HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Seat Belt Usage (Was: Surviving...)
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose, CA
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 03:29:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.040616.20335@mprgate.mpr.ca> wilcox@mpr.ca (Chris
Wilcox) asks about seat belt regulations here in the U.S.:
> Although I live just across the border in Canada, I do all of my 
> flying in the U.S.  Can anyone please tell me whether the new
> rules on having seatbelts and shoulder harnesses in place for
> all on board specifically insists on the shoulder harness for
> the PIC too?  There always used to be an exemption in the FARs
> I seem to remember which allowed the PIC to forego the shoulder
> harness if it interfered with his/her ability to operate the
> aircraft.

How's this:

91.105 FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS AT STATIONS
(a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required
    flight crewmember shall--
    (1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to
	perform duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft or
	in connection with physiological needs, and
    (2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station.
(b) Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.-registered civil airplane
    shall, during takeoff and landing, keep the shoulder harness fastened
    while at the crewmember station. This paragraph does not apply if--
    (1) The seat at the crewmemberUs station is not equipped with a
	shoulder harness; or
    (2) The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with
	the shoulder harness fastened.

						Geoff
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba rescue flight
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:50:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

JB> .2)  I wasn't aware that a flight plan was necessary unless it's an IFR
  > .flight.
  > .    Does Rick feel that all flights require a flight plan?
  > .    I really doubt this was an IFR flight.

The flight twice crossed an ADIZ.  Even in severe clear, a DVFR flight
plan is required.  If you're interested in the requirements for flight
to Cuba, read 91.709 and ask yourself whether it's likely that all the
requirements were complied with.

OTOH, if the FAA busted him, that wouldn't exactly make for good press,
would it...

Today an airliner from Cuba landed at MIA with 57 SOBs who all requested
political asylum.  Do you think the Captain filed a flight plan to MIA
with Havana FSS?  <~>

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: barney@sol.usc.edu (Barney Lum)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Blind Vision (Re: Surviving)
Date: 21 Dec 1992 11:24:50 -0800
Organization: USC University Computing Services, Los Angeles
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.usc.edu

>ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) writes:
>>Has anybody ever noticed that the card in the seat pocket tells you that if
>>you're blind and can't operate the exit not to sit in the exit row.  Just
>>what good does providing this information in printed form serve?

The elevator in our parking structure has Braille numbers on the button 
panel....  :}  I know it's probably "standard" equipment, but it is amusing 
thinking of it as a characterization of the drivers! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >|      barney@usc.edu  Barney@USCVM
 -->  -->  --> |   =======    ---    ---    ---    ---    ---   ---    ---  
              >|      Permanent Student Pilot, On the Numbers   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Cuba rescue flight
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:03:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.193211.16804@odin.corp.sgi.com> jerryb@jerber.sandiego.sgi.com (Jerry Bransford) writes:
   2)  I wasn't aware that a flight plan was necessary unless it's an IFR
   flight.
       Does Rick feel that all flights require a flight plan?
       I really doubt this was an IFR flight. 

A flight from the U.S. to Cuba is an international flight. From what
I've understood from earlier rec.aviation.* discussions, the U.S.
requires flight plans for international flights. In fact, I would be
very surprised if the U.S. (or any other country) would let people fly
over its borders without flight plans (or some other kind of
notification). Also, the International Rules of the Air (ICAO Annex 2)
(which are the basis for all national rules and which apply without
exception over international waters) require flight plans for all
international flights.

ATC might very well not care, but the military could. This is not
something to be taken lightly.

I recall reading about an event a some years ago, where a person flew
from the Bahamas (I believe) to the U.S. without a proper flight plan.
The pilot and passengers were killed when a U.S. Air Force fighter
collided with their aircraft during an interception attempt in IMC.

In the Baltic sea, there is a large Swedish island called Gotland.
This island is far enough away from the mainland that there is a large
stretch of international water between. Even though a flight from the
mainland to Gotland is a domestic flight for customs etc. purposes,
such a flight would cross the Swedish national boundary twice, and so
require a flight plan.

A couple of years ago, there was an ATC strike in Sweden. Among other
things the filing of flight plans in the normal way was not possible.
A pilot flew to Gotland anyway (he should have called the Air Force
and given them the flight plan). While approaching Swedish territorial
waters again at the end of his crossing, he had the opportunity to
view two SAAB 37 Viggen interceptors at a very close distance.

--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: robie@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD))
Subject: Re: BE-18 crash in Baltimore
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:48:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.180318.19604@asns.tredydev.Unisys.COM> jac@asns.tredydev.unisys.com (Judy Cadmus) writes:
>I recently heard the sad news about a Beech 18 that crashed while flying the
>ILS 15 (I think) into BWI a few weeks ago.  

[stuff deleted]

>Has anyone else heard what might have happened?

Although this went down fairly close to my house, all I know is what I saw on the local news.  The weather that day was off & on drizzle, but not too bad.  
Ceiling was, as you report, about 900'.  There is no reason to expect that the
weather played a significant factor.

One eyewitness described seeing the plane come down in what was pretty
obviously a spin (he only saw it for a brief time before impact).  He said that
he looked toward the plane because he heard the engine start to "sound 
different ... like something was wrong with it."  The plane was fairly close to
the airport, and was over an industrial park area.  It is not to unrealistic
to surmise that the pilot *might* have had failure on one engine and tried to
stretch it to the runway -- losing airspeed without realizing it.

The plane looked pretty well trashed, and the pilot (sole occupant, I think)
was killed.  No injury on the ground, as it missed (narrowly) hitting any
buildings.  The plane was out of Ohio.

Bill


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: Surviving a Commercial Aircraft Accident
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:31:00 GMT

In article <1gstieINNqbs@topaz.bds.com> ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) writes:
>What happens if there is cause for evacuation before taxi and the briefing
>starts.

In updating my J-AID (Jepp's FAR+AIM+AFD subscription service) today, I
noticed an interesting set of changes in the seat belt rules.  It looked like
similar changes went in for parts 91, 135, 121, 125, etc, but the only one
I looked at closely was for part 91.

The major change was that everybody is now required to have their seatbelt
(and shoulder harness) fastened any time the airplane is moving on the ground.
(This in addition to the old requirements of takeoff and landing.)

The PIC is required to ensure that everybody is notified to fasten seatbelts
before moving the airplane on the ground, taking off, or landing.

Interestingly, the "briefing" rule *didn't* change - the PIC is required
to ensure that everybody is briefed before takeoff.  This means that you
may be notified to put on your seat belt, and required by law to do so,
before you have been told how to do so.  Maybe the FAA needs to hire some
programmers to review their new rules... :-)

Incidentally, I try to make it a habit to go though the whole how-to-fasten-
and-unfasten-your-seatbelt thing with any new passengers, as I have had
more than one passenger have problems unfastening the belt even after a
quicky "you know how to use the seat belt, right?" briefing.  Amazing.
These people must never have been on a commercial flight, and never been
in a car made before 1970 or so.  But they're real, and especially in
my one-door Piper it's very important to me that my passengers (especially
the right front!) know how to unbuckle the seat belt...

Somebody told me a rather sad story about the victims of a crash who were
killed in the post-crash fire because their almost-rescuers couldn't figure
out how to operate the seat belt buckle.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Surviving a Commercial Aircraft Accident
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:25:15 GMT

In article <8509@public.BTR.COM> rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com) writes:
>|
>|Robert Dorsett (rdd@cactus.org) adds: 
>|: 7.  Buy a smokehood!
>
>Where, oh where can you buy a smokehood for $15?  Unless you're talking
>about enough units to outfit the entire commercial fleet, they seem to
>be much more expensive than that.  I'm seriously interested in buying
>one, but the least expensive one I've been able to find is in the $250 (US)
>range!  It's a self contained unit with 5 minutes of oxygen and a clear
>faceshield good for several thousands of degrees of flame resistance.
>
>Tell me where I can get one for $50 and I'll buy several!

I'm basing most of my comments on an extensive article in Flight International,
from the early to mid 80's.  I've not been able to find it, so, unfortunately, 
can't provide particulars.  

It was an interesting piece, covering many of the basics the original posters
in this thread brought up: also interesting in its break-down of the toxic
gasses released by most of the cabin furnishings.

In the context of those gasses, the smokehood didn't appear to have a self-
contained oxygen supply: from the description, it was more of a filtering
system, with definite short-term benefits: probably "mask" would be a better 
description, with a hood assembly to keep gasses out of the head area.

The article DID list suppliers selling for $15-$20, though.  

Have you tried the World Aviation Directory?


Incidentally, there's another risk with these things--in the recent AIRLINERS,
there's a blurb that the under-the-seat life preservers are frequent targets
for thieves; a Pan Am employee quoted as saying that "half the pleasure-boats 
in Miami are using our vests." :-)  Apparently, it was a result of this
problem that resulted in the "tear-off" seat cushions/floatation devices 
adopted on domestic runs...  

"In the event of an emergency, tear off your seat back, and wrap it around 
your head..."  Naaah.





---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Subject: Re: Flying flea info wanted
Organization: Wolf-359 Survivor's Association 
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:48:52 GMT

> I'm looking for some information on an airplane named
>" HM290, Flying Flea ". The plans & a kit are marketed
>by a Canadian Co. Falconar Ltd of Edmonton, Alberta.

All right... time to put my two cents in....

The original Flying Flea, as Mignet conceived it, was not a bad concept.  It 
was probably closer to the "everyman's" aircraft than a lot of designs 
since.

Mignet's goal was a simple to fly inexpensive sport aircraft.  All he
wanted to do was go up and sightsee.  And since he was rather poor, he
used an old motorcycle engine (17 HP two-stroke with chain reduction) for
power.  Now... doesn't that remind one of the start of the modern
ultralight era?

And recall what happened to ultralights.  For many builders, simple
sightseeing wasn't enough.  They wanted to go higher, farther, and faster.
Especially faster.

That's what happened to the Flea.  With his little 17-horse twopopper,
Mignet couldn't get into trouble.  But when the bigger-engined versions
started to fly, people started to die.

The accidents were puzzling.  The planes would be in level flight, then the
pilot would lower the nose.  But the nose kept coming down, diving the
plane into the ground no matter what the pilot did.

The cause WAS a design error... one that didn't show up as long as one flew
slowly.  You see, the design was essentially a tandem-wing aircraft, with
the wings slightly overlapping, with the front one a bit higher.  The
plane was controlled in pitch by tilting the entire forward wing.

The problem was, the trailing edge of the upper/forward wing was too close
to the leading edge of the rear wing.  The plane would get into a descent
and increase speed.  The pilot would pull back on the stick, lowering the
trailing edge of the upper wing.  It would come closer to the leading edge
of the back wing, forming a slot.  The slot would cause the airflow over
the rear wing to increase, which caused an increase rear wing lift.  And of
course, the rear wing is located aft of the CG.  Naturally, the plane would 
pitch down more... the pilot pulls back more on the stick, the slot narrows,
the air velocity increases, etc....

Solutions were found, but by that time the Flea had gained a bad
reputation.

As for Falconair, I've never dealt with the company, but they've been
around a while.  If you're interested in their Fleas, ask for references to
local builders.... a good precaution before committing to any homebuilt 
design.

(Reference:  _Guide to Homebuilts_, by Peter M. Bowers, 9th Edition)

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@plato.ds.boeing.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Article copying.
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:51:57 GMT

In article <1htsm9INNscj@mirror.digex.com> stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens) writes:
>>> Unless your article has a legal copyright note on it, it is freely
>>> copyable by anyone for any purpose.
>>
>>False.
>
>Andrew is correct -- Jason is incorrect.  

There's no "right" or wrong answer.  The context would be decided upon and
acted on in court.  Yes, there is an implicit copyright in any written work,
regardless of formal notification in the body.  However, by distributing
an article in a public forum, which necessitates the re-transmission of the
article, usually automatically (netnews), but sometimes by hand (broken
netnews, digests, archives), one surrenders at least some of one's rights by 
default.

I would suggest that by posting in a public forum, one is implicitly 
granting the right to freely copy within the context of the medium he's
"publishing" to.  If the author wishes to restrict the distribution up front, 
he should include an explicit copyright and distribution statement, and risk 
coming across as the Mother of all Anal-Retentives in the process. :-)

I would tend to agree that the redistribution of such articles for profit,
especially when the collection of the articles is used as a selling point for
a for-profit publication, is another matter, and that the author's permission
should be actively sought-after.  In my experience (mainly my various reviews),
people are actually quite good about this: IFR Magazine doesn't seem to have
quite as good an ethical grounding.  It'll probably take a lawsuit to sort
them out.

But let's take this to misc.legal or news.groups, eh?  The basic points are
rehashed elsewhere, in detail, every few weeks.




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: Ski Resorts
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:15:31 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 article <1992Dec31.140402.13087@talos.pm.com> vincent@talos.UUCP (Andy Vincent) writes:
>Does anyone know of any ski resorts on the east coast that have
>landing facilites (real) close by?

I don't know if this counts, but there is a ski resort in Champion,
PA, southeast of Pittsburgh, that has an airport (7SP) on the top of
the mountain.  "Wouldn't be prudent" to land short or overrun the
runway: there are nearly sheer dropoffs at each end.  About 3000 feet
long, 45 feet wide.

There's an instrument approach using the VERY nearby Indianhead (IHD?)
VOR, but I think the MDA is really high... about 1000 feet AGL.

I've only been there in June.  It might be closed in the winter.
--
Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: braner@trantor.emba.uvm.edu (Moshe Braner)
Subject: Re: Decathlons and spins
Summary: even a C150 needs to be "flown" out of a spin
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:20:00 GMT

In article <jrp.725063540@wombaj.kowari.cpsg.com.au>
jrp@bohra.cpg.oz.au (John Pitman) writes:
>I have been told that Decathlons , once in a spin are difficult to recover
>from, or at least require flying out, rather than just neutralize controls

I don't know about Decathlons, but in most aircraft you're supposed to do
SOMETHING to stop a spin, at least opposite rudder.  The POH for the
Cessna 150 says (besides opposite rudder) "move yoke briskly forward".
It's a good thing I got some actual spin training in a 150, since that
STRONG push of the yoke is very much non-intuitive when the nose
seems to be already pointed straight at the ground.

Nothing like SOARING to learn how NOT to stall, though.  (And if you don't
stall you can't spin.)  Endless steep turns on the edge of a stall...
You just get that "put the nose down" reaction (to any burble) burned
into you...
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Braner                          braner@emily.emba.uvm.edu
47 McGee Road, Essex, VT 05452        (802) 879-0876                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: Michael Steckner <steckner@lri.uwo.ca>
Subject: Loran PL-99 for sale
Organization: Relayed-by-Sendmail
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:20:07 GMT
To: rec.aviation.misc@julian.uwo.ca

I have a Loran Ray Jeff PL-99 for sale. Original box, manuals -the works
Asking $150.00 US $$$ you pay shipping.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: fskevin@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER))
Subject: Re: Decathlons and spins
Summary: even a C150 needs to be "flown" out of a spin
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 Dec 1992 14:00 EDT  

In article <1992Dec23.022000.15154@uvm.edu>, braner@trantor.emba.uvm.edu (Moshe Braner) writes...
> 
>I don't know about Decathlons, but in most aircraft you're supposed to do
>SOMETHING to stop a spin, at least opposite rudder.  The POH for the
>Cessna 150 says (besides opposite rudder) "move yoke briskly forward".
>It's a good thing I got some actual spin training in a 150, since that
>STRONG push of the yoke is very much non-intuitive when the nose
>seems to be already pointed straight at the ground.
> 

Now this is interesting since I just reviewed a technical paper about spin
recovery tests which stated that simultaneous opposite rudder and down
elevator increased altitude loss over opposite rudder and subsequent down
elevator.  What does the POH say?  Simultaneous or Subsequent?

Another interesting thing was that no recovery could be made with full flaps
deployed.

Kevin Kirtley
Short Wing Piper Lover

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: edwin@cs.ruu.nl (Edwin Kremer)
Subject: [airliner crash] Martinair MP495 crashed at Faro airport
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:08:09 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science


This morning, Martinair DC-10, flight MP495 from Amsterdam to Faro
(Algarve, Portugal), crashed during the landing on Faro airport. In
extremely bad wheather conditions the DC-10 crashed in the second
landing approach when one of the wings hit the runway. The aircraft
broke apart and the back-end of the aircraft caught fire.

Flight MP495 was having 327 passengers and a crew of 13 on board.
Rumours are that there are at least 100 people suffering from fatal
injuries. There are appr. 200 people injured, 150 of them are
currently in hospitals. These figures have just been acknowledged
by the authoroties at Faro.


						--[ Edwin ]--
-- 
Edwin H. Kremer, systems- and network manager.    [NIC-Whois handle: EHK3]
  Department of Computer Science,    Utrecht University,   The Netherlands
  Internet: Edwin.Kremer@cs.ruu.nl   NeXTmail: Edwin.Kremer@edge.cs.ruu.nl
  X.400   : G=Edwin;S=Kremer;OU=cs;O=ruu;PRMD=surf;ADMD=400net;C=nl
From: an3955@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Cuba rescue
Date: 26 Dec 92 21:25:56 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: rec.aviation.misc





I thought I would share this series of interesting public posts from
Compuserve's aviation forum..


Gary

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.