HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker)
Subject: Re: Grand Canyon flights / SFAR
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:10:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.202056.19666@pmafire.inel.gov> rickf@pmafire.inel.gov (Rick Furniss) writes:
>
>    Sure would be nice if Joe Blo pilot could fly over or around the Grand 
>Canyon without having to be a big time , money making tour service!!!
>
Say what about that deal anyway?

Supposedly, the SFAR was created to restore "natural quiet" to the Grand 
Canyon.  Only it doesn't apply to tour operators?  Several thoughts,
posted for your comment:

1.  Just what percent of GC traffic did the SFAR stop?  What percentage of
the GA fleet is within one day round trip of GC?  HOw many of us have time
for a long flying vacation and how many would go to the G.C. given the time?

2.  Even if GA was most of the GC traffic and the tour operators were
only a small part.  What is the difference in noise from say a C172 vs
the larger, probably multi-engine, planes flown for tours.  I don't
know what the instruments say, but to my ear even a small twin seems
much more apparent to the ear than a single.  I live right under a good
place to sneak around under the SJO ARSA and get lots of overflights. I
always step outside when I hear a plane (don't we all) and I'm sure
that I hear twins both farther away and higher.

3.  Is natural quiet restored if we still have jet overflights at 30,000
feet?  Having done a lot of hiking in the Sierra, I can tell you that they
are very noticeable.

4.  Personally, I like the idea of having a few places to hike and camp
that are totally free of the noises of modern man.  I think we should
ban overflights of G.C.  SFC to F.L. 1000.  But if we're only going to
ban some aircraft, and they're they minority, and they're the quieter 
planes, what's the point.  Obviously, business that operate tour flights
have a lobby and we don't (What do my AOPA dues pay for?).

Given my druthers, I really would ban all overflight of G.C., but if we
can't do it right, let's just not do it.  comments?

mike
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels)
Subject: Re: Canadian airspace question, aerobatics
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 16 Apr 92 05:00:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.214115.15463@watmath.waterloo.edu>
gamiddle@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton) asks about aerobatics in
Canadian Class D airspace:
>So, is aerobatics allowed in Class D airspace, or only in Class E?

Quoting the AIP Canada, RAC Annex, Air Navigation Orders, Part V,
Division II, paragraph 517 (pause for breath!):
    No aircraft shall be flown in any acrobatic flight ...
    (c) in controlled airspace ... except in accordance with the written
    authorization of the Minister.

Turning to a description of Class D airspace:
    Controlled airspace within which both IFR and VFR flights are permitted
    to enter.
    A person operating an aircraft in Class D controlled airspace in VFR
    flight is not subject to ATC unless he is operating the aircraft in
    a control zone with an operating airport control tower.

This seems fairly clear to me ... no acrobatics in Class D without
written authorization.
-- 
Ron Wessels		University of Toronto		ron@turing.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: twilson@alfred.carleton.ca (Tom Wilson)
Subject: Re: I thought I saw a F86
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:06:37 GMT

Sounds like it might have been a T-37, a primary jet trainer.

Tom
From: papworth@pdx022 (David Papworth)
Subject: Re: Motion 'Discomfort'...
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:18:15 GMT

>
>Today, I went for a ride with a coworker in a 150.  Conditions were CAVU and
>slightly bumpy, but not unusual. After 3 tenths of an hour on the Hobbs meter,
>I started getting queasy. By 6 tenths, I was quite nauseated. Since the flight

A C150, with its light weight and low wing loading, gets kicked around
worse by turbulence than practically any other general aviation plane.
C150's/Tomahawks/Skippers are inexpensive for training, but you 
probably wouldn't be flying one once you get your private certificate.

You might try training in a C172, Cherokee 140, Warrior, or Archer.

The training flights would cost more, and you would take a few more hours
due to higher approach speeds, but you wouldn't be bounced around as much
and would have more time to get used to it.
From: randy@khan.gatech.edu (Randal T. Abler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Landing a Skylane
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:34:14 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <6APR199210440026@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> smithcap@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Cap Smith) writes:
>I was taught to fly in a C-150.  Landing procedure was:
>1. Power off abeam the numbers (carb heat),
>2. 10 degrees flaps, 
>3. Trim for 65-75 mph (be more precise, but pick a speed in this range)
>4. Add more flaps, and re-trim, on base and final.
>
> ...
>
>Well, I've got about 50 hours now in my new-to-me C-182, and I haven't
>been able to replicate this "don't mess with the power" philosophy.
>The Skylane seems to need a significant power reduction in order to

I've been jumping between different Cessna singles a lot recently, and
I'll agree with Geoff Peck's method (sorry I don't have a reference).
In the Cessna C182, I'll use about 18" in the pattern to hold altitude,
(giving around 90 knots) and abeam the numbers, drop to 14".  I leave
14" in through the rest of downwind, base, and final, and will go to
idle either "over the fence" for a shortened landing, or early in the
flare for a normal landing.  65 knots on final.  Note that this is the
same as your C150 method EXCEPT you set 14" instead of power off.
Of course, a C182 does not flare like a C150 ... it takes a while for it
to respond to pitch changes, so flares are more gradual and start sooner.

Descents are another matter, and require a bit of planning.
-- 
Randal T. Abler   	randy@cerl.gatech.edu		 
CERL/EE Georgia Tech     
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph)
Subject: Re: <<< BREAKING A SOUND BARRIER >>>
Reply-To: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:27:24 GMT

In article 13319@umiami.ir.miami.edu, mmilicevic@umiami.ir.miami.edu () writes:
>Would you know to explain in simple terms why, when an airplane crosses
>sound-barrier, big explosion-like sound occurs???
>
>Thanks, MLADEN

Yes... If you are flying at the speed of sound, the sound waves are propagating
at the same speed as the airplane.  The aircraft continues to generate more sound
waves, which again propogate at the same speed.  All of these waves are "piling
on top of one another, which makes for alot of noise.

---
Mark Steph             | He's not afraid of your Judgement
exumfs@exu.ericsson.se | He knows of horrors worse than your Hell
Opinions are my own -- | He's a little bit afraid of dying,
noone else wants them  | But he's alot more afraid of your lying
                       |      -Neil Peart, "The Weapon"

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: twilson@alfred.carleton.ca (Tom Wilson)
Subject: Re: I thought I saw a F86
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:08:37 GMT

The Canadair plane is either the CL-40 or 41, I forget which. Could
have been the Snowbirds (the Canadian aerobatic team) practising.

Tom
From: cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: How do you cope with turbulence?
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:32:15 GMT
Organization: Taligent, Inc.

In article <2540011@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com> schinner@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer) writes:
>Christopher Pettus:
>
>> You get used to it.  It's a very slow process, and a frustrating one,
>> but you do get used to it.  I speak as a terrible turbulence whimp; I
>> used to freak out at the smallest bump.  I can handle much more bumpy
>> rides now, although I certainly don't like them.  I just concentrate on
>> flying the plane, and remind myself that the turbulence can't hurt the
>> airplane, and no matter how bumpy it is, _I_ am the one in control.
>
>A pilot cannot control the air through which he/she flies, and
>therefore is not in control.  The best we all can do is try to work with
>bumpy air, and accept the roller coaster ride.

I think you misunderstood me.  I don't claim that the pilot can cause
the airplane to do exactly and only what s/he wishes it do in
turbulence.  There is a tendency to assume that since the airplane in
bumping around, it "has a mind of its own" and the pilot cannot control
it.  While you cannot prevent small excursions, you can fly the
aircraft just as positively in turbulence just as in smooth air.  Just
because the pilot cannot control the air doesn't make him or her out of
control; it's just another factor in the equation, like a crosswind.
-- 
-- Christophe

"I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when
 I generalize, I don't care." -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: amo@cbnews.cb.att.com (arlene.m.osborne)
Subject: Re: Lighter-than-air craft?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:58:41 GMT
Summary: LTA

In article <1992Apr13.143900.9922@eecs.nwu.edu>, phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
> All right.  Let's talk lighter-than-air.
> 
> My wife has just informed me what my anniversary present will be
> this year:  a ride in a hot air balloon!  This is still about 6
> weeks away, but I'm already eagerly looking forward to it (counting
> the days).  She suggested that I take my log book along, something
> that had quite honestly not occurred to me right away.  But as long 
> as my wife doesn't mind, I'm going to try to get our pilot (assuming he
> is appropriately rated) to give me about .1 or .2 of instruction while
> we are up there.
> 
> Where can I read up on piloting hot air balloons?  They didn't cover
> that in Jeppesen!  :-)  If I ask this guy to give me a mini-lesson, I
> don't want to seem like a total dunce.
> 


Don't be surprised if this "guy" is a woman.  There are many of us
certified to instruct in balloons....

You might try finding a book called "Taming the Gentle Giant"
which is a relatively new book.  A general overview can be found
in "Ballooning - The Complete Guide to Riding the Winds" (recently
revised).  An oldie but goodie is "Balloon Digest" by Will Hayes.
There's also "Balloon Ground School Home Study Manual (by Grady)
which is kinda hard to find.  If you are interested in buying a
copy of any of these books, I can give you a phone number where
you can order copies.

Good luck and enjoy your flight.  I'd be interested in hearing
how it went and who you flew with.  (We've got ballooning friends
all over the US).

Arlene Osborne
From: tneale@aeras.uucp (Tom Neale)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: GPS and the FAA
Keywords: GPS, Navigation, Defense
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:54:30 GMT
Reply-To: tneale@aeras.UUCP (Tom Neale)
Organization: Arix Corporation, San Jose, CA.  (really Trimble Navigation)





Whoa!!  Lots of statements have been made to the effect that the FAA 
doesn't like GPS and won't do anything to make use of it.  This is not
true.

It is true that the GPS system is not yet fully operational and won't
be until 1993 at the earliest.  The FAA is not going to allow IFR use of
a system that is not operational. Period.  That doesn't mean that they're
not preparing for it.

The FAA has something called _The FAA Satellite Navigation Program Plan_.
This is a comprehensive five year plan that defines overall federal
objectives and methods for integrating GPS into the national airspace
system.  It includes milestones for US use of GPS in all phases of
flight into the next century (ok, so they're not always fast).

The FAA will be working with ICAO to integrate into the Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS) plan, too.

The FAA has a Satellite Program Office to work throughout the agency
to make use of GPS.  They also have contracts with Mitre and other companies
for development and testing work for approaches using DGPS.

For more information on what they're up to I refer you to the April 1992
edition of GPS World, a magazine.  It is published by Aster Publishing Corp.,
Eugene, OR   503-3243-1200.

I have as many problems with the way the FAA does things as anyone else.
But, in this case they do seem to be a bit more proactive about using
this technology.  Lighten up guys.

-- 
Blue skies,     | ...sun!aeras!tneale   |
                | in flight:     N2103Q | Entropy isn't what it used
Tom Neale       | in freefall:   D8049  | to be.
                | via the ether: WA1YUB |
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw)
Subject: Student PIC, new evidence
Organization: Motorola
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:39:13 GMT

I just received the "FAA Designated Examiner's Newsletter" from the AVN-460 
Airmen Certification Branch in Oklahoma City. April '92 Issue.

In context of filing out the 8710-1 (recommend form) properly:

"1. A student pilot, while flying solo, IS THE PILOT IN COMMAND.  To meet 
the flight time requirements...a student MUST log the time the he or she is 
solo pilot in command as solo.

The entry of PIC time on an FAA Form 8710-1 by a student is 
NOT ILLEGAL, IT IS SUPERFLUOUS.   If you choose to log solo time
accumulated as a student pilot as PIC, be sure to also indicate
SOLO in the appropriate blocks."...In order to receive proper credit, I assume.

Bob Furtaw
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: The almost making of a statistic (long)
Date: 14 Apr 1992 18:00:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Apr14.172112.12895@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye) writes:
>Have you ever seen John and Martha King's video about their boneheaded ferry
>flight?

...and if you haven't, do so. <shudder> I hope that I never do so many dumb
things in one flight...

"What's the minimum descent altitude for this approach?", indeed.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
         "Grow up children. Purchase lives." -- Geoff Collyer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
Subject: Good & Bad News
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:01:16 GMT

Good news - the patches arrived - and they are wonderful.  Kudos to
Bret & Margaret (and anyone else who assisted).  Neato!

Bad News - a local netter (although not heard from much lately),
Jack Gjovaag, made the headlines when his Cardinal was totaled
in a forced landing on a tree lined hiway.  Darn.

Good News - Jack was basically unhurt.  Considering the weather
when this happened, which was less than wonderful, he did pretty
well.  The problem evidently started with engine trouble, which
combined with what I assume was an IFR flight, is reason to
applaud Jack for getting it down under control and with no injuries
worth mentioning.  


-- 
Alan L. Peterman                                   (503)-684-1984 hm
                       al@qiclab.scn.rain.com
It's odd how as I get older, the days are longer, but the years are shorter!
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: N5457E Squawks Hijack
Keywords: Kidnapping Confinement Shotguns Dirty Airplanes
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:57:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Well, Greg, I somehow think the whole ordeal didn't go quite as casually
as you wrote about it :-{ , but I give you a lot of credit for staying calm. 
I wonder how many of us would have done as well.  Personally, I'd probably 
have been so nervous that I couldn't have found the mag switch to get the fan
turning!  

My guess about why ATC kept 'coding' things (100 Lima Lima, xxx airport closed)
was to give your hijacker as little information as possible, and let you 
'translate' to him so you could make your own decisions and better control
the situation.  

It's easy for me to think about your situation on the ground a year later and
1000 miles away :-)  My first reaction was that I, too, would have been
petrified when setting 7500 in case he knew what that meant, and even more
petrified every time ATC mentioned it.  After thinking about it for a minute,
I think the only real threat would have been if he knew the squawk code, in 
which case he *probably* would have just told you to cut it out.  There was 
probably no real danger when ATC kept asking you to verify it.  If he didn't 
know what 7500 meant, he wasn't going to catch on by the radio transmissions.
I've taken up non-pilot passengers with a high interest in flying and lots of 
radio communication experience but no pilot training, and they were completely
clueless about what they were hearing.  And (again, easy to say while sitting 
here in my comfortable office) I doubt very much that ATC would have been dumb 
enough to say something like "57E, verify you are being hijacked".

... and I thought 7500 was just for the big boys!

-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: springs@wings.dartmouth.edu (David Fisher)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: kitplanes (glasair, adventure air)
Keywords: kitplanes, new plane
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:54:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


Hi.  I am, for the second time in two years, trying desperately to convince  
myself that I don't want to buy a plane kit.  (*major* smiley here...)  The  
previous time I got lucky because I had basically decided on a Wheeler Express,  
and we all know what happened with *that* machine...
Anyway, I was doing just great, until I read in two different mags about an  
amphibious airplane from Adventure Air, and about the Glasair series.  I have  
always had this sneaking fondness for amphibians (no comments about frogs,  
please...) yet the stats on the Glasair II-S are very inviting.
I am aware of the saying that if you want to build an airplane, buy a kit but  
if you want to fly buy an airplane, and I really do want to build an airplane.   
That's not to say that I don't want to fly as well, but I'm looking forward to  
building my own airplane.
So, on to the questions:

1)  Does anyone have information on Adventure Air other than that in Feb. 92  
issue of Kitplanes?  Are they for real?  The kit sounds very good, almost too  
good to be true.

2) This is probably obvious, but is there an STC available for autogas on the  
Lycoming 320-E series?  Both the Glasair and Adventurer recommend that engine.

3) To any people out there who use amphibians, what are the "hidden" costs  
involved with owning/operating an amphibious airplane?  I really like the  
honest presentation that Glasair gives for the completion of a typical kit,  
including engine, instruments and "cosmetic" work.  Is there something else  
that I am missing here?

Please feel free to add anything else that I should know.

                 -Dave
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Post Mills Fly-in
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:23:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr16.161909.4222@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
> For those who are interested and close enough, Post Mills airfield in
> Post Mills Vermont. will be hosting a breakfast fly-in on May 9th,
> sponsored by the local EAA club.  Be aware that the pattern requires
> the downwind to be over the lake so it's right hand landing from the
> South and left hand landing from the North.

After you've filled up on breakfast, come on down to Orange, MA. to watch
the acro contest which is going on both Saturday and Sunday of the same
weekend.

-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Transition Area at Little River, CA?
Keywords: Charts, IFR, VFR
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:20:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <1992Apr7.212753.27234@tandem.com> fishler_len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler) writes:
>This past weekend I made a very enjoyable trip to a little airport along
>the California coast called Little River (O48 id.).  I noticed on the VFR
>sectional chart that there was a magenta transition area, keyhole shaped,
>around the airport (floor 700 ft. AGL).  I thought, oh boy, there is even
>an instrument approach for this airport, what a good place for a future

No, just the tint isn't enough for a >public< instrument approach--look at
El Rico and Salyer Farms, for example.  I think you'll find transition areas
for, umm, pregnant instrument approaches also that haven't been finalized
(takes years, usually).


-- 

-Rob Strand

   From Bitnet: rob@ucscvm  From Internet: rob@ucscvm.ucsc.edu    
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye)
Subject: Re: FSS Briefers and Weather
Organization: UIUC Computer-based Education Research Lab
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:44:31 GMT

elmore@virga.rap.ucar.edu (Kim Elmore) writes:
>	Recently, while leaving Kirksville (the extreme northeastern
>part of MO I mentioned earlier) I got generally good briefers out of
>the Columbia FSS.

I've written it here in the past, but it bears repeating.  Columbia Flight
Service may be the best FSS in the Midwest.  I don't have enough experience
in other parts of the country to say they're the best in the USA, but it's
difficult to imagine how anyone could improve on their performance.

Every once in a while when I call WXBRIEF from Southeast Missouri, I get
routed to Columbia FSS instead of St. Louis FSS.  I consider myself lucky
when it happens.  It's amazing how much more they seem to know about the
weather situation in Illinois than St. Louis does, even though STL is much
closer.

G. David Frye
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET: frye@cerl.uiuc.edu   NovaNET: frye / s / nova   PHONE: (217) 333-7439
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: glomb@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Ralf-Henning Glomb)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Who knows this glider ?
Keywords: Phoebus A, Phoebus B, Phoebus C
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:35:39 GMT
Organization: RBI - RWTH Aachen

Hello,

i'm searching for people who know the glider
Phoebus A / B /C.
This is an German plastic glider, built by MBB from 1966 to 1970.

Thanks
Ralf-Henning
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw)
Subject: Re: IFR FAR interpretation question
Organization: Motorola
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:50:45 GMT

In article <65257@apple.Apple.COM>, robg@Apple.COM (Rob Griffiths) writes:
>  
> While doing the planning, however, I came across a somewhat confusing
> (surprise!) section in the FARs.  Quoting 91.65 (c (4))

  Do all three airports have to be over 50nm away?

No, One can be your home airport for one of the approaches, say the VOR.
There must then be at least another two approaches (airport) away from home, 
each with one of the other two (ILS, NDB), and even these two can be less 
than 50 miles from home.  But, the total route must be 250 nm minimum.  It's
easier to show this if the airports are further away since you must log the 
approaches to each in order to count them.  If you just "travel" the route, 
you probably better also note the actual route you traversed, for when it comes 
time to convince the administrator.

To count the route as X/C you probably better plan to make at least 
approaches into airports more than 50 nm.

> My instructor plays it very conservatively, so we filed at three 
> different airports, all of which are 50nm away from our home field.
> How about other net.CFI's?  Any opinions (from this bunch? Nah! :-) ?
> 
Overkill, but probably good practice anyway!

Bob Furtaw