HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 13 Dec 92 00:23:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

 > .>If you require four satellites for a fix, and receive more than that,
 > .>you can test for the consistency of the signals.  If any signal appears
 > .>inconsistent, it can be rejected.  If you have no redundancy, you can
 > .>display the 'fail' flag, even if you do have 4 SVs in view.
 > .>

O> .Wouldn't this severly decrease the availability of the system? even
 > .with the full constellation?  I'm not going to be scheduling my IFR
 > .arrivals around some part-time system.

You can be sure that the FAA will not certify GPS for approach (or
even enroute) use until they are certain that the reliability will equal
that of the current systems.  But it's really not that bad.  When the
full constellation of SVs up, there will be little or no problem with
seriously degraded geometry.  With DGPS one can use the DGPS receiver to
detect anomalous or geometrically weak data, and flag the aircraft
receiver.  And the DGPS transmitter replaces an SV signal.

Even without DGPS, there's some discussion of using altitude data to
simulate a SV at the earth's center.  That too reduces the number of SVs
required for acceptable accuracy.  (For a non-precision approach,
certainly.)

O> .btw, you need n (3? 4?) satellites in view *in a favorable geometry*.

You need four for a confirmed 3D solution.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
      
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: windsurf@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Maaske Gould)
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 18:46:33 GMT


	Concerning the extra hours for the Inst ticket, instrument flying
requires great precision at maintaining altitudes and speeds while trying
to read small print in your lap.  You need to be completely comfortable
with flying the plane precisely before becoming competent on instruments.
As far as cross-country, I'm not sure it's specifically an advantage for 
IFR but it is excellent practice in general IF you go to a lot of different
places.  Flying in Hawaii I found the cross country fairly useless since 
there's only so many places you can fly to.
	The written isn't all that much harder.  I used a Gleim self-learn
book with sample test-questions/answers and one inst. text book and got
a 97%.  A good ground instr. is prob. better than a course for a greater
breadth of knowledge since a course is likely to teach to the test (like
a test prep book).  I would suggest spending as little money for the written
and save that for a ground instr. to teach you practical things not included
on the written.

-Scott Gould

** You can get in a plane or on a windsurfer, but make sure you **
               *** FLY HIGH AND STAY HIGH ***
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: braner@trantor.emba.uvm.edu (Moshe Braner)
Subject: Re: more ice!
Summary: training in winter
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: rec
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 13:38:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.224253.13612@bradley.bradley.edu> maverick@buhub.bradley.edu (Darin Petersen) writes:
>2) I plan on getting my instr. rating next summer when I wont get the
>chance of picking up ice. (in the chicago area)
>
>So my first encounter with ice will probably be next winter when I'm not
>with an instructor to say we're in potential danger. 

I was advised not to start IFR training in the Fall but did it anyway.
It went through the winter and I got to see what "trace" of ice looks
like.  Good prep for later.  We did cancel some flights due to reported
icing but that was good education too.
>On another note, has anyone encountered ice that froze their ailerons in
>place! (eek!) or elevator?

Not likely from less-than-severe icing in clouds, but if you take off
from a slushy runway into colder air you've gotta look out.  Wiggle
those controls (you do it anyway, but including flaps) and hope that
the wheels are not frozen in place for landing...

- Moshe

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Braner                          braner@emily.emba.uvm.edu
47 McGee Road, Essex, VT 05452        (802) 879-0876                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: more ice!
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:03:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.224253.13612@bradley.bradley.edu> maverick@buhub.bradley.edu (Darin Petersen) writes:
>I plan on getting my instr. rating next summer when I wont get the
>chance of picking up ice. (in the chicago area)
>
>So my first encounter with ice will probably be next winter when I'm not
>with an instructor to say we're in potential danger. 
>
More likely it will be early September in the upper Midwest. From one of
those wonderful fall Canadian cold fronts.

>On another note, has anyone encountered ice that froze their ailerons in
>place! (eek!) or elevator?
>
A related phenomenon is quite common: freezing of the elevator trim tab
actuator.  This really gets your attention if you have been struggling
to climb up through icing conditions, finally break out on top and 
attempt to trim for level flight.  The trim wheel is frozen solid and
you have to force the yoke forward mightily to get the nose down.

Usually, after some minutes of this, as you continue to try to rotate
the trim wheel, there is a sudden bang and the nose pitches down 
violently as the ice breaks loose.

I've had the "pleasure" of experiencing this in both a 172 and 182
(and it may be more common with Cessna trim mechanisms than other brands).

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Intersection names
Date: 10 Dec 92 23:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

JM> .>     ALPHA Terminal Intersection      N53 3905  W122 4507
  > .  Canada
  > .>     ALPHA Enroute Intersection       N22 0921  W082 5214
  > .  Cuba (?)
  > .>     ALPHA Enroute Intersection       N22 1548  E115 0836
  > .  Mexico
  > .>     ALPHA Enroute Intersection       N18 2800  E103 1800
  > .  Somewhere off my map in Central America
  > .>     ALPHA Terminal Intersection      N35 5931  E129 2708
  > .  Just outside the ADIZ boundary, well to the west of California

Joe, you missed the "E" in the last three.  The third is in China, near
Hong Kong.  The fourth is near Viangchan, Laos.  The last is just off
South Korea.

I have some charts and plates for the area, but I'm basically too lazy
to dig 'em out.  We can safely conclude that there are no duplicates in
the US, though.  There ARE duplicates in Canada.  (CANAL is duplicated.)

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                       
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: Intersection names
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:46:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.160624.13247@nntpserver.chevron.com> hdnea@usho92.hou281.chevron.com (David Neal) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.051532.14458@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> buchanan@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (BUCHANAN TIMOTHY E) writes:
>>The FAA turned down my suggestion for an intersection name, and I can't
>>imagine why-
>>
>>November so/and/so, cleared to EATME; hold as published.
>
>
>And of course, over Frank Sinatra's house, it would have
>to be: MYWAY. 

Well, there's precedent for this sort of thing.  South-east of the
Santa Rosa, Sonoma County airport (STS) is the SNUPY intersection.
It's near the home of Charles Schulz, creator of Peanuts.  :-)

pmf
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: braner@trantor.emba.uvm.edu (Moshe Braner)
Subject: Re: IFR Icing Strategies
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 13:52:27 GMT

In article <jcmorris.724092289@mwunix> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
>osh@cray.com (O'Shaughnessy John) quotes from the AIM:
>
>521. PIREP'S RELATING TO AIRFRAME ICING
>
>  [...]
> (1) Trace -- Ice becomes perceptible. ... It is not hazardous even 
>     though deicing/anti-icing equipment is not utilized unless encountered
>     for an extended period of time (over 1 hour).

So it is hazardous if longer than an hour.

> (2) Light -- the rate of accumulation may create a problem if flight is
>     prolonged in this environment (over 1 hour).

How is that different from "Trace" then?

> (3) Moderate -- The rate of accumumation is such that even short
>     encounters become potentially hazardous...

How short is short?

Now for my story: I hit a rapid accumulation of clear ice once, solo
in a 172.  On my first true IFR XC.  At an altitude below the previously
reported freezing level and icing.  The leading edges got 1/4 inch in
about 3 minutes.  I should have kept on climbing (yes the plane was
climbing just fine) and would have popped out between layers shortly.
Instead I asked to go down -- I was at about 3700 MSL, the bottoms were
at 3000 MSL, and there was clear and above-freezing air below.  But ATC
let me go down only to 3000' (MVA) and that kept me in the cloud.
So much for an "out"...  I could only go under the clouds by declaring
an emergency.  I didn't, instead asked for a climb again -- and popped
out of the (sloping) layer at 3500....  Moral: I should have kept on
climbing in the first place...  I stayed between layers for the rest
of the trip -- after 2 hours much of the ice was still there!

I supposed that was "moderate"...

- Moshe
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Braner                          braner@emily.emba.uvm.edu
47 McGee Road, Essex, VT 05452        (802) 879-0876                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: richard@Apple.COM (a flying squirrel)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:44:39 GMT
Organization: Xiola Blue

I am currently pounding away at having those elusive letters IA tacked
onto my ticket.  I have some unrelated questions...

1. In this age of computers, most of my briefings/filings have been via
DUAT.  Is WX map reading becoming a thing of the past?  Waiting for a
briefer at the Oakland FSS can be a nightmare if it gets anywhere near
IMC around here.
2. Related to #1, above: how receptive are examiners towards flight
and WX info coming from DUAT?  The weather, NOTAMs, etc, are all the
same data feed as the FSS specialists would read to you.  Is it better/
worse that I am interpreting the information, as opposed to a NWS-trained
phone jockey?
3. Are my feelings of frustration and worthlessness normal?  :^)  Every
time I think I have everything under control, my CFII points out something
that I have screwed up.  My division of attention seems to need the most
work.  Any individual task is easy, putting them all together is proving
difficult.
4. Is time in actual time well spent?  We've encountered some great WX
so far; however, it's a _very_ intense condition to learn under.
5. Since I am doing my rating with an instructor and his airplane, I 
do not have any reasonable access to a simulator.  Would spending some
time in one be beneficial, or is actual in-the-air time a better
use of my resources? 

Thanks in advance for any helpful advice/insight.
-- 
a flying squirrel is: richard@apple.com  Apple Computer Inc.

"Sex is a filter, and it admits a certain vision."  - William S. Burroughs
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Intersection names
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:18:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.051532.14458@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
buchanan@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (BUCHANAN TIMOTHY E) writes:
> The FAA turned down my suggestion for an intersection name, and I can't
> imagine why- November so/and/so, cleared to EATME; hold as published.

Well, they do have several which are close:
    EAT L-VOR 47:23:59 120:12:35 Wenatchee
    EATEN Int 42:51:51 75:37:08
    EATER Int 39:45:17 105:04:42
    EATON Int 43:06:59 85:34:00
    EATWO Int 33:37:01 83:44:12

							Geoff
From: lee@deneb.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Date: 17 Dec 1992 14:33:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: deneb.sw.stratus.com

I found that I could memorize the chart symbols on my own, and I could read
the book for the principles, but the class was critical for the discussions on
how it is really done.  Things like cockpit organization, scheduling the
pre-landing checklist, working with ATC in the Boston area, fast chart
reading, and so on.  There are lots of choices to be made in IFR flying, and
getting a head start on those answers in the dry, light, stable air of the
classroom rather than in the cockpit of a plane is worth the time.  There is
more of this stuff than can be handled by random pre- and post-flight
discussions with an instructor.


-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: girling@cs.sfu.ca (Doug Girling)
Subject: Re: Flying flea info wanted
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:51:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.183444.19976@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> ron@etch-eshop.Berkeley.EDU (Ronald Viegelahn) writes:
>
> Hello rec.aviators
>
> I'm looking for some information on an airplane named
>" HM290, Flying Flea ". The plans & a kit are marketed
>by a Canadian Co. Falconar Ltd of Edmonton, Alberta.

[...]

>
> What I'm looking for is opinions/pros cons whatever on this
>unusual design. This aircraft is a staggered wing bipe? type
>who's attitude is controlled by pivoting the forward most wing
>witch is mounted higher that the rear wing/stablizer. There is
>no conventional stablizer/elevator. No airlerons just rudder.
>
> The big pitch is they claim that this plane will not spin or
>stall like a conventional tailed plane can.
>
>				Thanks to all
>
>				Ron Viegelahn
>
>				ron@etcheshop.Berkeley.EDU
>

Ron,

Mignet designed the flying flea (Pou de Ciel) in the interwar period in
france.  It is a tandem-wing aircraft, much like the Rutan Quickie in
planform (though that's where the similarity ends) -- purists can argue
whether it is (also) a biplane or not.  His design objectives were to come
up with a single-seat homebuilt that everyone could afford to build, own,
and fly.  Consequently, it was simple for a "home handyman" to build, small
and roadable, (the outer wing panels of the one at our museum fold in to
make it narrow enough to be towed), and like many attempts of its day,
attempted to be completely idiot-proof and unspinnable.

Unfortunately, many of the original fleas pranged and I believe it was
usually a fatal deformation of the airframe-ground interface.
Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact reason, but I believe it was
effectively a "deep stall" of the forward pivoting wing that couldn't be
recovered from (presumably a straight hole in the ground is better than a
helical one).  It _could_ also have been a combination of bad press and
inexperienced pilots.  The design certainly suffered from "homebuilder
modification-itis" as no 2 fleas ever looked the same.  In any event, they
were I believe, banned for many years, but have made a comeback after WWII.

The flea advocates seem a fanatical lot -- kind of like FORTH programmers
-- and modern fleas seem to be flying safely from what I've read.  There
was an article on fleas (or Dutch GA that featured fleas heavily) in
KitPlanes this year (`92), and you might consider contacting some of the
aviation museums that have an emphasis on GA for further info.  As for
Falconar Ltd., I've heard they're a respectable company, and have been in
the biz for many years (equivalent to Aircraft Spruce & Specialty or Wicks)

Hope this helps,
-- 
Doug Girling, lab engineer	| Voice: (604)291-4428  FAX:   (604)291-4951
School of Engineering Science	| Usenet: girling@cs.sfu.ca
Simon Fraser University		| Bitnet: girling%cs.sfu.ca@relay.cdnnet.ca
Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 CANADA	| CompuServe: 73777,50
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Ham radio forbidden in plane?
Keywords: ham, amateur radio
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:30:02 GMT

In article <921218105415@AltaHopa.ftp.com> plummer@babyoil.ftp.com writes:
>In my studies I came across an FAR that seemed to forbid use of
>amateur radio equipment, not only a transmitter, in a plane.  Is
>this correct?  If so, is the idea to prevent interference with the
>plane's radios?  Is this a real possibility with properly aligned
>equipment?  --Bill
>

The FAR you are referring to is up to the pilot's discression.
CAP uses the 2M band for communications and we have a unit installed
in our squadron's aircraft;  on the other hand, when you transmit on
the 2M band, the needles on the nav heads go left an right, so we
have the aircraft placarded to prohibit trasmitting during IMC.  It
is pretty clear to me that the transmitting energy is easily picked
up by the VOR nav equipment (antennae).

Licensing is another issue that I am not fully briefed on.  We have
fixed, mobile, and air licenses for our units.  I'm not sure what
limitations and/or operating conditions the FCC puts on air units
in the amateur bands.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: Buying planes and training in them
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:18:07 GMT

alanmoore@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>Some friends of mine and I are thinking of buying my dad's '45 Navion.
>[ ... to learn to fly in ... ]
>What are other people's feelings on this?

I'm not very familiar with Navions, but if I'm remembering correctly I
agree with your licensed friend:  it's a bad idea.

First, operating the Navion may well cost as much or more than renting
a more "usual" training airplane.  Our Comanche 180 is a smaller, less
powerful, newer airplane, and it runs us about $40/hour; I think rental
152s are available for right about that.  Note that in student operations
getting there faster is actually counterproductive, since most of the
important metrics are measured in hours.

Second, getting insurance for student operations in that class of airplane
may well be completely impossible.  I wouldn't be surprised if you'd have
a hard time finding insurance for pilots, even post-student, with less than
100 hours.  When we bought the Comanche we were looking at 150-200 hour
minimums, and finally fought them down to 100 hours.  Regardless, insurance
will be higher for the Navion, and that's an expense you don't need.

Third, a fast complex airplane is not going to be great to learn in;
everything will be happening too fast and there is too much to do.
(Trust me, when you're first learning everything happens too fast in
a 150, never mind a faster airplane.)

Fourth, as your friend mentioned, it'll be hard on the airplane.  Trainers
are built for the abuses students put them through, and in the worst case
are less expensive to replace than "better" airplanes.

Fifth, an airplane that old is going to require lots of TLC, and at least
some of that will be easier when you are more experienced.

Don't do it.  Rent a conventional trainer (150, 152, 172, Tomahawk, Cherokee).
If you want to, buy such a trainer.  That'll be plenty for your training and
a bit beyond; probably plenty through around 100 hours.  At that point you
can resell it; airplanes retain value pretty well.

Even discounting the student aspects of the situation, I might have a hard
time recommending that airplane as a first airplane purchase.  Our '79
Tomahawk was a rude awakening in the realities of airplane ownership, and
it has been a perfect gem compared to our '60 Comanche.  You need to
understand what you're getting into.  You can get some of that from your
father, but make sure you really understand it.  An airplane can easily
take over your life, not to mention your bank account.
From: jao@yoyodyne.UUCP (J. A. Ollinger)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Stunt Island
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:57:51 PST
Organization: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, San Narcisso, CA

larry@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Larry Maturo) writes:

> Has anyone played Stunt Island?  It looks like fun, though probably not very
> realistic.  I think it is made in conjuction with some Disney software compan
> Any comments on it?
> 
It's okay.  It depends entirely on what you want to do.  The flight
models aren't much, so it isn't like you really are flying a 747 or a
Curtiss pusher or a Cessna Skyhawk or any of the other planes--it's like
you're pretending to fly a game version of an airplane that happens to
look kinda like a 747.  If that distinction makes any sense...

It is kind of fun.  You can play in one of several different modes.
First mode is just free-flight crusing, which gets dull real fast.
Second is as a stunt pilot.  They say, "land your P-51 Mustang on top of
the World Trade Center" and then set you up to do it.  Or they say, "fly
down underneath the Golden Gate, then fly along the river under 100' AGL
until you see Alcatraz, and snag the guy on the tower with your
undercarriage."  That's fun if you're good at it (I'm not).  You can also
set up your own stunts and specify how things should be done.

The real power of the game is in making your own little films.  You set
up cameras and chase planes and then you film takes of your stunts.  Then
you go into the editing room and edit them into short movies.  You can
recreate the airplane stunt from the beginning of THE GREAT RACE or a
dogfight from any number of war movies.  You can have planes strafe cars
and blow up buildings.  They offer a lot of "sets" to use as backgrounds
and "props" to interact with.  If you're good, you can really make some
interesting films.

The ground detail is impressive if you have a computer fast enough to
handle it, and all in all it's a fun game.  It's a cute game.  A flight
simulator it ain't.  But if you're a closet D.W.Griffith, it's worth a
look.


=============================================================================
J. A. Ollinger      | Do not hit R!  Route mail to    | Knights, Inc.
Yoyodyne Propulsion | me at:  JAO@SACTOH0.SAC.CA.US   | JAO, District Knight
San Narcisso, Calif | until I get this site registered| Dragons slain
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: ATC / Tracon
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:39:10 GMT

From article <1992Dec11.161225.5527@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, by rdale@nyx.cs.du.edu (Robert P Dale):
> I was looking at Tracon for Windows but just today saw an ad in
> January's Compute about Mallard's ATC...  Anybody know anythin
> about it other than what's in the ad?

Wesson International, maker of Tracon, has given up marketing Tracon, 
and has given the task to Mallard.  Hence Mallard's ATC is probably Tracon.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators