HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ege@blitz.fiu.edu (Dr. Raimund K. Ege)
Subject: Trimble FlightMate Database
Organization: Florida International University, Miami
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:21:18 GMT
Keywords: international identifiers

The Trimble FlightMate comes with an international database of airports
and VORS. US airport and VOR identifiers are listed without the nation
prefix ("K"). For example, Tamiami Airport (or what is left of it) is
listed under TMB, not KTMB.

I tried to look up some airports in other countries (MYNN is Nassau, etc)
but could not find airports in Germany. Does anybody know, which prefix
is used for Germany ? FRA (for Frankfurt) is used by airlines (at least
that's what they use for a luggage tag!), which is not listed in the
FlightMate's database, nor is DFRA.

-- 
Raimund K. Ege                             School of Computer Science
                                             Florida Int'l University
ege@scs.fiu.edu           (305) 348-3381              University Park
ege@servax.bitnet     FAX (305) 348-3549              Miami, FL 33199
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: build your own airport
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:56:03 GMT

In <8467@orbit.cts.com> hudson@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Hudson Leighton) writes:

>A while ago somebody asked about building your own airstrip.

>I ordered a catalog of Wisconsin maps and in the catalog was
>listed the following:  Standard Specifications for Airport Construction $3.00

>WisDot
>Maps and Publication Sales
>3617 Pierstorff Street
>P.O. Box 7713
>Madison, WI 53707-7713

I just got the same information from the Indiana Department of Transportation.
The requirements are really pretty lax, just have to have it all approved
by the FAA and the IDOT.

Coming soon, Travis International!

greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: powell@wraith.netops.gtefsd.com (Mike Powell "GTE FSD Net Mgr")
Subject: Re: GTE CONTEL DUAT new features
Organization: GTE Federal Systems (Telecom)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:31:50 GMT

In article <2229@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
>In article <5314@rosie.NeXT.COM> amm@NeXT.COM (Alan M. Marcum) writes:
>!John Stephens writes
[stuff deleted]

>I use Contel from the office over the Internet but it runs at
>about 1/4 to 1/3 speed in comparison to on the PC with a
>2400 baud modem. Have not succeeded in getting the Telebit to
>work with either DTC or Contel using Procomm.

Since this is my area of expertice....
The reason your are slow is your are military.
They are all behind several, although I think it's down to two now,
gateways between MILnet and the rest of the Internet.

traceroute to USNA.USNA.NAVY.MIL (26.7.0.102), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  zippy2.netops.gtefsd.com (131.131.131.2)  0 ms  0 ms  0 ms
 2  internet.netops.gtefsd.com (131.131.20.10)  0 ms  0 ms  10 ms
 3  sura6-gte-c1.sura.net (128.167.35.1)  10 ms  0 ms  0 ms
 4  en-0.enss136.t3.nsf.net (192.80.214.248)  10 ms  10 ms  10 ms
 5  t3-1.cnss58.t3.nsf.net (140.222.58.2)  10 ms  10 ms  10 ms
 6  t3-3.cnss56.t3.nsf.net (140.222.56.4)  10 ms  10 ms  10 ms
 7  t3-0.cnss32.t3.nsf.net (140.222.32.1)  10 ms  10 ms  10 ms
 8  t3-1.cnss40.t3.nsf.net (140.222.40.2)  30 ms  30 ms  30 ms
 9  t3-2.cnss24.t3.nsf.net (140.222.24.3)  30 ms  40 ms  40 ms
10  t3-1.cnss8.t3.nsf.net (140.222.8.2)  70 ms  90 ms  80 ms
11  t3-0.cnss9.t3.nsf.net (140.222.9.1)  70 ms  70 ms  80 ms
12  t3-0.enss144.t3.nsf.net (140.222.144.1)  70 ms  90 ms  80 ms
13  192.52.195.26 (192.52.195.26)  100 ms  80 ms  80 ms
14  usna.usna.navy.mil (26.7.0.102)  2550 ms  1500 ms  1800 ms

The problem is getting your packets out onto the Internet.
From my end its that last hops that kills you.

Hope that clears things up.

Mike
--
Mike Powell PPASEL
"It's hard to find router bits for your cisco"
Disclaimer: I speak for myself. No direct relation to the DUAT folks.
internet: powell@wraith.netops.gtefsd.com  Usenet: uunet!wraith.netops.gtefsd.com!powell
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho)
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (sorry ... sigh )
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:54:05 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: PIC, logging

In article <1992Sep28.212236.8426@microsoft.com> I write
>In article <1992Sep25.175703.8828@eng.umd.edu> rex@eng.umd.edu (Rex Root) writes:
>>Ahh .. but if you are not current to carry passengers (ie; 3 take offs and
>>landings in 90 days) you can not log PIC ... the instructor must log it as
>>dual.
>
> [I claim this is untrue]

First of all, many thanks to everyone (wow...it didn't even take
eight hours for the first four or five responses) that replied by
email to correct me on this.  All were very well-spoken and polite;
I'm thankful that they went easy on me...the most critical simply
suggested that I had misunderstood the instructor, even though I had
understood her correctly.  Of course, the flames might come yet, so...

Let me clarify that I definitely understood the instructor correctly;
we spent about fifteen minutes going over this (this was during my
"sample" checkride, the last step before the real thing), with me
trying to reconcile what I thought I had learned with what she was
saying.  It even got to the point of me saying "now let me get this
straight; I haven't flown at all for the last 90 days; I fly today,
and make a single landing; tomorrow I can take passengers without
doing two more landings?" (with the assumption that one landing
implies one takeoff) and her replying "that is correct."  Trust me
on this one, I left no doubt about what she was saying, specifically
because it seemed so odd to me, after what I thought I had read in
the FARs.

So, let's turn this into a learning experience for everyone; here's
a nice general rule that could be helpful:  if you're in a discussion
and the person that you're instructing exhibits a large degree of
surprise at something that you say (if you're a CFI) or if you
have a large degree of surprise at something that the CFI says (if
you're the student), look it up!  In this particular situation, I was
clearly surprised at what the CFI said, enough so that she felt it
necessary to say "I know it sounds strange, but that's the way it is."
If we had taken that degree of inconsistency of beliefs as the red flag
that it should have been, I wouldn't now, a month after passing my
checkride (the examiner didn't ask that question) still think the
wrong thing.

Of course, I looked it up this time (I should know better than to
have complete trust in what the CFI says; after all, they're people
too and can make mistakes just like us mortals), and you do indeed
need three take-offs and landings within the last 90 days, period.
And of course, you can fly solo for the purposes of fulfilling that
requirement before taking on passengers.

Thanks in advance (and for some people, after-the-fact) for not
taking me to task too harshly on this!  (I've cancelled the article,
in case those of you that are reading this are wondering "when
did he post that?").
-- 
Pete Duniho         "Give me a fish, or a mountain, to scale..."
peted@microsoft.com              -- Toy Matinee
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Logging PIC in the USA
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 19:47:35 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems
Distribution: usa

In article <BvGEyp.4y7@taligent.com> cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) 
writes:
>	THERE IS NO STRONG RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHO IS PILOT-IN-COMMAND
>	AT A PARTICULAR TIME AND A PARTICULAR FLIGHT AND WHO IS ALLOWED
>	TO LOG PILOT-IN-COMMAND TIME FOR THAT PARTICULAR TIME IN THAT
>	PARTICULAR FLIGHT.

This is silly.  FAR-chanting aside, I am amazed that you americans
(who are usually pretty sensible folk most of the time) would tolerate
such a mass of contradictions, worthy of a monty python sketch.

I guess I'm spoiled though - up here, if you are PIC (which is totally
unrelated to who fondles the controls, incidentally) you log PIC.

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
From: amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Medication
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:24:06 GMT
Organization: X Industries, Heavy Weapons R&D

(William LeFebvre) writes:
>(Stormwind) writes:
>|> if you've never flown with plugged 
>|> ears, TRUST me you do NOT want the
>|> experience firsthand.
>
>I was fine on the way up, and we didn't go any higher than
>about 2500 feet.  But on a slightly steep descent into Half Moon Bay, the
>ears stopped up and things went from bad to worse.  When the pilot turned
>final, I could not keep things upright.  The world was spinning and
>simply would not stop.  No amount of counter-pressure "ear popping"
>techniques did any good.  The entire time we were on the ground there
>(which wasn't very long since everything had just closed) I could not
>walk straight and I could barely hear.  I think part of the problem is
>that once they clog up in a descent, every additional foot seals them
>up that much tighter.  After we were aloft, they opened up just fine.
>A slow and careful descent into PAO, with me doing everything I could to
>keep the ears from clogging, worked.

this is exactly what happened to me:
i felt reasonably okay, and *had* to 
go on this trip (i was the only one who
knew how to install and run the software
for the demo).  going up wasn't a problem,
but coming down was sheer hell.  first
thing i lost was hearing in all the low
frequency ranges.  i have an incredibly
vivid memory of not being able to hear
anything except the wind whistling through
the air vents.  this is *profoundly* 
disturbing if you use your hearing a lot
(i'm a music nut, and a musician).

pressurization techniques didn't work for
me either.  i had always been concerned
that if i blew too hard i would rupture
my eardrums.  however, in chicago i was
SO desperate that i blew my little lungs
out trying to re-pressurize (being a 
bagpiper, this is pretty substantial).
it took four tries to finally work, and
i had to repeatedly repressurize every 
half-hour to an hour for the next twelve
hours, after which things were fine.

>What really unnerved me about the whole thing was that before the flight
>my assessment of my health was "good enough to be PIC".  I wasn't planning
>on being PIC, but I certainly felt good enough.  But I tell you, once
>those ears clogged up there was no way I would have been able to keep a
>plane upright.....I couldn't even keep myself upright!

yep.  once those ears go, your balance 
goes with it.  plus, you can't hear people
talking right next to you, and if you're
in a descent you're in pain as well.  all 
in all, a very unhappy thing...definitely 
one which makes it VERY tough to control
a vehicle.  so, i no longer even *think*
about trying to fly if i have a cold.  it
wouldn't be fun even as a passenger if my
ears jammed again.

			stormwind

			hell's amazon
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Mac Hellcats Over The Pacific
Date: 6 Oct 92 06:29:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx

In article <1992Oct5.161241.17573@sharebase.com> jeffb@woodstock.sharebase.com (Jeff Beard) writes:
>I recommend this game to anyone interested in WWii ventage aircraft or those
>who want more than just RADAR/HUD displays to manage.  The cockpit is true
>to life with functional guages -- even the artificial horizon works!
>By the time you can takeoff, control, and land this baby, you could really
>handle any modern light aircraft.

Yeah, any modern light aircraft with a FBW stall-protection system.  Which
is what Hellcats feels a LOT like.  :-)

It FEELS nice (nicest of any microcomputer-based simulator I've played with; 
probably a byproduct of the exceptional graphics), but it's not very 
realistic.  Stall/edge-of-envelope performance, as well as rudder effects,
are very much kludged up.

It is the best air combat maneuvering simulator out there, through--PC
or Mac.  IMHO.




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: zari@math.ethz.ch (Alain Zarinelli)
Subject: Re: A320 Airbus
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:33:45 GMT


In article <3313@peking.gdwb.oz.au>, agh@gdwb.oz.au (Andrew Harvey) writes:

|> Has anyone out there tried A320 Airbus (PC) Simulator, I have
|> heard its good. One other question, is there anything similar to
|> this available. I heard some talk of a Boeing 767 Simulator?
|> 
|> Thanx for any info, Harv

Andrew,

   I suppose you think of the A320 simulator co-sponsored by Lufthansa,
Deutsche Aerospace and Jeppesen, not sobLOGIC's ATP, aren't you?!

   Well, I played around with it a little bit on a 486/50MHz. Unfortunately
the collegue whose PC it was didn't have the handbooks at hand, so I
couldn't try all the possible features, but the ones I tried seemed very
realistic.

   The game begins in a briefing room, where you have to choose whether
you would like a training flight or a "mission" (i.e. fly with passengers).
You have to choose your departure and destination airports (here comes the
first problem for non-pilots with no handbook... you have to enter the ICAO
locators! E.g. for Frankfurt - Stuttgart: EDDF - EDDS), get a weather briefing
(choose VFR or IFR with VMC or IMC for departure, ceilings etc) and take
enough fuel for the flight. I chose EDDF as departure and IMC and was then
at the holding point RWY 18 of Frankfurt. You see the RWY out of the window
and the cockpit looks veryu realistic (glass cockpit; EFIS etc). As I had
no handbooks, I didn't know v_1, v_rotate and v_2 but managed to take off.
I immediately turned left direct Charlie VOR to prepare an ILS approach
on RWY 25L and everything went well until I was fully established on the
ILS and wanted to reduce the speed. At 140 knots I had a stall, managed to
recover but had lost the localizer, and crashed...

   All in all a nice game. But I can't of course tell you how realistic
it really is -- I'm not an A320 captain :-). Oh yes, one more thing: You
need a mouse to play the game. No mouse, no flight!

							Alain.
--
Alain Zarinelli                                            (PPL-CVFR/NVFR)
zari@math.ethz.ch                                                         
zari@astro.phys.ethz.ch               "If God had meant man to fly ---
zari@czheth5a.bitnet                   He would have given him more money"
From: north@hstorm.hacktic.nl (Ad Timmering)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Flight Simulator 4.0
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 11:09:54 EDT
Organization: Hstorm BBS, Den Helder - The Netherlands

jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A. Bishop) writes:

> >Speaking of Flight Simulator 4.0, can anyone tell me the differences between
> >that and version 3.0?  Is it worth getting an upgrade?
> 
> I've never played 3.0, so I don't know for sure, but I think the main
> additions are better clouds, air traffic control (takeoff and landing
> permission), and other planes.
As far as you can call it air traffic control!
"Microsoft Flight Simulator, taxi to runway of your choice and squawk xxxx"
"Microsoft Flight Simulator, you are cleared for takeoff"
Ha! Anyway I am connected to the dutch FsFan (Flight Simulator Fan, obviously)
network, which has by now got connections all over the world I think. It's
a fidonet style network by the way. There have recently been messages of
new software to be released by Mallard. One new product is A&AF, the
Aircraft & Adventure Factory. It should allow you to make 'interactive'
flying adventures with SubLOGIC ATP style air traffic communications,
and it should allow you to make your own aircraft by putting the parts
together yourself. (So, not a 'Cessna-tweaker' as A&SD is called by Mallard).
As far as I know this program is only for PC and will only run on Windows.
I didn't get this information from Mallard so don't flame me if it's wrong.
Further the Microsoft Flight Simulator 5.0 is probably to be released in
spring '93.

Regards,
        Ad

--
Ad Timmering, SP-ASEL
north@hstorm.hacktic.nl
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: eyal@echo.canberra.edu.au (Eyal Lebedinsky)
Subject: wanted: HUD info.
Summary: Head Up Display info for a simulator.
Organization: Info Sci & Eng, University of Canberra, AUSTRALIA
Date:  2 Oct 92 06:48:47 GMT

Hello Everyone,

Just found this group and I hope it is about what I think it is. I have
a flight simulator (currently running on PC but highly portable). The
flight synamics is not that accurate yet but a lot of work was put into
designing a useful HUD for playing (mainly dogfight).

What I know little about is what real HUDs look like. Does anyone have
references, pics etc. to this kind of info? The kind of items of
importance include:
- general own situation (speed, altitude, orientation etc.)
	I believe you get alt/speed scales on the sides with heading on
	top/bottom of the HUD. A pitch ladder shows 3d orientation. What
	else? (vertical velocity?).
- target tracking: target highlighting (position) is easy, but when the
target is out of view one can be creative in indicating its position.
- target relative situation (target velocity, distance in meters or
in time of flight or in time of weapon flight etc.).

As the program plays across a network (also will use serial connection)
I have enough opportunity to see that displaying the correct info in a
highly digestible form is most important (definitly more crucial than
pilot's skill).

And while I am on the soapbox, if anyone has a nice not too overly
detailed (and mostly self-contained) program for flight dynamics (in C
if possible) then I will be happy to incorporate it into my program. I
am giving the program away to whoever wants to play with it and is ready
for some bugs at this stage.
From: dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Work
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:58:10 EST
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH

In article <1992Oct1.132054.9652@csd.brispoly.ac.uk>, pa_ross@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Mr Rossy) writes:
> I have a year out next year and I am trying to get work in the flight simulator
> field (I am studying Beng Digital Systerms Engineering (Hons) ) Has anyone
> any ideas of how I can get into this line of work ???
> 
  I've been designing and constructing flight simulators for nearly 10 years 
now and I find it one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.  I have 
mostly been involved with military bomber simulators but I have dipped into
fighters on occation.  Where I work we use simulators to provide a realistic
environment to study the effects of flight/vehicles on aircrew preformance.
We have military aircrews come in to use our simulators and study the effects 
different factors have on their operation.
  I feel this is a growing field of research in a down-sizing military.  You
can safely conduct many more experiments in a simulator that would not be 
possible or cost effective to try in a real aircraft.  The need for simulators
will continue to grow in the future.  Training and research will always 
have a need for new simulators.
  The best way to break into the simulator market would be through the 
computer interface.  Nearly all modern simulators require a vast amount of 
computer power to make a realistic simulation.  As computer mips increase you
will see a decrease in the cost of simulators used for training.  Most 
simulators nowadays use a distributed network of computers to run the 
simulation.  Being familiar with different brands/types of computers will
be a plus.  Being a pilot is a big plus also.  Being familiar with aircraft 
operations and terms helps a potential employer justify hiring you over 
someone with more computer experience but not a pilot.
  Good luck in your search and if I can be of any help please feel free to
email me.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: Sound Boards
Date: 6 Oct 1992 17:27:21 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com
Summary: Get a Sound Blaster!

In article <IeoQEu200iV2A3M9cv@andrew.cmu.edu> "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Can anyone recommend a good sound board?  
>
GET A SOUND BLASTER (or a SB PRO)!!  Really, this board is the only way to
go in PC sound boards.  It is definitely becoming the de facto standard for
the PC.  Every game that has been released in the past two years supports it.

There are reputed to be some cards made by other manufacturers that are 100%
compatible with the SB.  Sounds like a risk, but it might save you some $$.
Personally, I'd stick with the SB -- you know they'll be around next year if
you need customer support.

BTW, there is a FANTASTIC product out for MSFS that not only gives terrific
sound support (for Sound Blasters, of course), but includes a breathtaking
800 x 600 VGA mode for graphics cards made by Tseng Labs and Trident (and one
other one which I can't remember now).  "Regular" MSFS supports 640 x 350, so
this is a significant improvement.  Best of all, it costs about $30 (less some
places).  Get it, and a Sound Blaster.  You won't be disappointed!

--Bob
From: korpela@rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: approaches to midway, o'hare
Date: 2 Oct 1992 19:51:37 GMT
Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu

In article <1OCT199217362544@comb1.comb.umd.edu> belas@comb1.comb.umd.edu (BOB AT COMB) writes:
>	If your friend has MS FS4.0 and the Aircraft and Scenery Designer
>addon, you can get a HUGH number of scenery including very detailed approaches
>to Midway and O'hare.  (That is, as detailed as an IBM PC will allow.)  Most
>of the scenery resides on Compuserve in the Flight Simulator group's library.
>If you want the Midway-O'hare scenery, let me know and I'll see what I can
>do.

Are these files available at any archive servers or anonymous FTP sites?

Eric
Eric Korpela                                    |  The two most common things
korpela@cea.berkeley.edu              Internet  |  in the universe are
BKYAST::KORPELA    42215::KORPELA     DecNet    |  Hydrogen and stupidity.
korpela%bkyast@ucbjade                Bitnet    |       -Harlan Ellison
From: andy@s50.es.llnl.gov (Andy Tompson 422-6348)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: Re: F.S 4.0
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:21:45 GMT

Are these new scenery disks for F.S 4.0 (California-Nevada, etc) available for
the Mac or just the PC? If they are available for the Mac, where can I get them?
MacConnection, for example, doesn't know about them, so maybe there's my answer....
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators,misc.forsale,misc.wanted,misc.forsale,athena.forsale,athena.wanted
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: FS 4.0 Wanted
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:18:59 GMT


Hi,
I'm Looking for MicroSofts Flight Simulator 4.0.
Anyone have one for sale?
Need not be new, just complete.
Thanks.


Derek

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators