HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: PC-based Flight Simulators
Date: 1 Oct 1992 18:31:41 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com
Summary: Just how realistic are they?

I apologize in advance if this question has already been asked 10,000 times
(there were some 600 unread messages in this newsgroup, and I really didn't
have the diligence to pore over them all).

Is there any value at all to practicing the lessons on Microsoft Flight
Simulator?  How close to "the real thing" is it (especially if you have a
control yoke for a joystick)?  I am by no means suggesting that this should 
be considered an alternative to actual flight time (neither does the FAA, 
thank goodness).  But I'm wondering how many of you pilots out there who have 
tried it consider it anything more than just an amusing toy.

I noticed in a recent issue of "Private Pilot" that there is a company that
sells a control yoke/rudder combination that has the same dimensions as that
of a Cessna (172, I think).  It costs $200.  Would this make MSFS realistic
enough to warrant the expense?  Has anybody bought one?  How useful have you
found it?

Finally, there are several "more expensive" simulators advertised in the
flying mags (usually $350-$600).  Are these significant improvements over 
MSFS?  Would my $350 be better spent on real flying lessons?

You can email me directly: bobc@natinst.com.

Thanks!
--Bob
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens)
Subject: What Constitutes "Cross Country"
Keywords: Cross Country,X-country,Legal
Organization: Severn Companies, Inc., Lanham, MD 20706
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:48:10 GMT


What legally constitutes a cross-country flight?

A local flight is pretty clearly defined as one that remains within 25 miles 
of the originating airport.  This definition is used in several FARs to set 
limits on recreational pilots, night commercial flights with passengers if the 
PIC is not IFR rated, etc.  For the Private ticket, X-country flights must 
include a landing at an airport at least 50 miles away.  For the IFR ticket, 
at least 50 hours of solo X-country time must have been logged, etc.

I can't find a clear, unqualified definition of X-country -- one that applies 
to logging time as X-country time after the Private or Instrument ratings have 
been obtained.  Is there one?  Is it 25 miles, or 50 miles?  Do you have to 
actually LAND at a second airport (more than 25/50 miles away), or does a 
missed approach (in IFR conditions) count?

Examples:
1.  VFR/IFR flight to an airport 35 miles away, touch-and-go, return to home 
    base.  Is this time loggable as X-country?

2.  IFR flight to an airport 65 miles away, instrument approach, missed 
    approach, return to home base.  Is this time loggable as X-country?

3.  Is any missed approach countable for a X-country?  How far into the 
    approach do you have to get?  Past FAF?  To MDA?  To DH/MAP?


If anybody knows the answers to these, I would appreciate it hearing from you.
Thanks in advance.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:39:57 EDT
From: <VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: stuffed head

Stormwind's advice is sound.  Even during WWII, pilots
with stuffy noses were grounded-- an indication of how
seriously the flight surgeons viewed the dangers of
flying with a head cold.
              vince norris, penn state u.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ggr@koonda.acci.com.au (Greg Rose)
Subject: Re: My intercom, is broke
Reply-To: ggr@koonda.acci.com.au (Greg Rose)
Organization: Australian Computing and Communications Institute
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:03:06 GMT

Well, to all who sent help and suggestions, thank you very much. The
net really does work, it is a wonderful resource.

Dave (fly because you love it) Allen was the first to point out my
error in assuming that, just because the connections were well
soldered, there must be connectivity between the box and the plug.

Many thanks to:

hwc@louis.pei.com (Hon Wah Chin)

Les Niles <niles@parc.xerox.com> (who has sent me a partial schematic
which I have archived, if anyone needs it)

and, of course:

To: Dave Allen <davea@col.hp.com>
Subject: Re: My intercom, is broke 
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 23 Sep 92 18:08:55 CST.
             <9209240008.AA11222@qadata.col.hp.com> 
Reply-to: ggr@acci.com.au
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 09:51:00 +1000
From: "Greg Rose" <ggr>

  > I've checked the obvious things like
  > batteries, bad solder joints, shorting inside the plugs, and have
  > exhausted my abilities.

  Have you checked continuity with an ohm-meter? The first (most likely)
  thing to check is the cable from the intercom to the mic plug that
  plugs into the acft. You should have continuity (near-zero ohms) from
  the "ring" of the mic plug to the inside conductor of that shielded cable
  where it gets attached inside the intercom.

Well, this was the problem, although there is nothing "shielded" about
that cable in my intercom. I have one of the very earliest ones, and
I'm not surprised that the wires appeared to have broken, once I
looked at them. Funnily enough, I cut off the wires about an inch out
of the plug (since that join was the most likely place for a fatigue
break) and got intermittent connectivity. When I cut back another few
inches, it was solid, until I stripped the wire, at which stage it
went away again... I'll get some nice new shielded wire soon, and
replace it.

Thanks again,
Greg.
--
Greg Rose                 Australian Computing and Communications Institute
ggr@acci.com.au                                              +61 3 282 2532
"If you ever do that again, I'll cut you out of my will!"
		    -- Captain Ross to Co-pilot Gann, "Fate is the Hunter"
From: reeuwijk@dutentb.et.tudelft.nl (C. van Reeuwijk)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Any comments about the El Al crash?
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:16:39 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

In <1992Oct6.133450.27763@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:

>In article <LHE.92Oct6082922@yang.sics.se> lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) writes:
>Today I read that the 747 engine mounts
>>are designed so that the engines actually fall off the aircraft if
>>they have been damaged enough.
>>
>>This latter statement seems totally incredible. I would have dismissed
>>it straight away if it wasn't for alleged quotes by Boing people
>>supporting it.
>>
>>Does anyone know if this really IS true?!?

>Yes.  If an engine starts to tear itself up, you really don't want it
>on your wing, where it can cause significant damage.  Therefore, all 
>engines (on all airliners) are connected with bolts that are designed
>to shear if sufficient force is applied in the right direction...  It's
>really quite surprising how many things are designed to fall off or be
>dumped (lavatory basin water, fuel, flaps, engines...:-)).

>The two stupidest media gaffs I've seen:

>El Al: "El Air."  (groan)

>Reporter who apparently couldn't believe that an airplane could actually
>lose an engine and stay in the air, and who conveniently rewrote the
>chain of events such that the airplane lost the engines, which fell off,
>then it crashed.  1-2-3, just like that. 

>---
>Robert Dorsett
>rdd@cactus.org
>...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd

In one of the earliest and therefore least media-`improved' versions of
the Boeing statement, it was stated that the engines were indeed designed
to break of cleanly in case they hit a building or the plane lands
with rectrated landing gear. As far as I read the messages in the media
this is the sole source of these stories about engines designed to drop
off.

I heard this version of the statement on BBC Newsnight, as far as I
can remember.


=-=-=-=
C. van Reeuwijk			e-mail: C.vReeuwijk@ET.TUDelft.NL
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL)
Subject: Re: Softcomm headset / wire breakage
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:18:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.120728.7937@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
psv2b@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Peter S. Vines) writes:
> I have a Softcomm headset which seems to have a loose or broken wire
> somewhere near where the double wire enters the unit.  The unit receives
> ok unless the wire is pulled or wiggled, and then the reception is broken.
> Has anyone had any luck opening up a Softcomm headset to correct such a 
> problem, and then been able to put the plastic parts back together again.
> 
> 
> --
> - Peter Vines : vines@virginia.edu : (804) 924-4644 : University of Virginia
My instructor has a Soft-Comm headset which he had the same trouble with.  In  
his case he ended up ordering a new one because he said it would have been more  
money than its worth to get the old one fixed.  Personally, I like the David  
Clark H10-30 he lets his students use, it's more comfortable and it's also more  
quiet.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)
Subject: Re: Another trivia question
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:47:27 GMT

mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas) writes:

>In Kansas, my brother goes flying with a friend in a Bucker Jungman
>(sp?).  In the flight, he does rolls, loops, inverted, spins, and
>other aerobatic maneuvers.  Neither pilot wears a parachute.  The
>airplane and the pilots are realtively young (no grandfathered rules).
>The flight is legal.  How?

>PS: I couldn't figure it out, he had to tell me.

How about one of the people is a student and other other is an instructor
-- Part 91.307 (c) --
  (c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved
parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a
crewmember) may execute any intentional manuever that exceeds..

	[limits deleted]
  (d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to -
	(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
	(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations
for any certificate or rating when given by --
		(i) A certificated flight instructor; or
		(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance
with section 61.169 of this chapter.

Steve
-- 
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Reserve sci.military moderator| "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston
From: randys@hpcvra.cv.hp.com (Randy Stockberger)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: New Old Radios
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:15:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA

>Sounds like a job for <trumpet fanfare> _Trade-A-Plane_!
....
>You may even want to write and subscribe.... the front page always has
>a subscription form on it (as well as a cute cartoon).  
>
>Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu)
>"Allegheny 587, up periscope, hard right rudder, ground-point-nine."

Ask them about a one issue per month subscription.  Last year someone
made the comment that such a thing is available and is much cheaper than
the regular three issues per month deal.
--
  Randy Stockberger
  randys@cv.hp.com
  503-750-3589
--
From: sascsg@unx.sas.com (Cynthia Grant)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Beginner needs advice...badly!
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:30:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: luscombe.199209291930.AA14510


In article <1992Sep25.002817.3573@tss.com>, burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

>By all means, and in the strongest possible way, I would encourage you to
>train at the busiest airport available to you.  Your instructor understands
>very well how to fly safely in busy airspace - he will insure your safety
>while you are learning.  And, you will learn much more there.  Many pilots
>who train at small uncontrolled fields feel very intimidated by flying
>to larger busy airports.  It is best to overcome this with your instructor
>rather than later on by your self.  Also, I consider myself safest in the
>busiest airspace where I'm in contact with a controller who is tracking me
>on radar.

I would like to offer a different point of view from the belief that those
who learn to fly at uncontrolled fields somehow don't learn as much as
those who learn at controlled fields, and that they will be intimidated
by the larger fields.  By learning at an uncontrolled field, you will
have more time to learn to *fly the plane* as opposed to spending time on
long taxiways, waiting for clearances, and flying long distances to the
practice area.  Learning at an uncontrolled field does not preclude doing
as much work as you and your instructor wish at a nearby controlled field
to learn about flying in busy airspace.  Anyone with enough moxie to get
a pilot's license need not feel intimidated by a busy controlled airport,
although if you are not current in those operations it would be wise to
do some reading and maybe get some dual beforehand.  Also, there are still
many more uncontrolled than controlled fields so it is at least equally as
important to be comfortable in the uncontrolled environment.

Much of the controlled field vs. uncontrolled field difference of opinion
can probably be accounted for by the different flying environments we 
experience.  In this part of the country, you have to go out of your way to
get to complex airspace, and operations at uncontrolled fields are the
norm for most pleasure flying.  I guess I'm as surprised at a pilot who
is uncomfortable at an uncontrolled field as some of the east/west coast
netters are at one who is uncomfortable in complex airspace.

Having said all that, the most important factor in learning to fly is
actually your relationship with your instructor.  He/she should be able
to adapt to your learning style, and should ensure that you are competent
to fly in the various environments before signing you off for your
checkride.

=======================================================================
Cynthia Grant                  sascsg@unx.sas.com
SAS Institute Inc.             (512) 258-5171
Austin, Texas                  "obligatory meaningless quote here"
=======================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Solo Rites
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:32:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.020735.22465@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>From article <1992Sep29.104436.10024@walter.cray.com>, by osh@cray.com (O'Shaughnessy John):
>> 
>> 
>> I had my photo taken next to the plane.  No garment abuse for me!
>> 
>> 
>> [And what if the instructor - student pairing is such that a ripped shirt
>>  would be cause for a sexual harassment suit...]
>
>Yeah, I wonder.  I assume this kind of thing is a *must* for the
>airforce guys.  So, people, what happen to female candidates? 
 ^^^^^^^^
that was the Navy "aviator" association, not the airforce...being on
board ship all the time, they have hormonal problems when there are
MOTOS around...:-)

(lots of :-) for the humour impaired...seriously, there is no excuse for
what happened at that convention, none whatsoever.  Couple of admirals
got canned, so what?  They should go after the whole rotten bunch of 
immature aviators for what they did...IMHO)

On the other hand, at the school I soloed at-the women get the tails
of their shirts clipped just like the rest of us did...except the woman
that runs the school does the clipping...saves on hard feelings...ya
see, guys, it can be handled with grace and good humour....

Bryan D. Boyle   |opinions are mine, not Exxon's...
Senior Engineer  |PVT/ASEL/IA-former Malibu pilot/survivor
ER&E Co.         |CAP Air Search and Rescue



Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: barney@sol.usc.edu (Barney Lum)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Any comments about the El Al crash?
Date: 6 Oct 1992 12:43:40 -0700
Organization: USC University Computing Services, Los Angeles
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.usc.edu
Summary: 747 Asymetric Thrust, Max Gross

In article <BvpnHE.JKF@vcd.hp.com> schinner@vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer) writes:
>I heard a report from one of the broadcast networks that two of the engines
>from the same side of the plane were found 9 miles from the crash site.
>
>Either the report is false ...or... the two engines bounced pretty hard
>  ...or... they fell off previous to the crash.

Something *very* similar happened to a China Air 747 freighter this past 
December.  It dropped one or two of its engines into the ocean a few minutes
after takeoff from Taipei before crashing into a mountainside.  
Five crewmemebers were killed.

Los Angeles Times reports today (10/6) that Boeing will/has issue(d) a 
directive to inspect the "fuse bolts", which are designed to shear off 
under overload, on the engine pylons.

When a United 747 blew a cargo door ~three (?) years ago, debris was ingested 
into engines 3 and 4 causing them to be shut down, but not seperate from the 
wing.  That happened at a much higher altitude, giving the crew time to 
wrestle the plane back safely to Honolulu with relatively low loss of life.  

Are freight-carrying planes usually closer to max gross (700,000 lbs?) at 
takeoff than their passenger-carrying counterparts?  Even dumping fuel might 
not bring the weight quite far down enough to a "managable" level with two 
engines out on one side?

Considering that they were 747s, it's REALLY remarkable that those that 
crashed were not carrying passengers (although El Al did go into an apartment
complex).  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >|            
              >|      barney@usc.edu  Barney@USCVM
 -->  -->  --> |   =======    ---    ---    ---    ---    ---   ---    ---  
              >|      Permanent Student Pilot, On the Numbers   
              >|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Trivia question - additional clarification
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:53:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Sep26.053630.17389@cbfsb.cb.att.com> fuhr@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (james.d.fuhr) writes:
!In article <1992Sep25.001200.12365@pony.Ingres.COM! kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
!!OK netters, try hashing this one out:
!!
!!    Can you think of a condition where a rated pilot can legally fly
!!    say a Beech Bonanza A-36 without the high-performance endorsement?
!
!The pilot, being the rich person he/she is, decided to take his/her
!primary training in the Beech Bonanza A-36, an aircraft which
!she/he would likely own (probably without the benefit of insurance). 
!FAR 61.31.e requires that instruction in the type be received from 
!an authorized instructor and that the instructor certify that the
!pilot is competent to pilot such an aircraft. This would certainly
!be the case in completing the requirements for the ASEL in such
!an aircraft. There would really be no need for a high performance
!checkout in such a case (a very unusual case, indeed).

Actually not so unusual (well maybe). My son got his private in
my Bonanza prior to getting his Navy wings. As far as I know he
does not have a high-performance endorsement in his Civilian
log book. You should have seen the Examiner's face when
we told him what aircraft was to be used. It was wonderful!

Dave Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: PAO Airport Day
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:20:48 GMT

In article <3400266@hpcc01.corp.hp.com>, dunn@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Steve Dunn) writes:

|> Palo Alto's 4th annual Airport Day is that Sunday (9/27).  It doesn't
|> sound as well organized in terms of seminars and discussions;  but the flyer
|> says things like: 
|>     Live entertainment with the Good Time Band
|>     Control Tower visits
|>     Antique, experimental, home built and special interest aircraft
|>     Free admission.

Yes, I was trying to figure out why there was a screaming kid in the
background while the controller was trying to get a busy pattern straightened
out yesterday.  My first thought was that the poor guy had to bring his kid
to work with him.  I had a little chuckle thinking about various definitions 
of "stress".  Then I remembered it was Airport Day.  

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: stuffed head
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 17:54:57 GMT

In article <92274.173957VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu> VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>Even during WWII, pilots
>with stuffy noses were grounded-- an indication of how
>seriously the flight surgeons viewed the dangers of
>flying with a head cold.

...also an indication of how seriously military flyguys view a
visit to the flight surgeon.  In fact, as a Navy doc it was clear
to me that all of the line officers only wanted to see the medical
officer at chow; otherwise they kept a respectful distance.  A
simple, straightforward avoidance relationship :-).

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: richard@agora.rain.com (Richard Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What Constitutes "Cross Country"
Summary: off-field landing?
Keywords: Cross Country,X-country,Legal
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:40:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Open Communications Forum

In article <1anhurINNft7@agate.berkeley.edu> chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin) writes:
>Landing, as I understand, means that a tire squeaks; T&G counts; low or
>missed approach does not count.
>-- 
>Lonnie C. Martin    lonnie@hydrogen.cchem.berkeley.edu

Now, I'm not gonna say this _actually happened_, but suppose you're on a 
training flight, and your instructor pulls the carb heat and throttle, and
says, "engine out".  Of course restart fails so you find this nice place
to land, and set up your approach (all the while thinking, the FAR's say
you're not supposed to get below 500' when you do this...), and flare for
a *soft* field landing.

He say's OK, go around.  You GO really fast!  You get back to the airport
and find dirt and a youung corn shoot on your left main.  

Should you log it X-country?  ;=)

-- 
Richard Johnson      richard@agora.rain.com
When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced.  Strive so that when 
you leave this world, you rejoice and the world cries.  --- Indian proverb
Newsgroups: rec.aviation