HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com (Dave Medin)
Subject: Re: materials for written
Reply-To: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville AL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:43:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.175238.28149@news.acns.nwu.edu>, kkalan@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Kalan) writes:
|> 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?

<stuff deleted>

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

I'l second this recommendation. I've used Kerschner for my Private and
Instrument with good results...


-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
       Dave Medin			Phone:	(205) 730-3169 (w)
    Intergraph Corp.				(205) 837-1174 (h)
       M/S GD3004
  Huntsville, AL 35894 		Internet: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com
				UUCP:  ...uunet!ingr!b30!catbyte!medin

   ******* Everywhere You Look (at least around my office) *******

 * The opinions expressed here are mine (or those of my machine)
From: jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: materials for written
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:59:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Here's my $0.02 regarding studying for the written.  I bought a set of
King Schools tapes, went through them twice, and had no problem getting
a decent grade.  Most aviation magazines reviewing the stuff John and
Martha King put out in their various video study guides rate them pretty
good.  Though after 15 hours of looking at Martha's "Little Orphan
Annie" hair cut, I wanted to do something drastic to her hair!

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.

Another good idea is to have a couple of people working on their ratings
pitch in and share the cost of a set of tapes.....round here folks
working on their inst, comm, or cfi, do that all the time.  Only thing
there is that King will only send one "graduation" certificate per set
of tapes ( you take their final exam, send in the results, they send the
certificate) which is your "ticket" to take the written with the FAA
office.  Others using your tapes will have to have a CFI or Ground
Intsructor sign off to take the written.

Jeff Dunkle
From: jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Ground Instructors Ratings?
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:23:15 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Embarassing as hell question.

I've had a "Basic Ground Instructor" (BGI) for 10 years.  Thats the one
that allows you to teach private pilot ground school.  I got it on a
whim when a friend who was teaching ground school at a local community
college asked me to help, and told me to take this written first...which
I did...passed..and got the BGI rating.  (I had it even before I had
finished my private flight training!)

There were no requirements for taking the exam....I just took the
Fundamentals of Instruction (FOI) which all FAA instructors are
required, (after studying some really stupid FAA manual for an evening
or two) then the BGI written which was just like a super private pilot
test.

Now for the embarassing part.   I want to get the "Advanced Ground
Instructor" (AGI), which allows teaching instrument and commercial
ground school, and I realized that I have no knowledge of the FARs that
govern these "ratings".  What they mean, proficiency requirements,
currency requirements, anything.  What FARs "define" the
rating/qualifications.

Embarassed to ask but would like to know.

Jeff Dunkle
PVT/INST/ASEL, A&P, BGI and not too smart.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From:  (Bob Noel)
Subject: Re: Practice approaches
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:53:55 GMT

In article <Bvrv8I.606@fc.hp.com>, jle@fc.hp.com writes:
> 
> > 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...
> 
> --

Yes, a better way (safer) would be to have an extra pair of eyes.

However, it is legal and reasonable for a non-IFR pilot to fly a practice, 
repeat practice, approach while VFR, solo, and not under the hood.  
It can be useful to compare/constrast the instrument approach 
flight path with the flight path you might take when just flying VFR.  

By the way, what's the difference between flying a practice approach while
solo VFR (not under the hood) and (when appropriately rated and cleared) 
flying an IFR approach while not in IMC?  Not much, the same see and 
avoid rules apply.

An alternative to talking to ATC and doing a real practice approach is to
tune the nav aids for, say, the ILS, and occasionaly observe the 
needles when flying final.

Bob Noel
My views are my own, not MITRE's

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: materials for written
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 18:33:14 GMT


In article <1992Oct15.144327.29247@b30.ingr.com>, medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com (Dave Medin) writes:
|>In article <1992Oct14.175238.28149@news.acns.nwu.edu>, kkalan@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Kalan) writes:
|>|> 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?

Like a number of other people who've already posted, I used the King tapes
for both my Private and Instrument written prep. They're good at getting
you past the exams (I scored 98% on the private and 93% on the instrument),
but they're not going to teach you about flying. Of course, that's how
they're advertized, as WRITTEN EXAM preparation.

|>|> Also I would recommend Kirshner (? spelling) books, his private book was
|>|> very good and I'm sure he has one for IFR also.
|>
|>I'l second this recommendation. I've used Kerschner for my Private and
|>Instrument with good results...

I liked Kershner's Private Pilot book, and think the Advanced Private Pilot
book is fantastic. I started my instrument with Kershner's Instrument book,
but found that I liked Dogan's book much better.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Ground Instructors Ratings?
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:26:53 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <8erlOXq00WB6EFBUoq@andrew.cmu.edu> Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Embarassing as hell question.
>
>I've had a "Basic Ground Instructor" (BGI) for 10 years.  Thats the one
>that allows you to teach private pilot ground school.  I got it on a
>whim when a friend who was teaching ground school at a local community
>college asked me to help, and told me to take this written first...which
>I did...passed..and got the BGI rating.  (I had it even before I had
>finished my private flight training!)
>
>Now for the embarassing part.   I want to get the "Advanced Ground
>Instructor" (AGI), which allows teaching instrument and commercial
>ground school, and I realized that I have no knowledge of the FARs that
>govern these "ratings".  What they mean, proficiency requirements,
>currency requirements, anything.

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.  The BGI (alone) can still
be used to endorse an applicant for a Recreational written test.

To teach instrument ground school, you need the Instrument Ground
Instructor's rating, IGI.  The good news is that with the IGI written
completed, you can submit your current ground instructor's certificate
and get the AGI.  If the FSDO asks, have them consult the "General
Aviation Inspector's Handbook", 8100.something.

There are currency requirements, but they are never enforced.

Kerry
From: tpc@omar.WPI.EDU (Terence Pau Crochetiere)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Practice approaches
Date: 8 Oct 1992 00:50:04 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: omar.wpi.edu

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?
>
>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!

Sounds about right to me. While working on my inst. rating I did the very same
thing every chance I got. Just remeber to clearly state that you are VFR and
a making practice approaches. Check out the AIM too, I think it has something
about practice VFR approaches.
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Partial panel ? (was:Re: Stay off the rudder!)
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:24:08 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO

In article <1992Oct6.145932.816@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike
Serafin) writes:
In article <skip.143.718373582@mitre.org> skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
>Partial panel training is based on the loss of vacuum pump, not loss
>of gyros, per se.  Most DGs and AIs are vacuum driven while most (if
>not all) turn indicators are electrical.
>
>Ahh, the advantages of 2 engines, 2 vacuum pumps, 2 alternators, 2 AHs, 2 DGs.
>But, it does cost just a bit more to maintain.

Ahh, but both vacuum lines probably come together at a tee somewhere behind the
panel, making full vacuum loss in a twin a distinct possibility.  Better think
carefully about how all those "2s" are anded together and make sure that a
single hose failure can't cause a complete system outage.  If you've got 2 AIs
and 2 DGs, some careful plumbing would be necessary to make sure you've got the
redundency you think you've got.

Bill Standerfer
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: materials for written
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:40:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Oct14.204033.29190
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center

I am just starting my IFR ground school through a local community
college. The cost came to $38 plus books. I did my PPSEL the same
way and think it is good. The material is not all that hard, I
just find it handy to have a schedule imposed upon me. Every Tues
night I find myself saying "Class is Thurs night and I have not done my 
homework yet!"  It is also kind of fun to meet other pilots getting
for the IFR plunge too.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy)
Subject: Re: Practice approaches
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 08:49:56 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI
Originator: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu


In article <kerRLYC00WB8Md3hMH@andrew.cmu.edu>, Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> 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.
> 
     Remember, it doesn't matter whether you are flying under VFR or IFR,
if you are in VMC, you are obligated to maintain a visual lookout.
That is what the safety pilot is for.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Logging Instrument Approaches
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:49:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.133649.22612@medtron.medtronic.com> km11480@medtronic.COM writes:
>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?  

Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer.  The FAA is exceptionally
confused on the subject, since FAA Aviation News has issued at least
two different interpretations.  My personal definition is that if I
encounter IMC or simulated instrument conditions (look out for that
hood) between receiving the approach clearance and DH/MDA, it's a
loggable instrument approach.
--
-- 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."
From: kzk00@ccc.amdahl.com (Klaus Kraemer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Practice approaches
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:14:43 GMT
Reply-To: kzk00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <kerRLYC00WB8Md3hMH@andrew.cmu.edu> jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle) writes:
>
>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.
>
>..........  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".
>
>
>jeff dunkle

Along this line, another thing that is definitely NOT advisable
is to fly an instrument approach procedure in VFR conditions
WITHOUT talking to the approach/center controller. In most cases
this is perfectly legal, but horrendously dangerous.
I once flew such an approach under Center control and while I was
outbound for the procedure turn, someone else came inbound on
exactly that radial at exactly the same altitude, but was not
talking to the controller. Despite traffic information, it was
very difficult to spot the traffic since it was exactly on the
horizon.
In a second experience, I was in the right seat when the pilot was
only talking to tower (no radar), but instead of making a normal
base entry he tried to intercept the ILS near the outer marker.
As you may have expected, Approach had a plane on the ILS and
had not coordinated with the tower yet.I wouldn't call it a
near mid-air, but it certainly was too close for comfort.
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Practice approaches
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:20:03 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1992Oct8.125355.3425@linus.mitre.org> (Bob Noel) writes:
>
>By the way, what's the difference between flying a practice approach while
>solo VFR (not under the hood) and (when appropriately rated and cleared) 
>flying an IFR approach while not in IMC?  Not much, the same see and 
>avoid rules apply.
>
From the pilot's point of view, there is very little difference between
a practice approach and a real approach in VMC.  From the controller's
point of view, a real approach has REAL separation standards AND the
controller must protect the missed approach area as well unless he gives
a missed-approach VFR restriction.

Consider two nearby airports.  One airport's missed approach procedure
involves making a nearly straight out departure to a holding fix.  This
straight out departure crosses part of the approach procedure at airport
two.  On a real clearance, the controller must resolve this conflict, or
assign a VFR restriction.  I haven't checked the 7110, but I surmise that
this resolution is not required for "practice approaches".

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: davis@realtime.ab.ca (Glenn Davis)
Subject: I Follow Roads...
Organization: Any day now...
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:10:50 GMT

In Canada the private license requires a certain ammount of instrument
training, although I think (in MY case at least) that it is not sufficient.
After obtaining my PPL out of an aerodrome in NE Alberta Canada I discovered
the real limitations of the PPL and started IFR training. After being
granted my "night" endorsement I was PIC on a flight from YXD to YMM (home)
and arrived at the edge on the control zone in full darkness and moderate snow.

This being Northern Canada dusk arrives very early in November, and I was
not really prepared. After being granted a marginal VFR clearance into the 
zone the snow became heavier, and I chose to continue as there were no 
other controlled aerodromes within 200 nm.  I am very lucky that I made it.

To sum up this experience, my approach was a series of connected "recovery
from unusual attitude" exercises.  I had not been coached to turn off the
stobes (this was a high wing Cessna), and suffered vertigo from the lights
flashing off the snow flakes. Finding the strip was pure surprise when
it appeared out of the snow.  Final and landing were uneveventful. Taxiing
in I met the aircraft owner at the terminal. He had been listening in on
a scanner, and was obviously a little worried.

I WILL finish the IFR endorsement before any flight in winter again.

The *real* reason for this posting is to ask about how to maintain IFR
skills.  I have found that they deteriorate very quickly.

Glenn
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.student
From: danderer@chopin.udel.edu (Dave Anderer)
Subject: Re: What do people think about night primary training?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:22:06 GMT


If you try to do your IFR training at night, be sure to do it in a
plane with good cabin lighting.  (Is there such a thing?)

Just by circumstance the first few full approaches I shot during
training were at night.  Because it was all new to me, it was
a high workload environment, and juggling that damned flashlight,
in addition to everything else, was just too much.

-- 
    Dave Anderer        danderer@brahms.udel.edu       (302) 831-8805
Instructional Technology Center, University of Delaware, Newark, De.  19716
		"Sinners can repent; stupid is forever."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: Re: El Al Boeing crash on Amsterdam
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 18:53:04 GMT

billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:

>In article <1992Oct06.215854.17898@donau.et.tudelft.nl> knop@dutecad.et.tudelft.nl (Peter Knoppers) writes:

>>Other remarks:
>>
>>The aircraft was built in 1979 and has experienced some engine
>>related problems before. A few months ago a very similar
>>airplane with the same type of engines crashed, also after
>>losing both right-wing engines. The loss of two engines on
>>one side of the plane is apparently not trained in simulators.
>>Either it is considered too unlikely to happen, or it is
>>expected to be impossible to control the airplane under those
>>conditions.

>In the newspaper account I read, it was stated that a Boeing spokesman
>said that there was no history of problems with this particular
>aircraft, and that it was designed to be flyable on ONE engine.

As far as I remember..the 747-400 <and 300> can fly on one engine..
<if they are at ALTITUDE>...but be serious..he was on take off...
one engine isn't going to do SHIT.
--
           Marshal Perlman <> Florida Institute of Technology 
                    ***** perlman@zach.fit.edu ***** 
               Private Pilot - Airplane Single-Engine Land
From: davehyde@TECNET1.JCTE.JCS.MIL
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Trun indicators - possible danger
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:41:19 GMT

In article <12OCT199210323622@vxcrna.cern.ch> Mike Cohler
<cohler@vxcrna.cern.ch> writes:

<Stuff deleted>

>and therefore recovery from any spin, erect or inverted, can be achieved
>by reference to the turn indicator to select which foot to push on
the rudder.

Interesting sort of trivia to note follows:  The slip/skid ball will _not_
indicate direction of a spin.  If it does, it's purely by coincidence.  If the
spin axis passes through the airframe, the ball will move to the side of the
race that is closest to the outside of the spin.  So...the ball position in a
spin depends on the location of the gauge with reference to the spin axis.  In
general, if the indicator is on the right of the panel, the ball will go right.

 If left, goes left.  Think about it.  Confusing, huh?

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "Go and get your own opinions, these are mine."
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What makes a pilot fly? Money!
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:46:35 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

I disagree with the premise of the subject title of this
thread.

It should read:

What keeps a pilot from flying? Money!

:-)
-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL
Newsgroups: rec.aviation