HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kzk00@ccc.amdahl.com (Klaus Kraemer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Precision Circling Approaches
Keywords: IFR
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:26:26 GMT
Reply-To: kzk00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <71196@apple.Apple.COM> rcm@Apple.COM (Robert Charles Monsen) writes:
>I have a question about circling procedures on an ILS. The question is,
>where is the MAP? If its an ILS, the MAP is defined as the intersection
>of the DH and the glideslope. However, for circling approaches, that would
>put one far out the glideslope, perhaps miles, when beginning the missed
>approach procedure. (for an 800' circling altitude, thats almost 3 miles
>on a 3 degree glideslope).
>
>I suspect that circling approaches are only defined for non-precision
>procedures, and that the MAP is always defined the same way the corresponding
>MAP for the non-precision approach is defined, either time, cross fix, or DME.
>If there are circling minimums for an ILS, they apply to the corresponding
>localizer approach.
>
>Well? I can't find a reference in the AIM to confirm or deny this. 
>
>Bob Monsen
>Orion Network Systems
>Berkeley, Ca. 
>
>GLOSSARY
>
>ILS = instrument landing system
>MAP = missed approach point
>DH = decision height
>DME = distance measuring equipment
>MDA = minimum descent altitude

An ILS approach clearance "circle to land" on a runway other than
the one named in the approach (e.g., Arcata, CA, ILS Rwy 32, circle to
land runway 14) is a precision approach up to the point where the
glideslope intercepts the MDA for circling approaches. That is, FAF
(final approach fix) is at glideslope intercept, not the outer marker as
it would be on a non-precision approach, and the glideslope IS TO BE
FOLLOWED down to MDA. At this point, the approach becomes a non-precision
approach, and you better have your clock started at the marker because the
MAP is now determined by timing (usually), not by arrival at a certain
altitude.

The precise workings of Instrument Approach Procedures are not in the AIM,
they are in the TERPS manual, which you may subscribe to if you like, but
a glance at it at your friendly FSDO will probably dissuade you.

Klaus Kraemer, PP-ASEL IA, Mooney N201MX

"My employer *does* pay me to have opinions. Guess whose..."
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Small crash / Chrokee Question
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:25:06 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

>In article <66392@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt9989a@prism.gatech.EDU (John Martin Chapman) writes:
> Today in Gwinett County, Georgia, there was a small plane crash involving a
> Cherokee 160.  1 person was killed and 4 were injured.  My question(s) is/are

Was at least one of these five on the ground and hit by debris or whatever?
That would answer the question pretty easily.  In any event, I'm very sorry
to hear about the accident, and my heart goes out to the victims and their
families and friends.

-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: glenb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Glen Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: So what' so great about Nut Tree?
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:13:07 GMT
Organization: What, me? Organized?

In rec.aviation, myshatyn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mike Myshatyn) writes:

> Is the restaurant  any good?  

 Picture an upscale Denny's. Double the prices. Now you have the Nut Tree.
 
 ..glen
From: fskevin@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Flying for the Environment (was: Where is mPuckett)
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:32:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


No, look at the From line, I'm not Margaret, but I thought I'd try to
draw her back to the net with this tidbit from a right coaster.

While flying along the coast of Lake Erie, I noticed a loaded tanker ship
steaming out of Cleveland trailing a bright red substance in its wake.
I didn't think rusty bilge water could be THAT red so I called Burke Lakefront
tower and asked them to call the U.S. Coast Guard.  They called and the tower
asked for a position report so the tanker could be intercepted.  I gave
all the necessary information and continued my flight.

I never did find out what that tanker was discharging but I felt good about
my actions.

So see Margaret, You've inspired at least one person so:

PICK UP THE PHONE
TELL US ABOUT THE NEWS FOOTAGE OF YOU
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW

Kevin 'the forests are already cleared in Ohio' Kirtley
Short Wing Piper Lover
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz)
Subject: Re: biplane gliders
Organization: Computer Based Education Research Lab - University of Illinois
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:48:37 GMT
Keywords: biplanes gliders

In article <1992Aug20.225032.2357@clipper.ingr.com> brian@clipper.ingr.com (Brian Smith) writes:
>you require a lower AOA which decrease induced drag.  My understanding is
>that the best L/D occurs at an airpeed where the inducded and parasitic
>drag curves intersect. I presume that this is why minumum sink and best
>L/D don't occur at the same airspeed. Minimum sink is close to maximum
>lift which creates a lot of induced drag. The diffrence in airspeed between
>best L/D and minimum sink is kind of a measure of the tradeoff between
>maximum lift and minimum drag.

Well, you understand most of it. Sink rate is equivalent to power required
(power available is sink rate * weight of glider). Power required is the
drag * velocity. At Max L/D, you've minimized drag (since L is, practically
speaking, constant in unaccelerated flight). Slowing down to minimum sink,
you're actually increasing drag somewhat, but velocity is dropping faster,
so you end up needing less power (equals less sink).
-- 
Steve Peltz
Internet: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu	PLATO/NovaNET: peltz/s/cerl
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Principle of VOR
Reply-To: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Organization: SICS, Kista (Stockholm), Sweden
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:00:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.105101.543@rai.juice.or.jp>, tetsuji@rai (Tetsuji Rai) writes:
>
>Hi, netters:
>
>    Very fundamental question(I suppose).
>    What is the principle of VOR system ?   I've ever read that the difference
>between phases of two waves(a wave for reference and a wave whose phase is 
>different according to the direction ?) specifies the angle(or radial), but 
>only one frequency is assigned to a VOR.   I think I should misunderstand, 
>but cannot find further description.

The VOR carrier wave is modulated with two signals: One 30 Hz variable
phase signal and one 9960 Hz subcarrier signal, which in its turn is
modulated with the 30 Hz reference phase signal.

(Actually, the VOR carrier is also modulated with the ID signal at
1020 Hz and the voice channel in the band 300 - 3000 Hz).
-- 
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Subject: stupid things I've done
Keywords: rec.aviation, netiquette, Never Again
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:13:24 GMT

Well, I will certainly join this parade of confessions!  : )

The three dumbest things I've done in airplanes:

1.  Flying through holes that almost weren't.  On one particular nasty
departure out of San Jose, I got down to about 10 knots above stall
before breaking out.  Although I was always horizontally clear of
clouds, I certainly didn't meet the required minimum visibilities.
This was many years ago -- I hope whatever statute of limitations has
expired! -- and ranks as the single dumbest thing I have done in an
aircraft.

2.  Believing controllers.  Leaving Troutdale (just east of Portland),
I wanted to depart to the north toward Seattle.  The controller
assured me that the weather improved to the north (didn't look like it
to me), and instructed me to fly to a particular landmark and circle
at or above 1500 feet until I received further instructions from
Portland approach.  The landmark looked socked in to me, but I
believed him.

Dumb.  The landmark was socked in.  As I approached it, I asked
Portland approach for help, and was given a variety of vectors that
kept me -- sort of -- out of the clouds.  They eventually dumped me
over a river that I thought was the Columbia; it was too small but I
hadn't ever seen the Columbia before.

The bottom line was that I wound up flying toward a mountain with
ceilings of about 1500 feet.  It wasn't dangerous, since I could turn
around at any point and fly back the way I had come, but it wasn't an
experience I'd like to repeat.

3.  Gas.  I was a passenger once while I advised a pilot friend on
some aerobatics.  We stopped to get gas on the way out, and he didn't
check that the line guy had put the gas cap back on the fuel tank.
(He had, but he hadn't screwed it all the way on.)

After 15 minutes of acro (a reasonable amount of it inverted), I ask
him to check the fuel.  Zero, he says.  Lucky for us the other wing's
gas cap was screwed on tight; the fuel gauge on the plane we were
flying measures the right wing tank only, and although fuel is drawn
equally from the two tanks, fuel from the left wing hadn't been able
to crossfeed and spill out of the other while we were upside down.

Hmm.  I thought writing this down was supposed to make me feel better!
I just feel stupid ...

						Matt Ginsberg



Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: Metro-III flight questions
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:57:56 GMT

ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:

>> 1)  Why didn't the pilots reduce power once we leveled out at 14000.
>>    The noise level was way higher than my Mooney.

>These Metro's are beastly planes.  Not only are they noisy, but they
>are small (the fuselage looks like a big pencil).   I knew I was in
>trouble when they asked if I wanted by briefcase checked.  I guess
>I've been spoiled by the Brasilias they use around here for commuter
>flights.

I hate those little monsters.  Only twice have I been uncomfortably close
to being run down by another plane, and both times it was a Metroliner,
screaming along at 250 knots in the low-altitude VFR structure (at around
4000 feet one time, and around 2000 another), not paying any attention at
all as far as I could tell.


-Brent
--
Brent Chapman                                   Great Circle Associates
Brent@GreatCircle.COM                           1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841                                 Mountain View, CA  94041
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gaynier@elec.uq.oz.au (Ron Gaynier)
Subject: Re: Ropes and gliders (passengers)
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:55:33 GMT

In <1992Aug12.143525.6071@aosg.gsf.dec.com> verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com () writes:


"|"I fly commercial glider rides on weekends ......

"|"Tony Verhulst

"|"P.S. By far the most common question - "How long have you been doing this?"

I've only ever been asked that question once. You guessed it, my first commercial
flight.

Ron Gaynier
From: pierre@synopsys.com (Pierre Wildman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Net can save real money!!!
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:36:06 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: Synopsys

There are treads, and then there are threads.  And then there are useful 
threads.  The following was originally a private message to Dave 
Touretzky, who has helped me a lot with Seneca-specific information.  He 
asked me to post it, to encourage others to post operationally significant 
information.  Thanks Dave.

Hi Dave,

This message is to give you a warm feeling inside, because your trials and 
tribulations may have helped save somebody else a lot of money.

Ever since your centerting spring episode began, I have, naturally, been 
quite interested. I have been checking mine diligently during each 
preflight.

Yesterday, I took my brother to Monterey to see the aquarium there.  Upon 
returning to the FBO where I left my airplane, I saw that it had been 
moved.  They have a lot of traffic, and they tend to park the G-IV's up 
front.  My preflight antennae went up!

My airplane was fine, so I took a moment to check out another Seneca II 
that was parked next to mine.  Aha!  HIS centereing spring assy was 
broken.  The shaft was snapped, right where it meets the adjustment thing. 
 So, I went back inside, told them about it, in case they could contact 
the owner.  I wrote up a note indicating that this could cause the nose 
gear to hang up in the well, and that he should consult with a mechanic 
before he took off.

Suddenly, half a dozen line personnel descended upon this guy's Seneca, to 
check it out.  The guy who had moved the other airplane began practicing 
his "I didn't do it" story.  I withheld expression of my opinion, but it 
looked to me like it had been broken a while.  I left my phone number, but 
I have not heard from anyone, nor do I really expect to.

Anyway, maybe it helps.  I thought you would be interested.

Happy flying!

Pierre Wildman
Seneca N29461
From: brianh@pongo.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: New ARSA question
Date: 12 Aug 1992 22:19:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <1992Aug12.212205.29603@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.052121.25348@StarConn.com>, jpp@StarConn.com (John Pettitt) writes:
>|> If ATC gives you `sqwak VFR frequency change approved' while you are
>|> still in the ARSA (heading out but some says to go) are you legal ?
>
>EXCELLENT QUESTION!  This very thing happened to me, but I was in a TCA!

FARS, FARS, FARS...

91.130 Airport radar service areas.
(b) Deviations.  An operator may deviate from any provision of this section
under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility
having jurisdiction of the airport radar service area.  ATC may authorize
a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight, as
appropriate.

91.131  Terminal control areas.
(a) (1)  No person may operate an aircraft within a terminal control
area unless that person has received an appropriate authorization from
ATC prior to operation of that aircraft in that area.

91.130 (ARSAs) basically says that if ATC says you can ignore the normal
ARSA rules if he/she says so.

91.131 (TCAs) says that you must receive authorization before operating
in the TCA, it does *not* say that you must continue to stay in contact
or anything else, just prior to.  If ATC says go ahead switch, you
*must* follow ATC instructions (of course "approved" says you can, not
must).
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cohler@vxcrna.cern.ch (Mike Cohler)
Subject: Re:Glider pilots : how many are you ??
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:34:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.165435.10053@eplrx7.es.duPont.com>, Mark Milbourne <milbouma@esvax.dnet.dupont.com> writes...
>OK, here's what I've got so far.  I'm a little surprised at the underwhelming
>response, but not everyone has time to read rec.aviation every day and this is
> lines deleted
>Rick has forwarded to me the responses he got.
>If you have a glider rating, even student, please send me e-mail.  I know
> 
You can mine also if you wish to have a European flyer !!
Mike Cohler/mdc1@VAXA.YORK.AC.UK/PT/York G.C.- UK/Skylark4, K13,K7,K21,etc

>KEY:
>Real Name/
>e-mail address/
>Rating (S-Student,P-Private,C-Commercial,I-Instructor,T-tow pilot)/
>Location you fly (name of club or airfield, city state or country)/
>Sailplanes you own(ed) or have flown (if many just include as many as fit)
>-- 
==============================================================
|                                                            |
|        Mike Cohler -  preferred email address:             |
|                       MDC1@VAXA.YORK.AC.UK                 |
|                   ie  MDC1%VAXA.YORK.AC.UK@UKACRL.BITNET   |
|                                                            |
|        UK PPL and Glider Pilot                             |
|                                                            |
==============================================================
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: I give up...
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

GRT> .Question:  Why do they insist that you specify the "route" portion of
   > .portion of your IFR flightplan in the NE?  It's not like you're
   > .EVER going to use it

How else will they know what sections of airspace to deviate you away
from??  Try filing an absurd, circuitous route.  They'll probably clear
you direct. <~>

        D/ (cynical mode...)


 * OLX 2.2 * Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: rjohnson@sdf.lonestar.org (Robert C. Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Who pays for it???
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:06:42 GMT
Organization: sdf pub access UNIX, Dallas--anon logins & uucp avail, no fees

The other day I was talking to my (non-pilot) Dad about weather briefers,
FSS's, VOR's, DME, TRACON, etc, etc, and he came up with a question
that I could not answer:  "Who pays for it all?".

Ummm. . .Well. . .Ahhh. . .Heck, Dad, I don't really know!

I have heard various things in passing about the "Aviation Trust Fund" or
somesuch.  Does this provide some of the funding?  If so, who puts money
into it?  Is the entire American aerospace system payed for by the
government with no help from the big carriers?  As far as I know, 
none of the (huge amounts) of money I spent to get licensed went
to the FAA or DOT. . .

Hmmm.  So, what DO I tell my Dad?

   -Robert Johson, PP-ASEL (Still a temp. certificate!)
      rjohnson@sdf.lonestar.org
      rjohnson@colgate.edu
From: donovanh@sptekwv1.wv.tek.com (Donovan Hammer;685-2499;60-850;;sptekwv1)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: re: soft release
Keywords: gliding
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:43:58 GMT
Reply-To: user@host.wv.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix Inc, Wilsonville, OR

Richard Larson wrote:

> When I mentioned soft release in response to noisy Schweizer
> release mechanisms I had no idea it would stir up so much 
> response. The fears of loops in the rope and the glider 
> overtaking the tow or upsetting the tow have been unfounded 
> in my ten years (~350 takeoffs) of experience. The fear of 
> this being for experienced pilots only is also unfounded. I 
> was taught this as a student and had no problems of over doing 
> it.

I've been follow this thread for awhile and I'll add my $.02
for what it's worth (I guess it's worth $.02).

For the record, Schweizer has an advisor bulletin stating that
releases be performed under little or no tension.  I have a
copy for anyone to refer to if they need to.

I have over 1200 tows on one side or the other of the tow rope
and I've never seen any problems created by the soft release.
As a CFIG, I can attest  to the fact that a low time pilot or
student will not cause too much slack rope.  To the contrary,
they will usually produce substantial tension on the rope when
they srew up.  Also, it's not that likely that they will kite
up on the tow plane either.  As Richard pointed out the 10 ft
of height gained does not cause any undew problems for the tow
pilot.  I have alot more troubles when towing an over aggresive
CFIG who climbs to moon in oder to show his student that he can
put in a big ol' loop before practicing slack rope removal.
-- 
                                       Don Hammer

 ==================================== ========================
| Donovan Hammer, Principal Engineer |                        |
| Tektronix                          |                        |
|        / Computer Graphics Group   | Save the whales,...    |
| PO Box 1000, MS 60-850             | collect the whole set. |
| Wilsonville, Ore. 97070            |                        |
| phone - (503) 685-2499             |                        |
| fax   - (503) 682-1500             |                        |
| email - donovan.hammer@TEK.COM     |                        |
 ==================================== ========================

Return-Received-To: donovan.hammer@tek.com
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: INFO-WANTED: Beechcraft Musketeer
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:59:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO


In article <122140225@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhard)
writes:
>[...]
>> spare parts?
>
>Expensive (read Beechcraft... now, read: REAL EXPENSIVE!)

Ya know, I've heard this (and said it from time to time) for years, but I've
come to believe that they are no more expensive than any other types.  There
are notable exceptions, like the $2 bushings for the landing gear doors that
they want $43 for, but, for the most part, I've not been gouged at all.  In
fact, I've been quite pleased when I've had to buy a part from Beech.

And an even more important aspect, they are available!  We've never had to wait
more than a couple of days for a part, even when the local dealer had to order
them from the factory.  Granted, I can't call up WagAero and order an
aftermarket frammus like you can for a Cub, but the parts have been there when
I have needed them.

Bill Standerfer, satisfied Beech owner for over 3 years.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,eunet.aviation
From: hakoskinen@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi (Harri Koskinen)
Subject: a Piper Malibu crash again, now in Finland
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:14:43 GMT

Yesterday on Wednesday August 19 a Swedish-registered Piper PA-46
was crashed in the south-eastern part of Finland. All five persons on 
board were killed on impact. According to the preliminary information 
published on radio news and today's newspaper this seems to be one of 
the Malibu accidents where the pilot lost the control of his plane.

During recent years at least seven similar accidents have happened,
five in the US, one in Mexico and one in Japan. Because of these
accidents FAA ordered some restrictions for Malibu (e.g. flying in IMC 
was banned), but they were removed in spring since no technical failures 
were found in the aircraft. Instead of the restrictions, a wider type 
instruction is now required for Malibu pilots.

Here are the details of the yesterday's accident that I have so far 
managed to gather from various news sources:

The pilot took off from Lappeenranta (EFLP) in order to fly to Turku
(EFTU, in south-western coast of Finland, about 200 NM from EFLP).
The aircraft was flying with IFR plan (and probably also under IMC)
in the altitude of about 10000 feet. The radio contact was lost 21 
minutes after the take-off. The impact was 10 minutes later.

An eye-witness who was interviewed in radio and TV news told that
the aircraft came out of the cloud at about 200-300 meters (600-1000 ft)
altitude and was in spin until the impact. The engine was not running
any longer when the a/c came out of the cloud, but he heard the engine
sound earlier.

The aircraft was built in 1989, so I think I must have been a Malibu
Mirage and not a pure Malibu that was stated in the news.

Could someone of the net.aviators refresh my memory, if the seven
accidents concerned only the Malibu Mirage version of PA-46 or if
also older Malibus were involved?

-----
Harri Koskinen
(hakoskinen@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi)
freelance aviation writer
Siivet magazine
Finland
Newsgroups: rec.aviation