HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: crossing a runway, and instructor relations
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:01:42 GMT
Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com
Distribution: rec
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <CSTACY.92Aug26144058@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> cstacy@ai.mit.edu (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>The FAA says that an ATC instruction to "taxi to" a runway is a
>clearance to cross any inactive runways between here and there.  
>
> when I read back a taxi clearance, I insert the crossing
>instruction even if it was only implied.
>
>  TWR: "Cherokee 123, taxi to runway 5 via Juliet Golf and Hotel"
>  123: "taxi via Juliet and Golf cross 29 Hotel, Cherokee 123"
>
>I said OK, and did that, and we went across.  But I explained that
>we had been cleared to taxi to the runway, and I thought that instruction
>implied we could cross the inactive runway.  He made like he didn't
>particularly believe this, and said, "When you're in this airplane, you
>will *always* stop and ask for permission to cross a runway!"
>
>, but I've never had anyone tell me something like this was just
>flat-out wrong.  So, I am left slightly wondering about this situation.
>He is a CFII, and I am just barely a pilot.  I am not sure what to
>believe now: him or my interpretation of the AIM?
>
>I wonder if I should raise the issue with him again.
>Who is correct?  What should I do?

Hate to say it, but your instructor is wrong, and you are following a 
correct and safe procedure.

Taxiing across a runway is a mundane maneuver to be always taken seriously.
No craft is more helpless than a large accelerating aircraft that has not
yet lifted off. Can't turn, can't fly, can't stop, can't submerge.
But ATC people are made of the same stuff as pilots, and they also make
mistakes. I have seen two airplanes taking off on intersecting runways, each
with a clearance. 

Your procedure of including the crossing in your readback and looking 
both ways has *two* people actively participating in safety determination
and backs up the controller that just might be having a bad day. On the
other hand, asking duplicate and redundant (is .that. redundant?) permissions
congests communications and does nothing to increase safety. If the 
controller has made a mistake, you are basically inviting the same person 
to make the same mistake again. 
After the wreckage is cleared, the tapes will show you were not at fault.

Also, I personally feel that this kind of dogma ("When you are in *this*
airplane, you *will* do *this*...") is unprofessional and has no place 
in instruction. I have had some students, particularly women, that were
excellent at doing what they were told, and following definite procedures.
But I have never felt the instruction was completed until the person
showed he understood the reasons for an action and could apply the lesson
to non-standard situations.

You might consider initiating an on-the-ground discussion with your 
instructor over an AIM and Pt. 91. But it sounds as though he may take
the unfortunate attitude that it is a closed subject, and that instructors
don't make mistakes.
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:25:45 GMT
Organization: National Library of Medicine

In article <58TPBS5B@cc.swarthmore.edu> jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jeremy Brest) writes:
>
>Don't you have an ADF?

On a quiet Sunday morning VFR westbound over western Pennsylvania and
Eastern Ohio, I was able to use "channel-hopping" on the ADF to 
systematically determine that in that part of the country on Sunday
mornings there are only two classes of broadcast offerings: sermons
more notable for volume than clarity, and polka dancing replete with
multiple accordians (perhaps left over from Saturday night) :-).

And a one, and a two...

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: noordewi@binnacle.rutgers.edu (Michiel)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Regional differences in IFR route assignment (was: I give up...)
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:37:30 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

awtron@vanilla.princeton.edu (Andrew Tron @ Princeton University) writes:

>> I was talking to a flight service specialist about a month ago on this
>> topic.  His suggestion for the cases when the airport to which you
>> want to fly is not listed in the "Preferred Routes" is to call the
>> approach control center late at night and ask for "Operations".  They
>> may be able to give you an idea of what your routing might be.  (I
>> haven't actually done this yet, however, so I don't know how good this
>> piece of advice is).

I would strongly endorse this suggestion.  After moving to the NYC
area from the midwest, I found myself playing the usual game of
desperately trying the find the clearance routing on my charts before
my void time was up.

Just call flight service and ask for the telephone number of approach
control for your departure airport.  Tell them the departure and
destination airports, time of departure, speed and altitude that you
want, and they will usually be more than happy to give you the
expected routing, which is pre-compiled.  

I do this on a regular basis with both McGuire (NJ) and NY approach.
It makes my flight planning much more complete, since I prepare
everything at my leisure a day or so beforehand, instead of hurriedly
calculating fuel burns, etc. in flight.  I try to avoid calling them
at peak hours, but it is not necessary to call them in the wee hours
of the morning.

This procedure has done more to make my ifr flights more relaxed and
civilized than any other single operational procedure I have learned
since getting my ticket.


            Mick Noordewier
            noordewi@cs.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Subject: Re: Carrier version of the F-86F Sabre
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.164512.12801@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
>Steinar Bang writes
>> Watching a British documentary series ("The Nuclear Age")
>> on the telly yesterday, I saw what looked like a carrier version of
>> the F-86F (ie. a version without the nose radome of the later
>> versions) Sabre.
>> 
>> It had a long nose undercarriage like the carrier Phantoms and
>> foldable wings.
>> 
>> heard about such a version, so... can anybody confirm/deny?
>
>Confirmed.  I believe it was called the FJ Fury, but I'm sure some  
>ex-Navy guy will jump all over me if i'm wrong on the exact name.
>
Second that. -- Fury.

Keith
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flying saves money (sic)
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:58:51 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I don't think anyone will argue that aviation is subsidized by the
goverment, the assertion we were trying to refute was that the
aviation ticket tax was a subsidy to general aviation.

-Ron
From: rl@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert Langridge)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:42:33 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

I'm surprised no glider guider has responded to this thread - there ARE no 
long and boring cross country sailplane flights.  As one leading competitive 
pilot (I believe it was AJ Smith, but may have been George Moffat) once 
remarked some years ago, if you aren't thinking all the time, and making 
serious decisions at least once a minute, you probably aren't going very far.  
So the solution to boredom on long cross country flights in a noisy gas 
guzzler is obvious: turn off the engine :-)

Bob Langridge				Phone: +1 415 476-2630, -1540, -5128
Computer Graphics Laboratory		               FAX: +1 415 476-0688 
926 Medical Sciences
University of California	                    E-Mail: rl@cgl.ucsf.edu
San Francisco  CA  94143-0446
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: Be nice to your engine
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:29:33 GMT

In <1992Aug31.174712.9561@a.cs.okstate.edu> chris@a.cs.okstate.edu (Chris Schuermann) writes:

>> "Son", he said, "don't baby it.  Just run it hard and often."
>> Dan Masys
>> masys@nlm.nih.gov

>Mr Carter is correct...to a point...
>During breakin of a new engine, it is advised to run the engine at higher
>power settings and not 'baby' it.  This assures proper seating of the rings
>to the cylinders.  The flip side is: engines wear.  The more times the piston
>goes up and down, the more wear is induced.

Chris is right...to a point...

However, even at high power settings, the vast majority of the engine,
including the pistons, is operating under full-film lubrication.  It's
an oft-repeated MYTH that more RPM=more wear.  As long as the film remains
unbroken, and it will unless you have very bad oil or you're operating
past redline, wear will be uniform throughout the "normal" power band.

The only thing you're sacrificing at high power is fuel burn and even that
is likely to be offset by the increase in TBO and decrease in overall
maintenance that are the rewards of running an engine hard.

The latest Aviation Consumer, which I got yesterday, has a quote from Larry
Conway to this effect and several Lycoming publications also recommend
running your engine hard to ensure making it to TBO.

Now, Chris has a valid point regarding HIS engines.  The geared engines,
by and large, all have a terrible reputation for reliability.  And, indeed,
the geared O-300 in the C-175 suffered from inadequate lubrication at
the high RPMs it saw.  However, this was a design defect in the engine,
not a blanket condemnation of high power.

The recommendation for slow throttle movement on geared engines has more
to do with gearbox torque considerations than anything else.

Run them hard.  Run them often.  Maintain thy temperatures.

greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: dls@genrad.com (Diana L. Syriac)
Subject: Re: Logging time for the Inst
Organization: GenRad, Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:39:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.203058.15913@eco.twg.com> reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack) writes:
>
>I've now accumulated 25 hours of instrument time towards my -IA rating, with
>more than 6 of those being in actual IMC. I still hope for CAVU weather when
>going on a pleasure jaunt, but eagerly search the sky for the dreary grey
>stuff when a lesson approaches. I can't imagine feeling comfortable filing
>IFR with only an hour or two of actual, regardless of how many hours of
>simulated time I'd accumulated.

Actual IFR is HARD WORK, even if you think you're proficient with simulated
time.  There are so many "clues" in simulated IFR as to which way is down.
You don't have that in actual IFR.  You don't have to worry about the pitot
tube icing over; you don't have to worry about ice on the wings or props;
you don't have to worry about how high that mountain or tower is that's
shown on your charts or sectionals; you've got a safety pilot to save you if
something SERIOUS goes wrong.

When I got my instrument ticket 2 years ago, I had 2.5 hours actual and about
40 hours simulated (1.9 hours of actual were DURING the checkride!).  I was
NOT comfortable flying IFR alone.  Since then, I've flown IFR once by myself,
and many times with the other pilot sleeping.  I have about 80 hours actual
and around 60 hours simulated.  I don't like single pilot IFR, but I know I
could do it now, if I have to.  I definitely could NOT have said that right
after getting my IFR ticket.

Diana

->Diana L. Syriac (Carlson) dls@genrad.com	Ham: KC1SP (Sweet Pea)      <-
->I'D RATHER BE FLYING!	P-ASEL, INST		CAP: 1LT, Freedom 690 Mobile<-
->AD ASTRA, PER ASPERA				Airplane: C-172 N6513E	    <-
->GenRad, MS/6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742  (508)369-4400 x2459   <-
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Oops, the throttle came off!
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:10:28 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <1992Aug26.043045.12406@walter.bellcore.com> venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
>Would anyone else in this position have chosen to turn the ignition off
>once the field was made and made a dead-stick landing? I can't decide
>whether one is necessarily better than the other. There are trade-offs 
>involved in either choice. Any comments?

Turning the ingintion off compared to what?  Keeping full power or pulling
the mixture?

Keeping full power cannot be a valid option as you need to kill your airspeed once 
you touch down.  You will probably not get stopped (upright, on the runway, that is).

I believe I would pull the mixture instead of shut the ignition, but one thing's
for sure - I'm gonna stop that engine as soon as the field is made.

-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Two planes collide over Santa Paula Airport
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:16:34 GMT

 Several days ago I read that two small planes collided (at about 1000'
elevation) over Santa Paula airport (65 miles north of LA). The airport is
reported to be privately owned and without a tower. One of the planes (Cessna
182 piloted by William Lewis Clark) crashed into two house (which burned).
The pilot of that plane survived the crash but failed to get out of the 
plane before it was engulfed in flames (according to a witness on the
scene). The other plane (Cessna 152) was landed safely although it reportedly 
had sustained alot of damage. The pilot was not identified in the news
report. No one in the houses were injured although the entire neighborhood
was evacuated due to fear of damage to natural gas lines. According to FAA
and NTSB investigators both planes were making a westerly approach to land
at the time of the collision.

Anyone else heard anymore about this? The news report stressed that the
problem was the uncoordinated airport in a residential neighborhood.
From: egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf)
Subject: Principle of ILS/LOC (was Re: Principle of VOR)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:56:30 GMT

[Excellent description of VOR principles excised...]

An instructor stated in a conversation last night "ILS channels
are always on odd tenths (108.1, 108.3, ...) while VORs are on
even (108.2, 108.4) so that the unit can channel a different receiver
for the ILS and the VOR."  The question was then raised "Does the
ILS/LOC use the same modulation/encoding as a VOR?"

I couldn't answer. No body in the room could answer. I'll bet someone
on the net knows...

1. Is the Localizer receiver different than the VOR receiver as
   stated?

2. What modulation and encoding is used for the ILS/LOC ?

					Skip Egdorf
					hwe@lanl.gov
					N8849W
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Dear Abby (Re: Scary Stories...)
Keywords: Never again, confessions
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:52:29 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <1992Aug24.163653.309@eco.twg.com> reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack) writes:
>There is a software package that I know of which does anonymous email-
>to-news posting. It strips off the email header ...
>I don't have the facilities to host such a creature, but if someone else
>wishes to put it up, I know where to get it.

No, no, no.  This is the sort of stuff that leads to network abuse and misuse.

-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller)
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:44:44 GMT

In article <rl.715520553@cgl.ucsf.edu> rl@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert Langridge) writes:
..
>As one leading competitive 
>pilot (I believe it was AJ Smith, but may have been George Moffat) once 
>remarked some years ago, if you aren't thinking all the time, and making 
>serious decisions at least once a minute, you probably aren't going very far.  
...

probably Moffat, circa 1973-5 when he was developing his theory of points
per minute (and winning just about everything in sight ...)

AJ is best known for that immortal answer to the question of what
happens when you can't find a thermal anywhere:

"Fly straight and climb"

Rich Miller
ex-Schempp-Hirth Discus JBX and
ex-Rolladen-Schneider LS-4 TQ
rmiller@i88.isc.com
{sun, amdahl, att (maybe)}!laidbak!rmiller
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 31 Aug 1992 17:38:52 EDT
From: robert eric beckwith <IO20081@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Sea Hawker/Osprey (was Re: Glass Goose)
 <5523@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.boeing.com>

The Lake has a constant speed pusher prop, there should not be any
problems finding a pusher constant speed prop. (180, 200, 250, 270, 300 hp)
The Teal (an early lake) had a 160 hp puller setup.......
I thought about the seawind, but that engine out there on that pod on the
tail it would have a great lever arm, and in rough water..yikes!!!!

     IO20081@MAINE.MAINE.EDU            __|__
           P.O. BOX 71                   -O-
     W.BOOTHBAY HBR, ME 04575   --O-----((0))-----O--
                                     LAKE DRIVER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - / \ / / \ / \ / / \ / / \ / /
From: lee@bluefuzz.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:18:05 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Sep02.053337.5074@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
writes:
>There is almost always something piloting-related you can be doing - watching
>for traffic, checking your navigation, scanning engine instruments, keeping
>the altitude nailed, file a PIREP, etc.  I find that between operating the
>airplane and dealing with ATC, I'm rarely bored.

Well, flying around the northeast on weekends, I find the same thing.
However, on a trip to Iowa, mid-morning, severe clear at 12.5 thou, I found
that ATC talked to me about once every half hour from Pittsburgh to Des
Moines.  I didn't see a plane until I landed.  The plane stayed put, the road
I was following stretched to the horizon, there was nothing to report, and
checking instruments and traffic took a small part of my attention.  I enjoyed
the trip, but would have liked a little music...

Different flights are different.

-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rlarsen@bnr.ca (Richard Larsen P220)
Subject: hang glider variometers?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:35:41 GMT

Does anyone know about wrist worn audio variometers used by hang glider pilots. I saw a sailplane pilot wearing one. He said it cost about $250. 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: osh@cray.com (O'Shaughnessy John)
Subject: Re: umwaufi report
Organization: Cray Research, Inc, Mendota Heights, MN
Date: 2 Sep 92 10:11:06 CDT

  I've flown from Flying Cloud to MSP during both quiet and busy times.

  First time, I received clearance from ground control at FCM to fly to MSP.

  I had a direct flight, with a very short base leg.  It's cool to land the 
  Cessna 172 while the DC-9's are waiting to depart.  The landing fee is a
  reasonable $5.00.

  The other was a touch and go from an ILS 29R approach.  I had a DC-9 on 
  the Parallel, and a 727 3 miles behind me.  Needless to say, I kept my
  speed up!

  If you don't arrive at rush hour, getting into MSP isn't a big deal if 
  you're comfortable on the radios.


  John

-- 
-----
John M. O'Shaughnessy					osh@a00308.cray.com
Cray Research, Inc.	Voice: 612.683.7322		Fax: 612.683.7509
From: htcric01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Recent Aerobatic Crashes In South Africa
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:31:33 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

Recent areobatic related crashes in South Africa.

Over the past month there have been two areobatic related crashes in this
country and, when considering that the total number of aerobatic pilots in this
country is under 100, this is a lot.

The first was during areobatic training, in a Pitts S2A. The pilot was
practicing stall turns and in constant radio contact with the ground. He had
just completed a manoveure and was climbing for height. He was next seen in a
spin (exact cause is unknown as no one was watching at the time, having turned
away when he commenced climbing) It is assumed that he fell out of a stall
turn. He kept the throttle open which further intrenched the spin, ignoring or
not hearing the constant intructions given over the radio to close the
throttle. After approximately 8 turns of spin he started to recover but was too
low and hit the ground at an angle of aprroximately 60 degrees. The pilot was
killed on impact and the plane was burnt out before we even got to it. The
throttle was found closed on impact.
The worst thing is the pure futility of the matter. If he had simply closed the
throttle and released the controls, the aircraft would have recovered itself.
He had lots of height but it is thought that he must have frozen.

The second crash was at a military airshow in Pretoria. An Extra 300 was the
plane where an unlimited class pilot was doing an airshow sequence in very
gusty and unpredictable conditions. The pilot pulled out of a manoveure too
low, and the plane bounced and exploded into a ball of flame. The pilot was
pulled out by the military emergancy crew but died in hospital from the fumes
that were inhaled. 

The really tragic thing is that both these crashes were as a result of pilot
error, one being a low hours pilot freezing, the other being a misjudgment by a
very experienced pilot.

This post is in memory of the two pilots, Colin Brophy and Nick Munnikhuis.

Mike 

P and J Airforce
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,eunet.aviation
From: edwin@cs.ruu.nl (Edwin Kremer)
Subject: Re: portable scanners
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:35:56 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <1992Aug25.123919.24772@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> sloubtin@dsg.cs.tcd.ie
(Sylvain Louboutin) writes:

   | [...discussion about portable (Yupiteru VT-225) scanner...]
   | 
   | I was considering buying one of these toys when I heard on radio that
   | someone get arrested up North (I think under the Prevention of
   | Terrorism Act) because he owned one of these scanners.
Hmm, strange... There was a review of the Yupiteru VT-225 in the April '92
issue of `Short Wave Magazine'. There was absolutely no mention of it. It's
also being sold al over the UK (Nevada to mention one).

The VT225 even seems to be slightly modified for the European market: the
Japanese version won't let you select FM mode around the 160.000 MHz
frequency range.

   | By the way,  I'd love to have more details about this incident [...]
I'm curious too...


						--[ Edwin ]--
-- 
Edwin Kremer, systems and network administrator.  [NIC-Whois handle: EHK3]
     Department of Computer Science,  Utrecht University,  The Netherlands
     Email: edwin@cs.ruu.nl                NeXT-mail: edwin@edge.cs.ruu.nl
Newsgroups: rec.aviation