HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: myshatyn@fc.hp.com (Mike Myshatyn)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:42:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

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.)

: On a slightly different topic (the legality issue), my understanding is
: that an AIRMET for possible icing is quite different than a PIREP
: reporting known icing.  FSS seems to slap ice AIRMETs over the entire US
: some days, but the icing itself is usually quite localized.  
: The AIRMET doesn't regulate pilots out of the sky; the PIREP does.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I disagree  with this also.  As with many things  related to the FAA - YOUR
MILEAGE MAY VARY.  Never say never.  If you went out and bent something you
don't think the FAA would nail you for at least being Careless and Reckless
for ignnoring an Airmet?  Clearly REPORTED icing adds more fuel to the fire
(so to speak),  but would not dimish the  importance  of the icing  warning
that is given in an Airmet or Sigmet.

--

      \ . /         Mike Myshatyn                   Hewlett-Packard Company
o______(*)______o   ASEL/AMEL COMM, INSTR, CFI-IA   Systems Technology Division
     Bonanza        ...!hplabs!fc.hp.com!myshatyn   Ft. Collins, CO  80525
     N4896J          or ... myshatyn@fc.hp.com      (303) 229-4067
From: maverick@camelot.bradley.edu (Darin Petersen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: instrument approaches
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:14:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: camelot.maverick.728072046
Distribution: rec
Organization: Bradley University


     When is it possible for non-instrument rated pilots to log instrument
approaches?  

If I practice one with a safety pilot, can i legally log one?

--
            __|__          Darin Petersen - PP-ASEL
     ________(*)________  Maverick@camelot.bradley.edu
            o/ \o    
            
              
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:30:00 GMT

masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:

>In article <93020.195642SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:

>>  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.  

>A basic rule of thumb here is that a four place airplane with 160hp cannot
>reasonably expect to climb out of icing conditions (though this is by
>far the preferable escape route in the midwest, especially since bad icing
>often occurs in stratus with tops below 7-8k).  A "hit" of even light
>rime ice will knock 10kts off the cruise speed of a C172, and reduce 
>climb to 100-200 fpm if you are on the fortunate side of the severity-of-
>icing curve.

I had a good demonstration of how sensitive a bird can be to trace ice.
Several years ago I was on a night IFR flight STL -> TYS in late December,
probably at 9000 or so, in a Cardinal RG.  Wx was widely scattered CU below,
and beautiful clear stars above, but at 9000 we were just barely
level with the tops of the CU.  Typically we would be in the tops for
perhaps 30 seconds or less, then clear of clouds for 10 minutes or so.

The bird's autopilot was only a wing leveler (and an ARC box to boot...ugh),
so altitude was maintained by trim.  The air was absolutely calm, so
there were no excursions in altitude.  However...

Each time we cut through the (rather wispy) tops of the clouds the bird
would promptly descend a couple of hundred feet; after exiting the 
clouds it would slowly recover altitude back to the nominal 9000'.
Apparently the very light layer of ice -- not visible from the cockpit --
knocked enough lift from the wings to result in the descent; as it
sublimated after exiting the clouds the airplane recovered the lost
altitude.  The pattern continued until the clouds disappeared somewhere
over central Kentucky.

(On the same trip the gear pump motor (back in the tail in a 177RG) 
had its pressure switch freeze up, but that's another story.  Suffice
it to say that it was **C*O*L*D** and I had started the trip only after
removing a measured 4-1/2" of solid ice from the wings, courtesy of
a major ice storm in STL.)

Joe Morris / MITRE
From: ms@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mark Stolz)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:32:11 GMT
Subject: Re: GPS Instrumentation
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr

> 
> 
> apples and oranges (I think).  
> 
> measuring the relative position of multiple antennas
> (with a single receiver) is not the same as measuring
> the relative position of multiple antennas when each
> antenna has its own receiver.
> 
> Bob Noel
> my view's are my own, not MITRE's
> 
   Trimble claims to have a GPS landing system that they are
flying today.  By having a receiver on the ground, the transmit
data to a plane on the approach, correcting any error.  The 
person I talked to at Trimlble cliams that they are able to land
with this system to within 2 feet of centerline and spot on
the runway.

  Sounds feasible to me.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Change in NOS Terminal IFR Publications
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:46:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan17.074341.9023@peck.com> I wrote:
> NOAA plans to convert the TPP's (Terminal Procedure Publications)
> from glue-bound volumes to loose-leaf volumes, shrink-wrapped in
> plastic...

In article <skip.224.727447953@mitre.org> skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
> Any mention of cost?  This would appear to be expensive!  

Perfect binding is probably no less expensive than shrink-wrapping
hole-punched sheets.  When I spoke with NOAA about this last summer
at OSH, they said that the costs would be the same.  Note, however,
that NOAA does adjust the cost of the charts annually, so they might
change in January, 1994.

In article <llpfdtINNca0@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed
Falk) writes:
> Never mind the typography, I just wish they'd put all the info on one
> page!

Egad!  An entire volume on one page!  Now THAT would be CLUTTERED!  :-)

							Geoff
From: niles@parc.xerox.com (Les Niles)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: please help clear up my confusion over feeders, transitions, etc.
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:26:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: pizzicat.NILES.93Jan25082618
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA

In article <skip.234.727964981@mitre.org> skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.212537.19761@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> wayne@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Rick Wayne) writes:
>>... i've always had a hard time figuring out what to do about
>>feeders and transition routes, and whether they're part of the
>>approach or not... 1992 AIM 5-46 (a), "When cleared for the
>>approach, the published off airway (feeder) routes that lead from
>>the en route structure to the IAF are part of the approach clearance."
>>janet says, on the other hand, that the feeder routes do not constitute "...a
>>segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure..." under FAR
>>91.175 (i) (1992 edition again).

>I side with you using the same section Janet quotes.  The feeder routes are 
>"published routes" and if cleared for the approach are applicable.
>...
>This would apply even to airways leading to the feeder route which aren't 
>on the approach plate.  If you're at 10,000 feet on V1 leading to 
>intersection BOZO which starts the feeder route and are cleared for the 
>approach, you can immediately descend to the MEA along the airway to BOZO 
>and then down to the MEA along the feeder route with no further clearance 
>from ATC.

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.

Oh yeah, I passed the checkride.

  -les  niles@parc.xerox.com
        Skylane N2461G
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: grima@iphase.com (Gary Rima)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: Interphase Corporation, Dallas Texas
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:24:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.173241.5151@wkuvx1.bitnet> scottcr@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>
>ICE seems to be the unmentionable word on the radio: Here's why:
>If, on the approach, you become the first to discover ICE, and
>announce it, you admit flying into it, and then the issue becomes
>whether or not it was "known".  However, you have just poisoned
>the approach for the next guy coming in w/o de-ice, as NOW it is
>clearly known ice!  This happened to me, in a situation where
>surface temp: 28F, I'm ifr on top flying to my destination which
>is forecast 2000 and 5, so it's a virtual certainty
>that I won't miss, and no alternate required.  So, when I'm
>#2 on the approach and am told by FSS about recent PIREP..moderate
>ice, what am I supposed to do, park it?
>
>Well, this ought to stir it up!  Ice gurus what say ye?
>
First, as you say, safety first!  If the WX is _reported_ (not just forecast)
as 2000 & 5 (by the same guy who reported the icing?) I'll go ahead and shoot
the approach without a second thought.  As I pointed out to someone else in the
thread, I and many other of us fly CAR 3 certificated airplanes.  There is no
_legal, regulatory_ prohibition against flying CAR 3 airplanes in known icing.
This is a little known difference between the old CAR 3 certification regs and
the newer FAR 23 rules.

-Gary-

-- 
Gary L. Rima						Interphase Corp.
PP-ASEL-IA						(214) 919-9226
Centurion N7358E					garyr@iphase.com
N0GR							CompuServe 76050,231
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Static System Jumps?
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:14:41 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <MfLkFZC00WB8Akp1kR@andrew.cmu.edu> Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>A few weeks ago I was flying a C-172 at 6,000 ft, in IMC, steady,
>...
>
>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.
>
>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". 
>
I'm not a licensed mechanic, but my WAG (Wild Guess) is that you have
a break in the static line to the cabin.  The cabin pressures is
always less than outside (pressurized cabins excepted) due to slight
leaks around the door seals, etc.

The "break" is aggravated by cabin vibration probably opening and closing
every now and then.  Switching to alternate static air, which is most
planes I've flown in, is open to the cabin.  The symptoms you describe
going away when alternate air is used further confirms this hypothesis.
Don't just look at the pitot-static tubing.  It's quite possible you
have a leaky static instrument (altimeter, VSI) that is the culprit.

I'm curious to see how close this guess is.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators,news.answers,rec.answers
From: aharbin@engr
Subject: Re: shareware simulator?
Reply-To: aharbin@engr.mun.ca
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:32:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.020935.8925@netcom.com>, mdb@netcom.com (Mark Bisgeier) writes:
> Is there a shareware version of a flitesim program for PCs (i.e., DOS
> machines) that's available via ftp and is worth using?
> 
> Thanks> 
> 
	I get a lot of games and simulators from wuarchive.wustl.edu. 
Once you get in the games and demos are in mirrors\msdos-games.  One
simulator I got was the demo version of Falcon 3.0.  Others are there.

Andy Harbin
aharbin@engr.mun.ca
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
From: fergusor@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (FERGUSON ROBERT SCOTT)
Subject: Re: A320 Airbus
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:53:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.234719.5940@leland.Stanford.EDU> etu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eugene Lucian Tu) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.122418.29572@syma.sussex.ac.uk> markf@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Mark Foster) writes:
>>
>>Does anyone have any information about the recently advertised
>>A320 Airbus simulator. The one that was developed in 'corporation' with
>>Lufthansa and Deutsche Airbus.
>>
>I seem to recall (from the back of the box) that the graphics looked
>similar to our ATP and MS Flight Simulator here.

One of the choices in ATP is to fly an A320.  However, the manual
does note that the flight model used by the simulation for this
plane is simplified.  Maybe subLogic was involved in the development
of the Airbus simulator.  I'd be interested to find out.

-Bob

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: FS4 Aircraft Collection
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:19:46 GMT

Sorry for my delay in posting this.  This showed up on the ATP list a
while ago:

------------------------------- Cut here 8< ----------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 18:57:11 +1100
From: afs@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au (Alistair Scott)
Message-Id: <9301160757.AA45494@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au>
To: atplist@isc.scarolina.edu
Status: OR

Hi all, sorry about my long absence from the mailing list. I have been
embroiled in job hunting and the problems of earning a living while
looking for a post-doc...

For anyone who has FS4 I am putting up for anonymous ftp a collection of
public domain  aircraft. Yeah I know tihs is the ATP list, but I enjoy
a 'gumby' fly of FS4 occasionally, besides, some of them are damn nice
looking and fly beutifully.

They can be found on tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au in /pub/incoming/FS called 
airlib01.exe and airlib02.exe. They are self extracting archives and are
virus free (I unpacked them on my system with no ill effects)

They include....

airlib01:

Mig-29 fulcrum
B2 
SR-71
Piper Warrior II
Cessna Citation
BAE 146
Corsair (F4U)
Antonov Myria (the big sucker)
Beech Bonanza (V tailed doctor killer)
DC-3
Wright bros flyer
F-4
Tornado
Beech 1900C

airlib02.exe:

Grumman Gulfstream
Quickie
F-5E
T-38
DC-8
Ford Trimotor
Twinbeech 18C
Aeronca (looks like a champ)
TBM700
LongEze
Me-262
A340 Airbus
F-16
B-727

enjoy...


Alistair


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mdb@netcom.com (Mark Bisgeier)
Subject: shareware simulator?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:09:35 GMT

Is there a shareware version of a flitesim program for PCs (i.e., DOS
machines) that's available via ftp and is worth using?

Thanks


-- 

                      """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
                       Mark Bisgeier   mdb@netcom.com
                        "Imagine the possibilities!"

                        """"""""""""""""""""""""""""
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: a320.... bah
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 20:00:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.172644.4232@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>From article <1k86hpINNr6t@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, by rab@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Richard Alan Brown):
>> I'd like to see something like ATP with SVGA drivers, and code
>> optimized for the 386/486 generation of processors (and versions
>> for Mac, Amiga etc).
>
>I spoke to SubLogic a while ago about SVGA drivers, the answer is
>no way, no how, no when.  Of course, the lady who anwered it could have
>been answering the same questions (you guys been calling in) all day
>long, and is frankly tired of it. 
>
>I spoke to Stu Moment the owner of SubLogic at last Comdex, he was a 
>more receptive to the idea but still no.  It seems like they are "going 
>slow" (I do applause them for coming out with the SB voice version of ATP)
>in development.  What do y' say we put together some money, buy the
>company, and get some guy to do the SVGA driver, and whatever driver
>we want or will be wanting. 

I bet the reason they aren't using SVGA drivers is because SVGA modes are
so damn slow when compared to EGA and even basic VGA.  Sure, with all the
new fancy accelerator cards out there, this isn't a big issue, and I 
suppose you don't have to use it if you don't want it, but why should
they spend the money to develop something that will only slow down
their program?
   ATP was not really designed for graphics display as much as it was for
flight realism, unlike Flight Simulator.  That's why it's frame rate is
so much slower...it's a complicated program.
   That and the fact the subLOGIC is a very small company, and after the
Microsoft lawsuit, I bet they don't have a lot of money floating around
for R&D.  :)

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: wuarchive & tauon
Date: 29 Jan 1993 00:29:34 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: m66-080-4.mit.edu

In article <C1IzrC.5z7@news.udel.edu> doing@bach.udel.edu (David Allen Doing) writes:
>	A simple but easily misinterpreted problem.  When I try to open
>wuarchive or tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au, my computer will say unknown hosts. 
>What are the real addresses to these domains?  Is it wuarchive.edu?  That
>is what I have been trying, but I cannot seem to connect.  Help!!
>
>Please send e-mail
>

Best Bet is to Try wuarchive.wustl.edu  that is the full address
that works for me every time.  I dont know about tauon, never used it.
any good stuff in there?

Derek

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"He lived a life of going-to-do, 
   and died with nothing done"	       
		-J. Albery	     

In other words---JUST DO IT!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: sound board capability for MS-FS4?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 14:38:40 GMT

In article <15638.2b61ddcd@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> elf@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>Hello everyone,
>
>I have a quick question here --
>Does anyone know if MS-FS4 has any sort of "sound board" capability?

Check out the Sound and Graphics Upgrade from Mallard.  It provieds support
for Adlib, Soundblaster and Pro, and a few others.

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
From: bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: New Keyport Joystick from Maxx
Date: 21 Jan 1993 14:37:22 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com


I finally received info from Maxximum about their new joystick, the APS 2001
Cobra (coming March 1993).

I spent ALL LUNCH drawing this today, just so the simulator newsgroup would
have the latest info on what looks like a very hot joystick (applause, 
applause).  It connects to the keyboard port, and EVERY button is programmable, 
so that a batch file will allow remapping of the button functions for different 
programs.  It comes with some sort of keyport Y-connector, which allows full 
functionality of the keyboard when the joystick is connected.

                       __________
                      /    __    \  <------ (front trigger button)
                     |    / .\    |
        button ----> |(*)/.  .\(*)| <---- button
                     |   \ .  /   |
                      \   \__/   /
                       \      ^------ 4 position view selector button
                        |      |         
                        |      |
                        |      |
                        |      |
                        |      |
       6 programmable   |      |
       buttons on side  |      |
       console          |      |\
                \      /   ||   \ \
                 \    /    ||    \  \     <---- 6 more programmable
                  \  /   +----+   \   \         buttons on side console
    slide    ----------->|    |    \    \
       throttle    /     +----+     \   /
                  /        ||        \/
                  -------------------

(It looks nicer in the picture).  Everything, including the slide throttle, is 
mapped to a keypress.  The joystick will buffer the equivalent of 200 
keystrokes.

I don't work for, or have any affiliation with, Maxximum.  Just thought you'd
be interested.
--Bob
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
From: markf@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Mark Foster)
Subject: A320 Airbus
Organization: University of Sussex
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:24:18 GMT


Does anyone have any information about the recently advertised
A320 Airbus simulator. The one that was developed in 'corporation' with
Lufthansa and Deutsche Airbus.

The ad fails to identify the developer.

Thanks in advance.

Mark

-- 
Mark Foster, Computing Service, University of Sussex, Falmer, England. BN1 9QJ
JANET: markf@uk.ac.sussex.central - OTHER NETWORKS: markf@central.sussex.ac.uk
                      VOICE: +44 273 606755 x8096
"There are no such useless words as 'I didn't have a chance'"... Driving, HMSO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games