HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:39:04 GMT

In article <1dpqmtINNqnd@agate.berkeley.edu> chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.143647.19067@cbnews.cb.att.com> tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester) writes:
>>    How is the handheld liscensed ?   Do you get your own "N" number ?
>>    What, if any restrictions are placed on its use ?
>
>There is not an N number on the license, in fact, there isn't much filled
>in.  

Of course there isn't an N number on the license. The radio isn't an
airplane, and N numbers are AIRCRAFT registration numbers.

>"interesting" written on it.  There are no restrictions written on the
>license.  I'm sure that whatever restrictions are normally associated with
>aircraft radio transmitters also apply.

I am sure that the restrictions that apply are those listed in the CFR
section that applies to aviation radio station licenses, and the best
way to find out what those are is to get a copy.
From: ludeman@astroatc.uucp (Weekend Pilot)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:02:10 GMT
Organization: Astronautics Technology Cntr, Madison, WI

In article <1992Nov10.064824.8089@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>
>Fortunately (?), the FCC has a very minimal enforcement branch.  Many
>transgressions are made by well-meaning folks with regard to wrong
>frequencies or wrong uses of aviation-band transceivers.  Rarely, except
>in the case of repeated, blatent, and destructive transmissions, do people
>get caught.
>

So how does one go about helping a particularly annoying *%$#head
*get* caught?  This past Summer I experienced persistant problems from a
couple of different sources.

Source 1) A skydiving operation with *incessantly* blabby pilots.  Examples
include telling very long, drawn out stories and jokes, sometimes keeping
the mic keyed for 60 seconds at a shot, *many* irrelevant transmissions and
never *ever* a call sign other than a nickname.  All this was happening on
123.5 in Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin.  When these guys get up in
the air it sounds like a telephone conversation.  You wouldn't believe the
things we've all learned about somebody's girlfriend.

Source 2) Some (presumably ground bound) sort had a particular interest in
playing music (mostly country and western, a little rock & roll ;-)) on
123.3 and 123.5.  This source was quite a lot less powerful and somewhere
fairly close to Rockford, Il, although I have heard the same crap as far
as 40 miles away at times.  Typically transmissions would be several
minutes in length and repeated at random intervals throughout the
afternoon.  

Both sources have been heard on at least 8 or 10 occaisions.  I have
suggested to the skydiving crew (politely) that they keep the chatter down
and although they did not explicitly acknowledge, they *did* shut up for a
while.  After doing a little homework I decided the most likely source of
this abuse of the airwaves was East Troy, WI, and I made phone calls to the
airport manager and an airport FBO.  I did not succeed in finding out
anything incriminating, however, the level of noise decreased to a more or
less tolerable, if not professional level.

What next?  Source 1, if they choose to persist, ought to be very easy to
localize.  What about source 2?  More to the point, who takes care of these
things?  
-- 
Evan Ludeman   
astroatc!ludeman@spool.cs.wisc.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: glennw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (glenn.r.wesley)
Subject: AT&T - The flying choice
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: att
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:21:01 GMT
Keywords: AT&T


    Yesterday while I was driving from Allentown to Holmdel for the
C++ conference, I began to wonder where I could fly in if I wanted to.
So after I arrived, I pulled out my sectional to see what the best
airport would be to fly to Holmdel.  What I found was that it is not
readily apparent which airport, if any was best.
    I figure that that this is probably the rule rather than the
exception for Bell Labs locations.
    So I thought it would be interesting to collect from those in the
know, the information on flying a light plane into AT&T locations.  I
will collect it and post the results.
    Let's not turn this into a discussion on whether company rules do
or do not permit this activity. (please!)
    This is the information I am interested in, if there are other
items of interest, please let me know.

	AT&T Location:	
	Address:	
	Airport:	
	How to get to the Location from the Airport:
	How long to get to the Location from the Airport:
	Caveats:

=========================================================================
Glenn Wesley			PP-ASEL
glennw@alux2.att.com		230 hrs and climbing...
AT&T Bell Laboratories		Lehigh Valley Flying Club
Allentown, PA			Warrior 30LV, Charger 40LV, Archer 47480
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com (Dave Medin)
Subject: Re: Exhaust pipes on GA aircraft
Reply-To: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville AL
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:17:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.045608.12633@qdeck.com>, jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:
|> dobosz_m@wfooff.enet.dec.com (Mike Dobosz) writes:
|> >If one were concerned with decreasing noise produced by the average general 
|> >aviation aircraft, wouldn't it be a simple fix to have the exhaust pipes 
|> >point up instead of down?
|> 
|> I'm not sure, but I believe the bulk of the noise from a prop airplane is
|> from the prop rather than the exhaust.  Consider that a turboprop airplane
|> on takeoff sounds much more like a piston airplane than it does like a jet.
|> The only time you can really hear the turboprop whine is when they're starting
|> up and a little bit at taxi power.

You're right--the majority of the noise is prop noise. AOPA Pilot
had an article on noise reduction sometime back noting this and also
that the direction of propagation of that noise is mostly perpendicular
to the aircraft axis (noisiest to the sides of the aircraft). Several
voluntary noise redux programs I know of also request complex aircraft to
reduce prop RPM as soon as possible after departure as well as doing
runups facing noise-sensitive areas.

One of the reasons given for the majority of noise coming from the prop
is the velocity of the prop tips.

Now I'm not sure, but I think the AIM has info on this subject as well.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
       Dave Medin			Phone:	(205) 730-3169 (w)
    SSD--Networking				(205) 837-1174 (h)
    Intergraph Corp.
       M/S GD3004 		Internet: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com
  Huntsville, AL 35894		UUCP:  ...uunet!ingr!b30!catbyte!medin

   ******* Everywhere You Look (at least around my office) *******

 * The opinions expressed here are mine (or those of my machine)
From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Date: 10 Nov 1992 00:43:24 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: palomar.aero.org

In article <1992Nov9.214446.2415@nntpserver.chevron.com> hdnea@usho92.hou281.chevron.com (David Neal) writes:
>
>Right -- Ercoupes don't have rudder pedals. Later versions of
>the same design (notably the Mooney Mite) do.

	Note quite.  I vaguely recall that Mooney did take over
	the Ercoupe rights at some point.  But the Mooney Mite
	was something different entirely: a single seater with
	the conventional Mooney look.  Only like someone had 
	put it into a vice.

-- 
Larry Miller		The Aerospace Corporation
lmiller@aero.org	PO Box 92957		
310-336-5597		LA, CA 90009-2957
From: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: fuel leaking from gas caps
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:01:25 GMT
Reply-To: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article H7A@world.std.com, gsk@world.std.com (Geoffrey S Knauth) writes:
>spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
>>masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:
>>> In retrospect, the tail-low posture had caused about 7-10 gallons of fuel
>>> to leak slowly from the fuel caps over a couple of days.
>>If it had been leaking out of the fuel caps over a period of a couple of
>>days, I would think you'd have a nice blue stain running back [...]
>
>Some people have STCs to use auto-gas.  I wonder if auto-gas does not stain?
>-- 
>Geoffrey S. Knauth, Marble Associates, Inc.                Member BCS-NeXT, LPF
>gsk@marble.com, (617) 891-5555 work, (617) 547-5247 home   Standard Disclaimers

autogas is dyed red.  

---
Mark Steph               | The most endangered species--The honest man
exumfs@exu.ericsson.se   | Will still survive anninilation
(yes, .se *is* in Texas) | Forming a world--State of integrity
PO Box 833875, MS L-05   | Sensitive, open, and strong
Richardson, TX 75083     |      -Neil Peart, "Natural Science"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller)
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:16:54 GMT

In article <ansc8hs@Unify.Com> raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes:
>
>	A word of caution is in order that Vd is demonstrated in
>	a factory-fresh aircraft.  As individual airframes age they can
>	flutter at increasingly lower airspeeds, especially if their
>	rigging loses some tension.  In some cases flutter has occurred
>	at speeds below Vne.

and age isn't the only contributing factor. it is rather well known
within the soaring community that once a ship has had flutter, the
ship will flutter at a lower speed, possibly MUCH lower.

Rich Miller
rmiller@i88.isc.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: radios and non-pilots
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:08:36 GMT

I admit stupid question follows, but since I don't know, the stupid-level
is in debate... :-)

A few of us, who are not pilots (yet, I may add... :-), have an occasional
need to communicate with aircraft in the air.  The obvious solution is to
puchase a good handheld which will be useful once one actually pursues
that flight-thing.

In any case, can someone tell me what the requirements are for licensing,
etc., when the intended user is not airborne or attached to an aircraft
in any way?  (I'll also seek out the FAQ, which I assume refers to
recommendations on handhelds...)

Curiosities from a novice...

[email preferred]

-- 
Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics
rjg@stat.umn.edu                                     University of Minnesota
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: Problem Pilots
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 21:23:20 GMT

kzk00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Klaus Kraemer) writes:
>FAR 91.303 says, "For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means
>an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's
>attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary
>for normal flight."
>
>Until someone convinces me otherwise, I think a stall, though not an
>unsafe maneuver, results from an abnormal attitude and is not necessary
>for normal flight. Ergo, it IS aerobatic.

Let's take a look at 91.303:

91.303 Acrobatic Flight
	No person may operate an aircraft in acrobatic flight --
	(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
	(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
	(c) Within a control zone or Federal airway;
	(d) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
	(e) When flight visibility is less than three statute miles.
	For the purposes of this section, acrobatic flight means an
	intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's
	attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal acceleration, not
	necessary for normal flight.

All of the discussion has involved (d), but if you believe that these
maneuvers (stalls and simulated engine failures) are aerobatic you must
take the whole bunch of rules together.

In particular, consider (c).  If you look at a map of a major metro area
like Los Angeles or San Francisco and block out all of the airways (4 nm
each side of centerline) you will find relatively little area left.
I've not done the exercise recently, but when last I looked I believe
there was only about one square mile within 30 or so miles of Santa
Monica that wasn't inside an airway.  (Note that the bottom of an airway
is 1200' AGL, which might be well below the MEA.)

Just for yucks, when I get home I'll hit an old TAC with a magic marker
and see what I get.  You might try the same for your home area.

If FAA believed that airwork was acrobatic and felt like enforcing it,
all they would have to do would be to put a spotter in the hills above
Malibu and they could violate ten or twenty aircraft a day easily.

I contend that FAA does not consider airwork to be acrobatic.

So, where did you last practice stalls and engine failures?
From: hdnea@usho92.hou281.chevron.com (David Neal)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: getting tired
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:10:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Nov10.152934.5375@walter.bellcore.com> venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.150522.20173@cbnews.cb.att.com> tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.221142.7065@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>>>From article <1992Nov9.164808.8774@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>, by jpw@minerva.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein):
>>!>> Why do people get so tired while flying?
>>!>> 
>>!>I would think that your body is constantly trying to adjust to new
>>!>altitude density, plus countering the feet-not-on-firm-ground effect, 
>>!>etc, etc.
>>
>>    My guess would be the constant noise level. [[..]]
>
>As long as people are guessing, a *possible* reason is lack of good ventilation,
> [...]
>venky


Geez, venky you almost figured it out. 


Just a small carbon-monoxide leak ("No, really just the pilot
needs an oxygen mask") and those unruly passengers go right to sleep.

No more "but I don't LIKE spins", "Gee, what does this button do?",
and of course "You mean I wasn't supposed to be dialing
in our altitude in the transponder? Look! Jets!"


-- 
David Neal -- hdnea@hou281.chevron.com 

My processes aren't dead! They're only resource impaired!
Computationally challenged!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:54:47 GMT

raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes:

>	A word of caution is in order that Vd is demonstrated in
>	a factory-fresh aircraft.  As individual airframes age they can
>	flutter at increasingly lower airspeeds, especially if their
>	rigging loses some tension.  In some cases flutter has occurred
>	at speeds below Vne.

One of Bill Kirshner's favorite expressions is:

  "If you want to avoid Vd, stay out of dives."

Joe Morris / MITRE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jkr@cray.com (John Renwick)
Subject: Re: getting tired
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Nov 92 08:15:03 CST

In article <10NOV199213442134@watson.bms.com> bullock@watson.bms.com (JOAN BULLOCK) writes:
>We keep one of those plastic CO detectors on the panel.  I dunno if they
>really work or we are just fooling ourselves.  Anyone with some empirical 
>data?
>

I keep one in my J-3.  It's a plastic card with an orange circle
and a spot in the center that turns dark brown if CO is present.
A couple of weekends ago I sat idling with the heater on and the
door and windows closed.  The detector turned dark in less than 5
minutes.  I tore down the exhaust system and had a mechanic
inspect it.  We found nothing that would have leaked fumes into
the heater duct.  I concluded that exhaust was probably being
sucked forward by the prop and blown into the heater intake port
in the engine cowling.  I also concluded that these detectors are
quite sensitive, and that you shouldn't idle a J-3 all closed up
with the heater on!  :-)

-- 
- John Renwick
J-3 Cub N62088, building Acro Sport II S/N 911
jkr@cray.com
From: jim@fjolsvid.css.gov (Jim Wang)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Questions for (high-wing) Piper lovers
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:37:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: fjolsvid.JIM.92Nov12173724
Distribution: rec
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./Geophysics Div.

I've been interested in the Super Cub as a fun and simple
stick-and-rudder plane.  However, the PA-18-150/180 seems to
command quite a premium in the used plane market, with really clean
marques asking $60K!

So, as an alternate, I was wondering about the Super Cruiser (PA-12),
which has many of the same desirable attributes.  It seems that some
of these have been converted to the O-320, and a recent TAP lists
several for a more reasonable price (well, $25K).  Is there a reason
why the PA-12-150 is so much cheaper than the PA-18-150?  What would
the differences in performance, maintenance, handling, etc. be?

To focus any answers you might be able to provide, the attributes I
like are:

Tandem seating
Joysticks
Tailwheel
Good density altitude climb performance
1750 gross wt - 950 empty wt = ~800 lb for pax + fuel
35 gal fuel
dural spars
heel brakes :-(
limited acro in utility category (1500 lb) ??

Any idea how flying characteristics compare to the Citabria I'm flying
now?  (It's a fine plane, but with < 600 lb payload it's somewhat limited.)
Thanks for any answers!

Jim
From: bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: shuttles (no not the space one ...)
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:04:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: nmsu.1992Nov6.020433.2742
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1992Oct31.225604.8244@usl.edu> mahler@usl.edu (Mahler  Stephen J)  
writes:
> Can someone provide a pointer to the description of an IAP "shuttle".
> I would think the FARs or AIM would describe it, but I can't find
> it.   (A shuttle on an instrument approach is a course reversing
> device.)  ... tnxs .. Steve
> 
> Steve Mahler  PP-ASEL  KF5VH
Sure!  At the airport I fly at, Mesa Airlines in their Beech 1900's always  
makes pattern calls as "Shuttle 429" or whatever the flight number.  Now catch  
them on a cloudy morning when they have to shoot the NDB approach....

(Sorry couldn't resist!)
From: jpw@minerva.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: logging solo and ground time
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:50:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Drexel University, Philadelphia PA


After receiving your PPL (private), is there any advantage in logging solo
time (cross country or not), or in logging ground time with an instructor?

Since attending FAA safety seminars (+ 3 hours in the air) is good for 
a Biennial, can you log the time spent at a seminar as ground time?

jpw@coe.drexel.edu
-- 
Joseph P. Wetstein                  __|__          "I may be Captain by
jpw@coe.drexel.edu              ---o-(_)-o---       rank, but I never wanted
                                                    to be anything else but 
Al Kanfei Nishorim                 KA3VJY           an Engineer" - Scotty
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: berry@athos.pei.com (Berry Kercheval)
Subject: Re: logging solo and ground time
Reply-To: berry@pei.com
Organization: Protocol Engines, Inc., Mt. View, California
	<1992Nov9.165030.8880@cbis.ece.drexel.edu> <1dmqe4INNr9c@topaz.bds.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:01:23 GMT

>>>>> On 9 Nov 1992 22:58:12 GMT, ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) said:
Ron> Who logs ground instruction?

I do.  Mainly because I was paying my instructor more-or-less monthly
and the logbook is a convenient place to keep track of ground
instruction, since I'm keeping track of dual there anyway.

  --berry


--
Berry Kercheval :: berry@pei.com :: Protocol Engines, Inc.  Mt. View, CA
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:15:51 GMT
	<1992Nov3.195207.14369@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1992Nov5.121947.1266@eplrx7.es.duPont.com>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <1992Nov5.121947.1266@eplrx7.es.duPont.com> rogersmf@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Mark Rogers) writes:
   This question was asked at our soaring club's fall meeting: faced with such
   a choice, is it better to exceed Vne or the plane's maximum g-rating?

   The answer given was that there is a larger margin built into the
   g-rating (e.g., to be rated for +4.5 g's, a plane must sustain 6 g's in
   testing), so go ahead and pull back a little harder.  Evidently the margin
   built into Vne is only about 2-3%.  Another reason given for the answer is
   that people frequently overestimate the number of g's they're pulling.

To my knowledge, during certification, an airplane is flown to "Design
dive speed", Vd, which is 10% above Vne. During this test, nothing bad
(e.g. flutter) must happen. Of course, different kinds of aircraft
could have different certification rules.

You should also be careful about exceeding g-limits, thinking that
there are margins built in. It is true that the aircraft structure
should withstand larger g-loads (50% higher, I think) than the limits
without *breaking*, but nothing prevents other damage, such as
permanent deformation as soon as you exceed the certified g-limit.
--
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.misc,rec.aviation,rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:31:27 GMT

In article <SBCHANIN.92Nov10113655@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu> sbchanin@ai.mit.edu writes:
>
>I've heard that it is possible to buy/build "flying saucers."  In this
>case what I'm referring to is a (small) car sized object which is kept
>aloft by four propellers attached at the corners.  Rumor has it that
>these devices can fly up to 80mph at 40+ feet above the ground and
>have ranges comparable to cars.  A friend says he saw something about
>this on the TV show _Beyond 2000_.  I'd be interested in whether or
>not this information is true and in any pointers towards
>magazines/vendors who are involved in flying saucers (I've already
>checked _Popular Science_ and _Popular Mechanics_).

I remember seeing ads for a 'hovercar' in a catalog once.  (It was
Canadian)  I don't remen\mber if it was a kit or finished product.
It was in the early 80s or late 70s when I saw it.
(I was in 4-5th grade at the time)

Also in _Insight_ magazine, they featured a flying car that was supposed
to be as easy as a car to pilot, go 200mph, get 20miles per gallon,
and was V/STOL (6 turbofans propelled it).  This was about 1985-1986.
-- 
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ ^  ^  ^
| Brent L. Irvine         |  "Love is blind ... and stupid." | {\{|}/} CLAN
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu |                      -M.P.       |  {{|}} IRVINE
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+  o/|\o OF DRUM
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc