writes:

!My instructor is BIG on checklists!!!  He has a set of them kept in a small
!(9"x7") binder which is handy to keep on your lap while your flying.
!It includes pre-flight,starting/stopping/emergency procedures etc., anyway
!I've copied his but the quality is poor and I was thinking of doing up	
!a set using Frame but I thought I'd ask first.  Does anyone out there have
!150/152/172 checklists in electronic format?  If not and I do get them done
!in Frame I will make them available through the net as long as it doesn't
!pose any liability problems.  Hmmm maybe this is why nobody else has done
!this ??

No, but I have a customized Bonanza checklist done with TeX.

Dave Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: LCFI
Organization: Pomona College
Distribution: usa
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:29:49 PDT

In article <1862l4INN7ve@smaug.West.Sun.COM>, brianh@pongo.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Horn) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.145403.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>>Speaking of which, when +is+ the next LCFI?
> 
> Spoken like a true volunteer!  So when are you going to arrange it?

Hm...How long of an advance notice do we all need? Is two weeks ok?

Are there any special events on September 19th? That's a Saturday.

As for location...how about the San Luis Obispo area?
______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
From: leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:20:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Number of U.S. Pilots  (was Number of small aircraft wanted)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Avondale, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, esd3@po.CWRU.Edu (Elisabeth S. Davidson) writes:

>That means that only...............................     39675

>of Private Pilots are IFR,  or approx 13.26%

BZZZZZZT,  CORRECT!   :-) :-) :-)  Your arithmetic AND assumptions are
excellent.

This is nearly the same ratio of 14% given by Dogan (of PIC fame) in
his book "The Instrument Flight Training Manual."  It explains we
VFR-only pilots should hold instrument-rated pilots in awe :-).

Based on my personal observations, many people (> 50%) get their pilot's
license and then don't use it.  After a few inactive months, they no
longer trust their flying skills and thus lose the desire to bore holes
in the sky.

I don't know why this happens, except perhaps because they've failed to
establish other aviation-related goals.  For them, a pilot's license is
a goal in itself and, once achieved, it leaves them at a loss as to what
to do next.

Conversely, there's a group of people who can't be happy unless they
explore all the knowledge available in a particular field of interest.
These people couldn't stop at the private pilot rating simply because
there is so much more to learn.  Just consider rec.aviation, for
example.  Many posters in rec.aviation have commercial pilot licenses,
even though the make their livings from other activities.  So this also
helps to explain why only 14% of all licensed PRIVATE pilots have the
instrument rating.

Lee Devlin             |    HP Avondale Division  | phone: (215) 268-5697 
Piper Colt N4986Z      |    Rt 41 & Starr Road    | email:
Spirit of rec.aviation |    Avondale, PA 19311    | devlin@hpavla.avo.hp.com
From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Keywords: ponds, plumes, piles, and stains
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:59:58 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug25.123144.18737@walter.bellcore.com>
 venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
>
>Would it be reasonable, in addition to requiring civility, to expect a 
>restraint on controversial topics that is only marginally related to 
>rec.aviation?

I must absolutely disagree.  Does this mean we must only write about 100%
pure flying?

Examples.  A recent poster described a trip to Canada and mentioned
some trouble getting some firearms through customs.  Now, I will state right
here that I am personally in favor of stricter controls on firearms.  But do
you see me flaming this poster because he likes them?  Of course not!  It was
a wonderful, educational tale of a great trip.  Of course there were outside
events.  I would never buy a gun personally, but I recognize his legal right
to do so and I honor it. 

What if I take a weekend trip in a 172, am I not allowed to talk about a great
bed and breakfast we found because if you read between the lines you might
realize that my girlfriend and I had PREMARITAL SEX (oh, no!!!)

Am I not allowed to say "yum yum, great steak" in a Harris Ranch trip report
because some pilots are vegetarians?

Is my friend with the new Tiger not allowed to mention that he knows a great
mechanic in Santa Monica, because he lives in the Bay Area and he really
should have kept his money local????

My point is that there's very little one can say without somehow offending
somebody's personal opinions.  We're here to talk about flying, but flying
doesn't take place in a vacuum!  (bad pun, I know)  The problem here is not
"offensive" postings.  The problem is thin-skinned, opinionated readers.  I
for one am unwilling to hide the details of my life, just because there are
others who disagree with certain aspects of it.

"Don't post because you might offend somebody" is the worst kind of political
correctness.  "Accept that people are different from you" is the best kind
of diversity.  It's what this country is supposed to be about.

NOTE:  There are only two kinds of postings that I believe should be objected
to.  One is a posting which describes an activity in which one encroaches
on the rights or safety of others.  And I don't believe one has a "right" to
break the law.  That's a not-very popular system called anarchy.  And the
other is a posting which contains personally offensive language or statements.
Name calling is "right out."


--Andy    PP-ASEL-IA, IGI     stadler@apple.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: system@gnd1.wtp.contel.com (Marty Anilane)
Subject: Re: Aviation related internet sites
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: system@gnd1.wtp.contel.com
Organization: GTE Government Systems, Federal Systems Division, Chantilly, VA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:24:42 GMT

In article <9208261844.AA01850@acf3.NYU.EDU>, cruz@ACF3.NYU.EDU (Nancy Cruz) writes...
> 
>	Hi, I was browsing around the internet lately and really 
>haven't noticed many sites carrying aviation related material.
>	
>	The sites I know that carry intersting stuff are eecs.nwu.edu (Flight
>planning) rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Misc), and hobess.ksu.ksu.edu (NOAA Data)
> 
>	Does anyone know of other sites, carrying utilities, or
>interesting data files/programs?
> 
> 
>	cruz@acf3.nyu.edu

GTE CONTEL DUAT service provides aviation weather briefings, encode
and decode of airports, navaids, and weather reporting locations; and
decoding of FAA general aviation and National Weather Service 
Contractions.

Furthermore, if you are a certificated pilot, you can file your
flight plan up to 24 hours in advance of departure through the
service.

Also, to be added in the next few months, a fully integrated filght
planner which will compute true shortest-path routes and use up-to-date
winds aloft information in its calculations.


GTE CONTEL DUAT service supports non-pilots via the address:

	duats.contel.com    or   131.131.7.106

Certificated pilots should use GTE CONTEL DUAT via:
	
	duat.contel.com		 131.131.7.105

If are a certificated pilot and you find the above address busy you 
may use duats.contel.com

For first time users:

To use the service, type the command "telnet duats.contel.com" or
the command "telnet duat.contel.com" at your operating system prompt.
(If that does not work enter the command "telnet 131.131.7.106" or
telnet 131.131.7.105")

You should be connected within seconds and see the prompt...

              CONTEL DUAT System

Session number: xxxxx


Enter DUAT access code -or- last name:



Enter your last name, answer all prompts and then you should
see the main menu...
	
----------------
 Marty Anilane, GTE Contel Federal Systems, P.O. Box 10814, Chantilly VA. 22021
 Internet: "system@gnd1.wtp.contel.com"    (703) 818-4413
----------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste; netiquette
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:47:43 GMT


I ignored this entire thread until just recently, stumbling on it and
then reading the whole thing.

My overall impression is that Margaret is getting a bad rap, that John
de Armand deserves a response that netiquette does not allow, and that
the postings from everyone *other than* Mr. de Armand have in general
involved one of two legitimate aviation issues:

1.  Trying to keep Margaret talking (sort of a meta-aviation issue : ) ).

2.  What is actually quite an interesting discussion: Is personal
surveillance via light aircraft a good or a bad thing?  There were
a couple of posts indicating that it was a *constitutional* thing,
but that's not the same.

My own view is that citizens acting legally to further causes they
believe in (whether I agree or not) are standing on solid moral
ground.  And I do not believe that flying over someone's house and
looking down is an invasion of privacy.

						Matt Ginsberg

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: To Richard Larsen (rlarsen@bnr.ca)
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:14:00 GMT

This message is intended for Richard Larsen (rlarsen@bnr.ca) only -- if you
are not he, you may ignore it.  However, it does contain good advice for all...

Richard --

(1) PLEASE get your e-mail fixed.  Mail to rlarsen@bnr.ca bounces, with bnr
    saying that it has no idea who you are.  It's not nice to post if you
    can't get a personal response.

(2) PLEASE watch your line lengths.  All of the articles you've posted over
    the last several weeks have very long lines.  You should word-wrap your
    postings so that the lines DO NOT EXCEED 78 CHARACTERS.  If you're on a
    Unix system, the "fmt" utility (fmt -75 or fmt -78) is an easy way to
    do this.  Or, you can set the line wrap facility in the editor you use
    -- if you use "vi", try ":se wm=5" if you are on an 80-column-wide
    window or terminal.

For the net as a whole, thank you.

						Geoff
From: gobbel@cogsci.ucsd.edu (Randy Gobbel)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Assembling gliders
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:22:09 GMT
Reply-To: gobbel@cogsci.ucsd.edu
Organization: Cognitive Science Department, UC San Diego
In-reply-to: milgram@eng.umd.edu's message of 26 Aug 92 23:11:26 GMT

> In article <1992Aug26.231126.10460@eng.umd.edu> milgram@eng.umd.edu (Judah Milgram) writes:
> Automatic hookups are a great invention. Anyone know of any cases
> where automatic hookups didn't? 

Yes, it happened to me once.  I have a Glasflugel Mosquito, and as Rich
Miller notes, it is possible for the control rods to completely miss the
rectangular funnels that they feed into.  The result, in my case, was
that when we had "finished" putting the wings on, I suddenly noticed
that the left aileron was hanging down at a 90 degree angle!  Moving the
stick had no effect, and the control surface was just hanging loosely,
but couldn't be raised above what would be about a 30 degree positive
angle, if it had been a flap.  It was no big deal, really, we just took
the wing back off and put it on the right way, but it sure gave me a
start to see the aileron sitting at that weird angle.

-Randy Gobbel
--
Internet: gobbel@ucsd.edu
----------------------------
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Blimp touch and goes...
Date: 27 Aug 1992 15:20:17 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

[I missed the original followup..]

In article <1992Aug27.024115.9148@microsoft.com> joero@microsoft.com (Joe Robison) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.113546.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu wrote:
>> (gee...this can go on forever...)
>And it will...

Yeah, but at least it's better than the flame wars..

>> Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
>> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly powered aircraft!
>>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>                                         Does this fit the bill, Jay? ;-)

Hmmm... Actually, just about any heavier-than-air aircraft would do... :-)

>Besides, redline on my sailplane is over double that...

I'd better be careful here: the folks who run this system are sailplane
pilots! (Hey, Chuck, when are we going flying, anyway?? :-)

-- 
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
From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: AIRSHOWS??
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:41:56 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <1992Aug31.175133.18361@eng.umd.edu> britton@eng.umd.edu (Yvonne C. Britton) writes:
> Could somebody or many people please tell me of any airshows that will be 
> coming up: this year or in the coming years to come.  I like to try to stay
> informed so I may be able to attend them.

There are over 500 sizable airshows each year, and total attentance is
roughly equal to Major League Baseball.  There are a number of ways to
keep in touch with the airshow schedules:

1. Subscribe to an aviation magazine.  Pacific Flyer has an excellent
calendar section.

2. Watch one of the airplane monthly magazines.

3. Pick up a magazine by Challenge Publications, such as Air Combat.  They
have a very detailed schedule for shows over the next month or two.

4. Purchase a copy of Airshows International, available in May of each year.
They list all known airshows for the coming year.

5. Join the International Council of Airshows and read their newsletter.

There are still a number of good airshows coming up this year.  The
Confederate Air Force fall show is in October, both Dallas and Houston
have shows coming up, there are a bunch of shows in Florida in the fall
(including the Blue Angles homecoming show), and an excellent show in
Toronto on the weekend of Sept 5-7.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Two planes collide over Santa Paula Airport
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:20:16 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep3.012842.4046@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
> 
> blame, but surely not blameless -- there is often lots of NORAD traffic
> at uncontrolled fields, and you should generally be on the lookout
> for it.
> 
> There is even NORAD traffic at *controlled* fields.  Sometimes a plane

Gee, and I thought NORAD tried to keep a low profile.

NORDO maybe?

:-)

-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: Re: CONTEL (GTE) DUAT will be interrupted on 09/08/92 at 1800 EDT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 23:48:23 GMT

powell@wraith.netops.gtefsd.com (Mike Powell "GTE FSD Net Mgr") writes:

>On Tuesday Sept. 8 at 1800 the primary Internet Circuit will be
>moved to its own router. This should take no longer than 30 Minutes.
>During this period the alternate Internet connection should handle the
>load.
>If you experience any problems or have any questions, please contact
>me.
>Thanks,
>Mike

Heya...I was told by one of the guys @ contel/gte that on SEPT 1,
there would be a flight planner on contel (like dtc has)....when
are we gona see that? I use contel much more becuase it has a 9600bps dialup
800 number and internet access..what more could I ask for? <well..besides
the flight planner>

Let me know...

Have a nice day (or 2)
--
Marshal Perlman - Huntington Beach - California - USA - Earth - Milky Way 
                 Private Pilot - Airplane Single-Engine Land
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights? 
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:54:16 GMT

In article <j2gnm#n.hchong@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
|> Usually, we listen to radio in the cars during long solo drive, but what do 
|> you do for long solo flights (assuming FAA does not permit radio)?  Please 
|> email if you think it is illegal and don't want FAA to see it. 

I either turn on the ADF (which gets boring pretty quickly, too, since 
about all you can find is AM talk radio and AM sports talk radio....
and you can't even call in and argue with them!) or I tune in Multicom
(122.75) which can be hilariously funny at times.

If I plan ahead, I take along a CD discman (or a walkman tape player) and
some music.

As for "FAA does not permit radio", the FARs only say that the PIC
has to approve operation of any radio.  Well, I'm PIC.  And I'm in
VFR conditions, and I'm not relying on the VORs for any critical
navigation, so I say it's okay.

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
From: steveha@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven L Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Oops, the throttle came off!
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:44:31 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>
>Has anyone ever experienced the inability to retard the throttle and 
>had to make an emergency landing at full power?  Well, a guy I know 
>had this happen to him recently in his 180 hp Grumman Tiger - shortly
>after an annual of course.
>
>John Crawford


Yes, I had exactly that happen in a C152 THE DAY BEFORE MY PP
CHECKRIDE!  I was up for some last-minute practice doing slow
flight at about 75% power and when I went to reduce the power,
the whole guts of the cable assembly came off in my hand.  I was
at a power setting sufficient to maintain altitude and was near the
airport in the practice area.  I called tower and advised them I
of problem and that I would be landing.  No real problem, the runway
is quite long, I made a normal approach, used flaps and carb heat to
help with the descent and cut the mixture over the end of the runway.
My biggest concern, once down, was that the plane I wanted to take my
checkride in wouldn't be available -- the only other choice was the
C172 which I wasn't nearly as comfortable in.  But the FBO managed to
get the throttle cable replaced that night.  

BTW, my only "inflight emergency" in about 450 hours.

Steve Harris
steveha@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Piper PA22 - the obligatory family plane
RV-4 under construction - "my plane"
From: brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Coast Guard helicopter at Newport, OR
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:27:43 GMT

brecher@pyramid.unr.edu (Steve Brecher) writes:
>I flew to Newport last weekend.  All in all it was a nice trip, except
>that on attempting to return home I HAD A COMPLETE POWER LOSS AND HAD TO
>BE RESCUED BY THE COAST GUARD!
 ...
>The FBO was very nice, but had no APU nor 24V battery to get
>me started.  The A&P they called couldn't come out.  After a while,
>though, they thought of checking with the Coast Gaurd chopper unit on the
>field. The CG had a 24V APU with a plug that fit my plane, and got me going.

Damn, I wish _I'd_ thought of that excuse when I was there last week...  :-)

Seriously, I was trying to think of some even remotely-rational excuse
to go over and chat with them, and had about settled on introducing
myself as a fellow search and rescue pilot curious about their
operation...  Unfortunately, when we came in, the crew that were there
were obviously preparing to launch (and just waiting impatiently for
the rest of the crew to show up), and when we went out, there didn't
appear to be anybody around over there.

But, yeah, it's cool; they park their neat little orange-and-white
Aerospatiale Dauphin (I forget the model number; HH-59, maybe?) right
at the end of the row of 6 or so transient tie-downs, not more than a
couple of hundred feet from the FBO.

In general, I've always found military crews to be very eager to show
off their toys; if they hadn't seemed busy, I would have wandered over
and chatted for a while.

One thing surprised me, though, about the aircrew members I saw wandering
around the Dauphin...  They were wearing NOMEX flight suits (no surprise),
but they were royal blue, not flourescent orange (big surprise)...  When did
the Coast Guard switch away from the pumpkin suits, and why?


-Brent
--
Brent Chapman                                   Great Circle Associates
Brent@GreatCircle.COM                           1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841                                 Mountain View, CA  94041
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: What is Ground Effect? (was GLIDER: stall landings)
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:51:36 GMT


In article <25362@castle.ed.ac.uk>, egnr70@castle.ed.ac.uk (J Pryce) writes:
|>OK, anyone got a good aerodynamic explanation of ground effect. 
|>
|>My guess is that it is a reaction to the downdraught from the wing. 
|>The effects must decrease, the better the performance of the aircraft
|>(otherwise here comes another perpetual motion patent,) and so although
|>significant in a 25:1 glider, are unlikely to make much difference in a
|>50:1 ship.

The best explanation I've heard for ground effect goes something like this:

    In normal flight, the wing tips produce less lift than the rest
    of the wing because of the air which sneaks around the tip from
    below the wing, which reduces the pressure differential.

    When flying close to the ground, the friction of the ground slows
    this flow of air around the tip, which results in a greater pressure
    differential, and thus more lift. Drooped wingtips also act to
    reduce this flow, and thus also provide increased lift.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
Whaddya mean, another 15 hours hood time?!?