HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewv@craycos.com (Eric Varsanyi)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Contel(GTE FSD) DUAT Unreachable from the Internet?
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:36:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1993Jan9.025746.9642@tandem.com> len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler) writes:
>Can anyone explain what's been going on lately with DUAT access from the
>Internet?  More often than not, I get timeouts when I try to telnet to 
>duat.gtefsd.com.  For the last two days, I haven't been successful at

I'll second this, I've only been able to connect about one in 5 times. Its
a bummer to have to dial in, but at least they have an 800 number.

-Eric
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jpp@StarConn.com (John Pettitt)
Subject: Re: Conversion of Ratings
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:06:27 GMT

ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:

[ about UK to US licences ]
>In general, you *do* have problems.  Your American license will only
>be valid if you have a current *British* medical, and if you have the
>stamp you need in your logbook every 13 months saying you're still OK.
>An American medical or BFR is absolutely irrelevant.

Not true, at least according to San Jose FSDO and the CAA.  You do
indeed need a US BFR to use your US licence even if it is issued in the
strength of a current UK one.   You also need a UK certificate of
experience to kep your UK licence valid (not a problem for short term
visitors).  On the medical front any medical that is valid for the UK
licence is valid.  That includes UK all EC, Canada and USA plus a bunch
of others that I don't remember (ICAO countries ?).  

>The bottom line is that this deal is generally good for continuing your
>private privileges for about a year -- while you get an American ticket.
>Believe me, I know.  I went through the process checking every which way
>from Sunday but had to get an American license ...

Probably so in the long run if you can't get back to get a C of E every
13 months.  In addition you can't add an night rating to a UK licence
without a CAA intructor - hard to come buy in the US.
-- 
John Pettitt, CEO, Dolmus Inc.			jpp@starconn.com
Archer N81034					apple!starnet!jpp
Me, say that, never: It's a forged posting!	Fax:   +1 415 390 0581
						Voice: +1 415 390 0693
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: ASRS CALLBACK # 163 (December, 1992)
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 22:32:26 GMT

davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen) writes:
>This pilot was already in trouble with ice. Did he declare an emergency? Had
>he done that, I'm sure ATC would have broken whatever rules to get him on the
>ground. When you're in over your head and you say so, ATC becomes VERY
>personal and helpful. Otherwise, they must assume that you have things under
>control and know what you are doing.

Based on Bret's experience (an O2 emergency), ATC can be helpful when you
declare an emergency, but they do NOT have the authority to tell you (or
even authorize you) to violate the regulations.  If you need or want to
violate them (to descend without a clearance, for instance), YOU must tell
THEM what you are going to do.  Not "ask", "tell".  If you say "I want to
descend" they have to say "there is conflicting traffic, expect descent in
10 miles".  You then say "Too bad, get him out of the way, I'm descending."
"Roger."  The implication is that there's no 91.3 equivalent for ATC.
(Which makes at least some sense; after all there can't be two entities
with "ultimate authority".)

Or at least that's my understanding of the procedure.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: mtanner@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Michael C. Tanner)
Subject: Re: ASRS CALLBACK # 163 (December, 1992)
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Date: 4 Jan 93 13:12:47

In article <jcmorris.725744089@mwunix> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
writes:

[thanks for posting these]

        ...

   The pilot who, with 1 mile visibility, requested a *visual* approach as
   the ice built up on the airfoils, missed some important distinctions in
   ground school.  The pilot request should have been for a *contact*
   approach, which ATC might have approved.  The request for a visual
   approach was denied.

This is galling.  A pilot dealing with a difficult situation who would like to
be relieved of a lot of procedural BS forgets a distinction with little
practical difference, receives no help from ATC, and then gets blamed for the
problem.  How hard would it have been for the controller to mention contact
approaches?  The FAA creates a regulatory environment so complex that the
average pilot cannot realistically understand all of it, and an enforcement
environment so vindictive that people would rather cover their asses than act
to reduce dangerous situations.  Then NASA (and NTSB, too) proclaims the fault
to be the pilot's, who should have known better.  Why can't they look at the
real problems? (rhetorical question)

   Sifting through these complaints, we discovered that many of these pilots
   apparently had been content at briefing time to be *inert recipients of
   whatever the system delivered*, rather than becoming active participants
   in the weather briefing process -- questioning, comparing, analyzing.
   Not one reporter indicated that he or she had obtained temperature-dewpoint
   data, an important indicator of the condition of the atmosphere.

Why don't briefers provide the information pilots need?  Temp/dewpoint is
pretty basic.  Most pilots have more interest in weather than the average
person, but we should not have to be experts, that's what the briefers are
for.  I agree that pilots should be active information seekers during weather
briefings, but we should be able to have confidence that we'll get the
obviously relevant information without having to pull teeth for it.  Again,
there are problems here that it is unreasonable to blame completely on pilots,
but they are being overlooked.

-- mike
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: psv2b@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Peter S. Vines)
Subject: Cessna 150 Forsale
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:48:52 GMT

                        1972 CESSNA 150L
                             N1685Q


4100 TT
400 SMOH

Imron paint - June 90
Annual - February 92
Pitot/static certified - February 92
Seats - June 92
DG - February 92
Attitude Ind. - October 92
Drooped Wing Tips 
IFR Certified
Narco MK 12D TSO w/ glideslope
  (digital flip flop)
TKM MX 300 (digital flip flop)
Bendix T-12C ADF
Narco AT150 TSO transponder, mode C
Marker beacons
Intercom with 2 PTT

Charlottesville, Virginia (CHO)
A/C Flying Club, Inc.

     $22,900        (804) 296-3398 Charlie
or reply e-mail.
--
- Peter Vines : vines@virginia.edu : (804) 924-4644 : University of Virginia
From: jscherer@db (John Scherer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Good A&P Schools in CA..?
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:06:03 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


 am looking for a good A&P school in CA..

 Thanks,

 John Scherer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich)
Subject: Re: Aviation Weather (Was Re: ASRS CALLBACK # 163 (December, 1992))
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:59:08 GMT

> That's getting pretty bold on the controller's part, if you ask me.  The
> strongest "prod" I've heard is "the field is below Basic VFR minimums, say
> intentions."

This is Nth-hand, of course, but very clever if true.  I seem to
remember hearing about a controller who asked, after trying basically
your "prod" a couple of times and getting no understanding from the
pilot, "Is there anything special I can do for you?"  Supposedly the
pilot woke up at that point and requested a Special VFR.
	-Steve
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: "Jumpy" Static System
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:04:14 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <1993Jan7.054434.26559@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman) writes:
> In article <1993Jan6.202305.5169@macc.wisc.edu> campbell@vms.macc.wisc.edu writes:
> >
> >Now, I'm no idiot - IMHO :-).  It's clear that I had some kind of 
> >blockage in my static system.  However, if there was some constriction 
> >in flow to the static system, why didn't the indications just "lag" 
> >instead of jump?  Further, why might I have seen nice smooth behavior 
> >on descent instead of the behavior observed on climbout?
> 
> You probably had (or may still have) a bit of water trapped in a low
> point in the static lines.  When the pressure needs to move air through
> that line, it "bubbles" and moves in discrete jumps which are caused
> by this fluid blockage.

	This sounds like a reasonable explanation.  Another possible clue...
 
> Now why this would be just on ascent, and not on descent..I'm
> guessing that the line with the water in it has a bend that is
> not symetrical in the vertical  axis..and it passes aire easier
> when the flow in inbound to the system, and bubbles when outbound to
> the atmosphere.

	My guess is that most of the moisture is in something that
	acts as a reservoir.  It might not be a true reservoir --
	as I recall the Cessna's external static port, like most others,
	looks a heck of a lot more like a pinhole than the plumbing behind it.

	It's possible that even spaghetti tubing could act like a reservoir.
	While climbing, the outflow of air might produce a bubble with
	enough surface tension to block the pinhole until the inside/outside
	pressure differential got too large.  While descending, the inflow
	would tend to keep the pinhole open.

	If that's what's happening I'd think blowing out the static lines
	with (dry) compressed air would show an immediate improvement.

> Another possibility is some stickiness in the instruments, but since you
> are seeing this simultaneously in multiple instruments, I'd rule this
> out.  That is fortunate since you don't want to see instrument overhaul
> bills..

	Power planes may have sticky instruments that aren't obvious...
	vibration from the engine tends to keep them freed up.  Gliders,
	especially some of the oldies, sometimes benefit if the
	pilot to taps the panel next to the instrument.  I've seen
	a few cases of altimeters that would jump 100 to 200 feet when
	tapped.  However, even in a glider it's unlikely that all 3
	instruments that share static pressure would would act sticky
	simultaneously.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Computer failures in B767
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:04:13 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

The B767 aircraft suffers repeated failures of the computer that
controls the individual passenger lights, sound, etc.  Unlike earlier
aircraft, all the switches on the armrests, including the individual
light switches, sound channel and volume, and attendant call button, are
controlled by a computer.  On a recent flight that I was on, from Milan
to Washington, the computer wedged shortly into the flight.  Although
one attendant figured that the situation would have to wait until the
plane landed, another managed to reset the computer.  According to the
attendants, these computer problems happen all the time.

Now of course this is not a life-critical system, but it is certainly
ominous that such a simple task cannot be implemented correctly.  I'm
also curious about replacing 300 local light switches by a centralized
computer with 300 inputs and 300 outputs.  Ditto for the channel
controls.
-- 
---------------------
Wm. Randolph Franklin,  wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077;  Fax: -6261
ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA
From: bbui@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU (J S Bach)
Subject: flying with disabilities
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:24:28 GMT

Hi all, I've contacted the International Wheelchair Aviator and have
gotten a list of flying schools that have adaptive equipment.  It turned out
that they only have adaptive equipment for disabled people who don't have
the use of their legs.  In my case, my legs are just fine (I ski) I just
don't have the use of my right arm.  Consequently, I can't adjust the throttle
and control the yolk at the same time.  Does anyone know a flying school that
has arm-adaptive equipment?
Any info is greatly appreciated,
Bach
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: Computer failures in B767
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 00:15:42 GMT

>The idea is to use a multi-drop twisted-pair network to replace all
>the wiring from the switches to the lights, the volume control to
>the speaker, the call button to the chime, etc. They run just
>a couple of wires from all of the seats (in parallel) to the control 
>module, and a couple of wires back from the computer to individual 
>power controls for the lights. There is a common main power bus 

   But then there has to be a (uniquely coded) coding chip at _each_
seat, so the contral module will know which seat asked for lights on,
and a (uniquely coded) decoding chip at each light, so the correct
light will know that it's been asked to turn on...right?
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: Parts for BeechCraft
Keywords: Bonanza
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:43:04 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <C0KCF0.3qC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jtg0707@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jui Tien) writes:
!I like to solicit some experiences of acquiring parts for Beech Bonanza
!or any GA aircraft that any of you may own.
!	1. How much time/money do you usually spend hunting for replacements?

Almost none. Pick up the phone and call Beech or the local aviation supplier.
The aircraft is still in production.

!	2. Was parts availability a consideration when you purchased
!	   the aircraft?

No.

!	3. Where do you usually get your parts?

See above. Rebuilds for components can easily be found in TAP.

There are also various outfits that claim to supply Beech parts
at less than factory prices. Call the American Bonanza Society
in Wichata (sp it's late).

Dave Rogers

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: doug@alliant.com (Doug Bloomberg)
Subject: Re: Upgrading AA5A to 160 hp.
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:28:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.043759.6785@tigger.jvnc.net> mrl775@tigger.jvnc.net writes:
> I have a Grumman Cheetah with a 150 hp O-320 as well.  I have looked into the
>STC for the cheetah, and it basically involves new piston heads (equated to a
>top overhaul) and some little bit of work.  The stc for the cheetah is in the
>neighborhood of $500 for the paperwork (can't recall the exact amount).  If you
>are dealing with an aircraft that is certified for 160 Hp, you may not need an
>STC. 
>
>The additional 10 hp have been reported to increase the rate of climb from
>about 700 fpm to about 1200 fpm, and cruise from about 120 knots to about 130
>knots.  
>
	Putting a 160 hp engine in vs 150 hp the most significant gain would 
	be Rate of Climb, next would be top cruise speed, finally better
	fuel burn.

>One thing to consider, at least for me, is that the 150 hp O-320 is STCable for
>autogas, and burns 80 octane very nicely (much more nicely than 100 LL or auto
>if you ask me).  The 160 hp is limited to 100LL.  That may not be significant
>now, but come 1996, and there will be no leaded fuels.  It will be uneconomical
>for the refineries to make 100LL as the only leaded fuel (containment and
>disposal problems).  

	News to me, I hadread that there would still be 100LL due to the fact
	that the current engines couldn't run with out the lead needed for
	valve lubrication. I would like to read more on this.



	Friends who have overhauled their O-320 150hp and put in the High
	Compression pistons making the engine a 160 hp (the pistons are the
	only mod made other than the data plate) find that flying with
	buddies in like planes, with 150 hp engines in the friends plane.
	The 160 hp engine runs on about a gallon a hour less than the 150hp.
	The higher compression gives better engine efficiency. Now the planes
	I refer to are  Thorp T-18, RV-4, RV-6. I haven't experiance with
	Spam Cans in this area. The above owns found additional performance
	by a propchange also.

	Best luck, to go to 160 hp is a fairly cheap mod when rebuilding
	an engine. Now to go to a O-360 180hp is another story.

	Doug
From: nikke.gaby@compart.fi (Nikke Gaby) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: PILOTE TRAINING SCHOOL
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:16:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: ComPart BBS, Helsinki-Finland, +358 0 506 3329 (14 lines V.32bis)
Reply-To: nikke.gaby@compart.fi (Nikke Gaby) 

        Hi !

        I'd like to introduce myself : I'm a 25 years old student at the
        Helsinki University of Technology. (Finland)

        I got me Private Pilote Licence last summer in France where I
        was instructed on Robin DR-400, DR-300 and ATL by a former Navy
        Fouga-Magister instructor. Anyway, my interest on flying is
        growing everyday and I will graduate in the next future from the
        University.

        So, I'm looking for me and my brother Patrick a high caliber
        pilote training in a professional environment. We're searching
        full-time training and high quality education. We're certified
        physically fit and drug-free. We both have the Private Pilote
        Licence.

        What we want is that the institute, or academy is an FAA
        approved Part 141 Flight School and provides Certificates of
        Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (M-1 & I-20) Student Status or
        equivalent.

        If you know such a school that will provide us a Professional
        Multi-Engine Turbine Instrument Flight Degree, please live a
        message or send your proposition to the following address :

                                        Nicolas Gabriel-Robez
                                        Alalinnake 1 E 47
                                        02160 ESPOO
                                        Finland
                                        fax : (358-0) 425 940

        Thank you !
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
                                                                                                                             
----
+--------------------------------------------------+
| ComPart BBS    +358-0-506-3329 (ZyXEL V.32bis)   |
| Helsinki, Finland  -  Number 1 BBS in Finland    |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Leasebacks & tax considerations
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:49:15 GMT

I'm curious about what other leaseback owners do about the "passive activity"
provisions of the tax laws.  Do you consider the leaseback of an airplane
as a passive activity?  This would depend on whether you consider yourself
as leasing the airplane on a monthly basis to the FBO, or on an hourly
basis to the individual users of the airplane, with the FBO acting only
as your agent.  This area is unclear to me and I don't know if the IRS
has ever ruled on this.  Anyone know any more about it than I do?  I do
know that non-profit clubs make the claim that they pass the passive activity
tests and that for-profit FBOs don't.  But is this true? Thanks in advance.

-- 
***********************************************************************
 Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
 Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
 phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: 0-320 conversion experience?
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:18:52 GMT

With reference to the top speed claims for 180 hp conversions on a 172.

I think that there are 3 prop choices: climb, standard, or cruise. That
could account for some of the differences.

With respect to fuel flow, could anybody expect to go faster without
using more fuel?

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: bart@asiago.cs.wisc.edu (Bart Miller)
Subject: Cessna seatbelt saga
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:49:58 GMT


A couple of weeks ago, I posted a note about getting Cessna's new kits for
installed shoulder harnesses in the rear seats.  Cessna is making these kits
available for all of their piston engine planes.

When the kit arrived, the belt design was such that opening the lap belt still
left the shoulder harness fastened to the buckle across your body.  This is
a problem that they fixed in the early 70's, so I was surprised to see it
re-appear.

I spent a long time talking on the phone with the Tech Support folks at Cessna
in Witchita.  They guy that I talked with was rather surprised to hear about
my predicament.  Here are some high points from my various conversations with
him, and from discussions with the folks at Cessna Pilot's Associate (a good
organization):

1.  Not all models have this problem.  Right now, the T/R182 seems to be the
    only one that I know of for sure.  I've verified a few other models that
    have a CORRECT design.

2.  The Cessna factory uses a TR182 for experimenting and just traveling
    around.  A prototype for shoulder harness kit was installed in that
    aircraft.  Interestingly enough, that prototype had the CORRECT design.
    What happened between prototype time and manufacture is (so far) a
    mystery.

3.  All of the Cessna's Flying Club planes have had rear shoulder harnesses
    for years.

4.  Cessna is making an EO (Engineering Order) for my plane to get me a correct
    design rear belt and harness.  The EO is a one-of-a-kind, for my serial
    number aircraft only (this is the faster way to get it certified).  Once
    its installed, and presuming that it fits (they want me to evaluate that
    for different size people), I will make the details widely available.
    That should induce them to certify it for all T/R182's.

If you've installed one of the kits on your plane, please let me know the
year and model, and whether the shoulder harness design is correct.

						--bart miller
						  uw-madison cs dept
						  bart@cs.wisc.edu
						  N738CU  1979 TR182