HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brianh@smaug.West.Sun.COM (Brian Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Accident rated (was Re: Corporate reimbursement ...)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 09:46:15 -0800
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <Nov06.165751.73221@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> miller@lamar.colostate.edu writes:
>Now, according to the NTSB Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data, U. S.
>General Aviation Calendar Year 1998, in 1988 there were 6 fatalities 
>among people who were not "Passenger" or "Crew".  They are listed as
>"Other Persons" in the table.  The previous year, 1987 there were 16 such
>fatalities, and in 1986 there were 89.  The average for 1984-1988 is
>29.  (What happened in '86?)  

One of the things that happened in '86 was Cerritos, but that hardly
acounts for 89 people on the ground.  Now what *else* happened in '86?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rogersmf@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Mark Rogers)
Subject: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Organization: Cimtek 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:19:47 GMT

In article <Bx5K7u.1H4@hfglobe.intel.com> zardoz@rx-db (zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com) writes:
>down attitude.  But that should not require pulling high G's if there is
>sufficient altitude.  I remember an Ercoupe that pulled off both wings while
>looping near Vancouver, WA.  He was performing his loops rather low, however.
>Hypothetically, isn't it better to exceed Vne than pull back harder?

This question was asked at our soaring club's fall meeting: faced with such
a choice, is it better to exceed Vne or the plane's maximum g-rating?

The answer given was that there is a larger margin built into the
g-rating (e.g., to be rated for +4.5 g's, a plane must sustain 6 g's in
testing), so go ahead and pull back a little harder.  Evidently the margin
built into Vne is only about 2-3%.  Another reason given for the answer is
that people frequently overestimate the number of g's they're pulling.

BTW, how does one loop an Ercoupe?  I thought they weren't supposed to
have enough aileron authority even for a stall, let alone to get vertical
...and then inverted...!



DISCLAIMER: the numbers above are for illustration and should not be taken
literaly.
-- 

Mark Rogers  (rogersmf@eplrx7.es.dupont.com)

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:08:18 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers

Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation: 11-Nov-92 Re: Flying Saucers by Tom
Pickett@auspex.com 
> I believe you have seen the "Volanter" that Dr. Mohler is
> designing/constructing in Davis, CA.  Dr. Mohler is a dentist
> I believe, and he has for the past 20 years or so been working
> on a VTOL aircraft that would allow a vertical takeoff, cruise
> at up to 40K ft. at "400 MPH" all the while accomplishing some
> unrealistic fuel consumption.

I also recall that the craft wasn't particularly sacuer shaped but more
like a sprots car cab with some streamlining to some ducted fans at the
corners.  I don't recall the specific power configuration ( i.e. did
each fan have its own engine or was there a transmission system from a
more central engine(s) powering the fans.  In any event, I remember
being troubled by how the craft would handle power failure.  Either
there would be an asymmetric thrust/lift condition, or if all fans
failed....not much glide ratio.  Wonder how the non-pilot "driver" and
his computers whould handle that.

Jeff Dunkle
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 10 Nov 1992 19:16:16 EST
From: robert eric beckwith <IO20081@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
 <1992Nov8.031519.27384@peck.com>

As a seaplane pilot, I have flown river valleys for landing
and takeoff.  My greatest fear is bridges and CABLES, I do
check over an area real well and HAVE NOT flown under a bridge,
and don't plan too.  We have a seaplane base in Augusta, and
it is between bridges, you fly up the curving river and around
the bend is a tall bridge that you land before/under and step taxi
past it to the dock and what follows that bridge is another (that a
boat would be lucky to pass under) and then a dam.  You check it
out good before the approach because you only get one try.
....robert
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:15:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.081317.28968@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby Hughes) posts an entirely humours inquiry,
and (unfortunately) some netters didn't see the [semi-subtle] smileys.
(Aargh!)  Toby asked:

> When flying under a bridge, whether it be the Golden Gate, Mackinac,
> Brooklyn, or the Devil's River in West Texas, is it advisable to fly
> low, near the surface, or high, with minimum clearance on the bridge?
> The determining factor is, of course, cable stretched across the span,
> but there is mixed feeling as to whether most cables are stretched just
> below the structure, or down on the water.

Just to make sure that no netters actually might even consider thinking
about trying such a stunt, you can expect that any flight under a bridge
or other structure such as the St. Louis arch will be met with a violation
of FAR 91.13, Careless or Reckless Operation, and you can bet that maximum
fines and penalties will be levied.

For those of you who didn't see Toby's smileys for what they are, here they
are again...

> Any ideas from you Ercoupe-loopers?

Many Ercoupes have no rudder pedals; instead, they have interconnected
ailerons and rudders.  This would make most aerobatic maneuvers, such as a
loop, impractical or impossible to perform, as the several flight controls
must be manipulated separately to successfully perform such maneuvers.

> Please answer as soon as possible, as I am also concerned with the technical
> aspects of inverted flight in high-wingers over snow fields on moonlit nights.

							Geoff
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:556 rec.aviation:17209
From: chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Date: 10 Nov 1992 01:25:48 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1dmpsdINNr9c@topaz.bds.com> ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) writes:
...
>Here in the US, the operator doesn't need a license.  But the radio station
>itself must be licensed.  Hand helds are usually covered by the plane they
>are used in (or in the other cases listed by the previous poster).

I was told otherwise by phone in a conversation with the local FCC, applied
for, and received a station license for a handheld transceiver (the ICOM
aviation type machine).  I was told that the aircraft station license applies 
to _installed_ transceivers only.  Regardless of the other opinions that 
have appeared, this was my experience.

Perhaps the FCC interpretation varies (just like our FAA), but, the above
was the case in ~1989 in the SF Bay area FCC office.  I have a feeling that
when my station license expires, there could well be a new policy.

Lonnie
-- 
Lonnie C. Martin    lonnie@hydrogen.cchem.berkeley.edu
From: mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: getting tired
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:55:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: adobe.1992Nov10.225533.18464
Distribution: usa
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View

In article <10NOV199213442134@watson.bms.com> bullock@watson.bms.com (JOAN BULLOCK) writes:
>
>We keep one of those plastic CO detectors on the panel.  I dunno if they
>really work or we are just fooling ourselves.  Anyone with some empirical 
>data?
>
Do you mean have I ever seen one turn black? Yes, I have two or three times in a span
of about two weeks in the same plane

Do you mean when it turned black was there an exhaust leak? Yes, there was, the first
time in flight (in a Tiger, open the canopy and agree with the licensed pilot in the
other seat to watch each other, flame me is you wish, in retrospect I should have
landed immediately) the other times were each after the shop swore it was fixed, I
never got beyond the run-up area.

I occurs to me that the CO detector was near the throttle and har to miss when black,
the one in '905 isn't so well placed.  I've looked everyhwere for one of those little
holders that the things slip into, I hate to glue them right to the panel because
the wear out in a few months and have to be replaced.  Anybody know where I can get
a "Dead Stop" holder??????

mike
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Subject: Re: getting tired
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.221142.7065@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>From article <1992Nov9.164808.8774@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>, by jpw@minerva.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein):
!>> Why do people get so tired while flying?
!>> 
!>> Yesterday I took two friends on a fun trip from PNE (philly) to WWD (cape
!>> may, NJ), and one of them even fell asleep on the return trip in the
!>> backseat of the Warrier! When we landed, we all reported being REALLY tired,
!>> even though I flew the plane. Is it the altitude?
!>
!>I would think that your body is constantly trying to adjust to new
!>altitude density, plus countering the feet-not-on-firm-ground effect, 
!>etc, etc.

    My guess would be the constant noise level. Without headsets, the noise,
    while acceptable can be VERY tiring. Try flying with and then without
    headsets and I think you will find your answer.
-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Subject: Re: Accident rated (was Re: Corporate reimbursement ...)
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
	<1992Nov04.021659.8435@qdeck.com> <BxH6C9.CJ@news.udel.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:34:40 GMT

In article <BxH6C9.CJ@news.udel.edu> danderer@chopin.udel.edu (Dave Anderer) writes:

> One way I've viewed (rationalized) the seemingly higher danger of
> flying is this:

[ you can be killed by a drunk driver in another car but not so
  much by a drunk pilot in another aircraft ]

> Other analogies can be drawn, but my conclusion is that flying
> is basically an individual activity, while driving is group
> participation.  I feel much more capable of managing myself
> than I do all of those idiots in cars coming at me.

While I have always liked to rationalize the risk of flying this way,
on the other hand I can help having some other thoughts:
Pilots are generally at a much higher level of education and training
for there activity than car-drivers and could normally not be considered
idiots; *yet* many very well trained and very skillful pilots do die,
and this in their own aircraft, without any other pilot involved.
So even the fact that I'm - on the average - much better educated
than car-drivers doesn't save me from having a average risk which is
to some extent higher.
On the other hand again, never running out of fuel, and always
flying the aircraft down to the ground would help much, but don't
all the very skillful pilots who die also know that ?
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Organization: Motorola
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:36:11 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc

In article <1992Nov10.154645.16717@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>,
bennett@refine.enet.dec.com (Steve Bennett) wrote:
> 
> 
> In article <furtaw-091192164518@145.1.92.170>, furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw) writes...
> >The rudder is coupled to the aileron control, thus pilot controllable, but
> >not individually controllable.  I believe this is what you meant.
> > 
> This talk about looping Ercoupes has me confused.  I know the original post was
> meant to be humorous/sarcastic, but taking it seriously for a minute:
> 
> Why would independent ailerons and rudder be required for a loop?  A roll
> maybe, but a loop?  I thought any aircraft with an elevator, enough power, and
> a high enough load factor could be looped, placards notwithstanding.

Rudder/Aileron coordination IS required for loops...Geoff has it right.  If
you are into precision maneuvers that is.  As the airspeed decreases at the
top of the loop, right rudder is required to keep the loop in a clean,
single vertical plane.  Even for aileron rolls, a slight right rudder just
before rolling level will make a much prettier and more precise roll.  Try
doing precision lazy eights in an Ercoupe and see the ball go all over the
place...can't be done.

Now, a glider doesn't require this technique, just keep the rudder
centered.

Bob Furtaw - W8IL
CFI-A/G/I/MEI, CGI-A/I
All disclaimers ever written by anybody apply. :-)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy)
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 11:26:15 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI
Originator: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu


In article <ansc8hs@Unify.Com>, raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes:

        < Text describing margin between VNE and VD deleted >
> 
> 	A word of caution is in order that Vd is demonstrated in
> 	a factory-fresh aircraft.  As individual airframes age they can
> 	flutter at increasingly lower airspeeds, especially if their
> 	rigging loses some tension.  In some cases flutter has occurred
> 	at speeds below Vne.

Agreed.

> 
> 	Another factor to remember is that Vne typically is a TRUE airspeed.
> 	As your altitude increases, the IAS for Vne decreases, and the
> 	change is significant.  Sailplane pilots cruising fast at altitudes
> 	up to 18K in strong conditions can begin pushing Vne, and they
> 	can easily push it at low IAS's in much higher wave flights.
> 	I presume that turbocharged powered aircraft POH's would also note
> 	the reduction in Vne's IAS or CAS as a function of altitude.

VNE is *always* quoted as INDICATED airspeed, not true.  That is why it
is a red line on the airspeed indicator.  Only when you get to high subsonic
speeds is true speed important.  Then you get to VMO/MMO -- Maximum Operating
Speed or Mach number.  These aircraft are usually equipped with an air data
computer, which has the aircraft limits programmed in it and can compute
Mach number.  The aispeed indicator has a "Barber Pole" which moves to the
indicated speed corresponding to VMO/MMO for the ambient pressure and
temperature.

The above discussion relates to powered aircraft.  Is there something
different about sailplanes that I don't know?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: fuel leaking from gas caps
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 14:01:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.210125.23028@exu.ericsson.se> exumfs@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>
>autogas is dyed red.  
>
Huh?? I don't know where your autogas comes from, but most folks would
agree that autogas generally has a pale straw color, if any.  And when
you drain a little from the quickdrains into a viewing cup or tube, it
looks indistinguishable from water.

I recall one dreary winter refueling in Michigan when I got a load of
gas so clear that I was sure it was water (didn't have much odor either).
After draining 15 or so tubefuls without seeing a meniscus or any change
in the color or smell, I finally just poured a little on the ground and
lit it with a match to convince myself it was gas and not water.  (It
was indeed gas).

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Organization: Motorola
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:59:29 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc

In article <1dmajiINNflp@news.aero.org>, lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H.
Miller) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov8.031519.27384@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov7.081317.28968@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
> >
> >> Any ideas from you Ercoupe-loopers?
> >
> >Many Ercoupes have no rudder pedals; instead, they have interconnected
> >ailerons and rudders.
> 
> 	Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe most Ercoupes
> 	have no pedals, and no pilot controllable rudder.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
The rudder is coupled to the aileron control, thus pilot controllable, but
not individually controllable.  I believe this is what you meant.


Bob Furtaw - W8IL
CFI-A/G/I/MEI, CGI-A/I
All disclaimers ever written by anybody apply. :-)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: john@physiol.su.OZ.AU (John Mackin)
Subject: Re: looping a non-acro aircraft
Organization: Department of Physiology, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:12:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov04.195746.12711@qdeck.com>,
	jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:

> As "authority" evidence, consider that there are numerous airplanes
> (152s, 172s, Tomahawks) certified for spins but not loops.

Hey.  I can't claim to be a Tomahawk authority, having only flown in
one twice, but I thought that in Oz anyway they were placarded against
spinning.  Of course that could be different in Oz and in the USA.  Any
Down Under people have comments on that?

My main point, though, was that despite that I do know someone who has
spun a Tomahawk, and he told me that if I ever felt inclined to try it
I should take a look back at the tail once the spin was developed.
He said that in the aircraft he did it in, the tail got into a very
substantial side-to-side wobble -- from his description, probably a good
part of a foot total amplitude.

Do they all do that?  If so it doesn't sound like the best spinning
aircraft to me...  of course it could be quite safe.  I just didn't
like the sound of it.  (Certainly made me look back at the tail of
the Robin 2160 I _was_ spinning in those days.  Solid as a rock!)

-- 
John Mackin <john@civil.su.oz.au>
Point me at the sky.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
From: gamiddle@math.uwaterloo.ca (Guy Middleton)
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Organization: University of Waterloo Software Liberation Army
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:54:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.032237.27474@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
> In article <1992Nov7.160836.23398@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
> > A few of us, who are not pilots (yet, I may add... :-), have an occasional
> > need to communicate with aircraft in the air.  The obvious solution is to
> > puchase a good handheld which will be useful once one actually pursues
> > that flight-thing.
> > 
> > In any case, can someone tell me what the requirements are for licensing,
> > etc., when the intended user is not airborne or attached to an aircraft
> > in any way? 
> 
> The answer, plain and simple, is that you won't be able to get a license
> for such uses of an aviation-band radio.  The FCC, which issues
> aviation-band radio licenses, will do so under a very limited set of
> circumstances:
> 
>     -  license for an aircraft or a fleet of aircraft
>     -  license for a glider pilot who flies no-radio airplanes
>     -  license for a fixed base operator
>     -  license for a flight school

Of course, the requirements vary from country to country.  As far as I can
tell, in Canada, *anybody* can get a Restricted (Aeronautical) Radiotelephone
Operator's Certificate.  You just write a test, they don't care who you are.

There are plenty of rules about actual use of radio equipment, and licensing
of transmitters -- for instance, you're not supposed to transmit from a
handheld on the ground, so Robert Granvin's intended application would not be
allowed, but that is independent of personnel lisensing.

 -Guy Middleton, University of Waterloo		gamiddleton@math.waterloo.edu
		(+1 519 885 1211 x3472)		gamiddleton@math.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: niles@parc.xerox.com (Les Niles)
Subject: Re: Problem Pilots
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA
	<7fNz02uu29aA01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <1d49tbINNo1u@pongo.West.Sun.COM>
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:29:17

In article <1d49tbINNo1u@pongo.West.Sun.COM> brianh@smaug.West.Sun.COM (Brian Horn) writes:
>In article <7fNz02uu29aA01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kzk00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (  200  Klaus Kraemer) writes:
>>Hold your flames, folks! I did not say that a stall results in an
>>abnormal attitude!
>>Anybody worth his ticket should be able to control a stall. But it DOES
>>result FROM an abnormal attitude. Or, in your flying, does it not? ;-)

>...
>Of course, we all may have our own definitions of "abnormal" or "abrubt", but
>arguing about that isn't going to get us anywhere.  It is what the FAA and/or
>the NTSB decides that matters.

>>Neither, I guess, do you consider a stall necessary for normal flight.
>>And that's the definition of 91.303 for aerobatics.

>Stalls *are* necessary for "normal flight training".  Is that close enough
>for "normal flight"?  Arguable either way.
>91.303 states ".. abrupt change in an aircraft... not necessary for normal
>flight".  I read that as a both conditions must hold.  One of the list
>of attitude/acceleration criteria *and* not necessary for normal flight.

Well, I started this thread about whether normal stall practice falls
into 91.303's definition of "aerobatic."  I still think there's a good
case to be made that it does, but as Brian Horn points out, it's the
FAA's opinion that counts.  So I called the San Jose FSDO.  In the
(approx.)  words of Inspector Burns, "No way would we consider stalls to
be aerobatics."  He included some disclaimers about hammerhead stalls
and it being considered prudent to complete stalls above 1500 AGL, but
the bottom line is that, in his FAA opinion, the usual stall practice
does not fall under the restrictions of 91.303.

  -les  niles@parc.xerox.com
        Skylane N2461G
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: HUD question
Date: 5 Nov 1992 11:34:37 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <7895@transfer.stratus.com>
Steve Pennypacker <spenny@sw.stratus.com> writes:

>One of them mentioned  that a HUD should focus on infinity.
>That makes sense if you're flying VFR with your eyes focused
>outside the airplane.  But how about a HUD used for IFR

>Assuming the HUD doesn't completely eliminate the need
>to periodically scan the panel, you are going to have to
>periodically focus your eyes inside the
>cockpit (ie- at much less than infinity).

>So, given these apparently diverging needs, what's the philosophy on where
>a HUD should focus?

First, these are my opinions and observations.  Don't interpret them as facts.

That out of the way, a HUD will never eliminate the need to scan inside the
cockpit, whether VMC or IMC.  There isn't enough room for a logical
presentation of required scan items (granted, low scan rate) including power
setting, fuel pressure, oil temp, etc.  So you're always going to have to
refocus your eyes periodically.  It has also been my observation that, on HUD-
equipped airplanes I've flown, that I had to re-focus somewhat to read info on
the HUD after looking through it to see outside.  I don't have an explanation
for this, but I've seen it in several airplanes.
And for my last observation....If you're in VMC and staring through a typical
(as they exisit in production today) HUD, you won't see anything coming at you
outside of boresight.  I.E. a HUD may not be the ideal thing for
VFR...encouraging eyes-out but giving you a focal point.  It's still a "scan
periodically" instrument, albeit with more information presented than most.  I
dunno.  I still want one.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation