HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joero@microsoft.com (Joe Robison)
Subject: Re: GLIDER: POST task? (was Re: Re: SOARING: 15m Nats in Minden)
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:27:24 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <122140195@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rjc@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM wrote:
> > 	I know *very* little about competition flying and the tasks.  What is a
> > POST task and what was the mistake in this instance?  And if it doesn't take
> > too much time/space, how about a description of the tasks and how they fit into
> > organizing a competition?
> 
> Aland can give more details about POST procedures, but I'll give it a
> shot.
> 
> POST -- Pilot Option Speed Task
> 
> In a normal, non-POST task, the Competition Director decides on a task
> for the day based on the weather forecast, and everyone attempts to
> fly that task as fast as possible -- only speed counts (unless a pilot
> can't complete the task; then only distance counts toward his score).
> In a POST, each pilot chooses his own task, based on a set of
> allowed turnpoints.  This requires the pilot to choose his task "on the
> fly" as weather conditions develop through the day.  Both distance and
> speed count in the score.

There are variations.  The two most common (I believe) are "Scratch 
distance" and "Time only." In the former, the Competition Director (CD) 
calls a minimum "scratch distance" -- say 150 miles.  In Sports Class, 
where everything from Nibus III's to 1-26's can be flying against each 
other, the pilot multiplies the scratch distance by his/her ship's handicap
(1.7 for a Nimbus say, or 0.7 for a 1-26 (these numbers are completely
made up for example purposes only)). The resulting number is the distance
that pilot must fly.  Hence the Nimbi are going to be covering a lot
more ground than the lesser ships.  The highest speed wins (there are
adjustments if you land short of your distance). This task has a fairly
high mental load on the pilot if the day develops differently than you
expected and you have to pick new turnpoints on the fly. If the thermals
are wide apart and/or the winds are high, the lower performance ships
can't make their distances no matter what their handicap is.

In "Time only" the pilots are given a minimum time they must be out on
course -- say 3.5 hours.  The pilots bag as much distance as they can
in the time they are out.  They can stay out longer, but since the
scoring is based on speed and distance flown, you only want to stay
out if the day is stronger at the end of the time than it was at the 
begining (since presumably that will allow you to raise your average 
speed).  There is a penalty for landing early.  This variation has a 
lower mental workload, since you don't have to plan your turnpoints in 
advance or recalculate distances if you go for different turnpoints
while you're on course -- you just fly where the lift looks good,
and bag turnpoints as you go.  The Sports Class Nationals in Ephrata
used this variation exclusively this year.
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flying Costs in Mass
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:06:10 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

$65 is at the high end of the beater skyhawk rental rates around here.
It was pretty amazing, I've found NO correlation between the quality
of operation and amenities that the FBO offers and the plane rental
rate.  Shop around!

For example, the cruddiest place I found, populated with some aging
good ol' boy instructors with bird droppings all over the planes
goes for about the same as the carpet on the walls, we cater to jets
operation on the other side of the field.  However at the next
GA airport over, while the main FBO on the field has the higher
rates, a much nicer 141 school on the other side of the field
that's located in the end of the T hanger (always wondered what
you could do with the little extra pieces left over from the T's)
has a very nice facility...clean lounge, bathroom, supplies/charts
for sale, class room with complete sets of popular training videos
for your perusal, and a PC for calling up and getting the
weather, Drake exam testing facility, and a reasonable selection
of aircraft from 152 to Arrows and helicopters has the cheapest
rates in the area.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: M21208@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Questions about airspace incursions/Mode C
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:22:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.055849.17374@adobe.com>
mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker) writes:
 
>I'll keep posting against this tale until someone comes up with a
>reference to prove it.  I think you'll find that the rule about
>ASRS reports is written to prevent the "authorities" from reading
>ASRS reports looking for people to bust.  If you busted airspace
>and they noticed and they have evidence other than your ASRS report,
>the ASRS report is not a get out of jail free card.
>
>I just cannot believe that number of people who believe this story.
>I'm going into the air charter business, and every night when I get
>home I'm going to mail in an ASRS report that says, "oops, I flew
>a charter and I don't have a commercial license" that way they can't
>lock me up.
>
I didn't see the original post in this thread, so I'm not sure of the nature
of the violation being discussed, but the filing of a NASA report is often one
of the best things a pilot can do afetr screwing up - it can very much amount
to a "get out of jail free" card.  It's true that the FAA is only prohibited
from using NASA report data to pursue a violation, and is free to do so if they
 have other independent evidence to support their action.  (And as an aside,
NASA is absolutely RABID about protecting the confidentiality of the system.
There is virtually no chance of the FAA getting their hands on any data from
NASA which is associable with a specific individual.)  However, even if FAA
does independently pursue a violation, if the pilot involved can produce
evidence of filing a NASA report (they send a receipt back) any penalty
imposed is waived.  This benefit only comes in at the point a penalty is
imposed, though - they have to find you in violation first, and the violation
still goes on your record.  It's just that if you get a suspension out of it,
the suspension will be nullified.
 
The details are contained in Advisory Circular 00-46 - you should read it.
I'll quote a bit:
 
"The filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or other occurrence
 involving a violation of the Act ot the Federal Aviation Regulations is
considered by the FAA to be indicative of a constructive attitude.  Such an
attitude will tend to prevent future violations.  Accordingly, although a
finding of a violation may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate
suspension will be imposed if:
(1)  The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate.
(2)  The violation did not involve a criminal offense...(stuff deleted)
(3)  Paraphrasing - Limitation on frequency of use of the waiver - I've
got an old copy of the AC, but I think the current limitation is once
every three years.
(4)  The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, he or she
delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or occurrence to NASA
under ASRS.
 
San Jose FSDO should have both AC 00-46 and a supply of NASA forms.  They're
worth using.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: lholland@cs.sfu.ca (Leah Louise Holland)
Subject: Re: I must have done SOMETHING right
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.010312.220@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> kaye@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Kaye Stott) writes:
>
>Although we are taught to "call the stages" when taking off, I
>found at that height and in those conditions, that the field I
>looked on as the place I would go to just was too much to contemplate
>in a real emergency. I would have had to go straight in, over the
>houses and trees, with a strong cross-wind, with some tail component;
>no time to look at the field, just put it down. Remember, I still had
>the rope on, and was worried about catching it on things below.
>
>Kaye
>
I was taught that as soon as the tow AC waves me off or if the rope breaks to complete an 'emergency' release check - for a release that occurs before set release height.  The release check is as follows:

			A - attitude
			R - release (pull the release and get rid of the rope)
			A - altitude ( look at the altimeter )
			D - decision depending on the altitude & conditions

The decision should be make before the rope is broken and a place to land should always be in view while under 1000' AGL and in mind while soaring.  
I realize that dropping the rope might not be ideal in some areas but this is the procedure I've been taught.

Fortunately, the only releases I've had below 1000' were simulation rope breaks with instructors and I am glad that I did not have the rope hanging under me as I flew over the trees at the end of the runway. 

Leah
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jeg@netcom.com (Julian E. Gomez)
Subject: Re: Ramp checks--unreasonable search
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 00:51:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Jul19.000327.9691@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
" (2) If the individual who approaches you is not displaying obvious FAA
"     identification, and you're not absolutely sure that this person is
"     legitimate, ask to see their identification first.  See the FAR
"     excerpts below to learn who may ask to see your certificates and
"     documents.  If they refuse to provide this information, you should
"     also refuse to provide them with your documents.

This is a good post and sums up everything. My one exception is that if
a couple of guys approached me late at night and refused to display
credentials, I'd be calling law enforcement ASAP.
-- 
"We must grasp the bull by the tail, and look the matter squarely in the face!"

	Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
	jeg@netcom.com
From: myshatyn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mike Myshatyn)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:29:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Was: Re: Cessna sholdr harn review  (BAS))
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

Chris Best writes:

> I'm always tempted to just not wear it - but there must be some
> FAR that says if it's there, ya gotta wear it (seat belts/shoulder
> harness).  (anyone?)

FAR 91.105 Flight crewmembers at stations.

   (a) During takeoff and landing, and while enroute, each required  flight
   crewmember shall
       :
      (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  crewmember's  station  is not  equipped  with a
      shoulder harness; or

      (2) The crewmember  would be unable to perform  required  duties with
      the shoulder harness fastened.


--
 Mike Myshatyn    Bonanza N4896J           Hewlett-Packard Company
   ASEL/AMEL COMM, INSTR, CFI-IA           User-Interface Technology Division
 ...!hplabs!fc.hp.com!myshatyn             Ft. Collins, CO  80525
 or ... myshatyn@fc.hp.com                 (303) 229-4067

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: aviator@athena.mit.edu (Joakim Karlsson)
Subject: Re: the surly bonds of earth
Organization: Flight Transportation Associates, Cambridge, MA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:41:45 GMT

In article <22664@oasys.dt.navy.mil> wpalmer@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Palmer) writes:
>Mr. Karlsson's posts contain this quote in his .sig, and prompted my
>curiosity.

I get asked this question a couple of times every year.  I should save
a copy of this article, so I don't have to retype it.  The poem is called
"High Flight" and was written by John Gillespie Magee, Jr., a young RAF
pilot who was killed in WWII.  I have some more biographical info on him
at home, if anyone is interested.  Here is the poem in its full glory:

Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
  And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climed, and joined the tumbling mirth
  Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
  High in sunlit silence.  Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
  My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
  I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew.
  And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
  Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

It doesn't get better than that.  Boy do I have an urge to go flying now,
after typing that...  ...Joakim "wheeling, soaring, and swinging" Karlsson



--
Joakim Karlsson            | aviator@athena.mit.edu
Flying Fanatic in Training | Air: PP-ASEL  CAP: Freedom 110 Mobile  FCC: N1JHW
                 "Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
                And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gaynier@elec.uq.oz.au (Ron Gaynier)
Subject: Re: LK10's, TG-2's etc. (Soaring)
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:31:07 GMT

In <9207271322.AA06889@lri.uwo.ca> steckner@lri.uwo.ca (Michael Steckner) writes:

"|">>Also Ross Brigleb was known to carry a long stick at times.
"|">You see, there is quite some distance between the front and
"|">back seats in a TG-3.  As a matter of fact it is not possible
"|">to reach the pilot in the front from the back.  Ross had 
"|">experiences where students would freeze up on the stick.  So
"|">he would use the stick to "tap" the student and get them to let
"|">go and then he could get them out of whatever maneuver they
"|">had blundered into.

"|"What Aland mentions is rather interesting. I heard (ie I cannot remember
"|"source, accuracy etc etc) is that one club modified their two seaters
"|"such that the front stick was mounted on a spring. The two halves of the
"|"stick connected via a glass tube. If the student froze, a huge amount of
"|"force/override from the rear seat would crack the glass tube. At that point
"|"the student could freak all they want, but the spring centre of the stick
"|"would render their thrashing ineffective. Sounds neat, but I am not sure
"|"I would want to solo in a glider like that!!

"|"Anyone else hear this story???

Nope, but it sounds like a reasonable idea. You could remove the stick and
replace it with a conventional one to allow for solo flight. 

I was recently told that the control system is designed so that the rear
seat pilot has greater machanical advantage. I looked at our K7s and I see
that it is true. But now I'm wondering how much of an advantage it there? 
I suppose I could reverse engineer the controls and figure it out but I'll
seek the wisdom of the net first.


Ron Gaynier
From: glenb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Glen Baker)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:35:42 GMT
Subject: Re: "remain clear of the ARSA..."
Organization: What, me? Organized?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, jimm@simsol.UUCP (Jim Morris) writes:
> My guess is that what you really got is
>  "36Z Monterey Approach remain clear of the ARSA until radar identified"

 Well, your guess is wrong. This has happened several times and it's 
 always simply "remain clear" period.

> you do remember how to do turns about a point don't you? 

 As a matter of fact, yes I do. And if you want me to I can even do them
 in a vertical plane (given the proper air-plane that is :-). Oh, and
 I got to do turns around a (downed) plane yesterday :-(

> I like ARSAs and TCAs. They are there to protect me.  I have flown 
> through a few in my time and have NEVER been denied access when I 
> really needed it.

 Well I think they're just peachy too. However I have been denied access
 many many times. Now, maybe there was so much traffic that they were
 actually doing me a favor by keeping me out of congested airspace. 
 Unfortunately in this case there simply is *not* a lot of room to turn
 around and avoid the steenking ARSA! It's definately do-able, and I'm
 even confident of my ability to turn within the confines of the valley
 while maintaining adequate safety margins, but it's *real* annoying
 to be doing a climbing low speed turn in a valley. 

 Actually, I got the info that I was seeking. Several people have lead
 me to believe that ATC could *not* refuse an ARSA clearance request
 once they had established two-way communication (yes, in every case
 they *have* used my tail-number). This appears to be incorrect and they
 are in fact within their authority when they say "36Z we don't like
 your kind 'round here. Remain clear of the ARSA..." :-)

 I guess from now on I'll give 'em a call on the phone. "Hello Monterey
 Approach? I'll be departing from Carmel Valley in about 45 minutes to
 an hour. Well, no, I can't be more specific than that since there's no
 phone on the field..."

 ..glen
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Suit filed against Bell Helicopter
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:08:08 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na
  <1992Jul22.175644.17058@eecs.nwu.edu> <62673@cup.portal.com>

I've thought of another reason for the manufacturer to be included in
the suit.  Suppose they were not.

The pilot's estate and/or insurance company and the owners of the
helicopter might try to argue that the helicopter was defective,
and that that was the cause of the crash, rather than something
that they did wrong.  If they convince the jury, they get off.

The plaintiffs then would sue the manufacturer.  The manufacturer
might argue that the pilot or the company the owned the helicopter
caused the crash.  The jury in that suit might be convinced.

It could end up with *someone* having been at fault, but no one being
held responsible.  From the plaintiff's point of view, it is much better
to have every possible responsible party in the one suit, and let the
figure it out.

In short, if you are going to include party A in the suit, and party A might
defend themselves by blaming party B (e.g., the owner of the helicopter
might try to blame the manufacturer), then you should include party B in
your suit.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: joero@microsoft.com (Joe Robison)
Subject: Re: 747 Loop ANSWER
Date: 27 Jul 92 03:54:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Jul24.143441.1515@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> egeiselman@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil wrote:
> Joe Robison writes:
> 
> >Sounds like a half roll followed by a half loop.
> >In other words, an Immelman.
> 
> In fact, a half roll followed by a half loop is a split-S.
> A half loop followed by a half roll is an Immelman.

Ok, Ok.  I always get those two confused (when I was eight
someone told me they were both Immelmans, and even though I 
learned differently later, I still screw it up occasionally...)
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Product Liability (was Re: Active noise-canceling headsets)
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:14:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.

In article <1992Jul24.144312.19977@cbnews.cb.att.com> tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester) writes:
>	Heres a wild idea.  What if we formed a users group and filed a
>    class action law suit against this idiot for damaging  our ability to fly.
>    I can argue that this suit is as damaging to my ability to obtain
>    reasonibly priced aircraft as they can show head sets are to blame.
>    All we need to do is to show the high percentage of cost attributable
>    to liability insurance.

Uh, huh.  And the next time I get injured by a genuinely defective
product, or by serious negligence, I get sued by the employees of the
company or the children of the negligent person for increasing the risk
of them losing their jobs, or of their parent being unable to support
them.  I think not.
--
-- Christophe

"Be calm.  Look cute."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: lindae@netcom.com ()
Subject: Flying to L.A.7/31/92 ?
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 03:51:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ba

I'm looking for a ride to the San Fernando area Friday July 31, 1992, anytime after 4:00pm, and returning anytime Sunday August 2, 1992 back to either SJC, RHV or PAO.  I'm willing to share expenses.  I am a student pilot with 85 hours 
nearly ready for my checkride.  Please call (408) 293-5871 

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: Ramp checks--unreasonable search
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 04:38:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.122240.8728@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Bluejay Adametz
writes re ADs:

>It all goes something like this:
>
>Operators/owners are responsible for getting the aircraft to a mechanic.
>Mechanics are responsible for performing and documenting AD compliance.
>Operators/owners are responsible for seeing that AD compliance is documented.
>Pilots are responsible for determining that ADs have been done.

As a new, first-time plane owner I have a question that just came up
today, and Bluejay's note is apropos:

I received an AD today from the FAA that nominally applies to my
Mooney.  It's about inappropriately-manufactured Lycoming piston
parts, dating from a couple of months during the summer of 1991.

Now, I know (from the logbooks) that my engine has not had major work
since the prior year, when the engine was majored.  However, the AD
requires a log and maintenance search within the next 15 days to
determine applicability, etc.

As a naive, first-time owner, WHAT DO I DO to comply?  Do I need to
get the plane to an A&P to certify the obvious?  Do I make some sort
of log entry myself?  Or????

pmf
pp-asmel-ia
mooney n5632j
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Subject: Re: Product Liability (was Re: Active noise-canceling headsets)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:32:50 GMT

In article <BrwL88.GqD@taligent.com> cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.144312.19977@cbnews.cb.att.com> tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester) writes:
>>	Heres a wild idea.  What if we formed a users group and filed a
>>    class action law suit against this idiot for damaging  our ability to fly.
>>    I can argue that this suit is as damaging to my ability to obtain
>>    reasonibly priced aircraft as they can show head sets are to blame.
>>    All we need to do is to show the high percentage of cost attributable
>>    to liability insurance.
>
>Uh, huh.  And the next time I get injured by a genuinely defective
>product, or by serious negligence, I get sued by the employees of the
>company or the children of the negligent person for increasing the risk
>of them losing their jobs, or of their parent being unable to support
>them.  I think not.
>--
	Well, if those families can prove that your injury was x% your fault,
	 Then yes!  If you are totaly faultless, then you would have no 
	 fear.  % fault is what was used to drag the manufacturer
	 into these suits.  Why not use the match to stop the fire ?

	 If you can't get the laws changed, use them to beat the system.

	 So far I have recieved 2 positive email responses.
	Any lawyers out there care to comment on probability of winning ?
-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
Newsgroups: rec.aviation