HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Subject: Re: Another trivia question
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:39:30 GMT

mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas) writes:
>In Kansas, my brother goes flying with a friend in a Bucker Jungman
>(sp?).  In the flight, he does rolls, loops, inverted, spins, and
>other aerobatic maneuvers.  Neither pilot wears a parachute.  The
>airplane and the pilots are relatively young (no grandfathered rules).
>The flight is legal.  How?

Okay, the answer:

The airplane is registered in England (it has a 'G' number).  The
pilot also holds a current British license.  The airplane does not
have seats that allow parachutes (even the cushion type).  Under
British rules, you are not required to wear parachutes to do aerobatic
maneuvers.  This is according to the pilot and owner of the aircraft.

Now, the disclaimer:

Depending on just how hard you squint at the international regulations
and local interpretations, this flight may or may not have been legal.
Some say the more restrictive of the two countries rules are in effect
(what happens if the rules can't be compared?  Suppose country A's
rules say to fly upside down during cross countries, and country B's
rules say to fly right side up.  Which wins?).  Others believe you can
consistently use one set of rules or the other.  A third
interpretation is that you can only use the ICAO rules.

I am sure there will be further discussion on this topic...

Mike Ciholas
mikec@lcs.mit.edu
From: alans@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com (Alan Sanderson)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 01:32:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Balloon Encounter - how close is too close?
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

David Farmer asked how far the balloon was from the end of
the runway.  It was less than 500 feet.  The aircraft was
about 75ft AGL when it was abeam the balloon.  The turn was
done with a shallow bank appropriate to the altitude.  A 200 ft.
sidestep was about all that was achieved from the point of 
takeoff until he passed the balloon.

The balloon was on approach for a landing and was crossing
a field south of the runway.  Surface wind direction was
crosswind to the runway, less than 2 knots.  After the airplane
went past, we landed and walked the balloon to the fence and
laid it down outside airport property.  We make every effort to
avoid inconveniencing any other aircraft, and had as much right
to the airspace as any other aircraft.  If we had been able to
cross the airport above pattern altitude, we certainly would have
done so.  Unfortunately, that was not where the winds were.

I discussed this situation with a person who is a balloon pilot,
retired ATP, and currently an ASRS employee.  His suggestion was
to try to contact the pilot and discuss what he was thinking,
and try to educate him as to improved behavior.  He thought that
education was a better option than starting an enforcement
action.

Some of the responses to the posting indicate that we may have
a lot more reason to be scared of some of the other aircraft
sharing the airspace.  It should not take a lot of effort to
see and avoid a brightly colored slow moving object 85 feet
tall.  If this is difficult, maybe such an individual should
not be in control of an aircraft.

At least some of the responses provided a review of the right
of way rules in the FARs.

Most of the responses recognized common courtesy and elements
of self-preservation.  I hope these are representative of most
of the net pilots.
 *******************************************************************
 Alan Sanderson      Hewlett-Packard  ISD       alans@hpams0h.HP.COM
 US Snail:           1266 Kifer Rd. MS101S      MaBell: 408-746-5714
                     Sunnyvale, CA 94086        FAX:    408-746-5890
 Disclaimer:  <Standard Disclaimer Applies> 
 ********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: amy@lloyd.Camex.COM (Amy Lindsay)
Subject: Every silver lining has a cloud...
Organization: Camex Inc., Boston MA
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 16:53:58 EDT

I has a fair amount of people asking about my checkride the last
time I posted.  Well, the results are in...

..I passed.

"I would like to thank all the 'little people'..."

Actually, I think I would like to thank the people I have met through
the net no matter how briefly.  It's hard to believe that three years
ago I had never been in a small plane and I didn't know anyone who flew.

And, if anyone out there has decided they can't fly because they'll never
be able to afford it on their salary, or they don't think they're smart
enough, it's only because you're talking to to wrong people.  Just go
talk to someone else.  It was the best advice I was ever given.

					--amy
					  AGL, LTP

 A.G.Lindsay     *     Cloud Rental: Reasonable Rates     *     amy@camex.com 
Typography & Design Department ~ Camex, Inc. ~ Boston, MA (617-426-7550 x575)
Student pilot about posting on rec.aviation: "Kinda like we're penguins on the
   ice shelf, wondering if there're killer whales below." (Eric Thiele)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Flaps on canard+pusher prop planes?
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 21:10:50 GMT

In article <Buxwvo.53@waterloo.hp.com> enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns) writes:
>
>>I am not an aeronautical engineer but I would like to bring up the possibility
>>of introducing flaps on canard planes with a pusher prop arrangement (EZ-like).
>>Is it possible at all and if so is it too complicated?
>>
>incorporating flaps on the canard wing aircraft.  I think Burt
>Rutan had a unique flap setup on the Catbird (the most ugly
>aircraft of all time??).  The canard already has flaps, used as

Ugly? Perhaps.  But a marvelous performer at the CAFE 400.
I happen to believe that the Grizzly is among the ugly elite.  It may be
said that Rutan's willingness to design on the basis of functionality
rather than looks is to his credit.

>elevators.  On landing the canard is at a high angle of attack,
>approaching the stall region.  I think if flaps were installed on
>the main wing, a dangerous situation of having both wing and
>canard stalling at the same time could occur?  On some Dragonflys
>and Q-2s people have installed aileron reflexors.  This allow the
>ailerons to be adjusted up and down together.  Some people use
>this as a trim method, others for getting the tail down quicker
>after touchdown.  This effectively gives them flap-type devices
>on the main wing, although the travel is generally quite limited,
>and is usually set above trail.  I believe that in order to keep
>the aircraft balances, if you add lift to the wing (via flaps),
>you have got to add lift to the canard.  If the canard is already
>nearing stall, there is no more lift available.

A main wing stall prior to a canard stall on the Long EZ has been
blamed for at least one fatality, your point is valid.

>I hear that the Beech Starship uses a canard which can be swept
>back in flight, and then adjusted to zero sweep for landings.
>I believe this gives them the extra lift on the canard at low
>airspeeds.

This concept might allow the Long to acheive higher speeds too.
However, it wasn't designed to go much faster than it's going
already.  I've met some builders who have had to rebuild their
ailerons specially to avoid flutter because they are going so
fast (for a Long).

Mike Best
From: cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Small plane crash near East Chattam, CT (?)
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:29:47 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Computer Systems

In article <1992Sep24.114711.19886@genrad.com>, dls@genrad.com (Diana L. Syriac) writes:
> The second accident was yesterday at Hanscom.  I had just taxied my plane
> over to the hangar for work, and had noticed rather GUSTY "crosswinds"
> (luckily I was flying directly away from the wind, no cross wind).  As I
> was getting ready to leave, the PA starts blaring from the Fire Station
> (right next to the Aeroclub, which was where I was).  Seems a plane had
> just landed on runway 05.....and promptly flipped over.  It was a low wing
> aircraft, and the pilot was injured when the canopy was crushed.  He was
> airlifted out.  I have no more information on this crash either.
> 
> The fire chief (who I was standing next to, about 3 minutes after the
> crash), was cursing, saying "Don't pilots know enough not to fly in this
> kind of weather?"  I had to agree, unfortunately.  The winds were
> 010@20G40.... forty degrees at 40 knots is more than my plane can
> handle....

This was an acquaintance (buddy? fellow airport bum?) of mine. A fixed
wing CFII. I haven't talked to him yet, but talked to a friend who did
talk to him. Apologies for any inaccuracies due to third hand info.

My understanding is that the owner of the maintenance shop needed to
be ferried over to BED to pick up a Bonanza. Eric flew him over, the
Bonanza took off, and then Eric tried to take off (in the Grumman AA1
they had flown over in). Apparently, one wing dropped, then the other
wing dropped, and the aircraft rolled inverted. Eric said he thought
he had a control problem with the rudder. Given the winds, an obvious
suspicion is that the gust factor just overwhelmed the airplane. I'll
wait a bit before I make up my mind.

In any case, he's okay with around 100 stiches to the face, but otherwise
all right, which surprised the doctors. I think he's very lucky to be
alive.

He's a very capable pilot and instructor. I don't know how much time he
has in AA1's, although I do know he has a lot of time in Grumman's. In
any case, I just wanted to set the record straight that this was not some
private pilot, and while 20G40 is certainly demanding, most of the
instuctors/commercial pilots I know would fly in those conditions (I
know I do, at least in the helicopters).
-- 
                  THIS                  | Paul Cantrell "PC"
                  SPACE                 | cantrell@sequoia.com
              INTENTIONALLY             | DoD #1144
               LEFT BLANK               | HELO/ASEL/ZX10 Pilot
From: ken@systech.com (Ken Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Unfamiliar phraseologies
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:15:49 GMT
Organization: Systech Corporation, San Diego

In article <37211@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> dth@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David Hightower) writes:
>
>On a related note, if you ever get a chance, you might want to look
>through the Air Traffic Control manual (FAA Handbook 7110.65).  Knowing
>what to say is nice, but knowing what the controller is going to
>say--and WHY--really helps.  In fact, on several occasions I've caught
>myself lip-synching along with the controller.....and I (for some
>reason) feel offended if he/she doesn't get it right!
> 

It is obvious that controllers are very precise in the words that
they use and the order in which they are spoken.  They say
"correction" when they have misspoken, "affirmative" and "negative"
when they mean 'yup' and 'nope'.  I have, however, heard controllers
step out of their ATC persona when dealing with a wayward student
pilot, or a pilot who doesn't know how to 'squawk ident'.

I have often wondered whether controllers bring their work related
speech patterns home with them.

For example, if I were to say to my wife:

"Honey, on your way home from work would you make a quick stop at Safeway,
no, make that Seven-Eleven, pick up a loaf of bread and then call me
when you get home?"

would a controller phrase it:

"Wife at work, husband, make left traffic for Safeway, correction, cancel
left traffic for Safeway, make right traffic for Seven-Eleven, I need
your best speed to the store, purchase bread and report reaching home."

A silly example, admittedly, but do you controllers on the net find
yourselves saying 'correction' and 'negative' when talking with non
aviation friends, neighbors, etc.?

Just wondering.

Ken Brown      ken@systech.com
Systech Corp.
San Diego, CA

"If it ain't broke, don't break it."
From: dmaxwell@auc.trw.com (Doug Maxwell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What did you do to the rest of your shirt?
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:45:07 GMT
Reply-To: dmaxwell@dora.UUCP (Doug Maxwell)
Organization: TRW Denver Operations

In article <9209270621.AA24954@shadow.twinsun.com> junio@shadow.twinsun.com (Jun Hamano) writes:
>
>  Today I was wearing my favorite T-shirt, washed clean and
>perfectly ironed, which was very unusual.  My instructor cut the
>back of it with scissors and hanged it on a wall of the FBO,
>leaving me in the wrecked shirt.  The first thing I'm going to do
>would be to wash it (the day was hot and I was sweating a lot),
>but what would I do next?
>
>  Do I hang it on a wall in my office?  May I ask net.aviators
>what they did to theirs?
>
Wash it? And get rid of all that hard earned sweat? :-)

Actually, mine is hanging up in my closet.  Couldn't stand the thought of
getting rid of it, but don't know what else to do with it.

-- 
|Douglas J. Maxwell dmaxwell@dora.auc.trw.com  |   *                         |
|TRW Denver Operations                         | *****                       |
|16201 Centretech Pky / Aurora, CO  80011      |   *                         |
|Voice:  303.360.4013  FAX:  303.360.4133      |   *  Doing my best for Him. |
From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: gear-down check
Keywords: gear-down, FAA
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:38:44 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <Obrle-860@lopez.marquette.MI.US> stick@lopez.marquette.MI.US
 (Stick,CommoSigop) writes:

>   The idea of making it ATC's responsibility for issuing a "gear down"
>check is wrong.  The ultimate responsibility belongs to the pilot.  Always
>has, always will.  If said pilot would follow checklist procedures ALL THE
>TIME, an inadverdent gear-up landing would never occur.

How far do you want to take this?  If all aircraft systems worked perfectly,
checklists would be much shorter.  If we always tuned radios correctly, we
wouldn't need to ident VOR's.  Etc, Etc, Etc.  NOBODY is perfect.  Not pilots,
not mechanics, not ATC, not systems.  We all have to watch each other's back.

I don't think having tower say "check gear down" is a shift of responsibility.
It's just a backup!  Of course the pilot is still responsible.  But why get
rid of a perfectly good backup?

Here's a parallel example:  My C-182 checklist includes "open cowl flaps" 
about 3 times between start and takeoff.  Putting an operation in one place
doesn't mean I should remove it from all other places.  The idea is simple:
important things should be checked and rechecked.

I believe that the people objecting to ATC's "check gear down" (and ATC them-
selves, given the stated liability concerns) are confusing "shift of repons-
ibility" with "backup and double-check."  

--Andy     stadler@apple.com
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GTE CONTEL DUAT new features
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:02:41 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <BvptG9.HBw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye) writes:
!In article <1992Sep30.182012.30051@europa.asd.contel.com! system@gnd1.wtp.contel.com writes:
!!Furthermore some "undocumented" features you may use in decode -
!!
!!o Enter dept/dest airport pairs (i.e JFKBOS) to get a listing of preferred
!!	routes available on the system.
!
!I tried this just now and couldn't get it to work, in regular decode or
!extended decode.  Specifics?

I tried this and it does work with reqular decode. Just another data point.
I like it.

!I'll second David Allen's comment about not flaming on Marty because he has
!the guts to identify himself as a contact for CONTEL DUATS.

Agreed.

Dave Rogers
From: mpucket@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Margaret Puckette)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Flying for the Environment: Legal opinion
Summary: reporting suspected illegal activities is LEGAL
Keywords: Plain View Doctrine
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:29:17 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University


A recent net.discussion about the legalities of reporting environmental
damage seen from the air got me to thinking about the laws that govern 
airspace, and what laws my activities as environmental overseer might run
up against.  At a recent conference, I met an attorney for the Sierra
Club Legal Defence Fund who said he could provide me with a legal
opinion based on precendent pertaining to sighting (and reporting)
illegal activities from my airplane.

There are basically two kinds of aerial search activities, according
to this attorney:  those conducted as an operative of the U. S.
Government, and those conducted by private individuals.  Both fall
under the Plain View Doctrine which (as the name implies) states that
an illegal operation in plain view is subject to a search or investigation
*without* a warrant.  Those operatives of the Government must satisfy
significant demands for documentation before such a search, but a report 
from a private individual can be considered sufficient for an investigation
from the ground.  Basically, except for FARs governing altitude over various
types of terrain, there are no laws preventing any private citizen from 
overflying and reporting what appears to be illegal activity.

One precaution:  it is illegal to make *false* reports.

The only problem regards something the attorney termed "exposure"; this
is legalese for someone's susceptibility as a target of a lawsuit.  He is
in the process of getting a good opinion for me on this one--apparently
the Harvard Law School wrote the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund asking
for good problems for their students, and this is it :-).  I will report
on that when it comes.

I am currently involved in planning a documentary on the Oregon Coast Range
(its biology, history, and timber uses) as a consultant and pilot for a
group interested in ecology and education.  It's not something with legal
implications, but it involves lots of flying with a camera on board...lots
and lots of flying.  

Reminder:  This Saturday morning (October 3) on NBC:  "Name Your Adventure"
features a visit to an Oregon coastal rainforest and an overflight given
by me and that Archer with the "AOPA" on the tail.

**************************************************************************
Margaret "forest flyer" Puckette
AOPA Archer N1939G
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: gear-down check
Keywords: gear-down, FAA
Date: 27 Sep 92 01:29:25 GMT

G'day,
 
Summer before last when flying in Canada I noticed that at
controlled fields the tower always asked `Confirm gear down'
before/when issuing a clearance to land.
 
At the time I thought that was an excellent idea. It is also
practiced by the military and evidentally contributes to safety.
 
In addition, that summer I sat on the taxiway at Boeing field
and watched a Baron land gear-up.
 
Recently in talking to Cindy M. Hipps, a Senior Flight Operations
Specialist at AOPA I suggested that AOPA might want to address this
issue with the FAA as a safety measure.
 
Ms Hipps agreed to talk to the AOPA Policy Department to see what the
situation was.
 
Here, I quote from a card I received from Ms Hipps
 
"I had our Policy Department investigate into the "gear-down"
ATC check.
 
Apparently, it is not done due to ........  guess what....LIABILITY!
(the caps are hers) It has, however, been done at various ATC
facilities with mixed results."
 
So now the lawyers (or bureaucrats) are determining safety issues
on the basis of perceived liability.
 
Frankly, if I were an attorney and had a client that had landed
gear-up at a controlled field with say lose of life I think I might
try to show that the FAA was guilty of contributory negligence by NOT
implementing the "gear-down" check.  I have no idea how successful I
might be but what the heck weirder things have been successful.
 
What does the net think? Is the gear-down check a good idea?
 
Dave Rogers
 
P.S. I do know that Canada has recently eliminated the gear-down
check. For liability reasons?????
 

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: steve@netcom.com (Stephen Williams)
Subject: Re: Stay off the rudder!
Organization: Organizations Anonymous
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:08:28 GMT

In article <92266.215322VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu> <VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I just read a new idea (to me), passed along by
>Greg Travis:  If you get into strong turbulence,
>IFR, stay off the rudder and you won't get into a spin.

Odd, but I have a variant that seems to work especially well
in a C-310: hold the rudder still by pressing evenly (not too
hard!) on both rudder pedals. The theory here is that the effective
surface area of the vertical stabilizer is greater if the rudder
doesn't flap about. Think about it.

I reasoned out this trick because a Cessna-310 tends to wallow
a "bit" in turbulence, including the pilot-induced kind. It
seems to work quite well.

--Steve Williams
PP-AMEL-IA
From: dunn@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Steve Dunn)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 17:50:45 GMT
Subject: Truckee Airport Car
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

An "airport car" group currently operates a 1976 Pontiac Grand Safari wagon
out of Truckee, California (read:Lake Tahoe, north shore).  Several of the
current group may be considering dropping out;  also the current number
of members (3) didn't keep the vehicle operating enough anyway.

Anyway, we are looking for potential new members up to a maximum of 6.  
Memberships are $500.   E-mail me if interested.

Steve
From: jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhard)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:56:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Beginner needs advice...badly!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

> Most folks get their private, followed by an instrument rating.  I think 
> it is probably better to get your commercial first before the instrument
> rating.

A commercial without an instrument rating is not so useful as
you might think.  Night flight and 50 NM restrictions and all.


What a commercial without an instrument rating is good for, 
among other things is: 
  flying skydivers
  towing gliders
  towing banners


I recommend that my students work on ratings in this order:

  Private Airplane		FUN! FUN! FUN!  Fly for FUN!
  Private Glider		FUN! and prepares one for precision flying.
  Instrument Airplane		Precision flying and prepares one for IFR.
  Commercial Airplane		Prepares one for commercial operations.
  Commercial Glider		FUN! and (re) hones the landing skills.

Jer/ Eberhard, (SLASH), HAM = N0FZD     | Hewlett-Packard - MS99, 1UP10,15'East
Pilot: COMM, INST, CFI-Airplane & Glider| 3404 East Harmony Road (303) 229-2861
CAP CFI, Check & Mission, Pikes Peak 218| Fort Collins, Colorado  80525-9599 
EMAIL:  jle@fc.hp.com or Jer_Eberhard@fc.hp.com
From: brianh@pongo.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Recent flight experience
Keywords: PIC, logging
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:41:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <1992Sep28.212236.8426@microsoft.com> peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho) writes:
>As surprising as it may seem (at least, _I_ was surprised), this
>rule does not actually say that you have to have had three
>take-offs and landings within the last 90 days in order to
>be current to take passengers.  Rather, if you have not flown
>within the past 90 days, you must first make the requisite

Whoa!  Wait a sec!  To quote:

FAR 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command
(c) General experience.  No person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft
carrying passengers, nor of an aircraft certificated for more than one
required pilot flight crewmember, unless within the preceeding 90 days, he
has made three takeoffs and three landings as the sole manipulator of the
flight controls in an aircraft of the same category and class and, if a type
rating is required, of the same type...

This one seems pretty straight forwarded.  One *must* have the 3 takeoffs
and landings in the last 90 days or they are *not* current for *acting* as
PIC for passengers (etc).