HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Canard Pros -n- Cons
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:18:08 GMT

Just as there are huge differences in the flight dynamics of conventional
configuration aircraft, the same is true of canard configured aircraft.
The Cozy IV may look a little like a Velocity, but the designers had very 
different goals, and hence details like landing speeds are different for
the planes. The Cozy and Rutan designs are far more a handfull than the
Velocity.

Your question about stalling the cannard while landing is a good one, but
is info that is seldom discussed. People talk about the period of the 
oscillation, but never the amplitude.

The part about efficiency (both surfaces lifting) turns out to not be true in 
actual practice.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: david@infopro.com (David Fiedler)
Subject: AirLifeLine Needs Pilots (please read; regular posting)
Organization: "InfoPro Systems: Writers, Consultants, and Dragons"
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 23:30:06 GMT

                      ATTENTION PRIVATE PILOTS

               Do *You* Want to Make a Difference???
                 A difference in someone's life?  

That is what AirLifeLine is all about.  

We are a non-profit charitable organization of almost 600 private pilots 
nationwide who donate their time, skills, fuel and aircraft to fly 
medical missions. AirLifeLine pilots have flown over 5,000 missions 
since we began in late 1979, logging over 2,000,000 air miles in service 
to humanity. Our missions include the time-critical transport of medical 
cargo such as whole blood, blood platelets, heart pacemakers, eye 
corneas, human organs for transplantation, and mother's milk -- the only 
source of nutrition that some children's digestive systems can tolerate. 

In addition to the cargo missions, the vast majority of AirLifeLine 
flights involve medical travel for ambulatory patients (no stretcher 
cases) needing treatment or diagnosis at a hospital a distance from 
home. These patients, both adults and children, are able to walk and 
must have their stable physical condition verified, in writing, by their 
doctor. The normal one-way distance for a mission is 500 miles or less. 
All AirLifeLine missions are referred by or screened through a medical 
agency. 

All expenses incurred for flying medical missions are used as itemized 
charitable tax deductions by our pilots. Each year, missions are 
verified by our national office and the pilots determine their 
individual flying costs. 

There is a CRITICAL need for private pilots in your state. The national 
office is receiving frequent calls from medical agencies, on behalf of 
local families who have been devastated by a serious illness or injury. 
Won't you please utilize your skills and love of flying to make a 
positive difference in someone's life? 

If you own or have access to an aircraft, have flown a minimum of 200 
hours as PIC and would like to help, please call or write the National 
AirLifeLine office for a pilot information packet. The benefits general 
aviation pilots give to mankind, through AirLifeLine, are impressive. 
Through the end of October 1991, 640 missions were flown so far this 
year logging 241,199 miles in humanitarian service. Contact AirLifeLine 
and become a part of our team. 

AirLifeLine, 1716 X Street, Sacramento, CA 95818, phone 916-446-0995
-- 
David Fiedler    UUCP:{netcomsv,utoday}!infopro!david               AIR: N3717R
"The future is tekon."   Internet: david@infopro.com or david@utoday.com 
USMail:InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220 Rescue CA 95672 Phone:916/677-5870 FAX:-5873
From: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: C152 Checkout
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:41:10 GMT
Reply-To: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems

In article 21510@almserv.uucp, smith@ur-guh.com (Russ Smith) writes:
>Hmmm...at Dulles Aviation at Manassas Municipal (HEF) they only required
>a checkout in the 172 when I first went there. They then allowed (and 
>orally confirmed) that I was checked out for the 152, too (though they
>did say that a seperate checkout for a Warrior would be necessary if one
>desired to fly that same-cost-as-172 low winger).
>
>Is this standard? That is, checkout in a "big" plane and be auto-checkedout
>in a smaller one? [I use the small one when the urge hits since it is cheaper,
>though the contortions I go through to get in (me - 6'2", 200lbs) would make
>Houdini envious...).
>
>Russ <Smith@ur-guh.com>

Where I used to rent, a check out in a bigger plane allowed you to fly
similar smaller planes.
Arrow covers archer, warriar, cherokee 140
182rg covers cardinal, 172rg, 172, 152
etc...

---
Mark Steph               | You don't get something for nothing
exumfs@exu.ericsson.se   | You don't get freedom for free
(yes, .se *is* in Texas) | You won't get wise with the sleep still in your eyes
PO Box 833875, MS L-05   | No matter what your dream might be
Richardson, TX 75083     |      -Neil Peart, "Something for Nothing"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: isen@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (david.s.isenberg)
Subject: NEFI News
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:37:14 GMT

>Who: Potential NEFI/Clambake Pilots
>What: The latest on new NEFI events
>When:  CLAMBAKE STARTS at 1:00PM EST on September 19th, 
>Where:  Katama Airport (1B2) Beach Taxiway/Parking Area
>Why:  Why not?

1) As of Monday, 8:00 PM we have 26 'committed' aircraft,
including two twins (one is the famous Touretzky 'Beast')
and Paul Cantrell's helicopter, bringing 68 'definites'
and 6 'maybes'.

2) The above figure does not include Jim McDivot's aerobatic
Great Lakes 2T1A-2 biplane.  Jim will show up about 11:00 
and offer 20-minute rides (at $40) if anybody's interested.

3) We're gonna get two real acoustic pianos onto the field for 
some hot 6-handed boogie-woogie.  The 3 pianists are world-class.
It is being organized by a piano technician whose father 
(who might also be there) retired some 20 years ago from 
Eastern Airlines as #1 Senior Pilot.

4) If weather forces postponement til Sunday, it looks like 60-75%
of the participants will still show up, so if necessary, Sunday
is still a viable IMC date.

Think CAVU!

David Isenberg
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Use solo to actually do something?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 06:10:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


In article <1992Sep11.000854.28339@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:


>commute to work.  He got signed off to solo to his destination airport and
>used his solo endorsement to start before he got his license.  I don't 
>recommend this but it is legal.  On the other hand, a friend of mine has

Actually, it's not legal:

FAR 61.89 (a) (4)  A student pilot may not act as pilot
in command of an aircraft in furtherance of a business.

-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (ed Hutton ext. 6488)
Subject: Re: Renting woes...
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 15:40:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.040334.26696@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>
>...  As your pilot experience goes up, you'll find that it's
>easier and easier to rent an aircraft away from home.  I don't expect to be
>able to walk up to the counter and have them flip me the keys (or, better
>yet, do what Hertz does with its Gold Service), simply because I think that
>we all agree that safety in aviation is a very high priority.  It behooves
>the FBO to simply verify that you really are who you purport to be, and you
>really have the experience you claim to have -- and what better way of doing
>this than _watching_you_fly_ for at least a little while?
>

	I'm still amused when I watch my instructor inquiring about renting
at a new FBO. The conversation usually runs along these lines:

FBO: ...well, we have to give you a check ride. How much time do you have in
     x?

Mike: Ah, well <humble tone of voice> not much time in prop planes. A couple
      thousand hours.

FBO: Prop planes? (Usually said by the under-fed, under-paid, 24 year old FBO
     CFII with 500 hours in his log book). What do you have time in?

Mike: High performance jets.

FBO: <Long pause with mouth agape> How much jet time?

Mike: About 4000 hours.

	The check ride ends with the young CFII returning in animated
conversation with Mike -- thanking him for the tips the CFII has been given
on the "check" ride. 

	On a related thread, I've always wondered what you experienced CFII/
ATP types think/feel/do when someone of VASTLY more experience shows up for
a check ride. I mean, lets say Neil Armstrong or Chuck Yeager calls up
for a BFR. Does this present any unusual challenges?

Ed 
-- 
edward.hutton@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ed Hutton)    
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Twin Beechcraft crashed in Hinckley, IL
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:12:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.041119.18763@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (ed Hutton ext. 6488) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.160841.695@nlm.nih.gov> masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.143422.6700@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>Welcome to the stark realities of twin engine operation.
>
>Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa! I know when you give statistics you're supposed
>to provide the source. Close as I can remember it was an article in
>AOPA's Pilot. Any way the number was engraved into my brain.
>
>The quoted number was that you are FOUR times as likely to suffer a
>fatal accident if you lose an engine in a twin engine airplane than 
>if you lose the engine in a single engine airplane!
>
>Surprised at this, I asked a couple of OLD crafty twin drivers at the
>local air strip. I got two responses that stuck with me.
>
>"The good engine carries you to the scene of the crash."
>
>"A twin has two engines because it needs them both." 
>
>I can think of several reasons why I might want to fly a twin.
>An extra engine is not one of them. The single engine performance
>numbers I have read are pretty weak. Any twin drivers want to
>post some of the climb figures from their POH?
>-- 
>edward.hutton@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ed Hutton)    

The C310I handbook gives the following figures for SE climb:

gross	sea level	2500	5000	7500	10000
 wt
4300	   560		 440	 325	 210	  90
4700	   460		 345	 235	 125	  20	
5100	   360	         255	 155	  50	 -55

all figures assumes standard temp.  SE service ceiling is 7500.

*****************************************************************************
Mike Serafin          email=serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com
1964 C310I N48WM       
PP-ASMEL-I
*****************************************************************************

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gillett@kludgeomatic.aosg.gsf.dec.com (Chris Gillett AOSG Compilers)
Subject:  Can we return to Flying?
Organization: AOSG
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:57:43 GMT

--
rec.aviation participants:

In the recent past, I've read all sorts of posts in rec.aviation
about lots of things completely unrelated to flying.  I've read
posts attacking other people because of their beliefs about the
environment;  I've read hundreds of posts from people mad about
the attack;  then there's the famous "home for sale" thread and
all of its associated flamage and useless followup; there's been
a long thread on the morality of public health care;  And, of
course, the latest digression from aviation, the rants and raves
about the DEA.  There are many other examples, but these are the
most recent that spring to mind.

There are enough problems with flying (bad weather, broken
engines, no money, bad weather,  FAA examiners with bad attitudes,
broken airplanes, bad weather...you get the idea) to distract us
all from flying.  Can't we at least agree to talk exclusively
about FLYING here?  You know, exciting stuff like, "Oh Geez, I 
ground-looped my tail dragger today and...", or, "Spin Control,"
or "Did you ever see this...?"  And what about stuff like "I 
really learned a big lesson from..." or "There I was, brushing
my teeth, reading the sectional, looking for my shoes, talking
to Center, and feeding the dog, when all of the sudden....."?

	I MISS THIS STUFF!!!!!

I love to fly, love to talk about it, write about it, think 
about it, and read about it.  I really don't think much about
politics, homes for sale, or the morals of those who run the
police when I'm flying.  I think about how to fly, how to do 
it better, and how to be safe.

Please, please, please,.....can we agree to talk politics,
and debate other issues not germaine to flying off-line, in
private email?

I'm sorry if I'm ruffling some feathers here, but all I really
want to do is get back to the important business of learning
to fly, learning how to be safe, and talking about how we can
all be better, safer, aviators.

Best Regards,
./chris
 
---
Christopher C. Gillett		| gillett@aosg.gsf.dec.com
AOSG/Unix Engineering           | Compilers and Languages
Digital Equipment Corporation	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Subject: Re: what's "necessary for takeoff or landing"?
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:59:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.153709.21452@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
> When I got back to the airport, the tower chief very politely informed
> me that I had broken FAR 91.119, which says that you can't come within
> 500 feet of any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure except "when
> necessary for takeoff or landing." 

Were you IFR?  If not you were in violation of 91.79, not 91.119.   Read 91.85 which 
are general rules for operating at or near an airport.  Since ATC gave you 
permission for that operation,  you probably don't have anything to worry 
about.  Ditto for practice IFR approaches.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
From: egdorf@zaphod.lanl.gov (Skip Egdorf)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Logging time for the Inst
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:49:33 GMT
	<1992Sep11.172448.1104@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1992Sep11.172448.1104@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM> jac@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Judy Cadmus) writes:

   I do agree with Geoff Peck that a safety pilot who spends more time watching
   the instrument panel than watching for traffic should not be acting as
   safety pilot. However, alot can be learned from acting as safety pilot that 
   does not compromise looking for traffic.  For instance, an IFR student can 
   learn about IFR communications with ATC.  Or, one can learn from the visual
   references available when acting as safety pilot.  For example, a quick
   glance at the CDI needle and then a look outside would illustrate how far off
   the localizer centerline you really are when the CDI shows a certain
   deflection.  Doing this would not require any less time looking outside than
   when a VFR pilot momentarily scans the instruments during a VFR flight.

Last Saturday, my instructor for my instrument gave me a lesson in
being safety pilot. He wanted to shoot some approaches in my airplane
so that he would be current in *it* rather than just "current in
aircraft, single-engine, land" before we attempt to really get my
feathers wet in real clouds.  It turned out to be one of the best bits
of training I have had yet.

He spent some time going back over the private-level traffic scan
stuff (it HAS been 22 years or so...) and talked about what I could
look for on the panel as well as outside. The main message was not to
get so interested in the approach that I forget to look for other
traffic.

He shot an ILS and NDB at Santa Fe (SAF). Several parts of the experience
stand out.

1. While I have flown a few no-hood approaches in order to get procedures
   and spatial orientation down, (a valuable adjunct to the simulator IMHO,)
   It was interesting to see the orientation and range of movement relative
   to the airport as he found real correction angles on both the ILS and NDB.
   I think it really helped the spatial awareness.

2. It was very good experience to be able to scan for traffic, listen to other's
   position reports to the tower, and still be able to look at the instruments
   and see that you can, indeed, do all three. I suspect that this is a part
   of the training the CFII has to acquire. The number-one priority of watching
   for traffic (and the ground, on the off-chance that it gets too close) does
   not mean that one must never-ever glance at how the procedure in progress is
   going.

3. I feel much better about signing up as someone else's safety pilot after a
   bit of instruction in the art. It is the same with any bit of instruction
   (I Like BFRs, for example) giving the confidence that one's instinct regarding
   what was required of the procedure was mostly correct, and any spots that were
   not identified have been corrected.

					Skip Egdorf
					hwe@lanl.gov
					N8849W
From: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Bird in Engine Compartment
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:48:33 GMT
Reply-To: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems

A friend of mine, while training for his private in a Tomahawk heard a thud.
After landing, he looked in the engine compartment to find he had struck
a sandpiper.  He promptly called me and said he'd had a head-on collision
with another Piper without any fatalaties or damage to his airplane.

---
Mark Steph              | Like a rare and precious metal Beneath a ton of rock
exumfs@exu.ericsson.se  | It takes some time and trouble 
(yes, .se *is* in Texas)| To separate from the stock
PO Box 833875, MS L-05  | You sometimes have to listen to A lot of useless talk
Richardson, TX 75083    |      -Neil Peart, "Grand Designs"
From: len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler)
Subject: Re: Renting woes...
Organization: Tandem Computers
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:23:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.012513.1@pomona.claremont.edu>, jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
|> I'm sure all of us renter pilots are faced with this dilemma from time to time:
|> 
|> You learn to fly, and then go to one of the local FBO's and get checked out in
|> one of the 'larger' planes, such as an Archer, or a 182, etc. This means a few
|> hours spent in the process, but you only do it once, so fine and dandy.
|> 
|> Then you go out of town, on vacation, and while there you get some incredibly
|> good weather and an urge to see the sights from the air. So you consider
|> renting...but...your vacation days are limited, so spending half of a day
|> getting checked out isn't too appealing...so you stay on the ground.
|> 
|> Wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of standard by which every FBO would
|> check renters, so you can just walk up to the rental counter at your vacation
|> spot and rent whatever plane you usually fly at home? The remote FBO could
|> contact your FBO to verify the accuracy of your logbook. This checking could be
|> done in advance even. Maybe there's a need for a clearinghouse of sorts, that
|> would draw up the standard, and would guarantee some minimum skills to those
|> FBO's that subscribed with them...
|> 

I believe there used to be a national airplane rental agency that went out of
business.  It worked much the way you describe.  Unfortunately, they couldn't
keep it going as a business. 

However, in the 5 times that I've rented a plane while away from home, my checkout
never exceeded 1 hour of time, for planes that I was already familiar with and
had over 20 hours of experience in.  This includes complex retracts such as the
182RG.  Most of the places had checkout times at the discretion of the 
instructor, who usually was the chief pilot.  The last checkout I did was in
Ft. Lauderdale, where, after the initial half hour of stalls, steep turns and
emergencies, and a couple of landings, the instructor spent the next half hour
pointing out the sights.  I subsequently took that plane down to Key West for
dinner the same day.  What a great flight!

I think, in general, if you have sufficient hours in type, are current, and can
demonstrate your skills with confidence, the checkout at most FBOs will be almost
perfunctory, and short.  Personally, I don't think it is too much of a bother to
spend and extra hour or so getting checked out.  If nothing else, it helps you
to get familiar with local procedures, landmarks, etc., which can't hurt.

- Len Fishler -
fishler_len@tandem.com
PP-ASEL-IA
Centurion N3784Y
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Jeppesen Student Kit
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:33:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	Thinking back, I think I also got "free" use of the Jepp videos
	that go with the book.  I only watched one or two.  Your mileage
	may vary, but I found them to be pretty much a waste of time.

And those Jepp videos are awful, they have no more information or
better presentation than the book does, and they are boring.  I think
the Kings are pretty corny, but the videos are decent learning tools.

-Ron
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Naval Air Station Tower - Code 7 - Wazzat?
Date: 14 Sep 1992 23:48:41 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said
# 
# It is just the opposite. The lower the number, the more important
# the VIP. Code 7 is a full Colonel, Code 6 a one-star, etc. Code 1
# is El Presidente.

And who is Code 0 ;-?

--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Oshoksh and IFR (was: Logging time for the Inst)
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:27:47 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1992Sep14.041543.26808@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>
>It would be _very_ expensive to install an Approach radar at Oshkosh -- and
>it would only be really useful a few days a year, and only for a small
>minority of the pilots.

Hmmmmm, seems like the Army/Air Force is going to have a lot of surplus
RADAR vans lying around.  Why not use those?

:) Oh yeah, they come with military controllers (not all that bad) and
:) four banks of Patriot Missiles (maybe not all that bad either)!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: powell@wraith.netops.gtefsd.com (Mike Powell "GTE FSD Net Mgr")
Subject: Re: Problems reaching duat.contel.com lately?
Organization: GTE Federal Systems (Telecom)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:17:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.000551.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>(About not being able to reach DUAT via telnet)
>
>I noticed this too. However, I saw a posting from someone from Contel two
>or three days ago, and I fingered the poster. That went fine (finger @host
>worked fine too). However, he didn't answer my page when I tried to 'talk'
>to him, to ask him about this problem.
'Talk' usually doesn't work between different platforms, i.e. VMS/UNIX
and even UNIX/UNIX, or they may have stepped away from thier office briefly.
Send them email.
Mike
--
Mike Powell PPASEL
"It's hard to find router bits for your cisco"
Disclaimer: I speak for myself. No direct relation to the DUAT folks.
internet: powell@wraith.netops.gtefsd.com  Usenet: uunet!wraith.netops.gtefsd.com!powell