HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Right Turn-out?
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:13:09 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Nov12.201056.24791@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
!In article <2380@usna.NAVY.MIL! dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
!!
!!Your action was neither improper nor illegal just unconventional.
!!At an uncontrolled airport you can basically do anything you
!!want as regards pattern entry or exit.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        

!Recheck FAR 91.127.  There are a few limitations, such as making "left-hand
!traffic unless ..."  So there are some rules.

Kerry, does this not save me from 91.127, it's why I added it?

Dave Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: aircraft right of way
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:51:41 GMT

In article <Bx9A7n.BrG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye) writes:
>
>The official right-of-way rule states that aircraft converging head-on should
>both alter course to the right.  The problem with this rule is that it
>presupposes that both pilots see each other! 

This point cannot be stressed enough. In most traffic avoidance situations, 
I have been in, it is always a guessing game initially as to whether the other 
pilot has not/has seen me and whether he/she is going to take evasive action
and if so what he/she might do. Most times, I can't distinguish between
people doing manuevers oblivious to other aircraft and planes doing traffic
evasion manuevers. Sometimes, when I spot a plane after the other pilot
has seen me and started some kind of evasive manuevers, I have to figure out
whether the other plane is doing some random practice manuevers or started
something based on an assumption of what I was going to do. I just cannot
assume that people are going to do the AIM-recommended procedures even if
it would cover the situation. Hence, the suggestion below is a good idea
for more than just being spotted.

>
>Don't forget that you have a landing light.  Turn it on if you're trying to
>get another airplane to spot you -- it'll help a lot.

I usually give some indication that I am doing an evasive manuever. Sometimes,
it is rocking the wings, sometimes, it is turning the landing light on and
sometimes even flashing it a couple of times in head-on situations before I
turn. I wish more people did something like that and that there was some 
obvious way of signalling evasive action from random manuevers.

venky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Subject: Re: Downwind Entry.
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 17:05:26 GMT

In article <1dtqo7INN3nm@life.ai.mit.edu> olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen) writes:
>
>Whether or not the upwind entry is 'improper' is a matter of opinion,
>but it is clearly 'legal' in the USA, which is more than one can
>say about the 45-degree entry to the downwind.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but I think this states that the 45-degree
entry to the downwind is illegal in the U.S.?

I believe you're mistaken. This the method that the FAA recommends in their
safety seminars as the preferred method to use for entering an uncontrolled
pattern. It's also the standard entry according to the Jeppesen Private Pilot
Manual. That is, it's preferred if you're approaching the runway during
the 45.

If you mean a 45-degree entry, crossing the runway during the process, that's
definitely not recommended, but I don't believe it's prohibited.

>Regardless of one's opinions on traffic patterns, one should always be
>on the lookout for other aircraft whose pilots do things differently.

Amen. I almost got nailed once by some clown doing right-hand approaches at
200' AGL in a breezy (everyone else is doing left-hand approaches at 1,000'
AGL).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | Always acknowledge a fault frankly. This will
George Patterson -  | throw those in authority off their guard and give
                    | you the opportunity to commit more.
                    |                        Samuel Clemens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: news@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com (news)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Heard on the Air
Keywords: nn
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:27:56 GMT
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale

From: claude@color3.UUCP (Claude Goldsmith)
I wrote:

>Several years ago we were preparing to depart from Catalina in a
>friends AVCON/Cherokee 140 after an enjoyable weekend.  The wind was
>out of the west at 5 to 10 knots.  
	    ^^^^
	    EAST
Sorry about this critical typo!!!!

Claude Goldsmith, CFII <claude@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com>
 twisted-pair (408) 742-7514	      | Opinions expressed are not 
 on the air - WB6UOO                  | necessarily those of my 
 through the air - Mooney N6416U      | employer.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens)
Subject: Re: aircraft right of way
Organization: Severn Companies, Inc., Lanham, MD 20706
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:01:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.155141.5998@walter.bellcore.com> venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
>
>I usually give some indication that I am doing an evasive manuever. Sometimes,
>it is rocking the wings, sometimes, it is turning the landing light on and
>sometimes even flashing it a couple of times in head-on situations before I
>turn. I wish more people did something like that and that there was some 
>obvious way of signalling evasive action from random manuevers.
>
Flashing the landing light certainly can't hurt, but I would
suggest that it should be ON by default, and that you flash it OFF
a couple of times. Also, when making any kind of traffic avoidance
manoever, make it in a somewhat exaggerated manner (note that I
did not say abrupt, or stressful to the airframe/wings).  For
example, if you plan to turn 20 degrees to the right to increase
clearance, try turning 45+ degrees, with a good 30+ degrees bank
angle (you did look over your shoulder, right?)  watch your blind
spots!

This extra bank angle and turn gives the other aircraft a much
better chance of seeing you, and leaves less doubt about which way
he/she should manoever to maintain good separation.

The basic point is "DON'T BE TENTATIVE OR LEAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT
YOUR MANOEVER".  Don't forget the "be seen" part of the rule.
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Spin recovery with flaps
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:40:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: pony.1992Nov10.204044.18090
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <6NOV199215521688@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> fskevin@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER)) writes:
>Help ...  I have come across a manuscript which details flight test results
>of spins with flaps deployed in a C-150.  The results of the spin test was
>that one COULD NOT RECOVER from a spin with flaps deployed.  I need some net
>experience on this one as I find the result very interesting.
>
I cannot comment on the C-150 directly.

One of the main reasons for not practicing intentional spins with the
flaps extended is that the maximum load factor is significantly
reduced, sometimes as much as 50%.  e.g. from 3.8 max load factor to 1.9.
It is possible to exceed 2g's during the recovery, especially if
your control movement is harsh or abrupt.  Exceeding 3.5 g's I'd
find EXTREMELY abrupt.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Re(2): aircraft right of way
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:58:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.185850.35172@uu0570.foggybottom.com> Rob_L._Allbritton@uu0570.foggybottom.com writes:
>patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com writes:
>  > The Newark/Kennedy ATC people set their 
>  > radars to ignore the 1200 transponder code in 
>  > this area. They say it "looks like a 
>  > beehive".                                     
>
> That is *very* upsetting to me. Remind me not to fly near the New York
> TCA. Besides, isn't that just slighly illegal, or at least against some
> internal regulation?

One thing to consider is that there are typically a number of different
controllers controlling a given area over the ground -- sectors are divided
_vertically_ as well as horizontally.  For example, it would not be unusal to
have in a very busy area:

    a "finals" controller handling surface - 5000
    an "area" controller handling 5000 - 10,000
    a "low Center" controller handling 10,000 - 18,000
    a "high Center" controller handling 18,000 and up

There could also be a tower controller who is handling surface - 2000 in the
immediate vicinity of an airport.

Now, in this example, it would not be unreasonable for the low Center
controllers (who, by the way, would probably not be located in the same
building as the other two controllers) to turn off non-mode-C 1200 squawks,
and for the high Center controller to turn off _all_ 1200 squawks.  Why?

    (1) The Center controllers handle a larger area than the approach
	controllers.
    (2) Mode-C altitude reporting equipment is required, and is required
	to be on, above 10,000 feet.
    (3) Without special dispensation, VFR aircraft are permitted above
	18,000 feet.

I suspect the rumor that "ATC people set their radars to ignore 1200
transponder codes" may have to do with the Center controllers, not the
approach controllers.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Distribution: world
From: Rob_L._Allbritton@uu0570.foggybottom.com
Organization: Foggy Bottom / Washington, D.C.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:58:50 EST
Subject: Re(2): aircraft right of way

patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com writes:
  > The Newark/Kennedy ATC people set their 
  > radars to ignore the 1200 transponder code in 
  > this area. They say it "looks like a 
  > beehive".                                     

That is *very* upsetting to me. Remind me not to fly near the New York
TCA. Besides, isn't that just slighly illegal, or at least against some
internal regulation?

Foggy Bottom - your FirstClass Mac connection in Washington, DC
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Right Turn-out?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 22:39:56 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

Not illegal, not even improper.

Here's the FAR:

 91.127 (b) Each person operating an aircraft to or from an airport without
            an operating control tower shall --

            (1)  In the case of an airplane approaching to land...

            (2)  In the case of a helicopter appraching to land ...

            (3)  In the case of an aircraft departing the airport,
                 comply with any  traffic patterns established in
		 part 93.

Note that Part 93 defines things for a handful of specific airports (not
likely to be the one you're talking about).

Lest we start up the traffic pattern wars, let me assert that there is no
indication implied in any of the material that I've got that implies how
far straight out you need to fly before turning contrary to the pattern
(if at all).  An "upwind entry" (meaning what?) yielding a crosswind leg
that crosses the active where there are people taking off and climbing out
seems much more improper to me.

-Ron
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Right Turn-out?
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:13:19 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <Ef0K2uq00YUo06zK1g@andrew.cmu.edu> jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle) writes:
!We all goof sometimes.  I did the other day.  Tell you what I did, then
!pose "the question."
!
!Home base is an uncontrolled airport with a CTAF and standard left hand
!traffic.  I was departing to the north on a weekday mid afternoon when
!there's "noone" around.  I made the obligatory takeoff CTAF call and
!declared "....right turn-out for east bound departure.."   I know....not
!correct form, I was being lazy, and possibly not safe, but I did it.
!
!Of course, just then the local "self declared dean" of the field CFI's
!was flying back to the home drome, calling "....entering pattern upwind
!for runway 2....."  (By the way, I'd been on CTAF frequency since
!start-up and never heard an " x miles out...landing" position report
!from him.
!
!He later dinged me in the lounge for making an "illegal" turnout. 
!(There was never any near collision or anything....just that he was
!there to see/hear my right turnout.)
!
!Question:  Was my action just "improper"....or actually "illegal"?


Your action was neither improper nor illegal just unconventional.
At an uncontrolled airport you can basically do anything you
want as regards pattern entry or exit.

!What I can find says that departures at uncontrolled fields should be
!made straight ahead or at a 45 in the normal turn direction till above
!pattern altitude....if that's the case, when IS my right turn "legal" if
!ever?
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Heard on the Air
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:39:51 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> One other thing, keep in mind that the person operating the unicom may
> not have any sort of pilots license at all.

Make that probably.  Around here you've got a 50/50 chance of either getting
one of these single employee FBO where the operator had a license but hasn't
flown in three decades or one where the radios are operated by someone who
knows nothing about aviation but saw it as a career advancement over asking
"Do you want fries with that?"

-Ron
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:36:26 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Right Turn-out?

We all goof sometimes.  I did the other day.  Tell you what I did, then
pose "the question."

Home base is an uncontrolled airport with a CTAF and standard left hand
traffic.  I was departing to the north on a weekday mid afternoon when
there's "noone" around.  I made the obligatory takeoff CTAF call and
declared "....right turn-out for east bound departure.."   I know....not
correct form, I was being lazy, and possibly not safe, but I did it.

Of course, just then the local "self declared dean" of the field CFI's
was flying back to the home drome, calling "....entering pattern upwind
for runway 2....."  (By the way, I'd been on CTAF frequency since
start-up and never heard an " x miles out...landing" position report
from him.

He later dinged me in the lounge for making an "illegal" turnout. 
(There was never any near collision or anything....just that he was
there to see/hear my right turnout.)

Question:  Was my action just "improper"....or actually "illegal"?

What I can find says that departures at uncontrolled fields should be
made straight ahead or at a 45 in the normal turn direction till above
pattern altitude....if that's the case, when IS my right turn "legal" if
ever?


Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: aircraft right of way
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:05:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.155141.5998@walter.bellcore.com>, venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:

|> I wish more people did something like that and that there was some 
|> obvious way of signalling evasive action from random manuevers.

Planes need horns.  No, really.  Equip every plane (well, every plane
with an electrical system and a willing owner) with a transceiver that
listens to a dedicated frequency.  When it hears a certain tone, it 
sounds an audible horn in the cockpit.  The transceiver sends that tone
via a somewhat weak signal when a large padded button in the middle of 
the yoke is pressed (well, maybe having to push the yoke isn't such a
good idea....)  Design the transmitter so that the range is limited to
something like 5 to 10 miles.

Note:  I dunno whether to take this idea seriously or not, and I just
wrote it!  So take it with a pound of salt....

Proximity warning systems (akin to TCAS, but not identical to it :-)
might be better, if they weren't so darned expensive....

Just some idle thoughts.

		Bill
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:33:34 GMT
Subject: Re: SF Bay Area via the Coast
Organization: HP General Systems Division
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

In rec.aviation.piloting, geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:

>Should you choose the coast route, I suggest an altitude of 1000'-3000'
>for best scenic viewing.  Stay relatively close to shore, and keep your
>eyes open for where you might put down if the fan should quit.  Usually,
>there are flat grasslands within gliding distance, but occasionally, the
>rocky shoreline would be your best bet.  I strongly suggest filing a VFR
>flight plan and giving position reports a few times enroute, as you will
>be below radar coverage at altitudes below about 7000' along the coast
>route.

I add my voice.  I have done exactly this, at the altitudes mentioned.  Since
I was flying up the coast (west-northwest), I switched seats while enroute and
flew the rest of the trip from the right side.  (I was alone in a 182.)  Makes
the scenic view that much better.  (Note to flamers:  I have right-seat
training and a signed-off checkout, and I fly from "over there" occasionally
so as to try to stay sharp.)

And I was a good boy and filed a flight plan and updated my postiion and ETA
at suitable intervals.  And, shock, I even closed said plan :-).

A wonderful trip.  I recommend it highly.

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
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: aircraft right of way
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:41:51 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <1992Nov10.210506.31477@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>Planes need horns.  No, really.  Equip every plane (well, every plane
>with an electrical system and a willing owner) with a transceiver that
>listens to a dedicated frequency.  When it hears a certain tone, it 
>sounds an audible horn in the cockpit.  The transceiver sends that tone
>via a somewhat weak signal when a large padded button in the middle of 
>the yoke is pressed (well, maybe having to push the yoke isn't such a
>good idea....)  Design the transmitter so that the range is limited to
>something like 5 to 10 miles.

It would certainly be useless around here. If the weather's nice, there
are perhaps 100 light aircraft within five miles of the Solberg VOR at
various altitudes below 4,000' and another twenty or so commercial
aircraft between 4,000' and 7,000' in the same area. The Newark/Kennedy
ATC people set their radars to ignore the 1200 transponder code in this
area. They say it "looks like a beehive".

I opted for a belly strobe, and it's on the entire time I'm airborne.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | If it were not possible to allow a little energetic
George Patterson -  | discussion between opposing factions, there would
                    | be no market for tire irons or band-aids.
                    |                             Sam Venable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
From: DAVID.CARACAPPA@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("David N. Caracappa")
Subject: Re: continued VFR to IFR
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:40:44 GMT

During the initial entries in this string I hadn't appreciated the difference
between a non-instrument rated pilot flying on instruments in IFR conditions,
and flying by visual references (or the lack thereof) alone in IFR conditions.
 I (non-instrument rated) feel that I could keep my airplane straight and
level and on course, at least for enough time to make a 180 out of a fog bank
(in fact I had to do just that on the return leg of one of my cross
countries).  However, last evening, my instructor and I ran through some
unusual attitude training where he never took control of the airplane.

He just told me to close my eyes.  After just a few seconds (never more than a
minute - so it seemed, at any rate) he said, "OK, open your eyes."  Sure
enough, I was not straight and level, and had to recover.  Now granted, I was
not at a severe pitch or bank; but I was not straight and level.  Under
conditions where I was neither on instruments or visual cues, I probably WOULD
have only 180 seconds to live.  (Give or take a couple of seconds, but who's
counting.)

It was an interesting ride, and an interesting lesson.

Regards,

Dave
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Right Turn-out?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Nov12.201056.24791@pony.Ingres.COM> <2384@usna.NAVY.MIL>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:17:20 GMT

In article <2384@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
   In article <1992Nov12.201056.24791@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
   !In article <2380@usna.NAVY.MIL! dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
   !!
   !!Your action was neither improper nor illegal just unconventional.
   !!At an uncontrolled airport you can basically do anything you
   !!want as regards pattern entry or exit.
	     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        

   !Recheck FAR 91.127.  There are a few limitations, such as making "left-hand
   !traffic unless ..."  So there are some rules.

   Kerry, does this not save me from 91.127, it's why I added it?

   Dave Rogers

This is another interesting difference between US and international
(ICAO) regulations. ICAO Rules of the Air are explicit in that traffic
circuit entry and exit must also be done using left turns (or right
turns, if that is prescribed).

I feel that the ICAO rules often make entering and exiting the traffic
circuit needlessly complicated. Last year, we redesigned the approach
and departure procedures for my home airport in order to minimise
noise disturbances. We had some trouble in getting reasonable
procedures while keeping to the requirement that entries and exits
cannot be done using turns in the "wrong" direction.

I one case we had to make the departing aircraft climb straight ahead
long enough to be outside the traffic circuit and so that they could
turn in the "wrong" direction.

On the other hand the ICAO rules have the advantage of being
completely unambigous. If you can enter the traffic circuit any way
you want, some careless person could make a right-hand approach to
land and then say, "I didn't make a right-hand circuit - I just joined
the traffic circuit on final using a right turn". Of course no one
would ever buy that argument (I hope), but it can still be made.
--
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                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30