HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: FISH STRIKE
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:26:32 GMT
Reply-To: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 10007@ncrwat.Waterloo.NCR.COM, tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM (Trevor German) writes:
>[deletions]
>		As far as I remember what happened was an Osprey carrying
>	a large salmon flew in the path of the jet as it was taking off
>	and, in order to evade capture by this rather bigger bird, dropped
>	the fish. The fish hit the aircraft's windshield making a rather
>	bloody oily mess if not breaking the window.  The pilot safely
>	returned to the airport.
>
>		Can anyone remember this and give more details. One wonders
>	if the pilot is still being ribbed by his co-workers on this one.
>
>		Does anyone have any other unusual ***-strike stories.
>--
>       >|  "Only average people            | Trevor J German BSc    |<
>       >|        never make mistakes."     | NCR, Waterloo, Ontario |<
>       >| tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM | Canada.                |< 

I saw something in Av. Week about 4-5 years ago that was similar... Except this
fish hit the vertical stabilizer and went through it.  There was a photo accompanying
the article.
---
Mark Steph               | Leave out the fiction / The fact is:
exumfs@exu.ericsson.se   | This friction, Will only be worn by persistance
(yes, .se *is* in Texas) | Leave out conditions--Courageous convictions,
PO Box 833875, MS L-05   | Will drag the dream into existence
Richardson, TX 75083     |      -Neil Peart, "Vital Signs"
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:16641 rec.aviation.piloting:133 eunet.aviation:109
From: wagner@methusalix.kph.uni-mainz.de (Axel Wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.piloting,eunet.aviation
Subject: Re: gear-down check
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:56:13 GMT
Organization: Institut fuer Kernphysik, Uni Mainz

In article <WD.92Oct10135433@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de> wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:
>
>Until yesterday I had never heard that "check gear down" on
>any approach, but yesterday I had an interesting, and convincing,
>experience: I was on an IFR training flight, and the instructor asked
>if I had ever done a GCA (ground controlled approach, with vertical
>and horizontal guidance). As I had never done it before, we went
>out to some military field north of Hamburg (Hohn, EDNQ); the
>military controllers happily train GCA's as they need them to
>get their license prolonged just as we need landings.

As flying on a US-Army field here in Mainz we have the possibility to
perform GCA-apporaches during the week. I used this possibility a couple
of times with our motorglider. The controller had some difficulties in
picking me up, because the non-metal surface gave only a week signal.
So he advised me to fly certain headings for identification. While 
turning final he always requested to perform the landing check, and 
short prior approaching the decision height he advised 
'check-gear-down' and asked for field in-sight. 

Obviously there is a check-list for this procedure, because it was always
the same procedure independent from the controller.

Needless to say, that our motorglider has a fixed gear.

Axel


	< 	no matter how far from home, a climbing    >
	< 	sailplane carries a happy pilot !          >


  *********************************************************************
  *   Axel Wagner                   Institut fuer Kernphysik          *
  *   J. J. Becher - Weg 45         D-6500 Mainz                      *
  *   germany/europe/earth/sunsystem/galaxis/cosmos                   *
  *   Tel.:+49-(0)6131 39 5841      Fax.:+49-(0)6131 39 2964          *
  *   electronic mail:              wagner@a1.kph.uni-mainz.de        *
  *********************************************************************
From: hurf@boa.graphics.cornell.edu (Hurf Sheldon)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Stinson 108-3 for sale
Date: 2 Oct 1992 20:28:13 GMT
Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: boa.graphics.cornell.edu
Keywords: 
 
	1948 Stinson 108-3. Originally a "Station Wagon"  the interior
	is now cloth but the popout rear seat and the reinforced floor
	remain. Engine is 0-430 180hp Lycoming with around 600hrs
	since rebuild. This plane was entirely rebuilt about 300 hrs
	ago complete with Cessna electrics and brakes. I have had the
	plane for 3 years, kept it hangared and taken very good care
	of it. It flies beautifully. It is in good to excellent condition
	in all respects. Full panel with 360ch Escort Nav_or_Com and
	180ch Bendix nav/com. The plane has the logbooks back to 1948.
	The Stinson 108 is probably the frendliest taildragger built.
	
	
	The price is $15,000 with a fresh annual, ready to fly at
	Ithaca, New York. I would consider a full partner in the  plane
	for $7k plus 50% of fixed expenses. ($100mo hangar, $100mo 
	insurance, first $300 of maintenence/annual) - the rest based
	on flying time.

		Kids in college, house needs work, guess I'll be a 
	reluctant renter again if I need to...

	If you ever wanted a Stinson....
	

-- 
     Hurf Sheldon			 Network: hurf@graphics.cornell.edu
     Program of Computer Graphics	 Phone:   607 255 6713
						   607 533 4974 Home
     580 Eng. Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Any comments about th
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:42:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

DM> .I'm curious (any heavy-iron flyers out there?) in relation to
  > .the crash whether the loss of two engines on one side can be
  > .easily overcome? What margin of control exists, similar to
  > .observing V(mc) for us piston twin flyers, where at lower airspeeds
  > .you reach a point (before the stall) where you run out of rudder
  > .effectiveness to combat the yaw and thus enter into a powered
  > .spin? Could this have easily happened in a 747 when it was heavy,
  > .low, and slow?

I'm not a heavy driver, but discussed this accident with a senior 74
Captain.  If you lose two engines at cruise alt/speed when heavy, you're
controllable, but will drift down to about 8000 ft. which is about the
highest you'll be able to maintain.  If you're slow, low, in dirty
config; you're in deep kimchee.

DM> .I have no basis for making the following observation, but what
  > .about bird ingestion possibly being a cause of two engines in
  > .close proximity failing at the same time?

Not at all an unreasonable hypothesis.  If one engine lets go violently,
it's not at all unlikely that the adjacent engine will be damaged;
either by ingesting some debris, or by projectile damage.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Logging Instrument Approaches
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:39:52 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

My understanding regarding logging approaches, from sources such as IFR
Magazine.

1.  To log an approach as "instrument approach actual"  some portion of
the approach from the finial apporach fix (FAF) on to the MDA or DH must
have been in actual conditions.  Five seconds in the clouds, and the
approach can be logged. 

That will give you "1 approach" towards your 6 approaches/six hours/six
months requirements but only "5 seconds" of time towards your "6 hours"
requirement.

2. To log the "time" you either have to be in IMC weather flying
"really" by the gages, or have a hood on, even if your on an IFR
clearance.  Time on a clearance in VFR without a hood on doesn't count
for anything as far as the 6/6 rule.

3. Any approach flown with a hood on, and thus, with the required safety
pilot, whether in VMC or IMC weather, on an IFR clearance or not, can be
logged, both as one of the required approaches, and for the time flown.

I've had my instrument rating for nearly 3 years, don't fly that much,
and have logged maybe 15 hours and 5 approaches as "actual" ifr.  The
only way I maintian proficiency is hood time with a fellow pilot, or
simulator time with a CFI.  Without a hood flying partner, unless you
fly a LOT, keeping legally current by the 6/6 rule is almost impossible.

Also 6/6 is not nearly enough to really stay sharp.  I find if its been
more than 2 weeks since i've been under the hood, it takes 1/2 to 1 hour
to get back my rythem and feel ok watching guages, reading maps, tuning
radios, and talking to ATC.  My personal minimum is an hour of hood time
every two weeks or so.

Also, a good method of staying legal AND sharp, is taking an instrument
competency ride with a CFII every 6 months.  If you do that, and get
signed off, there is no need to be current by the 6/6 rule.

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: Practice approaches
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:56:21 PDT

Hello,

I know that this has been asked recently, but we didn't receive new postings at
this site for a while, so I wasn't able to read all the answers.

I'm an Instrument student. Can I, solo, and without the hood on of course, ask
approach control for a practice approach into a given airport in VFR
conditions? How does this request look?

Me: Ontario approach, Cessna xxxx with Bravo, VFR, 10 miles south of Ontario
    airport, request practice ILS into Chino to a full stop.

This, of course, after I've gone through this particular approach with the
instructor.

Thank you.
______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Practice approaches
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:13:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.145621.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>Hello,
>
>I know that this has been asked recently, but we didn't receive new postings at
>this site for a while, so I wasn't able to read all the answers.
>
>I'm an Instrument student. Can I, solo, and without the hood on of course, ask
>approach control for a practice approach into a given airport in VFR
>conditions? How does this request look?
>
Sounds fine with me.  You can do it with a safety pilot (under the hood)
and even log it a PIC!  Just make sure you use the words "practice approach".

>Me: Ontario approach, Cessna xxxx with Bravo, VFR, 10 miles south of Ontario
>    airport, request practice ILS into Chino to a full stop.

:-) Depending on the time of year, you might just want a low approach or
:-) touch 'n go.

For those that don't know, the fields may be inhabited with cattle.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: kkalan@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Kalan)
Subject: Re: materials for written
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:52:38 GMT

In article <leftwich-141092114949@leftwich.ucs.indiana.edu> leftwich@indiana.edu (Brad Leftwich) writes:
>I'm gonna take the plunge and start working on an instrument rating. I'd
>like to get some recommendations concerning preparing for the written.
>There's a lot of videos, tapes, books, etc. on the market. What's
>worthwhile and what's a waste of money?
>
>--Brad Leftwich
>  leftwich@indiana.edu

I havn't used the IFR version, but have used the Private version of the King
video tapes and found them to be quite good.  I'm sure others my have
different thoughts, but video worked well for me (passed with 96).

When I start with my IFR training, I will use the King tapes again.

I have also found that some people cannot learn from video and need a 
more formal ground school for the written.  This depends on the individual
and you'll have to determine that for yourself.  It can get a little tough
watching 6 two hour tapes, but the Kings try to keep it interesting.

Also I would recommend Kirshner (? spelling) books, his private book was
very good and I'm sure he has one for IFR also.

Just my recommendation

Good luck

Ken Kalan
PP ASEL
kgk@nwu.edu

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: km11480@medtronic.COM (Keith A. Meisel)
Subject: Logging Instrument Approaches 
Reply-To: km11480@medtronic.COM
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:36:49 GMT


My question regards the logging of approaches for IFR currency.  Is there any
requirement as to how low the minimums are if you are not "under the hood"?
In other words, if I am being vectored in actual IFR conditions at my current
altitude, then are cleared for an approach and break out before even crossing
the final approach fix, and could thus fly the approach VFR, does this still
count as an approach if I complete the approach to MDA, keeping track of
time and all?  

If conditions are above VFR minimums you would have to shift your attention
from the instruments to the outside for traffic avoidance.  But you were cleared 
for an IFR approach.  At the other end of the scale, could you fly the approach 
in VFR conditions down to MDA and log the approach?


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.ifr
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc
Reply-To: geoff@peck.com
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:23:02 GMT

Welcome to rec.aviation.ifr.  This message, and companion messages
like it, will be posted to each of the new rec.aviation.* groups weekly
through the end of November, to allow people to view the charters of each
newsgroup and better understand where to post articles.

The charter of rec.aviation.ifr is:

****************************************************************************
*   Articles related to flight under Instrument Flight Rules.  Regulatory  *
*   questions, communications, procedures, charts, training methods,       *
*   maintaining proficiency, recurrent training, instruments and           *
*   equipment, questions, and experiences.                                 *
****************************************************************************

There are now a thirteen separate subgroups on rec.aviation; if the charter
above doesn't match the content of the article you're posting (or you're
following up), please consider one of the other groups as a more
appropriate forum:

    announce (MOD)    military      piloting        soaring
    answers  (MOD)    misc          products        stories (MOD)
    homebuilt         owning        simulators      student
    ifr 

A common question is "what should I do if an article spans the charters of
two or more groups?"  The answer is cross-posting.  If you have an article
which clearly crosses the boundaries of several groups, you should post a
**single** copy of the article to **all* of the groups.  Don't post
separate copies to each group.  Most modern newsreaders will display the
article exactly once to the reader -- in the first group in which it is
encountered and read.

If you feel that the replies should be directed to a subset of the groups
to which you are submitting your post, be sure to include a line of the
form "Followup-to: groupname" in the header of your message.  See the
header of this message for an example.

If you are replying to a cross-posted article and your reply is germane to
only a subset of the original groups, please ensure that you check the
Newsgroups: line to remove unnecessary groups.  If the reply is germane to
all the groups in which the article was originally posted, try to ensure
that all the groups are listed in the Newsgroups: line.  Some older
newsreaders cause a reply to go only to the group which is currently being
read.

Use cross-posting sparingly.  If an article "90% belongs" in one group and
"10% belongs" in another, post it only to the first group.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: krol@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Ed Krol)
Subject: Re: Practice approaches
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:52:54 GMT

By specifying 'practice ifr approach' you are implicitly saying
I am going to do the IFR approach but stay VFR.  To stay legal VFR
you either need a qualified safety pilot if you want to do it under
the hood or you have to be looking yourself.  
If you want to just fly the localizer/glideslope in to see
what it looks like and make the landing from the approach
you can still request it and fly it alone but can't do it under the hood.
From: jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Practice approaches
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:34:44 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Several of the questions raised in the "thread" of *Practice Approaches*
here are subjects which I dealt with while getting my instrument
training a few years back, which, by the way, was in western PA, under
the Pittsburgh TCA, so local approach control was used for any airport
with a published approach.

1. It IS legal to practice an instrument approach while maintainting VFR
conditions, and the FARs and AIM discuss this process (review these
sections).  As was noted before, if your "head" is going to be inside,
have someone else, qualified, who's head/eyes are outside.  You ARE
bound by the "see and be seen" requirements.

2.  Request "practice approach so and so after giving original position
call-up to the controlling ATC facility, they'll respond back with a
clearance-like set of intructions (after id-ing you with a transponder
code request) such as:  

Cherokee 123PW, present position 6 miles north ABC vor, fly heading 300,
vectors for the Podunk 23 ILS, "maintain VFR".

You will repeat that back, like any instruction/clearance INCLUDING the
MAINTAIN VFR.  That sets the stage for you to be doing an exercise of an
IFR procedure but VFR rules have been invoked.....therefore you MUST be
maintaining VFR see and be seen status.....not the controller.  At this
point your in the same legal status as someone on a VFR flight
following.  So, while its technically legal to do this procedure alone,
it IS NOT advisable.  THere's not much way you can be watching the gages
intently and "maintaining VFR".

2.  While I was going through my instrument training I had several
friends who were about at the same stage as I.  When we were all
starting to do approaches under the hood, we started swapping hood time,
each flying check pilot for the other.  With a legal check pilot (one
rated for that aircraft....) we practiced many IFR apporaches
"maintaining VFR", the "practicee" wearing a hood and logging the time
(hood time is "simulation" time and totally logeable as long as your
logbook names the safety pilot.

Remember, your time requirement is 40 hours of instrument time, only 15
(minimum) of which must be with an instructor, the rest is usually hood
time or simulator time, and DOES NOT have to be with an instructor if
hood time, can be with any safety pilot.

3.  I maintian my preoficiency now by doing about 1 hour every other
week of hood time with a friend and most of our time is VFR under the
hood with a safety pilot...with ATC being happy to oblige...usually.

jeff dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: her3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Helder E Rocha)
Subject: Desperatly seeking lost friend in Paris, Help !!!
Reply-To: her3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Helder E Rocha)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.french
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:01:13 GMT


New York 10/07/92

Please help !!!

I am hoping that someone in France can help find my friend, which I have not 
seen in over five years. His name is Domenic Parigi, and that last think that I
heard was that he was living in a town near Paris called Meaux. Perhaps someonecan use the Minitel system in France to check for his where abouts. It is very
important that I find him. If someone can help, please contact me via E-Mail.
Thank you...
 


E-mail : Helder Rocha  Hrocha@admin.gsb.columbia.edu
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: materials for written
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:05:27 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <4erfnAe00WB29NRnxx@andrew.cmu.edu> jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle) writes:
>
>Confession.  I was a bit over weight at the time and had bought an
>exercise bike which was boring as hell to ride.  I got in the habit of
>watching the tapes while doing 45 minutes on the bike...worked
>great....except when it was time to do a practice map reading session
>from the manuals.
>

Yes, but you could use the time to practice map reading in simulated
turbulence.  Gee, I wonder if a Schwinn whizzy counts as an approved
turbulence stimulator?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: jle@fc.hp.com
 (Jer/ Eberhard)
Subject: Re: Practice approaches
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:17:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Workstation Kernel, Ft. Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.1 PL6]

> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu wrote:

> I'm an Instrument student.  Can I, solo, and without the hood on of
> course, ask approach control for a practice approach into a given
> airport in VFR conditions?  How does this request look?

Can you?  Yes, you are physically able to.
Should you?  NO!

When you are VFR, you must practice see and avoid.  This means looking
outside all the time, with occasional glances inside to check on things.

When you are doing an approach, you must look at the instruments, hence
you are not looking outside.  This violates the basic VFR rule...  see
and avoid.

A better way:  invite any one of your qualified pilot friends along for
some safety pilot time, then do the same for them later.
No, a passenger will not do for this...

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, jle@fc.hp.com, Jer_Eberhard@fc.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard UDL, 3404 East Harmony Road MS-99, Ft Collins, CO  80525-9599
Phone 303 229-2861, FAX 303 229-2838, 1UP10, Incoming 40 44.1N+105 33.0W
Civil Air Patrol, Pikes Peak 218, MSN Check Pilot, CFI Airplane & Glider, N0FZD
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Ground Instructors Ratings?
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:01:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.222653.8544@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
>Sorry, but the BGI is no longer acceptable for teaching Private
>Pilots.  Since the material has gotten more complex, you need an AGI
>to teach Private and Commercial ground school.

Just to clarify, anyone can _teach_ a ground school at any level.  An
AGI (or CFI, with different record-keeping requirements) is required to
sign someone off for the Private or Commercial written examination.
--
-- Christophe

"He presented it with a length of string, and then passed on to the
Statue of Corrupted Endeavor, there to await the arrival of autumn."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr