HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amy@lloyd.Camex.COM (Amy Lindsay)
Subject: Re: How do I get into the ATC Tower?
Organization: Camex Inc., Boston MA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:55:57 EST

In article <1992Dec16.060117.20453@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>At smaller airports with towers, you'll often find that the controllers are
>positively delighted to have company, and your expected 15-minute visit
>may well turn into several hours!

Oh, I guess this is my cue to launch into my (seemingly annual) "go to your
local tower and bring them Christmas cookies" suggestion.  I know, I know,
it's sounds kinda dumb, but at least the tower people that I brought them
to really appreciated them.

Last year I gave the BVY Tower guys some airplane-shaped sugar cookies.
Since, at the time, the visibility was about a quarter of a mile, there was
nothing for them to do, so I got to find out alot about the culture and
operations of the airport (even if I didn't get to see them actually do
what they do.)

Anyway, we had a really nice visit, and all I did was call them from the
flight school then walk over.  The number was in the phone book.  (And ever
since, they seem to know me by my voice when I'm on the radio!)

They may not have been as accommodating if it had truly been busy, but BVY
isn't Logan.  If I remember correctly, Logan has a public relations person
which you can arrange tower visits for any number of people.  (We met one
of the Supervisors at Boston Center when I was there for an FAA thing and
he told us that this was the best way to arrange a visit.)

BTW, Boston Center is in Nashua, NH, and it's another great place to visit
(I've been there twice.)


Hmm.  Think I'll go out to BVY on Sunday and find out how they liked the
blizzard last weekend...

				    --amy



A.G.Lindsay, PP-ASEL   *   Cloud Rental: Reasonable Rates   *   amy@camex.com 
Typography & Design Department ~ Camex, Inc. ~ Boston, MA (617-426-7550 x575)
"Clearance... Strange, indecipherable mumbling sound occasionally heard over
   earphones of pilots prior to collision with other taxiing aircraft."
From: olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: IFR Icing Strategies
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:31:23 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: hing.ai.mit.edu

lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) writes:

>...I will never fly in clounds or
>precipitation with temperatures below freezing, unless:

>* No more than light iceing is forecast or reported

That cuts out most of the winter IFR weather around here.  Icing
forecasts in this area usually include at least a chance of moderate
icing.  Also, the FAA has (in some cases) interpreted 'known icing' to
mean include any area forecasted to have a chance of icing, of _any_
intensity.

> AND either
>* Temperatures are above freezing somewhere between me and the ground
>  at an altitude I can safely and legally reach

This means that either the freezing temperatures or the clouds end
above the minimum instrument altitude.  Around here you can seldom be
sure of a high freezing level in the winter, and if the cloud bases
are that high, I'll just go VFR under them.

>OR >* I am climbing or descending through a *thin* cloud layer.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you *know* that the layer is thin.
Having a thin layer and knowing it is another uncommon occurrence.

Lars' rules are quite sensible, but I have a simpler rule: I hang up my
instrument rating for the winter.  (And despite that, I've _still_ run
into icing.)

>(Btw: is it "iceing" or "icing" ??)

Icing.
-- 
Jim Olsen   olsen@cag.lcs.mit.edu   "Tache d'etre heureux." -- St-Exupery
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: more ice!
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:28:32 GMT

In article <1gtmuvINNjuj@hp-col.col.hp.com> davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen) writes:
>Regarding taxiing or taking off through slush,
>how much slush-turned-to-ice does it take to disable retractable landing
>gear or flaps? I'd hate to have to report "gear up and frozen" someday. :-(
>

Dunno the answer to that one, but I have been on a commercial flight
where the captain announced that he would be cycling the gear after
takeoff to prevent such an occurrence.

Unfortunately for me, it had been a long week and I was fast asleep
when he did do it.

Kerry

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: IFR Icing Strategies
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1gatqrINN66t@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:41:48 GMT

In article <1gatqrINN66t@life.ai.mit.edu> olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen) writes:
   Lars' rules are quite sensible, but I have a simpler rule: I hang up my
   instrument rating for the winter.  (And despite that, I've _still_ run
   into icing.)

That's an area where you can count yourselves lucky in the U.S. If
controlled airports and/or airspace is going to be involved, filing
IFR in Europe often leads to a substantially *simpler* (although of
course often longer) flight than going VFR.

The reason is that in most European countries VFR is not as well
integrated into the ATC system as in the US (and you thought "radar
service terminated" was a problem...)

So I get to use my instrument rating quite a lot even in winter, when
the weather is good!

--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: "Chris Haynes" <chaynes@sunfish.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 13:11:17 -0500

The Notes&News section of Flight Training magazine (Jan'93, p.12) states

  The FAA hopes to have certification criteria for [GPS] by November 1992.
  It further expects that aircraft with receivers will have access to almost
  all published U.S. non-precision instrument approaches by the summer of
  1993.  This will enable aircraft to fly almost 5,000 VOR and NDB
  (nondirectional beacon) approaches.

This timing seems more optimistic than recent estimates on the net.  Can
anyone confirm or deny this information.



-- 
     Chris Haynes -- Computer Science Department -- Indiana University
     Bloomington, IN 47405 -- 812-855-3376 -- FAX 812-855-4829
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 13 Dec 92 00:28:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

RTA> .OK, all of this work on GPS for approaches is great, but has
   > .anybody heard if/when it will be approved for IFR enroute navigation?

Before it's approved for approach use.  The problem is much easier.

   > .When can I go buy a GPS box and use it to file /R  to get
   > .direct routes?

"Real soon now."  The TSO is in process "even as we speak" and I don't
think it'll be too long after the release before the manufacturers have
their units approved.  I don't believe any of the current units will be
able to be approved, but that's just conjecture on my part.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                                  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:37:28 GMT

In article <75762@apple.apple.COM> richard@Apple.COM (a flying squirrel) writes:
>4. Is time in actual time well spent?  We've encountered some great WX
>so far; however, it's a _very_ intense condition to learn under.

The very fact that actual is an intense condition to learn under is a
clue that it's probably time well-spent, i.e., it's different and
valuable experience that you can't get any other way.  A particularly
important example is the transition from instrument to visual flight
during a low approach.  "OK, hood off and land" is just not a
substitute for spotting the rabbit while rapidly approaching the DH.

Also, doing some hard things in actual with your CFII will help build
your confidence for later.  For example, late in the game while
getting my IA, I shot a night ILS right down to minimums while in
pounding rain.  Even though I might not attempt this now, it has given
me the confidence that I can do it, if necessary.

>5. Since I am doing my rating with an instructor and his airplane, I 
>do not have any reasonable access to a simulator.  Would spending some
>time in one be beneficial, or is actual in-the-air time a better
>use of my resources? 

Again, I would say, definitely YES, sim time is worthwhile.  When I
was getting my IA, I'd always be disappointed when my instructor would
say, "next time, just schedule the simulator".  I wanted to fly!

I did two kinds of sim stuff:  basic procedures work in a simple sim,
and more complex "full flight" stuff in a more complex sim.  I'd say
that the first stuff was marginally useful, e.g., for getting the
Turn-Time-Twist-Throttle-Talk pattern ingrained.

Much more valuable was the late-stage sim work, which would *always*
involve some sort of systems failure.  I found that I "got into it"
and virtually forgot that I wasn't in a real airplane, at 9000', with
a sudden radio failure.  This sort of sim work, which is more-or-less
impossible in an airplane, was valuable to hone decision-making and
IFR emergency-response skills.

<hugs, Richard!>

pmf
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Date: 16 Dec 1992 14:59:03 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> why are there so many more flight hours involved in getting an instrument 
> ticket.

I was told that it's primarily to make sure that you have good cross-country
experience (this is the primary component of the time) before gettint the
rating.

> 2) what makes the  
> instrument written so much more difficult than the written for Private  
> Pilot-Single Engine Land?  I self-studied for the private pilot written and  
> passed it on the first attempt, but several people have told me that it's much  
> better to take a class for the instrument written...

Most of us flying enthusiasts knew a lot of the material covered in the private
written before we even started our formal training.  It was pretty much of a
breeze going through it, this I account for why the private seemed easier.
However, I disagree about the class.  I took a class, and I didn't find it
useful.  I did watch the King videos as well, and found that presentation much
more helpful.  I recommend them highly (want to buy a used set?).

-Ron

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: Bob Noel
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:53:43 GMT

In article <75436@apple.apple.COM> rcm@Apple.COM (Robert Charles Monsen)
writes:
>GPS digs the FAA out of three holes simultaneously: the MLS fiasco, the
>faliure to get LORAN approaches going, and the deterioration of the VOR
>system. Small wonder they want to get it operational as fast as possible...


what "MLS fiasco"???

From what I've seen regarding LORAN accuracy (i.e., seasonal variation),
I'm glad the FAA didn't go charging off and implement LORAN approaches.


Bob Noel
my views are my own, not MITRE's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:02:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.030637.21395@nmsu.edu> bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (Brent Boswell) writes:

>I am presently a student pilot (don't have my VFR yet) and I'm thinking about  
>going for my instrument ticket after I get my VFR ticket.  My instructor is a  
>CFII, so no problem there.  My questions are: 1) why are there so many more  
>flight hours involved in getting an instrument ticket and ...

Speaking only as a newly ticketed PPSEL-IA, my feeling is that the 
requirement for the hours is to insure the flying portion (stick & rudder) 
of the skills needed to fly IFR are second nature.  This way you'll be 
adding IFR skills on top of a strong flying skill foundation and not be 
fighting the plane to keep it upright without the hood not to mention with 
the hood.

>2) what makes the instrument written so much more difficult than the 
>written for Private Pilot-Single Engine Land?  I self-studied for the 
>private pilot written and passed it on the first attempt, but several 
>people have told me that it's much better to take a class for the 
>instrument written...

I took the instrument written after only reading the various texts on 
instrument flying (rules and regs like those contained in Dogan and 
Kirschner [sp?] ) plus the test-specific study guide which lists ALL the 
possible instrument questions, with answers.  I got a 93 on the test with no 
ground school.  It is better overall to take a ground school IF you have a 
competent ground school instructor, because you can ask questions not 
covered on the test and become a potentially better instrument flier in 
the long run.  Considering only the test itself (and preparation for the 
practical), self-study guides are sufficient.
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Intersection names
Date: 10 Dec 92 22:53:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 


RA> .     Sorry if I was unclear.  OM was just an example, my interpretation
  > .was it stood for outer marker.  Arnav's database comes from Jeppesen.
  > .Here's another example of duplicates in the database.  Perhaps someone
  > .might want to look at some charts to verify their existence?  And you
  > .might want to check your KLN-88 and see if it has any of these listed.

RA> .     CANAL Terminal Intersection  N49 3910 W112 4130
  > .     CANAL Terminal Intersection  N44 0338 W077 3749
  > .     CANAL Enroute Intersection   N42 4008 W070 0121
  > .     CANAL Terminal Intersection  N19 1623 W099 0621

<sigh!>  So you're going to make me work!!

RA> .     CANAL Terminal Intersection  N49 3910 W112 4130
                This is charted, in Canada.  CYQL LOC BC VOR 23

  > .     CANAL Terminal Intersection  N44 0338 W077 3749
                This is charted, in Canada.  CYTR LOC BC NDB 06

  > .     CANAL Enroute Intersection   N42 4008 W070 0121
                This is charted, in the US.

  > .     CANAL Terminal Intersection  N19 1623 W099 0621
                This is in Mexico.  My Mexican plates are among the
                missing.  (Hey, there _are_ limits!

So, it appears that the Canadians duplicate intersection names.  The US
doesn't.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                          
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: IFR written materials
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:20:28 GMT

I have received email about IFR materials to use for the written.  Here
are some of the materials I have in my library:

(This is somewhat of an ad hoc post, so the list below is definitely
not complete.)

Aviation Weather (AC ??)
	One of the easier books on weather to read and understand.
	Covers basic meterology useful to the aviator.

Aviation Weather Services (AC 00-45C)
	Covers the weather services available to pilots and the format
	of weather reports.

Instrument Flying Handbook
	I actually find this document a bit dated, but it is still the
	Bible as far as the FAA is concerned.  Not bad to have on your
	bookshelf, but probably more useful to CFII wannabees than
	IFR wannabees.

Airmans' Information Manual
	Definitely a must read from cover to cover.  Dry at times,
	(a cure for insomnia?) but very revealing on ATC procedures
	if you have not used ATC tremendously in the past.

FARs
	But of course.

Instrument Rating/Airplane - Practical Test Standards
	A must have document.   Usually about $5 from reprinters.

Various Study Guides
	ASA, Gleim, and others.  I can't recommend a particular one.
	Find one that works for you.  Better yet, borrow a friend's copy.

Jeppesen Introduction/Legend/Glossary
	The front section of the approach plate book.  Worth reading
	through... once... so you know what all the terminology and
	symbols are.

NOS Introduction/Legend/Glossary
	Same idea, except for NOAA plates instead of Jepp.


Obviously there are more books out there but this is a reasonable start.

Kerry
From: scott@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Turner)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:41:35 GMT
Subject: Re: more ice!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr

In rec.aviation.ifr, braner@trantor.emba.uvm.edu (Moshe Braner) writes:

>>On another note, has anyone encountered ice that froze their ailerons in
>>place! (eek!) or elevator?

>  Not likely from less-than-severe icing in clouds, but if you take off
>  from a slushy runway into colder air you've gotta look out.  Wiggle
>  those controls (you do it anyway, but including flaps) and hope that
>  the wheels are not frozen in place for landing...

I hate winter :-( Just to add strength to what Moshe states, several
weeks ago I took off from my home airport for a short flight on one of
those gorgeous VFR days that often follow a big snowstorm.  Taxiways on
most of the runway were clear of snow, but the end of the runway was
pretty much what appeared to be light slush.  On climbout I glanced out
at the left wing and noticed a fair bit of rough ice all along the
leading edge the wing!

As I climbed out and the temperature rose (inversions being almost the
norm this time of year) most of the ice sublimated.  Still, the thought
of having just taken off with the leading edges covered in rough ice was
not a pleasant one.  It didn't seem like that much slush when I plowed
through it, and I wouldn't have thought that the nose wheel would've
splashed up that much liquid, but obviously I was wrong.  

Just another joy of winter flying.


Scott Turner  scott@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Systems Division
Turbo Arrow N2134N  "Baby"
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: more ice!
Date: 15 Dec 1992 18:12:23 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: rec
NNTP-Posting-Host: qadata.col.hp.com

maverick@buhub.bradley.edu (Darin Petersen) writes:
> On another note, has anyone encountered ice that froze their ailerons in
> place! (eek!) or elevator?

Inversions are "good" for this. You fly through clouds or rain up in warmer
air and descend into colder air. The water freezes and makes stopping the
descent an interesting exercise. :-(

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:06:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

CH> .  The FAA hopes to have certification criteria for [GPS] by November 1992.
  > .  It further expects that aircraft with receivers will have access to almo
  > .  all published U.S. non-precision instrument approaches by the summer of
  > .  1993.  This will enable aircraft to fly almost 5,000 VOR and NDB
  > .  (nondirectional beacon) approaches.

CH> .This timing seems more optimistic than recent estimates on the net.  Can
  > .anyone confirm or deny this information.

The initial non-precision approaches that are certified will be
"overlay" approaches that are identical to the original NDB or VOR
approach, but replace the intersections, etc. with geographic
coordinates for GPS usage.

I've heard that same date estimate from a "well placed" FCC official.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                             
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: phil@pex.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:59:57 GMT

In article <skip.214.724514552@mitre.org> skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.030637.21395@nmsu.edu> bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (Brent Boswell) writes:
>>CFII, so no problem there.  My questions are: 1) why are there so many more  
>>flight hours involved in getting an instrument ticket and ...

I hear it used to be more like 250 rather than the current 125!  I have
found that the 125 TT is not a problem, but the 50 hours XC as PIC has
been very hard to get.  I'm still not there, but within shooting distance
(about 10 hours shy, which I plan to pick up during the instrument training).

>>2) what makes the instrument written so much more difficult than the 
>>written for Private Pilot-Single Engine Land?

The material, I think, is conceptually more difficult.  Plus there's so
many more regulations to memorize.

>I took the instrument written after only reading the various texts on 
>instrument flying (rules and regs like those contained in Dogan and 
>Kirschner [sp?] ) plus the test-specific study guide which lists ALL the 
>possible instrument questions, with answers.

I'm working thru the ASA test guide right now, and find it very helpful and
well done, and would recommend it to anyone doing self study for the test.
I used the ASA book for the private test and was quite satisfied with it
(and with the results).

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Date: 17 Dec 1992 00:25:50 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> Once you are IFR, you are sharing the airspace with professional pilots

Eh, below 18,000 feet, you're sharing the airspace with professional pilots
even when VFR.  (I'm not even going to point out that there are plenty of
people who fly professionally under VFR and who don't do it for money).

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: krol@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Ed Krol)
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:38:55 GMT

Two comments on testing and groundschool;

1. The PP test contains a lot of stuff you knew already.  Anyone
who had vectors in HS physics can breeze through all the wind
correction angle stuff....

2. IFR is a lot less cut and dried than VFR.  Witness the Iceing
discussions on this newsgroup.  If you ask someone if you
get into iceing should you climb or decend.  The answer is a definite
yes.  I think its harder to get the feel for decisions necessary 
for IFR flying without discussing it a bunch with IFR flying.
The traditional way of setting up the environment to do that is
in a class.  So I guess you can certainly pass the test without
groundschool, but I think you become a safer IFR pilot if 
you come from a group discussion environment rather than a self 
study environment.  WHether usenet qualifies for the former is up
in the air.



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr