HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pvf@alantec.com (Paul Fries)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: a lesson on exiting
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:39:01 GMT

petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (HOWARD PETRI) writes:

>     Maybe some glider pilot out there who has actually had to
>"get out and walk" could give us more info on this subject. I have heard
>that below 1000 ft AGL you might as well ride it in. I know of one
>story of someone dying jumping from 500 AGL. 

The altitude at which you might safely depart your aircraft
depends upon several things.  The gear is one of them...
your ability to handle the gear is another.

We skydivers always carry 2 parachutes.  One is designated
the "reserve".  My reserve should open in well under 500
feet.  Your mileage may vary.  Your body position can
affect the distance required, as well.

As I am quite certain that I can exit in a reasonable
position and pull the ripcord quickly and effectively, I
would not hesitate to leave a severely disabled aircraft at
500' AGL, if I really had to.

For the untrained, the 1000' AGL rule is probably a good
working minimum, unless the craft was sure to kill you.
Then, I guess you might as well jump.

As with all forms of aviation, you might think about
getting some instruction about using the parachute.
Landing the round parachute that you might find in a
"typical" emergency rig will be a lot more pleasant if you
have learned to do a good Parachute Landing Fall (PLF).
Any Drop Zone (DZ, a place where skydivers do their thing)
would probably be able/willing to help you out with some
information.  A DZ that trains students is certain to be
able to tell you all you need to know.  (They might want
something for the instruction, though, but it is probably
worth it... offer them some glider rides :-) )

The other big question is this:

If the aircraft is disabled severely enough that you want
to get out, and you are at 500' AGL, can you really get out
before you have lost a significant portion of your 500'?
Which is to say that if the wings both snapped off at 500'
AGL, you are in pretty bad shape... parachute or not.

If you have altitude, try what you can while you have the
room.  However, if things aren't getting better, it is best
to have a plan that says at what altitude you will give up
on the aircraft.  Knowing this in advance can save precious
time when you need it most.


Training and planning.  These are the keys.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: [IN]sensible students
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:22:07 GMT

[Continuing the discussion of [IN]sensible students]

In article <92248.16445534AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>It does NOT seem reasonable that a CFI sould reasonably expect to be able
>to volunteer unsolicited information about any such student without
>exposing him/herself to a significant risk of (probably  successful) suit. There
>are just too many factors stacked against such a course of action. For example:
>
The CFI can protect himself [to some extent] by offering observations (facts)
rather than simple opinions.  Facts are hard to dispute (yes, we can get into
witnesses, etc.).  Yes, it's not perfect.

>
>If there are ANY ethnic, sexual, age, race, etc., etc., differences between
>the CFI and the student, the CFI would also run the additional risk of being
>sued for discrimination.
>

Again, the CFI needs to be very careful on what s/he says, and how s/he phrases
it.

>Last, even though the FAA insists that CFI's  pass on  the  "psychological
>fitness" of a student, unless they  (FAA) are also willing to cloak the  CFI in
>immunity from litigation for so doing, what they are really doing is setting the
>CFI up for suit (possibly  charges) of practicing unlicensed medicine by
>encouraging him/her to  offer a _professional_ opinion on the "psychological
>fitness" of another person. Reporting to the FAA in the personnae of CFI would
>give that same hypothetical attorney a very considerable opening to characterize
>the action as the promulgation of a professional opinion; unless, of course, the
>CFI is also   an  MD.  Then   there  are  all   the  usual  concerns   about  an
>individual's privacy to contend with.
>

A CFI is expected to act as a "practical psychologists".  His undue concern
over certain individuals should result in reporting them to the FAA to
continue the investigation.  It is then up to the FAA to either continue/ignore
the report and back up their findings from true professionals.  I can
[almost] guarantee that someone in training will not be automatically
disqualified just on the word of a CFI.

Kerry


P.S. Please trim your line widths to 72 to make followups readable.
     Thanks.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Oshoksh and IFR (was: Logging time for the Inst)
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:15:43 GMT

In article <Sep.13.14.30.37.1992.979@pilot.njin.net> ron@pilot.njin.net
(Ron Natalie) writes:
> Why is it that the FAA can bring in dozens of extra controllers, extra
> equipment for the OSH tower, a control tower for FLD, the trailer and
> equipment for the "FISK" Tracon, coordinate with non-FAA ground
> personnel and generally get Oshkosh going, but they can't add a few
> controllers to allow reasonable IFR departures?

The problem isn't a lack of controllers -- it's the type of radar which is
available in the Oshkosh area.  Oshkosh is not served by Approach radar,
but rather by Center radar.  Separation standards for Center radar are much
greater than for approach radar, because the resolution of the radar is
much less.  (It's designed to cover larger areas with less resolution.)

It would be _very_ expensive to install an Approach radar at Oshkosh -- and
it would only be really useful a few days a year, and only for a small
minority of the pilots.

Simple solution:  treat Oshkosh as a VFR experience.

						Geoff
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Transponder problems / great flight
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:11:59 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

>Okay, I'll show my ignorance here about something I should know.  I could
>look it up tonight when I get home, but it might be of general interest
>anyway.  What do you do when, just after takeoff, ATC informs you that your
>transponder is giving them no reading at all and you are inside the 30nm
>radius of a TCA primary airport?  This happened during my flight to Reno
>yesterday.  

FAR 91.215 is the applicable regulation.  91.215 (b) (1) is the TCA
requirement.  In your case, however, section (d) is involved:

91.215  ATC TRANSPONDER AND ALTITUDE REPORTING EQUIPMENT AND USE
   [...]
   (d) ATC AUTHORIZED DEVIATIONS
       ATC may authorize deviations from paragraph (b) of this section--
         (1) Immediately, to allow an aircraft with an inoperative 
             transponder to continue to the airport of ultimate destination,
             including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place
             where suitable repairs can be made or both.

You could have told ATC something like "well, it was working on the last
flight" and you would probably have gotten no static from them while the
box was warming up.

It's also not unknown for ATC itself to have problems.  Some radar
facilities have equipment which is not exactly in perfect condition
and may have trouble picking up a transponder which is operating at
the edge of its acceptable specifications.

Obwarstory: several years ago on a flight to the West Coast I was playing
dodge-em with some storms near ABQ.  The storms had some occasional 
lightning and apparently one of the strokes generated enough garbage
that it blew out my transponder.  From that point on (outbound) and
back to home base I filed using an equipment suffix of /W and had several
chuckles as the FSS and ATC specialists routinely asked me just what
that meant.  (It's "no transponder but RNAV equipped").

Joe Morris
From: marquis@LL.MIT.EDU (Doug Marquis)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Caution:  Possible Mistakes in Writtens
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:37:01 GMT
Reply-To: marquis@ll.mit.edu


I took the Commercial Airplane written last week in Norwood, MA. I was
the first to take the written test since all of the tests changed on
September 1, 1992. 

I answered questions on aircraft, gyroplanes, gliders, helicopters,
and free balloons.  Upon a call to FSDO-01, the initial (explicitly,
not final) word is that there is likely a mistake in the new FAA
written exam. ** This means there could be mistakes in other writtens.  **
The 100 questions selected do not necessarily reflect a sampling from
commercial airplane only, and probably should.


Beware of the new written exams.


                                    -*- Doug -*-
                                    marquis@ll.mit.edu
From: aliamus@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Steve Aliamus)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:15:06 GMT
Subject: San Carlos Airport Open House
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, California
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

Announcing San Carlos Airport Open House and Ride Day

Sunday, September 13, 1992
8:00 AM to 6:00 PM

Pancake Breakfast
Lunch
Ten Cents a Pound Airplane Rides
FAA Control Tower Tours

Plenty of Parking
Ground Transportation around the Airport

Fun for the Whole Family

Sponsered by the San Carlos Airport Pilots' Association

San Carlos Airport (SQL) is located on the San Francisco peninsula, 10 miles
SE of San Francisco International.  Take the Holly Street East exit off
Highway 101, and make a right at the first light.  For more information,
contact the Airport Office at 415-573-3700.

Steve Aliamus                       |  Phone: 415-857-7927
Hewlett-Packard                     |    FAX: 415-857-4586
3000 Hanover Street MS 20CAA        | HPDesk: HP0000/49
Palo Alto, California, USA  94304   |   UNIX: aliamus@corp.hp.com
  __________________________                   _        ___
 /                          \                 [ \______/   \__
/    I'D RATHER BE FLYING    \________________/---____________)-|
\ Cessna 150 N19282  PP-ASEL /                          b    b
 \__________________________/
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Naval Air Station Tower - Code 7 - Wazzat?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 22:07:55 CDT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

jeffg@loki.esd.sgi.com (Jeff C. Glover) writes:

> Listening to Moffet Tower (Mountain View, CA) this afternoon, a
> military helo called in requesting "code 7" for the aircraft, for two
> hours, on the right side of the aircraft.
> 
> What is code 7?

 This refers to a VIP onboard the aircraft. It's been a long time, 
but as I remember, the "code" number refers to the officers grade, 
as in O-7 in this case, which would be a one star general. That 
might not be accurate though. There are codes like that that 
designate VIP's all the way up to the President. The two hours 
refered to the time he would be there, and the reference to the 
right side refers to where he will be getting out of the aircraft 
so that the "honor guard" will be in the right place :-). You may 
also here them refer to a "code" and then say something like "no 
requests", which means that the VIP requests no special honors or 
other considerations. 
 Maybe someone will correct me if I didn't remember the meaning of 
the number right, but I'am sure that the higher the number, the 
more important the VIP :-)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak)
Subject: Re: Skyhawk vs. Warrior
Organization: multi-cellular
Distribution: rec.aviation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 13:43:38 GMT

As other posters suggested, why not check out in both? This way
you'll have more options when renting.

I have flown both C-172 and the Warrior, and I like them both. Here is
some differences I noticed:

   + C-172 is lighter on the controls than the Warrior. Especially
     in pitch. I noticed this most in the landing flare.
 
     However, a C-172 is heavier on the controls than a C-152.

   + I can make shorter landings in C-172. I think this is because the
     flaps on it are more effective. I've slipped the Warrior with
     full flaps, I never had to slip in a 172 (In fact C-172 POH
     recomends against sliping with full flaps).

   + For me a Warrior is easier to handle in cross-winds. Probably because
     it's a low wing.

   + You can see the ground better from C-172. A consideration if
     you're taking people on sightseeing flights.
      

   + You have to switch tanks in the Warrior and you have an electric
     fuel pump. Also the carb heat in a Warrior is only used if you
     suspect carb ice, not in any normal procedures (i.e. approach
     and landing)


Hope this helps.


...richie PP-ASEL

-- 
* Richie Bielak   (212)-815-3072   |                                          *
* Internet:       richieb@bony.com |     Experience is no substitute          *
* Bang {uupsi,uunet}!bony1!richieb |           for competence.                *
*    - Strictly my opinions -      |                                          *
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
From: shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks)
Subject: Re: PC a step closer to realistic simulator (Thrustmaster)
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:39:54 GMT

In article <5552@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.boeing.com> prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:
>In article <n=snnvm.hchong@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>> ... and of course a real good PC simulation program, then we have it made. 
>> 
>> Now, can somebody think of how to simulate directional G's... 
>
>I've put a small amount of thought into that...
>
>Simulating G-forces, of course, is something even the big simulators can't
>do.  Changing the direction of the apparent gravity/centrifugal vector is
>another thing.  Note that in "normal" flight this vector doesn't change
>much... not at all in a coordinated turn, for instance.  The easiest way to
>do this is to place the entire cockpit on a pivot and tilt it in the
>appropriate direction.  Suprisingly little tilt is needed... just the hint
>should be enough.  Ten to 30 degrees, maximum.

As an additional cue, many military simulators will inflate the pilot's
G-suit an appropriate amount under the appropriate condition. One
drawback is that incidences of simulator sickness are common due to
conflict of actual vs anticipated vestibular cueing - you can't
get a G-suit in your ear!

You might want to soak a rag in JP-4 and hydraulic fluid and sit on it
to get that certain "atmosphere". Consider picking up a helmet - 
preferably one that doesn't fit worth a damn with lots of
"hot spots" (pressure points) to really get into it. Clean the mask
out with alcohol - now you are getting the real feeling.

Mark Shanks
Air Force Academy '76
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: argyle@cg.emr.ca (malcolm argyle)
Subject: Re: Got my Private!
Reply-To: argyle@cg.emr.ca
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines & Resources, Canada
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:33:05 GMT

In article 11875@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu, mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) writes:
>GOT it..Finally! The damn weather along the coast has been MVFR the
>last few days..and today it was PERFECT <well sorta>...talk about
>a major dose of STRESS! [I had my college future on the line]
>--
Well, since no one else seems to have done it - congrats on your licence!
Oh yeh, I almost forgot - congrats on having your very own news group!
Personally, I think the fragmentation of rec.aviation has gone too far when 
individuals start setting up their own news groups. ;-]
Cheers, M.
---
This doesn't reflect their views. Hell, this |Malcolm Argyle
doesn't even reflect my views!               |argyle@cg.emr.ca
                                             |Geological Survey of Canada
                                             |Bldg. 7, 1 Observatory Cres.
                                             |Ottawa, Ont. Canada K1A 0Y3
From: THOMAS.REED@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Thomas Reed")
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flight Sim Realism
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:58:36 GMT
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs


I have Microsoft's F/S with enhanced graphics pak and the aircraft/airport
designer. I have found the simulator to *fundamentally* accurate, especially
in the Cessnas and Pipers ( I have no Lear, Concord, or 747 time).

I believe that most difficulty from using the sims (good landings for
example) is due to lack of complete visual references. Most important
is the lack of peripheral vision; a necessity for good landings. However,
as you approach the runway if you move your eye focus to the far end of
the runway, just as you should in a real airplane, some peripheral queues
are available and you can land quite well. My 13 year old, who has no
real flight time, can do this very consistently.

Also, I find the sim to be accurate for instrument refreshers. VOR track,
ILS, VOR approach, timed turns all work well enough to be useful.
Also, the sim is excellent for building basic flying reactions such as
pitch for airspeed, power for altitude. Again, my 13 year old has
accomplished good speed, altitude, and climb/descent control using these
techniques while flying the sim.

While the pressures and feel of the real airplane will be different to him
as I begin giving him lessons, the thought processes and reactions should be
well ingrained.

Happy Landings to all you computer aviators!

Thomas Reed                             I never speak for Wang when the
Wang Laboratories, Inc.                 subject is fying!
Cincinnati, Ohio

CP-ASEL CFI
From: tcombs@pacific.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Tim Combs)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Restarting a jet engine
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:51:51 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Urbana Design Center

I don't know if this is the right place to post this so I will try.... 
Understand I know no more about aviation that my brother-in-law taught me
when he said, "She's all yours." and let go of the stick in a 1949 Luscom.
Does anyone know what the proper procedure is for restarting a "flamed out"
jet engine?  Does anyone know how to avoid this condition. (Fuel I thot
would certainly be important.)

Thanks. 
Tim
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Air Lifeline experience
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<Sep.13.14.19.24.1992.784@pilot.njin.net>
	<SHAFER.92Sep13120006@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov>
	<1904tpINN54j@smaug.West.Sun.COM>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:30:21 GMT

On 13 Sep 1992 19:31:05 GMT, Brian.Horn@west.sun.com said:

BH> In article <SHAFER.92Sep13120006@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:

>My husband and his wheelchair have been traveling by air for over 40
>years and have gone to about 50 countries, all 7 continents, all 50
>states, and all the provinces (not the territories).  Even before the
>recent legislation (ADA) the airlines _always_ took the wheelchair.

BH> Yes, the airlines should (and generally can) deal with wheelchairs (and
BH> other such related stuff), but it is often awkward.  Further, I'd
BH> imagine dealing with wheelchairs (crutches, etc) gets more difficult
BH> when their are large crowds of people, such as at a major airport.

Not that we've ever seen.  LAX big enough for you?  We've never had an
"overcrowding" problem there.  Frankfurt-am-Main on the day that Europe
went off daylight time but the US didn't?  A madhouse, but no worse for
us than for anyone else.  Now the streets of New Orleans during Mardi
Gras, I'll grant you--but there's a higher percentage of drunks there
than in airports.

It's extremely easy to fly if you're "mobility impaired" (pardon my
euphemism, but people get upset if I just blurt out "crippled", even
though that's Ken's preference).  Warn the airline you're coming and
they'll do whatever they can to get you through nicely.

BH> I will admit that this was *not* my best point.

I'd say it was a pretty bad point.  But you probably haven't ever
traveled with someone in a wheelchair to know how easy the airlines
make it.

Besides, there are some wheelchairs that weigh more than you can
put in the average four-seat plane, not to mention their size and
their batteries.  These are not problems in airliners. 

I'll also add a caveat here, that travel for the handicapped is not
always perfect, just like travel for the able-bodied.  Cranky crew,
equipment changes, etc--they do happen.  And then there was the time
that we flew from Heathrow to O'Hare on TWA and Ken's chair flew on
BOAC.

Low-wing aircraft work best for people who can't walk, BTW.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: How do you keep current?
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:48:46 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> - Hang out at the airport
> ! READ THIS NOTES GROUP!

To this I add talking to the FAA and CFI's as the least effective
ways of finding out what's going on.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: derrell@kirk.retix.com (Derrell Lipman)
Subject: Re: How do you keep current?
In-reply-to: parker@gdls.UUCP's message of 4 Sep 92 13:20:58 GMT
Organization: Retix, Santa Monica
Distribution: usa
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:04:21

In article <5204@gdls.UUCP> parker@gdls.UUCP (The Dougster) writes:

> Simple question with profound implications.
> 
> I've had my PP-ASEL for three months. With all the talk about
> alphabet airspace, I'm wondering what others use to keep abreast
> of all that's aviation related. 
> 

if you read the net and read aopa pilot, you'll be up on pretty much
everything that's going on in aviation.  aopa pilot has all the latest
news on FAR changes and the like, and the net contains everyone's
opinion on how they're going to affect us.  :-)   actually, if you do
nothing other than read rec.aviation(.*), you'll be aware of
everything that the FAA has in store for us.

--

--derrell    (derrell-lipman@retix.com)

Cogito Signum - "Consider the stamp"

	"Consider the stamp, my son, for its usefulness consists in
         its ability to stick to one thing until it gets there."

			Omega Phi Alpha motto.
From: stivers@etec.com (Robert Stivers)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Low lvl prog question
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:05:47 GMT

Howdy,
    I'm currently a student pilot (1st solo last week). I spent 4 years in the
Air Force as a weather observer. As soon as my CFI found this out he started
asking all kinds of wx related questions. I was able to answer most but got
stumped on the actual meaning of the 3 digit numbers, ending with a close
bracket, associated with each frontal system on the low level 12 & 24 hour sfc
depiction charts.
    I do seem to recall the first number designating the frontal type (warm, 
cold, accluded). The remaining two digits I'd guess to be intensity but am 
not sure. Does anyone out there know the exact meanings?
	Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation