HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ChrisF@mitre.org (H. Christian Floyd)
Subject: Re: World's newest IFR Pilot
Organization: MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:41:36 GMT

In article <93024.005220SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
>Subject: World's newest IFR Pilot
>From: <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET>
>Date: Sunday, 24 Jan 1993 00:52:19 EST
>After a day of moderate turbulence, 30 kt. winds and hellish Cincy
>Lunken approaches, I have become the world's newest Instrument Rated
>Pilot and boy does it feel good!
>
>Shawn Chaney, Private Pilot, (Instrument Rated)
>Oxford, Ohio
>AOPA #010788506

Who is (or was) Cincy Lunken?  Could you characterize a Cincy Lunken 
approach in more detail?

Congratulations,
Chris Floyd
From: lee@deneb.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Date: 25 Jan 1993 14:28:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: deneb.sw.stratus.com

In article <JKF.93Jan24181254@frisky.Franz.COM> jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro) writes:
>
>>> One last thing.  File PIREPS!!!  
>
> I think that we would all get much more reliable icing reports if it 
>were really easy for the controller to contact the FSS and make pireps. 

Hear, hear!  With the current state of technology, it's sad that a pirep that
I make to an ATC controller (especially during less busy times) doesn't
immediately show up on the FSS computers.  In the busy northeast, leaving the
frequency to make a pirep is a significant hassle, and if conditions are hard
IMC, I don't feel comfortable not being reachable by ATC even for a few
minutes.

-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: gff%Rational.COM (Geoff Fitch)
Subject: Re: ANSWER to Instrument approach quiz
Organization: Rational
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:00:21 GMT

I was going to say you need an IAF, because the lost-communications procedure
requires it (as in hold until your ETA). It's interesting to know some 
procedures may not have it.

Geoff Fitch
gff@rational.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: World's newest IFR Pilot
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:50:22 GMT

In <ChrisF.18.728142096@mitre.org> ChrisF@mitre.org (H. Christian Floyd) writes:

>Who is (or was) Cincy Lunken?  Could you characterize a Cincy Lunken 
>approach in more detail?

A Cincy Lunken approach goes like this:

Indianapolis Center: "Cessna XXYYZ, Contact Cincinnati approach now, 1XY.YT"
XXYYZ: "Cincinnati approach, XXYYZ, Level at R"
Cinci: "XXYYZ, where the hell have you been?  I've been calling you for 1/2
        an hour."
XXYYZ: "Umm, indy just switched me over."
Cinci: "You might want to get your radios checked."
-Later-
Cinci: "XXYYZ, Where are you going?"
XXYYZ: "Umm, direct Falmouth as in my flight plan...?"
Cinci: "NO, I need you to turn 180 degrees NOW.  Don't ever try that again"
XXYYZ: "Urp."
-Later-
XXYYZ: "Cinci, are you showing any weather ahead on my route?  I heard the
        other aircraft diverting."
Cinci: "What do you think this is, the 1990s?  This is the FAA you know,
        the weather radar is behind me, I'm not turning around.  I'm sure
        there isn't any weather.  Don't bother me again."
-Then-
XXYYZ: "Cinci, a 747 just passed 20' off my right wingtip!"
Cinci: "XXYYZ, you have traffic at 3, 4, 5 O'clock, traffic no factor."
-Still-
Cinci: "XXYYZ, I need you higher for crossing traffic.  Climb and
        maintain one-seven thousand.  Expedite your climb."


All of it true, I swear.  I can't wait till next year when CVG becomes a
TCA.  Boy, they should really be nice then!

greg

        
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:15:33 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Static System Jumps?

A few weeks ago I was flying a C-172 at 6,000 ft, in IMC, steady,
non-turbulant rain, OAT was betweeen 45 and 50 deg.F.  (The trip was
from NE Pittsburgh area to Cleveland, Cuyahoga Co. Airport).  Aside from
"0" visibility, the situation was a comfortable, hand-flying IFR
x-country flight.

Then, the vert. speed indicator "and" the altimeter simultaneously,
virtually instantaneously "jumped" substantially.  The vert. speed went
to about 500 ft down and the altimeter dropped about 150 ft. instantly,
but there was no "real"  change in the altitude/attitude of the a/c.  In
about 5 to 10 seconds, the gages returned to "nominal" indications.  The
other pitot static gage, the altimeter, did not fluctuate with these
"jumps".  Several minutes later, the same thing happened....and the
incident repeated about 6 times during about 1 hour at altitude during
these conditions.  Switching to alternate static air seemed to make the
indications go away, but (probably foolishly) since the altitude was
about 80 different on the alt. stat. air source, i choose to keep the
static selector on the outside port.  The approach, an ILS breaking out
at about 1,000 agl, was nominal.

All "excursions" of indication were of about the same amplitude...most,
but not all were "down" indications.  The return flight the next day was
the same weather, and the same "hicups" repeated several times.

A third flight a day later, in clear, sub freezing temperatures yielded
no "deviation" indications.  The only other data point of significance
is this A/C has a "single" external static port system...not a dual one
with a "Y" tube.

Trouble shooting including checking for system water, etc, was
scheduled, but the results aren't available yet....so I don't have that
"data" to report.

Any similar experiences or "knowledgeable" net ideas as to what was
going on? The resident club MIT PhD who "knows all", related reading a
"paper" about capillary action of water in the static port under
certain, stable, high moisture conditions causing such "problems". 

Jeff Dunkle <jd5f@andrew.cmu.edu>  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:36:30 GMT

In article <93020.195642SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
   Since I don't actually take my checkride until Saturday, I'm not a true
   IFR pilot, but I have a question that is quite important here in Ohio.

....

   The problem with this is that in Ohio we have icing nearly every day from
   November to March.  If IFRR is true, an IFR rating is useless in the winter
   time (unless you have a plane with the equip.[$$$]).

Unfortunately, this is true. We have the same kind of weather in
Scandinavia. During the winter, you simply can not expect to fly in
cloud unless you have deice equipment.

On the other hand, an IFR rating is still useful, since it is often a
good idea to fly IFR even in VMC. It keeps you in the system, gives
you separation (at least from other IFR) etc.

   My idea is that if you
   have the plane with enough muscle to climb through it (barring severe or
   moderate ice), then it's OK.  So if I'm in an Archer trying to climb
   through light to moderate icing to 5000k am I gonna 1) die 2) go to jail
   or 3) make it to Florida ???  Can someone clear this up for me?

Any ice you pick up during your climb will go away very slowly.
Climbing through 5000 feet in moderate icing will leave *lots* of ice
on your aircraft, even if you make it above icing conditions.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson)
Subject: Filing IFR as a student?
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:28:30 PST

Hello,

I'm not instrument rated yet, but getting close to it. We've done some cross
country trips with the instructor, including the 'long' one.

My question to the fellow netters is...can I file an IFR flight plan, and
fly it, including the approach, etc., by myself? Of course, in VFR conditions.

The idea is to practice everything involved with an IFR flight.

Thanks.

--
Javier Henderson
jav@crash.cts.com
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: please help clear up my confusion over feeders, transitions, etc.
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:04:39 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <NILES.93Jan25082618@pizzicato.parc.xerox.com> niles@parc.xerox.com (Les Niles) writes:
>
>I was having a discussion about this with a designated examiner just
>last week....  His question was about a STAR:  If I were cleared for
>the STAR at such-and-such VOR, what would I do?  I said to descend to
>the published altitudes, but he said no, those are just MEAs, I could
>only descend if ATC said so.  There's that clause at the very end of
>91.175(i):  "...  After the aircraft is so established, PUBLISHED
>ALTITUDES APPLY to descent within each succeeding route or approach
>segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC."  
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I guess the interpretation is that ATC has previously assigned a
>different altitude (unless there's radio failure, or a cruise
>clearance).  My instrument instructor once got a "friendly reminder"
>from ATC about this, going into Van Nuys on a STAR.  He descended
>towards the published altitude, they said "get back up there until we
>tell you."  This would apply to MEAs along airways, but as for the
>original question, I've always thought that transition-route
>altitudes *were* part of the approach clearance.  I'll have to go
>home and look in some other books for that one, now.
>

STARs do present a 'trap' in the sense that the altitudes printed
in the plan view are MEAs.  The altitudes you are supposed to fly
are in the text of the STAR.  This is described very well in the
TAB book, "The Art of Instrument Flying" (or something like that)
by J. R. Williams.

>Oh yeah, I passed the checkride.

Congrats.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:45:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.112830.24208@crash> 
jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson) writes:
>From: jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson)
...
>Javier Henderson
>jav@crash.cts.com

p.s., Are you really a pilot associated with "CRASH".cts.com ??? :-)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Instrument approach quiz
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:09:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <LHE.93Jan21084054@yang.sics.se> lhe@sics.se
 (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) writes:

>   # 2 is required; the FAF is the point at which one 
>   starts a descent from the transition altitude.
>
>Do you really mean transition altitude? The reason I ask is that


I suppose was not clear here.  By transition altitude I
meant the altitude one is at if one is cleared for
an IFR transition, i.e. a defined navigational route
to align one on an instrument approach final approach
course.

Perhaps it would have been clearer if I defined
the FAF as the point when one begins a descent to 
the MDA; but that would not be completely correct
in the case of an approach with subsequent step-down
fixes.

Maybe instead I should instead paraphrase the AIM 
and define the FAF as the navaid/radio fix from which the
final approach to an airport is executed; in this 
context, it becomes quite clear why an instrument
approach cannot exist without a final approach fix.

-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Decending through ice.
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 20:00:41 GMT

In article <93022.005708SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:

>Okay... So I'm at OXD airport and a v-tail bonanza comes in with 1" of
>ice falling from the leading edges.  Suppose this is me comming from
>Florida.  Is it a safe to decend through 5000' light rime to land?

Most of us wouldn't consider 1" of ice "light rime".

Good point to be made here, though.  _Aviation Safety_ and other similar
pubs are rife with stories of crashes due to icing on descent.  The
psychological pitfall of the IFR pilot is that "I'm on the approach,
it will only be 10 or 15 minutes now, I'm in contact with ATC, etc."
SO, they just stay in the icing layer, maybe not asking for a different
altitude.

Same rules apply to approach icing as enroute icing...get outta there!
You have three options - climb, descend, or turn around.  Problem is that
two of the three (climb or turn around) seem so illogical at the end
of a flight that a pilot may delete them as alternatives.  In point of
fact, even during the approach phase of a flight, the only way to save
your skin from icing may be to climb or turn around, and abandon the
approach.  A most insidious form of get-there-itis.

If you do carry ice into the landing, be sure to add airspeed to 
compensate for unknown aerodynamic effects of the ice.  One school of
thought goes that the only speed you know the plane to be controllable
at is cruise speed, and that something near cruise speed should be held
until you are over the runway.  Don't drop the flaps; just fly it on.

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov

>
>Forgive me for the persistence of the topic but this is one I want to
>be sure of.  Thanks for the info, its been very helpful.
>
>Shawn Chaney,
>Oxford, Ohio (OXD)


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: gersh@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (John R. Gersh)
Subject: Re: DME/Radar rquired--why--Answer
Summary: Some do, some don't
Keywords: DME, Radar, Answer, IFR
Organization: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 13:49:33 GMT

In article <skip.238.728055792@mitre.org> skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
>
>...
>
>Your answer is interesting but one issue is still left unresolved.  As I 
>pointed out in my answer, the logic you apply to this approach would appear 
>to be applicable to the Portland ILS RWY 29 approach (Portland, Maine) which 
>is almost identical to the Provincetown approach (except for distances, 
>altitudes, and angles of course) in that it is an over-water approach 
>without OM.  However the Portland approach does not require DME or radar.  
>Why?


Indeed, and it's even more curious. I just did a quick scan through
the NOS NE-1 approach book. There are eight approaches in the category
of interest (ILS overwater approach with no outer marker, intersection or
DME determination of the FAF of the associated localizer-only
approach):

	Bridgeport, CT (BDR) ILS-6
	Groton, CT (GON) ILS-5
	Hyannis, MA (HYA) ILS-15
	Martha's Vineyard, MA (MVY) ILS-24	(My most-frequently-flown
						approach!)
	New Haven, CT (HVN) ILS-2
	Portland, ME (PWM) ILS-29
	Portsmouth (Pease), NH (PSM) ILS-34
	Provincetown, MA (PVC) ILS-7		(The one under discussion)

(I made only a quick scan; I might have missed some.)

Of these approaches, only the HYA and PVC approaches require radar or
DME, the rest do not, so it seems like there may be something other
than the need for single-nav operation involved here.

A very interesting case, however, is the Portsmouth approach (Pease
International Tradeport, used to be Pease AFB). There are two
approaches, ILS-34 and ILS/DME 34. As far as I can tell, these two
approaches are identical (a straightforward ILS approach, but with no
marker beacons, nothing odd about the miss), except that the ILS/DME 
approach has a 50' lower DH! (And lower a lower visibility minimum for 
cats D,E.)

So what _is_ going on here??
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gersh                                      John_Gersh@jhuapl.edu
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Johns Hopkins Rd., Laurel, MD 20723		       (301) 953-5503
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: DME/Radar required--why-another question
Keywords: DME, Radar, IFR
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:57:54 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corp

In article <2689@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
>... 
>Suppose that you have specified PVC as your destination on an
>IFR flight plan and have lost comm. You have shot the approach
>once and missed and have entered the holding pattern.
> 
>You now decide to try a second approach.
> 
>How would you leave the holding pattern and initiate
>the second approach?
> 

Since radar is not available (no comm to receive advisories), you 
must have DME to shoot the approach (per note on the plate).  I 
would fly out beyond 6.6 DME from from I-VQO (FAF) on the outbound 
leg of the holding pattern, and intercept the localizer on the turn 
inbound.  Intercept the glideslope and slide on down.  (Technically 
the NDB RZP is not on a "published route" to the FAF so you can't fly 
outbound on the ILS from the NDB, and it's too close to the airport 
to fly inbound from the NDB to intercept the localizer).

The graphics indicate that the turn inbound back to the NDB crosses 
the localizer and once on it and outside the FAF, voila you're now 
on a published portion of the approach you can fly!

>Note: the IAP says `Procedure Turn NA'
> 
>Dave Rogers
>
>An alternate way of looking at this is that you have NOT lost
>comm but have radar vectoring available. What should you expect
>from the controller?

Radar vectors to a 30 degree intercept to the localizer 
outside PHONY (FAF).

Skip Guild
PPSEL-IA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:12:22 GMT

I talked to a FAA guy a couple of weeks back about what constitutes
"known icing" these days.  His response, based upon a supposedly
seminal NTSB finding, was that the FAA considers "known ice" to equate to:

	Temps <= 32F
	Clouds

In other words, icing doesn't have to be REPORTED by aircraft.  Heck, the
ice doesn't even have to be in the FORECAST.  If there is a single cloud in the
sky, the temperature at the cloud's altitude is <= 32F, and you fly through
the cloud then you've just flown into and through known icing conditions.

For all practical purposes, he indicated that the FAA will NOT prosecute you
for filing PIREPS relating to ice.  In fact, he said the FAA's internal policy
regarding ice was essentially opposite what it is for everything else.  He
noted that, in the majority of general cases where there is a diversion or special
treatment, the controller will initiate the complaint/paperwork against the
pilot.  The exception is ice - generally, even if the controller has to give you
preferential treatment, ATC will not bust you for ice-related problems or
special treatment.  You WILL get nailed if you have an accident, however.

On a related note, Gary Rima has pointed out a favorite bugaboo of mine.
Many people assume there is a generalized prohibition against flight
into known ice in small/non-deiced aircraft.  They typically think they
can find that prohibition in part 91.  Well, it just aint there.

The only regulation against flying in ice can be found in your POH.  If it isn't
in there, you're legal for everything from trace to severe.

Course, they could always get you for careless & reckless...

greg, who's sure some other FAA guy will have told another netter something
completely different.

--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: elmore@rap.ucar.edu (Kim Elmore)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: NCAR, Research Application Program
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:07:44 GMT

In article <C17vyq.M8r@fc.hp.com> myshatyn@fc.hp.com (Mike Myshatyn) writes:
>Steve Wolf (woof@fc.hp.com) wrote:
>: Another BIG problem is that lots of the ice you pick up during your
>: climb will be on the UNDERSIDE of your wing, due to your increased angle
>: of attack.  This is much worse than having ice on the leading edge.
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I  disagree.  Ice on the  underside  will affect your  weight and the drag.
>Ice on the leading  edge  affects  weight,  drag and more  importantly  the
>possible separation of laminar flow over the top of the wing.  This impacts
>loss of lift as well as increased stall speed.  I would consider ice (only)
>on the bottom of the wing the lesser of two evils (note that I would prefer
>to have neither.)

	Careful!  This isn't necessarily so.  NCAR lost a Queenair
(instrumented for meterological research) to ice on the bottom of the
wing.  The pilot was ferrying the aircraft back from a project in the
Sierras and had picked up a small amount of (visible) ice over the
Grand Canyon as he entered a turn in the soup.  The aircraft
immediately stalled and entered a spin, which the pilot stopped on the
gauges.  As he broke out of the overcast, he became concerned about
his proximity to terra firma and overstressed the airframe during
recovery. He landed safely, but the airplane was written off on the
ramp.

	In another incident, our Deputy Director, while flying the
Univ. of Wyoming Kingair 200 (another instrumented research aircraft)
during icing research noted extreme perfromance degradation in
relatively light icing.  The problem was icing on the bottom of the
wing due to large (100 micron or bigger) droplets.  This one was
written up as a journal paper a few years ago.

	Some modelling studies showed that this problem is
airfoil-dependent.  Some airfoils are far more prone to it than
others.  The DC-9 series has know problems with ice on the underside
of the wing as does, I believe, the MU-2.  Of course, Queenairs and
Kingairs suffer similar problems, evident by inspection :-)

	I dunno exactly what it is that sets some airfoils off while
others don't care, but ice on the underside of a wing *can*, in some
cases, be *far* more severe than more classical icing on the leading
edge and top surfaces.


					Kim Elmore
					N5OP, PP ASEL/Glider 2232456
*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._  *
*    Said by NQ0I while working on his shack:                                 *
*		"All these *wires*!  Why do they call it `wireless'!?"        *
*  _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._  *
Replies to: elmore@brightband.rap.ucar.edu (wires)
	    44.20.0.67 n5op@n5op.ampr.org (radio)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: lee@deneb.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: ANSWER to Instrument approach quiz
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:51:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: deneb.sw.stratus.com

In article <1jo0uhINNgv7@life.ai.mit.edu> olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen) writes:
>I originally thought that
>every approach also had at least one IAF, by definition.  However, in
>looking through TERPS to verify my answer, I now see that the IAF can
>also be dispensed with in some circumstances, although it is merely
>replaced by an Intermediate Fix (IF).

I believe that there are approaches with no IAF and no intermediate fix.  The
examples I have seen of this are ILS's in busy areas where the only way to get
established on the localizer is by radar vectors, and once on the localizer
there is no fix until DH.

-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"