HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m12566@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: IFR FAR interpretation question
Organization: MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:04:17 GMT

In article <65257@apple.Apple.COM> robg@Apple.COM (Rob Griffiths) writes:

>... Long cross distance for IFR preparation...

>The issue is:  Do all three airports have to be over 50nm away?
>On my flight, they were.  But, could I really have picked one airport
>that was over 50nm, and two other ones local to my area?  From
>some earlier discussions, it would appear that as long as one airport
>were 50nm away, I could count all the time as cross-country time
>and meet the mileage requirement.

I'll let CFIIs speak to the "legal" interpretation but looking at the 
obvious objective of the exercise, I would have to say it is not "desirable" 
to keep your long cross country just barely out of the local area.  I have 
my IFR cross country scheduled for this Wednesday and purposely planned it 
to shoot approaches (or land) at airports I've never been to before, and set 
my own requirement that the total straight-line distance between airports 
equal or exceed the 250 n.m. required.  My total legs will actually be 
closer to 300 n.m. in this case, but I expect no squawk from the examiner 
when he/she reviews my logbook.  I've heard here that examiners sometimes 
use measured least-distance miles to disqualify some cross countries so 
better safe than having to redo it.

**********************************************************************
* skip@mitre.org,          |  PVT-ASEL.  Instrument Rating wannabe.  *
* FAX (617) 271-3044,      |  Cessna 150/172/172XP                   *
* If all else fails human- |  Piper Warrier/Archer                   *
* human at DSN 478-5980    |                |                        *
* (MITRE ext 7619) or      |            ----|----                    *
* (617) 271-7619.          |        x------(o)------x                *
*                          |              0 0 0                      *
**********************************************************************
From: lpeck@ryptyde.cts.com (Larry Peck)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Homebuilder Pilots
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:51:18 GMT
Organization: Ryptyde TimeSharing, San Diego, CA

aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd) writes:

>In article <1918@transfer.stratus.com> spenny@sw.stratus.com 
>(Steve Pennypacker) writes:
>>It sure will be nice to start seeing factory-built RV's, Glasairs, Kitfoxes and
>>others (as long as they don't stop selling kits.)  I just wonder what will 
>>happen when the personal-injury vultures find them.

>Funny you mention that ... on sunday, I saw an RV-6 go off the runway.
>Fortunately, the pilot wasn't hurt, but he almost nosed the airplane
>over in the thawing muck off side of the asphalt runway.

>Typical homebuilder (in my experience).  Works for thousands of hours,
>over several years, spends tens of thousands of $, but tragically
>damages the a/c because his pilot skills have suffered while he
>was spending all his time & money building the a/c, and he's just too
>eager to fly his new a/c to bother with any refresher pilot training.
>...(deleted for brevity)

One must remember that these are <experimental> aircraft, and the first flight
is going to be a <<test flight>>.  My dad built a Sonerai and nosed it oveer
on his first attempted takeoff.  Was he inexperienced?  NO, he had over 5000 
hrs in everything from a Aeronica champ to a C-5, was a CFI himself, and had
plenty of taildragger experience.  Luckily, he took an honest assessment of 
the situation beforehand and wore a helmet.  The plane was repaired and flying
soon after.  Moral:  don't assume that a pilot lacks experience just because
he ends up in a mishap.  It happens to all of us it could be you next time,
regardless of your "experience".


-- 
INTERNET:  lpeck@ryptyde.cts.com      |
ARPANET:   ryptyde!lpeck@nosc.mil     |
UUCP:      {crash nosc}!ryptyde!lpeck |
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:34:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Landing a Skylane
Organization: HP General Systems Division
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

To add to the net.discord about Skylane landings --

My technique is some combination of those used by Dan Masys and Judy Cadmus.
I would add power in the flare only in something akin to a landing emergency
(sudden loss of airspeed, flare too high, etc) and if I'm doing that I'd very
likely just go around.  Power at a time like that will dramatically increase
your roll unless you're just way way too slow already.

I fly the pattern at 80 knots and target 65 to 70 over the fence.  (60 to 65
if it's a real short field.)  I use all the flaps and have flown the 182 in
any condition from chock full (2950 lbs) to just me and a little gas and have
never run out of elevator.  Mind you, it takes a good pull -- there's a
big-ass downspring in these airplanes pulling the other way.

In general I don't believe in landing with power.  I used to land the Arrow
with 12" or so on but then a club check instructor showed me that if I without
fail cross the fence at 75 kts I can land properly with the throttle closed.
(I fly the pattern at 90.)  I've used that technique successfully ever since.
And I never miss the 1500-foot turnoff at Palo Alto, with just light braking.
If it's good and windy (summer afternoon) the 1000-foot turnoff is easy.

Mark
--
Mark Cousins                Hewlett-Packard Co.        mtc@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs    19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659             Cupertino, CA  95014          FAX: (408) 447-4364
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself airplanes
From: ajkavie@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:56:02 CST
Organization: Wichita State University, Wichita, Ks

A few things I left out of my recent post.

1. The design series that is appearing in KITPLANES begins with the May 1992
issue.  The article starts on page 83.

2. If you can't find an issue of KITPLANES at the local store you can contact
the publisher at the following address:

			KITPLANES
			P.O. Box 6050
			Mission Viejo,  CA   92690

				or

			3 Bourroughs
			Irving, CA   92718

			Phone: (714) 855-8822

Subscription rate is $25.97 for one year or $41.00 for two years.


Happy Flying,
Andy Kavie

From: gary@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com (Gary Gross)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 22:47:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Fuel Tester Problems
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

Some more investigation has revealed the following:

ClearSight/For-Mar
They called back and told me they've had some calls like mine related 
to autogas. Since autogas doesn't evaporate as quickly as Avgas, the
ball can swell slightly overnight and cause it to float. They recommend
shaking out the tester thoroughly and storing it inverted. A couple
"drying" days should tell whether my tester is ok or not. The gentleman
from For-Mar was very accomodating.

	      Specific Gravities

   Avgas     .73
   Alcohol   .78 - .79
   Kerosene  .81 - .89

The fuel tester is set to float at .79 and thus may or may not (float)
reveal an alcohol mixture. Do this test by volume.

In the upcoming months Fuel Vendors will be allowed to increase the
oxygen content up to 2%. This translates to ~10% ethanol or ~15% ether.
According to the STC rules we are not allowed to have alcohol in our
fuel. Why? It causes severe swelling of O-rings and gaskets.

EAA Director of Aircraft Maintenance
The jury is still out on Ether (MTBE -?Methal Tietiary Butyl Ether?). The
EAA is beginning testing of Ether and hopes to complete this by fall. The
results could go either way, but they are hoping that MTBE won't cause any
more swelling than 100LL Avgas. They will be testing 20% 30% and 40%. 
Watch for news in Sport Aviation, etc..

Any alcohol is definitely a no-no because it swells O-rings and gaskets an
unacceptable amount, and also pits aluminum. Do those volume tests!


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Subject: Re: Aviation on a metric basis ?
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 20:57:14 GMT

In article <9210416.5142@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, ggr@corowa.acci.com.au (Greg Rose) writes:
> >In article <mferrare.702889446@adelphi> mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Mark Ferraretto) writes:
> >>   An advantage of measuring distances in nautical miles is that it is a 
> >>   'natural' distance.  Ie 1nm = 1 minute of latitude.
> 
> Well, now, what makes 1/60th of 1/90th of the distance twixt equator
> and pole so significant? ...

	It would make lots of sense for navigating a sailboat across
	an ocean.  For computing a final glide I'd REALLY prefer
	to work with both altitude and distance in kilometers.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tony@director.beckman.uiuc.edu (Tony Rimovsky)
Subject: 800 numbers for duat
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:40:10 GMT

This has probably been beaten to death, but I need the phone numbers for
both Contel and DTC duat numbers.  1-800-555-1212 couldn't help me.
(I have been using the net for so long to get to duat that I forgot the
 numbers!)

Thanks
Tony Rimovsky
From: chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: VFR Pilot Files IFR !!!
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:13:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.slc7mINNanu
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

>In article <m12566.53.0@mitre.org> m12566@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
>>
>>... DUAT automatically inserts the DUAT subscriber's name into
>>Block 14 and ... their computer will not let you override.
>>
etc.

It might be a bit awkward, but it seems like you could file under your own
name using your duats account, then amend the clearance later with the 
instructor's name for PIC. ATC probably wouldn't love that if it became
widespread, but I can't think of why it wouldn't be legal.

Lonnie
-- 
Lonnie C. Martin    lonnie@hydrogen.cchem.berkeley.edu
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Delayed Reaction
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:37:41 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1566@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>, bill@mpd.tandem.com (Bill Baker) writes:
> In article <9204062101.AA21140@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
> PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM writes: Pat> Path:
> devnull!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!u
> cbvax!CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM!PJERN
> 
> Story about a near miss between a Cessna and an Aerostar deleted..
> 
> > Lastly, if the Aerostar did indeed have me in sight, I think they
> > cut it irresponsibly close.  By the rules, they did have the right
> > of way, but standing on those rights could have killed us all.
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure if I agree with you here.  The Aerostar crew had a tough
> decision to
> make.  If they changed course to avoid you, they might have conflicted with a
> course change you initiated.  The problem is a classic one in any right of way
> situation when one party 'don't play by the rules'.

I have to disagree pretty strongly with this.  Maintaining a course which you know
to be putting you in dangerously close proximity (in this case a couple hundred 
feet) to another aircraft, just because the other pilot might
maneuver the same way is pretty stupid, at best.  This is a choice between a
situation which you *know* is putting you in danger and one which *might* keep you
in danger but will probably increase your separation and make you safer.

If I remember this particular
situation correctly, the Aerostar was above (slightly) the Cessna.  I don't 
remember the type of Cessna involved, but I'll bet the Aerostar could climb a lot 
faster than the Cessna.  If both are true, then the Aerostar should have 
pulled up hard enough to be sure of avoiding the Cessna.  Even if the Cessna also
pulled up (which he shouldn't have, knowing that's where the traffic was), 
separation would be increased by the Aerostar's superior climb.

That was all pretty wordy, and someone might argue that by the time the pilots
thought all that through the planes would have already passed (or hit) each other,
but a lot of this should happen almost automatically.  The human mind can make
some pretty incredible calculations when confronted with serious and imminent 
danger.


-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: aircraft rental insurance
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:20:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center

When I was renting towards my provate, I bought a renter's policy from
AVEMCO. it was $75 or $100 per year. Helped me sleep better.

When I bought a plane and leased it to the flight school, I became aware
of the fact that every time a student or other renter dinged my plane, the FBO
would charge them for the deductable (sometimes the whole repair) AND the 
down-time. It seems that they paid 
and kept quiet, perhaps to keep thier FAA record clean, who knows.

Having been on both sides, I would strongly recomend the AVEMCO policy.

David		doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: twilson@alfred.carleton.ca (Tom Wilson)
Subject: Re: I thought I saw a F86
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:56:13 GMT

Did I say the RUDDER control surfaces in my previous posting? I meant
the horizontal stabilizer, what I think is now called a "stabilator".
It couldn't have been an F-86, as that had swept wings. Nope, I'll
still vote for a T37, or a CL-40, the Canadian-built derivative, which
definitely has a T-Tail. Maybe the Snowbirds were down there.

Tom
From: dr@calliope.uucp (David Robinowitz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Motion 'Discomfort'...
Summary: Psychological Phenomenon
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:42:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Apr6.174237.28330
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

I have a good friend and frequent passenger who used to get sick just
taxiing. The last time we flew, I did some approach and take-off stalls,
steep turns, etc., and she was absolutely fine. In fact, Airmet days are no
longer off limits to her.  Her amazing metamorphosis is due -- according to
her -- to a changed attitude, pardon the pun.  She is now aware that the
plane will not suddenly roll inverted, and that one to one and half g's is
all she's really going to experience, and that the wings are not going to
fall off (how little she knows :-) ).  
 
When you are in control, you will be able to realize these semi-truths and
will probably get over it (Chuck Yeager did -- read his autobiography -- he
claims to have had a real problem with motion sickness).  Fresh air, a
slightly filled stomach, and wearing your best clothes :-) should help.
Stay away from motion sickness medications when PIC -- they are forbidden
by FARs.  As for the accupressure wrist bands -- I've heard people swear by
them, but I'm convinced that they work via the placebo effect -- but why
not try 'em?

Has anyone heard of/read about an incident in which pilot motion sickness
played a role? I just can't imagine getting sick in solo pilot turbulent
imc -- it's as if the part of your brain that controls these things "knows"
that this is not the time to get sick.

-Dave

David Robinowitz (Comp. Sci. Ph.d. Candidate)  home: (617) 232-9872/3
Division of Applied Science 		       233 Kelton St. Apt. 12
Harvard University                             Boston, MA 02134
N7281C, PPSEL/I	             Just say "yo".    dr@das.harvard.edu
From: smithcap@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Cap Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Landing a Skylane
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:44:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: misvax.6APR199210440026
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

The recent discussion of "by-the-numbers" vs. "seat-of-the-pants"
included a number of comments about landing which I found difficult
to assimilate into my current flying.

I was taught to fly in a C-150.  Landing procedure was:
1. Power off abeam the numbers (carb heat),
2. 10 degrees flaps, 
3. Trim for 65-75 mph (be more precise, but pick a speed in this range)
4. Add more flaps, and re-trim, on base and final.

The implied message is that messing with the power is a sign of
poor piloting.  In other words, a *real* pilot sets power once
and gets on with the landing.

Well, I've got about 50 hours now in my new-to-me C-182, and I haven't
been able to replicate this "don't mess with the power" philosophy.
The Skylane seems to need a significant power reduction in order to
initiate a descent.  Then, with the flaps hung out, it needs a bunch
of nose-down trim to maintain a speed of, say, 75mph.  From this
nose down attitude, I haven't been able to get it to flare without
adding power. (we're talking nose-heavy here)  I don't have any
desire to bonk the nose wheel, so I add a bit of power before
flaring, which causes me to balloon, .... and so forth.

I've tried various speeds on final, ranging from 60-80mph IAS.
So, what's the secret, Skylane drivers?  How does one land a 
Skylane with *panache*? 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cap Smith         ba_cas@selway.umt.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rick@newton.uchicago.edu (Rick Ernst)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: taildragger transition
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:25:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago

Here's another plug for taildragger training.  Yesterday I had my first lesson
in a J-3 Cub, and I think I learned more in an hour each of ground and flight
instruction about basic aircraft handling than I did in tens of hours in
tricycle gear Cessnas and Pipers.  Do yourselves a favor and find an instructor
who will give you a full taildragger transition course.

For those of you in northern IL and southern WI, I highly recommend Scott
Hellem, who owns three Cubs, rents them out, and instructs.  He is based
at The Landings (north of Elgin), and the airport alone is worth the trip.
This place is a homebuilt and warbird afficianado's dream, and the admission's
free.  It's also an excellent place for taildragger instruction, because
alongside the paved runway is a grass strip, which makes the new taildragger
pilot's (and the old taildragger's) life a lot easier.  If you want his 
number, send me some e-mail.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Ernst                             Department of Physics
rick@control.uchicago.edu          The University of Chicago
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Joining West Valley Flying Club?
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Distribution: ba
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:14:06 GMT


Along these lines, I've been shopping around for flight instruction along
the peninsula.  My data so far:

1. PAFC and SCFC jointly offer services at Palo Alto and San Carlos.  Their
rental rates are higher than the other options.  Not much known about their
instructors.  Flying out of SQL does have some advantages, particularly on the
weekend (less time sitting in line).

2. West Valley is a bit cheaper (about $5-10 per hour), and has a fairly wide
selection of instructors and aircraft.

3. Stanford (which only takes Stanford affiliated folk) seems to be the
cheapest, at least for the aircraft.  Don't know much about the instructors,
either.


I'm basically looking for an instructor with a fairly extensive technical
background.  A seaplane rating is a plus.  Any suggestions are very welcome.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  |"Oochie Woochie Koochie Koo?"
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          |                              -- Spock
From: paulf@ci.deere.com (Paul A. Fisher)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself airplanes
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:01:17 GMT

prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:

>BTW, the Quickie suit was a prime example of an idiotic court case.  The
>builder crashed his plane and suffered injuries.  Reason for crash:  Metal
>chips in the oil.  Reason for metal chips:  Owner drilled a hole in the
>case to install oil gauge, and didn't bother to clean up.  Plaintiff's
>claim:  Quickie claimed the aircraft was "easy to build and easy to fly"
>and it obviously wasn't since the builder crashed and was injured.  The
>plaintiff won the jury trial....

That wasn't the only really dumb thing that builder.  As a Q-200 builder,
I was forced to follow this pretty closely because I still hadn't received
all of my parts :-(

Apparently after a particularly long layup, as the epoxy would start to 
'gel', he would add acetone to make it workable again.  As it got more and
more jelly-like, he would add more and more acetone.  For those not 
familiar with composite construction, this is an absolute NO-NO.  As soon
as the epoxy starts to get more like molasses than water, you are supposted
to throw it out and start with fresh.  The plans make that point VERY
clear.  Diluting it with acetone severely affects the epoxy's ability to 
cure properly.

The other thing that this guy did (so the legend goes) is to ignore the 
fiber orientation on the fiberglass layups.  Again, this is VERY important
if the finished structure is to be able to take the design loads.

After I heard things like this, I figureed this guy should be happy that
he survived at all!  But I believe Ron is correct, he sued based on 
Quickie's advertisements that the plane was 'easy to build and easy to
fly'.  The fact that this guy wasn't competent was not relevant.



--
Paul A. Fisher                       paulf@ci.deere.com
Engineering & Manufacturing Systems  ...uunet!deere!paulf
John Deere Road                      (309) 765-4547
Moline, Illinois 61265
From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GPS -- A Potentially Dangerous Technology
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:24:12 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Apr13.155425.5586@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
 greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) writes:
>
>The big wins from GPS are:
>	1. Enroute navigation
>	2. Higher precision approaches than that available from NDBs
>	3. Arbitrary (curved) approaches with multiple stepdowns
>	4. Approaches at virtually any airport.
>
>Note that LORAN and MLS with also do #3 above (as will RNAV) with fancy
>computers onboard.  LORAN won't do it with the precision of GPS and
>MLS will be as precise, probably moreso, and provide constant
>altitude information - a PRECISION curved approach is possible
>with MLS.  As far as I know, no other navaid has this capability.


Another consideration, though, is expense.  MLS, like ILS, is a one-per-
runway kind of installation.  Like VOR, however, D-GPS allows a single ground
station to provide multiple non-precision approaches to multiple runways AND
multiple airports.  

Through carefully chosen siting, a single D-GPS station, on a hill in sight
of multiple airports, could provide approaches to all of them.  You can even
"tune" the minimums by allowing lower approaches at the airports closest to
the D-GPS, gradually reducing the quality as distance increases between the
station and the runway.

--Andy    stadler@apple.com
From: ingham@hydra.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Washing the plane (was Re: 57E squawks Hijack, part 3)
Keywords: AFTERMATH
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:16:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.p81jx+m
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr15.171000.29393@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> greg@bronz
.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) writes:
>2.  What kind of a goof-off is alone on a Saturday night washing his plane?

Ask my housemates...

--
Kenneth Ingham WD5BBT
ingham@ariel.unm.edu (NeXTMail OK)
Hummin' lil Grumman N9646L
Newsgroups: rec.aviation