HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seymour@milton.u.washington.edu (Richard Seymour)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Bent Firewalls in General
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:02:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Jul23.230235.6567
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Jul23.180302.8087@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>When I bought my 1979 Skyhawk, ... there was a "slight" crease in the firewall.
> In discussing this with the mechanic, ...it was his opinion that most 172's
>... have some degree of bend in their firewalls and that this was "slight"
> an not something to be particularly concerned with.  

> Next annual rolls around, a different mechanic ... makes a much bigger deal 
> about the firewall.  He [said] _any_ bend in the firewall should be 
> straightened since any bend has caused some weakening and subsequent 
> hits on the nose wheel could cause a collapse.  
> Anyway, the firewall was straightened.  
>
>I'm curious about how big a deal other's view a "slightly" bent firewall.
(i'm lucky... i've got a retired A&P here i can go pester...)
and HE agrees with the -second- mechanic.. a bent firewall means:
  weakness (if you ever want the strength) and possible bends in the rest
  of the structure, too.  In fact, the repair is not to "straighten" the
  firewall.. but to replace the stainless plate (it's not made for hammering
  flat... it'll grow laterally and brittle)

>Also, what do you do when one IA says something doesn't affect a plane's
>airwortiness and another says it does?  
You're PIC... and it's your butt on the line (nose in the grass?) if it's wrong.
>I suppose you can't make a guy sign off on something he says isn't airworthy,
> but how do you then protect yourself from repairs that are not in fact 
> necessary?  If the guy won't sign it off, what then?  
...Just like medical matters: you can always get a second opinion.
and/or assess the situation yourself... (in the case of the 172, doesn't the 
nosegear actually hang a little ahead of the firewall, on the engine mount?
therefore look for frame damage, too.. since reasonable stresses on the gear 
shouldn't hit the firewall...)
> Or, are we owners pretty much at the mercy of the guy that signs off on 
> that particular annual?
no... if you're where you can drag in a second mechanic. and/or get a ferry
permit to take the plane elsewhere
--dick (IMHO... and i do play a flashlight along the firewalls of the 172/152's
    i rent)
From: collet@ensta.ensta.fr (Pierre Collet)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: unreliable VOR navigation
Keywords: Gorman CA VOR
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:13:57 GMT
Organization: Ensta, Paris, France
NNTP-Posting-Host: ensta.ensta.fr

In article <1992Jul21.201351.2887@news.arc.nasa.gov> doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>In article <greg.711685423@octopus>, greg@octopus.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
>|> Is it possible that you were too far from the station?  ...
>
>I was within 40 miles of the station, and close to the station it was
>so bad that I did not end up flying anywhere near the station. I almost always
>see the station, and this time I was certianly far away.
>

The rule of thumb for VOR range is the following ;

Operating range ~= 1.23 sqrt(altitude above the VOR station)
   nm                                  ft

Now 40 = 1.23 sqrt(1060), and I guess you were above 1000ft AGL, so
you very probably were within the range of that VOR.


Blue skies,

Pete.
From: cap@selway.umt.edu (Charles A. Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: One of those perfect moments
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:21:29 GMT
Organization: University of Montana

The father of one of my former students is a senior pilot for Northwest.
One of those 40,000 hour guys.  Today, I flew he and his wife from Missoula
to Kalispell International in my Skylane.  On the way up I asked him if he
wanted to fly the plane, and he did for awhile, and then turned the control
back to me.  I asked him if he wanted to make the landing, and he said,
"no, I want to see how _you_ do it."

No Pressure.

Some of you may remember that I was having trouble with my landings in
my new_to_me Skylane.  Well, I greased it. And I had it stopped in less
than 500 feet.  Best landing I've ever made.

The man turns to me and says, "Are we down yet?"  :-)

-- 
========================================================================
Cap Smith                 Assistant Prof. of MIS           PP-ASEL
cap@selway.umt.edu        University of Montana            Skylane 71654
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.aeronautics,comp.human-factors
From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
Subject: Re: Coffe cups in the cockpit (Re: A320 yarns)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:38:02 GMT

In article <1e3fukw@Unify.Com>, raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes:
|> In article <TJFS.92Jul25234136@coffee.tadtec.uucp>, tjfs@tadtec.uucp (Tim Steele) writes:
|> stuff deleted
|>
|> 	The advantage of a tennis ball over a coffee cup is that it
|> 	stays put much better in turbulence.  While soaring in the
|> 	Mojave Desert in sailplanes equipped with accelerometers, I
|> 	routinely saw a range of +3G to -1/2G on its telltales due
|> 	soley to thermal turbulence, so that situation calls
|> 	for balls.
|>          ^^^^^

	Big brass ones, no doubt! :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
									|
David M. Hagood			Martin Marietta Astronautics Group	|
									|
Voice:  (303) 977-9657		When in danger, or in doubt,		|
E-mail: hagood@den.mmc.com	Run in circles, scream and shout.	|
Fax: (303) 977-1530							|
									|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     static char *disclaimer = "My opinions, not Martin Marietta's."    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: glockner-gregory@CS.YALE.EDU (Gregory Glockner)
Subject: Re: United drops 737-400 in favor of A-320
Summary: Oops, corrections
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:26:49 GMT


I made two little typos:

>Clearly, the A320 series has better range.  The souble numbers indicate that
						 ^^^^^^
>some models are available with different engine or fuel tank configurations.

I meant 'double numbers' (I'm not quite sure what a souble number is!)


>For the Boeing airplanes, I looked up the capacities for United's planes (e.g.
>United's configuration).  Since United does not currently fly the 737-300,
								      ^^^^
>that figure represents USAir's planes.  The small number is first class, the 
>larger number is coach.

Oops!  Yes, United *does* fly the dash -300; they don't fly the -400.

All typo flames will go to my bit bucket.
-- 
Gregory Glockner				Work: 202-267-3924
 Past:     Yale, '92				Home: 202-333-2454
 Present:  FAA, AOR-200		    	   On second thought, let's not go to
 Future:   ISyE, Georgia Tech (Phd 97)	   Camelot ... it's a silly place!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (ed Hutton ext. 6488)
Subject: Re: Suit filed against Bell Helicopter
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 23:27:52 GMT

In article <Jul.24.14.40.34.1992.29806@pilot.njin.net> ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:
>
>There was a case involving someone suing a CFI because the student
>(after receiving his license) ran out of fuel and crashed.  The
>student (or his estate) sued saying he should have been trained not
>to run out of fuel.  A notation by the CFI in the logs of one of
>the training flights indicating fuel management was taught was what
>cleared the instructor.

	Hmmm, lets see.... How about:

"I certify that the applicant has been instructed not to do anything
stupid." cfi cert. # , date

Nah! Never mind.... :-)

Ed

-- 
edward.hutton@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ed Hutton)    
"The highest art form of all is a human being in control of himself and his
airplane in flight, urging the spirit of a machine to match his own."
                                                            -- Richard Bach
From: PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: 182 Stalling characteristics
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:55:24 GMT


 In Message-ID: <1992Jul23.134705.3277@nlm.nih.gov> Dan Masys writes:
 >
 >mains and would contact first.  As a result of the gear geometry
 >change, later 182's stall on arrival more or less like a 172---
 >tail down, nose up, and relatively little nose drop tendency with full
 >aft elevator, and arrive on their main gear even with moderately
 >botched landing technique.

Uh, Dan.....

How does a gear geometry change change the stall characteristics?

Phil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: osh@cray.com (O'Shaughnessy John)
Subject: Re: Little Iron
Keywords: corporate flying
Organization: Cray Research, Inc, Mendota Heights, MN
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:00:30 CDT

This was my dream too.  Nothing boring like being a flying bus driver, I wanted
to fly sleek corporate jets around the world, being part of the jet set.

Unfortunately, I found out that those jobs are often taken by people who are
MORE experienced that the airline jobs.

So, back to computers...
-- 
-----
John M. O'Shaughnessy					osh@a00308.cray.com
Cray Research, Inc.	Voice: 612.683.7322		Fax: 612.683.7509
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,eunet.aviation
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: United drops 737-400 in favor of A-320
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:31:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.130339.22119@cs.yale.edu> glockner-gregory@CS.YALE.EDU (Gregory Glockner) writes:

>2. Range.  The A320 can fly longer routes than any of the 737 (Sorry that I
>   can't quote the precise range figures).

Not really.  It appears to be able to fly them cheaper, though.


>3. Capacity.  I've heard that UAL wants to use the A320s to replace their
>   large fleet of 727s.  727s, like A320s, have much greater capacity than
>   any of the 737 family, including 737-300, -400.

Nope.  The -400 approaches the 727; the A320 approaches the -500 (i.e.,
a -200 :-)).  The A320 is a 100-140-seater, the 727-200 a 180-seater.  Now, 
the A321, maybe...  Or maybe an A320 against a 727-100.


>2. According to my sources, the Northwest maintanence crews hate working
>   on the A320... fly-by-wire equipment is more difficult to keep up
>   than old fashioned hydraulics.

Verrry interesting.  I would have expected the opposite.  BTW, on an A320,
you still have the hydraulics.  The difference is how you signal them.







---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (HOWARD PETRI)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Chutes and OSH
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:08:17 GMT
Reply-To: petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: INDIANA U. CYCLOTRON FACILITY, BLOOMINGTON, IN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4


     This may be of interest to some of you OSH bound rec.aviators. I 
purchased a new Strong parachute last Jan and need to get it repacked.
I called Strong and they said they will have a chute packer at OSH in
the warbird area. I plan to get my chute repacked sometime between
the 31st and the 4th. I plan to deploy the chute myself as a training
exercise and watch them repack it. If this sounds like something you 
might be interested in, let me know or connect with me at one of the
rec.av rendevous'. Personally I can't wait to see if this thing will
actually deploy.

Howard 
Pegasus N599JH  (EJ)
From: PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Ropes and gliders
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:38:48 GMT

There has been a little discussion recently about emergencies
(wave offs?) on tow.

.disclaimer on:

I am not a sailplane pilot, although I have looged a few flights
in them.

.edisclaimer:

I don't understand one thing:  Why on earth would a sailplane
pilot NOT drop the rope?  It seems like having the rope hanging
from the nose is a Bad Idea.

(I seem to be reading that the glider pilot in the case being discussed
kept the rope all the way back to the strip, and it seems to not be
unusual to do so.  Am I missing something?)

Phil Jern (have engine, will travel)
From: jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhard)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:50:53 GMT
Subject: Re: Help me spend money! Plane advice needed.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
From: jamin@leland.stanford.edu (Benjamin Mark Mendelsohn)
Subject: ? Week-long courses for Commercial Ratings ??
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:45:19 GMT

Fellow Aviators,

I'm wondering if anyone has experience in getting their commercial rating  
through one of these 'do-it-in-a-week' orginizations.  Was it the right  
thing to do?  What was the quality of instruction?  How much did it cost?   
What was your retention of the material you learned?  Do you feel it  
minimally prepared you, or that you got more than just enough to pleae the  
FAA?  Any related information would be apprecated.

Cheers,
Benjamin
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: t-dougf@microsoft.com (Douglas Fields)
Subject: VFR Flight Following in TCA/ARSA
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:07:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

I usually call up Seattle Center or Whidbey Approach, and say something
to the effect,

"Whidbey Approach, Cessna 94705, out of Harvey, climbing 4500, for Orcas
Island. Request VFR Flight Following."

They come back with the usual, and whatnot. Also, I'd do something like:

"Seattle Center, Cessna 94705, out of Harvey, climbing 4500, for
Shelton. Request VFR FF."

They always grant it (almost). My question is, they don't tell me to do
anything special. So, am I allowed to make turns, altitude changes, etc?
Both times I've gone to shelton, I've vectored myself around the 
Bremerton CZ (for the hell of it) and they never commented about my
change of course (I flew towards APEX then turned direct shelton).
They don't seem either pleased or annoyed when I call them and tell them
that I'm changing altitude, either. I'ds ay, "Seattle Center, Cessna 705
is decending to maintain VFR." and they've always said OK (not like they
could disagree :) ).

So, when in a TCA/ARSA with flight following, and they have said only
okay, you have flight following (sq. whatever), what can and can't you
do?

Thanks-

Doug
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: elamjd@sandr.com (Dan Elam)
Subject: Re: V22 Osprey Crash, Monday, July 20th
Organization: Imaging Consultant, Washington/Virginia
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:25:00 GMT

In article <nhtmmto@fido.asd.sgi.com> jeffg@loki.asd.sgi.com (Jeff C. Glover) writes:
>I just heard that a V22 Osprey crashed into the Potomac River, while
>landing.  Any details?
>
>Jeff
>jeffg@sgi.com

Could be the deathknell to the program.  The V22 was apparently in a low alt-
itude over the Potomac river (normal helo route, but I don't know why they
where there) when some "explosion" occurred.  Seven people were killed.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: War story and story request
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 18:21:09 GMT

In article <1682CBA60.BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.152232.21699@walter.bellcore.com>
>venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
> 
>>In article <1682BB51B.BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> BCLEWIS@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Brian Lewis) writes:
>>>We had enough power to make it the remaining 60 miles
>>>home, but I don't think we had enough power that we could have done a
>>>go-around.
>>
>>Did you have any landing options much closer than 60 miles?
>>
>Yes, we did.  (Ohio has lots of airports.)  But we had enough power to
>maintain altitude, the weather ahead was clear, and we were, I think,
>8000 AGL.
> 

Hmmm... *in case* there were no airports within gliding distance at *some* 
points in that 60 mile trip, would you have risked a possible off-airport 
landing in order to get to the home base?

Anyone else?

venky
From: doug@alliant.com (Doug Bloomberg)
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Summary: The Archer's engine quit. 
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:27:30 GMT

>
>Geoff Peck writes:
>> The story I've heard is that you can expect some sort of noticeable engine
>> _problem_ about that often, but it may be something as simple (and curable)
>> as carb icing, a magneto failure, or a fouled plug.  Or maybe lack of fuel,
>> which isn't the engine's fault...
>> 
>> Catastrophic in-flight engine failure is _much_ less likely -- the number
>> I've heard from several sources is one per 100,000 hours of flying.  That's
>> two orders of magnitude better than Dave's rule of thumb.
>

I have just learned that my Clubs Piper Archer II  PA28-181 just had a
unplanned landing in a field in Montana. One of our members (an A&P) was
flying with his mom from Montana back to JeffCo. The low oil pressure
lamp came on and there was Zero (0) oil pressure. He was over some forested
land so a 180 was done. Also, the pilot reduced power, but didn't stop the
engine, looking for a suitable place to land. He found a field, and set it
down, he didn't even scratch the paint on the wheel pants.  The engine is
frozen now but it still was putting out power till he touched down.

Aftermath investigation has shown that the oil pump stopped pumping. I 
don't know why yet.

The Piper is a 1977 with 840 hrs TT airframe and engine. The pilot has
less than 100 hr flying time. He really did a good job and kept his head
and wits about him.

The plane is at this moment being trucked to a local airport and AVEMCO
has indicated that they will buy a new engine! 

Thought every one would like to know.
Airplane engines do break, but they aare tough enough to keep running
under adverse conditions.

Doug Bloomberg   doug@alliant.com

Littleton, CO

RV-6 Builder
From: poorman@convex.com (Peter Poorman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: War story and story request
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:19:42 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
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.


In article <1992Jul24.202006.21675@Cadence.COM> maples@Cadence.COM
 (Ken Maples) writes:
>Rod has a great question and I'd like to see as many personal stories as
>possible:  How many of us have had significant mechanical problems in the
>air and how many hours in the air did it take for you to have that problem.

I lost a mag on my first flight after getting my private.  Fortunately it
happened abeam the numbers at pattern altitude. Needless to say, I put
it down immediately.

Woke my wife up, though.

--Pete
From: scott@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Turner)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:03:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Help me spend money! Plane advice needed.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, ms@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mark Stolz) writes:

Jer/ said:

>> This one violates your range requirements.  You can have full fuel or
>> full passenger load...  Piper owners/lovers consider this a benefit.
>> Unfortunately, an archer with the hershey-bar (all archers and below,
>> actually) wing will climb like a dog with a full load in your proposed
>> flight regime.  As this family grows (lbs), this airplane will
>> fail to meet your needs the soonest.
>> 

>Actually, Archers have the tapered wings.  It was the Warrior that
>was the PA28-180 and had the hershey bar wing.  The Archer (PA 28-181)
>has the taper!

I'll put words into Jer/'s mouth and say that I don't think he
was saying that Archers and all Cherokees "below" that had hershey bar
wings, but that Archers and less just don't climb well, particularly at
altitude, a statement we'd both probably agree with.

And just to clear things up a bit, anything called a Warrior (PA28-161)
has the tapered wing, some Archers (starting with the Archer II or
PA28-181) have it, but earlier Archers don't (PA28-180).  In fact, the
Warrior introduced the new wing to the Cherokee line.  In some quarters
you'll actually hear folks call it the "Warrior Wing."  The new wing was
gradually introduced to all planes in the Cherokee lineup, finally
rounding out with the intro of the Arrow III and the updated '235, now
dubbed the Dakota.

And yes, in general the tapered wing models climb better than equivalent
hershey bar-ed models (said both from experience and from checking book
figures.)


Scott Turner  scott@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Software Division
Turbo Arrow N2134N  "Baby"
From: kzk00@ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: SJC ILS and ALS OTS until 5/31/93?
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:27:47 GMT
Reply-To: kzk00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Jul26.054327.12273@telebit.com> brent@greatcircle.com (Brent Chapman) writes:
>Lately, I've been getting the following pair of NOTAMS:
>
>SJC 07/006 SJC 12R/30L ILS OTS TIL 05312400 "1993"
>SJC 07/005 SJC 12R/30L ALS OTS TIL 05312400 "1993"
>
>Anybody know what the story is?
>
They are extending runway 30L/12R to accommodate American Airlines.
AA uses their MD11 (bigger DC10 with winglets) to go nonstop SJC to
Tokyo. With the main runway only 8,900 feet long, they could take off
only (with enough fuel) if the plane was filled to no more than half
capacity. So if they sold enough tickets they couldn't take enough
fuel, which meant that the flight first went to Oakland, where runway
29/11 is 10,000 feet long, to fuel up. Not exactly what is understood
as a non-stop flight. To get out of that embarrassment, AA pressured
the city of San Jose to speed up the plans for the runway extension.
Of course, now somebody is sueing... Their theory is a longer runway
makes more noise...
Oh, well.
From: jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhard)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:11:45 GMT
Subject: Re: WANTED: Ultralight two-place
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

> It has the same Rotax 503 as the Challenger, but only cruises at around 65-70
> mph.  Sounds like Kolb traded speed for lift, compared to the Challenger's
> design, and from the sounds of your description, I'd say they made the right
> choice!

I'm confused.  Is this an experimental or an ultra-light?
I was under the impression that an ultra-light was limited
to 55mph airspeed.

Jer/ Eberhard, (SLASH), HAM = N0FZD     | Hewlett-Packard - MS99, 1UP10,15'East
Pilot: COMM, INST, CFI-Airplane & Glider| 3404 East Harmony Road (303) 229-2861
CAP CFI, Check & Mission, Pikes Peak 218| Fort Collins, Colorado  80525-9599 
EMAIL:  jle@fc.hp.com or Jer_Eberhard@fc.hp.com
From: pvf@alantec.com (Paul Fries)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Gee Bee R2 was Re: Airshow Report
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:27:55 GMT

Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.212419.25683@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (HOWARD PETRI) writes:

>> Well I believe, ( please correct me if I am wrong) that he he doing
>> an aerobatic routine at these airshows---YIKES.

>The aileron reversal you speak of occurred
>during final approach of that first flight and may have been an entry
>to a snap roll.

Actually, the article seemed quite specific about the aileron 
reversal problem.  It said that at high angles of attack (such
as during the nose high approach to a full flair landing),
using the ailerons resulted in an effective increase in AOA on
the side with the aileron deflected downward.  This effective
increase in AOA would put the affected wing over the critical
angle, and a stall on that side would result.  Once that wing
stalls, it drops, hence the apparent control reversal (i.e. you
were trying to raise the wing and instead it drops).

The important thing here is that it only happens at high angles
of attack, otherwise, the aileron input would not put the AOA
over the critical angle, therefore no stall and no control reversal.


Paul Fries
pvf@alantec.com