HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg)
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Keywords: ponds, plumes, piles, and stains
Organization: Tera Computer Company, Seattle, WA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:24:22 GMT

In article <c!an1ka@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>Kinda begs the question of whether it is any of your business or not
>too, now doesn't it? 

Well, if you are minding your own business in your back yard, causing
no ill effects to anything surrounding you, it *is* none of my business.

However, if you are stashing 55 gallon drums of toxic ooze, it is my
business because your toxic ooze is (or will be) seeping into my
groundwater or air.

>I suppose you'd call in the marines on my place 
>if you flew over it.  after all there is a stack of 55 gal drums in my 
>back yard.  They contain... air.  I build Bar-B-Que grills in my 
>spare time.

I hope your Bar-B-Que grills aren't leaking toxic ooze.

>Do I have the wrong country or is there still a principle
>that I don't have to prove my innocence just because I happen to
>possess something that makes zealots quake in their shoes?

Well, let's try an analogy ...

I'm walking down the street in front of your house with a case of red
paper tubes, about 3/4 inch in diameter and 6 inches long, with a few
wires hooked up to a little box on top.  I stop on the porch of my
house (right next to yours), fiddle with the box, then walk off.  Are
you going to wait to see if the case *IS* dynamite with a timer or are
you going to go check it out?

These may be completely different situations to you, but leaking 55
gal drums can be far more deadly than the explosives, it just takes
longer.  Spotting suspicious trash heaps from the air, just like
spotting suspicious explosive devices, then asking questions about
them seems perfectly sensible to me.

>Am I the only one frightened by this kind of meddling?  THese sound like
>the same kind of rationalized justification the Drug Warriers against the 
>Constitution are using to justify no-knock gestapo raids, civil forfeture 
>and similar acts not even dreamed a few years ago.

Now even though I think your language is inflammatory, I have to agree
with you about civil forfeiture laws.  The fact that I can lose my
airplane, or my house, or my <whatever> just because a passenger/guest
dropped a joint or $20 worth of cocaine is a total outrage.  No proof
is required that the contraband was mine, and I have to fight like
hell to (try to) get my property back.

>I almost didn't post here for fear of raising the noise level but I've
>read just about enough of this little twinket's babbling without saying
>something.

I have to admit it's right in the header: 

>Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

Erik
From: dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Blue Angels' Final Show
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:35:21 GMT

Does anybody know when the Blue Angels end-of-year show in Pensacola is
going to be held this year?   Thanks.

- David McLeod
- dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: Problems reaching duat.contel.com lately?
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:05:51 PDT

(About not being able to reach DUAT via telnet)

I noticed this too. However, I saw a posting from someone from Contel two
or three days ago, and I fingered the poster. That went fine (finger @host
worked fine too). However, he didn't answer my page when I tried to 'talk'
to him, to ask him about this problem.

Please keep us all posted, it's so convenient to access DUAT from here.

Cheers,
______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: playing with jackals
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:51:33 GMT

On Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:53:47 GMT, drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) said:

MM> In article <BtM8B8.6t5.2@cs.cmu.edu> dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:

MM> All I wanted to point out
MM> is that if one uses ones position of authority to post something here or
MM> anywhere I think it would be a service to all if one would actually find
MM> out more than just a surface understanding of the problems one is talking
MM> about.

Margaret's only "position of authority" here is that she has computer
access to the Net.  That's it.  That's all that any of us, including
you and me, have.

Now, if you want to regard her as some sort of expert, that's your
decision.  But don't expect her to do anything to satisfy you.  She
has no obligation to you.

This goes the other way, too.  I won't ask you to prove that
clearcutting doesn't harm the environment, even though that's what
you claimed.

Just because Margaret sounds like a crypto-socialist tree-hugger and
you sound like a dupe of the eco-raping
sell-out-our-heritage-for-a-fast-buck companies, doesn't mean that I'm
going to be particularly swayed one way or the other.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
From: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: umwaufi report
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:23:32 GMT
Organization: CAD-Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City

In some article ericth@i88.isc.com (Eric Thiele) writes:

>Outside of the unfair landing scoring (a 4???  We didn't bend any metal),
>(must've been the judge from Greece) the flyin group was very friendly - I 

Negative on that, look on this side of the ocean for the bad judge...

-- 
Yiannis E. Papelis,            - Electrical & Computer Engineering, U of Iowa
Center of Computer Aided Design- Home of the Iowa Driving Simulator & future
e-mail: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu - home of the National Advanced Driving Simulator
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: km11480@medtronic.COM (Keith A. Meisel)
Subject: Re: Flying saves money (sic)
Reply-To: km11480@medtronic.COM
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:58:02 GMT

>there is just one thing which nobody has taken into account yet:
>driving would be much more expensive if it were not subsidized (i.e. you
>take for granted that road construction and maintenance is paid by
>?the tax payer).  How much would it cost to drive if you were paying for
?the whole cost involved?

How much would general aviation flying cost us if Flight Service, ATC, 
were not subsidized by taxes on airline tickets.  A recent editorial in 
the Minneapolis Star Tribune pointed out that if GA pilots paid their
"fair share" (their words) the cost for the GA pilot would increase 
tremendously.  I don't have the exact figures, but it was startling.
From: prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Mag Failure (was Re: how to do a mag check?)
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:32:08 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

>  I don't really know how serious one meg failure is in the air,
>  and I don't really care to find out with my life!  Anybody knows? 

Circumstances vary, of course, but the Fly Baby's two incidences of mag
problems have been benign.

The first was a temperature-sensitive coil failure.  It ran OK when cool,
then dropped out when it warmed up.  This means, of course, that the runwup
was just fine but that the mag died when the temperature got into
more-normal ranges.  Like, right after takeoff.

At the time, I had only ten or so Fly Baby hours and didn't notice any
roughness.  It wasn't until I stopped at another field that the problem
revealed itself when I did a mag check before taking off again (the engine
was, by that time, warm).  I flew the 10-15 miles home and we bought a new 
coil.  Not a trivial task... the 'Baby has Eisemann mags; out of production
for 20-30 years.

In that case, the engine would barely run on the bad mag.  A year or so
later I was much more attunded to the engine and detected slight roughness
at cruise.  As it was raining at the time :-( I attributed it to moisture.
An in-flight mag check confirmed that the problem was still there when the 
sun came back out, though.  It was rough, but not as bad as when the coil
went out.

In this instance, the center carbon "brush" of the distributor part of the
mag had broken up.  Enough large pieces remained to make good enough contact
to keep the engine running.

I shuddered at the thought of bearding the Eisemann parts pipeline again.
Fortunately, I happened to be driving my VW "Thing" that day, and had
an old distributor cap in the trunk.  I pulled out its center brush, and it
turned out to be the same diameter and length as the Eisemann.  The spring
was a little heftier on the VW unit, but I figured that wouldn't make much
difference.

The Bosch/Eisemann mag's been working fine for three years now...

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@ssc-bee
					  ...rutgers!uw-beaver!ssc-bee!prang
                                          prang@ssc-bee.boeing.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Subject: Re: GLIDER: stall landings (Was: Transition Glider to Power)
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 19:22:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.153441.13571@i88.isc.com>, rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller) writes:

>  the 152 may be 5:1 in the landing configuration,
> the Discus may be as much as 42:1 depending on where the spoilers are.

	Probably even more -- don't forget ground effect.  It wouldn't
	take much excess airspeed to bleed off before it's worth
	calling it infinity-to-one on a short field.
 

------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: Cessna 177RG to try out
Organization: Pomona College
Distribution: ca
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:26:56 PDT

In article <x3kn-+b.steve@netcom.com>, steve@netcom.com (Stephen Williams) writes:
> I've asked this before, but with only limited success, so I try again.
> I'm looking for a Cessna 177RG to try out. I'm thinking of looking

Steve,

I don't think you received my mail. Please contact me at the address below, the
FBO where I rent from has a Cutlass RG in excellent shape.

______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: Air Lifeline experience
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 03:24:46 GMT

In article <2#gnr0m.rkaplan@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
>Actually, my quote came from a pamphlet called "AIRLIFELINE
>and the Private Pilot."  The full quotation is as follows:
> ... [quote was from]  Oscar Victor

Not the same case.  Can't provide any information on it.

>Regarding the detailed case you described, I feel the level
>of urgency imposed by carrying urgent medical cargo creates
>an unacceptable level of risk.  ...
>I do not feel that a patient's acute medical need justifies
>a private pilot lowering his weather standards.  ...

I think this will have to be a point on which reasonable people
can disagree.  I think that it is perfectly valid and appropriate
for a volunteer to risk his life to save the life of another.

Or, more generally, I think it is appropriate to have different
risk acceptability levels for missions of different urgency levels.

Incidentally, Dave Fiedler tells me in private mail that he's responded
on this thread; unfortunately our newsfeed appears to come through
Antarctica by boat, and I've not seem it yet.  :-(
From: wsanders@ffeine.Sun.COM (Wiley Sanders)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Number of U.S. Pilots  (was Number of small aircraft wanted)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:47:39 GMT
Organization: SMCC CMD PES TLTS!
NNTP-Posting-Host: ffeine.corp.sun.com

Dan Writes:
>If this is true, it is really quite scary -- only 1 in 7 of the people
>in the pattern at the average GA airport has the knowledge, skills, and
>experience of getting the instrument rating.
  Don't forget the $2-4K up front and $200 to $600 per month or more
it takes to stay safe (let alone current) in the Bay Area. Right now
the $$$ is the only thing preventing me from the instrument rating.
(well, besides doing the actual work required to get the rating, ahem :-) )
-w
--
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to
have a mind as being wasteful. How true that is."     -Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg)
Subject: Re: across the border and back
Summary: It's OK, but ...
Organization: Tera Computer Company, Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:30:14 GMT

In article <NILES.92Aug24161216@pizzicato.parc.xerox.com> niles@parc.xerox.com (Les Niles) writes:

> Which brings up an interesting question: What are the legalities of
> flying across the border and back, without landing in the other
> country?  Suppose I want to do some aerial sightseeing around the few
> San Juan Islands that Canada got to keep after the Pig War (well, it
> was still Britain back then).  Will the US and/or Canada get pissed
> off and chase (or shoot) me down?  Will a DVFR flight plan make it OK?

According to the FAA, there are no requirements regarding over and
back border crossings.  They did strongly suggest, however, that you
contact ATC, either Vancouver Area Center, Vancouver Terminal, or even
Whidbey Approach if in the vicinity.  His phrase was "with the
emphasis we have now on border crossings, etc, etc".

Erik
From: cstacy@ai.mit.edu (Christopher C. Stacy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: crossing a runway, and instructor relations
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:40:58 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: random

The FAA says that an ATC instruction to "taxi to" a runway is a
clearance to cross any inactive runways between here and there.  
I get these all the time like,
 "Cherokee 12AZ, taxi to runway <far away> via <obvious taxiway> and
  <taxiway that intersects the other runway>."

I try to keep aware of the field situation when I am taxing to or from a
runway, and of course I always look around thoroughly before crossing.
Also, when I read back a taxi clearance, I insert the crossing
instruction even if it was only implied.

  TWR: "Cherokee 123, taxi to runway 5 via Juliet Golf and Hotel"
  123: "taxi via Juliet and Golf cross 29 Hotel, Cherokee 123"

Whenever I get there and I'm not sure whether I should really cross, 
I always ask for a verification.  However, when I am told to taxi to the
runway across a standard taxi route that everybody is following in a line,
I don't tend to doubt the instruction.  I mean, I *always* look, 
but I don't normally ask for a verification of an instruction 
that I am sure I heard and read-back correctly.

Now I'm getting checked out in a new type airplane, and the other evening
was my first time with this instructor.  When I followed my normal
procedure the other evening, the instructor got all hot and bothered
about my obvious intent to motor on across after just looking, and he
made me stop. He asked if I shouldn't verify that with the controller.  
I said OK, and did that, and we went across.  But I explained that
we had been cleared to taxi to the runway, and I thought that instruction
implied we could cross the inactive runway.  He made like he didn't
particularly believe this, and said, "When you're in this airplane, you
will *always* stop and ask for permission to cross a runway!"

All primary instructors have different ideas about how to do this or that
thing, but I've never had anyone tell me something like this was just
flat-out wrong.  So, I am left slightly wondering about this situation.
He is a CFII, and I am just barely a pilot.  I am not sure what to
believe now: him or my interpretation of the AIM?

My first inclination is to behave the way he says when he is sitting there,
and then behave the way I think is proper when he leaves in 4 hours.
But that's not honest, and I would feel bothered by it constantly.
Besides, I would be easily discovered by observation or radio monitoring.
(And, anyway, maybe he's right and I've just been confused all this time.)

I wonder if I should raise the issue with him again.
Who is correct?  What should I do?
From: jac@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Judy Cadmus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Propping big engines
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:57:25 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Devon Engineering Offices

In article <la71c1INNp04@peaches.cs.utexas.edu> bunda@cs.utexas.edu (John Bunda) writes:
>I weigh 135, so much for body weight as a factor.  I don't doubt that
>I *could* hand-prop a 210, and I certainly would try it in a pinch.
>More times than I care to remember, I have hand-propped Cessna 182s
>(Cont O-470).  It is not difficult, but forget all those tips you read

Hand prop a 182?  I can barely pull the prop through to loosen the oi! :^)

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Judy Cadmus  PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Skylane N42202                                  jac@asns.tredydev.unisys.com
From: bt0l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruce Taylor, IV)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Principle of VOR
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:15:05 GMT
	<1992Aug26.231102.28156@tss.com>
Organization: Comp & Comm - Telecommunications, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Jim Burke (burke@tss.com) writes:


>|> requested. An omni ground station has two antennas. One is designed to
>|> electronically rotate a signal, a directional beam, at 1800 revolutions per
>|> minute. 
 
 
>This is interesting.  I'm not an electronics or RF buff, but I can't see
>how a single antenna can transmit a highly directional signal on all 360
>radials.  Anyone know how this works?  I'm familiar with highly directional
>antennas for receiving, but they usually must be pointed.

In late 1978, I finally went to visit the "ICBM stuck in the ground"
near my house (ARD Yardley VOR).  This facility was, for the electronics
hobbyist, a mecca of antique technologies.

The "rotating" antenna was just that: a very directional antenna rotated
in the upper part of the "ICBM nose" by a motor & flywheel.  The system
also used glass triode tubes (about 6" in diameter, 16" tall!) in the
final amplifiers.

The station itself was sited on a copper mesh groundplane buried in the
surrounding soil, perhaps 200 feet in radius.  The tech who was working
in the station politely requested that I park my station wagon either
under the eaves of the flat building roof (also a ground plane) or about
500 yards away, to avoid causing any peculiarities in the transmitted
signals (;-)

Now, on a recent visit to Manhattan Kansas (MHK, "The Little Apple"), I
noticed a much more recent VOR -- which was the size and shape of the
average lawn implement shed.  The antenna was a small vertical whip,
perhaps two meters long.

Times change...


-----
 Bruce Taylor   (blt@cmu.edu)    (412) 268-6249 
 New Projects Coordinator, Telecommunications, Carnegie Mellon University

 Never trust anything more complicated than a screwdriver!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: There I was - mag check/Stupid Pilot Tricks
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:36:00 GMT


In article <31AUG199207371824@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>, fskevin@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER)) writes:
|>My greatest "not too serious" faux pas was pulling the mixture rather than
|>the carb heat while landing at a crowded fly-in. It sure got people's
|>attention.

I did something similar on my PP checkride -- overleaned the mixture, and
a few seconds later the engine stumbled. I'm still convinced that one of
the reasons I passed that checkride was that I beat the examiner to the
mixture control.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
Whaddya mean, another 15 hours hood time?!?
From: wpalmer@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Palmer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Aviation related internet sites
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:06:47 GMT
Reply-To: wpalmer@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Palmer)
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

In rec.aviation, mazanec@convex.com (Robert Mazanec) writes:

I appreciated Bob posting this good collection of information. I did 
notice an error in the VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU subdirectory. They've changed 
the subdirectory to "wx". There IS an ascii message in phil.515 to the effect
that they've changed, so all bases are covered.

>    VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU            128.174.5.98    phil.515        Satellite photo
						 ^^^^^^^^
					   should be "wx"


|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Palmer, Code 2744                  voice: 410-267-2964/4817
Applications and Special Projects branch  fax: 410-267-2561
Naval Surface Warfare Center          autovon: 281-4817
Annapolis, MD, USA, 21402-5067       InterNet: wpalmer@oasys.dt.navy.mil

"...death and life are in the power of the tongue."  - Proverbs 18:21
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-- 
----------------------------------------------
I'm the victim of EJ's signature virus! Oh No!
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: IEEE insurance
Date: 24 Aug 92 23:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

KR> .Aviation related death.  However, the AD&D does.  The AD&D policy
  > .excludes "A loss that occurs during or is a direct result of the
  > .Covered Person's travel in, travel on, fall from or descent from
  > .any aircraft while such aircraft is in flight, unless the
  > .Covered Person is traveling solely as a passenger on a licensed,
  > .commercial, non-military aircraft."                    ^^^^^^^^
     ^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder what that legalese means when translated into english.  Are 135
flights OK or verboten?  Is a rented plane a "licensed, commercial"
aircraft?  If I'm not PIC and am in an aircraft requiring only one
pilot, am I solely a passenger?

Seems to me that exclusion opens more questions than it answers.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com