HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: ASRS CALLBACK # 163 (December, 1992)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:02:25 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: qadata.col.hp.com

mtanner@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Michael C. Tanner) writes:
>    The pilot who, with 1 mile visibility, requested a *visual* approach ...
>    The pilot request should have been for a *contact*
>    approach, which ATC might have approved.
> This is galling.  A pilot dealing with a difficult situation who would like to
> be relieved of a lot of procedural BS forgets a distinction with little
> practical difference, receives no help from ATC, and then gets blamed for the
> problem.  How hard would it have been for the controller to mention contact
> approaches?  The FAA creates a regulatory environment so complex that the
> average pilot cannot realistically understand all of it

I dislike the tone of the Callback article, which seems like "This silly
pilot doesn't know the difference between a visual and contact approach."
But alas, the instrument pilot must be several cuts above average. Not perfect,
never knowing it all, but well above average. I don't think the controller is
even allowed to say "Would you like to request a contact approach?" The
differences between the visual and contact approach are very real and deadly.
Not knowing the name of the approach implies not knowing what you need to
execute it safely. I'd hate to be the controller dealing with a pilot grasping
at straws, offer him one that he was unable to fly, and have him kill himself
trying to.

I'm at a loss here. Did the airport have an instrument approach? (Required
for a contact approach.) Did the pilot have visual contact with the runway?
(Required for the visual - doubtful or he could have just landed.) Was he
flying an instrument approach already, and why didn't he continue?

This pilot was already in trouble with ice. Did he declare an emergency? Had
he done that, I'm sure ATC would have broken whatever rules to get him on the
ground. When you're in over your head and you say so, ATC becomes VERY
personal and helpful. Otherwise, they must assume that you have things under
control and know what you are doing.

>    Sifting through these complaints, we discovered that many of these pilots
>    apparently had been content at briefing time to be *inert recipients of
>    whatever the system delivered*, rather than becoming active participants

Again, an instrument pilot has to know what they want out of a weather
briefing. Specifically, one question a briefer will never answer per-se is
"Where's the nearest VFR weather?" A lot of the instrument written is weather.
Any instrument flying book I've read says I need to be very weather-aware and
weather-analytical. Even as a VFR pilot, if things looked iffy, I had LOTS of
questions about things not covered in the standard monolog.

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich)
Subject: Re: Cuba rescue flight
Organization: Columbia University
	<1993Jan5.030516.4723@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>
	<24556@alice.att.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:04:53 GMT

In article <24556@alice.att.com>, ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:

> In article <1993Jan5.030516.4723@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> Christian.Kuehnke@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Christian Kuehnke) writes:
> 
> > Faking? According to what you said, the copilot has been hijacked,
> > definitly!
> 
> Well, the airplane went where the pilot in command wanted it to go.
> In what sense is it a hijacking?

I think the man was referring to the PIC's rather unorthodox cockpit
resource management policies, where the copilot was not only out of
the loop, but damn near under arrest :-).  Still, you're right; the
PIC, by definition, cannot hijack his own flight.
	-Steve
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: Ain't No Such Thing?
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:47:25 GMT

In <1ioq6gINNn2k@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu> camelsho@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu (   James A Seymour) writes:

>If such an animal exists, why are there no readily available 
>GA jet planes?

Gee, I can think of several.  How about the Cessna Citation?  How
about the Beechjet?  A Learjet?  An Astra?  A Falconjet?

Or did you want to put a price ceiling on your request?  If cost is
a factor, I can provide several reasons why there are no LOW-COST
GA jets.

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.misc
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Conversion of Ratings
Date: 9 Jan 93 13:54:46 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1993Jan09.092707.1@ccla.demon.co.uk> dblack@ccla.demon.co.uk (David Black) writes:

!! Anyone know how to convert a CAA private license (Britain) over to a US one? 

!If you're interested in flying whilstr on holiday all you have to do 
!is take you UK PPL + medical into an FAA office and they will isue you 
!with a "temporary airman's certificate", this is valid on the 
!privilidges of the uk one obviously IMC is a *not* an IR ;-) , but 
!night is ok and so is twin. This should suffice in any 'professional' 
!hiring outfit.

Gee, I wish it were as simple as this going the other way, i.e., from
U.S. to U.K. temporary airman's certificate. The CAA is rather
bloody minded about this.

Dave Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Flying defensively...
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:38:09 GMT

In article <2629@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
>Even with the smiley I'll still argue that I don't fly twins because
>they are more dangerous than a good well maintained single.

I have to disagree with the above statement.  I won't try and change
your opinion on twins (but I might try to change other netters' opinions!).
While twins have two engines because the need them, they also have
dual systems (alternators, vacuum pumps) which I find attractive.

In many respects, flying a twin is akin to IFR flying.  The decisions
(and proficiency) are more complex.  I could argue that a well planned
IFR trip IS safer than a VFR flight and that a well maintained twin
is better than an average single, but we've heard those arguments
before.

>However, as an aeronautical
>engineer, I've taken a good look at the performance of the typical
>light twin and don't like either the single engine climb performance
>nor the single engine control characteristics. I think I'd have
>to go to something like a small Citation Jet or a Beech 350 to
>get what I would call reasonable performance from a twin and
>that I can't manage economically.

There are ways to hedge one's bet.  The SE performance numbers are
based on maximum operating weight.  Offloading fuel, passengers, or
both can substantially increase SE performance.  As a low time
ME pilot (~ 100 hours), I frequently fly below gross weight.  I'm
also rewarded with two-engine climb of 1500-2000 fpm!  Yowza!

BTW, you need not look at something turbine to get "reasonable"
performance.  I recall someone saying that a C-310 has SE climb of
about 440 fpm.  Double that of most light twins.

To each his own.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: mladejov@ced.utah.edu (Mike Mladejovsky)
Subject: Wanted: AutoPilot for Cessna 182
Reply-To: mladejov@ced.utah.edu
Organization: Center for Engineering Design
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 01:21:12 GMT

I am looking for a Wing Levelor / AutoPilot, or parts thereof, capable
of being installed in a Cessna 182L with a 14 Volt electrical system.  Also
need a (overhaulable) 14V Turn Coordinator with a servo output, and/or a 
(overhaulable) vacuum Directional Gyro with a heading bug output.
 
Ideally, the autopilot would be capable of being coupled to the d.c. cdi output
from a Loran or GPS.

If you know the whereabouts of any of the above which might be available, please contact me by e-mail or phone.

Thanks,

Mike Mladejovsky,                  ....for himself, not necessarily CED
mladejov@ced.utah.edu
801-484-0450

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: hgp@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (howard.page)
Subject: 1/93 AOPA Pilot: DEA confiscates helicopter...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:38:54 GMT

I just received the January 1993 issue of AOPA Pilot. In
the "AOPA Direct" section, the yellow news pages in the
front of the magazine, there is an blurb about the DEA,
confiscating a helicopter from someone because the DEA
didn't believe the pilot was appropriately rated.

Is this outrageous or are there some facts missing from the
article, perhaps???

Howard G. Page
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rickf@pmafire.inel.gov (Rick Furniss)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 19:40:13 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Sonic booms ?
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 


   I havent heard any of these for about 10 years or more, and have some
stupid questions.

  Questions:

(1)   Exactly what causes the boom from an aircraft ,and why ?
(2)   Why havent I heard any of these in sooo many years ?

    I realize the FAA rules pertaining to this, but dont military and other
special flites require Super-sonic flight on occasion? 

    Though the flites may be routed over non-populated areas, should't some
noise or boom be heard in the imeadiate 50 miles or so?
   Is altitude a major limiting factor for hearing them ?
   Is it only local , low level super-sonic flites that are heard ?


***** standard DISKclamer *****
personal views of my person only

CPSMEL/IA
C210 N3877Y
rickf@pmafire.inel.gov
rickf@servprod.inel.gov

-- 

***** standard DISKclamer *****
personal views of my person only

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh)
Subject: Re: Flying defensively...
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:08:30 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <JONT.93Jan11135606@ml.harlqn.co.uk> jont@harlqn.co.uk (Jon Thackray) writes:
>aileron, but not engine controls yet). Apart from this, accident
>statistics still suggest that engine failures in twins still cause
>more crashes than in singles (ie the probability of a crash given an
>engine failure in a twin is higher than in a single, despite the fact
>that a twin should never crash from an engine failure assuming it can
>produce positive climb on one engine). So, if anything, twin

I don't think this statement is true. If you have to have a crash in a
aircraft due to the loss of an engine, your chances of surviving it
are much better in a single, left with no engines, than a twin
left with only one engine. There are no statistics on how often a
twin suffers an engine failure and lands without incident. So we don't
know if you are more likely to crash in a twin with one engine, than
a single with no engine. We can make statements about how probable
it is you will die if you crash (more probable in a twin than a
single).
You cannot argue that you don't fly twins because they are more
dangerous than singles, you have to honest, and say you don't fly
them because you are poor :-)

Mat
Matthew Waugh			waugh@dg-rtp.dg.com
RTP Network Services 		
Data General Corp.		
RTP, NC. (919)-248-6034
From: randy@khan.gatech.edu (Randal T. Abler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: "Jumpy" Static System
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:16:39 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1993Jan6.202305.5169@macc.wisc.edu> campbell@vms.macc.wisc.edu writes:
>I decided to do a little pattern work last night in a C172.  It was very 
>calm and ~22 deg. F.  [...]
>
>On my initial climbout, I was a little surprised to see all three static 
>involved instruments appear to stick and then "jump" to a new, higher
>reading.  

I have seen this type of behavior in rain, were water is momentarily blocking
the static port.  At your temperature, rain is obviously not the problem.
Does that C172 have an alternate static port?  Might be worth trying.

-- 
Randal  Abler   	randy@cerl.gatech.edu		 
CERL/EE Georgia Tech     
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: xcskier@tc.fluke.COM (John Gilbert)
Subject: Temp./Dewpoint (WAS Re: ASRS CALLBACK # 163)
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc
Summary: It depends
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:13:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan09.030802.21492@microsoft.com> peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho) writes:
>In article <942.180.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin)  writes:
>>MCT> .Why don't briefers provide the information pilots need?
>>   > .Temp/dewpoint is pretty basic.  Most pilots have more
>>
>>I'm not sure where the incident took place, but in every FSS briefing
>>I've ever gotten the temp and dewpoint were given for origin and
>>destination, and as part of every SA that I requested.
>
>Well, just for another data point: I would estimate that at least
>(conservatively) 25% of all briefings that I've gotten have required
>me to prompt the briefer for the dewpoint (I can't remember not
>getting the temperature), and quite possibly that number is almost
>50% (though, I'm certain it's not higher).  This is with the FSS
>at Boeing Field, which services all around this area.  Maybe I'm
>just unlucky...how about others in the Seattle area?
>-- 
>Pete Duniho         "Give me a fish, or a mountain, to scale..."
>peted@microsoft.com              -- Toy Matinee

When I have asked this save FSS for dewpoint, one briefer said that he only gave
it out when he thought it would be of concern.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  John Gilbert                                     John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc.
  voice: (206)356-5979                             POB 9090,  M/S 266D
  fax:   (206)356-5108                             Everett, WA 98206-9090
  INTERNET: xcskier@tc.fluke.COM
  uucp: {uunet,sun,microsoft,uw-beaver}!fluke!xcxkier
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: ASRS CALLBACK # 163 (December, 1992)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:06:51 GMT

mtanner@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Michael C. Tanner) writes:

>In article <jcmorris.725744089@mwunix> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
>writes:

>[thanks for posting these]

You're welcome.

>   The pilot who, with 1 mile visibility, requested a *visual* approach as
>   the ice built up on the airfoils, missed some important distinctions in
>   ground school.  The pilot request should have been for a *contact*
>   approach, which ATC might have approved.  The request for a visual
>   approach was denied.

>This is galling.  A pilot dealing with a difficult situation who would like to
>be relieved of a lot of procedural BS forgets a distinction with little
>practical difference, receives no help from ATC, and then gets blamed for the
>problem.  How hard would it have been for the controller to mention contact
>approaches?  

Probably that would be worth his job.  ATC cannot offer a contact approach;
it must be requested by the pilot.  See AIM paragraph 385.

Whether or not this is an appropriate policy is a separate issue, but the
controller has no option here.

>   Sifting through these complaints, we discovered that many of these pilots
>   apparently had been content at briefing time to be *inert recipients of
>   whatever the system delivered*, rather than becoming active participants
>   in the weather briefing process -- questioning, comparing, analyzing.
>   Not one reporter indicated that he or she had obtained temperature-dewpoint
>   data, an important indicator of the condition of the atmosphere.

>Why don't briefers provide the information pilots need?  Temp/dewpoint is
>pretty basic.  Most pilots have more interest in weather than the average
>person, but we should not have to be experts, that's what the briefers are
>for.  I agree that pilots should be active information seekers during weather
>briefings, but we should be able to have confidence that we'll get the
>obviously relevant information without having to pull teeth for it.  Again,
>there are problems here that it is unreasonable to blame completely on pilots,
>but they are being overlooked.

On the other hand, some time when you have an opportunity go out to a FSS
location, convince the crew there that you're really a nice guy, and listen
to them briefing some of the yoyos who call for weather information.
You sometimes wind up wondering if the pilot at the distant end of the
telephone is already flying, without bothering to use an airplane.

Of course, with the FSS "modernization" program resulting in the closing of
so many local FSS facilities it may be difficult to get to one quickly, but
even if you have to make a flight for the sole purpose of visiting a FSS
facility it's worth it.
 
Joe Morris / MITRE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: campbell@vms.macc.wisc.edu
Subject: "Jumpy" Static System
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date:  6 JAN 93 14:02:29    

I decided to do a little pattern work last night in a C172.  It was very 
calm and ~22 deg. F.  As I was getting my act together, I noticed that I
had been the last person to fly the plane on Jan. 2 - during which 
everything was fine.  It had been relatively moist since then but the
control surfaces, static ports, and other preflight items came through
fine last night.

On my initial climbout, I was a little surprised to see all three static 
involved instruments appear to stick and then "jump" to a new, higher
reading.  I flipped on the pitot heat immediately and the airspeed
indicator never bothered me again.  Once level, the remainder of the
circuit showed no signs of "jumpiness".  However, on the ensuing
climbouts, both the VSI and Alt. displayed the same jumping motion.
This continued for the 30 minute duration of my time in the plane.

Now, I'm no idiot - IMHO :-).  It's clear that I had some kind of 
blockage in my static system.  However, if there was some constriction 
in flow to the static system, why didn't the indications just "lag" 
instead of jump?  Further, why might I have seen nice smooth behavior 
on descent instead of the behavior observed on climbout?

Any thoughts?

Scott Campbell, PP-ASEL
ss.campbell@hosp.wisc.edu

P.S.  Please do not send e-mail to the *posting* address.  Use the one 
below my name.  Thanks.
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: What is a lomcovak?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 10:18:51 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Lee McGee <lmcgee@bondo.corp.sgi.com> writes:

>"lomcevak" refers to a family of gyroscopic rotational maneuvers
>whith the energy provided by rotational and gyroscopic forces generated
>by the engine and propeller (therefore the throttle).  The mother of them all
>is the "grand lomcevak" where the maneuver actually ends with the airplane
>tumbling end over end.

[stuff deleted]

>Lomcevaks, I have heard, require an airplane with lots of power and
>torque, and and a good sized propeller relative to the airframe to
>give the gyroscopic forces necessary.  A Citabria will not do one!

I understod that a lomcevak was "just" a category of departure (from
controlled flight, like a spin entry).

No prop is required, just some way of getting the rotational motions to couple
up.  A big prop would help here, but isn't a requirement.  We were able to do
something closely resembling a "grand lomcevak" in T-2's called a "roll-
coupled departure".  It's a 3-axis maneuver where all the rotations couple due
to gyro effects and the airplane tumbles end-over-end while going straight
up, then falls into a spin (inverted, as I recall).  Very disorienting.  I
think this matches the criteria for a lomcevak with no prop.

I would guess that control power, not "power and torque", are what keep a
Citabria from doing one.  You just can't get rates high enough to get the
axes to couple.  But, never having flown one, its just a guess.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."

Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:1283 rec.aviation:17622
From: Kevin@lemoore.ati.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Ordering duplicate medical certs
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:22:16 GMT
Reply-To: Kevin@lemoore.ati.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v2


In article <1993Jan8.214140.81@mccall.com> (rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation), jav@mccall.com writes:
> Hello,
> 
> I misplaced my medical certificate recently, and had to order a duplicate
> from the FAA. Just in case this information is of interest to anyone...
> 
I'm in the same situation accept my certificate is about to expire. I'm
trying to remember if you need your old certificate when you go in for the
exam. Can anyone remind me. If I don't need the old one I won't worry about
getting another.

Thanks.

*********************************************************
*  Kevin Kurtz				 *  Pam Kurtz	            *
*  Lemoore Elementary School *  Pamela@lemoore.ati.com  *
*  Kevin@lemoore.ati.com     *                          *
*********************************************************
*                    Lemoore, California                *
*                      (209) 924 - 3470                 *
*                   Fax: (209) 924 - 5975               *
*********************************************************           
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho)
Subject: Re: ASRS CALLBACK # 163 (
Date: 09 Jan 93 03:08:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <942.180.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin)  writes:
>MCT> .Why don't briefers provide the information pilots need?
>   > .Temp/dewpoint is pretty basic.  Most pilots have more
>   > .interest in weather than the average person, but we should not
>   > .have to be experts, that's what the briefers are for.
>
>I'm not sure where the incident took place, but in every FSS briefing
>I've ever gotten the temp and dewpoint were given for origin and
>destination, and as part of every SA that I requested.

Well, just for another data point: I would estimate that at least
(conservatively) 25% of all briefings that I've gotten have required
me to prompt the briefer for the dewpoint (I can't remember not
getting the temperature), and quite possibly that number is almost
50% (though, I'm certain it's not higher).  This is with the FSS
at Boeing Field, which services all around this area.  Maybe I'm
just unlucky...how about others in the Seattle area?
-- 
Pete Duniho         "Give me a fish, or a mountain, to scale..."
peted@microsoft.com              -- Toy Matinee
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: phil@pex.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Flying defensively....spending money
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:30:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.170830.4514@dg-rtp.dg.com> waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh) writes:
>You cannot argue that you don't fly twins because they are more
>dangerous than singles, you have to honest, and say you don't fly
>them because you are poor :-)

Or because we don't want to be poor.

No wait, I'm a private pilot, so by definition I'm already poor.
How about: because we don't want to be poorer....

:-) :-)

Just got my first bill for a full month (December) of instrument
ticket training!  Sigh.....  And the weather has been so stinko rotten
that I haven't been up at all this year.  Double sigh....

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: dblack@ccla.demon.co.uk (David Black)