HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Right Turn-out?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 14:46:31 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hing.ai.mit.edu

ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) writes:
>Lest we start up the traffic pattern wars... [but then goes on to say]

>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.

An "upwind entry" means that the aircraft will join the upwind leg for
the active runway, followed by crosswind, downwind, base, and final.
In other countries, such as Canada, the upwind is a recommended entry.
When dealing with a matter of opinion, as opposed to a matter of law,
I do not automatically assume that the FAA's recommendations
are safer than those of other authorities, such as Transport Canada.

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.

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

-- 
Jim Olsen     olsen@cag.lcs.mit.edu     "Tache d'etre heureux."
From: chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Landing at Gnoss Field
Date: 6 Nov 1992 03:52:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov5.180154.5502@odin.corp.sgi.com> amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind) writes:
>i'm interested in flying in to gnoss field
>to visit my parents.  gnoss has a local reputation
>in that area for being a "plane eater"; i.e.,
>it has vicious crosswinds.  
...
>how many of you have flown into gnoss?  did you
>find it neccessary to adjust the standard pattern
>to land there?  (for instance, i usually fly a
>little high on final at PAO due to a duckpond/
...
I have flown to Gnoss many times, and it is one of my favorite destinations
for maintaining night proficiency.  You can count on crosswinds.  If the
wind is strong, you can count on turbulance in rapidly increasing amounts, as
the wind velocity increases.

There are some towers on the pattern side of the field that are a bit closer
than one would prefer, but easy to see, and mostly a factor for those extra
big patterns.  There is also some hilly terrain on the approach end of 31
that, I think, is a noise sensitive area.  This terrain seems to keep me a
little high on final (especially at night).

It's not _all_ that difficult to deal with Gnoss, but it's challenging as
the wind increases.  Good place to think about doing go-arounds, and
exersizing good judgement.

Lonnie
-- 
Lonnie C. Martin    lonnie@hydrogen.cchem.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: fskevin@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER))
Subject: Spin recovery with flaps
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  6 Nov 1992 15:52 EDT  

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.

Please E-mail your experiences and (good) theories to fskevin@mars.lerc.nasa.gov

Thanks-O-heap

Kevin
Short Wing Piper Lover
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: aircraft right of way
Date: 12 Nov 1992 09:56:38 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <1992Nov10.211435.27216@eecs.nwu.edu>
William LeFebvre <phil@eecs.nwu.edu> 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.

I hope this was tongue in cheek.
This is not intended to be a flame.

Strange that pilots blast the FAA for proposing new equipment requirements,
but then propose new equipment to solve problems.

  then Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Idea isn't as corney as it sounds IF there was some directional
>recognition to the source of the sound.  In a car, the fact that you
>perceive the direction of the sound source, to some extent when someone
>toots their horn, provides additional "information"....more than one
>might suspect.  Anyone for coupling stereo intercoms and head sets with
>FM quality VHF com gear and directionally synthesized audio in your
>ears? <tongue in cheek I hope you realize>.

>My vote.  In addition to good "see and be seen" practice, how bout we
>lobby for more CTAF frequencies.  Around our home airport 122.8 is so
>damnably congested.  If we're all gonna have to buy 25kHz, 760 channel
>com's in the next few years anyway, lets work to have new freqeuncies
>assinged that don't overlap so much.  Assign frequencies to airports
>NOW, that won't be effective for a couple of years.....but at least do
>the planning so that everyone, including our good cartographer friends
>at NOS, know that on this day in 1998 you'll have a fairly discrete CTAF
>frequency for your home drome.

My vote is See and Be Seen as well.  I also vote for teaching pilots how to
use radios.  I'm very tired of hearing pilots make a call for "uuuhhh, Cessna
uuhh xxxx, I mean yyyy is over uuuuhhhh the uh shoreline uuhhh...." Get the
picture?  In addition, I've heard the local skydiving operator advertising his
shop over CTAF, I've heard people telling the FBO to order a pizza for them,
and on one occasion I heard "My God, Elvis is alive", while on short final.
The freq's won't be as cluttered if people would shut up.

Geez, what an attitude.  Hey, its a pet peeve of mine.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind)
Subject: Landing at Gnoss Field
Organization: X Industries, Heavy Weapons R&D
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:01:54 GMT

i'm interested in flying in to gnoss field
to visit my parents.  gnoss has a local reputation
in that area for being a "plane eater"; i.e.,
it has vicious crosswinds.  

i'm based at palo alto, so crosswinds aren't new
to me.  i also grew up in novato, so i'm well
aware that the wind has a habit of picking up
significantly in the late afternoon.  i was
told by at least one pilot that one needs
to be prepared to do a go-around on the first 
approach to gnoss, but i can't remember the exact
reason or method of approach that was recommended.

how many of you have flown into gnoss?  did you
find it neccessary to adjust the standard pattern
to land there?  (for instance, i usually fly a
little high on final at PAO due to a duckpond/
sinkhole right before the runway).  did you get
any feel for the best times to avoid the stronger
crosswinds?

inquiring pilots want to know...

			stormwind

			hell's amazon
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: Spin recovery with flaps
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:36:02 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <1992Nov10.204044.18090@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM 
(Kerry Kurasaki) writes about spin recovery
>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.

as an experienced CFI I'm sure you know that you cannot pull g's unless 
you have the airspeed.  For example, if your stall speed is 60 MPH 
(eg C-172) and you wish to pull 4 gs, you must be going at least:

	sqrt(G) * Vs = sqrt(4) * 60 = 120 MPH

If you yank the column back as fast you can, as far as you can
below 120 MPH (in my pitiful example) you will simply hear the burble
of an accelerated stall.

So, given any particular speed, and a grade school level knowledge
of math, you can calculate the maxiumum Gs you may pull before stalling
at speed V in an a/c with stalling speed Vs as:

	G = (V/Vs)**2;

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: peterson@specxn.enet.dec.com (Harlo Peterson)
Subject: Re: Downwind Entry.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Colorado Springs
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:32:07 GMT


In article <1e13hcINNsvd@transfer.stratus.com>, lee@deneb.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider) writes...
>In article <1e0n0gINN7h4@life.ai.mit.edu> olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen) writes:
>>Since the 45-degree entry always involves a turn in the 'wrong'
>>direction, it apparently violates 91.127(b)(1).   
> 
>This question has come up several times, and I think a little common sense is
>called for.  The regulation is clearly talking about the turns in the pattern,
>such as the turns to base and final, not the entry into the pattern itself...
>nor the turn toward the airport from the point of departure.  The AIM wouldn't
>be the way it is, and CFI's wouldn't have taught 45-degree entries for all
>these years, if that weren't the proper interpretation.
>-- 
Actually the requlation is clearly talking about turns in the vacinity of
the airport when approaching to land.  This makes the 45-degree entry
illegal by written law.  The only pattern implied by the FARs is a default
counter-clockwise circle of the airport to look it over before landing out
of the circle.  Look at the rules for light signals where continue circling
is one of the light signal responses for an insight into original FAR
intent.

However, whether it is illegal or not is irrelevent when weighed against
what the FAA chooses to enforce.  The FAA has chosen to overlook
91.127(b)(1) with respect to the 45 degree entry and it has therefore become
defacto legal (and, arguably, required).  The proper interpretation is that
the FAA has made a policy decision that overrides the law as written and
that it is unwise to go against the wishes of the enforcer of the law.  Thus
the real law is based on enforcement policy not on irrelevent writings on a
piece of paper.  The AIM is a better document then the FARs to determine
FAA policy.  When the AIM and FARs conflict it is safer legally and 
operationally to go with the AIM.
--
Harlo Peterson                       Digital Equipment Corporation
      harlo.peterson@cxn.mts.dec.com 1110 Chapel Hills Drive (CXN2/35)
      719-260-3003                   Colorado Springs, CO 80920-3995
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: aircraft right of way
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:35:51 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


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?

When flying VFR in southern MD, within the Washington mode C veil, I have had
Washinton center ask me to turn off my transponder to declutter their
displays.  I've always been close to the edge of the veil, but still?!

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Heard on the Air
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

GM> .While landing into the wind is certainly the safest and most effecient
  > .method, it is by no means regulatory, especially at uncontrolled airports.
  > . The unicom may provide ADVISORIES but have no jursdication over dictating
  > .what runway a particuliar aircraft should use.

GM> .Now while this particuliar example might have been an extreme, there are
  > .times when a pilot may have justifable reasons for choosing a different
  > .runway than the one advised.

But, OTOH, if the airport is privately owned and operated, and not a
public use airport, (as I believe is the case with Catalina) the owner
can decree how you land.  If he wants you to land with a tailwind, you
land with a tailwind, or not at all.  That's the choice you have...

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: randy@khan.gatech.edu (Randal T. Abler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Heard on the Air
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:46:55 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Nov5.132830.14647@samba.oit.unc.edu> Gary.Moore@launchpad.unc.edu (Gary Moore) writes:
>
>While landing into the wind is certainly the safest and most effecient
>method, it is by no means regulatory, especially at uncontrolled airports.
> The unicom may provide ADVISORIES but have no jursdication over dictating
>what runway a particuliar aircraft should use.  
>
>Now while this particuliar example might have been an extreme, there are
>times when a pilot may have justifable reasons for choosing a different
>runway than the one advised.

One particular example of this sort of thing - one uncontrolled airport I 
frequently fly to has a significant slope to the runway.  You CAN NOT tell 
that it is sloped from the air (well, you can if you open up your AFD).  
In light to moderate winds, it is preferable to land uphill with a tail 
wind than landing downhill.  In heavy winds, it is preferable to land 
elsewhere - too many trees close to the runway creating turbulence & 
wind shear.

Several times I have waited patiently clear of the pattern while people
land downhill (into the wind) and consistently are at the end  of 3000 
ft of runway after hard use of their brakes.   

One other thing, keep in mind that the person operating the unicom may
not have any sort of pilots license at all, or any other qualifications
other than being able to see the wind sock and local altimeter setting.  
-- 
Randal  Abler   	randy@cerl.gatech.edu		 
CERL/EE Georgia Tech     
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller)
Subject: Heard on the Air
Summary: ORD at night
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 16:08:59 GMT

well, it was one of those August Sunday nights in Illinois when the
T-storms were rolling over O'Hare and EVERYONE was trying to leave. i
was sitting in a United 757 in the penalty box watching a BIG cell move
across the end of what had to be our departure runway and listening (on
the entertainment headset, it was a no movie flight) to the ORD metering
position freaking out (i don't remember what the ident was that he was
talking to, but i think it was an American flight heading for Texas,
hence the AA call):

metering: "AA, you know what you should do?"

(brief pause, then in a slightly bemused but otherwise normal voice)
AA: "well, why don't you tell us"

metering: "why don't you change to go north of this stuff, you really
don't want to get involved with this Roberts <a VOR in central Illinois>
thing because otherwise you'll be coming home for dinner with me!"

friendly folks, these controllers :-)

Rich Miller
rmiller@i88.isc.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: patter@dasher.uucp (24224-patterson)
Subject: Re: Heard on the Air
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:18:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.132830.14647@samba.oit.unc.edu> Gary.Moore@launchpad.unc.edu (Gary Moore) writes:
>
>While landing into the wind is certainly the safest and most effecient
>method, it is by no means regulatory, especially at uncontrolled airports.
> The unicom may provide ADVISORIES but have no jursdication over dictating
>what runway a particuliar aircraft should use.  
>
>Now while this particuliar example might have been an extreme, there are
>times when a pilot may have justifable reasons for choosing a different
>runway than the one advised.

Although it's possible to do, of course, landing a taildragger with a
gusting 10-15 knot tailwind on a hard-surfaced runway is begging for a
ground loop. That pilot ought to be happy that there wasn't a hungry
mechanic on the unicom.

patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |
George Patterson -  | Laser Printer, n;  A xeroxigraphical copying
                    |   machine with additional malfunctioning parts.
                    |                            The Dumpty Dictionary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:02:50 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: aircraft right of way

Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.piloting: 10-Nov-92 Re: aircraft
right of way by William LeFebvre@eecs.nw 
> 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.

Idea isn't as corney as it sounds IF there was some directional
recognition to the source of the sound.  In a car, the fact that you
perceive the direction of the sound source, to some extent when someone
toots their horn, provides additional "information"....more than one
might suspect.  Anyone for coupling stereo intercoms and head sets with
FM quality VHF com gear and directionally synthesized audio in your
ears? <tongue in cheek I hope you realize>.

My vote.  In addition to good "see and be seen" practice, how bout we
lobby for more CTAF frequencies.  Around our home airport 122.8 is so
damnably congested.  If we're all gonna have to buy 25kHz, 760 channel
com's in the next few years anyway, lets work to have new freqeuncies
assinged that don't overlap so much.  Assign frequencies to airports
NOW, that won't be effective for a couple of years.....but at least do
the planning so that everyone, including our good cartographer friends
at NOS, know that on this day in 1998 you'll have a fairly discrete CTAF
frequency for your home drome.

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: m@jacobi.uucp (mark mccallum)
Subject: Explanation of heads up display operation wanted
Organization: Yale University, New Haven, CT
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:27:40 GMT


I have to duplicate the functionality of a heads up display on screen.
Can someone give me a description of how the pitch scale works. The
translated reqs I have seem to indicate that a rectanglular region in
the center of the display is used. It contains horizontal lines 5 degrees
apart. Negative lines are represented with dashed lines. All lines are broken
in the middle. The visible portion appears to cover 12 degrees. The
rectangle rotates about its center to represent roll angle. Is this correct
so far? Is the center of the pitch scale rectangle fixed? Any help would b
appreciated.

mark
From: olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Downwind Entry.
Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:01:04 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: hing.ai.mit.edu

patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r) writes:

>...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...

Well, you can read the regs and decide for yourself:

91.127  Operations on or in the vicinity of an airport: general rules
  (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, make all turns
          to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals
          or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the
          right, in which case the pilot shall make all turns to the right.

Since the 45-degree entry always involves a turn in the 'wrong'
direction, it apparently violates 91.127(b)(1).

Why does the FAA continue to recommend the 45-degree entry, without
changing its regs?  'Tis a mystery.

One thing I can't understand about this newsgroup is its veneration of
the 45-degree entry.  It's just an FAA _recommendation_, as in "VFR
not recommended".  A pilot may, upon due consideration, reject such a
recommendation, and is not automatically wrong for doing so.  (And
there's the legal problem as well.)  Some non-recommended entries,
such as straight-in, are quite dangerous, but others, such as the
upwind, are not, and do not deserve the opprobrium they attract here.

The most important point is to realize that even if you use the
45-degree entry exclusively, other pilots may not.  You must be on the
lookout *always*.


-- 
Jim Olsen     olsen@cag.lcs.mit.edu     "Tache d'etre heureux."
From: bmp@pollux.svale.hp.com (Brian M. Perkin)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:29:40 GMT
Subject: Re: aircraft right of way
Organization: Hewlett Packard CPCD, Sunnyvale CA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

The first close call can be an eye-opener. Mine was with an A-310
overtaking me after I did an unanticipated go-around when I was
a student.

You probably already have gained a heightened awareness of the
risks as a result of this. Use this to your advantage. Don't assume
that the other person sees you. Don't assume that the controller
never makes mistakes. And be vigilant.

And go flying again soon.

Brian
From: news@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com (news)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Heard on the Air
Keywords: n
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:52:41 GMT
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale

>Had just departed Catalina yesterday when I heard the following
>exchange on the Unicom Frequency:
>
>Piper:  Catalina Unicom, Piper Cub xxx, five northeast request
>    advisory.
>
>AVX:  Piper xxx, Catalina is left traffic runway 4, winds 050 at 10.
>
>Piper:  Would runway 22 be possible?
>
>AVX:  (adopting his "you must not have heard me right" voice.)  Well you 
>    could but you wouldn't want to.  You would have a ten to fifteen knot 
>    tailwind.
>
>Piper:  Roger, we'll make right traffic runway 22.
>
>AVX:  (sounding slightly sterner) Piper xxx, winds are 040 at 10 gusting 
>    to 15.  There has been a Beech 19 landing runway 4 all morning, and
>    making the first turnoff.  Runway 4 is the recommended runway,  You'll
>    be fine.
>
>Piper:  Roger, we'll make right traffic runway 22.
>
>AVX:  Piper xxx, Catalina is LEFT traffic runway FOUR.
>
>Piper:  Roger, we'll make left traffic runway 4.
From: claude@color3.UUCP (Claude Goldsmith)