HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cap@selway.umt.edu (Charles A. Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Question: what might cause a dead battery?
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:48:32 GMT
Organization: University of Montana

I know, I know, leaving the master on!

Here's the deal: the Skylane has had the battery go dead twice in the last
month.  One day the battery is fully charged, and the next it is stone
dead.  But we didn't leave the master on (really).  When it happened
the first time, the battery would not take a charge, so we replaced it,
and the problem seemed to be solved.  

Until yesterday, when it went stone dead again.  I jumped started it, and 
flew for 2 hours, and then shut off, and tried to start again immediately.
No dice.  I mean, not even a click of the solenoid.  The gyros would
not even wimper.  The ammeter shows a normal charge when the engine is running,
and I turned on everything that would draw juice, and it all worked as
long as the engine was running.

But the battery apparently discharges enough to become un-rechargeable
in less than 12 hours, even though the master is off.

My local A&P thinks that it might be a shorted clock.  But the clock seems
to work fine.  Would a shorted clock continue to work?  Hmmm...
It seems more likely that the battery cable is pinched against the 
fuselage somewhere, but we haven't found such a thing.

Any ideas?

Cap
-- 
========================================================================
Cap Smith                 Assistant Prof. of MIS           PP-ASEL
cap@selway.umt.edu        University of Montana            Skylane 71654
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:19:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.212507.23292@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>>the reliability is absolutely rock-solid.  So, the chances of even one
>>engine failing are very remote.  The chances of both engines failing
>>are so small as to be negligible compared to everyday risks (such as
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   Except of course for the famous case, discussed in this group a
>year or so, in which a mechanic doing maintenance on a United Airlines
>trijet under some kind of confusing circumstances made the same minor
>mistake -- something involving a missing O-ring for an oil plug -- on
>all three engines, and the plane, in passenger service, subsequently
>lost _all three engines_, a significant distance out _over water_,
>somewhere off Miami.
>
>   [It did turn out OK; they restarted at least one engine and got
>back safely in the end.]

To reduce the probability, I believe that many ETOPs aircraft are now
required to have [ramp] maintenance performed by different mechanics.
My guess that this is part of the Ops Spec the airliners have with the
FAA.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Subject: Product Liability (was Re: Active noise-canceling headsets)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:43:12 GMT

	Heres a wild idea.  What if we formed a users group and filed a
    class action law suit against this idiot for damaging  our ability to fly.
    I can argue that this suit is as damaging to my ability to obtain
    reasonibly priced aircraft as they can show head sets are to blame.
    All we need to do is to show the high percentage of cost attributable
    to liability insurance.

    We could show that his stupidity in failing to lower the gear contributed
    to our collective expenses and loss of product support.

    Any "legal" opinions on the probability of such an action ??

    Maybe if enough "user groups" countersue, we could finally stop this
    nonsense.   

In article <1992Jul23.170922.12759@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.220740.16987@col.hp.com> davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen) writes:
	(shortened reference article)
>>Well, maybe we expected this one...
>>Just got a monthly newletter with an article about a gear-up landing.
>>The pilot got a runway change at the last minute and didn't get the gear
>>down. He was using an active noise-canceling headset. After the "landing"
>>he took off the headset, and you already know the first thing he heard -
>>the gear warning horn.
>>
>>Naturally he's suing the headset manufacturer. The author's point was that
>>
>This particular incident has me rather upset.  I hate it when people are
>not willing to accept responsibility for their actions and are quick to
>blame someone else.  Perhaps his point is that we should not wear headsets
>at all?
>
>Anyone care to join me in a class action suit against the headset man-
>ufacturers?  The reason:  headsets bring out the stupidity in the wearers.

	I like my approach a little better .
>
>Just plain mad this morning.  Sigh!

	Ditto.


-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: unreliable VOR navigation
Keywords: Gorman CA VOR
Date: 21 Jul 92 11:28:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: mitre.skip.109.711718125
Organization: The MITRE Corp

In article <1992Jul21.000504.29416@news.arc.nasa.gov> doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>Subject: unreliable VOR navigation

>On Friday I was flying from the SF Bay area into the LA basin.
>I was headed towards the Gorman VOR from the NorthWest, and
>noticed that my VOR indicator needles were swinging back and forth
>about 10 or 15 degrees...

>Any net.experiance similar to this? 

>OK, I've asked for it, turn the flames on.

No flames here.  I had the same experience going from Providence, RI to
Albany, NY over relatively flat land.  Providence (Ocean) Approach gave me 
a clearance "direct Barnes" when I was well within the 40 nm service volume 
of the VOR.  The OBS was swinging +/- 8 degrees as we tried to intercept 
it.  I was flying at over 5,000 feet so altitude shouldn't have been a 
problem.  Informed Approach who then amended the clearance eventually to a 
vector to intercept V-130 from Bradley VOR which worked fine.
From: dm@pnet01.cts.com (Dan Melson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: "remain clear of the ARSA..."
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:16:05 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA

ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:
>I buy the, temporary remain clear while we figure out where you
>are and dig up a squawk code for you, but the "We can't let you
>in because we can't handle it" is explicitly contrary to what
>ARSA's are all about.  If these things are so busy that they
>need that sort of protection then they should be TCA's.  I guess
>I still have a bad taste in my mouth when the Denver TCA never
>let VFR traffic in.

"We can't let you in because we can't handle it" RIGHT NOW is more like it.
 
"Remain outside the ARSA, expect one zero minute delay" (or whatever delay
might be appropriate given conditions) is better phraseology, and more correct
- but when you're *THAT* busy, you tend to chop out anything you don't
absolutely have to say.  It's not uncommon even for VFR tower controllers to
have to do this during busy periods ("Podunk tower, N12345 over Jones Lkae
with Alfa", "Cessna 12345, Podunk Tower, hold over Jones Lake")
 
ARSAs and TCAs are intended for a very specific purpose - the only difference
is degree (and if you'll check, you'll find out that ARSAs and TCAs are
becoming more similar in separation services provided).  A TCA is necessary
surrounding the very busiest commercial (and military) fields.  An ARSA is
where the traffic doesn't typically get so nasty for such extended periods.
 
Both ARSAs and TCAs are necessary, both in the opinion of the FAA and IMHO, to
serve the required purpose (Safe, orderly, and expeditious movement of air
traffic).  In my opinion, there needs to be more done to accomodate VFR
traffic from satellite airports, but this does not eliminate the real need for
the  ARSA or TCA.  Sure, sometimes you're going to run up against an "unable"
(which is really an advisory that going around the thing is going to be
quicker, in the controller's opinion), but wouldn't you rather be told "I
can't take you right now" than spend several hours playing Bureaucrat Games
(assuming there isn't an actual mid-air)?
 
My opinions ONLY!
                                             DM
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: annual flight reviews
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:26:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.214625.28560@news.nd.edu> ulick@dvorak.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:

[The AFR/BFR thing again.]

PLEASE read FAR 61.56.  It is pretty clear to me.

OK, how's this for an explanation:  First of all, there is no longer
such an animal as a BFR or AFR.  The correct terminology is simply
"Flight Review".

Second, the amount of time in your logbook, your pilot certificates/ratings,
and the last date upon which you satisfied FAR 61.56 determines when
your next review is due.

Example:  (Assuming the currently postponed AFR requirement is in effect)
	You are a private pilot non-IFR with < 400 hours and you
	have a flight review on July 30, 1992.  If you fly 1 hour
	during the year, still have less than 400 hours, and do not
	satisfy FAR 61.56 some other way, then you will need another
	flight review in the next 12 months to be PIC.

There is a grandfathering paragraph, 61.56d(3) that allows the FIRST period
to last for 24 months instead of 12 months.  However, it is not clear
to me if that paragraph has been reworded/redated to reflect the 1993
date.

BTW, this may be moot since the current discussion (twixt AOPA & FAA)
is to permanently rescind the 12 month annual requirement.  61.56(d)

>(Well, I hope to have an IR then to make this question moot, but right now
>on a graduate student stipend I am doing only 20-30 hours a year, at which
>rate it will be at least 2003 by the time I have 400 hours which would also 
>make the question irrelevent.)
>

Great!  I heartily encourage pilots to get the IR.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: War story and story request
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 20:07:53 GMT


In article <1992Jul23.182109.3094@walter.bellcore.com>, venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
|>In article <1682CBA60.BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis) writes:
|>>In article <1992Jul22.152232.21699@walter.bellcore.com>
|>>venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
|>>>In article <1682BB51B.BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis) writes:
|>>>>We had enough power to make it the remaining 60 miles
|>>>>home, but I don't think we had enough power that we could have done a
|>>>>go-around.
|>>>
|>>>Did you have any landing options much closer than 60 miles?
|>>>
|>>Yes, we did.  (Ohio has lots of airports.)  But we had enough power to
|>>maintain altitude, the weather ahead was clear, and we were, I think,
|>>8000 AGL.
|>> 
|>
|>Hmmm... *in case* there were no airports within gliding distance at *some* 
|>points in that 60 mile trip, would you have risked a possible off-airport 
|>landing in order to get to the home base?
|>
|>Anyone else?


I don't want this to escalate into a flame-fest, but I think I would have
put it down right then. A couple of members of a friend's flying club had
an unexpected reduction in power shortly after leaving their home base.
Although they could have landed at a nearby airport, they chose to return
home, probably because their maintenance is done on-field.

A couple of minutes out, the engine suddenly quit. Caught over heavily
wooded terrain, they attempted an emergency 'landing' in the trees, caught
a high-tension power line, and crashed. The impact killed both of them.

The problem turned out to be a defective fuel line, which was deteriorating
from the inside, and clogged the fuel strainer.

The moral: Little problems have a tendency to become big problems at the
worst possible moment. The time to put it down is while the problem is
still a little problem.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Small Children in GA aircraft
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:46:11 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <23345@alice.att.com>, ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
> Have you tried letting him fly the airplane?
> 
> If that doesn't work, have you tried candied ginger?

I may try having him fly the airplane again, (the first time he almost
executed an aileron roll in the Tiger), I'm hoping with some more
exposure he will grow out of the problem.  I've been flying since
1977, but I have neglected to bring my sons with me most of the time,
except when going on a trip.


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: 707 Barrel Roll Pilot FIRED <read on>
Reply-To: Marshal.perlman@bbs.oit.unc.edu
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 06:10:33 GMT

I pulled up my video archives..and watched it [no duh].

For anyone who doesn't know by now..the test pilot for Boeing DID roll
a 707...but he was fired later that day...for not 'using good judgement'...

BUT...he was hired back the next day..it was just sort of a stunt to show that
were quite pissed about him 'showing off'. 
--
==============================  *  Marshal Perlman               * DO
=-> mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu <-=  *  Huntington Beach, California  * NOT
==============================  *  (Surf City, U.S.A)            * EAT
___ANYONE UNDER 18 IS A MINER___
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: hopkins@gvlf9-o.gvl.unisys.com (Bill Hopkins)
Subject: Re: CAVU -- really!
Reply-To: hopkins@gvl.unisys.com
Organization: Paramax Systems Corp (A Unisys Company), Great Valley Labs, PA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:03:23 GMT

In article <MTANNER.92Jul22102200@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> mtanner@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Michael C. Tanner) writes:
> [...]
>CAVU = clear or scattered clouds and visibility greater than ten miles
> [...]
>Source:  FAA publication 7340.1K Contractions, change 5, 2/1/90.

_AOPA's_Aviation_USA_ for 1992 lists this definition in the
"Aviation Abbreviations" section; the attribution is "NWS" which
"indicates National Weather Service and aeronautical weather usage."

I continue to find this an extremely useful sourcebook.

	Bill (no room for primary sources) Hopkins

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hopkins                    Paramax Systems Corporation (A Unisys Company)
215-648-2854                    Great Valley Labs, PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
hopkins@GVL.Unisys.Com             Opening my mouth is not company policy.
From: s_krohn@ira.uka.de (Johannes Krohn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: COMM. KNOB FALLS OFFF IN FLIGHT
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:47:39
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau27.ira.uka.de
In-reply-to: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu's message of Fri, 31 Jul 92 04:52:17 GMT

Talking of stuff falling of in flight.

Last year i went to a field near my home field (EDTK, Karlsruhe, Germany) to
get my rating for the towing plane of my club (Robin DR 400). The
instructor told me to do some landings and on the second one while turning
into base i pulled the throttle to reduce power and...
... it fell of. Fortunately this plane has two throttles. One for the right
hand and one for the left. BTW: Does anybody know why the cockpit layout of
gliders is such that you have to use the right hand for the stick and left
hand for flaps, gear and stuff and in powered airplanes it's all the other way
round?
But back to the story: i pulled the left throttle and it also fell of. Pretty
funny thing to happen while flying that type of aircraft for the first time.
Luckily the throttles were locked in full power. Did i tell you that it was a
towing plane? So, for that reason the plane has a fixed prop optimized for best
climbing which means that with full power you have to climb or the engine will
soon be killed by high RPM.
I decided to get back to my home field, headed home while constantly climbing
and when i got near the field was confronted with the problem to bring the
plane back down. I decided not to kill the engine because i didn't know exactly
what would happen if i tried to restart the engine with full power but tried to
slip it down. Can you immagine the attitude of the plane being slipped with
full power? While decending i changed the direction of slip several times
because i thougt the engine might be damaged turning with full power and being
banked with approx 30 degrees.
I told the tower that i wanted to do a landing with power off on the grass
strip parrallel to the concrete runway and asked for a direct aproach. In short
final i stopped the engine and did a normal landing on the grass strip.

Funny incident, i think. Any comments?

Bye Hannes
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Gee Bee R2 was Re: Airshow Report
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:19:08 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston


OK, so how does the average airplane, not designed for the ragged edge as the
Gee Bee was, avoid an aileron-induced stall of the wing with the aileron down
at high angles of attack? The description would seem to apply to any aircraft
at high alpha.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
"Right now, because of you, this city is being overrun by baboons." "Don't
 you think that's the responsibility of the voters?" -- _Naked Gun 2-1/2_
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Bent Firewalls in General
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:03:02 GMT

When I bought my 1979 Skyhawk, the pre-purchase revealed that there 
was a "slight" crease in the firewall.  In discussing this with the
mechanic who did the pre-purchase, it was his opinion that most 172's
out there have some degree of bend in their firewalls and that this
was "slight" an not something to be particularly concerned with.  
At the time of the first annual, there was no mention made of the 
firewall.  Next annual rolls around, a different mechanic this time, 
and he makes a much bigger deal about the firewall.  He indicated that
_any_ bend in the firewall should be straightened since any bend has
caused some weakening and subsequent hits on the nose wheel could 
cause a collapse.  Anyway, the firewall was straightened.  

I'm curious about how big a deal other's view a "slightly" bent firewall.
Also, what do you do when one IA says something doesn't affect a plane's
airwortiness and another says it does?  I suppose you can't make a guy
sign off on something he says isn't airworthy, but how do you then 
protect yourself from repairs that are not in fact necessary?  If the 
guy won't sign it off, what then?  Or, are we owners pretty much at
the mercy of the guy that signs off on that particular annual?

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: Multiple simultaneous engine failures
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 02:40:48 GMT

Others said
# I remember a story from the 1960's about a DC-8 on approach to SFO
# (I think) that had ALL FOUR engines quit simultaneously.  (I can
# only imagine the scene in the cockpit!)  somehow, it landed safely;
# but I don't remember hearing anything about WHY the engines quit.
# Anyone else remember this?

Yep.
If I recall correctly, they then tore the plane apart looking
for a reason. Found nothing. Put it back in service.

Months later, the same bird was taxiing back from the far
regions of the ramp at Mexico City. All four stopped again.
I heard the airline sold the plane to the third world...

--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: willcr@bud.sos.ivy.isc.com (Will Crowder)
Subject: Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Was: Re: Cessna sholdr harn review (BAS))
Reply-To: willcr@ivy.isc.com
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:54:32 GMT

In article <5019@transfer.stratus.com>, spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve
Pennypacker) writes:

|> In article <1992Jul21.185938.20291@pony.Ingres.COM>, kerry@Ingres.COM
|> (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
|> 
|> > As trite as it may sound, the PROPER use of seat belts and shoulder
|> > harnesses cannot be overemphasized.
|> 
|> I agree with this, but I wish it was this simple.  I've never been able to 
|> get the shoulder harnesses in C-150s and 172s to stay attached to the lap
|> belt.  [...]
|> 
|> The only way I can prevent the shoulder harness buckle from coming undone is
|> to adjust the harness so tight that I can't reach the panel.  Not very 
|> useful.  
|> 
|> So, is there any way to fasten/adjust those things so they don't come undone
|> every few minutes?

Get longer arms...  :) :)

Seriously, since the seat is movable and the belt is not (that is, the
shoulder harness is attached at a non-movable point), moving the seat
closer to the panel *may* help.  (This is what I do, but I'm lucky:
The shoulder harnesses work for me without forcing me to sit 'on top'
of the rudder pedals.)  The key seems to be increasing the angle (where
0 degrees is straight down) at which the shoulder harness comes down to
the seat buckle.  If it's coming straight down (that is, if the seat is
that far back), then the shoulder harness 'hook' does tend to come
out.

You end up with a trade-off between optimum distance from the rudder
pedals and optimum effectiveness/convenience of the shoulder harness.
Unless it seriously affects your ability to fly the plane, I'd err on
the side of shoulder harness effectiveness myself.

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: dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky)
Subject: prevalence of engine failures
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:53:59 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

To the guy with 100 hours total time who had a partial power loss and
wants to know how often this kind of thing happens:

To the best of my knowledge there are no reliable statistics on this,
because engine failures aren't reportable unless they result in injuries or
major airframe damage.  However, from listening to people's war stories over
the years, my personal rule of thumb is:

  GA pilots can expect to average 1 engine failure per 1,000 hours of flying.

So relax, you're safe for at least the next 900 hours.  :-)

-- Dave Touretzky,  CFI-AIM,  Seneca N8147E (``The Beast'')
Newsgroups: rec.aviation