HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: watson@carssdf.UUCP (- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Product review:  Peacock Data Systems LapMap
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:13:24 GMT
Reply-To: watson@carssdf.UUCP (John Watson -- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator)
Organization: John Watson (Self Employed System Integrator)

I have been using lap-map for a couple of years now, but I use a Nec
Multi-Speed Lap Top.  Very old machine but with 3.5" disketts.  I modified
it with a band saw so the screen lays flat on top of the unit.  Then this
smaller unit is velcrowed to an aluminum bracket on the floor behind my
feet.  From there I just look down to see my position.   It's great to
line up your course to just miss ATA's and TCA's.  You can come up to about
200 yards of the TCA and break off around it.  Conversations with the ATC
indicate EXACT correspondence with their radar displays.

I get a visulation of where I am going that you can't describe to anyone
except an F-18 pilot.  With >1000 hrs and 20 years of flying I read maps
and figure 45 degree entries and hold pattern entries as well as anyone,
but you just don't FEEL IT without lap map.

Now when they ask for a position I give them the same obscure 2 miles from
widget intersection (shown only some arnav approach) that I've been getting
for years. :-)

---- Not affiliated with any profit making organization -------
From: adf@crosfield.co.uk (alex france)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: FliteMap $395 Moving Map Software
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:39:10 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <1992Jul28.180252.3631@gtephx.UUCP> barriost@gtephx.UUCP (Tim Barrios) writes:
>The Trimble Flightmate GPS has no sign of an RS-232 interface on it. 
>In fact, it has no connections to the outside world at all.  Even the
>external antenna seems to just slip over the unit and re-transmit the
>signal.  Also, no mention of RS-232 or any other interface in the
>user's guide.

Best of the new crop would appear to be the Garmin GPS-55AVD. The spec.
sheet claims RS-232 as standard, and detachable antenna with extension
cable and suction cups also part of the standard kit. From the last
copy of Trade-a-Plane I saw, I don't think they're quite under the
$1000 mark yet - but not far off, and no doubt will fall once it has
been out for a few months. Personally I liked the bigger display and
conventional numeric keypad over the Flightmate - but it is bigger
too.

As an alternate to moving maps, how about the Skyforce Director (made
in UK, but I've seen them advertising in the US). Its about the size
of a pack of cards and has a liquid crystal A/N display. It connects
to the RS-232 from the GPS and simply gives continual readout of
distance and bearing (in nm and 'NNW' like terms) of your bearing from
the nearest town, airport or navaid. Thus you can easily pinpoint your
position on the non-moving map (current, of course!), as well as
giving instant position reports over the radio to impress the ATC.
It is selling in the UK for just 100 UK pounds (around $190) if bought
with a GPS unit.

(NB. I have no connection with any of Garmin, SKyforce etc.)

# Alex France, Crosfield Electronics, | Phone: +44 442 230000 xt.3541 #
# Three Cherry Trees Lane,            | Fax:   +44 442 232301         #
# Hemel Hempstead, HP2 7RH, England.  | Email: adf@crosfield.co.uk    #
#                                     | UK PPL/IMC                    #
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: emergency AD 92-15-16
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:51:10 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

schinner@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer) writes:

>Given that I own a Mooney with an O-360 engine with the make of
>carb in question, one would think that I would get a copy of this
>fine document in the mail.  Nope.  Gotta hear about it on the net.

After posting a response which said among other things "since [the original
posting's author] didn't say what the AD was about", I found a copy of
the AD in my mailbox Thursday afternoon.  Yours is probably somewhere
in the U.S. Mule.

I'm lucky on this one: my carb hasn't needed repair or overhaul for a while
so there's no way for the bad parts to be in it.  I also escaped an AD which
arrived today which reports that some piston pins shipped by Lycoming are
not airworthy and must be replaced...

Joe Morris
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: "remain clear of the ARSA..."
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 23:58:41 GMT


In article <1992Jul23.171706.17294@dg-rtp.dg.com>, waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh) writes:
|>File IFR :-) It's a good question, to which there is no good answer.
|>Some ARSA's like to play at being a TCA, and there is not much you
|>can do to stop them. Some TCA's at rinky airports like Charlotte NC
|>like to pretend they're in New York (and are a lot more objectionable
|>than New York). It all depends on the facility in question. The price 
|>you pay for VFR :-)

File IFR? I'd love to, but then we'd have to discuss what happens to VFR
pilots when they request IFR clearances... :-)  Working to change that,
though.

I've had similar experiences with TCAs and ARSAs. I've been accepted into
the Washington Tri-Area TCA on a number of occasions when the traffic load
was quite high...I got the feeling they'd rather be talking to me than
wondering where I was going to go next.

On the other hand, Raleigh-Durham refused me entry to their ARSA when
there wasn't another plane in the sky (60mi+ vis, and I'd just been given
a VFR handoff from Washington Center). They were quite nice about it; gave
me an initial vector around and *asked* me if I could 'resume own navigation'
or wanted more vectors, but it was still a refusal.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
From: ajcueva@pbhyb.PacBell.COM (Al Cuevas)
Subject: EM2
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:10:10 GMT
Keywords: Air Aruba

I get to fly Air Aruba from Aruba to Bonaire in September.  The equipment
type is an "EM2".  What is an EM2?

Please post or e-mail.

Thanks,

Al Cuevas
Pacific Bell
510-823-1498
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: Out of Date Charts (was: Ramp checks...)
Keywords: FARs Legal Navigation Charts
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 00:42:20 GMT


In article <1992Jul24.163505.19058@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>, mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe) writes:
|>|> 	...       My fear is that they might try something because
|>|> 	I have 3 or 4 sectionals in my bag that are expired, along
|>|> 	with current versions of same.  ...
|>
|>I keep numerous charts around long after they have expired.  Some I
|>keep for backup use, others just because I an obsessive packrat who
|>can't seem to throw anything away.  For all of my IFR charts I always
|>have (and use) the current charts independent of whether or not I am
|>carrying an expired one.  For some of my out-of-home-area sectionals
|>that I have acquired over the years, I am carrying long expired charts
|>without current replacements (I think the Great Falls sectional I have
|>expired in 1982).  Anyway, my general procedure is to (using a red
|>highlighter) write OBSOLETE in big letters across the front of a chart
|>as soon as it expires.  If the chart is one that I commonly use (such
|>as LO 1&2) I will note the corrections on the new chart and may strike
|>out the erroneous figures on the old chart and ink in the correct values.
|>Then I might make a note on the front such as "Corrected for Oregon and
|>California north of San Jose".  I find that this is good practice even
|>if I don't carry the obsolete chart since it forces me to review the new
|>chart and take note of what has changed.  However, after following the
|>discussion, I am wondering about the legality of what I am doing.  Am I
|>OK or not?


I carry current sectionals for the areas I plan to fly in or near, and
carry sectionals (current or otherwise) for the areas beyond that. That
way, if I'm forced *way* off my planned route, I still have something
resembling a sectional for the area I'm in.

I've never seen anything which indicates that just having an out-of-date
sectional is illegal. I do know that the family of one dead pilot sued
because an out of date sectional showed the tower he hit to be a couple
of miles from where it was. Strange thing was that the out-of-date chart
was in the seat-back pocket, and the pilot *had* the current sectional
open on the seat beside him.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL -- Octopus FLying Club (based GAI)
From: Brian.Horn@west.sun.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Ramp checks--unreasonable search
Date: 21 Jul 1992 16:50:54 GMT
Organization: SunSoft Inc., Los Angeles, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigboy
Originator: brianh@bigboy.West.Sun.COM

In article <23258@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.184309.5373@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
>
>> :)  Gee, I thought that aircraft logs were the most flammable pieces
>> :)  in the airplane.  (Would seem pretty difficult for the FAA to blame >> :)  the PIC for an unairworthy aircraft if their evidence is ashes.)
>
>No, it's very easy -- if the logbooks are destroyed, the airplane is
>unairworthy.  Period.

Arggghhhh!!! You both have it wrong!  You need TWO sets of log books.
One for the plane and one for the *locked* cabinet.  If the plane goes down
and it appears that it might have something to do with maintenance then
the logs burnt in the crash ("See!  Here are the ashes!  What do you mean by
asking why didn't *anything* else burn!?!")

If the problem was clear NOT the fault of the owner/operator/maintenance,
then of course the logs were safely stashed away for proof that everything
was done to the letter!

(note: :-)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe)
Subject: Re: "remain clear of the ARSA..."
Reply-To: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Organization: UDT-CV (ITO)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:27:30 GMT

> In a previous response in this string
> Greg Travis responds to Glen Baker's question (regarding the legitimacy of
> ATC requiring an aircraft to remain clear of an ARSA) by stating that yes
> they can do that.

Just to elaborate on Greg's response, the applicable FAR is 91.123(b) which
states:
	Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary
	to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is
	exercised.
Certainly an ARSA is among those areas "in which air traffic control is
exercised" (I think this is synonymous with "controlled airspace"), and
"remain clear of the ARSA" certainly would constitute an instruction.
Looks like a pretty tight case to me.

Mark Rowe             email: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Hewlett Packard       voice: (503) 750-3246
Corvallis, OR         FAX:   (503) 750-3788
From: schinner@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: United flight's cargo door?
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:50:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: hp-vcd.2540035
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA, USA

Ok, how did they find a door on the bottom of the ocean at a depth
of 14000 feet?

Have they been looking for it all this time?  Is that what the navy
does when they aren't playing war games?

---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schinnerer  -  PP-ASEL-IA       |  Hewlett Packard
Mooney - 350X  -  "Buster"          |  Vancouver, WA
email - schinner@vcd.hp.com         |  (206) 944-3324
---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: Re: Take a break Mr. ATC
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 23:11:49 GMT

geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.015111.13439@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Marshal.Perlman@bbs.oit.unc.edu writes:
>>OK..this is good:
>>
>>I am sittin' on the ground holding short of 19L at SNA...ready to T/O
>>
>>The controller says to me: 73M, cleared to land..
>>and I say: 73M I'm still on the ground...

>But you >could< have said
>    "Understand cleared to land, 73M -- could you please clear me for
>     takeoff now so I can use that landing clearance?"

>:-)
hahahahahahha
--
==============================  *  Marshal Perlman               * DO
=-> mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu <-=  *  Huntington Beach, California  * NOT
==============================  *  (Surf City, U.S.A)            * EAT
* Yeltsin is the Russian word for Retsin * CAUTION: RADIOACTIVE MESSAGE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: hopkins@gvlf9-o.gvl.unisys.com (Bill Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Travelog: Buzzing New York
Reply-To: hopkins@gvl.unisys.com
Organization: Paramax Systems Corp (A Unisys Company), Great Valley Labs, PA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:36:50 GMT

In article <9207271720.AA14500@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM 
(the wide-eyed Phil Jern) writes:
>
>Well, I finally made the (in)famous "Hudson River Tour of New York".
>       [...]
> If you lose the engine out here, folks, you're going swimming.
>       [...]
>Your mileage may vary.
>
Yep, especially if you're resourceful.  A few years back, the fan
stopped on a NORDO T-craft that was VFR over the Hudson.  The pilot
put it down on a Manhattan-side pier and, when that proved too short
for the normal roll-out, nosed it over to avoid hitting a building.
He seemed moderately unimpressed with the whole operation, of course.
"Well, sure, I knew I had to do something, and that water looked
a little cold for swimming, so I just landed it here..."  That sort
of stuff.

I'd gotten a ride down the corridor a few years before, and hadn't
even *seen* the piers.

	Bill (pierless aviators have fewer landing sites) 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.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Active noise-canceling headsets
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 12:02:08 GMT

In article <xde.02p4@xtxde.UUCP> xde@xtxde.UUCP (Dave Evans) writes:
>
>I was going to buy one of these headsets, but heard warning that 
>things like engine noises, or lack of engine noise, you would want to hear, so
>I've just gotten used to wearing earplugs under my DC's, and that works out
>great, much quieter, but still enough to hear.
>
Pardon me if I am wrong, but the only people who express fear, loathing
and paranoia about noise cancelling headsets are those who do not own
and use them. Is there anybody out there in netland who owns (or did own)
a set and doesn't like them?  Anybody who uses them who thinks he/she can't
actually hear engine noises better? 

Dan Masys
350 hours inside the ANRs...
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Airshow Report
Keywords: Frecce Tricolori, U-2, Gee Bee
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:09:43 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <ritter.712245382@claude>, ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:

> (stuff deleted)  The Gee-Bee then flew a short
> segment.  This is a replica of either the R-1 or the R-2 (I forget
> which, although they announced it at the show).  The narrator (the

It's the R-2.  Can't wait to see it fly in only... 4 days and counting.

-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: stellabo@helix.cshl.org (Fred Stellabotte)
Subject: Support for GA from Pres. Canditates
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:02:57 GMT

Has any heard any comments from the canditates concerning
General Aviation  ..??

Thanks  ..


_______________________________________________________________________
  >| ====  Fred J. Stellabotte                     stellabo@cshl.org  
  >| ====  Computer Systems Manager
  >| ====  CFIA SEL MEL Commerical Instrument         
  >| ==== ___________________________________________________________
  >| ====  Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory         Voice: (516)367-8420
  >| ====  1 Bungtown Road                         Fax: (516)367-8845
  >| ====  Cold Spring Harbor, New York 11724                     
_______________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Subject: Re: Gee Bee R2 was Re: Airshow Report
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 20:34:23 GMT

In article <7028@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> 
> OK, so how does the average airplane, not designed for the ragged edge as the
> Gee Bee was, avoid an aileron-induced stall of the wing with the aileron down
> at high angles of attack? The description would seem to apply to any aircraft
> at high alpha.

	Almost any.  As Jonathan Bishop pointed out in another followup,
	wing planform and washout differences among various aircraft
	make this more of a problem in some than in others.

	Of the aircraft I've flown the one that showed this "control
	reversal at high alpha" effect best was the Scheizer 2-32
	(sailpane with tapered wing, relatively little washout).  On
	this one a touch of reversed aileron input helped recovery from
	an incipient spin by reducing the AOA at the stalled tip.

	For the opposite extreme I'd name the Cessna 150, which keeps
	normal aileron effectiveness fairly so well that the pilot
	can cheat when doing oscillation stalls & help the rudder out
	with modest "normal" aileron application.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: QANTAS - U.S. Carrier warnings.
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:50:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.153116.12351@bony1.bony.com>, billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul21.141222.7879@mdd.comm.mot.com> mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell) writes:
|> >in rec.aviation, billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) said:
|> >
|> >>Yes, but the point is that KAL007 was VISUALLY identified as a
|> >>commercial airliner before the order to shoot it down was issued.  It
|> >>was shot down anyway.
|> >
|> >Sorry to post, but mail bounced.
|> >
|> >Please cite your source for this information.
|> 
|> Ted Koppel on NIGHTLINE.  
|> 
|> I leave it to the skeptics to order the transcript/tape 
|> from Journal Graphics.  =B^]

Was Ted Koppel a witness?  Assuming not, was his source (And/or that of the
network) accurate?  Was it verified?  Has it been shown to be accurate
today, after years of investigation, theories and other such activities?

I see aviation errors all the time all over the place.  A pair of Cessna
172's which collided recently is _still_ being identified by a major
news network as a couple of twin-engined aircraft.  There are inaccuracies,
exaggerations or even fabrications all over the place.  Unfortunately.  The
only guaranteed correct reports out of the Persian Gulf for a long time were
that Bernie Shaw was hiding under a table.

Ted Koppel is, by himself, not a guaranteed source.  The sources that
are involved in the story might be.  Those are the sources you need to
be sure of facts.  Plus some other evidence, such as radar scope images,
segments of radio chatter, the black box, etc. are what's really decisive.

Playing devil's advocate...

-- 
Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics
rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu                             University of Minnesota
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:12115 austin.general:2485 dfw.general:292 houston.general:782 tx.general:490
From: wjc@os2dce06.austin.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,austin.general,dfw.general,houston.general,tx.general
Subject: Re: REVIEW of AIR COMBAT
Date: 20 Jul 92 16:21:35 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

In article <1992Jul15.215358.29809@shibaya.lonestar.org> afc@shibaya.lonestar.org (Augustine Cano) writes:
>In article <MXDHNZ7@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul14.225611.23142@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>>>As promised, here's my review of AIR COMBAT.
>>
>>Sounds interesting. By a coincidence, there was a segment on NPR the other
>>day describing a more complete "fighter" experience: they use real jet
>
>I heard it too, but the planes didn't sound like jets.  They never said
>what planes were used, but I suspect that just the fuel for a korea-era
>jet would come to more than $500 for however long the thing lasted (and
>they didn't say that either.)  You might get hours of "air combat
>instruction" and de-briefing, but I wouldn't be surprised if actual air
>time is about 1/2 hour.
>
>>trainers and you really get to pilot the plane (with a real pilot in the
>>seat behind you to keep you out of trouble). Of course, this costs a fair
>>amount of money: over $500 bucks per ride... but you get to keep a video
>>of the whole thing (they have three cameras on each plane).
>>-- 
>>                                                                `-_-'
>>                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`
>>
>>Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
>
>
>-- 
>Augustine Cano		INTERNET: afc@shibaya.lonestar.org
>			UUCP:     ...!{ernest,egsner}!shibaya!afc

The company is in the Atlanta area, and uses T-34's
(piston-engined navy trainers built by Beechcraft in the
1950's). I believe that there is a similar operation in southern
CA, but I'm not sure where (Mojave?).

Bill Collum 
Consulting Computer Scientist (Among other things)
-----
These words are mine. Mine, I say!
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: "remain clear of the ARSA..."
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:14:21 GMT
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.

In article <168323A5F.M21208@mwvm.mitre.org> M21208@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>In article <Bs26pv.LB1@taligent.com>
>cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:
>Among other things...
>>ARSAs and TCAs are there to reduce controller workload.
>Say what?  Call Monterey and ask them how much their workload went down when
>they started providing mandatory service to practically every aircraft in the
>vicinity.  "Reduced workload" is about the LAST thing an ARSA means to ATC.

Like many FAA airspace innovations, the intent and the reality often don't
match.  ARSAs were also supposed to provide fair access by VFR aircraft,
and that certainly hasn't panned out.

For the record, Monterey Approach and Santa Barbara Approach (once) are
the only ARSAs that have been problems for me.
--
-- Christophe

"Be calm.  Look cute."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation