HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (sorry ... sigh )
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:48:59 GMT

In article <1940121@hpgrla.gr.hp.com> leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin) writes:
>The problem here is our interpretation of the word 'operate'.  I claim
>that one does not need to manipulate the cotrols to 'operate' a plane
>(i.e.  *act* as PIC).  Using his definition, it would be illegal for me
>to take over the controls even if he wanted to reach into the back for a
>map!  (Fortunately, he doesn't practice this :-).

Fortunately, the FARs make it easy for you.  They don't use the term
"operate."  Basically, there are two interesting conditions for logging
and other purposes:

	1. You are the sole manipulator of the controls.

	2. You are acting as Pilot in Command.

Now, the question of who is PIC is usually pretty straight-forward.  If
only one person in the aircraft is qualified to be PIC, then that
person is PIC.  The question of who is sole manipulator is usually
straight-forward as well: the person with their hands on the controls.
There are lots of edge cases (what if no one is touching the yoke and
the autopilot is flying?  What if both front seat people have their
hands on their respective yokes?), but let's not worry about this too
much.

In any event, anyone, but ANYONE, can be sole manipulator of the
controls.  A fully qualified pilot.  A student pilot.  A person with a
revoked pilot's certificate.  A chimpanzee.  A single-celled life
form.  Anyone.  The FARs don't care, except for logging purposes; the
flight is still legal, so long as the Pilot In Command is qualified to
BE pilot in command.

So, in conclusion: You can fly the aircraft all you want, so long as
the PIC says it's OK.
--
-- Christophe

"He presented it with a length of string, and then passed on to the
Statue of Corrupted Endeavor, there to await the arrival of autumn."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.student
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: What do people think about night primary training?
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:00:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.201639.12161@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) asks about primary
>training at night.

I'll digress slightly and talk about night IFR training.  I prefer it
for many of the same reasons that Geoff discusses about primary training.

>
> -  Spotting traffic is much easier at night.  This makes night
>    training (particularly IFR training) safer, but it also doesn't
>    develop the student's scan as well as day flight might.
>
> -  Generally, there's less wind and little turbulence at night.
>    This is a definite advantage at the beginning, but the student
>    must be exposed at least somewhat to bumpy, windy flying during
>    the private pilot training.

One last reason is that if you are doing your IFR training in CA in
the summer, it is typically much, much, cooler at night.  In addition,
near the coast there are some opportunities for actual IMC in the
coastal marine layers.  (Of course when you want IMC, it is severe clear.)

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.ifr
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: IFR trivia question [sort of] answered
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:57:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.002518.29771@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
   A few weeks ago, I posted an IFR trivia question regarding what to do
   on the following approach.  The situation is:  weather conditions are 900
   overcast, uncontrolled field, within a transition area (700' or magenta),
   winds favoring rwy 09.  You break out a mile from the MAP with the
   field in sight.  How do you maneuver to land?

   [Big picture omitted]

   Unfortunately, there is no answer.  I was told by my DE that the FAA does
   not address the situation described above.

Sweden has the regulation that IFR approaches are prohibited unless
the airport is controlled or has an operating AFIS unit (a kind of
downgraded ATC that doesn't give clearances or separation, but does
keep track of everyone - radio (or telephone) contact mandatory). Some
countries - like Germany - even require full ATC.

I have always though this regulation to be slightly paranoid,
considering that other countries, such as the U.S. permits this.

I have read a lot over the years about the concern of U.S. pilots
about mixing IFR and VFR at uncontrolled fields - with IFR traffic
popping out of the clouds straight into final. After also reading
Kerrys trivia question and answer I am beginning to think that perhaps
the Swedish CAA isn't paranoid at all. It seems that permitting IFR
approaches into completely uncontrolled airports could be an unsafe
practise. (Although I still think the Germans take it a bit too far.)

Comments?

AFIS = Aerodrome Flight Information Service.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: FAQ ABOUT ULTRALIGHTS
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:24:39 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group

In article <BERRY.92Oct14134725@athos.pei.com>, berry@athos.pei.com (Berry Kercheval) writes:
|> >>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:25:05 GMT, GRUNLOH@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu said:
|> GRUNLOH> ..... The ultimate maximum altitude you could achieve in an ultralight
|> GRUNLOH> is limited by the permitted fuel capacity ( 5 gal in the USA )
|> 
|> 
|> Actually, the fuel capacity probably has nothing to do with the
|> maximum altitude.  Think of them as gliders: shut down the engine and
|> soar.  Isn't the glider altitude record something over 45,000 feet?
|> 
	Yup, 49,009 ft.  The ambient air temperature was something like -60
degrees F; I'd say the maximum altitude for ultra-lights/hang-gliders is
constrained by temperature...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
									|
David M. Hagood			Martin Marietta Astronautics Group	|
									|
Voice:  (303) 977-9657		When in danger, or in doubt,		|
E-mail: hagood@den.mmc.com	Run in circles, scream and shout.	|
Fax: (303) 977-1530							|
									|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     static char *disclaimer = "My opinions, not Martin Marietta's."    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: Cherokee: actual vs. POH
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:26:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.120813.14527@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> psv2b@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Peter S. Vines) writes:
>A group of pilots I regularly fly with are considering purchasing
>a Cherokee 180 (mid 70's).  I would like information from other 180
>pilots concerning the operating costs.  What is the fuel burn, are parts
>hard to find, are there particular years or models which should be 
>avoided?

Fly a '74 Archer 180 and get 9 gal/hour at normal (75%) cruise plus usual 
landings and takeoffs (excluding T&G practice in the pattern).  Nothing 
unusual in the maintenance area.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
From: vendidf@farmer..aix.kingston.ibm.com (David Farmer)
Subject: Re: Where are the chopper x-countries?
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 12:21:30 GMT
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <JKF.92Oct10075307@frisky.Franz.COM> jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro) writes:
>
>
>other pilots doing the same ritual.  But I've *never* seen a helicopter 
>pilot land and come into the FBO with his charts looking for a phone
>
> So why aren't there more people using helicopters for personal  long
>distance transportation (I'm assuming that there *are* some helicopters being
>
>-sean
>
Un-fourtunately, helicopters fly pretty slow, and need frequent maintenance.
If I were to fly my Rotorway across the the US, I would have to have parts
waiting for me along the way.  I can cruse at 100mph, the Enstrom I learned
in crused at 80.  My instructor was an A&P, so did all his own maintenance.
He charged $150/hour block, and did not make a lot of profit.  My Rotorway
costs $50/hour just for the parts that have to be replaced based on hours
flown.

Helicopters have schedules where by certain parts have to be replaced after
a certain number of hours even if the look ok.  The stress caused by all
that vibration does cumulative damage to the components.

The other reason you don't see as many helicopters is that we used to 
fill up at the hangar, then fill up from some tanks in the middle of a
field in the middle of nowhere.

For me, I love to fly helicopters, but their usefullness lies in their 
ability to get into places where airplanes cannot.  They are just not
practical as long distance vehicles.

Dave
PP-ASEL, Com RW
Email is flakey, if you want to ask me any questions, you can try 
vendidf%kgnaix11@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Need Advice on Fall Foliage in Northeast
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:16:42 GMT
Distribution: usa, canada
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

On Monday morning, 10/12, I'm going to take my parents up to do some leaf 
peeping around New England.  So far it seems like central New Hampshire and 
Vermont are probably the best places to head.  Does anyone have any advice 
on where the leaves are *currently* peaking around Maine, New Hampshire, 
Vermont, and western Mass.?  Yes, I'll call the phone numbers I posted the
other day, but those are oriented towards driving and may miss some areas
we can hit from the air.

Thanks for any help.
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
From: kaufman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Where are the chopper x-countries?
Reply-To: kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:25:30 GMT

jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro) writes:

> I've done a number of extended trips by GA airplane and the procedure
>is generally the same at each airport: land, fill plane's tanks, empty 
>my tanks, call flight service, pay for gas and take off.   I've seen many 
>other pilots doing the same ritual.  But I've *never* seen a helicopter 
>pilot land and come into the FBO with his charts looking for a phone
>to check the weather on this next leg.   This issue was brought to 
>mind by the person who asked how you get helicopters from, say, the 
>east to west coast.   If they are flown cross country then maybe they 
>only come out at night :-).

Helicopters (of the piston powered civilian type) generally fly only in
clear VFR at altitudes between 700 and 2000 feet.  Top speeds are in the
105 knot range, with 2 hours of fuel.  This makes long x-country trip
impractical except for ferry flights.  Besides, even the smallest heli costs
about $100/hr to operate, so there aren't many ab initio students doing
their cross country flights in them.

> So why aren't there more people using helicopters for personal  long
>distance transportation (I'm assuming that there *are* some helicopters being
>used in this way but that there are so few that I haven't sampled enough 
>airports yet to find any).   Sure they are more expensive than a simple fixed
>wing aircraft but certainly less expensive than some of the cabin-class twins
>that I see being flow for personal use.   Also for some people money really 
>isn't a factor.   I know that if I ever won the lottery I'd like to get
>a helicopter and fly it cross country (has anyone every done barnstorming
>in a copter? (i.e. stop at little towns across the country and offer rides 
>to the folks for money or food)).

I know one person who commutes from the Sierra Foothills to San Jose by
helicopter.  It is at least as expensive per hour as a cabin-class twin,
and only half the speed.  You have to want to do it that way.

-- 
Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: hopkins@gvlf9-o.gvl.unisys.com (Bill Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Unfamiliar phraseologies
Reply-To: hopkins@gvl.unisys.com
Organization: Paramax Systems Corp (A Unisys Company), Great Valley Labs, PA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:54:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.050705.3073@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@pex.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>
>According to para-193a(5) they are supposed to be grouped:
>"Air carriers and commuter air carriers having FAA authorized call
>signs should identify themselves by stating the complete call sign
>(using group form for the numbers)..."  Personally, I see no harm in
>not grouping them.

It does add one more discriminator.  The following story might have
been somewhat different if the practice had been followed.

 A few years ago (less than 20), when I lived near Buffalo Int'l and
often had an airband radio tuned to the approach frequency, I heard an
amusing (but potentially dangerous) situation work itself out.  Numbers
and specific wordings are semi-remembered or made up.  The controller
was one I recognized as being pretty sharp.

AL317: Buffalo Approach, Allegheny 317 with you at [blah].

BUF: Allegheny 317, [appropriate response].

AL317: 317.

[normal traffic]

93317: Buffalo Approach, Cessna 93317 is [blah].

[long pause]

BUF: Cessssnaaaa 93317, [instructions].

93317: 317.

BUF: Cessna 93317 and Allegheny 317, please pay careful attention as we
     have two aircraft with similar call signs in the area.  Use full
     call signs.

[more traffic]

BUF: Allegheny 317, turn left heading 270.

[pause]

New voice: Who was that for?

BUF: Al--Ah--Gain--EE three one seven, turn left heading 270.

AL317: two-seven-zero, three-one-seven.

BUF: [flame worthy of alt.politics.irrational, in standard phraseology]

	Bill (um, what?) 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.misc
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Amsterdam crash a new record?
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:20:37 GMT

On Wed, 07 Oct 1992 03:24:23 GMT, jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) said:

J> ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>So on the macabre side, does this set a new record for people killed
>on the ground by an air crash?

J> With the modification somebody else mentioned regarding "on the ground"
J> vs "bystander", I believe that it does.  I don't have my trusty disaster
J> list from my almanac handy, but I believe the previous record was on the
J> order of 97, in a similar incident.  (Cargo plane crashed into school.)

J> Cerritos (at around 15) doesn't even come close.  Ramstein was around 50.

Let me just make a tiny point--I brought up Cerritos because it was in
articles about that accident that the real (~100) record was discussed.

As you say, 15 was nothing.  That wasn't even as bad as the F-86
into the Farrell's ice cream parlor at the end of the runway accident.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: stevem@solbourne.com (Stephen Matson)
Subject: Ultralight Helicopters?
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:57:57 GMT


  Is there such a beast?
From: ses3n@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Sharon Elizabeth Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: earhart
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:18:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <92288.211009MKW106@psuvm.psu.edu> <MKW106@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>any theories on what happened to amelia earhart back in 1937? new ones,
>interesting ideas, etc.???


From the books I've read, I'd say she was tired, and stupid enough to 
hire a drunk for a navigator. She got off course and missed the island.
After flying around a bit, she ran out of gas. Either she (and Fred
Noonan) ditched in the water, or made it to a small island. Some new
research by TIGR has turned up what could be remains of her clothing
and plane on an island.
					Sharon
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.military
From: cohler@vxcrna.cern.ch (Mike Cohler)
Subject: Re: Transport crash in Amsterdamn
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:07:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.223723.1713@athena.mit.edu>, cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes...
>UPI reports the death toll at 200 and climbing.
>40 apartments were absolutely demolished.
>The El Al 747 lost two engines shortly after takeoff.
>The engines were found nine miles from the crash site.
>Many 747 pilots claim it is impossible to recover from dual engine
>loss in a 747 without extreme altitude, especially when loaded.
>The crew tried to jettison fuel but crashed non the less.
>The simply werent high enough to reover.  A similar incidnet occured
>with a China Air Lines 747 cargo plain off the coast of tawain I believe.
>Both engines lost after take off, plane crashed and demolished all 
>5 crew dead.
> 
From the UK TV news, which has had almost blanket coverage of this 
event the past few days:  The 747 had a fire on number 3 engine shortly after
take off.  It was fully loaded with freight, and had 70 tons of fuel
on board.  Shortly after number 3 engine failed, number 4 caught fire
and failed also.  The engines were still attached to the aircraft during 
an attempt to jettison fuel.  The maximum jettison rate is 2 tons per
minute which requires about a half hour to empty the tanks.  The aircraft
was somewhat above maximum landing weight. The 747 made a slow right turn
dumping fuel.  After about one turn the engines dropped off the right wing
into an area of sea, and the aircraft became unstable.  With both right 
engines gone the maximum pwer on the remaining engines gave a descent of 
about 1000 peet per minute, and the aircraft could only turn right.  
Even with maximum left rudder, the aircraft increased its angle of bank
and combined with the heavy fuel and fright load, lost stability and 
made a direct hit on the block of apartments in a suberb of Amsterdam.
The ensuing fire was especially severe due to the fuel on board, and
the problem of counting casualties is compounded by the fact that many
bodies would be burned to an extent that even recognition of a body might
in many cases be impossible.  Also there are many illegal immigrants in this
area of the city so that a count of the number of people who were living
there might never be known, as the other illegal immigrants here would be
unlikely to talk to the authorities..... this is just a summary of media
coverage of the past few days.

==============================================================
|                                                            |
|        Mike Cohler -  preferred email address:             |
|                       MDC1@VAXA.YORK.AC.UK                 |
|                   ie  MDC1%VAXA.YORK.AC.UK@UKACRL.BITNET   |
|                                                            |
|        UK PPL and Glider Pilot                             |
|                                                            |
==============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: What Constitutes "Cross Country"
Keywords: Cross Country,X-country,Legal
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 05:18:45 GMT

In article <1ascmsINNt9c@topaz.bds.com> ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) writes:
[A -> B = 25nm, B -> C = 26nm, A -> C = 51nm; all airports are in a
straight line]
> But are you saying I can go A->B->C (stopping for fuel at B) and still
> count it as cross country for the instrument rating?  It's not that my
> plane can't go 50 miles without fuel, but 100LL at B is $1.70/gal and
> it's $2.40 at A and $2.10 at C...

Yes.  As long as a series of legs reasonably can be counted as a single
flight and you do land at an airport which is more than 50nm from the
original point of departure, then you can count it as a cross-country
flight towards the instrument rating.

Unfortunately, the way the rules are written, if you fly the following
triangle as a single flight, you shouldn't count it as a cross-country
applicable to the instrument rating:

                            A
                           / \
                  30nm    /   \    30nm
                         /     \
                        B-------C
			   51nm

Legally, if you counted the segments A -> B and  B -> C -> A as separate
flights, you could count the B -> C -> A segment as cross-country, but if
you count it all as one flight, you shouldn't count it as cross-country.

I know, this is all rather stupid.  It's just the way the rules are
written:  "Each cross-country flight must have a landing point more than
50 nautical miles from the original departure point".  And frequently,
designated examiners will take a detailed look at the cross-country
flights for candidates who appear to have just met the minimum experience
requirements.  So it behooves the candidate to ensure tha he or she has met
the letter of the law, as well as the spirit.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: u926135@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Adrian Hassall Lewis)
Subject: 747's? what crap do they put out?
Keywords: pollution 747
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:02:43 GMT

I'm posting this for a friend who doesn't have news access.

	We have seen figures on the amount of pollution the Space Shuttle
emits when launched, and we were wondering if anyone knows anything about
what a 747 puts out.  Specifically, how much aerosol is released into the
stratosphere.  If someone could give us an idea of the world total (say 
tonnes/year) it would be appreciated.

thanks in advance ajax (for jeremy)

please e-mail u894056@minke.iasos.utas.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: euaadp@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Pettersson)
Subject: Re: FAQ on ultralights
Reply-To: euaadp@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: ELLEMTEL Utvecklings AB
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:28:01 GMT

rlarsen@bnr.ca (Richard Larsen P220) writes:
>The world glider record is over 49,000' but it is unlikely 
>ultra lights will go that high. At higher altitudes the air is
>thinner so your stall speed is higher. If your stall speed is higher
>than your red line speed obviously you cannot be there. Gliders
>have red line speeds of 155 to 175 MPH typically.

Yes indeed, the stall speed is higher if you just look at the ground speed, but since the air is thinner at hight your IAS will decrease when maintaining the same ground speed. So your airspeed indicator will show you a lower and lower value when you're climbing and maintaining ground speed.

Doesn't this means that you must be able to increase your IAS to your red line speed at whatever hight you are without exceeding the limitations of the aircraft??

Without having checked I must say that I doubt that even 155 to 175 MPH ground speed isn't enough to keep a glider flying at 49,000'.
I dont know if I could have said TAS instead of ground speed (at no wind), anyone who knows ??