HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

Robert Mazanec asks:

> >    3.  Should I forget the whole thing if I don't want to give up
> >       my past-shoulder-length ponytail?

Brent Chapman responds:

> That varies strongly from squadron to squadron (and probably from wing
> to wing).  In my squadron, I don't think it would be a problem at all.
> We're real big on getting the emergency services job done, and not real
> big on uniforms.  Each squadron has its own personality, though; some
> others are real spit-and-polish outfits.

Brent points out that your "past-shoulder-length ponytail" would not
be a concern in his squadron, but might be in other "spit-and-polish"
squadrons.  There is absolutely no excuse for any squadron limiting
your involvment based on the length of your hair!!!  CAP members have
a number of uniform options available to them.  If you choose to wear
a U.S. Air Force style uniform you must meet USAF grooming standards.
That is why CAP has two uniform options that are CAP only.  You do not
have to meet USAF standards to wear these uniforms.  People who want
to keep their beard for instance have the same decision you have, either
alter yourself to meet USAF requirements (which you only do if you
really want to, you are an individual after all), or choose the CAP
blue jumpsuit or slacks/polo shirt uniform options.

CAP can use ANYONE who is interested and has time to offer.  Being a
pilot is not a requirement.  My squadron has 5 active pilots, and 
about 25 active members.  We are very effective in Emergency Services
and the Cadet program.  We can always use more truely active members,
both pilots and not.  If you are interested in CAP, I encourage you
to go visit the squadron (or more) that is close to you.  Talk to the
folks and see if it is a group of people you like, and an organization
you are interested in.  If you are unable to locate the squadron near
you, get in touch with me or any other CAP member and they can help
you out.

Happy Flying...

-------------------------------------------------------
Joel Larner - Hewlett Packard, Greeley Storage Division
CAP SAR Pilot            email:  joell@hpgrjq.gr.hp.com
                           CAP:  Pikes Peak 293
                    In The Air:  N182H

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: will@wixer.cactus.org (Bill Staniewicz)
Subject: Aircraft identification
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 21:50:11 GMT

I was wondering how you can identify the owner of
an aircraft having just the N numbers to refer to.
Is there a great deal of paperwork necessary? Can
it be done on-line? Does the same procedure apply
to foreign aircraft (canadian)?
What other information do you get with the report
besides the id of the owner?

Thank you in advance.

-- 
Bill
will@wixer.cactus.org
From: bdboyle@maverick1.erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Renting woes...
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:52:19 GMT
Reply-To: bdboyle@maverick1.erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Exxon Research & Engineering


IMO, I view each chance to checkout at a "foreign FBO" in a new area
in the same vein of: gee, guys, I've never flown in this area before,
what are some of the rules, landmarks, etc...as well as my stock
question: Mr. CFI, assume I am a new student...(I'm not, btw...)-let's go
through the drill so that 1) you are satisfied that I can safely pilot this
aircraft, and 2) your boss is satisfied that I am not going to turn his
$110K airplane into recycling fodder, as well as 3) introduce me to the
pleasures of discovering a new area...Yeah, it is a way for an FBO to
make some money , a CFI to get another hour of C172 time in his book (as
if they really need it...:-)), but it is a way for me to checkpoint myself
(and, sometimes, make a new friend in the process...).
 
Bryan D. Boyle     | Opinions are mine, not Exxon's...
Senior Engineer    | Former owner Cherokee N7068W (sniff...)
Exxon Research and | CPT, Civil Air Patrol Emergency Services
Engineering Co.    | Mission Pilot/Cadet Orientation
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh)
Subject: Re: crossing a runway, and instructor relations
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 23:57:30 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <furtaw-030992123649@145.1.92.170> furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.132445.11102@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>,
>glennw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (glenn.r.wesley) wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <CSTACY.92Aug26144058@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> cstacy@ai.mit.edu (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>> >
>> >The FAA says that an ATC instruction to "taxi to" a runway is a
>> >clearance to cross any inactive runways between here and there.  
>                          ^^^^^^^^ 
>True but incomplete.  Actually "taxi to" includes "all runways that
>intercept the taxi route to that point."

It's more complicated than has yet been discussed. Taxi to a point other
than an assigned takeoff runway, with an absence of holding instructions,
authorizes an aircraft to cross all taxiways and runways that interesect
the taxi route. Active, inactive, disused, abandoned, torn up and used for
drag racing, you're authorised to cross it.
Taxi to an assigned takeoff runway, and hold short instructions are not
issued, allows an aircraft to cross all runways EXCEPT the assigned
takeoff runway. The statement is "This does not authorise the aicraft
to enter or cross the assigned takeoff runway at any point".
There is no mention of "active" runways at all. This is all from 7110.65.

Mat

Matthew Waugh			waugh@dg-rtp.dg.com
RTP Network Services 		
Data General Corp.		
RTP, NC. (919)-248-6034
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Air Lifeline experience
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:00:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <186uqlINNebb@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000)
 writes:

>Umm are we loosing sight of the point here?  People who need
>AirLifeline assistance CANNOT AFFORD an air ambulance--
>talking about them is beside the point--they are out of the picture--
>not relevant to the discussion because no one will pay them.
>(Unless you are volunteering, Dr Kaplan?)

Ahh.... Here we get to a very interesting sidebar to 
this discussion.  I've had a number of discussions in
private e-mail about this, and I'll be glad to discuss it
there further as we are probably digressing beyond 
the bounds of rec.aviation.  Maybe we should start a
thread in sci.med.

If a patient truly NEEDS an air ambulance (as 
in lack of such transportation might enganger his
condition and not just inconvenience him) then 
he should HAVE an air ambulance.  A makeshift goodwill
C-172 will not suffice.  It may well be more dangerous
to have a medical emergency in a C-172 in flight
to Metropolis General than on the ground within
driving range of Podunk Community Hospital.

Even a C-172 with an M.D. or R.N. or EMT as 
pilots or passengers may not be much better.
The equipment, space, and radio communications on
an air ambulance are essential.

My frustration during this thread grows from 
the ever-escalating mindless bureacracy which 
funds health care in this country.  It's ludicrous
for a patient to be eligible for a $250,000+
organ transplant but have no realistic and 
safe transport to the hopsital.  It's ludicrous
for a patient to have an MRI on a multi-gazillion
dollar machine but to not be given crutches
afterward.  It's ludicrous for children to not
be insured for routine well child checkups
but to be covered when mom brings the kids
in for a $125 emergency room visit because of
neglected routine care.

I apologize for digressing so much, but I hope
this gives some background on why I feel some
(probably a minority) AirLifeline missions
are unwise.  We as private pilots may hurt
patients in an act of good intentioned charity.
The answer is some reorganization of the 
existing health care system, not transport of
patients with makeshift equipment.

So go ahead and make a child smile on the way
back from the hospital.  But please don't take
on a "life-saving" mission.

Use your judgment, but I suggest followup
by e-mail so we keep rec.aviation on track.

-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (ed Hutton ext. 6488)
Subject: Re: DEA .vs. Florida
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 03:38:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.200611.2796@megatek.com> mark@xfbdev.megatek.com (Mark Thompson) writes:
>It seems to me that if the situation in Florida with respect to the
>DEA is as bad as it seems to be from the thing that I have read, that
>people should seriously consider JUST NOT GOING THERE. And telling the
>local Chamber of Commerce why.

	Actually, I DO NOT fly to Florida. It is obviously a short trip
from where I live. Other people in the local EAA chapter do fly to FL and
the islands. I have heard good times and bad. Personally, it is just not
worth the risk. I'm not really sure who I'm more worried about -- the bad
guys (smugglers) who might rip off my plane/avionics or the good (?) guys
(US gov) who might flip me over with a helicopter or hassle me to an 
extreme. 

	Several of the people in the EAA have spouses who video tape their
adventures. On one recent flight back from the islands, one of the spouses
was video taping the little adventure with Customs. Customs was not being
exactly what you would call courteous. Finally, they ordered the video 
camera turned off! Please! What is the big secret? You have a plane. They
have a dog. The dog has a nose. I think we all know how it works. Is it
just too much to expect a pleasant, "Sorry to inconvience you sir -- this
will only take a moment... Have a nice day." 

	I like your idea about notifying the Chamber of Commerce. Maybe
hitting them in the pocket book would put the service back in "public
servant".


Ed
-- 
edward.hutton@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ed Hutton)    
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: zari@bolzano.math.ethz.ch (Alain Zarinelli)
Subject: Re: Hinckley Crash
Keywords: twin engine aircraft on tkof
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:36:42 GMT


In article <BuE83F.K5q@ddsw1.mcs.com>, karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

|> 1)	It appears they had an engine-out condition at or shortly after
|> 	take-off.  I know this isn't a good time for such an event, but
|> 	aren't most twins capable of climbing under these conditions even
|> 	with a full gross payload?  
|>                            [...stuff deleted...]

     As I already tried to point out in a previous post to the net
(cf article <1992Sep10.141119.16679@bernina.ethz.ch>. I can also e-mail
you a copy of it...) this is NOT the case for _LIGHT_ twins (MTOW < 5.7
tons, operating under FAR 23).

|> 2)	The gear looked DOWN.  I distinctly saw TWO landing gear wheels in 
|> 	the wreckage on local TV, and one was visible in the newspaper photos.
|> 	Isn't it standard procedure, in the case of an engine out, to do
|> 	>everything< possible to lessen drag?  I would think that one of the
|> 	first orders of business is to hit the "gear up" switch -- [...]

     Right, but it depends on the situation. If you still have enough RWY
in front of you to land the aircraft you certainly wouldn't put your gear
up, would you? 

|>                                                             [...] right
|> 	after increasing power on the remaining (good) engine!
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                   ~~~~
     NO WAY! You might even have to DECREASE power on the remaining engine
in order to maintain control of the aircraft!


DISCLAIMER: With this posting I'm not joining the speculations about the
            "possible causes" of this accident, these are just my thoughts
            in response to Karl's "few things of note"...

							Alain.
--
Alain Zarinelli                                            (PPL-CVFR/NVFR)
zari@math.ethz.ch                                                         
zari@astro.phys.ethz.ch               "If God had meant man to fly ---
zari@czheth5a.bitnet                   He would have given him more money"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: Bird in Engine Compartment
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:52:22 GMT

In <pkvs6vc@fido.asd.sgi.com> jeffg@loki.esd.sgi.com (Jeff C. Glover) writes:

>I shudder to think what
>might have happened if he'd been ingested into the opening I assume is
>the carb heat direct induction vent - he was sitting right next to it
>when I found him.

That's the cabin heat air inlet.  The carb heat air inlet is inside the
cowl.

greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Subject: Re: Twin Engine Club Plane
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:29:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.182045.27012@medtron.medtronic.com> 
km11480@medtronic.COM (Keith A. Meisel) writes:
> Is a twin-engine an appropriate aircraft
> for a club situation?  Is it potentially too dangerous for weekend
> flyers?  Also, could the costs associated with owning a twin
> become a financial burden on the rest of the club operations?

I'd avoid it.   Between the insurance requirements for checkout and the 
cost of flying it, it will benefit only a few members at best.  Our club 
has had one a couple of time (leaseback arrangement) and it never really 
worked out.  Most small twins have only marginal performance advantages 
over their single engine counterparts.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: New Career in Flying?
Keywords: Career, Commercial Pilot
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:16:17 GMT


|> In article <1992Sep10.133744.461@altair.selu.edu> tmis1692@altair.selu.edu writes:
|> >
|> >Has anybody changed careers at the age of 36 from say programming computers to
|> >flying airplanes for a living?  I see ad's in the magazines that say you can
|> >get a license (commercial) within a year or so provided you go to their school
|> >full time of course.  

An acquaintance of mine flies 747's for American Airlines.  Here is his story
about how he got into his current flying job.  First, he discovered that he
loved to fly so he got his pilot's license in 1958.  He worked a schmuk job
and spent every penny he could get his hands on to get his CFI and buy a
Cessna 150.  He gave lessons in his 150, barely covering the operation of
the airplane and putting beans and cornbread on the table.  Finally, he had
enough hours to land a job flying a small commuter twin for some podunk
little commuter service making less money than he made giving lessons.  
Basically, he lived very poorly for about 15 years but at least he was flying
and that was what counted.  Finally, he got is first job with American.  He
still didn't make a lot of money, but it wasn't quite as tight as it had been
before.  Gradually, he moved up to pilot DC-9's, 727's, etc. and made a 
comfortable living.  For the last two years he has been piloting 747's to
Japan and has another two years to fly before mandatory retirement.  So, for
that 4 year period he will probably make $150k+ per year (I don't really know
exactly what he makes these days).  But he put in his whole life practically,
to get there.  He now owns a small airport in Texas and runs a flight school.
There are a lot of young pilots who work for him for absolute peanuts trying
to build time so they might have a shot at doing what he does some day.  But
today, it's a lot harder than it was for him.

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: rl@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert Langridge)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Mr Spitfire , DH110
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:01:26 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

msmith@crc.ac.uk (Mike Smith x3297) writes:

>In article <rl.715825544@cgl.ucsf.edu>, rl@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert Langridge) writes:
...
>> The DH-110 accident at Farnborough occurred in the early '50s, I don't
>> remember the pilot's name.  

>John Derry, I believe. I think that Neville Duke was a test pilot for Hawker
>and that the pair were popular figures at Farnborough in those days.

Thanks for refreshing my erratic memory...

Duke used to fly the Hawker Hunter at the '50s shows.  One of the highlights
in the early days was the sonic boom demo.  The Hunter couldn't exceed
Mach 1 in level flight, but could and did in a steep dive.  Duke would climb 
to about 40,000 ft and the PA would carry the description of the flight
profile.  Shortly after announcing Mach 1 came the characteristic double boom
It was a big thrill in those days...

On one very damp September day Duke made a low pass down the Farnborough 
runway - accompanied by his own private shimmering envelope of condensation.  
Very little of the aircraft could be seen.  We had all seen tip vortices and 
the like, but this was the first high subsonic cloud...

Bob Langridge    		       Phone: +1 415 476-2630, -1540, -5128
Computer Graphics Laboratory		               FAX: +1 415 476-0688 
926 Medical Sciences
University of California	                    E-Mail: rl@cgl.ucsf.edu
San Francisco  CA  94143-0446
From: steves@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Steve Shaffer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: How do you keep current?
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:38:41 GMT
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA

> I've had my PP-ASEL for three months. With all the talk about
> alphabet airspace, I'm wondering what others use to keep abreast
> of all that's aviation related.

- Join associations with publications such as AOPA and aircraft owners groups
  (such as American Bonanza Society).
- Read the trade magazines such as Flying and IFR
- Hang out at the airport
- Read the FARs once in a while
! READ THIS NOTES GROUP!

Steve Shaffer CFI - BE-35 N3334G
steves@hpsad.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: sross@convex.com (Steve Ross)
Subject: Re: Interstate Landing--Not such a good idea
Keywords: Emergency Landing Road Interstate
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 19:04:36 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

While taking my private pilot test the DE pulled the power and ask me where
I was going to land. Following is the conversation...

DE: Your engine failed. Where are you going to land?

ME: On the Interstate (it was 8 lanes and light traffic).

DE: WHERE are you going to land?

ME: On the interstate ( I was taught to never change your mind once you pick
    a landing spot).

DE: NO... You are not going to land on the Interstate... where are you going
    to land? 

Anyway I ended up choosing a dirt field. 

Steve
From: jpp@StarConn.com (John Pettitt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Stolen radio update
Date: 6 Sep 92 05:03:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133


Well no news on the missing KX155s and KN64 however the insurance
company is making noises about Florida causing big delays in payment
:-(.   Still the plane is back in the air (I wrote a check :-() and we
are not going to get hit for betterment (the radios werre 6 months old).

The good news is we get a free KX99 handheld for buying a new KX155 !
It's not the ideal way to get a new handheld but it takes some of the
edge off having the radios stolen.  (See King ad in AOPA pilot for
details of the offer).



-- 
John Pettitt					jpp@starconn.com
Archer N81034					apple!starnet!jpp
Me, say that, never: It's a forged posting!	Fax:   +1 415 967 8682
						Voice: +1 415 967 UNIX
From: hale@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bill Hale)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:37:24 GMT
Subject: Re: More propping large engines
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

To all "you people" who would hand prop a 210...

Have you ever checked the angle that a correctly installed 3-blade
prop sits on when it's at the bottom of the compression stroke?  It's 
such that maximum force needs to be applied as you pull down thru
about 7:00.  

With a 2-blade (like a 182), you start at about 10:00, so it's not too
tough.  But I just can't imagine propping a 3-blade Continental.

If it's an IO-series 2-blade, it can be done.  But it takes a long time,
because you must also get the fuel just right which is hard enough when the
starter is working.  Can take many blades, one at a time.

Dangerous, too.  Much better to carry a ground service plug cable along
with a regular jumper cable so you can wire two cars in series to do the
job.

+Regards, Bill Hale;  hale@hpfclm.FC.HP.COM   [hplabs|hpfcla]!hpfclm!hale
+Thru ether-K0QA; In ether-BE33 N33HP CFIAIME A&P; Twisted pair 1-303-229-3037
+Snail: c/o HP UTD MS73 3404 E Harmony, Ft Collins, CO 80525 Incoming:40 44.2N
+105 33.1W; Pictures 303-299-6441
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: M21208@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Need ATC clearance for T&G at uncontrolled field when shooting approach?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 08:51:57 GMT

In article <9209141559.AA06089@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
JAB0633%USA.decnet@USAV01.GLAXO.COM ("USA::JAB0633") writes:
 
>
>A question for the rec.aviation.gurus...
>
>I was shooting practice ILS approaches on an IFR clearance (with a CFII
>safety pilot) to an uncontrolled field with FSS on-field (RWI).  At one
>point other traffic asked if we were going to land or do a low approach
>- I answered that we intended to do a touch-and-go.  The FSS then asked
>if the center had cleared us...
>When we were back on center frequency, we asked about this, and the
>controller confirmed that we needed specific clearance for a
>touch-and-go rather than a low-approach.  Later, he called us and told
>us that he had confirmed this (although not how).
>
>My question...
>
>*Where* is this requirement stated, or implied?  Is it hidden somewhere
>in the AIM or the FARs, or is it something buried in the ATC handbook?
>Inquiring minds want to know!!
>
I was a center controller for 10 years, and I haven't got a clue what they're
talking about.  Centers CANNOT, EVER, issue anything that sounds like a takeoff
or landing clearance at an uncontrolled airport.  The only thing that may be
going on is that once an IFR aircraft lands, it has essentially cancelled IFR.  =
If he sees you touch down, Mr. FSS man is going to react by calling center and
telling them you've landed.  If you then take off again, you've technically     |
become an IFR departure without a clearance, as opposed to a missed approach.   |
It's a VERY technical distinction, as the center really doesn't care if you     |
touched down or overflew the runway at two feet AGL.  Rocky Mount is in         |
Washington Center, right?  They're in Leesburg, VA, - try calling their         |
Airspace and Procedures office and asking them about this.  It ought to be an   |
interesting conversation... (I'll bet they stop doing it.)
 
Scott Dunham