HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: QANTAS - U.S. Aircraft Carrier warnings.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 19:21:06 CDT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

wolit@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Jan Wolitzky) writes:

> 
> Mating a sophisticated weapon system like Exocet to an F-14 involves
> more than finding a hardpoint on the wing on which to hang the
> missile.  It has to be integrated into the plane's fire control and
> radar systems, cockpit controls and displays.  You have to investigate
> the aerodynamic stability of the combination throughout the mission
> flight envelope, develop weapon delivery tactics, train the aircrew,
> etc.  All of this is vulnerable to observation by a variety of
> intelligence-gathering techniques, and there was no evidence for any
> of it actually happening, as far as I know.  I'm also not aware of
> any use of the F-14 to deliver iron bombs, nor of any training, etc., for
> such.  And while I acknowledged the threat of cannon fire, you have to
> get really close and act really hostile for that (and usually you have
> to make multiple passes, as in the case of Liberty), which would
> have allowed plenty of time for Vincennes safely to make a positive
> identification before firing missiles.

All of this is probably quite true, except for the last two lines. 
Everyone agrees that Rogers thought the plane was an F-14, but 
why? (I'll get to that later). It's also true that Rogers 
considered an F-14 a "threat". If you think about the F-14, and 
the way the Iranians were using them, at least one possibility of 
why it would be a threat comes to mind. One of the greatest assets 
of the F-14 is it's radar (one of the best in any fighter, even 
with the older sets). There is also the fact that F-14's, even the 
early ones, can "data link" that radar data to other aircraft *or 
to the ground*. It is therefore easy to suspect that Iran might 
have tried to use the F-14 to provide the targeting data needed 
for firing the "Silkworm" anti-ship missles they were known to 
have. That would make the F-14 a definate "threat" to any ship. 
It's also not hard to believe that there are many Iranians capable 
of setting up such a "data link" system, even some who were 
trained here in the U.S.

As to why Rogers thought it was an F-14. There has been a lot of 
speculation about the transponder on the airbus being one that had 
been removed from an F-14, but, normally, that wouldn't really 
make any difference. Unless, you buy into the theory (and it's 
only a thoery) that the U.S. had included a "descrete code" in 
those transponders that the Iranians knew nothing about, and is 
still being kept secret. Such a code would explain why even the 
first stories about the incident labeled the aircraft as an F-14, 
in particular, and not any of the other types operated by Iran. 

Just more "food for thought" :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jeg@netcom.com (Julian E. Gomez)
Subject: Re: Ramp checks--unreasonable search
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 00:49:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Jul18.205548.17762@seq.uncwil.edu> cosper@seq.uncwil.edu (Kit Cosper) writes:
" 	I'd hate to think that the Feds would try to pursue certificate
" 	action because I keep some extra stuff in my bag, maybe I'd
" 	better replace that old gum just to be on the safe side......

They've already prosecuted (persecuted) pilots flying IFR
with outdated sectionals.  I read about the case in IFR
magazine a couple of years ago.
-- 
"We must grasp the bull by the tail, and look the matter squarely in the face!"

	Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
	jeg@netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller)
Subject: Re: Ropes and gliders
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:52:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.233308.5828@den.mmc.com> hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood) writes:
>In article <9207291245.AA14432@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>|> 
>|> (I seem to be reading that the glider pilot in the case being discussed
>|> kept the rope all the way back to the strip, and it seems to not be
>|> unusual to do so.  Am I missing something?)
>
>	The only reasons not to drop the rope I am aware of are:  1) you
>don't want to drop it on somebody or something, and 2) you CAN'T drop it
>(i.e., release failure).

another reason not to drop a rope: :-)

3) you want to roll over it during the landing roll out, which will
probably just break the rope but MAY pull the release out of the fuselage
with all the attendant damage to such action.

hint: find a place to drop it and DROP IT! if your release has failed
and you can't, think about a heavy duty slip to get the rope out away
from you and try to stop as soon as you can before the rope straightens
out under the wheel.

if you haven't guessed, i've seen one of these, it wasn't fun.

Rich Miller
ex-Schempp-Hirth Discus JBX and
ex-Rolladen-Schneider LS-4 TQ
rmiller@i88.isc.com
{sun, amdahl, att (maybe)}!laidbak!rmiller
From: randy@khan.gatech.edu (Randal T. Abler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: A tale of IFR Range, Flying clubs, and buying & selling planes
Date: 21 Jul 92 11:31:03 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <7480323@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> glenb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Glen Baker) writes:
> Does the Gutless RG really fit the bill for better range? Sure it's 
> complex but it's pretty dang low performance. Can't remember...does this
> plane have bigger tanks?
>
> Personally I would've opted for the 182 option. Dr. Masys has held forth
> several times on the operating costs of such a beast and it seems that
> they're not unreasonable. My partnership owns a 205 (210-5) and it's 
> no more trouble to maintain than our 172!
>
> ..glen

The Cutlass burns about 10 gallons and hour, has just over 60 gallons
useable, and cruises at about 130 knots.  If you multiply that out,
that is a noreserve range of about 780 miles.  The 180HP SkyHawk
burns 10 gallons an hour, has about 40 gallons useable, and cruises
at about 120 knots, giving a no reserve range of 480 miles.
With reserves the difference is more drastic - Assume you like to
have 2 hours reserve (an hour to get to your alternate, plus another
hour).  So then you have 2 hours range in the C172, for a 240 nm hop.
The cutlass leaves you with 4 hours range, for a 520 mile hop.  Funny
how 50% more fuel gets you 100% more range ...

The useable load is about the same in both planes - about 1000lbs.  
The Cutlass will have less of a cabin load if the tanks are full, but
there are fuel tabs at 44 gallons.

The training (commercial & CFI) usage is also a big factor, were having
the cheapest plane is important.   A C182RG is going to cost about
$10 more per hour to operate, mostly due to higher fuel burn.
There are several people in the club that would love to have one,
including myself (I'm quite a few pounds heavier than the FAA 170 lb
standard!) , for now, it would be too big of a jump.


-- 
Randal T. Abler   	randy@cerl.gatech.edu		 
CERL/EE Georgia Tech     
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kaye@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Kaye Stott)
Subject: Re: I must have done SOMETHING right
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:03:12 GMT

Yes - it was a real emergency. The tow plane cracked a cylinder
and lost half power. 

Although we are taught to "call the stages" when taking off, I
found at that height and in those conditions, that the field I
looked on as the place I would go to just was too much to contemplate
in a real emergency. I would have had to go straight in, over the
houses and trees, with a strong cross-wind, with some tail component;
no time to look at the field, just put it down. Remember, I still had
the rope on, and was worried about catching it on things below.

Kaye
From: demcma@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Re: In-flight radar from ground stations
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:25:12 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

Workout of the position of the aircraft relative to the display wouldn't
necessairily be required if some crude overlay map (such as used by TV weather
radar) with landmarks were shown.  The pilot would then refer to a sectional
for orientation (assuming he knew where -he- (or she) was.  This might be a
little awkward but it would sure be better than the alternatives presently
available for weather avoidance in singles (IMHO) if the cost wasn't
overwhelming.
From: hopkins@gvlf9-o.gvl.unisys.com (Bill Hopkins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Ditching [was: Emergency landing: wet or dry? ...]
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:21:23 GMT
Reply-To: hopkins@gvl.unisys.com
Organization: Paramax Systems Corp (A Unisys Company), Great Valley Labs, PA

olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes:

>A few days ago, I asked which would be a better choice for emergency
>landing:

> - land in a forest, or
> - ditch in a lake.

>The response was a deafening silence (and a request for a summary of
>responses).

And dennis@nebulus.ca (Dennis S. Breckenridge) replies:
>
>About 10 years ago one of the student pilots headed out with instructor
>in an otter. Just at airspeed (~80 or so knots) the pilot dropped his
>camera on the floor. As he reached down for it and pushed the stick forward.
>He submerged the floats and the instructor and him pulled back on the sticks
>real real hard. The plane broke the water surface but it decided to leave
>the floats behind. [Bellied it in on land] The reason they picked a land site
>instead of ditching it in the water was explained to me this way. Water
>after 40 miles an hour solidifies. Add the fact that as speed increases
>its viscosity raises and water becomes very very sticky. They figured
>that as soon as the prop touched the water, the plane would pitch-pole
>and kill everone.

Which reminds me:

On vacation last month, I stumbled across, bought, and read a second
edition of Richard E. Byrd's _Skyward_, which describes his North Pole
and Atlantic flights.  The latter was a non-stop flight from NY to Paris
in a Ford-style trimotor built in New Jersey by Fokker.  They went
shortly after Lindbergh, encountering rotten weather all the way.  When
they arrived at Paris, at night, the weather was still unfriendly.  They
returned to the coast, where they had seen a lighthouse, to search for
a landing site.  Not finding one, they decided to find out if a large
trimotor would ditch.

Since the gear was fixed, they worried it would trip the plane, but the
first contact with a wave took the main gear off cleanly, giving them a
gear-up (gear-off?) configuration.  Ditching went relatively smoothly,
all four on board survived and got to shore, the plane was hauled out
and returned to America, and Lindbergh was still first.  (But being
first, he tell us repeatedly, was not the point, even though everybody
thought it was...)

Byrd (to catch up another thread) also mentions the invention of the
earth-inductor compass, and praises it highly.  The accuracy of their
navigation would not have been possible without it.

So then my sister-in-law hauls out her autographed first edition...

	Bill (tell you later about the other book) Hopkins

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hopkins@GVL.Unisys.Com          Paramax Systems Corporation (A Unisys Company)
215-648-2854 or 363-7464        Great Valley Labs, PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
MXE 016 radial, 8 nmi              Opening my mouth is not company policy.
From: rex@eng.umd.edu (Rex Root)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Protecting your logbook
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:15:00 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <9207271351.AA07285@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>For some reason, I've become paranoid about the idea of losing
>my logbook, and I'd like to know what other rec.aviators do in order
>to preserve their records.  I've been considering xerox^H^H^H^H^H
>photocopying the whole thing, and sticking the copies in the
>safe-deposit box.  What do you do?  This situation doen't seem to be
>covered too much in the FAR's.
>
>Would the photocopies of logbook/endorsements be legal?
>

I'm not sure of legalities but I would assume (we all know what assume means)
that photo copies of your log book pages would be acceptable to the FAA.

I photo copy each completed page and stash it in my safe deposit box, at the
bank, along with my other valuable documents.

	*******************************************************

   Rex L. Root Jr.  PP-ASEL-G              "I only fly inverted on purpose."   
   Electrical Engineering Dept.
   University of Maryland                               ()   ()
   College Park, Maryland  20742                  _______\___/_______
   e-mail: rex@eng.umd.edu                            |   ( )   |
   voice: (301) 405-3688                         ---------------------
   FAX: (301) 314-9281                                     T
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: shj@ultra.com (Steve Jay {Ultra Unix SW Mgr})
Subject: Re: United flight's cargo door?
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 05:08:00 GMT

In <1992Jul28.103326.12018@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:

>The similar accident to which you refer did not occur with a prototype
>(no DC-10 prototype was constructed) but rather happened on June 12,
>1972 during a revenue flight of N103AA, American's third DC-10 and the
>fifth off the production line.  In this case the damage to the control
>cables was not as severe and the flight safely returned to Detroit.

I've got a book called "Destination Disaster", written in 1976 by three
reporters from the London Sunday Times.  It covers the Turkish DC-10
crash in exhaustive detail.  It says that there was a baggage door blow
out, with substantial floor collapse, during a ground air-conditioning
test (hull pressurized to +5 PSI) on DC-10 #1, on May 29, 1970.   
 
The book also has a complete account of the 1972 AA incident.  It says
that the pilot, Captain Bryce McCormick, had been worried about a total
loss of hydraulics, and had spent a long time in the simulator practicing
controlling the airplane with throttles only.  After he had to use
the techniques he learned for real, he recommended that all DC-10 pilots
be trained in those techniques. 

Steve Jay
shj@ultra.com  ...ames!ultra!shj
Ultra Network Technologies / 101 Dagget Drive / San Jose, CA 95134 / USA
(408) 922-0100 x130	"Home of the 1 Gigabit/Second network"
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: If God had intended...
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:15:12 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <76544@ut-emx.uucp> myers@ut-emx.uucp (Eric Myers) writes:
>Eric Myers	"If God had intended for man to fly 
>			He would have given us the brains to build airplanes."

He did!


-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539     rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com     PP-ASEL
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Suit filed against Bell Helicopter
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:40:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> Fortunately, the medical care was impeccable :-) and my memory is too
> poor to remember anything about such a routine call so long ago, so
> I'm out of it...

That's why you put all that's worth remembering (and more) in your
reports.  You may be called into court on some silly lawsuit after
you've long forgotten the call.  Got really fun when I went from
just BLS to pushing morphine and other fun drugs into CHF patients.

There was a case involving someone suing a CFI because the student
(after receiving his license) ran out of fuel and crashed.  The
student (or his estate) sued saying he should have been trained not
to run out of fuel.  A notation by the CFI in the logs of one of
the training flights indicating fuel management was taught was what
cleared the instructor.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro)
Subject: LVK closed?
Organization: Franz Inc., Berkeley, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:40:02 GMT

 I just saw these notams:  Does anyone know why the airport is closing
for a few hours during the day on Thursday and what is going to happen
for an hour on Friday involving high speed traffic?

Livermore CA [LVK]: July NOTAM #6:
      High speed aircraft surface - 15000 2 nautical mile radius 18 nautical
      miles on the 080 degree radial of Oakland CA [OAK VOR] avoidance advised
      effective the 24th at 3:00pm PDT (2200Z) - 2300
Livermore CA [LVK]: July NOTAM #5:
      Airport closed effective the 23rd at 11:30am PDT (1830Z) - 2030
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,news.answers
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: ARSAs etc., (was "remain clear of the
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:26:55 GMT

bspain@riker (Bradley K Spain) writes:

>	To add an endorsement to Mark's comments, I have played "TRACON" for
>3 years now and enjoy it immensley.  I am a military pilot flying in and around the Los Angeles area and can honestly say that the realism of the game has 
>given me a better understanding of the airspace in which I fly.  If anyone is
>interested in becoming a controller, this is the game.  I've no comment about
>the windows version, but the Dos version it great.

If you're a military pilot (or wannabe) you might want to check out Wesson's
game "RAPCON".  Similar to TRACON, but it includes dual-radar PAR as well.

Wesson is supposed to be about to release a new game called TOWER, in
which you play ... you guessed it.  Early reports say that you can link
up systems running TRACON, TOWER, and MS Flight Simulator...

BTW: Wesson has sold larger versions of TRACON to both USAF and FAA for
real-world controller training.  Their brochures make a tongue-in-cheek
offer to sell retail customers the full-blown facility...

Highly recommended.  (the games, that is.  I've never seen the USAF/FAA
equipment.)

Joe Morris
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: emergency AD 92-15-16
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:29:49 GMT

hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER)) writes:

>I received the AD in the mail two days ago.  Now get this, I fly behind two
>IO 470's.  What's a carb float?  In this age of computerized records, one
>would think that the FAA could restrict their mailings to only those owners
>that might possibly be affected.

Since (a) I have no idea what the AD is about other than it talks about
carb floats, and (b) I don't know what type of bird you fly, it's a little
hard to be exact, but is it possible that some of the airplanes built
under the same type certificate as yours are using carbureted engines?

Remember that all the Oke City records show is your airframe type, and
not any changes you've made to it.  There may, for example, be an STC
to hang a carbureted powerplant on it...or maybe the original design
used one.

As a somewhat related example, most of my flying is done in a 182RG...
which is *not* certificated under any FAR.  Why?  Because it's certificated
under CAR3 back from when the 180 was originally designed.

Joe Morris
From: wisch@Apple.COM (Ed Wischmeyer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Emergency landing: wet or dry? Answer: it depends.
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:20:37 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA



Dennis S. Breckenridge writes:

>I have been in one crash myself and it was over water. Four of us
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^ 
>walked away...
 ^^^^^^^^^^^

Impressive! All four did it?


Ed Wischmeyer
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Hot air balloons without fuel
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:28:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> A coworker of mine just took a ride in a hot air balloon flown
> by a commercial outfit.  We were talking about it and the
> question came up about what happens if the burner fails for
> some reason.

I'd suspect it's a nusiance but probably less tramatic than
an engine failure in a plane.  The burner doesn't run continually
anyhow and I suspect that it's response time is pretty slow anyhow.

-Ron
From: markk@sagredo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: P-38 out of the Ice!
Date: 29 Jul 1992 15:53:01 GMT
Organization: SunSoft South
NNTP-Posting-Host: sagredo.west.sun.com

"Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> It's a l-o-n-g story, but with some repair in the field (well, a LOT of 
> repair in the field) we flew it out the following season ...

Wait just one minute.  You can't just casually mention that you were in
Antarctica, dug a long crashed airplane out of the ice, repaired it in the
field, and flew it home!  You can't possibly leave us dangling like this!

Let's have the "l-o-n-g story"!
From: robg@Apple.COM (Rob Griffiths)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:30:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Jul23.033622.9932@cs.cmu.edu> dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
>
>The folks on this newsgroup may joke about engine failures, crashes, etc.,
>but it's because we are able to put these things in context, the way people
>who love cars might joke about having a blowout on the freeway.  I don't

And, of course, never one to miss an opportunity, I respectfully submit
my favorite joke about engine failures.  I think this appeared in the 
rec.aviation joke collection that was floating around a while back, but
I first heard it a few years ago.

The scene:          A 747 on a flight from New York to Paris, about two hours
                    outside of New York.

<A slowing of the plane is sensed by the passengers>

Pilot on intercom:  Well, folks, it seems the #1 engine has quit.  Please,
                    don't be alarmed, as the 747 is designed to run quite
                    well on three engines.  However, we will be moving a
                    little slower, so it will take an additional 30 minutes
                    to reach Paris.

<Time passes...>
<A slowing of the plane is sensed by the passengers>

Pilot on intercom:  Well, folks, it seems the #2 engine has quit.  Please,
                    don't be alarmed, as the 747 is designed to run quite
                    well on two engines.  However, we will be moving a
                    little slower, so it will take an additional 30 minutes
                    to reach Paris.

<Time passes...>
<A slowing of the plane is sensed by the passengers>

Pilot on intercom:  Well, folks, it seems the #3 engine has quit.  Please,
                    don't be alarmed, as the 747 is designed to run quite
                    well on one engine.  However, we will be moving a
                    little slower, so it will take an additional 30 minutes
                    to reach Paris.

Man to wife:        Gee, honey, I hope that fourth engine doesn't quit.
                    If it does, it'll take FOREVER to get to Paris!

<Crowd groans...>

-rob.
-- 
Rob Griffiths    "Listen to me ... would thieves file a flight plan??"
robg@apple.com   PP-ASEL-IA, looking for clouds .... B52s/REM/Erasure!

Newsgroups: rec.aviation