HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: Cuba rescue flight
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:28:05 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Dec28.193211.16804@odin.corp.sgi.com> jerryb@jerber.sandiego.sgi.com (Jerry Bransford) writes:

>2)  I wasn't aware that a flight plan was necessary unless it's an IFR
>flight.
>    Does Rick feel that all flights require a flight plan?
>    I really doubt this was an IFR flight. 

I've never attempted to cross the border into Mexico or Canada (or the
Carribean, for that matter), but I thought it was necessary to file at
least a DVFR (Defense? VFR) flight plan when crossing the ADIZ (Air
Defense Identification Zone), which surrounds the contiguous 48
states.  

Three regulations that might apply:

91.707  Flights between Mexico or Canada and the United States.

Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate a civil
aircraft between Mexico or Canada and the United States without filing
an IFR or VFR flight plan, as appropriate.

91.709  Operations to Cuba.

No person may operate a civil aircraft from the United States to Cuba
unless -- 

(a) Departure is from an international airport of entry designated in
6.13 of the Air Commerce Regulations of the Bureau of Customs and

(b) In the case of departure from any one of the 48 contiguous states
or the District of Columbia, the pilot in command of the aircraft has
filed --

	(1) A DVFR or IFR flight plan as prescribed in 99.11 or 99.13
	of this chapter, and

	(2) A written statement, within one hour before departure,
	with the Office of Immigration and Naturalization Service at 
	the airport of departure, containing -- [various stuff]

This section does not apply to the operation of aircraft by a
scheduled air carrier over routes authorized in operations
specifications issued by the Administrator.


91.713  Operations of Civil Aircraft of Cuban Registry

No person may operate a civil aircraft of Cuban registry except in
controlled airspace and in accordance with air traffic clearance or
air traffice control instructions that may require use of specific
airways and landings at specific airports.
--
Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX
From: gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Decathlons and spins
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:54:38 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In article <jrp.725063540@wombaj.kowari.cpsg.com.au> jrp@bohra.cpg.oz.au (John Pitman) writes:

>I have been told that Decathlons , once in a spin are difficult to recover
>from, or at least require flying out, rather than just neutralize controls and
>they come out by themselves. can anybody clarify/confirm/deny this assertion 

Not true. They recover easily. Easily enough that precision spins, the
type used in competitive aerobatics may be done (enter the spin on a
specific heading, spin a specified number of fractional turns,
typically, 3/4, 1, 1 1/4, 1 1/2, then recover on a specific heading).
They handle more heavily than some other aerobatic aircraft but not
excessively so. They will recover by themselves from a spin too, as
long as the pilot has the power off, full opposite rudder and lets go
of the controls. This will work with both upright and inverted spins.

Gopal



-- 

Gopal Ramachandran <gopal@cirrus.com>
UUCP:  uunet!cirrus.com!gopal
Cirrus Logic Inc, Fremont CA  PH: (510)-226-2138 FAX: (510)-226-2160
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Briefer without a clue?
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:45:50 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

I make a trip to Corpus Christi, TX, every year to visit my family
during the Christmas holidays, so I was ready for this:

On the day after Christmas, at the end of an IFR briefing for a flight
from Corpus to Dallas, via San Antonio and Austin, the briefer calls
up the related NOTAMs:

Him: "I don't know what this is about, but I have a NOTAM closing
      airspace around (someplace near Beeville, TX)"

Me:  "It starts today?  I thought they would wait until tomorrow."

Him: "Uh, let's see... Oh, yeah, December 27th"

Me:  "Bush is going quail hunting."

Him: "Really!  I didn't know that.  Thanks for telling me."

I doubt it.  In previous years, I have had briefers give me advance
warning of the NOTAM before it even showed up in the computers.
--
Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX
From: jeffg@loki.esd.sgi.com (Jeff C. Glover)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba rescue flight
Date: 27 Dec 92 20:02:27 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: loki.esd.sgi.com

In rec.aviation.misc an anonymous individual writes:
>I thought I would share this series of interesting public posts from
>Compuserve's aviation forum..

Not a flame, more like a mild roasting:

First, given the subject material of this note, there's no reason that
it had to be posted anonymously.

Second, CompuServe considers materials posted to its forums
copyrighted.  The only purpose of posting anonymously that I can see
would be to circumvent possible action by CompuServe.  Perhaps this
individual has been admonished in the past by the management of
CompuServe and is trying to avoid reprisal?

Finally, we on USENET have been most displeased when magazines, such as
_IFR_, has reprinted material w/out permission.  We should act by our
own standards and not repost materials without getting formal consent.

It would have been simple and timely to obtain contributions from each
of the authors and it would have solved the copyright problems.

Please, folks, if you feel the need to post materials anonymously,
think about it seriously.  Most of the time there is no real need to
remain anonymous.  If after consideration you still feel the need,
write one of the regulars here that you trust and ask that it be posted
for you.

Jeff
jeffg@sgi.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Subject: Re: CHP AIRCRAFT & SPEEDERS
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:54:53 GMT

In article <75848@apple.apple.COM> stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler) writes:
>In article <MTANNER.92Dec18141702@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> mtanner@gmuvax2.gmu.edu
> (Michael C. Tanner) writes:
>>I know California law is different, but they used to do this in Ohio.  When
>>the freeway speeds were upped to 65, they stayed 55 within n miles of cities.
>
>Actually, it's the same.  The original 55 law was a federal law.  I think the
>new law, 65 on straight stretches away from towns, is also federal.

	Actually there is no Federal law. The Fed.s blackmail
	the states into passing laws complying with Federal "standards".

	Any state that doesn't comply looses Federal highway funds.

>
>But back to the part about airplanes.  All this talk about timing, and
>pacing, and this law and that law, and freshman calculus.  Something in the
>back of my brain tells me it just doesn't matter.
>
>Here's the deal.  Who's writing the ticket?  Hint:  Have you ever seen a 
>black-and-white 182 swoop down and land on I-80?  No.  The ticket it written
>by an officer in a cruiser.  I always figured it worked this way.  182 is 
>putting along watching the cars.  Looks down and sees a red IROC-Z moving
>obviously faster than all of the other cars.  Radios car waiting at next
>exit - "there's a red Camaro about to scream by you."
>
>The officer in the car can do the measurement.  It doesn't take stopwatches
>and paint marks to see that one guy down there is driving like an a------.
>
>Whaddya think?

    Well, I think you are not up on actual practice.  In Ohio, the 
    ticketing officer just stands by the road side and flags you down.
    The timing is via aircraft.   Of course there is a chase car available
    if you should ignore or "not see"  the officer.  But I would not
    advise that.

    The painted lines on the road are 1/4 mile segments.  The aircraft
    times your passage between them and relays the information to the
    ticketing officer.


-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: weingart@inf.ethz.ch (Tobias Weingartner)
Subject: Flight Europe -> Malaysia
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: flight, europe, malaysia
Reply-To: weingart@inf.ethz.ch
Organization: ETH - Switzerland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 12:20:08 GMT

Hello all,

I was wondering if there is any way to get a cheap flight
from somewhere in europe to somewhere in malaysia.  What
I mean, is there a freight or some other type of flight
that I could try to get on?

Thanks in advance.

--Toby.

-- 
Tobias Weingartner  *    PGP2.1 Public Key available at     *
 +41'41'33'25'40    *   'finger weingart@tau.inf.ethz.ch'   *
SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, the operating system has been overthrown
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.student
From: gff%Rational.COM (Geoff Fitch)
Subject: Re: Speeds of private planes
Organization: Rational
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:05:47 GMT

I assume you want to know cruising speed, since that is the speed you will be
flying the plane at most of the time. Most simple "beginners'" single engine cruise in
the range of 110 - 125 knots. Remember that is airspeed, as for how fast you
are going, that depends on the wind... Have fun learning to fly.

Geoff Fitch
gff@rational.com
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Float Plane in North East?
Keywords: Float training
Date: 24 Dec 92 19:08:01 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

In article <oconnor0.1.0@ksg1.harvard.edu>, oconnor0@ksg1.harvard.edu (ERIN O'CONNOR) writes:
> I'm interested in getting float plane certification in the Boston area, but 
> can't find anyone offering it. I'm a Canuck, and way up where I'm from, 
> everyone offers it. Any info?

Try the following places, from the Seaplane Pilots Association Training 
Directory (this information was given to me by a friend here at work, so I 
can't comment on usefulness, validity, etc.)

MA:  Bayside Air Service, Westport, MA  (508) 636-3762
     C172, C185 amphib

     Merrimack Valley Seaplane Base, Methuen, MA  (508) 689-3389
     C172, C180                                   (508) 889-1929
     Season: April 15 - November 15

NH:  Lake Aircraft, Laconia, NH  (603) 524-5868
     LA-4, Renegade

CT:  Eagle Aviation, East Haddam, CT  (203) 873-8568
     C172

ME:  (probably too far from Boston area, most closed/on skiis for
     the winter, for obvious reasons)
     Greenville, Old Town, Bangor, Rangely, Millinocket
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:17582 rec.aviation.misc:1146
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:28:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24504
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <1992Dec28.054358.27332@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us> philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) writes:

> Also, ATC conversations take place on an open, "party-line"
> communication channel, which may be freely monitored by anyone owning
> a $19.95 receiver.

There's an interesting point here.  Some radio channels, particularly
(I think) the ham bands, carry with them an FCC regulation prohibiting
people from divulging what they hear over those channels.  Thus, though
it is legal to own and use a ham receiver, without any license, my
understanding is that it violates FCC regulations to tell anyone else
what you hear on the ham bands.

If so, it adds an interesting wrinkle to the "heard on the air" idea.
If you really did hear it, either it's public domain or you weren't allowed
to repeat it at all; in either case you don't have much claim against IFR
Magazine for publishing it.

On the other hand, if you didn't really hear it, and are instead reporting
it as a work of fiction, then the copyright question becomes much more real.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.student
From: uad1221@dircon.co.uk (David Lomax)
Subject: Re: Speeds of private planes
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:36:18 GMT

gff%Rational.COM (Geoff Fitch) writes:

>I assume you want to know cruising speed, since that is the speed you will be
>flying the plane at most of the time. Most simple "beginners'" single engine cruise in
>the range of 110 - 125 knots.


Well I don't know what you learnt to fly in, but myself and 
virtually everyone I know who flys, learnt in a 150/152 or a 
Tomahawk (or something terribly similar). Those sorts of speeds 
are possible out these aircraft, generally not intentionally 
and certainly with the cows getting bigger but never in a cruise!

I would venture to suggest that perhaps 80-100 knots (IAS) would 
be a bit more probable (in the criuse).

Cheers
David Lomax
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: amn@sdf.lonestar.org (Andrew Noble)
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Organization: Super Dimension Fortress - Public Access Unix - Dallas, Tx..
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:00:58 GMT

RE: "Heard on the air" vs. "Posted"
 
I think that this is akin to photography.  Although the "image" captured is a part of everyday, public, life -and not anyone's posession- the photograph and
the artistic skill in rendering that "image" is.
 
If a writer, "captures" discussion and re-iterates it through his writing, his
artistic skill is applied, much in the same as a photographer applies his skill.

I think that this is a good example of what we are talking about here <great discussion by the way> especially in the sense that the author mentioned something along the lines that "he/she casually typed it in, without any expectation 
that his/her name would be attatched to it IN PUBLICATION."
 
It appears that the protection of the author/artist can work both ways.
 
amn.
From: papworth@pdx022 (David Papworth)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: Temperatures after overhaul
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:35:59 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon

In article <1hss00INN8fo@transfer.stratus.com> lee@deneb.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider) writes:
>
>I have an engine monitor that registers 6 EGT's and 2 CHT's.  The latter are
>nominal (340 and 360) in cruise, but the EGT's seem odd.  During idle and
>runup they are all together and normal, but after climbing to altitude I get
>
>	1470  1550  1380  1525  1330  1250
>
>That is, the spread between #2 and #6 is over 300 degrees, which is twice what
>the engine monitor thinks is reasonable, so it lights the red light.  The

The first thing I would check is the basic accuracy of your equipment. 
Verify that the readouts on the monitor really do correspond to the
APPROPRIATE cylinder. Verify that the probes are installed correctly
and are accurate. One thing you might try is deliberately
switching probes, to see if the problem moves with the probe or stays
with the cylinder.

If we take it on faith that the probes are accurate, it appears that
cylinders #2 and #4 are running much leaner than the others. These cylinders
are the two rear cylinders on the pilot's side of an O-470. The fact that
the hot cylinders are physically adjacent suggests a vaccuum leak 
affecting these cylinders more than the others.

One of the most likely problem areas is the left rear carb hold down
bolt. If there is a carb gasket leak, this "corner" of the engine will
run lean. Also check for loose clamps in the intake manifold going to 
these cylinders. Check anything else common to the two of them.

Another guess is some asymettry in the carb. I don't know anything
about the innards of an O-470 carb, but if it has multiple venturis
and/or jets, maybe the jet that services the left rear corner is
partly clogged, leading to a leaner mixture.

Another thing to check is the muffler and exhaust piping for these
cylinders. Did you replace it with the engine, or re-use the old stuff?
Are there any dents or clogs? Anything that would lead to a difference
in back pressure?

Still another guess is a problem with the mag harnesses to these
cylinders. Are they adjacent in the firing order? Could there be
carbon tracking in the mag? Are the leads shorted?

A temp of 1550 at full rich mixture seems kind of high to me. There
should be enough excess fuel to keep all the cylinders at about 1350
to 1450. On the other hand, I wouldn't ground the airplane because of
this, but I would keep the highest EGT below 1625 or so leaned out.

The temp distribution is much more critical with the mixture lean. In
fact you can expect more unevenness at full rich, since the mixture is
far enough from optimal that combustion is more unpredictable.

You should be looking for temps of 1550 - 1650 with the mixture leaned
to peak. I would accept a 100 degree spread leaned out, more with the
mixture full rich. 300 degrees does sound like a lot; ASSUMING THAT
your measurements are accurate.
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: why not use chains?
Date: 28 Dec 92 16:28:12 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <Bzso5x.IDw.2@cs.cmu.edu>, dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
> So why does anybody still use tiedown ropes?


Maybe it is because the rope gives a little in a gusty wind, and this has
got to be better for the airframe?  Just my opinion...


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Subject: Re: 0-320 conversion experience?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 22:53:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.061356.21174@mdd.comm.mot.com> fraser@mdd.comm.mot.com (Cameron Fraser) writes:
>i have a pa-28-151 with the 150hp O-320 not far from overhaul - a local
>overhaul shop suggests that at overhaul time it would be minor to change
>it to 160hp. Has anyone had any experience following this route or along
>a similiar line is anyone aware of an stc for putting in a 180hp engine?

I was speaking to the local maintenance people yesterday about a similar
conversion - upgrading a 172 from 140hp to 180hp. One of the locals has
done this and reports an increase in speed from 110 knots to about 150.
Part of this increase is due to the fact he also put new paint on the
plane. He says, though, that the fuel consumption went up so much that
the range is actually less with the bigger engine. Another fellow here
spoke to the Penn-Yan (sp?) people about this, and they verified that.

The experience here is that you actually lose a little time on some long 
runs because of the greater number of fuel stops.

This owner currently has three 172s on leaseback. One has the 180hp,
one has 160hp, and I'm not sure about the other. Based on the wet rental
prices, I take the 160 up when I need to rent one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | The gum-chewing girl and the cud-chewing cow
                    | are very alike, and yet different somehow
George Patterson -  | And after much study I think I know now.
                    | It's the clear, thoughtful look
                    |                        on the face of the cow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: petersk@rtsg.mot.com (Keith R. Peterson)
Subject: Re: why not use chains?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:47:52 GMT

dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:

>So why does anybody still use tiedown ropes?

I have a set of chains in my back yard tydown, which is for  
visitors to use: mine stays in the hanger. However, I still use
ropes when mine IS tied down and keep them available for 
visitors. Two reasons:

a) The 'hardness' of the retention with chains, allowing the wing
to move within the unavoidable slight slack of the chain, then fetching
up against the sudden and solidness of the chain. A nylon rope is much
gentler and progressive in the force it applies. Perhaps a net-xpert
could calculate the G forces of a sudden jerk... like dropping a TV
without the foam shipping inserts. 

b) I just worry about hard objects near the paint. Try as you will, at
some point the chain bumps the plane and too often a chip is born.

I've seen spring-equiped chains that addressed the first problem and
rubber-covered hooks that helped the second, but I still think that a
good nylon rope is better for the plane. I WOULD consider a chain for
a backup if I was expecting a really big blow.

You might consider those nylon straps with the quick-tighten gadget
as a compromise, although it might be harder to avoid having those 
dissappear.

Best bet: use what makes sense to you.

KP

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Peterson  petersk@rtsg.mot.com    Casa De Aero Air Park
Motorola, Inc                           48W591 Immelman
Arlington Heights, IL                   Hampshire, Illinois 60140
(708) 632-2959                          (708) 683-4777      
Fax (708) 632-4430      Ham N9GLP       Cessna 177-RG 33267                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: beglin@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Gordon Beglin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: Is Hangering Cost Effective
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:20:50 GMT
Reply-To: beglin@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Gordon Beglin)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.aviation.owning, greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
>In <28687@oasys.dt.navy.mil> beglin@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Gordon Beglin) writes:
>
>>So, for me at least, I'd *love* to be able to hangar my 172---
>>if there was affordable hangaring around! $250.00/mo for a hangar
>>vs. $75.00 for a tie-down is a lot of difference to me.
>
>Gee, my fully-enclosed hangar (with electric door and lights, no less!) only
>costs me $50.00 a month.
>
>Ahh, the great plains...
>
>greg, having some fun rubbin' it in...
>--

Gee, Greg....box one up and send it to me for Xmas, will ya? :-)

Maybe I'll get one next to yours and just drive back-and-forth when
we want to fly.....

$50.00/month for a hangar....hmmmmph! That's the most un-heard of
thing I've ever heard of!!!! :-)

Still blowin' in the wind....

Gordon Beglin

P.S. Happy Holidays to all!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning