HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 07:47:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.005359.190042@cs.cmu.edu> dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave
Touretzky) writes:
> However, from listening to people's war stories over
> the years, my personal rule of thumb is:
>
>  GA pilots can expect to average 1 engine failure per 1,000 hours of flying.

The story I've heard is that you can expect some sort of noticeable engine
_problem_ about that often, but it may be something as simple (and curable)
as carb icing, a magneto failure, or a fouled plug.  Or maybe lack of fuel,
which isn't the engine's fault...

Catastrophic in-flight engine failure is _much_ less likely -- the number
I've heard from several sources is one per 100,000 hours of flying.  That's
two orders of magnitude better than Dave's rule of thumb.

						Geoff
From: pvf@alantec.com (Paul Fries)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Chutes and OSH
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:55:05 GMT

petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (HOWARD PETRI) writes:


>     This may be of interest to some of you OSH bound rec.aviators. I 
>purchased a new Strong parachute last Jan and need to get it repacked.
>I called Strong and they said they will have a chute packer at OSH in
>the warbird area. I plan to get my chute repacked sometime between
>the 31st and the 4th. I plan to deploy the chute myself as a training
>exercise and watch them repack it. If this sounds like something you 
>might be interested in, let me know or connect with me at one of the
>rec.av rendevous'. Personally I can't wait to see if this thing will
>actually deploy.

It will probably deploy.  The spring loaded pilot-chute will jump from
3 to 10 feet from the pack, depending upon a number of things including
the length of the bridle to which the pilot-chute is attached.  That is
all you will see, though, as the spring is not responsible for lifting
anything but the bridle.

On the related topic of parachute packing and watching, et al.

My experience (from skydiving) is that just about any rigger would be
happy for you to observe the process of a packing.  It is not a
difficult procedure, but he will probably appreciate your interest.

BTW - aren't you supposed to follow a 120 day repack cycle?  This being
the case, your parachute would have been out-of-date around 1 May.
Unless the repack/inspection is current, the parachute may not be used
to meet the requirement for wearing a parachute.

Another BTW - while we (people who use parachutes) all call it a
REPACK, it is really an INSPECTION/REPACK.  There is not a lot that can
affect the PACKING of the parachute in the container over the 120 days,
but the condition of the materials can be affected.  The INSPECTION
should/will include examination of the parachute material, the
suspension lines, all the hardware, the harness system, etc, etc.

While it may seem like overkill to do this every 4 months, it could
save your life.  There have been examples where improperly treated
fabrics were used in the construction of the parachute (unintentional,
of course).  After a few months of being packed, the material had
deteriorated to the point of having the strength of tissue paper.
Another problem related to improperly treated suspension lines.  After
a few months, these had sort of stuck together forming a mass that
would not properly separate were the parachute to have been deployed.
Now there's a way to ruin your day!  So, pay attention to the
inspection rules if you want to be able to rely on your parachute.

Paul Fries
pvf@alantec.com
From: pvf@alantec.com (Paul Fries)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Airline Safety Review
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:00:12 GMT
Distribution: na

andy@raft.spider.co.uk (Andy Davis) writes:

>The anecdote is striking though, because it is the complexity, and indirect
>effect of modern systems which is baffling the mere mortals "in command".
>If the pilot had been flying the aircraft "conventionaly" toward an
>approach (even using an old-fashioned type of autopilot) it is pretty hard
>to mistakenly stuff the nose down to a 3000fpm dive without noticing.
>If however that descent is commanded by typing the request into a computer
>and then hitting the "DO IT" button, it would take quite a bit of lateral
>thinking on the part of the crew to ever work out what had happened, as the
>aircraft made its terminal dive.

Perhaps we should consider alternative input devices that would be less
prone to the sorts of errors that seem to be happening.

For instance, when a pilot is tapping the keys for the rate of descent,
he is probably NOT looking at the display to see that there is an extra
zero on the 300 fpm he was trying to set.  Bingo, 3000 fpm descent.

Had there been an uncalibrated knob with a display on the computer the
story would have been different.  First, he would look at the knob and
grab it with his fingers.  Now, with the knob firmly in hand, he would
look at computer display for the descent readout.  Finally, he would
turn the knob while looking at the display to set the desired rate.

Good points of this approach include:

	1) You see the input as the computer sees it, cause the knob
	   doesn't give you any of the information you are looking for.  

	2) An error in entry will probably only give you a rate that
	   is slightly wrong, not 10 times the desired value.  (I don't
	   know the true resolutions involved, but a click of the knob
	   might be 10 or 50 or 100 fpm, for instance.)

There have been various avionics devices that have tried keypad entry
over the years (some lorans for instance) and I have never seen a
review that applauded such an input device.

So WHY would they put such a thing on a high end, commercial airliner
type, system?

Paul Fries
pvf@alantec.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: War story and story request
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:03:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1992Jul26.170322.2291
Organization: Indiana University

In <1992Jul25.133410.3141@ducvax.auburn.edu> dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:

>We had just taken off and
>everything was looking good until about 150'.  Then the engine decided to
>drop from 2600 rpm to 1400 rpm and start emitting large black clouds.

Sounds like a classic example of a stuck carb float.  You probably
had a piece of fluff between the needle valve and the seat which
prevented the needle valve from closing.  Sometimes playing with
the mixture control will make this go away.

The question remains as to how the fluff got there in the first place and
if it is now, indeed, gone.  I would want to have my mechanic disassemble
the carb and check it out after an incident like this.

Course...it could be a stuck valve ....

greg
-- 
Gregory Reed Travis					D P S I
	
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated	greg@cica.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jkr@cray.com (John Renwick)
Subject: Re: Dogs in Planes
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 29 Jul 92 09:46:10 CDT

In article <152oqeINNas@agate.berkeley.edu> morishig@sizzlean.berkeley.edu (Nina Morishige) writes:
>                                . . . Has anyone got any experience 
>flying with their dogs, or is it probably a bad idea?

A guy I know has a dog he calls "Cub."  Cub went everywhere he flew
in his PA12 until he sold it a year or two ago (the plane, not the
dog).  Cub has a very mellow disposition and no apparent tendency
to run off, so he's a good airport dog.
-- 
- John Renwick
J-3 Cub N62088
jkr@cray.com
From: dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: War story and story request
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:25:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.170322.2291@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, greg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) writes:
> In <1992Jul25.133410.3141@ducvax.auburn.edu> dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
> 
>>We had just taken off and
>>everything was looking good until about 150'.  Then the engine decided to
>>drop from 2600 rpm to 1400 rpm and start emitting large black clouds.
> 
> Sounds like a classic example of a stuck carb float.  You probably
> had a piece of fluff between the needle valve and the seat which
> 
> The question remains as to how the fluff got there in the first place and
> if it is now, indeed, gone.  I would want to have my mechanic disassemble
> the carb and check it out after an incident like this.
> 
> Course...it could be a stuck valve ....
I guess it doesn't matter if it's still there.  The incident happened about
two years ago so I would guess it wouldn't be.  However, the airplane that
had the problem was crashed into a nice solid stand of trees a few weeks
ago :-(.  (Posted under the heading _Bad_Month_at_the_Airport_)

- David McLeod
- dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu
From: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:42:36 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA

ROPBB@CUNYVM.BITNET (Bliss B. Siman) writes:
>I may be in the wrong place, but I hope you guys will put up with me.
>I am a very fearful flyer faced with a trip to Barcelona on Friday
>and just discovered the plane is a 767 which I am told has only two
>engines.

The kind of flight you are talking about is called ETOPS (Extended
Twin-engine OPerationS), and is subject to very stringent
requirements.

In planning its flight, the airline is required to ensure that if an
engine fails at any time during the flight, the plane can fly (on one
engine) to a safe landing at an airport.  To get its engines certified
for ETOPS, a manufacturer has to go to absurd lengths to prove that
the reliability is absolutely rock-solid.  So, the chances of even one
engine failing are very remote.  The chances of both engines failing
are so small as to be negligible compared to everyday risks (such as
driving to the airport).

So, you really don't need to worry.  Have a nice flight.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.aeronautics,rec.travel.air,news.groups
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, greg@octopus.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:

>  Indy Departure:  "57E, Indy departure.  Remain clear of the ARSA.  What
                      can I do for you?"

 OK, I realize that this gets discussed from time to time, but can 
 they *really* do this to you? By saying "57E, Indy departure" they've
 established radio contact and my (perhaps faulty) understanding is
 that they *can not* refuse permission to enter the ARSA.

 I guess the reason I ask is that I occasionally fly down to Carmel Valley
 and Monterey Approach is a real pain at times. Carmel Valley is
 (as the name suggests) in a valley.  The normal departure direction is
 to the NW, toward the ocean. The Monterey ARSA pretty much sits on
 top of the valley. About 4 miles NW the ARSA goes down to the surface.
 If you take off in the morning there will usually be a marine layer a 
 couple of miles down the valley to the NW so it's *real* desireable to 
 climb *immediately* into the ARSA.

   "Monterey Approach Cessna 8436Z off of Carmel Valley 1000 for 4500"

   "36Z Monterey Approach remain clear of the ARSA"

 Right. Now I'm faced with some real nifty alternatives:

   1) Fly down the valley, skirt the ARSA by hugging the hills, fly 
      under the marine layer, out to sea, and wait for Approach to pull 
      their heads out.

   2) Turn around within the confines of the valley, below 2500 MSL and
      head east (actually not as bad as it sounds, the valley *is* 
      wide enough, it's just sorta annoying and requires a bit of 
      attention").
  
   3) "Monterey Approach 36Z. Say date. Say time. Say initials."

 What's the "right" thing to do??

 ..glen
From: dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:58:54 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Geoff Peck writes:
> The story I've heard is that you can expect some sort of noticeable engine
> _problem_ about that often, but it may be something as simple (and curable)
> as carb icing, a magneto failure, or a fouled plug.  Or maybe lack of fuel,
> which isn't the engine's fault...
> 
> Catastrophic in-flight engine failure is _much_ less likely -- the number
> I've heard from several sources is one per 100,000 hours of flying.  That's
> two orders of magnitude better than Dave's rule of thumb.


Right.  I should have been more specific about what I meant by an engine
failure.   I meant:  loss of engine power significant enough to cause you to
want to terminate the flight, and NOT curable by some simple pilot action
such as switching to a tank with gas in it or adding carb heat.

One of my two engine failures was caused by a mag failing in flight.  It
resulted in a noticeable power loss that worsened over the next few minutes.
I was flying alone, at night, on an IFR flight plan but in VFR conditions.
Fortunately I was in a twin and over an airport, so it wasn't that big a
deal.

-- Dave Touretzky, CFI-AIM,  Seneca N8147E (``The Beast'')
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (HOWARD PETRI)
Subject: Earth Inductor Compass
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: INDIANA U. CYCLOTRON FACILITY, BLOOMINGTON, IN
Distribution:  world
Date: 27 JUL 92 13:40:56    


     In response to the requests for information on the earth inductor
compass, I will quote from the book:

The Log of Air Navigation
by Maj. Gen. Norris B. Harbold
1970 
MA/AH Publishing
Purchased at the Airforce Museum, Dayton, OH

pp 4-5
Starting with a little backround

Quote begins.
     The aperiodic compass was developed at the British Admirality
Observatory in 1918 by Commander Campbell and Professor Bennet, but it
could not be mounted on the normal cockpit instrument panel, and
existing airplane configurations seldom permitted its installation
elsewhere. This was an excellent compass. Aperiodic means that it had
no period of oscillation after deflection, such as a card type compass.
This was achieved by minimizing the surfaces causing skin friction with 
the compass liquid, and by a system of damping wires. Later models did
not even have a compass card in the liquid. A rotatable azimuth ring
above the bowl, when oriented with the magnetic N-S wire in the bowl,
indicated the compass heading.
     For these reasons the search began early and energetically for a 
type of compass other than one equipped with magnets. The earth
inductor compass appeared to be the answer (and was the basis for the
development of the gyrosyn compasses used today).
     This type of compass employs, instead of permanent magnets, a
vertical coil rotating about its vertical axis, with electric indication
of its orientation of the plane of this coil with respect to the earth's
magnetic field. This permits an installation remote from most of the 
electrical and engine-generated magnetic disturbances. The vertical
coil, being gimbal mounted, also provides its own gyro stabilization,
thus minimizing acceleration errors. In addition the absence of a 
damping liquid frees it from those errors caused by skin friction in
the bowl-type compass.
     Mr. Arthur J. Hughes in his history of Air Navigation credits
M. M. Tittering of the Pioneer Instrument Company with the invention
of the earth inductor compass, based on experimental work of Drs. 
Heyl and Briggs of the Bureau of Standards, about the year 1924, but
there is a record of both Bureau of Standards and Pioneer models
undergoing service test by the Instrument and Navigation Branch as
early as March, 1923. 
End Quote.

     So, it would appear that the earth inductor compass is some sort
of spinning coil and a precursor to our modern gyro heading indicators.
It clearly needs a source of electrical power to operate. This compass
would have been the "Cats Pajamas" in navigation in 1927 when
Lindberg crossed the Atlantic. Does anybody know if he had an old 
fashioned back up compass with him?

Howard Petri
Pegasus N599JH  (EJ)
From: niles@parc.xerox.com (Les Niles)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Handheld antenna and otherwise
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:14:19 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Jul24.034915.9862@cs.brown.edu> ST402421@brownvm.brown.edu (Chris Paine) writes:
>I got to wondering about why external antennas are reputed to work so much
>better than rubber duckys on handheld radios.  ...
> [some measurements of VSWR of external & rubber ducky antennae.]

Another reason (in addition to Alan Peterman's observation that rubber
duckies are used inside an aluminum cage that's a pretty good RF shield)
is that rubber duckies aren't very efficient.  The one on my handheld  
is a good approximation to a resistor:  it appears to be -5 to -10 dB  
compared to a 1/4 wave whip, meaning something like 70% to 90% of 
the transmitter power just gets converted to heat, with a similar 
lack of sensitivity on receive.

  -les  niles@parc.xerox.com
        Skylane N2461G
From: bodoh@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Sue Bodoh)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:34:25 GMT
Subject: Riders to Oshkosh
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

We again have room for one or two people to go to Oshkosh next week in
our Turbo Saratoga SP.  We will be leaving around 5:00 on Wed, July 29
and will spend the evening in western Wisconsin then fly into Oshkosh
early Thursday morning.  Return will be Sunday, Aug 2 after the show
or Monday morning depending on the weather.

We plan to camp "under the wing" and will have transportation since
my parents will be in Oshkosh with 4 wheels.

Estimated cost per person is $250 - $300.

You may contact us at:

    Mark Stolz  (w) 303-229-3478  (h) 303-223-2410  ms@fc.hp.com
    Sue Bodoh   (w) 303-679-3740  (h) 303-223-2410  bodoh@hpsmpo.lvld.hp.com

To reach us at home call in the evenings as late as 10:30pm Moutain time.


"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss"

Sue Bodoh                            T-Saratoga    8282K "Sara"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Brown Field IAP Note Question
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:16:04 GMT

On the approach plate for the Brown Field, San Diego, CA VOR-A
approach, there is a small note: Airport Must Be In Sight From MAP.

Uh, OK, but what am I missing here?  Doesn't the airport ALWAYS have to
be in site from the MAP, or do they mean "the entire airport," as
opposed to the "runway environment"?

I can understand a reason for concern, since it is a circling approach
to an airport very close to the US-Mexican border, with another airport
just on the other side of the border, with a runway aligned roughly the
same direction ...
--
-- Christophe

"Be calm.  Look cute."
From: schneide@scubed.com (Steve Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Dogs in Planes
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:11:23 GMT
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA


I`ve been in and out of the office a bit lately, so I haven't followed this
discussion very closely.  I don't know if anyone else mentioned it,  but
the late great stunt pilot Art Scholl used to fly at airshows with his
dog named Aileron.  It was a small black dog, although I don't recall the
exact type.  I have a picture from around 1981 or so of Art taxiing
by at a Livermore, CA, airshow waving to the crowd with Aileron sitting calmly 
on the wing of the plane.   A few years later I saw a TV segment about Art 
in which they mounted a camera in the cockpit while he was doing stunts with 
the dog onboard.  The dog seemed quite happy during this flight.


Steve

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
Stephen Schneider                    S-CUBED                3398 Carmel Mtn Rd.
schneide@scubed.com              (619) 587-7295             San Diego, CA 92121
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: HUH!
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 06:10:30 GMT

OK..this is my best one yet..

IT was so slow tonight at John Wayne Airport..they only had
one controller for both runways and ground. I know this becuase
they told me to switch to 19L on final..and I said "Should I 
switch frequencies?" and he said, "NO...I'm the only on in the tower
tonite..."

OK FINE

So I land..and get off the runway...I hear him say to the plane that just
landing in front of me..."65K, Taxi back to parking with me" [on
the tower freq.]....then as I get off the runway..he says "72P..switch
to ground freq...120.8"......and I figure "OK..so there are two guys there not
one" <i thought this to myself>...so I switch frequencies and it is the same
guy! hahahahhahahahah...I asked him.."Why did we switch frequencies? You're
the same guy"..then he comes back in a thick accent and says "what??"

hahahahahhah
--
==============================  *  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
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, ingham@lacerta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham) writes:

>			Carlsbad Caverns Fly In (CACAFI*)
>
>* Yes, I know that caca is not a nice word for those who speak
>Spanish.  However, that is what the national park service calls the
>park...

You sure about that?  Sounds like a former Lisp programmer's idea of an
acronym -- you know: car, cdr, cadr, cddr, cadddr . . . . nevermind.

:-)

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: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Subject: Re: Stupid Pilot Trick Awards
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:17:17 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack) writes:
> Anyone else have any nominations? [for the "Stupid Pilot Trick of
> the Month Award.]

Well, there was this C-182 a month ago. Net's been so busy, I didn't bother
posting. He's flown a short pattern and he's quite high on short final. He
also is landing downwind with a quartering 10-15k tailwind. He's slipping
like crazy, but out of the wind instead of into it. He does his first smart
thing and goes around.

Second time around he corrects ONE of his problems - he flies a longer
final leg. But is still high and fast and downwind and slipping the wrong
way. Our hearts return to beating when he goes around again. We're standing
around Cynthia's Luscombe, so I borrow her radio and recommend the
into-the-wind runway.

He replies, "Well, the problem is I just don't have enough rudder, so I
don't think that will make any difference, but I'll try it."

Seems that landing into the wind, the rudder and everything else was working
for him and he made an uneventful landing. I thought the Civil Air Patrol
was more careful about their pilots? Maybe there was a very patient
instructor with him?

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation