HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: wanna be a pilot with eye-glasses???
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:44:35 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.

patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie) writes:

>I believe the large airlines require an ATP rating and a first class
>medical certificate, so they wouldn't hire you, waiver or not. Most cargo
>carriers (especially the small firms) don't have their own medical checks
>(like the airlines do), so you'd be able to fly for pay (I can't say "for
>a living") with a second class certificate and a waiver.

Actually, you should say "a first class medical certificate with no
waivers", since you can get waivers for a first class medical as
well.  I know one pilot who is a double amputee, and old enough to
need both glasses and a hearing aid, but he keeps up his first-class
medical just to prove it can be done!
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: A very short aviation story
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:06:15 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <168807AC2.BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis) writes:
!The Beech Duchess ('80 model, at least) uses a pressure switch in the
!pitot-static system, rather than a squat switch.  This pressure switch
!will not allow gear retraction if the airspeed is less that 59-63 knots,
!according to the book.  Vr for the airplane is 71 knots.

!If the Bonanza was similarly equipped (with a pressure switch which
!would be de-activated 8 knots before Vr), and the gear switch was UP
!during the takeoff roll, this could explain it.

The Bonanza has a standard squat switch. One on earlier models
through 1969 on the model 33 and two, one on each main, on later
models, 1970 and later on the model 33 (straight tail).

Dave Rogers
From: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Partial panel ? (was: Re: Stay off the rudder!)
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:18:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Oct7.151851.23261
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

In article <1992Oct6.130517.26920@uvm.edu> braner@trantor.emba.uvm.edu (Moshe Braner) writes:
>As is demonstrated to every instrument student, one CANNOT keep control
>of an airplane for very long (more than a minute or so) without at least
>one gyroscopic instrument.  The basic problem: once you're in a turn,
>you can't tell which way you are turning, and thus cannot level the wings.
>In some cases you can, using clues like a faint view of the sun through
>the clouds, or wisps of cloud that are distinct.  But in true IMC where
>all one sees is a uniform gray, forget it!

Well there are ways to keep control even with NO gyros.  I like the ADF
method where one tunes the ADF to a distant AM station and by watching
thew needle one can see, and correct, any turns quite quickly.  Unlike
the compass it does not wobble, have N/S errors and overeact.  Too bad
it also needs electrical power..but if the turn coordinator and the
AH both went "Tango Uniform", I'd try the ADF first as a turn
indicator.


-- 
Alan L. Peterman                                 (503)-684-1984 hm & work
                       al@qiclab.scn.rain.com
It's odd how as I get older, the days are longer, but the years are shorter!
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: A very short aviation story
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:35:42 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> The way they depicted it on "That's Amazing", errr... TI, was that he
> used his foot to hook around the partially extended gear to extend it.
> Oh yes, the plane was a Cardinal RG.

That's better than the report of the Cardinal crashing because the pilot's
four year old daughter was flying.  The pilot was busy trying to urinate
into the hydraulic system...

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
From: jng@sli.com (Mike Gilbert)
Subject: HYA VOR is no more
Organization: Software Leverage, Inc. Arlington, Ma
Distribution: ne
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:50:28 GMT

HYA VOR (At Hyannis airport, on Cape Cod), has been permanantly decommissioned.

There's a sheet in the published NOTAMS book that describes interim measures
for navigating in the area by reference to other VOR's, and how to find the
temporary HYANS intersection where the VOR used to be.

I asked Cape Approach what was going on during a recent flight.  They said that
there's eventually going to be a new VOR, called the Marconi VOR, installed
farther out on the Cape somewhere.  The controller didn't know when, though.

Anybody have any further information on this change?

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Subject: Re: A very short aviation story
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:47:47 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

Well, even as a v-tail-driver myself, I'm tempted to say "there goes another
idiot Bonanza driver". But I wonder if the gear switch was somehow in the up
position before he even started the engine, and he didn't catch it in the
starting checklist, so as he started lifting off, the squat switch(es)
un-squatted and surprised him. Wonder how often that happens?

Yes, the nosegear will travel faster than the mains on retract since they
have to wait for the inboard doors to open, so your observation of the nose
dipping is accurate.

>!As his big engine spools up, it makes enough noise that I can hear it
>!above the FM radio from 1/2 of a mile away.

Thank you. Bonanzas don't have so much a big engine as a nice, throaty
exhaust system.

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.piloting:76 rec.aviation.student:62
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: wanna be a pilot with eye-glasses???
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:36:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: pony.1992Oct7.183652.6022
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1992Oct6.174220.8441@news.arc.nasa.gov> doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>[concerning vision requirements]
>When in doubt, get out a copy of the FARs and look it up.

In general, very true.  w.r.t. medical certification, getting a waiver
is not that difficult in many cases.  If you can't get a medical through
direct compliance with the FARs, consult your CFI, AME, or FSDO.  Usually,
all it needs is an extra level of scrutiny (Oklahoma City) and a waiver
is granted.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: Re: Stay off the rudder!
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:07:56 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)


	[I've added rec.aviation.soaring to the cross-posts for this;
	 if you follow-up, depending on content it may be appropriate
	 to delete one or more destinations from Newsgroups.]

In article <1992Oct5.161218.18416@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie) writes:
> In article <1992Oct4.044538.155@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> glenn@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (GLENN ROBERT ALAN) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct1.201111.22634@ee.rochester.edu> dela@ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) writes:
> >>In article <1992Sep30.162333.23749@umbc3.umbc.edu>, robie@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD)) writes:
> >>|>Some even suggested that the safest way to descend through clouds was to
> >>|>induce a spin, then recover as you broke out. 
> >>
> >>I've seen articles in Soaring which advocate spinning through a cloud
> >>deck if you get stuck on top.

	...This can happen in wave soaring, where an undercast can
	develop quickly even if it was clear on the way up.  Possibly
	the most famous case of this was the P-38 that long ago saved
	himself while low on fuel by shutting down both engines and
	wave-soaring over Bishop until the clouds cleared.

	Another soaring scenario that calls for an escape is getting
	sucked up through cloudbase.  Somewhere I've kept an earlier
	followup or two from past years of rec.aviation & will
	repost as another followup.

> >I've never heard of this method, it seems that in theory, it would work if
> >your plane has VERY good spin characteristics, and you don't have a world-
> >class case of vertigo when you break out.

	It DOES call for knowing that your aircraft will (1) stay in a
	spin, without popping out into a spiral; and (2) recover easily
	once you're in the clear.  Not all airframes meet both needs.
 
> Yeah, I've never heard of it either. In addition to the quite valid
> objections that Glenn mentions, I believe there's a FAR that forbids
> entering an intentional spin at less than 5,000 feet AGL?

	You're probably thinking of 1,500 feet, one of the 6 requirements
	that identify where aerobatic flight is legal.

	Bear in mind that spinning to get below clouds is an emergency
	maneuver.  The FARs authorize the pilot in command to deviate
	from regulations in whatever way is needed to handle an in-flight
	emergency, though you may have some explaining to do later.

	The last statistics I can recall hearing on rec.aviation were
	suggested that the average time for a non-instrument pilot
	to enter a graveyard spiral when flying in clouds is about
	30 seconds.  Given a choice of a very high probability of
	either pulling the wings, I'd personally choose the spin
	over the spiral.  Still a better alternative for powered
	aircraft is to stay clear of clouds -- for example, stay above
	an undercast & use the radio to get ground help in finding
	where to go to find a clear path down.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: q1hl@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Nameless CS Student)
Subject: Re: Comments Invited on Battery Drain and Bird Strike
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:03:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.051013.14824@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
>As a final question, does anyone have any 
>thoughts on what else I could have hit
>besides a bird?

Sounds most like a bird strike, although I doubt if it was
a goose, due to the lack of damage.  I have regularly encountered
sea gulls as high as 1,500 feet.  Below 800 feet, it could be
almost *anything*.

Most pilots will report a bird-strike, but few seem to let it
really bother them unless there is obvious damage, some
indication that the prop is damaged, or the bird was ingested
into a turbine engine (you'd know either *real* quick).
-- 
Chris Rasley, PP-SEL(VFR+night)
ATC-CYFC ("Bird-Strike Capitol of Canada")
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: wanna be a pilot with eye-glasses???
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 01:24:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.211215.8641@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:

>I think you can get a 2nd class with an FAA waiver, but the airlines
>would not hire you when they see your waiver.  That is what the doctor
>told me when I got my 3rd class. 

My doctor also told me I might be able to get a waiver (for a hearing
problem) to get a second class certificate. I expect you could get one
for marginal vision.

I believe the large airlines require an ATP rating and a first class
medical certificate, so they wouldn't hire you, waiver or not. Most cargo
carriers (especially the small firms) don't have their own medical checks
(like the airlines do), so you'd be able to fly for pay (I can't say "for
a living") with a second class certificate and a waiver.

patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | I had been told that the best defense is a good
George Patterson -  | offense, so I made up my mind early in life to
                    | become as offensive as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Current FAR's
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:31:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.213930.12265@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie) writes:
|> In article <tcryal.718575661@vincent1.iastate.edu> tcryal@iastate.edu (Tod C Ryal) writes:
|> >Reading all the posts on eyesight restrictions brings up a question.
|> >Where can I get a copy of the 1992 (or 1993 since that's coming soon) 
|> >FAR's?
|> 
|> Most FBOs sell them. Check for it in the display of maps and training
|> manuals.
|> 

Also in the back of AOPA's big book that you get every year for being a
member. I think it is called "Airports USA (year)"

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: tcryal@iastate.edu (Tod C Ryal)
Subject: Current FAR's
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:21:01 GMT

Reading all the posts on eyesight restrictions brings up a question.
Where can I get a copy of the 1992 (or 1993 since that's coming soon) 
FAR's?

Thanks for any help
Tod
From: jle@fc.hp.com
 (Jer/ Eberhard)
Subject: Re: math problem
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:03:21 GMT
Distribution: rec.aviation.piloting
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Workstation Kernel, Ft. Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.1 PL6]

vincent greff (greff@eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
> Could anyone give me the mathematical functions for:
> density_altitude=f(outside_temperature,pressure_altitude)

Density Altitude is Pressure Altitude corrected for nonstandard temperature.

Density Altitude = Pressure Altitude +   (OAT - STD)120

                   STD = (15C - (2degress per 1000 feet))
                   OAT = Outside Air Temperature

                   FAT, OAT and STD temperatures in degress Celcisus
                   (FAT - STD)120 = (OAT - STD)120

Relative humidity air pressure difference = -250 feet from dry to wet.

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, jle@fc.hp.com, Jer_Eberhard@fc.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard UDL, 3404 East Harmony Road MS-99, Ft Collins, CO  80525-9599
Phone 303 229-2861, FAX 303 229-2838, 1UP10, Incoming 40 44.1N+105 33.0W
Civil Air Patrol, Pikes Peak 218, MSN Check Pilot, CFI Airplane & Glider, N0FZD
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.piloting:81 rec.aviation.soaring:51
From: BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Vxse and Vyse
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:15:19 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In each single-engine aircraft I've flown, Vx increases with altitude
and Vy decreases with altitude, and the two converge at the aircraft's
absolute ceiling.
 
In the Duchess in which I just got my AMEL rating, Vxse and Vyse are
listed as the same airspeed -- 85 KIAS.
 
In other twins, are these two speeds the same?  Or do they behave as
Vx and Vy do?
 
If Vxse and Vyse normally converge at the aircraft's single-engine
absolute ceiling, the fact that they are listed as the same speed
tells me that the aircraft is at its single-engine absolute ceiling
at sea level, right?
 
Brian
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: A very short aviation story
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:32:48 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Oct13.064134.18531@peck.com> hdnea@usho92.hou281.chevron.com (David Neal) writes:
!As a ~40 hour student pilot, I don't have a lot of stories to tell; I just
!live vicarously through all you rec.aviators out there.
!
!I was just about to leave when a pretty yellow and brown v-tail Beech
!taxis down to the end of 16. He spends 10 full minutes doing his
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
!pre-departure takeoff. Finally, he does a slow 360 on the apron (scanning
!for traffic), announces his intentions and takes the active.

Bonanzas have a prohibition against exceeding 1000-1200 rpm before the
engine is warm (100 degrees F). It takes about 10 minutes to warm it
up even in the summer. More like 15+ if it is cold. So that is probably
what he was waiting for.

!As his big engine spools up, it makes enough noise that I can hear it
!above the FM radio from 1/2 of a mile away. He soon has enough speed to
!rotate and promptly raises the gear. The Beech bows to me as he rocks down
!on his nosegear and then quickly lifts the nose of the plane into the air.
!The gear comes back down, and the pilot shoots out of my line of vision as
!he passes the stand of trees blocking view of the runway.

This is interesting. Are you suggesting here that the mains came up
while the nose gear remained on the runway?

!I wait for the inevitable sound the Beech is going to make when the mains
!collapse a second time, but it never comes. A couple of minutes go by, no
!sight or sound from the plane. I had already picked up the handheld and
!backed half-way out of my parking slot before I caught sight of slowly
!climbing plane.

!Now I'm debating as to whether I should give him a friendly call on the
!unicom and ask him whether he knew his prop came within 6" of the
!pavement? 

With a two bladed prop the tip is normally not to much more than 6"
from the pavement. You get a bit more clearance with a 3 blade.

!Before I can key to transmit he begins to call traffic and makes an
!immediate hard turn into the downwind leg. Downwind to base, base to final
!and he is flying the plane like a pro.  Smooth flare, nice landing and he
!taxis off behind the FBO.

!A few minutes later he and his wife leave in a Cadillac, guess they are
!done flying for the day.

Probably said there is something screwy with the gear so took the
plane to the shop to have it jacked up and the gear swung and checked.

He got a good scare but it also sounds like he handled the situation
very well.

Dave Rogers


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: earlb@ssd.intel.com (Earl Brabandt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: the new charts are here...
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:46:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: SSD.1992Oct9.214616.11247
Distribution: usa
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp.

In article <1992Oct9.150136.26812@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>.....and the alphabet soup is warming on the stove.
>
>What I think many readers here will be interested to hear is how they
>handled oversized control zones.  There are quite a few CZs which 
>extend beyond the ATA (say, towards a VOR) to accomodate instrument
>approaches.  I read some comments here fearing that the entire CZ would
>be converted in to class D airspace, requiring radio contact for the
>whole area.  But in most cases they marked the ATA with a class D marking
>and the extension is marked with class E markings.  In other words,
>controlled airspace extends to the ground for both sections, but radio
>contact is only required in the class D marked airspace (and that looks
>like a 5 sm circle).

This was a real issue right up until the last round of rulemaking in
May.  Hal Becker was handling the comments on the NPRM and I'm pleased
that they implemented this surface-based class "E" scheme for the
extensions.  I talked to Hal at Oshkosh and he said that the extensions
will be Class "E" unless they extend less than 2 NM out from the cylindrical
core, in which case they'll just make the extension Class "D" too.  Such 
small extensions were perceived as producing too much chart clutter to bother 
making them Class "E."

Yes, the center core of the "D" space in most cases will be 4.2 to 4.4 nm 
in radius, corresponding to the the size of current control zone.  I believe 
the final outcome of all this Airspace Alphabet Soup (AAS) looks pretty 
good at this point--far better than a year ago.  I congratulate Hal and 
the others within the FAA for working on this to a practical end.  But I
think it turned out to be a much bigger (and more expensive) can of worms
that anyone imagined it would be. 


Earl Brabandt, CFI inst., S & M airplane
From: STEIN_A@mscf.med.upenn.edu (Alan D. Stein)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Complex & IFR requirements
Summary: What are the FAR times for these?
Keywords: complex, IFR
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:49:44 GMT
Organization: Club (Penn) Med


I'm still a ways off from finishing my private, but I'm wondering about how 
long it will take me after that is done to move up to IFR.  How much time (
dual and solo) is needed for complex and IFR upgrades?

Thanks ahead of time...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
name=Alan D Stein   email=STEIN_A@mscf.med.upenn.edu   callsign=KA2ZBA
undergrad=Electrical Engineering BSE   grad=MD/Biophysics PhD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: How many times to pass? 
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:58:24 GMT

>> In <1992Oct2.202836.1377@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>> 
>>>Just checking, how many times does it usual take to pass the check ride?
>>>Email me and if there is more respone, I will post the stat.  Or is
>>>there an official stat? 
>> 

I think a lot of it has to do with your attitude and how your examiner
perceives that attitude.   I have passed all of my checkrides (PP, MEL, IFR)
on the first try.  The ONLY ride in which I felt I may have goofed was the
Instrument.  The fact that I passed, I believe, has to do more with attitude
than anything else.  The original day scheduled for my ride turned out pretty
bad, t-storms and stuff, so we did the oral and went home.  The next day was
not much better, no storms, just real scuddy conditions and lots of gusty
winds.  The examiner gave me the option to back out and wait for a better day.
I thought for a minute or 2 - who wouldn't want to wait for a better day - and
then decided to go anyway.  I told the examiner, "We might as well go, since
I'll be flying in this kinda of stuff anyway", and off we went.  In the course
of the 1.5 hour long ride - this was in a twin - things went off pretty much as
planned although there were 2 instances where I thought I busted the ride.  We
kept going, landed at ADS and I got one of them crappy little pieces of paper
that disolve the first time you get them wet that read, Airplane Single and
Multiengine Land, Instrument Airplane.  Had the prevailing weather been much
better or had I chosen to postpone, I don't think the examiner would have
allowed the deviations that occured on that checkride.  I think attitude is
probably as important as how well you operate the aircraft.  A positive
attitude is a must, but don't be cocky.  Always LISTEN to the examiner, they
usually have some very valuable hints and tips.  

******************************************************************************
Mike "Dragonmaster" Serafin    PP-ASMEL-I      email=serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com
1964 C310I N48WM                                             Texas Instruments 
HQZ (Hudson Muni, Mesquite TX)                                   Dallas, Texas
******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr