HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rl@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert Langridge)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Soaring decisions (was: ...long boring flights)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:32:03 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller) writes:

>In article <rl.715866607@cgl.ucsf.edu> rl@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert Langridge)

>we start story telling about a couple of legends in soaring...
>...
>>There are discussions by both AJ Smith and George Moffat in this, and in
>>succeeding symposia.  Both were fierce competitors, sometimes resented
>>by the more easygoing pilots.  But they won, and as Rich says, won often.

>for those of you who never met these two, AJ was the second world
						      ^^^^^^
>soaring champion from the US (1968) and Moffat was the third and fourth
						        ^^^^^     ^^^^^^
>(1970 and 1974).
...

I hope the net won't accuse Rich and I of engaging in private discussions
of no interest to the rest of r.a, but I can't resist adding, for those of
you who might wonder who the FIRST US World Soaring Champion was... 

None other than Paul MacCready of more recent Gossamer (Albatross/Condor)
fame.  He won, by a huge margin, at the 1953 International at St Yan, France 
in a borrowed Breguet 901, narrowly escaping disaster in the Hautes Alpes 
during a 306 Km goal flight to St Auban in the Alpes Maritimes on the 
last day of the contest.  He was one of only four to finish that day.

MacCready is renowned amongst sailplane pilots for his analysis of the
best speed-to-fly between thermals to maximize performance.  I recently
learned that migrating raptors adopt a similar strategy - to put it crudely,
the stronger the thermals the faster you fly between them.

It is only anecdotal, but I heard that MacCready was not a very smooth
pilot, however, in his understanding of weather and his careful analysis 
of the factors needed to maximize overall performance he was way ahead 
of the competition in 1953.

Bob Langridge    		       Phone: +1 415 476-2630, -1540, -5128
Computer Graphics Laboratory		               FAX: +1 415 476-0688 
926 Medical Sciences
University of California	                    E-Mail: rl@cgl.ucsf.edu
San Francisco  CA  94143-0446 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tophat1!biernat (Timothy S. Biernat)
Subject: Re: Confessions of non-pilot
Keywords: safety
Reply-To: biernat@rtsg.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:33:50 GMT

interesting...  i didn't notice too many followups to this
post.  while i can't speak for others, flying safety
is an issue that i seem to struggle with more each day,
particularly now that i am about to become father of two...

i am an active reader of Kitplanes and a member of the EAA.
but the stories by the oldtimers where they recount losing most 
of their close flying buddies over the years are beginning to
take their toll.

i gave up motorcycles 5 years ago b/c i couldn't justify the
risks - there were just too many variables outside my control,
even if my performance was somehow flawless.  i'm afraid flying
may be next  *sigh*.

--
Tim Biernat                         Internet:   biernat@rtsg.mot.com
Motorola Incorporated               UUCP:       ...uunet!motcid!biernat
Cellular Infrastructure Group       Voice:      (708) 632-4453

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Funny Tower Experience
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:58:02 GMT

Well, I had another funny experience with Palo Alto tower the other day.
Well, not all that funny, but not all that serious either.  Here's what
happened.

Tower clears me for takeoff so I take off.  I'm climbing thru 1100' or so
as I get to the Dumbarton bridge and begin my right turn.  As I climb thru
1500' or so the tower calls me and calls out traffic
at 3 o'clock.  At first I was looking for traffic inbound to Palo Alto and
I told the tower I was "looking".  Then I spotted the traffic.  
I look off my wingtip and sure enough there is another
Cessnoid right off my right wing at approximately my altitude and traveling
in the same direction.  The only thing I can figure is that he was 
transitioning the ATA - I don't know how else he could have ended up in
that position from a takeoff.  Anyway, just as I spot him the tower calls
again.  Now he isn't extremely close, but definitely a lot closer than I 
wanted to be.  I tell the tower that I have the traffic, but that I
can't figure out what he's doing there.  The response from the tower 
was "Cessna 36D you are leaving Palo Alto's coverage area, frequency
change approved".  This is at the mis-span of the Dumbarton bridge.  
I'm very curious as to why they wanted to get rid of me so soon and why
they chose the wording "leaving Palo Alto's coverage area" at that point.
Normally the tower just let's you slip on through the Sunol pass without
ever talking to you again unless they call out traffic over Leslie Salt,
or something.  I never heard the other traffic talk to the tower at all,
but I was not comfortable having him just south of the train bridge while
I was over the auto bridge.  I ended up turning somewhat north and slowed 
down to get him out of my way.  But I had a nasty feeling that Palo Alto
had dropped me like a hot potato(e) for some reason.  Any clues?

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: will@wixer.cactus.org (Bill Staniewicz)
Subject: wanted: Cessna Model 208 Caravan I
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 16:18:14 GMT

I would like to contact anyone who has access to, or
is aware of, a Cessna Caravan I available for a min.
1 year lease. (This would be a lead outside of those
posted in 'Trade-a-Plane'.)

Please email me directly to the address below.
Thank you.

-- 
Bill
will@wixer.cactus.org

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: smith@ur-guh.com (Russ Smith)
Subject: Re: C152 Checkout
Reply-To: smith@ur-guh.com
Organization: Ur-Guh Complex Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:15:32 GMT

Hmmm...at Dulles Aviation at Manassas Municipal (HEF) they only required
a checkout in the 172 when I first went there. They then allowed (and 
orally confirmed) that I was checked out for the 152, too (though they
did say that a seperate checkout for a Warrior would be necessary if one
desired to fly that same-cost-as-172 low winger).

Is this standard? That is, checkout in a "big" plane and be auto-checkedout
in a smaller one? [I use the small one when the urge hits since it is cheaper,
though the contortions I go through to get in (me - 6'2", 200lbs) would make
Houdini envious...).

Russ <Smith@ur-guh.com>


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: seymour@milton.u.washington.edu (Richard Seymour)
Subject: Re: Skyhawk vs. Warrior
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:26:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.140726.1637@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> egeiselman@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil writes:
...a GOOD article recommending getting checked out in BOTH, but doing the
Warrior first (thereby making dual use of the time-with-CFI), and maybe
even "masking" it as an hour of normal instructional dual.
Allow me to second that, and recommend that you maybe use the time toward
a Phase-One WINGS "award".  Call your local FSDO and ask about the program
(you get to attend a safety seminar somewhere, and then 3 hours of dual...).

and then he said...
>
>     One last idea:  Get a tailwheel checkout for your next bi-annual.
>
... gee... i wish -i'd- thought of that....
--dick (just having done Phase Two of WINGS...)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: What's the pattern of GPS unavailability?
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 06:19:15 GMT

I've had a GPS receiver in my Mooney for about 2 months and about 100
flight hours (a Northstar M2), and have become very curious about the
satellite coverage patters.

For the first 2 months of flying with the GPS, mostly but not
exclusively days, I've had 100% coverage. That is, my GPS was able to
get good signals from at least 3 satellites (it has an encoder
interface for continued use with 3 in view).  I found this very weird,
since I had expected to encounter some outages with that much flying
over several months.

Then, while flying last Friday, the GPS flagged 'cuz coverage dropped
from four to three to two to one satellite.  This outage lasted for
the entire duration of my flight -- about 3 hours.  On Saturday, same
thing.  No GPS coverage, same time of day, for 3 or so hours.  Same
thing on Sunday, same time of day.  And same thing today.

Well, today I was out for almost 7 hours.  No coverage for the first
part of my flight.  But about 5 hours into my trip all of a sudden my
GPS coverage went from one to two to five to six satellites in view
with strong signals.  The transition from one to six happened in about
1/2 hour.

So my question: does anyone know details about the availability
patterns of GPS?  Is this the common pattern -- good periods of
coverage (for any give hour of the day, at least) lasting many days,
followed by periods where there is an outage every day?  Or have I
just been particularly lucky until this week, then particularly
unlucky?  Oh, yeah, my flying during this period has all been up and
down the Pacific coastal area, from LA to Eugene.

I know that I can by a program to tell me about GPS coverage.  Has
anyone played with one of these programs?

pmf
From: alan@metasoft.UUCP (Alan Epstein)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: KAL Black Box Found
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:28:19 GMT
Organization: Meta Software Corporation, Cambridge MA


A front page story in the Boston Globe (9/14) reported that Boris
Yeltsin claimed that the KGB archives contained a transcript of the
Black Box of the Korean Jetliner which was shot down by the Soviets
after it violated Soviet airspace a number of years ago. Unfortunately
there has been no followup to this report. Does anyone have any
further information about this?

-alan

-----------------------------
Alan Epstein
Meta Software Corp		 Internet:  alan@metasoft.com
125 Cambridgepark Dr		      IAP:  ILS 11 BED
Cambridge, MA 02140  USA	      
-----------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gaynier@elec.uq.oz.au (Ron Gaynier)
Subject: Re: soaring news
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:09:20 GMT

In <1992Sep7.214254.20202@abo.fi> HAHLLUND@finabo.abo.fi (Hans Ahllund Inf) writes:


"|"   SOARING NEWS FROM FINLAND (which is a country next to sweden)
"|"******************************************************************

"|"I am posting the results from the 15M- and Standard-class Nationals
"|"from Finland , because they might be of interest to competition 
"|"minded glider pilots all over the world. The next World Championships
"|"are in Borlange, Sweden as you should know.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm confused, I thought the next World Championships were going to be held
at Omarama in New Zealand. Has one of us gotten our dates mixed up?

Ron Gaynier
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tom-d@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Tom Dygert)
Subject: NIGHTTIME AIRSHOW ?
Keywords: RANDOLPH CHALLANGER
Organization: Lockheed Santa Cruz, CA.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:25:01 GMT


	SEAN D. TUCKER WILL BE PERFORMING A NIGHT PYROTECHNIC SHOW AT THE 
SALINAS AIRPORT THE FIRST OF OCT. FOR A KICKOFF OF THE WEEKEND SHOW WITH
THE SNOWBIRDS. (NINE PLANE JET TEAM). HE WILL BE CARRYING ABOUT 150 LBS.
OF SPECIAL PYRO THAT CAN BE SEEN FOR ABOUT 25 MILES. THE SILVER AND 
GOLD SPARKS STREEM OUT IN BACK OF THE PLANE ABOUT 400 FEET WHILE DOING 
ROLLS AND LOOPS. HE ALSO CARRIES ROMAN CANDLES THAT SHOOT OUT BALLS,
THEN EXPLODE INTO MULTI-COLORED SHOWERS OF SPARKS. COME WITNESS THIS 
SPECTACULAR NEW TYPE OF FLYING, HOPE TO SEE YA THERE

								TOM
From: jeq@i88.isc.com (Jonathan E. Quist)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Twin Beechcraft crashed in Hinckley, IL
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:19:55 GMT
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL

In article <BuA5J4.91p@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>	At least I haven't heard these common bits of misinformation cited as
>causes:
...
>	* The engine stalled (although this may clostest to describing an
>	  engine failure)

Well, one of the reports did come close.  The reporter said that "a witness
said one of the propellors had stopped, and shortly after the other
propellor stalled, and then the plane stalled".  From the terminology used,
it was clear they had no clue.  Of course, one of the news stations
had managed to contact a skydiver with an AMEL rating (though _no_ flight
experience in the Beech 18) and interviewed him on the air for
an "expert" opinion on what might have happened.  Judging the the
inflection in his voice, he thought it was ludicrous that they were
asking him what happened, but he did his best to correct the questions,
then give reasonable answers.

Also, a pilot at DuPage airport (possibly from Viking Express, which
operates a small fleet of Beech 18's hauling freight) was asked about
the capacity - in some variants, a modified 18 is supposed to be capable
of carrying up to 18 persons (jumpers + pilot), though they didn't know
what version was operating at Hinckley.

A friend of mine is an NTSB investigator in the midwest region.  If
he offers any preliminary information when I see him next week, I'll post it.
I didn't get a chance to ask him last night, but he wasn't happy about losing
his holiday weekend....
-- 
Jonathan E. Quist                              INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
jeq@i88.isc.com  '71 CL450-K4 "Gleep", DoD #094        Naperville, IL
        There are many things a person should experience in a lifetime.
       Among them are an infant's first cry, and an infant's first laugh.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: Choosing a pattern at an unfamiliar airport
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:02:56 PDT

In article <1992Sep11.153626.28379@eecs.nwu.edu>, phil@eecs.nwu.edu writes

(scenario about approaching an unfamiliar airport without knowing the traffic
patterns, and no special indications about these are made on the AF/D)

Personally, I would 

> .  follow the other airplane in a right hand pattern

and make careful position reports (a couple of times downwind, base, then
when turning final and again on short final if someone's on the runup area).

______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Naval Air Station Tower - Code 7 - Wazzat?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 20:39:29 CDT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

pdb1@ra.msstate.edu (Philip D Bridges) writes:

> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:
> >jeffg@loki.esd.sgi.com (Jeff C. Glover) writes:
> 
> >> What is code 7?
> 
> > Maybe someone will correct me if I didn't remember the meaning of 
> >the number right, but I'am sure that the higher the number, the 
> >more important the VIP :-)
> 
> It is just the opposite. The lower the number, the more important
> the VIP. Code 7 is a full Colonel, Code 6 a one-star, etc. Code 1
> is El Presidente.
> 
 As I said, it's been a loooooong time :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (ed Hutton ext. 6488)
Subject: Re: Twin aircraft (was: Re: Twin Beechcraft crashed in Hinckley, IL)
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:02:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.141119.16679@bernina.ethz.ch> zari@bolzano.math.ethz.ch (Alain Zarinelli) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep10.041119.18763@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>,
>hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (ed Hutton ext. 6488) writes:

[ Alain's well written explanation of twin take-off problems with
one engine deleted ]
>
>     The moral: Ed,
>
>     I don't really understand your statement "FOUR times as likely to
>suffer a fatal accident if you lose an engine in a twin engine airplane
>than if you lose the engine in a single engine airplane". I don't
>believe this as far as cruise engine failures are concerned.  Perhaps
>you can elucidate?!

	Actually, I apologized for the lack of a source for the offered
number (and let me add another :-( because I think I've posted this twice ).
The article was (if I remember correctly) in "AOPA Pilot". The article made
the same points you made on the difficulty of single engine twin take offs.
The article also pointed out the the skills needed for single engine operation
in cruise are often allowed to get rusty -- thus leading to many pilot errors
well single engine operation was required in an emergency. Actually, I only
remember the number quoted because I was astounded. Is my feeble old brain 
playing a trick on me? Can some kindly soul recall this article? 

Ed
-- 
edward.hutton@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ed Hutton)
From: prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Canard Pros -n- Cons
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:30:43 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <1992Sep12.003350.18439@news.arc.nasa.gov>, doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>
> I like the canard layout because I do not like sitting
> right over the wing or just below the wing. The canard design allows me to 
> have one wing in front of my feet and the other a few feet behind my head.
> There are other ways to get the wings out of my way (like the Cirrus), but
> the canard configuration works just fine too.

Not necessarily.  The pilot gets a pretty good view in a Long-EZ... but all
the passenger sees is sky and strakes.  Oh, OK, a little horizon thrown in.

Locally, a guy owns a plane called a Two-Easy... essentially a Long-EZ wing
on a (four-seat) Defiant fuselage.  He ended up cutting some windows into
the lower front fuselage to let folks see the ground.

On the subject of canard efficiency... some aero-engineering students once
wrote a program to determine the optimum ratio of canard vs. main wing
area.  The program told them that the most efficient configuration had the
canard five times *larger* than the wing.

Think about it.

My personal opinion?  They make neat looking airplanes, but I dislike the
compromises.  I have a good buddy (former hangar mate) with a trophy-winning
Long-EZ.  A fast plane (on an O-235) but he uses an uncomfortable amount of
runway taking off and landing.  

Maneuvers well at altitude... but not as good as some.  Terry bounced me once
and came back with pipper burns all over his canopy.  He flew around me at 
150 mph while I circled inside him, keeping lined up the whole time.  If only 
I'd armed the Le Prieurs.... :-)

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@ssc-bee
					  ...rutgers!uw-beaver!ssc-bee!prang
                                          prang@ssc-bee.boeing.com
My net.status?  A dozen or so articles
leak through every two weeks.  'Course, the
ssc-bee lab is being closed down, so
it hardly makes much difference, does
it? :-(

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Use solo to actually do something?
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:23:21 GMT

In article <1912pbINN2n2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000) writes:
>
>>|> > Can you like solo X-country down to LA and say go to Disneyland, and
>>|> > then come back?  Or maybe visit friends or something, and come back the
>
>Humm??  Well that's what I did!  I flew a 150 from San Jose, Ca. to
>Fullerton and overnighted at my Mom's place--no problem.  The endorsement
>doesn't say when you're going to get back, last I looked.
>

A CFI is allowed to put restrictions on a student endorsement.  Over-
night solo endorsements isn't something I'm quite comfortable with,
but I guess other CFIs don't mind.  Maybe summer weather, severe clear,
etc. might work out.  Any other CFIs care to comment on extended solo
X-country endorsements?

Kerry
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Single man IFR
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:22:03 GMT
Organization: National Library of Medicine

In article <1992Sep8.071927.21419@bernina.ethz.ch> zari@math.ethz.ch (Alain Zarinelli) writes:
>
> It's great fun but I can't figure out
>how a single person can eventually handle all that stuff in a real IFR
>situation. Is this because the instructor (a SWISSAIR Fokker 100 pilot
>[F/O]) doesn't want you to get some breath between the different
>"exercises" or is it REALLY that much work?
>
It can be.  This is why a good autopilot is a marvelous device for single
pilot IFR.  Sometimes, when an amended clearance is issued which includes
navaids you never heard of, you simply have to study the chart for a while.
Much easier if you can let George fly it a bit.

Sometimes, it is too much work per unit time (e.g., you are struggling
to keep the shiny side up IMC in driving rain and turbulence, and ATC wants
to amend the route).  At this point, the IFR pilot uses that time honored
phrase "Stand by...".

It is usually busiest on departure into IMC conditions (lots of climbing,
turning, tuning) and on arrival in IMC conditions (lots of descending, turning
and tuning).  This gets easier as you develop a mental template of the
information you will be expected to respond to (e.g., the first time you
hear "Descend-and-maintain-2500-turn-left-to-250-intercept-the-localizer-
maintain-2500-till-established-cleared-for-the-ILS27-approach" it boggles
your mind to read it back while doing all that stuff.  Later it becomes
easy because you are filling in mental slots for what you expect to hear.)

The workload peaks can be blunted somewhat by things such as flip-flop
frequency selectors on the radios, where you can pre-store the next freq
change.  Don't know what it will be, you say?  Just listen to the freq's
given to the plane just ahead of you; if your frequency change is different
than theirs, all you wasted was a few turns of the radio knobs.  If it is
the same, you just press a button and get on with the next phase of flight.

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
Newsgroups: rec.aviation