HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, steve@netcom.com (Stephen Williams) writes:

> I'm thinking of buying an airplane from an individual in
> Phoenix, Arizona which is about 650 miles from where I
> live (Oakland, CA). This means that a trip to see and
> touch it would cost a lot of time and money if I rent
> a plane to fly there.
> 
> Is is common for one to buy a craft remotely, making the
> trip only to pick it up? I would get a Pre-purchase done
> by a shop near the plane, and use their third-party eye
> as a judge. I have tried out an equivilent plane based
> closer to where I live and am pleased.
> 
> And for you Californians, what about the sales tax for
> such an adventure (I mean "purchase.") Will I need to
> pay sales tax, and if so how and where do I get the
> appropriate paperwork.
> 
> Steve Williams
> steve@icarus.net.netcom.com

Hello Steve,

Having bought, restored (repaired), and resold nine airplanes,
I would not think about buying an airplane sight-unseen.  Believe
me, the cost of the trip is cheap compared to the cost of the
repairs for a defective airplane or a misrepresented airplane.
The one airplane I bought without a personal inspection ended up
costing me mega-money to repair some "inner" items that had been
covered up by "surface" repairs.

As for sales tax, Colorado has a simple procedure.  Colorado gets 
a copy of the FAA bill of sale.  They send you a letter, which 
amounts to the paperwork, and you pay the tax.  I'd look into the 
situation for California before you buy.

Hope this helps.

Bill Arnold
billa@hpfcma.fc.hp.com
"No guarantees."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Scardy-moms
From: dmunday@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:44:12 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

I finally did it.  I've been flying off and on for twelve years, and I finally
got my mom to go flying with me.  Funny my dad wanted to go as soon as I had
my ticket lo over a decade ago.
 
It was a great evening for it.  Clear sky, little wind (atis said 6 but the
sock looked dead to me) and unlimited visibility (reported as 26 miles).
 
We left Lunken (LUK, Cincinnati) a little after official sunset, but with the
sky still blue overhead, shot two landings at Blue Ash, a lap around down-town
and back to Lunken for a total of 1.1.
 
I wish I could say she was elated, but she was reserved.  I think she enjoyed
it though.
 
I explained each clearance to her while we were at Lunken or in Cincinnati's
(CVG) airspace as well as the radio calls at Blue Ash (uncontrolled), and that
seemed to work well to assure her that this was not chaos, that someone
(everyone) knew what was going on and who was where.  I dispensed with my
usual patter about pre-flight and such as she isn't at all mechanically
inclined.
 
All in all a victory.  She told my brother about it and he thought she liked
it, so I think the reserve is just apprehension and first time jitters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Munday           | Bitnet    : dmunday@miavx1      Phone: 321-5145
Munday Computing, Inc.| INTERNET  : dmunday@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Miami University, Ohio| or        : munday@cinnet.com
                      | USmail    : P.O. Box 695, Oxford, OH 45056-0695
"Renting airplanes is like renting sex:  It's difficult to arrange on short 
notice on Saturday, the fun things always cost more, and someone's always 
looking at their watch."  - Ron Wanttaja
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Another trivia question
Date: 29 Sep 1992 14:47:24 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

Either that or the plane requires two to fly it.  Crewmembers are exempt
from the parachute requirement.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: zari@math.ethz.ch (Alain Zarinelli)
Subject: Re: Any comments about the El Al crash?
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:03:11 GMT

barney@sol.usc.edu (Barney Lum) writes:

>Los Angeles Times reports today (10/6) that Boeing will/has issue(d) a 
>directive to inspect the "fuse bolts", which are designed to shear off 
>under overload, on the engine pylons.

That's right! Boeing _HAS_ issued this note. Swissair e.g. is inspecting
all its 747's in the prescribed 60 day's period, if possible even in a
20 day's period.
But: it is by no means "clear" that this is the actual cause of the
accident. As far as I can see the events were somehow the following: (I
collected this from several news bulletins, newspaper articles and
drawings, leaving aside the speculations)

(*) the El Al Jumbo took off at Schiphol on the 01L, heading roughly
    north.
(*) something like 6 minutes after departure, the Jumbo was now over the
    north sea, the captain (or the f/o) announced technical problems and
    that they would like to return to Schiphol.
(*) they initiated a right turn and decided to take runway 27; Schiphol
    wanted them to take another runway to avoid built-up areas, but the
    capain decided they would take runway 27. Up to now everything
    seemed under control.
(*) shortly after this they reported fire in one of the right hand
    engines, then also in the other right hand engine.
(*) as it seems then the two engines fell off, but they still had
    control over the plane.
(*) finally there was a broadcast that they partially lost control over
    the aircraft, followed by one reporting a total loss of control.
(*) then the plane crashed in that suburb of Amsterdam, destroying 80
    flats and damaging another 150. Up to now only 14 (?) corpses were
    found. There is no trace of the CVR and the FDR. The Dutch
    authorities expect some 250 victims.

Of course: no warranties as to the accuracy of the account. After all I
gathered this from "official" sources...
						Alain.
--
Alain Zarinelli                                            (PPL-CVFR/NVFR)
zari@math.ethz.ch                                                         
zari@astro.phys.ethz.ch               "If God had meant man to fly ---
zari@czheth5a.bitnet                   He would have given him more money"
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Medication
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:26:24 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <BvDBuL.M16@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v064myby@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu 
(Christophe J Quaranta) writes:
> I'm on the stuff - makes you very hyper indeed.
> 		

For some people it doesn't much affect them.  Actifed is permitted if
an AME agrees to its use according to my book on drugs and the Pilot.

Personally, I have driven a dishwasher on Actifed, but I've quit 
because I thought it would hurt all the spiders that started appearing
before my eyes... :-)


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: osh@cray.com (O'Shaughnessy John)
Subject: Re: Solo Rites
Organization: Cray Research, Inc, Mendota Heights, MN
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:44:36 CDT



I had my photo taken next to the plane.  No garment abuse for me!


[And what if the instructor - student pairing is such that a ripped shirt
 would be cause for a sexual harassment suit...]


-- 
-----
John M. O'Shaughnessy					osh@a00308.cray.com
Cray Research, Inc.	Voice: 612.683.7322		Fax: 612.683.7509
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: schinner@vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer)
Subject: Re: help -- I've joined the Moonies!
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:32:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Dave Touretzky (dst+@cs.cmu.edu) wrote:
: I'm giving a friend a high performance checkout/endorsement in a pair of
: Mooney 201s.  Having logged a grand total of 2 -- that's TWO POINT OH --

How come you have to use two Mooneys???

: 1) One of the birds we're flying is a 1978 model with a Piper Arrow-style
: throttle quadrant.  I could swear I've seen newer Mooneys with push-pull
: knobs, like in the Cessna singles and, of course, like the older Mooneys.
: Was 1978 an odd year, or am I hallucinating again?

The 1970 Ranger (C Model) that was in our club had the same "T" style lever.
My '67 has the Cessna push-pull type.

: 2) What's the story with the gear horn?  Sometimes it sounds a continuous

My '67 has pretty simple stuff along this line.  It just wails steady if
the throttle is retarded and the gear is up.

: 3) The 201 has a Lycoming IO-360 engine.  Do you ever lean this for taxi to
: prevent plug fouling?  Our club is a stickler for leaning prior to taxi in
: its 152s, but I can't remember anyone ever telling me to do this to a fuel
: injected engine, and didn't think about it until my student asked.  I will
: sometimes do it in the Seneca on really hot days, but I'm not sure it does
: any good, or is even an advisable practice for an injected bird.  Comments?

I have heard that Mooneys are so tightly cowled that it is very uncommon to
foul the plugs.  I lean for taxi anyway because I don't see the harm.  I don't
know if fuel injection makes a difference.

: 4) For touch and goes, we've been doing our best to raise the flaps to the
: take-off position after adding full throttle but before rotating.  One of
: the CFIs I flew with says that's what he does.  But it strikes me as rather
: dangerous for a pilot who's transitioning up to a complex aircraft; he's
: very busy at that time, and doesn't really want to be fumbling with the flap
: switch.  I think raising the flaps fully would be simpler and safer -- just
: flip the switch to the "up" position and get back to concentrating on the
: takeoff.  The lack of 1/3 flaps doesn't seem to hurt on a touch and go,
: where you're almost at flying speed as soon as the throttle comes in.
: Comments, anyone?

I don't do touch-n-goes in my Mooney just because of the workload and the
flap settings.  It is very difficult for me to set take-off flaps from
full landing flaps while I am rolling down the runway at 70 mph.  Your
mileage may vary...

---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schinnerer  -  PP-ASEL-IA       |  Hewlett Packard
Mooney - 350X  -  "Buster"          |  Vancouver, WA
email - schinner@vcd.hp.com         |  (206) 944-3324
---------------------------------------------------------
From: dth@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David Hightower)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Unfamiliar phraseologies
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:48:42 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

Hmmmm...When I first started flying (a mere three months ago), my
instructor was absolutely astounded at how easily I dealt with the
radios; we fly out of Maxwell AFB, (controlled of course), which is
right in the middle of the Montgomery TRSA, so obviously we do a *lot*
of talking.

I let him be amazed for about three weeks before I finally told him that
I am a former air traffic controller.   ;>

On a related note, if you ever get a chance, you might want to look
through the Air Traffic Control manual (FAA Handbook 7110.65).  Knowing
what to say is nice, but knowing what the controller is going to
say--and WHY--really helps.  In fact, on several occasions I've caught
myself lip-synching along with the controller.....and I (for some
reason) feel offended if he/she doesn't get it right!
 
_________________________________________________________________________
Dave Hightower		|    opinion? I'm allowed to have an opinion?
dth@cis.ufl.edu		| well, if I DID have one, it'd be mine, all mine!
hightowr@cadre.af.mil   |              "Omnia Vincit Amour"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mjoseph@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Joseph)
Subject: Re: Medical exam (was Re: Beginner needs advice...badly!)
Summary: FAA Medical and Hypertension / Medication
Keywords: Hypertension, Medication, Prescription, Medical
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:54:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.210134.6467@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
>
>What exactly are they looking for in the medical examination?  Is
>hypertension (controlled by medication) going to be a problem?
>

_Maybe_.  While visiting the FAA Building at Oshkosh, I picked up a
brief guide on medical certificate eligibility for those with hypertension.
The bottom line depends upon the exact type of medication prescribed.
Contact your friendly local Aviation Medical Examiner, the FAA
Aeromedical Branch, or regional Flight Standards District Office for
further info.  If none of those options are acceptable, I'll try to 
dig up the guide I received from the FAA.

-- 
Mark Joseph             University of Illinois / Speech & Hearing Science
Technical Support Mgr.  901 S. Sixth St., Champaign, IL 61820
m-joseph@uiuc.edu       (217)244-2569   FAX:(217)244-2235
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL)
Subject: Re: Airplanes with horns (was Re: rude and agressive pilots)
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:36:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.171032.17027@equalizer.cray.com> bruceh@cray.com (Bruce  
T. Hill) writes:
> In article <1992Sep22.145953.12698@nntpserver.chevron.com>  
hdnea@usho92.hou281.chevron.com (David Neal) writes:
> >This reminds me -- I am constantly surprised that airplanes don't
> >have horns; I have needed one more than once. 
> 
> On the ground or in the air?  A horn is not going to do much for you when
> you are airborne.
> 
> My first CFI, a crusty old lady, had a very loud horn in her C-150.
> She used to honk it every time we taxied off for a lesson.  This was
> out at Corona, CA, and invariably there were always a group of the local
> airport folks sitting on the bench in front of the pilot's lounge who
> would critique the student's takeoff.
> 
> I have no idea whether or not there was a STC for the horn.  Most likely
> not.
> 
> -- 
> Bruce T. Hill @ Cray Research Superservers, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA
> Email: bruceh@cray.com  Phone: (619) 625-3746  FAX: (619) 625-0641
> Humorous quotation:  Nobody looks good wearing _brown_lipstick_. --Frank  
Zappa
Every airplane I've ever flown has a horn-yank back on the yoke sometime with a  
reduced throttle setting!!!!
Also, our flight club's 1960 Cessna 172A has been accused of having "horns",  
but the "horns" are the plane's bernoulli-effect vacuum system (the plane has  
no vacuum pump, and I wonder if it isn't more reliable than the vacuum systems  
used now [although it's kind of wierd for the attitude indicator not to spin up  
until you get moving down the runway!]).  This plane also has a 6-banger  
Continental, as opposed to the 4-banger Lycoming used in (much newer) 172's...
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:47:29 GMT
Subject: More approach adventures
Organization: HP General Systems Division
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

I'm taking a few weeks off from my commuting to LA, so I'm home for a while.
Yesterday I decided to do some more cloud punching and once again the gods of
IMC blessed me with an approach in actual.

This adventure was to Napa.  I picked up the ATIS and they were calling M8 OVC
2 F, with the LOC 36L approach.  Sounds good.  I got set up and the Oakland
Center informed told me to "hold at SGD as published on the VOR approach
chart, expect further clearance at 1815."  Well, OK -- but why the other
chart?  My Jepp binder was open to that page and I noticed that the holding
pattern is depicted the same on both (LOC and VOR) charts.  Oh well.  Go do
it.

I was just slowing to cross the VOR at holding speed (about a mile out) and
they called me back -- "change of plans -- proceed outbound on the 230 radial,
cross the VOR at 4,000."  This is getting stranger by the minute, since that's
taking me away from the LOC course.

Another few minutes goes by.  "You're 2 miles from SEAPO, cleared VOR-6
approach to Napa County."  What?  That plate's on the floor!  I question him,
mentioning that the ATIS said that the LOC 36 approach was in use.  He said
that no it isn't.  Great.

Now, of course, I understand the 230 radial stuff.  That's the outbound leg
for the VOR approach.  I quick got the plate up and realized that I had to get
SEAPO identified because I can't start the procedure turn till I cross that
intersection.  And the facility (SAU VOR) was NOTAM'ed OTS when I got my
briefing.  But it was on the air with a good ID so I used it.

All this time I was in-and-out of the tops.  When I returned to the final
approach course I entered the clouds for real.  I called the tower crossing
SEAPO inbound and they offered me a straight in to 6 instead of a circle to
36, which I gratefully accepted even though it meant some crosswind (about 10
knots or so).

I broke out at 700 (MDA S-6 is ~400, circling 620).  Landed uneventfully.

That was my fifth actual approach since I got my rating in July.  Each one has
been different, and they seem to be getting more challenging.  I intend to
keep this up :-)

Mark
-- 
Mark Cousins                Hewlett-Packard Co.        mtc@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs    19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659             Cupertino, CA  95014          FAX: (408) 447-4364

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: pryan@rp.CSIRO.AU (Philip Ryan)
Subject: Re: Medication
Organization: CSIRO Division of Radiophysics/Australia Telescope National Facility
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:01:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.183103.22221@odin.corp.sgi.com>, amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind) writes:
> (Bill Coleman) writes:
> >(Christophe J Quaranta) writes:
> >> 	On the subject of medication & flying,
> 
> on one memorable business flight
> back east, i discovered the abject
> misery that occurs while descending
> with plugged ears.  *nothing* worked;
> not contac, actifed, sudafed, 
> chlortrimeton nor some other snort-
> it-up-your-nose spray that an army
> parachute jumper had recommended to 
> unplug ears.

I had the same problem a couple of years ago. Chewing gum
as well as ingesting some (long forgotten)
"snort-it-up-your-nose spray" seemed to do the trick. I do remember
it being fairly painful until a stewardess offered me the gum.

Phil.
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Medication
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:42:22 GMT
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University

In article <1992Sep30.183103.22221@odin.corp.sgi.com>, amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind) writes:

|> if you've never flown with plugged 
|> ears, TRUST me you do NOT want the
|> experience firsthand.

I agree 110%!  I had the misfortune of doing this to myself, and although
the experience was interesting and educational, it got real old real fast!

I *thought* that I had recovered from a bout with the flu sufficiently to
be a passenger on a tour of San Francisco.  I was feeling just a little 
bit stuffy, but certainly not enough to get in the way.  Or so I
thought.  I was fine on the way up, and we didn't go any higher than
about 2500 feet.  But on a slightly steep descent into Half Moon Bay, the
ears stopped up and things went from bad to worse.  When the pilot turned
final, I could not keep things upright.  The world was spinning and
simply would not stop.  No amount of counter-pressure "ear popping"
techniques did any good.  The entire time we were on the ground there
(which wasn't very long since everything had just closed) I could not
walk straight and I could barely hear.  I think part of the problem is
that once they clog up in a descent, every additional foot seals them
up that much tighter.  After we were aloft, they opened up just fine.
A slow and careful descent into PAO, with me doing everything I could to
keep the ears from clogging, worked.

What really unnerved me about the whole thing was that before the flight
my assessment of my health was "good enough to be PIC".  I wasn't planning
on being PIC, but I certainly felt good enough.  But I tell you, once
those ears clogged up there was no way I would have been able to keep a
plane upright.....I couldn't even keep myself upright!

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
From: greg@pdx.csd.mot.com (Greg Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (sorry ... sigh )
Keywords: PIC, logging
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:58:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: pdxvme.1347
Reply-To: greg@pdx.csd.mot.com (Greg Mitchell)
Organization: Motorola CSD, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Sep28.221940.6732@tera.com> erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg) writes:
>This "sole manipulator" bit just caught my eye.
>
>Let's say I'm tooling around with an instructor for no apparent reason
>except to help him/her earn a living and practice some maneuvers my
>wife doesn't like.  We decide to practice something, say accelerated
>stalls.  I do a (sloppy) one, and he/she says "the airplane's mine"
>and shows me how he/she likes to see them done.
>

Or when your Sailplane rated pal in the right-hand seat is showing
you how to perform perfect 60 degree bank turns around a point.

>In the legal limit, I'm not the "sole manipulator of the controls"
>during the demonstration, so I can't log the time of the demo, right?
>
>In practice, of course, it usually takes less than 0.1 hours for such
>a demo, so it doesn't affect the log book, right?
>
>Erik

Just deduct the time you are not at the controls from the total air time.
During areobatic instruction your instructor might be at the controls
for half of the flight showing you how to roll to inverted or coordinate
inverted turns so the time you spend as a passenger may become significant !

Hi Erik !


      sorry about this. inews wants me to post more than i quote
                           ok, i'll play
junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews
junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews
junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews
junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews
junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews junk for inews
From: brianh@pongo.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Recent flight experience
Keywords: PIC, logging
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:39:43 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <0f5B02dI24zP01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kzk00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer) writes:
>Exactly that was my first reaction, too. But then, later in the same
>paragraph, it says:
>For the purpose of meeting the requirements of the paragraph, a person may
>act as pilot-in-command of a flight under day VFR or day IFR if no persons
>or property other than as necessary for his compliance thereunder, are
>carried.

Translation:  in order to get the 3 takeoffs and landings to comply
with required recent flight experience one can fly as PIC during the day
*only* if they do *not* carry passengers (or property).  This doesn't
invalidate the point that to carry passengers one *must* have done the 3
takeoffs and landings in the last 90 days.

>So I think the original poster's head instructor at least has a point.

Can you explain your reasoning?  I don't follow (and I'm sure others don't
as well).

>And if it's nothing but the conclusion that I end up with again and
>again: Whenever you believe you understand an FAR, you are wrong.
>It would be interesting to call the FAA in at least three different
>places; they will probably give four different responses.

*Now* we are in agreement! :-)