HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: why IFR = "real pilot"
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:41:41 EST
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH

In article <16611@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett) writes:
> In article <C1ACJL.46I.2@cs.cmu.edu>, dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
>> Of course, if you're not interested in using an aircraft for transportation,
>> then you don't need the skills to be "in the system".  If you get your
>> jollies by landing your gyrocopter on frozen lakes, then go out and be the
>> best frozen-lake-gyrocopter-pilot you can possibly be.  All of us here on
>> rec.aviation will respect your for your specialized skills.  But the
>> groundhogs -- the sort of folks who establish official policies on use of
>> small planes for business travel -- will just think you're a weirdo with a
>> death wish.  That's the way it is with groundhogs.
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, it is possible to use an airplane for transportation
> even without an IFR ticket!  I have for the past 15 years, having managed
> to fly to Canada, the Grand Canyon, Mt. Rushmore, Devil's Tower, Oshkosh,
> and Indiana twice.  I did all that without an IFR license and with a
> minimum of delays.  The fact is, that in most cases where I have been
> stopped on a flight, especially in the Midwest, I would not have continued
> the flight if I had been rated IFR (thunderstorms).
> 
> There is no question that you are required to perform additional maneuvers
> for the IFR license; there is also no question that those same maneuvers
> can and frequently are practised by VFR rated pilots.  Skill is not
> something that is aquired only by increasing ratings, skill is aquired
> with professionalism and practice; you may apply those skills to a rating
> you need if you wish, but you are not required to do so.  
> 
> If you want to "play with the big boys," go right ahead, but for Pete's
> sake don't refer to the rest of us as lesser pilots than you because you
> happen to have spent the money to get an IFR license.  We fly too.
> 
> 
> Tom Pickett 

  Amen brother!  Shooting an IFR apporach can't possibly be any more difficult
than landing a taildragger in a still crosswind!  David-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Snyder                     Logicon Technical Services Inc.
dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil   Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
513-255-7557                        Dayton, Ohio USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is said that GOD doesn't subtract from ones' time on earth, those
hours spent flying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1946 Cessna 140 N76234 "The lady in waiting" Owner/Operator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of Logicon or the USAF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: crm25@bnr.ca (Fred Black)
Subject: Re: more on business flying
Reply-To: crm25@bnr.ca (Fred Black)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario
Disclaimer: These words belong to me, not my company.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:13:02 GMT

In article <JONT.93Jan25130235@ml.harlqn.co.uk> jont@harlqn.co.uk (Jon Thackray) 
writes:
>In article <4037@isgtec.isgtec.com> rod@isgtec.com (Rod Gilchrist) writes:
>   Beech recently lost a case in which what sounded like a departure stall and
>   crash killed four people. 
>   
>   Description of ridiculous award deleted.
>
>   You would be unlikely to see that kind of settlement in _any_ automobile
>   crash. The American legal system is nuts when airplanes are involved 
>
>I'm not sure this is true. Ford sometime in the last ten years lost a
>very large case involving the placement of petrol tanks in their cars

I think that this case is an exception.  Rod was probably referring to most car
crashes where serious 'known at time of manufacture' defects are not a factor. 
In the Ford case (specifically the Pinto if memory serves,) Ford knew about the
problem when it went into production.  The thead lacked specific details, but
it seems that the only thing 'wrong' with the airplane was that it stalled when
the pilot allowed its airspeed to drop too low during climbout.  That can happen
to any airplane, hence can hardly be called the manufacturers fault.
From: winter@Apple.COM (Patty Winter)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Names of Goodyear blimps (was Re: Palo Alto: Blimp capital?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:32:08 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1k1sdmINN66@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>winter@Apple.COM (Patty Winter) writes:
>
>>The Eagle often goes right over my house on its way from Oakland
>>(its Bay Area anchorage, right?)
>
>The Eagle?  I thought the LA-based Goodyear blimp was the Columbia.  Has
>it been retired?

Not exactly. Just repainted and renamed. Goodyear made changes in
its other blimps about a year ago, too. I had a nice chat with a
maintenance guy at the Los Angeles (Torrance) airship operations
facility last summer. I can post my notes if there's interest.


Patty

p.s. And it *did* go over my house Monday morning on its way home.

-- 

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    ::   Patty Winter N6BIS	       Internet: winter@apple.com  ::	     
    ::   Sunnyvale, California	       AMPRNet: 44.4.0.44          ::
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Ain't No Such Thing?
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc
Date: 25 Jan 1993 21:13:07 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



Whatever happened to the Gulfstream Peregrine?  For those who've never
heard of it, it was a proposed single-engined jet with a turbofan in
the tail, fed by a 727-style S-duct.  I believe a prototype was built
and test flown, but it never saw production.


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller			+ + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM	+ + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: FBOs at JFK?
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:52:04 GMT

Talking about NYC.  As one who's gone in there a number of times in
the MOST minimal of equipment (i.e. my 172, the flying TRACON)

La Guardia is not as bad as you might think.  The big problem with LGA, as
well as National (DCA), are parking fees.  Last time I went into
LGA (last summer), parking was bout $13-15 for every 8 hours.  The total
LGA turnaround, landing at 8AM and leaving (for MVY) at 4PM was
about $50.

Teterboro still beats them all for the long-term stuff.


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)
From: hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: In the "System"
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:49:13 GMT

In article <19930119.074022.19@almaden.ibm.com>, martinl@torolab6.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
> 
> Aerobatics and IFR flying are two different types of skills, and it's
> my opinion that aerobatics involves the 'raw pilot ability' that you
> refer to, whereas IFR flying involves cockpit management, and the ability
> to take in a lot of information at the same time, and still find time
> to fly the airplane.
> 
> Until you've done a 3 turn outside rolling circle, you just can't appreciate
> 'raw pilot ability' (or inability) :-).

oh baloney.

time to step up to the plate my friend. a person can learn alot more
about flying aerobatics in 20 hours of dual, than one can learn about
flying ifr in the same 20 hours.

spare us the tough guy stuff with the pulling g's, and the "real men do
inverted flat spins" routine.

the comparison is more than apples versus oranges.

why is it that non instrument rated pilots are so sensitive about their
lack of training ? it's always the same rationalization about some
private pilots are just as good and all that. pah-leeze.

without that instrument ticket your pilot skills are severely limited.

lookit, plan a trip with your friends to go some place, and then tell
them you can't go (on the big day) because there is an 800 foot overcast
(only 100 feet thick), and the weather is prohibitive. they're gonna see
there's no real weather, and wonder why that 150 hour pilot and his
friends are going.

don't rationalize the lack of training by another sub-skill of aviation.
it's like saying you haven't flown until you've landed on a mountain
lake in canada somewhere, and that real pilots land on floats, or use 2
engines, or no engines, or hang glide.

flying ifr is more than keeping the gauges stable. please don't create
a division amongst ifr and non-ifr rated pilots, as if the ifr
rated pilots lack some basic private pilot skills. 

taking 40 hours of ifr training may give one the basics of ifr flying,
but everyone i know was scared sh--less the first time they got their
ticket wet, solo.

i'm not saying ifr pilots are better. i'm saying they have more
capabilities, and i refuse to accept the rationalization from those non
rated that they are just as good. i think they are lacking an important
foundation. bite the bullet and finish your training. 

 
dennis hurvitz




Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Subject: Fly Baby Damaged in Windstorm
Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:36:55 GMT

First Margaret's Archer, then Kermit Weeks' collection, and now the
original Fly Baby, N500F.

Keeping with the Fly Baby's reputation though, you *know* it couldn't be
anything ordinary:

It had a midair with a workbench.

Yesterday (Jan 20) the Seattle area had a hellacious windstorm... hurricane
force winds in some areas.  N500F resides in an open hangar.  The guy next
to me is an A&P who built some tall workbenches/cabinets.  Somewhere
yesterday morning, the wind shoved them onto the 'Baby's right wing.

The turnbuckles on the forward two landing wires both snapped... rated at
1600 pounds.  The wingroot stayed in place but the wingtip bowed down and
the wing twisted (i.e., added a BUNCH of washout).  

Cosmetic damage was minor... just a 8" gash in the fabric.  However, when
the cabinets were removed, there were a whole bunch of ripples in the
fabric.

We took it into my garage tonight, gritted our teeth, and hacked some holes in
the fabric to inspect the wing.  Surprisingly little damage... the spars
seem intact.  The root rib is a bit crumpled, and the plywood at the root
has lifted away.  It may be that the rippled fabric is just left over from
being stretched when the wing twisted.

The root rib will have to be repaired.  But the left wing already has such
a fix, so it'll just balance it out....

However, I haven't yet had a chance to check the fuselage.  All that force
had to go somewhere, and I'm afraid it went into the spar carry-throughs.
We'll have to wait to look at it in the daylight.

I'm going to discuss the situation with the A&P's company tomorrow. 

                                | "Ouch!"
                               _|_/
                 	      /(_)\                       
                      -------:==^==:-------      
                           [[|  o  |]]             
                          ___\_____/__________-----------------
                _______---_  /     \  _
 _____----------         T T/_______\T T      Ron Wanttaja 
			 | |         | |      prang@plato.ds.boeing.com
			 """         """
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Palo Alto: Blimp capital of the U.S.? :-)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 00:38:56 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

In article <77468@apple.apple.COM>, winter@Apple.COM (Patty Winter) writes:
> 
> Where did all those blimps come from??! 
> 
> I was heading home (Sunnyvale) from some shopping when I spotted the
> Goodyear Eagle and decided to head north on Bayshore to get a closer
> look. I couldn't believe it when I spotted two more blimps circling
> Stanford Stadium!

Didn't you see the announcement on the net the other day?  There's a 
rec.aviation airship fly-in at Palo Alto.

;-)
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Lawsuits (was: more on business flying)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 22:29:45 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: qadata.col.hp.com

burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
> A recent article (I believe it was in AOPA Pilot) described an ongoing 
> lawsuit involving Piper that seems utterly ridiculous to me...
> A guy wants to do some aerial photography from a Piper 
> Super Cub.  He removed the front seat to mount the camera, and was flying

Not to mention, his injuries stemmed from hitting his head on the camera
which HE installed in place of the front seat. Certainly not original Piper
equipment. And I believe the cameraman, who had no seat or seatbelt or
shoulder harness escaped with minor injuries. So the guy by all rights should
have sued Piper for PROVIDING him with a seat and seatbelt. :-(

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: Helicopter vs. Airplane pilot seat
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:41:59 GMT

jan_cocatre-zilgien@qms1.life.uiuc.edu (J.H. Cocatre-Zilgien) writes:

>Can anyone tell me why the pilot seat is to the right in helicopters and to
>the left in airplanes?  

I believe it's on the right in helicopters because (especially in
small helicopters) the damn things are so squirrelly that the pilot
dares not release the cyclic.  So, in order that he can do things
to the radios and instruments, he sits on the right and manipulates
the panel with his left hand.  Some helicopters nowadays are stable
enough that this is no longer a factor, but tradition is dear to our
hearts in the flying game.

I have no idea why airplane pilots sit on the left, unless it is just
a carry-over from the American car's driver's position.
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49
From: hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: In the "System"
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:52:35 GMT

In article <1jqhdpINNq0d@gap.caltech.edu>, mhg@delilah.ccsf.caltech.edu (Marc Goroff) writes:
> (Sorry if this appears twice, but the first site I sent it from is
> having problems posting to the net)
> 
> I should know better than to step into the middle of this :-), but...
> 
> |> In article <19930119.074022.19@almaden.ibm.com>, martinl@torolab6.VNET.IBM.COM writes:

> |> without that instrument ticket your pilot skills are severely limited.
> The same can be said for a lack of aerobatic training.

i don't think so. i haven't been limited from any flying because my tail
slide is sloppy and needs improvement.

if i had any money, i'd probably plan a skiing trip and know that the
likelihood of actually going is high. more realistically, in the old
days (last year), i used to travel with friends on camping trips to far
places (350 miles..). we'd typical pack 2-4 airplanes. one guy had to
cancel twice and, dare i say the D word... DRIVE, because he couldn't
get on top of the local thin stratus to clear above. the destination was
clear. total bummer for him and his passengers, i'd say.
now, if'n he was an iron stomach kinda guy, i guess he coulda done
a hammerhead stall to on top...      :'

hey, please don't misunderstand me. if i wasn't afraid of heights and my
girlfriend didn't spend all my money, i'd probably learn how to do a
better tail slide. i enjoy watching aerobatics. i enjoy flying, i'm in
your court. i just believe some people are fooling themselves about
rationalizing their need to not learn instruments. that's my whole gig with
this thread.

> Very true! However, a pilot's first solo torque roll, or tail slide,
> or ...,  is likely to produce the same effect, just for a shorter period of
> time :-).

or a re-visit of one's breakfast, as it were..   :)

> It depends what you want to do with your ticket. For me, the IFR ticket is
> a way to let me use GA as a more reliable means of transportation, but
> aerobatics is *definately* my prefered mode of flying! (Probably why I own a
> VFR only aerobatic plane!)  The IFR ticket gives a pilot a certain set of
> capabilities, but so does aerobatics.  They are different aspects of flying,
> with some useful overlapping skills.

abso tutely  !!

> ----------------------------------
> Marc Goroff			N80DD - a Mudry CAP 10B



dennis hurvitz
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: attitudes of IFR rated pilots (was Re: business flying policies)
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:37:19 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1993Jan21.100823.4790@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Edward.Hutton) writes:
!In article <1993Jan21.064644.13021@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us! philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) writes:
!!
!!Of course, a "real" Ph.D doesn't represent the ultimate in academic
!!proficiency or achievement either...  Maybe we can think of the
!	[Note few smileys] I learned a valuable lesson the first time
!I was invited to visit an engineering research lab. Fresh out of the
!Army, with my lowly trade school back ground, I had been repairing,
!calibrating, and doing preventative maintenance on complex medical
!instruments for 5 years; nevertheless, I was ready to be awed by my
!visit to this temple of technology (the University Engineering Research
!Lab). A place I was sure would be populated only by people bordering on
!genius.
!
!	When I arrived, I saw two professors attempting to fix a data
!collection instrument for one of their experiments. Picture this :-):
!
!Two Ph.D's, one holding a tortured DB-25 connector in a pair of pliers --
!the other attempting to solder a 22 gauge wire to it with a 250 Watt
!Weller soldering gun!
!
!	Well I learned something :-) -- just not what I expected. I
!took classes with both guys. When ever they attempted to portray 
!omnipotence in my presence, that image in the lab came to mind.

Great storey Ed, when I was Director of the Computer Aided Design/
Interactive Graphics Group here at the Academy I always said
we could make something `Midshipmen' proof but not Faculty proof!

When I first arrived here, I had to prove to all the lab/shop
support people that I knew how to run and use things like
machine tools, soldering irons, etc.

Your story is really only too too true today.

Dave Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: bryan@intellistor.com (John Bryan)
Subject: Re: corrections/clarifications
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:57:47 GMT

In <1993Jan19.025056.18220@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:

>I have a very simple definition of a good pilot: It's a safe pilot.  A
>VFR pilot who never flies in clouds or other instrument conditions and
>who deals effectively with the intrinsic risks of flying is a good
>pilot.  Some guy with an instrument ticket who thinks that's a license
>to fly in icing conditions, or who is incapable of making a forced
>landing if the need arises, is a lousy pilot.

>A good pilot is someone who inspires justified confidence in his (or
>her) passengers.  The number of letters you've got after your name
>doesn't matter a damn.

Geez, lighten up a little!  Nowhere did he say that a PhD physicist is
a "good" physicist (no matter how you define "good"), either.  You're
arguing "good" vs. "bad"; he's arguing level of "academic achievement"
or something along those lines.  They're orthogonal; they're
different; they're unrelated.  He's playing around with the analogy to
see how far it goes (and, if he's honest, where it breaks down).

I kind of like the instrument rating -> PhD analogy, as long as you
don't push it too hard.  I don't have a PhD; I never needed one for
what I wanted to do and so didn't bother.  I have an instrument rating
because I *do* need it for what I want to do.

Relax!  Have fun with it!  You don't want a PhD anyway, do you?  I
sure wouldn't; all my friends would shun me!  (Nowadays I mostly don't
mention having a master's degree, either, for the same reason).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John T. Bryan       | e-mail: bryan@intellistor.com
Intellistor         | UUCP:   ...!csn!arrayb!bryan
Longmont, CO        | USPS:   2402 Clover Basin Drive, 80503
(303) 682-6527      | PP-ASEL/IA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Lawsuits (was: more on business flying)
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:07:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.141302.13816@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, crm25@bnr.ca (Fred Black) writes:

|> it seems that the only thing 'wrong' with the airplane was that it stalled when
|> the pilot allowed its airspeed to drop too low during climbout.  That can happen
|> to any airplane, hence can hardly be called the manufacturers fault.


A recent article (I believe it was in AOPA Pilot) described an ongoing 
lawsuit involving Piper that seems utterly ridiculous to me.  I may miss
a detail or two, but here is the general scenario (for those who didn't 
read it).  A guy wants to do some aerial photography from a Piper 
Super Cub.  He removed the front seat to mount the camera, and was flying
from the rear seat.  The model year in question is something like 1972, 
before the FAA required shoulder restraint belts.  There were hooks for
installing them if you wanted them, and the owner of the plane had done
this for the front seat, but not the rear.  Well, the guy is having
a dispute with the manager of the private strip he is taking off from.
The manger decides he doesn't want the Cub taking off, so he pulls his
pickup truck onto the runway.  The pilot figures he can clear the truck
anyway, so he tries to take off with a truck parked in his path on the
runway.  He was wrong.  He clipped the truck, and suffered serious injury.
He is now suing Piper.  The basis for the suit is that Piper was negligent
in not installing shoulder belts in the plane, even though the plane 
met the then-current FAA certification requirements.  A jury has determined
that the manager was not at fault, that the pilot was something like 55%
at fault, and Piper was something like 45% at fault for the pilot's
injuries.  Piper's response is
that it is insane to allow a jury to go back and review FAA certification
requirements on a case-by-case basis.  Chaos will result.  The case is
working its way through appeals.

This is yet another of the amazing cases where somebody does something 
wildly stupid in an airplane and the manufacturer is blamed for the result.
Can you imagine going back to sue GM, Ford, and Chrysler for every death
that occurs in an older car that wasn't required to have shoulder belts?
Especially if the driver did something stupid to cause the accident?


-- 
***********************************************************************
 Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
 Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
 phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke