HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: There I was - mag check
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:27:36 GMT

ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:

...

>    Unknowingly retracted flaps on short final while trying to land plane.
...

>The last one came from flying an unfamiliar plane.  This was a 150
>with 40 degrees of flaps and the "UP/OFF/DOWN" type of electric
>control.  I had just lowered down to full flaps, and let go of the
>handle.  Evidentally I knocked it up to the UP position.  As I
>got closer to the runway, I knew something was wrong as I started
>going faster.  Then I saw the flaps fully retracted an the switch
>still in the "up" position.  Oddly it doesn't stick in the down
>position, only up.

That particular type of switch (not found only on Cessna aircraft,
by the way) has been the cause of several accidents, for exactly the
behavior you describe.  It's spring-loaded from the "down" to the "off"
position, and it will stay in the "up" position if you put it there.
The problem is, the spring is often strong enough to push the switch
pas the "off" position and into the "up" position.  This is a Bad Thing
to happen on short final...  Many pilots have not been as skilled as
Ron in the recovery.  If you fly a plane with this type of flap switch,
please be careful.  Make sure you PUT the switch in the "off" position;
don't just let go of it from the "down" position and trust the spring-
loading to put it in the "off" position.

I much prefer the "lever" style of electric flap controls, common in
late-model Cessna singles.  The lever has about 4 inches of travel,
with detents at 1/4 travel and 1/2 travel.  You move it to the first
stop, you've got 10 degrees of flaps.  To the second, you've got 20.
To the bottom, you've got all 40 (or all 30, if you have a very late
model or STC'd aircraft).  No bounce from "down" to "up", no trouble,
and the lever provides a good indication of where the flaps should be
at the moment (the indicator moves along right next to the lever, so
you can easily verify this).


-Brent
--
Brent Chapman                                   Great Circle Associates
Brent@GreatCircle.COM                           1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841                                 Mountain View, CA  94041
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: Michael Steckner <steckner@lri.uwo.ca>
Subject: SOARING:how was the appalachian ridge this weekend?
Organization: Relayed-by-Sendmail
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:22:55 GMT
To: rec.aviation@julian.uwo.ca

I guess the subject line says it all. The weather looked good this
weekend for the ridge. Anyone know if anything interesting happened?
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 06:43:35 GMT
Subject: Re: how to do a mag check?
Organization: HP General Systems Division
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:

>Can someone tell me why the mag check is done both - x - both - y - both?

The Cessna manuals say to go back to "both" to clear the other set of plugs.
I have always taken this to mean that while on L the R plugs aren't firing so
we should go back to B before going to R alone since they might have loaded up
a bit.

>I simply do both - left - right - both.  After all, B-L-B-R-B is in
>reality B-L-B-L-R-B because of how the switch is set up.

(Actually, it would be B-L-B-L-R-L-B.)  You're only instantaneously on the L
when *going to* R so it doesn't really matter.  But when you *check* R, L is
off for a few moments at least.

And, for whatever it's worth, Cessna says to check R first, the go back to
BOTH, then check L.  I don't know if they have a reason for specifying the
order this way, but they're fairly careful to do so.

Now, how many of us have, in going to R, sailed right through it and gone to
OFF, then quickly turned it back to BOTH, to be rewarded with a loud report
from the exhaust system?  Taught me to be most deliberate in my handling of
the mag switch . . . sheesh.  Luckily I didn't break anything.

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
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: Michael Steckner <steckner@lri.uwo.ca>
Subject: Query about rec.av reorganization
Organization: Relayed-by-Sendmail
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:47:53 GMT
To: rec.aviation@julian.uwo.ca

I have been off on holidays/conference for the last two weeks. Does anyone
know if the CFV has been called yet? My site junked most of the rec.av
stuff while I was gone. If it has not been called, what is the status?
Do we still have to wait a couple of more weeks?

Maybe a short net.synopsis of the general opinion about the way the split
should be carried out might be useful at this point.

Thanks
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Query about rec.av reorganization
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:13:34 GMT

In article <9208251847.AA26922@lri.uwo.ca> steckner@lri.uwo.ca (Michael
Steckner) writes:
> I have been off on holidays/conference for the last two weeks. Does anyone
> know if the CFV has been called yet? My site junked most of the rec.av
> stuff while I was gone. If it has not been called, what is the status?
> Do we still have to wait a couple of more weeks?

Well, gentle readers ... the CFV is somewhere "in the mill".  It was
initially sent in early last week, and has come back to me from "the
powers that be" for several revisions.  These revisions have included
things like making changes to the voting procedures.  With any luck,
this revision cycle has reached its conclusion.

My best guess is that the CFV will actually appear within one or two
days, at the most.  (Of course, my most recent estimate was "bright and
early Monday morning absolutely, positively, for sure."  So much for
estimating progress on the net -- maybe I should go back to planning
large-scale software projects. :-) )

> Maybe a short net.synopsis of the general opinion about the way the split
> should be carried out might be useful at this point.

Please, gentle posters, let us not clutter the net with idle
speculation.  The way things will proceed, according to time-honored
net.tradition (!), is that (1) the CFV will be posted, (2) voting will
occur, (3) the results will be made known, and, finally (4) whatever
changes have been voted in will occur.

Let the CFV be posted -- as I assure you it will be very soon now --
and then VOTE.  Don't post, VOTE -- by e-mail, not by posting.  The
net.rules state, and the CFV quite clearly reiterates, that posted
votes will *not* be counted.

I'm sure that the readers of rec.aviation really do not want this group
to become rec.aviation.reorg, even temporarily.  If, once the CFV is
available, you wish to comment in public on the matter, the proper
place to do so is the newsgroup news.groups.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: seymour@milton.u.washington.edu (Richard Seymour)
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights? 
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:05:03 GMT

Boring?  Long Boring?   Flights?
 (the only flights i take which qualify for that are over-ocean commercial)
I (and my passengers... we seem to share similar interests) look out the
 windows... both for traffic (as another poster mentioned) and because
 that's one of the main reasons i learned to fly...
I've always (long before getting my PPSEL) carried detailed appropriate
 maps along on cross-country commerical flights, and the sectionals are
 merely an extension (perhaps interpolation, due to scale) of that...

And, if you know where you are, you can/are constantly hedge-hopping the radio
 to listen for activity in your vicinity (parachute, aerobatics, FlyIns, etc.)

I -did- appreciate yet another poster's phrase: Lostness can surround one

--dick (who prefers Cessna high-wings so he can look down frequently...)
From: scott@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Turner)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:36:13 GMT
Subject: Piper News from Oshkosh (A bit long)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Airspace and Traffic Control Question (was Re: TRSA's)
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:36:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Aug.25.12.54.46.1992.21750@pilot.njin.net>, ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:
> >> On the sectional, Newport shows a purple ATA boundary.  There is no tower.
> >
> >That's not an ATA boundry.  Airport Traffic Areas are not depicted on
> >charts and ATA's don't exist unless there's an operating control
> >tower.
> 
> Upon further thought, it occurred to me that the original poster may
> have been referring to a ARSA (segmented magenta circle) which
> is usally twice the size of the 5 mile ATA/Transition Area/Control
> Zone.

I also thought there may have been an ARSA (or more likely, a TRSA), 
until I reread the original post which said the airport is uncontrolled.
Although I didn't think so at first, it seems more likely that it's a
Transition Area.

There's one easy way to find out, if you're not sure what the symbol is...
look it up in the legend on the front cover of the sectional.  
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe)
Subject: Re: Be nice to your engine
Reply-To: mark@.cv.hp.com
Organization: UDT-CV (ITO)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:17:59 GMT

In article <greg.715357773@saltydog>, greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
> In <1992Aug31.174712.9561@a.cs.okstate.edu> chris@a.cs.okstate.edu (Chris Schuermann) writes:
> 
>>> "Son", he said, "don't baby it.  Just run it hard and often."
> 
>>Mr Carter is correct...to a point...
>>During breakin of a new engine, it is advised to run the engine at higher
>>power settings and not 'baby' it.  This assures proper seating of the rings
>>to the cylinders.  The flip side is: engines wear.  The more times the piston
>>goes up and down, the more wear is induced.
> 
> Chris is right...to a point...
> 
> However, even at high power settings, the vast majority of the engine,
> including the pistons, is operating under full-film lubrication.  It's
> an oft-repeated MYTH that more RPM=more wear.  As long as the film remains
> unbroken, and it will unless you have very bad oil or you're operating
> past redline, wear will be uniform throughout the "normal" power band.
  ...

I having some trouble following this thread in that sometimes it appears
that what is being talked about is high power settings and at other times
it appears to be high rpm.  With a constant-speed prop the two are not
necessarily the same (for any given power setting I typically have a
choice of rpm & manifold pressure combinations).  Even with a fixed pitch
prop (where there's a choice of altitude) one can set the rpm with the
throttle and then set the manifold pressure (and hence power setting) by
altitude selection.  So is it the rpm that affects good engine life or is
it power setting (independent of rpm) or is it some combination or what?

Mark Rowe             PP-SEL G I              Comanche N5943P
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: Newspaper reports: Overloaded Cherokee Crash
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:48:16 GMT

In article <1540324@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM> woof@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Steve Wolf) writes:
...
>> "He was excited about flying, period. Eventually, he wanted to get his 
>> commercial license," Fowler said.

>Is an aviation career for this person now out of the question?  Can
>people recover from severe judgement errors as far as the FAA is
>concerned, or are they prohibited from flying for the rest of their
>life?

Unless he is permanently grounded by the FAA (a distinct possibility), he 
may be able to fly, and may even get a commercial license.  What he probably 
will never get is a job as a pilot.  FAA records are the first thing an 
employer checks and _any_ FAR infraction usually bars an individual from 
employment as a pilot.  There's just too much competition from other pilots 
with no FAR infractions.
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Two planes collide over Santa Paula Airport
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:29:37 GMT
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: Vis-Orb Tragnetics Recorporation

In article <6816@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis
Chamberlin) writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.151634.16989@news.acns.nwu.edu> drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
(Marianna Max) writes:
>>The news report stressed that the
>>problem was the uncoordinated airport in a residential neighborhood.
>
>Sounds like another journalists' freshly minted contribution to our vocabulary.

	Actually, this happens quite often in mass media news reports.  They,
in their ignorance of aviation, point out that the field is uncontrolled,
thinking that that is the cause.  You also get things like "the engine
stallled" when the pilot reports that the aircraft stalled, and other such.

	My personal experience with aviation related news reports has to tdo
with an incident at my glider club a few years ago.  While doing an off-field
retrieve with the tow plane (in retrospect it would have been better just to
trailer the glider back), a strong gust from the side caused some loss of
control of the glider just after the takeoff roll started, causing the glider
to weathervane toward a fence alongside of the strip that was being used.  The
glider pilot immediately pulled the release, and the glider rolled into a
fencepost, damaging the left wing (which was later repaired).  Note that the
glider never left the ground. The same gust got under the left wing of the
high-wing towplane and lifted it, causing the towplane to turn to the right,
into a plowed field.  The towplane nosed over onto it's back, and the insurance
company later totalled it out and paid the claim.  There were no injuries save
a minor cut (band-aid size) on the towpilot's hand where it hit the panel.
	The newspaper report mentioned injuries for both pilots, including
many cuts and bruises, and stated that the accident happened when "the glider
somehow got disconnected from the towplane", after which the glider flew into
the fence".  They certainly got the sequence of events all screwed around.
	I was surprised they did as well as they did, considering that they
didn't talk to anyone who witnessed the events, and just got their information
from the police, who themselves had a marginal understanding of the events.


Ray Swartz
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: isen@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.s.isenberg)
Subject: I love kids who love airplanes 
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:06:29 GMT

Zoom!!!!  I was on downwind at Katama 1:29 after I left New Jersey.
My Ray Jefferson PL-99 was reading 143 (Knots!) most of the way

As I taxied up to the Mel's for breakfast, there was the classic
Dad holding 1.5-year-old-son, with Mom and 4-year-old-son clustered
just behind -- all pointing at my airplane.

I burst from 78U, exhilirated from this first touch of clear fall
westerlies, and from the incredibly fast passage, and exclaimed,
"Who wants to sit in a Real Airplane?!!!"

And all at once I was surrounded by a dozen kids and six or eight
adults -- where DID they all come from? -- Roy counted 16 at least --
for the next 15 minutes I lifted countless children up into the 
left seat to let them feel the yoke and to explain Flying.  
One-year-olds, four-year-olds, three-year-olds, six-year-olds --
I tried to show each one just enough to stretch their interest
a little bit.  Proud parents snapped cameras.  
One Dad said he had eighteen hours, three solo, 
('until he (pointing)came along') and asked if they were 
still 'good' -- I reassured him.  And there was the nine-year-old girl,
the oldest, and I spent a bit more time explaining the instruments and
controls -- looking her straight in the eye for the part about, "Lots
of women fly airplanes . . ."  

I loved it, I LOVED it, I LOVED IT -- it was the highlight of my weekend . . .

David "maybe its because I don't have any of my own" Isenberg

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rex@eng.umd.edu (Rex Root)
Subject: Re: Building your own (dirt) runway?
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 15:50:55 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Aug31.081448.16785@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>
>Ah, but does Home Depot have ILSes?  :-)
>
They probably have a weather vane that could be painted orange instead
of buying a wind sock from Sportys.
From: seymour@milton.u.washington.edu (Richard Seymour)
Subject: Re: Calibrating Tachs (was Re: Comparing Tach and Hobbs rates?)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:18:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.175304.18610@serval.net.wsu.edu> schneidj@eecs.wsu.edu   
>(John B. Schneider) writes:
>> Don't these lights just flicker at 60 Hz so that any harmonic of 60 Hz will
>> stop the prop?  When you saw the 'stopped' prop, how do you know that you
>> weren't at the 29th harmonic (1740 rpm), or better yet, the 28th harmonic
>> (1680 rpm).  Your tach may be only 40 high or 20 low.
...ignoring the minutes/seconds confusion:
you can tell if you're operating on a weird harmonic by counting the blades
 you see stopped in front of you.  You could also take a number of 
 "readings" at differing speeds (1800, 1200, 2400) to verify the accuracy.
There are various light-sensing tachometers sold (Heathkit used to have a real
 cheapie)(and i've seen a digital one advertised in various airplane mags)
 which let you perform this test in sunlight...
From: pilla@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (michael.a.pilla)
Subject: Re: Overloaded Cherokee Crash comments
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:22:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.001840.10143@tfs.com> davew@tfs.com (Dave Whitlock) writes:
>This brings up a question.  How does a CFI handle a student that does
>not seem "sensable."  Have any CFIs out there had a student that you
>had to say "You a not mature enough to be a pilot" ?

I have had this happen a few times.  As a first step, I
recommend that another experienced instructor fly with the
student in case I am missing something; occasionally, it is a
personality mismatch which I interpreted as showing lack of
sense, judgment, ...

I have been on the receiving end of students who should not
pursue flying and have appreciated subjective comments by the
previous CFIs evident in the logbook.  I, too, document the
progress including subjective evaluations about attitude,
judgment, etc.  I do this to help the next CFI because the
student usually does not believe your evaluation (see first
step) and often goes to another FBO/instructor on their own.

By documenting my subjective evaluations, the other instructor
can be forewarned, yet still make their own subjective evaluation.
In a local area, the CFIs tend to know one another and can evaluate
the subjective remarks via their own personal calibration(s).  For
a remote area, the subjective remarks are uncalibrated, but at
least point to areas for evaluation, ...  

Incidentally, there are licensed pilots with whom I will not fly
because I believe they show little sense, exercise poor
judgment, etc.  I have refused to give BFRs, Instrument Competency
checkrides, etc. to them.  Somehow, they pass through the system,
or, perhaps, they become insensible after the rating?

Mike Pilla
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flying saves money (sic)
Keywords: money
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:50:49 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <2071@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
>G'day,

Forgot Mate...

>The total out of pocket cost for fuel, tie down, landing fees
>was $178.22.

Did that include the car rental?

>Now if we had done this trip by car the total out of pocket
>cost would have been nearly twice as much and consumed
>3 days! How's that?

Great, if you have your own plane.  However, it's still not cost
effective for poor planeless chaps like myself.  I drove 2 weeks
ago from Seattle to Reno/Tahoe via Shasta and Lassen, home
via Crater Lake and Bend.  Cost me $84.60 in gas, but a lot of time.  
Oh well, I enjoy long distance driving.  I would have liked to flown, 
but going that far I would have used a C182 at $75/hour.  
Probably 10 hours round trip.  

My pilot experience did come in handy, however.  I needed a place to
spend the night south of Lassen Park, and had no way (in Seattle) of
finding motels, etc. since the area isn't quite big enough for even
Motel 6 to leave the lights on for me.  But - tah dah - I had my AOPA
guide and a sectional.  Found the nearest airports and looked them up,
and found all kinds of motels to choose from.  I'll never leave home
on a ground trip without my AOPA book again.  
                           
-- 
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    CDP, PP-ASEL
From: bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Towing Mooneys
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:15:43 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <BERRY.92Aug21112954@athos.pei.com> berry@athos.pei.com (Berry  
Kercheval) writes:
> >>>>> On 15 Aug 92 22:17:46 GMT, dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu said:
> 
> David> In article <19832@leadsv.UUCP>, netnews@leadsv.UUCP (Leads
> David> Network News) writes: 
> 
> David> Otherwise, the only method of moving the plane (I'm talking
> David> single-engine) is to have one person sit on the tail to lift
> David> the nosewheel and point it in the direction it needs to be
> David> rolled.
> 
> The FBO that services my Musketeer has a nifty tug.  It vaguely
> resembles a self-propelled lawnmower, and has a swiveling platform
> that slips under the nosewheel.  Then the operator can tow the plane
> as he likes, swivelling as far as he likes without worrying about
> nosewheel turning limits, since the platform swivels instead of the
> nosewheel. Indeed, the nosewheel doesn't have to turn at all!
> 
> I don't know why everyone doesn't use them... :-)
> 
>   --berry
> 
> --
> Berry Kercheval :: berry@pei.com :: Protocol Engines, Inc.  Mt. View, CA
> "Car pool fatigue: it's like shell shock, but you don't get any VA benefits.
> They just fill your gas tank and send you back to the front."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation