HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Two planes collide over Santa Paula Airport
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:41:47 GMT

In article <6816@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep1.151634.16989@news.acns.nwu.edu> drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >The news report stressed that the
|> >problem was the uncoordinated airport in a residential neighborhood.
|> 
|> Sounds like another journalists' freshly minted contribution to our vocabulary.

Yup, ya really gots to look out for them uncoordinated airports, 'specially
close to the ground in a residential neighborhood. Once they slow to land the 
whole damn airport will likely stall and spin right in.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Avionics (King) questions
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:44:46 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Aug26.161802.29628@nas.nasa.gov> blake@wk60.nas.nasa.gov (Matthew W. Blake) writes:
!Well, some scum sucking bastards stole much of the avionics out of several
!aircraft over the weekend at Palo Alto Airport, California, and mine was
!one of the unluckys.
!
!So I have options! I have an Archer in excellent shape, it's in a flying
!club and sees lots of VFR and IFR work.  It's well equiped with an 
!autopilot, intercom, electric trim, etc.
!
!What was taken:  (2) KX170B Nav/coms
!                 (1) KR86 ADF
!                 (1) KN64 DME
!
!The insurance covers "replacement cost".  I do not want to get used 170Bs
!as I do not wish to trust used equipment when I can get new (with King 
!warranty) radios.  I would like suggestions from readers experienced with 
!any of the following systems on what they think or would suggest.

Matt, based on experience I would get the KR87 ADF. It is a more
money but a much better unit. I'd even consider a warranted used
unit vice the KR86.

Dave Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: Yellow and blue on blue and green
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 13:34:29 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <1992Aug25.232059.9297@cs.uoregon.edu> 
pablo@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (David A. Cohn) writes:

>... dual in his ex-Navy Waco UPF-7 ...
The waco UPF-7 is indeed a wonderful old airplane.  There's something 
magical about blatting along at 95 MPH behind a radial engine, the wind 
in your face, the warm smell of the engine.  The waco even does a pretty 
good loop :-) 

It's always good to hear about someone teaching a new generation of 
pilots about a/c with the wheel at the back, and a round engine up front!
And the hourly rate is a steal!  He must be very busy.

P.S.  Did you notice that the waco has a somewhat heavy control feel?
I found it very different than the stearman, which is almost pitts-like 
in it's light control feel.

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
From: jstar@tbd2.brl.mil (John J. Starkenberg )
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Kneeboards
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:21:38 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <1992Sep2.002802.22311@col.hp.com> davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen) 
writes:

>I use, and have heard many instrument instructors recommend, a simple
>clipboard. The legal (longer) size is nice. It fits across both legs
>and makes a nice "desk", which is extremely useful.

I use an acrylic clipboard.  During one simulated instrument approach in a
strong gusty crosswind (Hey! Why is the runway out the left window?) the
clipboard went flying.  I now have the option to velcro the thing to a strap
around my leg.  I also use a yokeboard.


!  _________|_________  Dr. John Starkenberg                    jstar@brl.mil !
!         \(*)/         Explosive Effects/Terminal Ballistics                 !
!         o) (o         US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory                 !
!      PP-ASEL-IA       Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005      (410) 278-6214 !
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: grima@iphase.uucp (Gary Rima)
Subject: Re: Flying/Camping the Sierras: Mariposa
Summary: Destiny Altitude????
Organization: Interphase Corp.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:34:37 GMT

In article <la5l1aINN93@sol.usc.edu> barney@sol.usc.edu (Barney Lum) writes:
>
>Concerns encountered: Weight/Balance, Fuel Qty Measuring/Determination,
>Turbulence, TRW's, Destiny Altitude, Physiology at Altitude, and FUN.
>		    ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^

I guess that must be a "California" type of thing......  :-)


-- 
Gary L. Rima						Interphase Corp.
PP-ASEL-IA						(214) 919-9226
Centurion N7358E					grima@iphase.com
N0GR							CompuServe 76050,231
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Comparing Tach and Hobbs rates?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 22:59:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

If I fly my club's 182 which is charged by tach time, 
will there be a significant difference in the reading
if I fly (within engine tolerances) at higher RPM/lower MP
vs. lower RPM/higher MP?

 


-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com
From: gerry@SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM (Gerry Baumgartner)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: 727 IN MIA
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:59:16 GMT
Organization: Harris Computers Systems Division, Fort Lauderdale,FL

In article <ritter.714765461@claude> ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>wsanders@ffeine.Sun.COM (Wiley Sanders) writes:

>>!MIA 08/001 HWO CTAF 128.8 OTS
>
>How can a CTAF go out of service??  Nobody left to talk on it?!?

They changed the frequency to 132.1.  Why they just don't say that is beyond
me.  BTW, this has been a notam for about 2 months.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Baumgartner                | Internet: gerry@ssd.csd.harris.com 
Harris Computer Systems Division | UUCP    : uunet!hcx1!gerry 
Fort Lauderdale FL 33309         |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Blimp touch and goes...
Date: 25 Aug 1992 17:00:00 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug24.125058.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
[about a blimp in the pattern]
>There were a couple of more aircraft in the airport area, which asked him how
>fast he was going (he said 35 kias) and how fast he could go (he said the
>redline was at 50 kts, though he doubted he could ever achieve it).

[and then, later, in his .signature:]

>Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
>jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!

...but not in a blimp, apparently... :-)
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "Anything that an F-4 can outturn is not maneuverable." -- Mary Shafer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 11:52:07 GMT

In article <5535@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.boeing.com> prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:
>
>Generally, I put my feet up on the dash, open a bag of Cheez-Its (tm), and
>catch the soaps on the Watchman :-).
>
Once, just once, while cruising on autopilot at 7500 feet on a clear day
over the Appalachians, things were so uninteresting as PIC that I got
out an issue of _Kitplanes_ and read an article by Ron Wanttaja.  Talk
about aviation hazards! :-) :-)

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: escmar@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Mar Siew Cheong)
Subject: Re: Principle of VOR
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:21:40 GMT

greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
: In <1992Aug26.231102.28156@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
: 
: >In article <170900001@hpubvwa.nsr.hp.com>, eldonb@hpubvwa.nsr.hp.com (Eldon Brown) writes:
: 
: >|> requested. An omni ground station has two antennas. One is designed to
: >|> electronically rotate a signal, a directional beam, at 1800 revolutions per
: >|> minute. 
: 
	[stuff deleted to save bandwidth]

: greg
: --
: Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
: Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
: Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)

	No, the directional antenna which produces the 30Hz AM is
  rotated at a speed of 1,800 rpm and also, antenna is not physically
  spun around but rather, a figure-8 pattern is rotated by having
  output of transmitter fed to antenna thru' a goniometer.

	There are many such type of VORs still in use today at major
  airports in the world.

	Regards.

Siew Mar
--------
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste; netiquette
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:10:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> 2.  What is actually quite an interesting discussion: Is personal
> surveillance via light aircraft a good or a bad thing?  There were
> a couple of posts indicating that it was a *constitutional* thing,
> but that's not the same.

Yes, and we could have a very nice discussions on the merits,
consitutionality, and moraility of this topic, except the person who
chose to start the counter discussion couldn't do it with any
civility.

-Ron
From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GA Safety (was: stupid pilot tricks)
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:26:00 GMT
Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug25.003932.4989@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>
>I've now come to the place where I recognize flying as a dangerous activity
>with a level of risk I accept.  I do my best to lower the risk, but I do
>this in driving as well.
>
>I can do the same with a motorcycle and with an airplane.  The net effect
>of this is that, after being as careful as I can be throughout my life, flying
>an airplane will still be somewhat riskier than driving a car, but less risky
>than riding a motorcycle. 
>
Flying is indeed  potentially dangerous. IMHO, there are more and greater 
dangers in  flying than in driving. An important difference is that the 
pilot of an airplane has more control over the risk factors than the 
driver of an automobile. 

Automotive hazards often give little or no warning. The auto driver is 
more likely to be a victim of a sudden violation of right-of-way by another 
auto than the pilot is likely to die in a midair collision.  
Loss of control has immediate consequences. 

Many aviation hazards give substantial warning or can be forseen. Weather
and density altitude are two examples. Loss of control may give time to
recover. Even mechanical engine failures usually offer some choice of 
what to hit and how hard. 

Since the pilot has both the opportunity and the responsibility 
avoid most of the risks, we can know almost nothing about the safety of a 
proposed flight without  knowing the pilot. (Not the person, the pilot.)

The topic of Flying Safety is largely "Fliers' Safety".
From: robg@Apple.COM (Rob Griffiths)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Keywords: ponds, plumes, piles, stains, and rude people
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:04:24 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug25.165820.5672@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>And just when I thought this newsgroup was going to start being
>civil.  I guess it goes without saying that Mr. De Armond's posting
>is EXACTLY the kind of thing that I was complaining about only one
>week ago.  Where were you then, Mr. De Armond?
  
Apparently not reading rec.aviation, for one thing.

>Is it not possible for you to present your view without resorting to
>name calling and childish demeaning insults?  Is your position on this

In one of the other high-volume groups I occasionally browse, this would
have been called a flame-bait posting.  I didn't think anyone would resort
to this type of stuff in rec.aviation.

>|> I almost didn't post here for fear of raising the noise level
>
>It is really too bad that your common sense didn't win out over your
>egotistical, mean, and malicious nature.

Yea, what he said!  Please, Margaret, ignore Mr. De Armond, and keep those
contributions coming.  As long as it's related to aviation, I really don't
care what the sub-topic of discussion is ... my own viewpoints seem to take
on a secondary status when flying is the general issue! :-)

And, to Mr. De Armond - Please read Geoff Peck's NETIQUETTE (intentional
emphasis added!) posting before composing your next contribution to our
little world.

Requisite aviation mention:  Did you know that, if stung by a bee directly
between the eyes, it's quite possible for the tissue surrounding both of
your eyes to swell dramatically?  And that, in certain cases, this swelling
can actually cause both eyes to close, thus making aviation impossible?
Don't ask me how I know this...   :-)

-rob.  Grounded by a honey bee, not the FAA...
-- 
Rob Griffiths    "Listen to me ... would thieves file a flight plan??"
robg@apple.com   PP-ASEL-IA, looking for clouds .... B52s/REM/Erasure!
From: woof@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Steve Wolf)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:25:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: exit
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:

> For my carrier, State Farm, if you have over 500 hours, it is a non-issue.

Must vary by state or something -- my State Farm policy had the rider
removed after 300 hours.
--
Steve Wolf				PHONE: (303) 229-2088
Hewlett-Packard				UUCP:  hplabs!fc.hp.com!woof
Fort Collins, CO			ARPA:  woof@fc.hp.com
From: maverick@buhub.bradley.edu (Darin Petersen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: more about instrument time
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:23:20 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Bradley University


     As the person who posted earlier, I am also an instrument rated
wannabe.  I currently have about 30.? hours of private pilot cross-country.
As a college student, the budget is tight, but I am willing to spend every
available cent on flying.  So I plan to get my instrument rating the
'smartest' way possible.  A few questions came to mind as I read the
previous post.  

1)  should I get as much simulator time as possible?
    and do I pay for an instructor while on the simulator?
2)  Is logging some hood time with a flying friend a good idea 
    to save on the expensive dual time.  
3)  Can I expect to need well over the minimum forty hours as is the
    case with the private ticket?
  
any other advice about instrument training will be greatly appreciated.

--
            __|__          Darin Petersen - PP-ASEL
     ________(*)________  Maverick@buhub.bradley.edu
            o/ \o    
            
              
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: when to file "Lifeguard"
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:57:10 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <BtM4nA.2Io.2@cs.cmu.edu> dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
>
>I agree with Brian Horn that "Lifeguard" should only be used in valid
>emergency situations.  
>
>I fly for the Volunteer Pilots Association, a Pittsurgh group similar to
>AirLifeLine.   On an outbound leg to pick up a donor organ, I do not file
>Lifeguard; I leave early enough that I don't need special handling to reach
>my destination on time.  However, once I have the organ on board, it's
>important to get it delivered as soon as possible, so I do file Lifeguard
>for the return leg.
>

On CAP Live Organ Transport (CAPLOT) missions, I'll use lifeguard on the
outbound leg.  Certain organs, like eyes, need to get to the transplant
bank for treatment within 6 hours so getting to the pickup point as well
as back to the transplant bank is time critical.  Returning to base
is a 'normal' flight.

It's difficult for CAP pilots to leave early.  It's whenever the phone
rings.  (Usually about 2:00AM-4:00AM).

Kerry
From: scott@ontek.com (Scott Dickson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Dumped by approach
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:52:00 GMT
Organization: Ontek Corporation -- Laguna Hills, CA

I guess I'm too used to flying IFR.  On a recent trip,
VFR, I contacted approach for advisories in the vicinity
of the Sacramento ARSA, en route to SAC (Sacramento
Executive), which lies outside (barely) the ARSA.  Just
as I was approaching the SAC ATA, approach asked if I
had the airport in sight.  When I said yes, the controller
told me, "Squawk 1200, radar service terminated, contact
Executive Tower on xxx.x".  Clunk.  Lucky for me, the
tower wasn't busy.  Approach hands off arrivals to the
tower for VFR arrivals to the main ARSA airport, and they
hand off IFR arrivals to the tower for other airports in
their airspace, so why not VFR traffic they are handling?

Two days later, the SAME THING happened to me approaching
Montgomery while on a VFR TCA clearance in San Diego.  In
addition to the above instruction, they gave me the
"un-magic" "Remain clear of the TCA".
This couldn't be related to lack of capability, since
they hand off IFR pop-ups to the tower just fine.
Anyone else have this problem?  What gives?

Scott Dickson
scott@ontek.com

-- 
Scott Dickson
scott@ontek.com
From: eldonb@hpubvwa.nsr.hp.com (Eldon Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: "Aero-car" from 1940's/1950's
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:01:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpubvwa.170900002
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Bellevue Sales

In rec.aviation, bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:

    Browsing thu an old kids aviation book from 1948 and saw a picture of a US 
    "aerocar" -- concept involved a small 4-wheel car that had bolt on wings and 
    tail assembly.   This jogged my memory regarding a TV series (black + white)
    circa 1959 where the star had one of these to buzz around in -- Bill 
    Cummings?????

    Anyway, what is/was the state of play with aerocars?  They never seemed to 
    find a market but surely someone still has one in service  or knows a bit 
    of their background/history?

    Cheers, Keith Coman

An "aerocar" is on display at SEA-TAC airport Terminal in Seattle, it
has several "story cards" posted around it giving history and usage, I
think this "aerocar" was used in Portland for many years as "spy in the
sky" giving traffic reports for one of the Portland radio stations.

Eldon Brown
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Alphabet Airpspace
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:15:25 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> Will control zones be charted at all at tower controlled fields?

Yes, at tower fields they will be dashed blue lines, and non-tower
fields they will be dashed magenta lines.  It's not really a control
zone anymore, just a place where Class E airspace goes to the ground
around an airport (when there is no tower) or Class D airspace when
there is a tower.

>>Control zones with special VFR not permitted will not be charted in the new
>>scheme.

This is because the places that are previously marked as the T-dashed
control zones would be entirely inside a higher level (Class B or C)
airspace, right?  A quick look at the places where SVFR is prohibitted
looks like placse that are in TCA's (or at least ARSA's) currently.
This means that there is no airspace boundry around the airport to say
NO-SPECIAL-VFR here.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: barford@hpllab.hpl.hp.com (Lee Alton Barford)
Subject: VOR frequency changes (Was: Re: DME Answers)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:12:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA


In a recent article, Jer/ Eberhardt (jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM) writes:

>Interesting...  The GLL VORTAC (NE of Denver) just changed frequency
>from 112.8 to 114.2.  ... Then, for the past week, Denver Center has been
>giving vectors toward GLL vor.  When the aircraft still does not report
>"proceeding direct Gill", by 30 DME, Center recites the new frequency
>for the vor.  It makes me wonder where the airline pilots got their
>briefing, since it has been in the NOTAMS and the FSS briefings for
>quite a while.

About six years ago, the FAA decided to *swap* the frequencies of the
Binghamton, NY (BGM) and and Kingston, NY (IGN) VORs.  This was really
dumb: they're only about 100nm apart.  Close enough that any airplane
between them can receive them both.

For months, they had IFR airplanes turning towards the wrong VOR, IFR
airplanes wandering aimlessly around the Catskills, and IFR pilots
acting generally confused.

NY Center is nowhere near as nice as Denver Center.  Before issuing a
clearance that required a pilot to use either BGM or IGN, or if a
pilot mentioned problems receiving either BGM or IGN, the controllers
would say: "Verify CURRENT charts on board."  If the answer was
"Affirmative", the controller would ask what frequency the pilot was
using for BGM or IGN.  Most of the time, the pilot's answer was
wrong.  The controller would sneeringly correct the pilot.

It sure was embarrassing for those pilots.  I don't know whether
Flight Standards was listening to the tapes or not.  If they were,
they would have made their quota of busts that quarter.  :-(

--Lee
--
===============
Lee Barford, PhD, CFII, CAP MP&CP, and other silly acronyms
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bldg. 26U, POB 10350, Palo Alto, CA 94303-0867
Digital: barford@hpllab.hpl.hp.com           In the air: N235H
Analog:  Twisted pair: (415) 857-3606        Ether: N6UDE or Eagle 618 (CAP)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation