HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: UK airspace questions
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:01:13 GMT
Reply-To: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Organization: SICS, Kista (Stockholm), Sweden
Originator: lhe@yang.sics.se

Questions to U.K. pilots:

With the introduction of the ATS airspace classification (alphabet
soup airspace), ICAO made explicit that if you fly at an altitude or
level dividing airspace with different classes, you should follow the
rules of the less restrictive class.

E.g. suppose you have a class C terminal control area between FL85 and
1000 feet (as you might find in Sweden), surrounded above and below by
class G (uncontrolled airspace). Then flights made at 1000 feet or
FL85 should apply class G rules.

My question is: Does this rule hold in the U.K.? I know that under the
old rules it would not. (E.g. crossing an airway at its lower limit
would require a clearance.)

Another question: The U.K. has assigned several control zones class A,
i.e. VFR prohibited. Yet, the U.K. permits special VFR in class A
airspace - a deviation from ICAO rules. Does anyone know why class B
was not used instead? The end result would have been the same -
positive control and separation of all aircraft, VFR and IFR - without
the need to change the ICAO rules.
-- 
-- 
Lars-Henrik Eriksson				Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science		Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263					Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Comet at Ohare
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Mar25.121435.15013@ohare.Chicago.COM>
	<CKD.92Apr1171041@loiosh.eff.org> <ku419hINN4ub@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Distribution: rec.aviation
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:12:59 GMT

 Geoff> == Tricky Gnosis <geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM> 

 ckd> Last time I was in western Washington I visited Boeing-Everett, and the
 ckd> first 747 was sitting on the line there.  Apparently it is going to wind
 ckd> up at the Museum of Flight (the 367-80 is headed for NASM, no?).

 Geoff> How long ago was this?  I saw the first 747 parked at McCarran
 Geoff> Field in Las Vegas several years ago, still in its original red
 Geoff> and white paint job, apparently in long-term storage.

This was Thanksgiving '91; the day of the 777 paint hangar construction
accident, in fact (we left about an hour before it happened).

They have apparently taken it out of the long-term storage and been
doing work on it.
--
Christopher Davis <ckd@eff.org> |    ECONOMIC OBSERVATIONS DEPARTMENT
System Manager & Postmaster     |  "There's always something going out of
Electronic Frontier Foundation  |      business in Central Square."
+1 617 864 0665  NIC: [CKD1]    |   -Rita Marie Rouvalis <rita@eff.org>
From: sandyr@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Sandyr Reutter)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Rental Rates (was Re: Instrument Checkride Passed!)
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:59:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Greeley, CO


 

Oh well, I guess it's time to quit lurking (after 3 years), but I just
have to brag-up the flying club that I was lucky enough to join.
     Five years ago, when I got started flying, money was a big deal
(and still is :-) ) a good friend told me about the Aerowest Flying Club
at GXY (GREELEY).
    The rates then were:  C-152............$18
                          C-172(ifr).......$21
                      PA-28-151(ifr).......$21
                      PA-28-181............$25
                          M20-C............$30
    They have since gone up a whopping $3.00 due to our friends in the
Middle East.  
    These rates are wet, and yes we do pay dues of $20/month if you fly,
or $30/month if you don't. There's a $50 initiation fee (non-refundable)
and you also buy a share of stock (was $700, now $1100) which you sell
back if you leave, there's also a $15 payment to a slush fund to cover
the deductible if someone has a mishap--which has only been assessed 3
times in the previous 5 years.
     There are a few semi-restrictive rules (like no actual without an
instructor) but nothing too difficult for me to live with. Just 60 members
and 6 1/2 planes (a Kitfox is nearing completion) and a short waiting list.
     How's that for lucky?
     About me--PPASEL, INST, preparing for Commercial check-ride, and passed
CFI written tests, relatvely new member of CAP, married (3rd time's the 
charm ;-) ), and looking forward to golf and flying tomorrow.

                              Just wanted to say HI!
                              Sandy Reutter
                              303-350-4102
From: sascsg@luscombe.unx.sas.com (Cynthia Grant)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Illusions (was Re: Wringing out the Written)
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:49:05 GMT
    <NILES.92Apr15121517@pizzicato.parc.xerox.com>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sascsg@luscombe.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 1316

In article <WOLFGANG.92Apr14114527@sam.first.gmd.de> wolfgang@sam.first.gmd.de
(Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:
|> >>   (Roughly, "What effect does haze have on flight operations?"  Sure
|> >>   hope it's "Makes the runway seem further away than actual, resulting
|> >>   in a lower than normal approach.")
|> >Wait a minute ...
|> >If the runway *seems* further away than actual, then you *seem* to be too
|> >low, adjust by decreasing your ROD, resulting in a higher than normal

I think what happens is that when the runway *seems* farther away than actual, it
leads you to perceive that you are too high, and then you increase your descent
rate to compensate, resulting than a lower than normal approach.

I have experienced a similar problem in the opposite direction when landing at an
airport with long wide runways (I am used to short narrow runways).  The large
runway gives the illusion that I am approaching too low - so I cut my downwind
short and then find myself embarassingly high on final.
-- 
=======================================================================
Cynthia Grant                  sascsg@unx.sas.com
SAS Institute Inc.             (512) 258-5171
Austin, Texas                  "obligatory meaningless quote here"
=======================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gamiddle@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton)
Subject: Canadian airspace question, aerobatics
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:41:15 GMT

As far as I can tell, aerobatics is allowed only in uncontrolled airspace.
Aerobatics is (I assume) always VFR, and VFR is uncontrolled in Class D
airspace.

So, is aerobatics allowed in Class D airspace, or only in Class E?

 -Guy Middleton, University of Waterloo		gamiddleton@watmath.waterloo.edu
		(+1 519 885 1211 x3472)		gamiddleton@watmath.uwaterloo.ca
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: I thought I saw a F86
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:51:07 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Distribution: rec
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <2202@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> 
mikeg@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Mike Galat) writes:

>I vote for the Canadair aircraft, can't recall its designation right now.


Canadair CT-114 Tutor.  It's not an offshoot of the Cessna T-37 as someone
else suggested, but a completely different design.



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Nearby N-numbers
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:58:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

I have a picture taken at Oshkosh a couple years ago of my plane,
2822U parked next to 2820U which is also a 1963 r&w cessna 172.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
	That's one thing about going against the flow:  there's
	less traffic in that direction.
From: randy@khan.gatech.edu (Randal T. Abler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Taking the Commerical Multi & Single
Summary: don't do both in the same day
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:18:45 GMT
Originator: randy@khan

Richard Schlink (schlink@timex.EBay.Sun.COM) sent the me following:

I would like to say, (and maybe you could post this cause i can't post), and
that is if you get a commercial multi take the single add on, on another day.
I flew a Piper Apache for the complex portion of the test also giving me my
mutli-engine rating at the same time.  I did it to commercial standards not to
private standards.  Its a great way to kill two birds with one stone.  THEN I
flew the Citabria for the manuvers.  I would NOT recommend doing both in one
day, because its just way to much.  The examiner even said so.  He said he has
never had anyone do both like that in one day.  As a matter of fact, flying
the twin and recieving the commercial multi and the single in one test is a 
rareity.  It took me from 9:00am to 5:00pm to take that test, and to say i was
exhaused was an understatment!  But i passed and now its all over with.  Next?
An intrument rating.  I got a limited commercial cause i am trying to get a job
as a tow pilot as soon as possible to get hours and cause i love it.

So maybe you could post saying that taking the commercial mutli AND the single
on the same day isn't such a good idea.  Maybe if you already had a multi,
and wanted to use the twin for the complex portion go for it.  But to recieve 
your commercial AND the multi rating and your single add on in one day is way
to much.  Two days and it should not be a problem.

-- 
Randal T. Abler   	randy@cerl.gatech.edu		 
CERL/EE Georgia Tech     
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ME.DMG@forsythe.stanford.edu (David Gaba M.D.)
Subject: Joining West Valley Flying Club?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:01:08 GMT

Bay Area REC.AVIATION netters:

I have just found out that my sabbatical which I have long
awaited has been approved starting July, meaning I will have
plenty of time to get my PP-ASEL ticket as I have long intended.

I plan to take intensive training in July and August, during
which time I can fly every day if I desire.  I have had a lot of
friends and colleagues who have flown (and even instructed) through
West Valley Flying Club.  I have also seen positive comments about
the club on the NET.

1)  Is the Club's reputation still a good one?  Is this a good
club to learn to fly through?

2)  If so, is it difficult to join the Club?  Do I need to act
quickly (like yesterday?)?

Any useful comments would be appreciated

David Gaba
Asst Professor Anesthesia
Stanford University
From: bob@reed.edu (Robert Ankeney)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GPS and the FAA
Keywords: GPS, Navigation, Defense
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:20:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Apr13.172027.17434
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR


     Also, ARNAV was recently granted an STC for their STAR-5000 GPS-only
navigation system.  They have also received a TSO for their FMS-5000
LORAN unit with optional GPS.  The STAR-5000 allows VFR navigation, and
the FMS-5000 is certified for IFR with LORAN, and VFR with GPS.  I'm
not sure if this is a first or not, but I suspect it must be pretty close.

     Robert

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ankeney                 | "Yield and overcome.                |
...!tektronix!reed!bob         |  Bend and be straight.              |
...!tektronix!bob@reed.EDU     |  Empty and be full."    - Lao Tzu   |
From: kudzu@tfs.com (Michael Sierchio)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GPS -- A Potentially Dangerous Technology
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:17:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: tfs.1992Apr9.231758.1267
Organization: TRW Financial Systems

In article <1992Apr9.175544.3009@col.hp.com> 
	 davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen) writes:

>As I see it, there are two reasons the FAA is against GPS:
>1. FAA didn't invent it - they have never liked anyone else's ideas.
>2. They'd have to finally admit defeat for their sacred MLS (microwave
>	landing system) and own up to the few billion they've blown on it,
>	because GPS could do it so much easier and cheaper.

Nonsense. The FAA isn't "against" GPS -- GPS is not operational at this
time.  Period.  Secondly, to be IFR certifiable, the database of GPS coords
and altitudes (!) must be verified against known charts, etc.  No
manufacturer has taken the time to do this.

If you're getting your instrument flight plan, you can let the briefer
know you "have LORAN" or "have GPS" and would like to be cleared direct
to your destination.  In practice, this usually works.

The FAA has a point in limiting the use of certain nav aids that can, in
practice, be used without any navigational skills, and will be used
(despite disclaimers and warnings) as "Sole means of navigation".
-- 
Michael Sierchio                               TRW Financial Systems
kudzu@tfs.com                                     1947 Center Street
                                             Berkeley, CA 94704-1105
(MKS2)                                                  510.704.3380
From: steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: I thought I saw a F86
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:05:12 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway

>>>>> On 13 Apr 92 22:47:38 GMT, hastie@alta.mips.com (Glenn Hastie) said:

> In article <92103.131306AI4CPHYW@MIAMIU.BITNET>, AI4CPHYW@MIAMIU.BITNET writes:

>> I was out today (Saturday) working on my car and I saw what I think
>> was a F86 fighter.  It had cruciform wings (they were at a 90
>> degree angle to the fuselage, not swept at all)

Then it was not an F86 (Sabre), might have been an F84 (Thunderjet)

>> with a large football shaped object at each wing tip.

Might still have been a Thunderjet, with wingtip tanks...

>> It had a single tail with control surfaces at the top of the
>> rudder.

Nope, not a Thunderjet...

>> And it was jet powered, but with no visible engine (the engine was
>> contained within the fuselage I guess).

The Thunderjet has a frontal inlet (as has the early F86's, the ones
that don't have a radar dome nose).

The T33, however, has these, so has some new jet trainers. Isn't there
a Cessna trainer with wingroot inlets and a T-tail?

- Steinar
From: scott@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Turner)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:03:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Be careful out there
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, billa@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bill Arnold) writes:

Some interesting information about the ridge that extends east from the
front range between Denver and C. Springs.

>   So, watch your butts.  In most cases, there is no such thing as a good
>   forcast for crossing Eastern Colorado.  I regularly fly from Fort Collins,
>   CO to Dodge City, KS.  Leave Fort Collins in good weather, my son says the
>   weather is good in Dodge, and crossing the ridge near Limon, ... WOW!

Funny Bill should mention this.  We just flew from Greeley (just east of
Ft.  Collins and Loveland) to Dodge City KS last Saturday.  The area
forecast for Colorado was pretty straightforward - clear.  As we headed
southeast, however, a scattered layer over this ridge built very rapidly
to a broken layer of towering cumulus with scattered virga dropping out
the bottom.  While everyone around us was happily reporting smooth rides
to flight watch, we were giving a pirep of up and down drafts of
1000'/min.  This "finger" of weather extended out from Colorado's front
range along the Palmer divide to just past the Kansas border.  Caution
definitely advised.  The ridge is not particularly noticable, especially
when compared to the mountains towering to the west, but it can be a real
weather-maker.


Scott Turner  scott@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Systems Division  <-- Third name change in 6 months!
Turbo Arrow N2134N  "Baby"

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: sascsg@luscombe.unx.sas.com (Cynthia Grant)
Subject: Texas Fly-In
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:19:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Originator: sascsg@luscombe.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 1691

This is to announce the Spring Texas Fly-In, to be held on Saturday,
May 16, at Lockhart, Texas.  Lockhart is a friendly small town southeast
of Austin with a nice airport and cheap avgas.  They are having a small
fun fly-in that day with activities - a flour bombing contest and a
spot landing contest - and barbeque on the field.  There's also a
Stearman for rent on the field that may be giving rides.  Activities
will start at 9 or 10 AM -so plan to come early!  Extra-early birds can
eat breakfast at a motel within walking distance of the airport.

We had considered a number of other locations and I'm sorry if your
favorite location did not get chosen this time.  We wanted this first
Texas Fly-In to be one that everyone could easily participate in -
renters, owners, nosewheel, tailwheel, long field, short field, or
no airplane at all.  Let's make this just the first of many fly-ins
and sooner or later we'll visit every friendly field in the state!

Please email me if you plan to attend - include number of passengers
and/or number of seats available and I'll try to coordinate rides.
I'll need a fairly definite head count for the barbeque by a couple
of days before the fly-in.  There will be a small charge to participate
in the flour bombing - I'll post details the week before.

So, mark your calendars, practice your spot landings, and join us in
Lockhart!


-- 
=======================================================================
Cynthia Grant                  sascsg@unx.sas.com
SAS Institute Inc.             (512) 258-5171
Austin, Texas                  "obligatory meaningless quote here"
=======================================================================

From: myshatyn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mike Myshatyn)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:40:57 GMT
Subject: For Sale:  IFR Dos/Dont Booklet
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation


WARNING:  This posting is an advertisement.  Yes, I do benefit from it, but
	  I am posting it in the interest of instrument pilots  everywhere.
	  If  advertisements  bother you or you are not an instrument rated
	  pilot, hit 'j' now.

I have a limited  number of copies of my IFR booklet  still  available.  If
you read on and are interested, follow the instructions and I will sell the
remaining  copies on a first  come,  first  served  basis  while the supply
lasts.  For CFIs and  schools/clubs, I am still offering volume  discounts.
Send me email if you are interested in volume discounts.

As an  instrument rated pilot, do you fly IFR often enought to keep brushed
up on ALL the FARs and  procedures?  Do you  remember  ALL the  details  of
loss-of-radio  procedures?  Do you  remember  how to tell  whether you have
flown thru an intersection formed by a cross radial?  Did you ever wish you
had good review material for an Instrument Competency Check?

As a CFI-IA, I work at making  sure that I am always on top of all the regs
and procedures.  I have lots of 200+ page books on my bookshelf, but what I
have always  looked for is a CONCISE,  distilled-down  reference  book that
reviewed  IFR regs and  operations.  I have never  found such an animal, so
several  months ago I sat down and wrote such a booklet.  It is called "IFR
Review  Rules of the Road - Things to Know Before You Go."  It is less than
30 pages long and is the same physical size as approach plates.  Here is an
excerpt list of some of the topics covered:

           * Pilot Currency (IFR, VFR, AFR/BFR)
           * Logging flight time; hoodwork
           * Necessary aircraft equipment checks
           * Preflight planning (alternate selection, fuel, etc.)
           * Navigation equipment
           * Enroute flight
           * Holding
           * All sorts of tidbits on instrument approaches
           * IFR emergency procedures

The  booklet  covers  applicable  FARs  (using  the new  Part 91  numbering
scheme),  applicable  references to the AIM, procedures and a sprinkling of
rules-of-thumb.  This is the kind of  booklet  that you can read  cover  to
cover in less than an hour in preparation  for that  infrequent IFR flight.
If you feel that such a booklet  would be of benefit to you, please send me
a check for $7.95 and I will pay the  postage.  Please  make sure  that you
tell me to what address to ship the booklet to.  My mailing address is:

                        Mike Myshatyn
                        4708 Chippendale Drive
                        Fort Collins, CO  80526

DISCLAIMER:  My employer has  absolutely  nothing to do with this.  This is
	     strictly a personal undertaking.

--
 Mike Myshatyn    Bonanza N4896J           Hewlett-Packard Company
   ASEL/AMEL COMM, INSTR, CFI-IA           User-Interface Technology Division
 ...!hplabs!fc.hp.com!myshatyn             Ft. Collins, CO  80525
 or ... myshatyn@fc.hp.com                 (303) 229-4067
From: cabruen@athena.mit.edu (Charles Alan Bruen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Need info on In-flight Shuttle Simulator
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:42:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dear Netters:

        I am doing a project on automatic control, and I would like to
look into the inflight-simulator of the space shuttle. My understanding
is that it is a gulfstream aircraft that is design to behave
(dynamically that is), exactly like the space shuttle. I would
appreciate it if anybody could point me to some articles or literature
into this area. In addition, and other information anybody might have
would be appreciated. (Could I get a ride in it :-) ).

I will repost anything I receive i nemail, along with my summary report
when it is finished.

Thanks for the help.  


Charles Bruen
cabruen@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: VFR on top
From: n6vbg@debisa (Javier Henderson)
Date: 5 Apr 92 20:35:03 PST
Organization: What, me organized???

I had my first "VFR on top" experience today. I flew from Brackett (POC) to
Thermal. Brackett is about 35 miles east of Los Angeles, Thermal is about
25 miles south of Palm Springs.

I climbed out of Brackett, found a hole and poked through it. The view was
awesome! The white blanket extended everywhere, and the air was almost
perfectly smooth. Visibility was excellent.

It felt weird at first not being able to see the ground. I flew from VOR to
VOR (POC to PDZ to PSP to TRM), and had flight following from Ontario Approach
all the way to the Banning Pass, where I was on my own for a bit, then Palm
Springs Approach picked me up, although by then I had the ground in sight.

The return trip was pretty much the same, except for some turbulence climbing
out of Thermal.

Incidentally, Thermal's field elevation is -117. Is this the only airport in
the US below MSL?
______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG | Beat the 55mph limit...learn to fly!
n6vbg%debisa@mccall.com | "Proceed as filed" (yeah, right)
From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: 360 turn on final by commuter airliner
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:58:53 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Apr2.190313.1@wharton.upenn.edu> baran04@wharton.upenn.edu
 (Dave Baran) writes:
>
>Twr: Mooney 56V, extend your downwind -- I'll call your base.  Traffic
>is a Shorts doing a 360 on final.
>
>Us:  Roger.  We got your Shorts.  56V.

I think the phrase is "tower, I can see your shorts."

:-)

--Andy     stadler@apple.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation