HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: A unusual DUAT NOTAM abbrev.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:13:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., 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 <1993Jan12.031056.29301@tandem.com> len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler) writes

[NOTAM description edited....]

>It turns out that CFA stands for Controlled Firing Area (pretty ominous 
>sounding, eh?).  The briefer explained that Lawrence Livermore Labs is test
>firing a very powerful laser (no doubt Star Wars related!), and that it is
>recommended that aircraft avoid that area (no radius specified) between
>midnight and four AM on the 12th. Interesting, eh?

Depending on what the test actually involves, it might be a rather
spectacular sight.  Although, I wonder if the NOTAM is simply a
precaution if things don't go as planned.  If there was really
something to see, I would expect them to close the airspace.

What surprises me is that the briefer told you what was going on.  I
posted a recent experience with a South Texas FSS briefer in
rec.aviation.misc.  Prez Bush went quail hunting, so the FAA issued a
NOTAM closing the nearby airspace, and the briefer appeared to be
pretending he didn't know why.
--
Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: help with ATC statement
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:52:01 GMT

In article <ritter.726503680@claude>,
 ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:

| My favorite...

In a similar vein, as a student I was instructed at Lunken to do a 360
on 1/2 mile final due to a leisurely turnoff by the previous aircraft.
``Gee the airplane feels funny!  Controls are real mushy.  Wonder what
that means... (bubble with exclaimation mark forms over my head) (throttle
is jammed more or less abruptly forward)...''

I've since learned to ``just say no'' unless *I* feel comfortable with
what ATC wants.  (Afterall, it's my butt in the seat, not theirs!)

P.S., A prior suggestion about visiting the ATC facilitys you use is an
*excellent* one.  Last week two friends of mine and I did a 3-pilot tour of
Beverly ATCT, Logan ATCT and TRACON, and Boston ARTCC.  I learned alot by
seeing things from their side...

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: sarangan@maxwell.uwaterloo.ca (Andrew Sarangan)
Subject: Info on pilot training wanted...
Reply-To: sarangan@maxwell.uwaterloo.ca (Andrew Sarangan)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: ont
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:16:32 GMT



Can anyone advice me on how I go about getting a piloting licence?

My main questions are:

- How much does it cost ?
- How long does it take ?
- What should I look for in selecting a flying school ?
- What is a good school in the Waterloo region ?

I am a novice, so any answers will be appreciated.

Thanks

Andrew
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: eandersn@mach1.wlu.ca (Niels Ejvind Andersen)
Subject: Re: help with ATC statement
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:16:03 GMT

Roger Ritter (ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com) wrote:
: My favorite (only happened to me once) is "make a 270 degree turn base
: to final".  I did it, but this is definitely a case where the response
: "unable" is appropriate.  And before the flames start, yes I am aware of
: the risks and dangers inherent in this sort of low-level maneuvering.  I
: made sure that airspeed, rate of descent, and so forth were where I 
: wanted them before I started the turn.

My favorite (also only happened once) was a tight 360 to the left on short
final.  The aircraft that had just landed was not year clear, and there
was another aircraft close behind, and another in the circuit.  I had
already done two overshoots, and the tower was getting tired of having me
in the circuit!  I first asked the controller to clarify his request, and he
replied that he wanted a turn to the left.  I didn't begin my turn until
I had decided that I could do it safely (i.e. I limited myself to a rate
one turn, and I maintained my altitude and my speed very carefully).  If
I had not accepted the request, I would have done another overshoot.  I
probably held my breath during the turn, but in hindsight, it was kind
of fun!

This type of request is not likely to happen again, because I have since
learned how to adjust my position in relation to the other aircraft in
the circuit by altering either my speed or my flight path, or both.
--
Niels Ejvind Andersen     [eandersn@mach2.wlu.ca / 70511.2302@compuserve.com]
Information Systems, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON  N2L 3C5 Canada
                                                                  ... VFR NC4
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: huoviala@hkkk.fi (Matti Huoviala)
Subject: Re: ATC contact below 300ft
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 22:52:25 GMT
Organization: Helsinki School of Economics, Finland

In <3621.1817.uupcb@compart.fi> nikke.gaby@compart.fi (Nikke Gaby)  writes:


>                             MAYDAY

>Is it true that I don't have to answer to the ATC when being on final
>below 300 ft AGL ?

>When I was a student pilot ( few hours ago ! ) I was told by my
>Instructor that I don't have to answer in that case, but later on I
>heard that I had to.

>It's true that if you have to answer by using a hand-set microphone to
>the ATC on a short final below 300 ft AGL, you can make flying become
>colourfull when having turbulence.

>( By answering I don't mean double clicking the hand-set )

>Nicolas

>From : nikke.gaby@compart.fi
>---
> . SLMR 2.1a . Hello, I am part number ................
>                       
>----
>+=======================================================================+
>|    ComPart BBS     PCBoard 14.5a/100  +358-0-506-3329 (ZyXEL V.32bis) |
>| Helsinki, Finland       14 lines      *** Number 1 BBS in Finland *** |
>+=======================================================================+

I do not recall any altituderestrictions on using radio to talk to
tower, however I recall something else
Aviate
Navigate
Communicate......

Masa
From: verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Medical vision requirements?
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:27:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AOSG

Re: vision for 3rd class medical.

I'm -6.75 in both eyes, fully correctable to 20/20 and have never hd trouble
getting my 3rd class medical (5 times now).  The last time this discussion
appeared, other netters with vision worse than my resonded similarly.  Perhaps
this should be in the FAQ.

BTW - you know the big letter "E" at the top of the eye chart?  Well, -6.75
means that I have to be about 5 feet (1.8 meters) away to see it clearly.

Tony V.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Subject: Re: ATC contact below 300ft
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 20:25:47 GMT


In article <1993Jan12.031307.16540@rwwa.COM>, witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow) writes:
|>In article <79784@hydra.gatech.EDU>,
|> randy@cerl.gatech.edu (Randal T. Abler) writes:
|>
|>| If they are saying something critical like "go around" or "side-step to
|>| parallel runway xxx" then I'd probably just follow the instructions 
|>| without acknowledging
|>
|>The attitude change for the manuver is the best acknowledgment they
|>could have...
|>
|>The same goes for ``cleared for immediate takeoff''.  Seeing you roll
|>says it better than any words could.

There are a few ATC instructions I'll follow before I acknowlege them.
These include things like "go around" and any instruction beginning with
the word "immediate". Just about anything else can wait until I've reached
a point where I'm comfortable with answering.

There was a book (fiction) a while back which began with a mid-air collision
that resulted when a private pilot acknowleged an instruction to make an
"immediate" turn before he began the turn. In the story, that delay ate up
whatever separation remaining between the two aircraft. Just a story, but
it brings up a point everyone should consider.

--
Reece R. Pollack
PP-ASEL-IA -- Octopus Flying Club (based GAI)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: help with ATC statement
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:23:10 GMT

In article <C0I1xL.IF1@mach1.wlu.ca>, eandersn@mach1.wlu.ca (Niels Ejvind Andersen) writes:

|> If the tower gives you an instruction you don't understand, *do not* accept
|> the instruction by acknowledging it.  Instead, advise the controller that
|> you do not understand.  If you acknowledge the instruction, the controller
|> assumes you understood the instruction.  You may feel like the village idiot
|> after you hear the explanation, but at least you will be "communicating".

By all means!  To an experienced pilot, it may sound funny that someone
wouldn't know what "sqare your base & final" means, but if you are a student
I would suggest you tell the controller you are a student and ask him to
explain his instruction.  Nobody laughs or looks down their nose at anyone
who identifies him/herself as a student and asks something that an experienced
pilot would know.

I suffered from the mistaken need to pretend I was a real pilot when I was
only a student, just like most students.  I didn't want to sound stupid - I
wanted everyone in the air to think I was a real pilot just like them.  
I lost this silly need when the controller instructed me to perform a 270
degree depature over mid-field at San Jose on my checkride (I didn't train
at San Jose).  This sounded like the wierdest instruction in the world
to me for taking off, so I asked the controller to repeat and clarify what
he meant.  I figured I'd look stupider to the examiner if I did the wrong
thing from not understanding what the controller wanted than by asking a
dumb question.  At the end of the ride, she mentioned that she very pleased
at my willingness to ask for clarification.  There were times when I was
soloing that I wished I had asked for clarification but didn't.  



-- 
***********************************************************************
 Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
 Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
 phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.ifr
From: len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler)
Subject: A unusual DUAT NOTAM abbrev.
Organization: Tandem Computers
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:10:56 GMT

I came across an unusual abbreviation today in the NOTAMs section on DUATs
today.  I'll bet a lot of people would be stumped by this.  I certainly was.
I ended up calling up the local FSS to inquire about it and got the 
answer.  The abbreviation is CFA.  The original untranslated DUAT:

!LVK 01/002 LVK CFA SJC015022  SFC-UNL AVOIDANCE ADZD EFF 120800-1200

The translated DUAT (which didn't get the abbreviation either):
 
Livermore CA [LVK]: January NOTAM #2:
      CFA 22 nautical miles on the 015 degree radial of San Jose CA [SJC VOR]
      surface - UNL avoidance advised effective the 12th at 12:00 midnight PST
      (0800Z) - 1200

It turns out that CFA stands for Controlled Firing Area (pretty ominous 
sounding, eh?).  The briefer explained that Lawrence Livermore Labs is test
firing a very powerful laser (no doubt Star Wars related!), and that it is
recommended that aircraft avoid that area (no radius specified) between
midnight and four AM on the 12th. Interesting, eh?

- Len Fishler -
fishler_len@tandem.com
PP-ASEL-IA
Centurion N3784Y RHV
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker)
Subject: Re: help with ATC statement
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:26:22 GMT

In article <C0I1xL.IF1@mach1.wlu.ca> eandersn@mach1.wlu.ca (Niels Ejvind Andersen) writes:

>If the tower gives you an instruction you don't understand, *do not* accept
>the instruction by acknowledging it.  Instead, advise the controller that
>you do not understand. 

Excellent advice.  Most controllers will understand completely, those that
get a little exasperated by your lack of knowledge will be much happier
than if you were to keep silent and do the wrong thing.

You said you didn't know the best way to ask.  First, I have more than once
said simply, "what does that mean" or when I knew what it meant but it
did not fit the curent context said, "why did you say....".  We are not
all required to memorize the pilot controller glossary and use the perfect
phrase for everything.

On the other hand, the phrase is "unfamiliar".  If the tower at an airport
you've never been to in your life says "report the Holiday Inn" you say
"unfamiliar, where's the Holiday Inn"  So maybe for new phraseology you
can say "I'm unfamiliar with 'square your turn to base' tell me what to
do"

>(1) What do they mean by "Square your turn to base and final"?

As proposed by the original poster it means make square turns rather than
round ones.  The reason is to make time either to separate you from the
aircraft in front or to make time for a takeoff or two.  You can tell
from context that they want you slower because the say, "square your turn
base to final, two departures"  or "traffic 12 o'clock and 1/2 mile, square
your turn base to final".  While we're on the subject Palo Alto also likes
"extend base through final" which means you should turn final late and then
sort of have to J-hook it back to final. They also like "S turns authorized
on final" which has obvious meaning and is IMHO potentially dangerous, keep
the ball centered and pay attention to airspeed.

mike

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: Robert Noel
Subject: Re: Air Sickness
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:27:28 GMT

> My question, is it normal for beginning pilots to get
>airsick and with experience does the tendency to get airsick go away?

normal? don't know.   unusual? no.

After my first flight, I lost my lunch after getting home.

My own experience with turbulence/air sickness leads me to 
believe that you can become less uncomfortable with it.

btw, a factor with air sickness is apprehension and 
noise.  Some of my problems were diminished when
I started using a headset and had a better
understanding of what was happening.

Bob Noel
my views are my own, not MITRE's


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Subject: Re: Medical vision requirements?
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:36:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.185746.11847@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smccrory@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Scott McCrory) writes:

> my pilot's license.  The only thing I'm concerned about is the medical certificate's
> limit on uncorrected vision being no greater than 20/50.  Does anyone here know what
> that corresponds to in terms of lens values?...my worst eye uses a 3.50 corrective lens.

Isn't that a candidate for the FAQ's, Geoff ?
Actually, the strength of your corrective lens has *nothing* to do with your vision;
it simply tells, what correction you need to have the best vision that's possible
for you.
You'd have to have your vision with and without lenses checked, and as far
as I remember for a class 3 medical (private pilot requirement) you need no
more than 20/200 uncorrected; anyway, if you don't meet the standard,
you can still get a waiver, so, unless you are *severely* handicapped in
your vision, you should be able to get your medical (wasn't there that saying
that for a class 3 medical you simply need to prove that you are not
dead, deaf or blind ?-)
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

From: bmp@pollux.svale.hp.com (Brian M. Perkin)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:04:29 GMT
Subject: Re: help with ATC statement
Organization: Hewlett Packard CPCD, Sunnyvale CA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student

My interpretation is that the controller doesn't want you
to surprise him by taking a short cut to final. That could
include rounding turns or flying some sort of modified 
base and final. You can always ask the controller what
he/she meant or alternately ask them to call the base
turn for you.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)
Subject: Re: Maximum number of hours prior to solo?
Summary: I'm no longer a contender for the grand prize.
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:35:00 GMT

In article <Bzn31F.17H@utdallas.edu> kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)
writes:

> What is the record for the maximum number of hours prior to first solo?
> Since October, I have accumulated 28.3 hours without being signed off to
> solo.  Is that a record?  Do I win first prize?
>
>
After posting that message, I accumulated another 5.6 hours by continuing my
routine of flying two or three times per week, but I still couldn't land
the plane satisfactorily.  Then a spell of bad weather kept me grounded for
nine days, until today when I did eight successive smooth landings with my
instructor, followed by three SOLO!

Why the sudden improvement after a break?  Coincidence?

--George Kimeldorf  K5LL   Student Pilot
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: Medical vision requirements?
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:42:31 GMT

In article <WD.93Jan11113637@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de>,
 wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:

| In article <1993Jan9.185746.11847@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
| smccrory@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Scott McCrory) writes:

| > The only thing I'm concerned about is the medical certificate's
| > limit on uncorrected vision being no greater than 20/50.
| [...] far as I remember for a class 3 medical you need no more than 20/200
| uncorrected

In the US, FAR 67.17 requires 20/50 each eye (separately) uncorrected *or*
20/30 each eye (separately) corrected, for a third-class medical. Assuming
your glasses (or contacts) correct your vision to 20/30 or better you should
have no problem.

FAR 67.15 requires 20/20 uncorrected or corrected *and* 20/100 or better
uncorrected for second-class medical.  FAR 67.13 requires the same for a
first-class medical.

| > my worst eye uses a 3.50 corrective lens.
| Actually, the strength of your corrective lens has *nothing* to do

Well, there is no *direct* relationship, because there are many other
factors involved.  Still, one can *estimate* that a person using a 3.50
diopter correction for myopia *probably* has worse than 20/200 vision 
uncorrected.  In my case I use 2.75 lenses plus correction for mild 
astigmatism and test to *about* 20/200...

| anyway, if you don't meet the standard,  you can still get a waiver

FAR 67.19 allows a ``special issue'' for all three classes. 

QUESTION:  How likely/hard is getting a waiver for, say, 20/400 vision
uncorrected and 20/20 corrected for a *second-class* medical?  Anyone
have one?

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
From: mmuller@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: Maximum number of hours prior to solo?
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 11 Jan 93 19:54:40 -0800.
             <9301120354.AA10356@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:45:55 GMT

In a previous message i mentioned my attempted solo and then my successful solo,
to which Daniel asked.

>If you don't mind my asking (you've piqued my curiosity, as one who is
>about at 16.5 hrs and within a few hours of soloing), what
>distinguishes your first attempted solo from your first successful
>one?  (And if you don't mind answering, and it's appropriate for the
>net, you may wish to post the story for all of us.)
>
>Best regards,
>
>        == Daniel ==

OK, here's my story:
	My attempted solo, so i call, was because i had two go-arounds
 followed by a landing, upon which i was ordered back to my FBO.  They
did this since i almost flew into the windsock, but pulled out in time
to go-around.

Mark.






Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: ATC contact below 300ft
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:13:07 GMT

In article <79784@hydra.gatech.EDU>,
 randy@cerl.gatech.edu (Randal T. Abler) writes:

| If they are saying something critical like "go around" or "side-step to
| parallel runway xxx" then I'd probably just follow the instructions 
| without acknowledging

The attitude change for the manuver is the best acknowledgment they
could have...

The same goes for ``cleared for immediate takeoff''.  Seeing you roll
says it better than any words could.

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: phil@pex.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: ATC contact below 300ft
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:52:33 GMT

In article <3621.1817.uupcb@compart.fi> nikke.gaby@compart.fi (Nikke Gaby)  writes:
>Is it true that I don't have to answer to the ATC when being on final
>below 300 ft AGL ?

No, not in the US.  The regulations say we must COMPLY with ATC.  It
doesn't say anything about acknowledging their instructions.  :-)

Personally, if ATC gave me an instruction when I was about ready to
flare, or at any other time that I felt I could not safely respond,
I WOULD NOT respond until I felt safe doing it.

The pilot is the final authority on the safe conduct of the flight.  If
you think it is unsafe for you to pick up the mike and acknowledge an
instruction when you are under 300 AGL, then don't do it.  WAIT until
you can do it safely.  And if they complain, say "sorry, but I was busy
just then."

If you frequent airspace that requires two-way communications (such as
tower-controlled airports) I would strongly urge you to invest in a
headset and a push-to-talk (PTT) switch.  The PTT will clamp on to
most any yoke, courtesy of Velcro and will work with most any
avionics.  Use the boom mike and the PTT instead of fumbling with the
handheld mike.  It is much less cumnbersome, and thus much safer.

If you frequently take passengers, then you will probably have to invest
in a portable intercom as well, unless you are fortunate to be flying
planes that already have intercoms built in.

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.student:494 rec.aviation.piloting:572 rec.aviation.ifr:613