HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Accident probability in a twin (was: Hinkley crash)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:24:51 GMT

hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (ed Hutton ext. 6488) writes:

>The quoted number was that you are FOUR times as likely to suffer a
>fatal accident if you lose an engine in a twin engine airplane than 
>if you lose the engine in a single engine airplane!

>Surprised at this, I asked a couple of OLD crafty twin drivers at the
>local air strip. I got two responses that stuck with me.

>"The good engine carries you to the scene of the crash."

>"A twin has two engines because it needs them both." 

>I can think of several reasons why I might want to fly a twin.
>An extra engine is not one of them. The single engine performance
>numbers I have read are pretty weak. Any twin drivers want to
>post some of the climb figures from their POH?

Well...for one thing, for a light twin there's no FAR requirement that
it have any climb capability when one fan takes a vacation.  The only
thing the manufacturer must do is document its rate of climb...which
may be negative.

I got my multi rating in a new Seneca I (with the IO-360 engines at a
supposed 200 HP per side).  Memory says that the service ceiling on a
standard day, at gross, with one engine feathered, was 3600 MSL or
thereabouts.  (My checkride was in August.  The examiner had me do
single-engine approaches to an unattended strip in a valley, then told
me to do a single-engine departure; I refused.  I suspect that I would
have failed the checkride if I had attempted this...)

Many instructors (including yours truly) believe that one of the reasons
for the higher fatality rate in twins (given an engine failure) is that
the multi pilot will attempt to press onward in an airplane which offers
badly degraded performance rather than looking for an immediate landing
site.  In a single, of course, once the fan quits the you no longer have
an airplane; you have a glider, and you don't have to think very hard
before you realize that you *must* find a good landing spot.  The multi
driver will sometimes allow his or her concentration to be split between
trying to restart the dead engine and flying the airplane...which is 
an invitation to trouble.  Mix in a little "interesting" weather and
you've got a sure-fire way to make the 11:00 TV news.


And it can get even more hairy when you have Vmc and Vs close to each other.
One of the biggest advantages (IMHO) to the Mixmaster (Cessna 337) is that
with its centerline thrust you don't have to worry about Vmc.  (You just
have to worry about the rear engine going to sleep on you just before
takeoff, but that's another thread.)

Joe Morris / MITRE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cohler@vxcrna.cern.ch (Mike Cohler)
Subject: Re: High or low tow normal?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:48:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.173126.356@hhcs.gov.au>, makinc@hhcs.gov.au (Carl Makin) writes...
>In article <1992Aug24.134302.6542@dsg.cs.tcd.ie>, sloubtin@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Sylvain Louboutin) writes:
>> [..discussion about low-tow autralian style versus ''high-tow'' elsewhere...]
> 
>> one story I heard about low-tow is that it is less efficient and
>> requires more powerful tugs.... had anyone tried both techniques with
>> the same combination tug&glider to make a comparison?
> 
>One of the tug pilots at the local club (Canberra Gliding Club)
>mentioned that with a high tow he had to keep a significant
>amount of down elevator to counteract the pull from a glider in
>high tow.  During low tow the glider is closer to the tug's
>thrust line and requires less effort by the tug pilot.
> 

This is certainly not true for the Pawnee that I fly.... in low position
I have to hold the stick well forward normally, although in high tow 
position the stick is well back.  However it is very glider dependent.
Towing a T-21 requires an almost fully aft stick in the tug, to maintain
the 60 mph indicated on the tug ASI, and the stall warner is flashing
continually especially in rough conditions.  The stick positon is beyond
hte fully aft trim position in normal tow.  No-one tries the T-21 in
low tow !!  On hte other hand, most glass gliders can be towed around
85 mph indicated, and the Pawnee trimmed nicely in low or high tow.
Also it is much easier on the right leg towing glass ships !!  If I
tow the T-21 in rough conditions on a really high tow like 5000 feet, 
my right leg is like jelly when I get back !  And when the two-seaters
are doing training flights, and trying to get out of position to the
right, and I need even more right rudder than usual;... well, take pity
on the tugge, all you instructors... stay on the left, and make life 
easier for us !  (Unless your tug has a propwhich spins the other way !)
Mike

==============================================================
|                                                            |
|        Mike Cohler -  preferred email address:             |
|                       MDC1@VAXA.YORK.AC.UK                 |
|                   ie  MDC1%VAXA.YORK.AC.UK@UKACRL.BITNET   |
|                                                            |
|        UK PPL and Glider Pilot                             |
|                                                            |
==============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.skydiving
From: jatu@cs.tut.fi (Tuukkanen Janne)
Subject: modificating the place of battery in C-185
Originator: jatu@cs.tut.fi
Keywords: Cessna, 185, battery
Organization: Tampere University of Technology
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:57:15 GMT

 Our skydiving club has Cessna 185, and we have wondered if it is
possible to move a battery of the plane to nose. Now the battery is
so back, that pilots don't like fly very heavy loads (and heaviest
guys of course sit on the rear of plane :-).
 I've heard that we need some called 'STC-papers' to modify the place
of battery. Where we can get those and does they fit to all C-185:s?
(our one is from 1969, very nice plane for skydiving, since it has
300 hp motor and STOL-kit)

 


-- 
                                                              Janne Tuukkanen
     VW-Beetle, parachute and mirrorshades, all I need!       jatu@cc.tut.fi
-- 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
From: jgostlin@malloco.ing.puc.cl (Javier Gostling)
Subject: Re: PC a step closer to realistic simulator (Thrustmaster)
Organization: Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:31:27 GMT

What would be the price of something like this?
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What's the pattern of GPS unavailability?
Date: 10 Sep 1992 23:27:11 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

{not working recently..}
One possible reason is that the Air Force just launched another bird.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
From: wsanders@ffeine.Sun.COM (Wiley Sanders)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Renting woes...
Date: 14 Sep 1992 17:58:59 GMT
Organization: Tradeshow Tech Support
NNTP-Posting-Host: ffeine.corp.sun.com

Well, whatever happened to that outfit that was put together a few
years ago to rent a uniform fleet of aircraft nation-wide?
  I don't remember the name of the company but the objective was 
to have FBO's scattered all over the country. Each FBO would have
the same fleet make-up and an endorsement from one member of the chain
would be good at all the others.
-w
--
"True love is learning to love your lover's obsessions,
or at least being able to say '...oh...that's nice...'"
                                                        -Greg Brown
From: rcm@Apple.COM (Robert Charles Monsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flying/Camping the Sierras: Grass Valley / Tahoe
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:41:36 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

[description of takeoff out of tahoe deleted]

From what I understand, there are usually at least one, and sometimes
more crashes each season at tahoe. Tahoe can be a dangerous place
for the little puddle jumpers.

On my high altitude checkout, I flew a cherokee 140 (150hp) out of
there with an instructor and myself. We had flown up from the bay area,
and decided not to refuel before takeoff. So, we were probably about
300 lbs under gross. It was 1pm, however, in the middle of summer, and
so the density altitude sign was hovering around 9000'. We were about
100' AGL, with about 1000' of runway left when the downdrafts started.
Still 100' AGL at the end of the runway, we headed off towards the golf
course for about 10 circuits to get up to pattern altitude. There was
a light twin in the 'pattern' with us over the golf course. It was a
nasty day for this sort of thing.

As we are climbing over lake tahoe towards trukee, my instructor, an
unflappable navy type, says "Now you see why you might not want to take
a cherokee to tahoe?". Hummmph. I was still shaking.

The takeoff from trukee was equally exciting, since we took on fuel.
Unable to maintain a climb after takeoff, we turned off towards the 
north to try and pick up some thermals to climb in. It took us about
20 minutes to get up to a high enough altitude to fly over the pass back
towards the bay area.

Mountain checkouts are really required for this sort of flying. Get 
one if you intend to do any. Tahoe isn't like a 9000' rockies airport,
but it'll get you if you don't know what to expect. It eats airplanes
every year...

Bob Monsen
Orion Network Systems
Berkeley Ca.
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Twin Beechcraft crashed in Hinckley, IL
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:36:31 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1992Sep11.172022.26434@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> mark@.cv.hp.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.141242.11958@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
>> The C310I handbook gives the following figures for SE climb:
>> 
>> gross	sea level	2500	5000	7500	10000
>>  wt
>> 4300	   560		 440	 325	 210	  90
>> 4700	   460		 345	 235	 125	  20	
>> 5100	   360	         255	 155	  50	 -55
>> 
>> all figures assumes standard temp.  SE service ceiling is 7500.
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>My understanding was that the service ceiling of an aircraft was
>the altitude at which the plane could no longer maintain a 500 fpm
>rate of climb.  Am I mistaken?  If not, how does the C310I rate a
>service ceiling of 7500 when it cannot climb at 500 fpm much above
>sea level even at the lightest weight charted?
>

Service ceiling in a single is 100 fpm climb.  Single engine service
ceiling in a twin is 50 fpm climb.

Also note that service ceilings are at maximum gross (takeoff) weight.
Practically speaking, by the time you are altitude, you have burned
off some fuel.  (Unless you find a KC-135 or KC-10 around somewhere.)
If you lose an engine above the SE service ceiling, the plane does not
suddenly drop to that altitude.  Rather, it begins a sink whose
rate diminishes as it approaches the SE ceiling due to the burning
off of fuel during that time and the increase in power due to greater
air density (primarily normally aspirated although this applies to turbo
above the critical altitude).  You probably get some better prop
efficiency also at the lower altitudes.  Someone can correct me if I'm
wrong.

Also, AFM/POH numbers are for new aircraft with shiny new engines,
new paint job, and a clean belly.  So you want to be conservative of course.

What has not been pointed out is that you can get a light twin to climb
on one engine in practice by offloading passengers, fuel, or both.
If you aren't *REAL* current, you might hedge your bet by operating
below max weight.  The aircraft accelerates faster, rotates sooner,
climbs faster, and probably will climb on one if you lose the other.
Now, how do you explain that to the wife, kids, and dogs after you've
left them behind on the ramp? :)

Kerry
From: dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: DEA on 60 minutes
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:33:04 GMT

In article <dpsn-ar@quantum.on.ca>, aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd) writes:
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent.  Incredible.  I am never going to fly my a/c 
> south of tennessee.

Hey now, Alabama's not _that_ bad :-).

-- 
- David McLeod
- dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Q.) A fatal crash in Concord, CA??
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: ba
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:44:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.193903.29664@leland.Stanford.EDU> singh@leland.Stanford.EDU (Harinder Singh) writes:
>Anyone know details of a fatal GA crash in Concord, CA in the last few
>days?? 

Information is pieced together from the local AM radio and is NOT
official FAA/NTSB.  Errors are guaranteed.

The crash occurred in the early afternoon of Wednesday September 2, 1992.
Sometime before 2:00 and 3:00 PM.  (The time is from memory since I was
in Walnut Creek, the next town over, at the time of the crash.)  The
airplane crashed on Highway 4, which runs N/NW of the field (departure
end of runway 32).

The plane, originally only called a light twin, was later identified as
a Piper Apache.  The plane clipped a car and burned completely.  Two
occupants in the plane were unidentifiable due to the fire.  No one on
the ground was injured.

Last night, the pilot was identified as a Carl (or Karl?) Peck of
Alameda.  He was reported to have been completing his instument training
at the time.  Last word was that the other occupant's identity was being
withheld pending notification of the family.

There is some speculation that the aircraft lost power.  Today's radio
report suggested some connection to the use of auto fuel.

That's all I know as of this time.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tom-d@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Tom Dygert)
Subject: airshows
Summary: DATES
Keywords: RANDOLPH CHALLANGER
Organization: Lockheed Santa Cruz, CA.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 16:35:24 GMT


	THE RANDOLPH CHALLANGER (HIGHLY MOD. PITTS 340+HP) WILL BE BACK IN 
THE WEST AFTER A EXTENSIVE EAST TOUR THIS SUMMER.(22 SHOWS SO FAR). THIS 
PLANE  IS PILOTED BY SEAN D. TUCKER AND CO-OWNED AND CREWED BY ME. (TOM 
DYGERT) WE WILL BE AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS SOON.
	RENO 9/17-24
	SALINAS 10/02-04
	NAS ALAMEDA 10/09-11
	NAS MOFFETT 10/16-18
	PALM SPRINGS 10/23-25
	GLENDALE, AZ. 11/13-15
	
	HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE, COME BY AND SAY HI!
	
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gerlach@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Twin Beech generic specs Re: crash
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Flight Center
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:09:47 -0600

-- 

Just some generic stats. on the Twin Beech D-18S:

	450 HP Pistons (P&W R-985) Some had fuel injection
	Max speed 230 MPH
	Cruise 211 MPH
	Stall VSo 77 MPH
	Fuel Cap. 206
	All engine service ceiling 20,500
	All engine rate of climb 1,190
	*****Engine-out Service Ceiling 7,750 ft ******
	*****Engine-out rate of climb 225 ft/min *****
	Takeoff over 50 ft 1,760
	Takeoff ground run 1,405
	Land over 50 1,460
	Land ground roll 1,250
	Gross weight 8,750
	Empty weight 5,770
	
I would not want to be on climb-out from take-off the Twin Beech at 5000 ft 
altitude on take-off without an engine running.  With everything performed 
properly for the engine-out, you would be luckey to see a positive rate on 
this ship.
	

$    ..  Just squawking and talking
$  ....  David A. Gerlach CFI-IMEI/NASA-JSC/GERLACH@VF.JSC.NASA.GOV     
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: sgccpgs@citec.oz.au (Paul Salanitri)
Subject: Re: First "flight"
Organization: CITEC
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:48:28 GMT

glenb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Glen Baker) writes:
: 
:  Well, everybody else posts their first solo/got my license/passed my IFR/etc
:  so here's my contribution:
: 
:  Yesterday I got into a perfectly good King-Air, popped up to 13,000 feet,
:  and jumped out. 
: 
:  Yahooo!
: 
:  ..glen 
: 

I hope you weren't Pilot in Command with no one else on board.  

???

--

==========================================================================
 Paul Salanitri                               sgccpgs@citec.oz.au
  P.O. Box 12702, Elizabeth Street, Brisbane QLD 4002, AUSTRALIA
   Committee for the Liberation and Intergration of Terrifying 
         Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society
             E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.  
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Logging time for the Inst
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:36:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.181413.8206@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM>
jac@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Judy Cadmus) writes:
> ...  One thing you can also do when 
> you're an instrument student that will help with your training is to volunteer
> to be safety pilot for other IFR pilots.  You can really learn alot this way. 

DANGER!  I think that this is an EXCEPTIONALLY bad idea.  The purpose of a
safety pilot is to *look* *for* *traffic* -- and maybe keep track of
terrain by looking out the window.  An instrument student is likely to do
exactly what Judy suggests -- be fascinated by all the goings-on _inside_
the airplane.  This is a very, very bad thing.

Let me suggest an alternative.  The instrument student should go along and
sit in the right _rear_ seat of the IFR-practice airplane, with a qualified
(and "disinterested" -- at least inside) pilot in the right front seat.

						Geoff
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Indianapolis and Gary plane crashes
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:05:08 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

Someone told me that these posts didn't make it to their site so I am
reposting them. My apologies if you are seeing them twice.

Below are reports of two more plane crashes paraphrased form
clari.news.aviation. I've been out of town for more than a week so these 
may be a bit out of date. 


Two planes collided over southeastern Indianapolis Friday. One was a 
twin-engine turboprop enroute to Columbus Ohio carrying 4 passengers plus 
the pilot, all died. The second plane was a single-engine carrying 3 people
of which one, the pilot, died. According to witnesses the collision occured
at 300-500 ft and the single engine plane hit the tail section of the twin,
shearing off the tail. The twin crashed near the collision site but the 
single-engine plane flew another 3/4 mile before hitting a house. The two 
survivors of the single-engine plane were burned and the copilot suffered a
fractured leg, but the occupant of the house (a 12 yr old girl) was uninjured.

This crash will most likely get quite a bit of coverage as the 4 passengers in
the twin were all prominent Indianapolis civic leaders. 


This one occured last Wed morning.

A single engine plane attempting an emergency landing at the Gary Indiana
Regional Airport crashed totaling the plane but leaving the pilot and
2 passengers relatively unharmed. Pilot of the plane was Harley Weldy.
The plane had taken off from an airport at Dayton, Ohio. A severe
storm over the Gary area prompted the attempted landing. The plane was
reported to have touched down "too far" down the runway and it ran into an
instrument tower before coming to rest in a drainage ditch.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: st1ls@rosie.uh.edu (Nick Hakim)
Subject: Re: AIRSHOWS??
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:08:00 GMT

In article <114@newave.mn.org>, john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes> 
>There are still a number of good airshows coming up this year.  The
>Confederate Air Force fall show is in October, both Dallas and Houston
>have shows coming up, there are a bunch of shows in Florida in the fall
>(including the Blue Angles homecoming show), and an excellent show in
>Toronto on the weekend of Sept 5-7.

"Wings Over Houston" is scheduled for the weekend of the 5th and 6th, if I'm
not mistaken.  You may be able to fly straight into Ellington Field if you
schedule it in advance.  The WOH show in _great_.  I have attended the show
for the past 2 years, and have always got my money's worth.  Last year they 
had the F117A and a couple of TR-1s, a B1, and a _bunch_ of other aircraft.


I suppose the most appealing part is the fact that you can suck down
copious amounts of beer while wandering through C-5 Galaxys, Herkys,
uh -- ahem.  Well, anyway, it will be worth anyone's while to attend.

-Nick

--
"All I really need to be content are good friends, a cold beer and a
Lamborghini Diablo.  But in a pinch, a Mooney 252TSE may do".

"Someone shoot me, I'm actually starting to like Open Windows 3!!!"
From: peggy@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Peggy golden)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Miami Airspace
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:05:17 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

I have just returned from a trip to the Florida keys and
I fly through the Miami TCA. There are notams posted on
Duat but they are not very clear. Here is the deal!
You have to fly outside the barrier island by about a mile and
at an altitude of 1500 ft msl. (see VFR chart of Miami TCA).
They will not let any planes inside a 10 mile radius of MIA or
Homestead AFB. The Miami controllers are *EXTREMELY*
cordial to VFR traffic.  Once you are Southwest of Ocean Reef
Park, its normal operations.
The exception is Angel Flights. If you have any cargo that
can reasonably be used in the relief efforts, you will get
excellent service in the Homestead or Tamiami Executive
airports. They still need staple food, disposable diapers,
and (I suspect) camping gear as well as people willing to
put covers on roofs.
Peggy Golden
Warrior N38897
From: deragon@GROUCHO.CS.NYU.EDU (John Paul Deragon)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Liberty/Manhattan/Hudson Question
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:52:46 GMT


	Well I know for a fact the Million-Air flight school at
TEB (Teterboro) in NJ has what they call an introductory flight.

	This was the flight I took when starting flight school.
It costs 50$ for the first person and 15$ for each additional.

	You start out in the briefing room, and the instructor
goes over the route.  Then he takes you out and has YOU preflight the 
plane and get in the hot seat.  The instructor has you taxi,
do the runup and takeoff.  


	In this case we would took off and headed north to the alpine
tower, then east to the Hudson.  The TCA started at 1000 (or was it 1500) 
so we stayed at 800 the whole route.

	Once we get to the hudson, we turned south, and stayed
along the west bank of the hudson.  We passed right over the GW bridge
and holland tunnels and when we hit the statue we circled it twice at 
500 feet, then turned north and headed up the east side of the hudson,
passed the holland and GW again and landed at TEB.


	From my house I can see the statue and often go
down to the shore and listen on my portable to the hudson
unicom (130.050) and at any given point during the day you can
find about 5-10 planes doing this same route... 


	I thought it was a great deal for the money.  It would be
fun for a tourist to do. (It acutally costs less than a helicopter
tour around manhattan. PLUS *you* get to FLY!)


	Anyway... ciao

	John.