HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dougg@kentek.com (Doug Gerecht 806 1031)
Subject: Heard on the Air
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:51:30
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

I'm working on my instrument rating and yesterday did my first
cross-country.  While puttin' across eastern Colorado I heard the
following exchange (to the best of my recollection) with what I
believe was a biz jet.

Pilot: "The static in the clouds is screwing up my LORAN.  Could you give
	additional navigation infomation?"

Denver Center: "You are following the nnn radial for the XYZ vor,
	frequency is xxx.x."

I was relieved that the Pilot didn't call back to ask which knob to
turn. ;)

I suppose it could be pretty easy to become complacent and let the
gadgets (and ATC) do everything for you.
-- 
          __  /    __  /    /   /    ___/	     Doug Gerecht
         /   /    /   /    /   /    /
        /   /    /   /    /   /    / - /	     dougg@kentek.com
      _____/   _____/   _____/   _____/
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:25:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.172433.10491@crash> jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson) writes:
>Kerry Kurasaki (kerry@Ingres.COM) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jan26.125148.14554@onetouch.COM> phil@onetouch.COM (Philip D. Turner) writes:
>: >Only an instrument rated pilot can file an IFR flight plan.
>:          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AND current (6/6/6)
>
>Others have replied similarly, so I'm not picking on Kerry.
>
>My instructor has always had me file, with my name, for all the x-countries
>we've done 'ifr', even those we did in actual IMC. Am I to expect some dark
>suited guys wearing sunglasses after dark knowcking at my door? Or what?

I filed regularly, voice w/ FSS and DUAT, under my name, during my
training.  I always did this at the direction of my CFII, but never
with him listening or participating in the actual filing process.
This is common practice for IFR students where I learned -- West
Valley Flying Club at PAO.

Also, when I took the IA check ride, my DE had me plan the flight and
file, and didn't participate in that process between giving me a
destination, and getting in the plane with me to fly it.

pmf
pp-asmel-ia
mooney n5632j
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.simulators
From: peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:16:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <C1JF5K.3nq@spdg.com> jallred@spdg.com (John Allred) writes:
>In article <509.185.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin)  writes:
>>I'm a minority voice in the wilderness (so it seems...) that would like
>>to see IFR students get some experience with icing.  The problem is that
>>it's hard to come up with consistently safe scenarios for that training.
>>Every IFR pilot will run into icing conditions sooner or later.  The
>>general consensus is that the safest philosophy is to get out of it
>>ASAP.  Then you minimize the risks associated with icing.
>
>My CFII is very adamant about getting some icing experience before
>tacking the -IA on one's license.

I'm curious, given that there seems to be at least some people
that believe that experience in icing would be good, but that
"safe" icing experience is difficult, if not impossible to come
by, are there other options?

One that I've heard so far is for the instructor to choose a low
power setting that simulates an airplane loaded with ice, and
having the student deal with flying the airplane, having the
instructor handle the throttle (no "simulated deice" here!).

How well do real simulators simulate ice?  Obviously, they
are probably limited in any visual feedback ("Hi, we're here
to use the simulator in the freezer section..."), and they are
not always easy to get time on.  But, at least around here,
there are simulators available (so I'm told), and it seems like
if they could handle simulating icing conditions in terms of
airplane performance, that would be sufficient.  Since the
major value of a simulator is that a pilot can be put into
what would be life-threatening situations in real life, without
actually exposing the pilot to actual danger, it seems like
icing would be a perfect task for a simulator.

A related question: how often are simulators used for regular
IFR training in general?  Are simulators underrated in terms
of being an effective general aviation training tool (since
they are in very common use for "professional" training, I'm
assuming that it's only for recreational pilots that the
question of whether they would be useful exists).
-- 
Pete Duniho         "Give me a fish, or a mountain, to scale..."
peted@microsoft.com              -- Toy Matinee
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: Franz Inc., Berkeley, CA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 02:12:54 GMT


>> One last thing.  File PIREPS!!!  

 I think that we would all get much more reliable icing reports if it 
were really easy for the controller to contact the FSS and make pireps. 
After all most of the pilots experiencing ice buildup are flying 
IFR.  Most of them inform the controller who knows their precise location,
altitude and aircraft type.  Most controllers
will pass this information on to pilots  who are approaching
the same location but not too many of the controllers take the time 
to call flight service and make a pirep, so the information is not 
propagated.  Meanwhile the pilot may not feel that he has the free time to 
switch frequencies and call up FSS (I certainly didn't when I had icing).
So we are losing lots of useful icing data.    

Organization: Sponsored account, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:59:06 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
	<greg.727995222@saltydog>

>>My question to the fellow netters is...can I file an IFR flight plan, [as a
> student IFR pilot, not currently IFR rated - grt]
>>and fly it, including the approach, etc., by myself? Of course, in VFR
conditi
>ons.
> 
>>The idea is to practice everything involved with an IFR flight.
> 
>Sorry, but the answer is no.

The regs do say, you can't file unless you're rated and current, but you
can, many times, behave in the system as if you filed...almost. You can
take along a rated friend who acts as PIC,file, and  you do the
flying.......or you can fly VFR and request flight following. 

I did this all the time while practicing for my instrument ride, often
under the hood with a (not necessarily rated) safety pilot.  Often, we'd
pick a place with a published approach, a restaurant, and, if possible
more than 50 NM away.  On departure, I'd put on my hood, call the
appropriate facility (usually departure or the TRACON) request VFR
flight following to my destination, and go.  Well before arrival I'd
request a practice apporach and get...."  cleared for the approach,
maintain VFR..." most of the time.

The main difference during the flight was I'd have to be at a legal VFR
altitude.....(something) + 500 feet.

On such an excursion i'd get legal simulated instrument time, legal
PIC/XC time, practice in ATC and log a "simulated" approach.  The only
additional cost was buying my safety pilot's lunch.

Of course, its legal, though perhaps not advisable, to do any/all of the
above alone, as long as you don't wear a hood.  You can also just fly
practice approches VFR any time you wish, as long as the controllers can
fit you in. All you gotta do is ask em.

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: phil@pex.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:47:49 GMT

In article <JKF.93Jan24181254@frisky.Franz.COM> jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro) writes:
>
>>> One last thing.  File PIREPS!!!  
>
> I think that we would all get much more reliable icing reports if it 
>were really easy for the controller to contact the FSS and make pireps. 

I agree 110 percent with this!

>  Meanwhile the pilot may not feel that he has the free time to 
>switch frequencies and call up FSS (I certainly didn't when I had icing).
>So we are losing lots of useful icing data.    

However.....won't flight service take pireps over the phone?
If you got ice on the approach, call 'em when you're down and safe.

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: World's newest IFR Pilot
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:06:24 GMT

In article <93024.005220SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:

>After a day of moderate turbulence, 30 kt. winds and hellish Cincy
>Lunken approaches, I have become the world's newest Instrument Rated
>Pilot and boy does it feel good!
>
>Shawn Chaney, Private Pilot, (Instrument Rated)
>Oxford, Ohio
>AOPA #010788506

Congratulations, and welcome to the fraternity.

Skip Guild, PPSEL-IA
Nashua, NH
AOPA #010391408
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: ANSWER to Instrument approach quiz
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:47:56 GMT

If you asked me (and you did, right?) then NONE of the fixes are required.

A contact approach is an IFR approach and it has none of the fixes, including
the MAP.

If you're talking about "real" approaches, then only the MAP is certain.
There are plenty of "RADAR REQUIRED" ILS approaches with no IAF and,
of course, an ILS has no FAF.  They also don't have IFs.

greg, who has a cat that just got FIXED

--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
From: alm@abbott.seas.ucla.edu (Authur Milberger)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: GPS Instrumentation
Keywords: Radar, DME, approach
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:30:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

The most recent issue (Jan 93) of Light Plane Maintenance
has a very interesting report on some research being done
at Stanford University.  Seems they took a Dakota and put
4 GPS microstrip antennas on it (one on each wingtip, one
on the cabin roof and one on the top of the vertical fin.)
The antennas were hooked up to a Trimble Tans Vector attitude
sensor and a 486 laptop.  With this setup they were able to
determine aircraft attitude to within 0.1 degree!  (They
were also able to detect wing flexing (~1.4mm)!)  They were
able to get accurate readings with as few as 2 satellites
in view.  The article goes on to suggest that someday this
arrangement might replace gyro instruments.

Given the recent thread about using GPS for Cat 1 approaches,
I thought it was very interesting that it seems, from this
report at least, that it may be good enough for basic attitude
control (assuming the obvious potential problems of signal/
hardware/software reliability can be satisfactorily resolved.)

.
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 09:53:36 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.cs.tu-berlin.de
In-reply-to: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com's message of Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:53:42 GMT

In article <greg.727995222@saltydog> greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
> In <1993Jan25.112830.24208@crash> jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson) writes:
> 
> >My question to the fellow netters is...can I file an IFR flight plan, [as a
>  student IFR pilot, not currently IFR rated - grt]
> >and fly it, including the approach, etc., by myself? Of course, in VFR conditions.
> 
> >The idea is to practice everything involved with an IFR flight.
> 
> Sorry, but the answer is no.

While Greg is technically correct, he doesn't answer the question
as I felt it was intended:
No, you can't *file* IFR; you *can* instead always ask ATC
to *fly* the IFR procedures (in VMC) anyway.
I have done this a few weeks ago, after the IFR checkride, but
before I had my rating on my license; no problem at all, even
getting a special VFR clearance for the final, as the ceiling was
getting down to 2000' to not violate cloud seperation
(note though that special VFR is somewhat different in Europe
from what it is in the US).
It's a good way to practice, and if ATC is not too busy, they
can treat you semi-IFR like (like all comunication like on an
IFR flight, after the missed they made me leave the TMA (~ARSA)
via the IFR reporting point, instead of the VFR routing).
Just be sure to maintain VFR at all times, and take a safety pilot.
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:59:19 GMT

In article <93020.195642SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
>
>  My idea is that if you
>have the plane with enough muscle to climb through it (barring severe or
>moderate ice), then it's OK.  So if I'm in an Archer trying to climb
>through light to moderate icing to 5000k am I gonna 1) die 2) go to jail
>or 3) make it to Florida ???  Can someone clear this up for me?
>
...recalling that Christmas day 1989 picking up ice over Ohio was about
the closest I ever came to becoming a weather-related statistic...

(This discussion couched in terms of Cessnas, but translation to Warrior/
Archer/Dakota is probably not unreasonable)

A basic rule of thumb here is that a four place airplane with 160hp cannot
reasonably expect to climb out of icing conditions (though this is by
far the preferable escape route in the midwest, especially since bad icing
often occurs in stratus with tops below 7-8k).  A "hit" of even light
rime ice will knock 10kts off the cruise speed of a C172, and reduce 
climb to 100-200 fpm if you are on the fortunate side of the severity-of-
icing curve.

Ok.  Take a 172 airframe and put a 230hp engine in it.  Call it a 182 :-).
Can you be bolder and still end up older?  Well, yes and no.  Yes, you
often have sufficient power to climb steadily through icing conditions,
and if the fates smile on you, emerge into the clear blue at 8-10K where
the ice will begin to slowly sublimate.  No, you can't be sure of it and
the price of your misjudgement could well be #1) above, regardless of
the horsepower under the bonnet.  On the aforementioned Christmas day
episode we were climbing out of Columbus Ohio bound for the Grand Canyon
just as the first pirep of *severe* icing was reported by a DC-9 descending
into Cincinnati, and when the Center Weather Advisory was issued a few
minutes later we already had an opaque windshield and a half inch of ice
on the leading edges and struts.  We emerged on top at 8K just as the
rate of climb was approaching zero.

So the answer is (a.) always have an escape plan, and preferably more than
one, and (b.) when ice begins to form, do something.  Climb, descend, 
turn around, but do something; don't just sit there at the same altitude
and watch the leading edge turn white & crusty.

Or, you could combine your options, die and go to Florida ;-).

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: jeg@Apple.COM (Julian Gomez)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Radar/DME required--why?
Keywords: Radar, DME, approach
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:35:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

Not having access to the chart, my guess is that the requirement
is for the missed.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: paulc@world.std.com (Paul E Cantrell)
Subject: Re: ICE and Grummans (AA5's)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:34:49 GMT

In article <teener-190193214742@kip-21.apple.com> teener@apple.com (Michael Teener) writes:
>I've had several experiences with minor rime icing, but I never noticed any
>effect on aileron control

I posted to the net a year or so ago that I noticed the Tiger I was flying
back from Sanford ME one night required quite a lot of aileron force to
hold wings level once we got some light ice on the wings.

I'm fairly skeptical about this particular type carrying loads of ice...

Paul
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: DME/Radar required--why-another question
Keywords: DME, Radar, IFR
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:24:39 GMT

G'day,
 
Again let's look at the ILS 7 approach to Provincetown Muni
(PVC).  (It's on page 233 of the NE-1 approach book or in a
recent IFR mag.)

Here is another question.
 
Suppose that you have specified PVC as your destination on an
IFR flight plan and have lost comm. You have shot the approach
once and missed and have entered the holding pattern.
 
You now decide to try a second approach.
 
How would you leave the holding pattern and initiate
the second approach?
 
Note: the IAP says `Procedure Turn NA'
 
Dave Rogers

An alternate way of looking at this is that you have NOT lost
comm but have radar vectoring available. What should you expect
from the controller?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: Radar/DME required--why? (Missed Approach?)
Keywords: Radar, DME, approach
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:57:17 GMT

In article <77276@apple.apple.COM> jeg@Apple.COM (Julian Gomez) writes:
>Not having access to the chart, my guess is that the requirement
>is for the missed.

The missed approach instructions are "Climb to 600 then climbing left turn 
to 2000 direct to RZP NDB and hold."  Nothing unusual here which would 
require Radar or DME.  RZP is along the approach path to the airport but is 
not depicted on the profile so is not a required part of the approach until 
starting the miss.
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Instrument approach q
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

LE> .Do you really mean transition altitude? The reason I ask is that
  > ."transition altitude" has a well-defined international meaning, namely
  > .the highest level where the altimeter is set to show altitude. Above
  > .the transition altitude the altimeter is set to the standard setting.
  > .In ICAO terms, the transition altitude in the U.S. would be 18000
  > .feet.

LE> .This is not just a formality either, the term "transition altitude" is
  > .actually used operationally in this sense.


LE> .Is "transition altitude" used in a different sense in the U.S.?

Yes and no...  In the appropriate context, it means the same thing.  But
the word transition is also used in several other contexts, so I think
it was unambiguous the way it was used to describe the transition from
one phase of flight to another.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                                           
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: please help clear up my confusion over feeders, transitions, etc.
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:29:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.212537.19761@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> wayne@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Rick Wayne) writes:
>my wife and i were helping each other review IFR procedures today, and it 
>brought up a long-standing source of confusion for me.  i've always had a
>hard time figuring out what to do about feeders and transition routes, and
>whether they're part of the approach or not...
>...1992 AIM 5-46 (a), "When cleared for the approach, the published off
>airway (feeder) routes that lead from the en route structure to the IAF are 
>part of the approach clearance."
>
>janet says, on the other hand, that the feeder routes do not constitute "...a
>segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure..." under FAR
>91.175 (i) (1992 edition again).

I side with you using the same section Janet quotes.  The feeder routes are 
"published routes" and if cleared for the approach are applicable.

To quote a different part of 91.175(i) (1993 edition):  "When operating on a 
unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach 
clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with paragraph 
91.177, maintain the last altitude assigned to that pilot UNTIL THE 
AIRCRAFT IS ESTABLISHED ON A SEGMENT OF A PUBLISHED ROUTE or instrument 
approach procedure unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC.  After 
the aircraft is so established, PUBLISHED ALTITUDES APPLY to descent within 
each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is 
assigned by ATC."

This would apply even to airways leading to the feeder route which aren't 
on the approach plate.  If you're at 10,000 feet on V1 leading to 
intersection BOZO which starts the feeder route and are cleared for the 
approach, you can immediately descend to the MEA along the airway to BOZO 
and then down to the MEA along the feeder route with no further clearance 
from ATC.

Skip Guild
PPSEL-IA
Organization: Sponsored account, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:14:45 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Vacuum pump inquiry

Note: dual posting on .aviation.ifr .aviation.owning

Asking for net wisdom on the following regarding vacuum pumps:

Club has C-152 and two C-172s.
Each has a manifold tap alt. vacuum system.
Each currently has the same Sigma Tec vacuum pump.

Concept:  Put the vacuum pumps on a "preventive maintenance" replacement
program every 600 hours, rather than waiting for failures.  These planes
are flown IFR frequently and, despite the alt. vac. system, we'd be 
more "comfortable" with time changes rather than operating the pumps to
failure.  Our vac pumps do fail between engine overhauls, as I suspect
most folks do.  (Is that a true assumption?)

Information wanting to confirm:

Our understanding is that Sigma Tec does not make available "rebuild
kits" to the field for their vac. pumps, while some other vendors do. 
True?  Any net experience rebuilding your own vac pumps? 
Thoughts/expereince with specific brands?

Methods for the "PM" program

1.  Stay with Sigma Tec pumps and replace them at 600 hours.
2.  Evolve the three pumps at the next changeout to a brand which has
"rebuild kits" for sale, then refurbish them ourselves (we have 2 A&Ps
in the club) at 600 hours.

Requesting comments, critiques, and especially specific net experience
with vacuum pumps.

Thanks
Jeff Dunkle<jd5f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Sponsored account, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:02:02 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: World's newest IFR Pilot

>After a day of moderate turbulence, 30 kt. winds and hellish Cincy
>Lunken approaches, I have become the world's newest Instrument Rated
>Pilot and boy does it feel good!

Warm congrats shawn!

Go chase some clouds now.

Jeff Dunkle <jd5f@andrew.cmu.edu>

Xref: sparky rec.aviation.ifr:662 rec.aviation.owning:413 rec.aviation.misc:1421
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: completed the c152 ferry, greensboro-sandyeggo. finally home...
Date: 21 Jan 1993 18:20:15 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: qadata.col.hp.com

hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz) writes:
> i stopped in pueblo for fuel, called the guy at 1:30 am or so
> and he came out and fueled me up. he didn't even charge me the $25 fee.

Whoa. Some trip. You always get the adventures! For your next trip (or for
more local types) Meadowlake (00V) has self-serve 100LL (Phillips) 24-hours
a day at about $1.60 (Phillips or bank cards). If he'd have charged you the
$25 at PUB, he'd have doubled your bill on that C152. :-)

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr