HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ggr@koonda.acci.com.au (Greg Rose)
Subject: Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Was: Re: Cessna sholdr harn review (BAS))
Organization: Australian Computing and Communications Institute
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:58:30 GMT

In article <5019@transfer.stratus.com> spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
>I agree with this, but I wish it was this simple.  I've never been able to 
>get the shoulder harnesses in C-150s and 172s to stay attached to the lap
>belt.  Just so we're all talking about the same type of harness, the type
>I'm talking about is the manual, non inertia-reel harness with a fastener
>that consists of a mostly flat metal plate with a cutout in it, and the 
>cutout is supposed to fit into an interlocking peg on the lap belt.
>
>So, is there any way to fasten/adjust those things so they don't come undone
>every few minutes?

A small rubber (pardon me, elastic :-) band around the mushroom shaped
peg thingy usually helps a lot. If it is too long to hold you can wrap
it around multiple times, but not too many. The little ones that
people use for orthodontic aids are great. 
--
Greg Rose                 Australian Computing and Communications Institute
ggr@acci.com.au                                              +61 3 282 2532
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:26:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

>  GA pilots can expect to average 1 engine failure per 1,000 hours of flying.
>So relax, you're safe for at least the next 900 hours.  :-)

I'd tend to believe it.  It's not happened to me, but I know enough
pilots that have had it that believes me to believe that might be the
right statistic.  Of course, I've also had two close friends who've
flown their planes into power lines.  Maybe I'm haning out with the
wrong people.

-Ron
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:32:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Mountain Flying
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In article <1992Jul19.225035.281@craycos.com>, rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon)
writes:
>Regarding mountain flying, I have yet to find any instructor who
>can tell me how to properly compute take-off distances for high
>altitude airstrips.
>
>Airplane take-off performance graphs that I've seen never go above
>5,000' MSL. [...]

It's not the mountain instructor's problem, but a manufacturer's problem.  They
simply don't do the necessary high altitude performance testing to give us
charts useful for high density altitudes.  The older Cherokee books, for
example, only go to 6K' density altitude, which is virtually  useless around
here half of the year before you even get into the mountains.  Now if you're a
jet helicopter, you should be in better shape, since most of the manufacturers
can be found at Leadville from time to time gathering data for new types.  Too
bad Wichita and Lock Haven never got the word.

And in article <1992Jul20.014726.16546@telebit.com>, brent@telebit.com (Brent
Chapman) adds:
>Sporty's has a "takeoff performance computer" (on the bottem left corner
>of p. 36 in the current catalog) that's a multi-slide-rule (linear, not
>circular) affair; here's their description:
>[...]

The TOP computer is fine, but still won't work at Leadville on a warm day.  It
seems to be about 10% conservative for our airplane when compared to the POH
charts.

I recommend to our ground school classes the TOP or the Koch chart available on
an FAA Density Altitude flyer (call your local FSDO for one).  When you run
out of density altitude on those, you have no alternative but to take an
educated guess.  Call and talk to an instructor for advice at the airport you
want to visit *before* you get there.  Also, keep the gross weight down and
fly when it is cool to give yourself the best chance possible.  There are very
few airplanes which cannot takeoff from Leadville *sometime*, but the trick is
putting bounds on *when*.

Bill Standerfer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: huopio@lut.fi ("Kauto Huopio, OH5LFM")
Subject: Re: updated navigation data available
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:02:42
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed below are writers own.
	<92206.015910KCHAN@ESOC.BITNET>
Peruutus: Mielipiteet ovat omiani.
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland

In article <92206.015910KCHAN@ESOC.BITNET> <KCHAN@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
> Can someone please post the IP address for seas.smu.edu? Our machine
> can only handle the numeric addresses!
> Thanks

Name:    seas.smu.edu
Address:  129.119.3.2


--Kauto
--
****************** Kauto Huopio (huopio@kannel.lut.fi) **********************
*  Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta,Finland   *
*****************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: dennis@nebulus.ca (Dennis S. Breckenridge)
Subject: Re: Emergency landing: wet or dry? Answer: it depends.
Organization: Alchemy Mindworks, Edmonton, Alberta
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:20:20 GMT

olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes:

>A few days ago, I asked which would be a better choice for emergency
>landing:

> - land in a forest, or
> - ditch in a lake.

>The response was a deafening silence (and a request for a summary of
>responses).

Well with about 2500 hours on floats in just about everthing with floats
I have the following story to relay.

About 10 years ago one of the student pilots headed out with instructor
in an otter. Just at airspeed (~80 or so knots) the pilot dropped his
camera on the floor. As he reached down for it and pushed the stick forward.
He submerged the floats and the instructor and him pulled back on the sticks
real real hard. The plane broke the water surface but it decided to leave
the floats behind. A couple of PAN PAN PANs came over the radio and the
emergency support staff came on the radio. The plane was fully fueled 
and their was some real confusion going on. After several hours of 
circling the city the plan was formulated. Head out to the airport 
and belly land it on the grass. The was done and they both walked away.
The plane did not do that well, soon as the prop started eating ground
it sent all kinds of shrapnal(sp?) all through the engine. 

Interesting solution to a real live emergency. The crews were out there
ready to pull bodies out of the plane. The reason they picked a land site
instead of ditching it in the water was explained to me this way. Water
after 40 miles an hour solidifies. Add the fact that as speed increases
its viscosity raises and water becomes very very sticky. They figured
that as soon as the prop touched the water, the plane would pitch-pole
and kill everone. Add the fact that the rescue crews would have to watch
until the plane started to sink. 

I have been in one crash myself and it was over water. Four of us walked
away and the MOT pulled the pilot's license almost immediatedly. Something
about 6000 hours since the last engine. There are reasons for rules. 

For my taking, if I have had to ditch, I would try land and short trees. 
Tanks would be bone dry (a perfect emergency hi hi)

>I recommend reading this report, if you can find it.  If there is
>sufficient interest, I'll see about making it available on the net.

I would like to see that document.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dennis S. Breckenridge VE7TCP@VE7TCP [44.135.160.59]  dennis@nebulus.ca
Just because everything is different doesn't mean anything has changed - Oracle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wisch@Apple.COM (Ed Wischmeyer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:22:01 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA



>I cannot recall seeing a single documented account of a commercial jet
>aircraft in which two engines failed.

I believe it was Southern Airways that lost both engines in a DC-9 flying through a thunderstorm. They put it down on a highway with some survivors.

Ed Wischmeyer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: brent@greatcircle.com (Brent Chapman)
Subject: SJC ILS and ALS OTS until 5/31/93?
Originator: brent@napa
Organization: Great Circle Associates; Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:43:27 GMT

Lately, I've been getting the following pair of NOTAMS:

SJC 07/006 SJC 12R/30L ILS OTS TIL 05312400 "1993"
SJC 07/005 SJC 12R/30L ALS OTS TIL 05312400 "1993"

Anybody know what the story is?


-Brent
--
Brent Chapman                                   Great Circle Associates
Brent@GreatCircle.COM                           1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841                                 Mountain View, CA  94041
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: Help me spend money! Plane advice needed.
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:48:41 GMT


In article <122140210@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, ms@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mark Stolz) writes:
|>> 
|>> > * Piper Archer: 180 hp and simple systems.  We've heard they are nice to
|>> >   fly and we are going to arrange a flight sometime in the next few weeks.
|>> >   We both learned on Cessnas so they represent the greatest unknown.
|>> 
|>> This one violates your range requirements.  You can have full fuel or
|>> full passenger load...  Piper owners/lovers consider this a benefit.
|>> Unfortunately, an archer with the hershey-bar (all archers and below,
|>> actually) wing will climb like a dog with a full load in your proposed
|>> flight regime.  As this family grows (lbs), this airplane will
|>> fail to meet your needs the soonest.
|>> 
|>  Actually, Archers have the tapered wings.  It was the Warrior that
|>was the PA28-180 and had the hershey bar wing.  The Archer (PA 28-181)
|>has the taper!

Let's see if I can straighten this out.

	PA28-140	Cherokee 140	Hershey-bar	150hp?
	PA28-151	Warrior		Tapered		150hp
	PA28-161	Warrior II	Tapered		160hp

	PA28-180	Cherokee 180	Hershey-bar	180hp
	PA28-181	Archer II	Tapered		180hp

	PA28-235	Cherokee 235	Hershey-bar	235hp
	PA28-236	Dakota		Tapered		235hp

This is from memory, and unfortunately I don't remember the details
of the vanilla Archer. There probably are a few other variants I
haven't listed, so anyone with a reference at hand is invited to follow
up with details.

|>> The Piper PA-28-235 has enough horsepower to overcome my objections
|>> to load/fuel/climb performance above.
|>
|>   Full fuel and load ok in this plane. (If you can close the door 
|>it will most likely be legal!) Later than 1972 has extra room
|>in back (worth the feature).  The 235 burns approximately 11.5 gal/hr,
|>is simple from a maintenence perspective.

Interestingly enough, it's quite possible (although not particularly easy)
to load the 235/236 so that you're quite out of CG limits once most of the
fuel is burned. Remember, W&B is *not* just something you learned for the
exams.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
Warrior N7022C | Archer II N6151H | Dakota N80392
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: pkellma1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Philip J. Kellman)
Subject: Re: Help me spend money! Plane advice needed.
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:18:39 GMT

In article <101820015@hpcvra.cv.hp.com>,... writes:
> 
> * What are your thoughts on my selection criteria?  Are we worrying about
>   the right things?
> 
> * Are there other airplanes we should add to the list?
> 
> * What are your experiences with these (or other) airplanes?
> 

Your selection criteria, and choices, sound pretty good.  I agree with the
responder who suggested adding the Piper Dakota.  Its performance is
similar to the 182.  I have experience with the 182 and the Archer.  The
Archer is a good performer, but fully loaded, you will hear the stall
warning during climbout well before you get to 12000 feet.

I've had a 182 for 4 years and have used it much the way you intend.  It's
a great airplane; the climb performance, load hauling, stability and
reliability are great for peace of mind.  Speed is OK.  Safety record is
excellent.  As my family grows, I'll probably move to a 210 or A36, but I
already know it will be hard to match the 182's combination of economy,
safety and performance.

Best advice I can offer, however, is to call AOPA and obtain their
brochures for each aircraft model you are considering, as well as their
general purchaser's kit.  The aircraft brochures contain articles about the
aircraft culled from various aviation publications.  This is one good way
of learning the specifics of each plane, including performance information
but also model years not to buy, safety issues, etc.  (For example, if you
buy a 182 you'll want to know the issues and remedies relating to trapped
water in the fuel cells and carburetor icing tendencies.)  The AOPA
purchaser's kit will help you avoid some pitfalls of the buying process and
provide some documents you'll need and some information on useful services
(e.g., title search).

Good luck.

--Phil Kellman																																			Dept. of Psychology
pkellma1@cc.swarthmore.edu																							Swarthmore College
	(215) 328-8417 																																	Swarthmore, PA 19081
From: morishig@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Nina Morishige)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Dogs in Planes
Date: 31 Jul 92 03:17:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: lhasa.berkeley.edu

Thanks to everyone who replied to my post about the feasibility
of taking my dog in a plane. I had wondered, too, about the high noise
level in the cockpit, but one suggestion was to put a disused headset
on the dog. Sometimes my dog barks at passing dogs, people, etc., whilst
riding in the car, and I wondered if this would be a problem, e.g., if
she decided to bark at a passing bird or 747, as I was speaking on the radio.
Hair also seems to be an issue - but no one seems to have had a problem
with airsickness. Perhaps I'll try it soon with another person present to
calm the dog in case she gets nervous.

Thanks,
Nina
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Was: Re: Cessna sholdr harn review (BAS))
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:33:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

You could always cram one of the squishy yellow earplugs in the hole.
I haven't tried this yet.

-Ron
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Coffe cups in the cockpit (Re: A320 yarns)
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:59:57 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Jul25.061925.5114@cactus.org>, rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
> In article <5822.2a7043b2@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> 
>>Ah, but the implication here is that the pilot is doing the "right" thing,
>>so it is OK for him to override the computer inputs. Consider what would
>>happen in the same situation when the computer is doing the "right" thing
>>and attempting to cover up for a pilot's mistake.
> 
> Grrrrrrrrrrrr... < Belker growl >
> 
> THE FAA SAYETH:
> 
> FAR 91.3  RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE PILOT IN COMMAND
> 
> (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is
> the final AUTHORITY as to, the operation of that aircraft.

Agreed. However, the PIC is also human, and therefore capable of making
mistakes. There's no FAA rule about the PIC being incapable of making mistakes.
(If there were, I'd afraid we'd all be grounded....)

>>This type of "ghost-like" behavior could actually perpetuate a sequence 
>>of mistakes from the pilot, and may be exactly what the designers were
>>trying to avoid.
> 
> Moving throttles have worked very well up through now; I can't think of
> a single accident that may have been caused by their use.  With the A320,
> I can think of *two* that might have been prevented with such a gross
> *mechanical* cue.
> 
> You do have a point, though--fighting throttles, in a mandatory protection
> mode (in this case, alpha floor) is not good.  Thus, alpha floor should be 
> eliminated.  Not the pilot.

I disagree. These types of safety overrides might be useful, and actually
enhance safety by preventing a pilot from making a fatal mistake.

However, any such safeguards shouldn't be taken lightly. Indeed, any 
automatic system is potentially more complex than a simple manual one. A
manual system always acts in simple, predictable ways. An automatic syste
does things, well, automatically. Until one day it acts differently.

Going back to my original posting, it would seem appropriate for the
designers of these flying systems to do lots of design testing for their
"users" (eg the pilots). Perhaps they did. Perhaps they found that the
unseen automatic system was safer than the gross physical motion system.
Let's hope so.

The throttle quadrant is just one part of the system. Here's to hoping
the designers tried out just about everything....

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.
From: brecher@pyramid.unr.edu (Steve Brecher)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: VFR Flight Following in TCA/ARSA
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:06:05 GMT
Reply-To: brecher@pyramid.unr.edu (Steve Brecher)
Distribution: na
Organization: still disorganized in Reno, NV

In <1992Jul27.180716.8138@microsoft.com>, t-dougf@microsoft.com
(Douglas Fields) writes:

> I usually call up Seattle Center or Whidbey Approach, and say something
> to the effect,
> 
> "Whidbey Approach, Cessna 94705, out of Harvey, climbing 4500, for Orcas
> Island. Request VFR Flight Following."
> 
> They come back with the usual, and whatnot. Also, I'd do something like:
> 
> "Seattle Center, Cessna 94705, out of Harvey, climbing 4500, for
> Shelton. Request VFR FF."

(Assuming 4500 is your target altitude and you are currently lower, it
would be better to say "two thousand three hundred [or whatever] climbing
four thousand five hundred" -- radar controllers must verify the accuracy
of your mode-C output.)

> They always grant it (almost). My question is, they don't tell me to do
> anything special. So, am I allowed to make turns, altitude changes, etc?

If you're going to be in a TCA, you need a clearance and, once granted,
will automatically have "flight following."  In an ARSA you don't need a
clearance but radar service is mandatory (for ATC) and thus you will
always be given a squawk code and have "flight following."    I put
"flight following" in quotes because, given the foregoing, it is usually
explicitly requested by pilots only in those cases in which it is not
required, i.e., outside ARSAs and TCAs.

If they don't tell you to do anything special, you can do anything you
want that is legal for your current situation, i.e., in accord with part
91 and VFR.  You don't need to talk to towers of ATAs that you fly
through, since coordination with towers is the responsibility of the radar
controller.  Advising of altitude changes is a courtesy, not a
requirement; the same goes for any course changes not implicit in going to
your declared destination.

> Both times I've gone to shelton, I've vectored myself around the 
> Bremerton CZ (for the hell of it) and they never commented ...

"For the hell of it" is the only reason to avoid that CZ.  The only effect
of a CZ is make controlled airspace (with the resulting VFR visibility and
cloud clearance requirements) of that which would not otherwise be
controlled.  In Bremerton's case the only effect of the CZ is to
bring controlled airspace down from 700 AGL, where it would otherwise have
a floor, to the surface.  If you have controlled airspace VFR weather
conditions, a CZ is irrelevant to you -- except possibly for alerting you
to the fact that there's an airport there, and airports tend to attract
air traffic...




--
brecher@pyramid.cs.unr.edu (Steve Brecher)
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Help me spend money! Plane advice needed.
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:36:30 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> * Piper Archer: 180 hp and simple systems.  We've heard they are nice to
>   fly and we are going to arrange a flight sometime in the next few weeks.
>   We both learned on Cessnas so they represent the greatest unknown.

I learned in Cessnoids, switched to an Archer shortly thereafter
because that's what the FBO had when I moved.  Transition was not
difficult.  I like it better than a 172 for a lot of things.

> * Cessna 177B Cardinal: 180 hp, huge interior, flys nice, but some
> * Cessna 182 Skylane: 230 hp, common, stable, excellent payload.  I

The Cessna Pilots Association can give you useful information when
trying to decide on purchasing a Cessna.
From: glenb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Glen Baker)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:33:49 GMT
Subject: Re: "remain clear of the ARSA..."
Organization: What, me? Organized?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, bspain@riker (Bradley K Spain) writes:

> Sounds like you got a bum deal, but I can't really understand your
> frustration.  If you are departing from Carmel Valley, fly the valley until
> past the SNS R180 

  Um, that works real well if you take off to the se. Unfortunately the
  winds almost *always* favor taking off to the nw. So, to remain clear
  of the ARSA (which actually sits over Carmel Valley) you have to 
  make a 180 degree turn at less than 2500 MSL in the valley.  As I said
  earlier, this is in fact do-able, it's just not the safest route.

  I should reiterate that when I made the original posting I was laboring
  under the misconception that they could not refuse permission to enter
  the ARSA once they had established contact. As several folks have pointed
  out this is incorrect and they can indeed refuse permission. That puts
  a whole new twist on things. Given my misconception, hearing the phrase
  "36Z remain clear of the ARSA" was annoying as hell. Now that I 
  understand that they're well within they're authority to issue such
  an instruction I'll just chalk it up to workload and call 'em on the
  phone before I leave.

  Please note that I haven't *always* had difficulty with Monterey approach,
  in fact at times they've been downright helpful. It's kind of a hot
  or cold thing...

> Try not to get so defensive with the folks that are trying to offer
> suggestions.  

  Argh...darn electronic communications! I may have gotten a bit defensive
  when it was implied that I'm a less than capable pilot, eg: "you do 
  remember how to do turns about a point don't you?", other than that
  particular gem I appreciate everybody's comments and suggestions. 


 ..glen