HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Night VFR
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:12:47 GMT

In article <sf2EF3S00WB=JCY5UJ@andrew.cmu.edu> Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>Here's a local situation guaranteed to provide frequent unseen night
>clouds....happens all the time.  I fly from an airport on the north east
>edge of the Pittsburgh TCA.....in the gently rolling terrain on the
>windward side of the Alleghenies...some 30 km to the east.

>Two "cloud" sources.  First, the constant moisture source in this area,
>lake effect moisture....summer or winter....off Lake Erie and the other
>Great Lakes.  At night...with a stable north west breeze.....the
>mositure travels east, hits the modest mountains..rises  ...and forms
>sort of cumulo-lenticulars that can run 1 to 100 miles long....

This provides the technical explanation for a weather truism which has
been known since the time of the Wright Brothers, and during more than
120 crossings of the Appalachians I have never seen it fail:  No matter
where your east-west path crosses the mid-Appalachians, the weather
always changes at the Ohio River.  Sometimes it gets better, sometimes
it gets worse.  But it always changes at the river...

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens)
Subject: Re: RADAR REQUIRED for IAF
Keywords: Approach
Organization: Severn Companies, Inc., Lanham, MD 20706
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:28:16 GMT

In article <1elm19INNdiq@bigboote.WPI.EDU> tpc@wpi.WPI.EDU (Terence Pau Crochetiere) writes:
>
>Looking at the NDB 29 approach chart from the NOS, it looks like the term
>RADAR REQUIRED was ommitted for the entire approach. REVER is the only IAF
>and a procedure turn is NA. Therefore, it seems that radar would be need
>to insure that you could get lined up on the inbound course. The only other
>way would be to fly around until you wound up inbound on the 290 bearing to
>the SKR NDB. Therefore, radar is essential to the approach.
>
>This is only my view. Anyone please correct me if I'm in error.

I don't believe that inbound course alignment is the need for
radar.  Two possibilities come to mind: either radar is required
for the whole approach because this is a high traffic density area
and the approach does not lend itself to high positional
accuracy, or, the radar requirement was added to ensure the
identification of REVER intersection.  I think the latter is more
likely, based on the NOTAM wording.

Note that REVER is identifiable only by the 030 radial of BOS and
the 111 radial of GDM.  It is possible that GDM reliability in
this area was judged marginal, and that this is what led to the
radar requirement.  

This is only a supposition -- does anyone have any hard facts?

Xref: sparky rec.aviation.ifr:322 rec.aviation.misc:801
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 09:40:03 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Night VFR
Distribution: world

Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.ifr: 14-Nov-92 Re: Night VFR by Dick
Zeitlin@ssr.com 
> DDRM> .IMHO, any non-instrument-rated pilot who wishes to fly night VFR cross
>     > .countries should go up with an instructor on an IFR flight plan and
>     > .punch into a few clouds in the dark.  It will, quite literally, open
>     > .your eyes and make you reconsider the terms under which you attempt
>     > .night VFR beyond local ops.
>  
> Agreed.  OTOH, few nights are so dark that clouds aren't visible.  A
> good percentage of my flight time is at night, and I never ran into a
> night where clouds weren't visible.  I'm sure that if I were flying
> in the middle of Iowa conditions would be different, but around NY,
> even if the moon isn't there, cities provide lots of light...

Here's a local situation guaranteed to provide frequent unseen night
clouds....happens all the time.  I fly from an airport on the north east
edge of the Pittsburgh TCA.....in the gently rolling terrain on the
windward side of the Alleghenies...some 30 km to the east.  A frequent
destination from here is Johnstown (JST) 52 legal x/c nm away with a
good restaurant and several IFR approaches......and three ridges east
into the mountains...the airport is on a plateau in among the hills. 
There are virtually now towns  of any "light source" consequence in the
mountains...which are low....averaging tops about 2,700 msl above
surrounding terrain of 1,200 msl.

Two "cloud" sources.  First, the constant moisture source in this area,
lake effect moisture....summer or winter....off Lake Erie and the other
Great Lakes.  At night...with a stable north west breeze.....the
mositure travels east, hits the modest mountains..rises  ...and forms
sort of cumulo-lenticulars that can run 1 to 100 miles long....just on
the lee of each ridge....and I guarantee you you'll never see em...on a
relatively moonless night..till your in em.

Second source...on more stable nights...is a large fossil
powerplant...that sits between the second and third ridge in a valley
there....lots of BTU output.  Its cooling towers will "generate" clouds
on stable nights....the steam rises to just above the ridges...and will
lay a cloud 10 miles long if the conditions are just right on a calm
night.

There's no "light/dark" transition background to contrast these clouds
and I've barreled into them on more than one "lets go practice some
approaches at Johnstown and grab a burger" evening when the weather was
CAVU and the  station reports on each side of the were for clear skies
and good visibilities. While Airmet Sierra for mountain obscuration is
almost a daily "macro" inserted into the synoptic brief....the evening
transition to cool air frequently drops the dew point between report
updates and  the clouds appear and go unreported for several hours.  I
suspect there are other "local" phenomenon like these around.

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: ChrisF@mitre.org (H. Christian Floyd)
Subject: RADAR REQUIRED for IAF
Keywords: Approach
Organization: MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:17:44 GMT

Consider the following NOTAM:

!FDC 2/6435 BED FI/T /BED/ LAURENCE G. HANSCOM FIELD, BEDFORD, MA.
 NDB RWY 29 AMDT 5...REVER INT (IAF). RADAR REQUIRED.
 
The condition RADAR REQUIRED apparently applies only for the full 
approach with REVER intersection as the IAF.  I have seen approaches 
with the unqualified notation RADAR REQUIRED, but never one with such a 
reuirement only with regard to a particular IAF.  Does anyone know of 
such an approach in published form?  How is the requirement annotated on 
the plate?  If the notation appears on the planview (typical for NOS, 
but not for Jepp, I think), is its association with the IAF indicated 
graphically (e.g., with an arrow)?

For the approach in this example REVER is THE ONLY IAF.  This leaves me 
puzzled with regard to the REVER qualification on RADAR REQUIRED.  What 
additional options are there for flying this approach subject to the 
NOTAM as written compared to the simpler NOTAM ...RADAR REQUIRED [no 
qualification]?  If there are none, why was the NOTAM written as shown?  
(I doubt that correct answers to these questions depend in any way on 
additional information about the approach in question, but here's some:  
REVER is about 5 nm from the Boston VOR on the 030 radial, and must be 
crossed at or above 3000; a procedure turn is not authorized, and the 
approach segment from REVER to the NDB FAF is 9.7 nm on heading 290 at 
or above 1700.)

Thanks for indulging my curiosity about these questions, which probably 
have very little practical significance.

Chris Floyd, PP/ASEL
From: todd@valinor.mythical.com (Todd Lawrence)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: RADAR REQUIRED for IAF
Keywords: Approach
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 11:28:40 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: (What? Organized??) - Mythical Computer Systems

ChrisF@mitre.org (H. Christian Floyd) writes:

> Consider the following NOTAM:
> 
> !FDC 2/6435 BED FI/T /BED/ LAURENCE G. HANSCOM FIELD, BEDFORD, MA.
>  NDB RWY 29 AMDT 5...REVER INT (IAF). RADAR REQUIRED.
>  
> The condition RADAR REQUIRED apparently applies only for the full 
> (I doubt that correct answers to these questions depend in any way on 
> additional information about the approach in question, but here's some:  
> REVER is about 5 nm from the Boston VOR on the 030 radial, and must be 
--deleted text---
> crossed at or above 3000; a procedure turn is not authorized, and the 
> approach segment from REVER to the NDB FAF is 9.7 nm on heading 290 at 
> or above 1700.)
> 
> Thanks for indulging my curiosity about these questions, which probably 
> have very little practical significance.
> 
> Chris Floyd, PP/ASEL

Floyd, 

Since I don't have the plate to look at a couple questions 1) does it 
publish a procedure turn?, i see where you say the "radar" only applies 
to the "full" approach then further on it say's procedure turn not 
authorized?? - anyhow many times radar is required whenever there (quote) 
"Is no published procedure turn" - this is simply because if you had no 
procedure turn you really wouldn't know when it was "safe" to begin 
decending to the "FAF" intercept altitude.. anyway's I'll dig around and 
see if i can find the plate.. (an example of the no proc-turn/RADAR REQ, 
is TALLAHASSEE Regional, ILS-27), incidentally on the same plate 
pertaining to the localizer approach the "SPADD" intersection had been 
gone for almost 3 years, however to date it's still in the NOS plates as 
a stepdown fix.. Nice Job NOS..

Todd Lawrence
CFIAIMEI, ATP-B1900 USAir Express
(Opin's My Own NOT USAir's...)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Todd Lawrence   
 LOD! Communications                 internet:  todd@valinor.mythical.com
 Data Acquisition Group              uunet   :  uunet!valinor!todd

 -Maybe he just ran off the cliff, like a lemming... -mar/lod
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: yurkon@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu (John Yurkon)
Subject: Re: Accident statistics (was Re: Night VFR)
Reply-To: yurkon@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu (John Yurkon)
Organization: National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:08:07 GMT

In article <cf0wW8S00WB35TlblF@andrew.cmu.edu>, Jeffrey Dunkle
<jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>A finesse question for the "physicists" on the net.  I've seen
>statistics before that tend to show that the "rate" of accidents in
>twins which are fatal is higher than for singles.  I've wondered how
>much of that "might" be attributable to the fact that twins generally
>have higher stall speeds (they aren't designed to the 61kt max stall
>speed of singles) and that, therefore, on average, even if they impact
>the ground under some control, it is also with higher kinetic energy?

Certainly if you strike an object higher kinetic energy will be more
hazardous.  If you find a clear area to land though its the vertical
compenent you have to worry about.  Higher KE will just take more runway
to dissapate.  A higher fatallity rate is more likely to be due to loss
of control.

However, you need to define "rate".  Is it fatalities/passenger-mile,
fatalities/accident, fatalities/hour etc? For instance, twins might
carry more passengers on the average so a single fatal accident could
kill more people.  If you really want to try to infer something from
statistics you have to be very careful that you are using the correct
measure.
	John
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Accelerated IFR Programs
Date: 14 Nov 92 22:34:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

MC> .What's the word on those "accelerated" IFR programs?  You know, the ones y
  > . in back
  > .of Flying Magazine that run about two weeks.  I'm very interested in heari
  > .m someone
  > .who's gone that route.  I will probably do it with Bolivar Aviation in Ten
  > .I decide it's
  > .worth it.

I know several people that have gone the PIC route, and they all rave
about it.  The caveat is, don't use a "cram course" unless you're going
to keep the rating wet almost constantly.  Learning is an "easy come,
easy go" situation.  If you're going to use the rating only
occasionally, you'll probably do better with the more conventional
approach.  You'll retain more of the skills, since you'll have spent
more time reinforcing them.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Night VFR
Date: 14 Nov 92 22:40:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

DDRM> .make inside of clouds.  (Why is it that Cessnas howl and moan inside of
    > .clouds?)

Because they know they don't belong there, and want out??  <~>

DDRM> .IMHO, any non-instrument-rated pilot who wishes to fly night VFR cross
    > .countries should go up with an instructor on an IFR flight plan and
    > .punch into a few clouds in the dark.  It will, quite literally, open
    > .your eyes and make you reconsider the terms under which you attempt
    > .night VFR beyond local ops.

Agreed.  OTOH, few nights are so dark that clouds aren't visible.  A
good percentage of my flight time is at night, and I never ran into a
night where clouds weren't visible.  I'm sure that if I were flying
in the middle of Iowa conditions would be different, but around NY,
even if the moon isn't there, cities provide lots of light...

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: cm9@prism.gatech.EDU (MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Helicopter icing
Keywords: helicopter,ifr,icing
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:48:59 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

>
>
Yes, but in general the military doesn't operate IFR without stability
augmentation systems either. Only the Huey (which is similar stability to
a 222 - lousy but certifiable) is operated IFR without a stability
augmentation system. The OH-6 (Hughes 500) OH-58 (Bell Jetranger) and
Cobra are not operated IFR. The Blackhawk and Chinook have stability
augmentation systems. I believe all the large Sikorksy ships do as well.
So the military isn't really that different - no IFR in small helicopters.
>
>

I assume that you are referring to the civilian environment.  Almost all
Army helicopters have been flown in IMC in the tactical environment. You 
are correct that a large number are not properly instrumented for civil
IFR.

A
IFR.
-- 
MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!cm9
Internet: cm9@prism.gatech.edu
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:17346 rec.aviation.misc:785
From: hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: flying airborne support/communications, baja 1000
Date: 20 Nov 92 01:35:13 GMT
Distribution: na

i've not posted in quite a awhile. in fact, i don't know which newsgroup
is which anymore.  ah, the good old days when there was only 1 newsgroup...

i've recently returned from flying airborne support and communications
for a race team that finished the baja 1000. i took the cutlass. i had
a generally slick time, and thought some might be interested.

after adding the large vinyl N numbers to the fuselage, getting all my
paperwork in order, including mexican insurance, i found my return to
flying in mexico (not since 1975, and that wasn't pleasant) to be a
totally kool time. if you do everything with the paperwork and
procedures properly, it's a gas. i look forward to the next time, and i
won't loose any sleep over it, i can tell you that.

my task was to follow and keep track of 2 race vehicles for this 1000
mile course. i would not be flying at night. i installed a 151 Mhz radio
to communicate with the race cars, chase teams and pit crews. i was
their eye in the sky, and coordinated,updated, and fooled around
generally alot.

i flew thru mountain canyons at low level, and along dusty roads at treetop
level. my passenger, a retired tomcat-topgun type, wasn't too concerned
about the 60 degree bank angles that were occasionally called for. for
once, in a very long time, i flew by the seat of my pants and got into
the event and didn't care about too much. (including safety, i must
admit). i don't recommend this type of attitude for my fellow netters,
but i only wanted to illuminate that i let that side of me out to
accomplish this flight. sometimes is wasn't so bright, but it was a
real blast. 

so i imagine the more safety aligned types think i'm lucky i didn't mess
up, and i guess you're right, but in the great karma in the sky you
might take heart that i got stranded in san felipe where they recently
stopped selling fuel and closed the customs office, much to my chagrin.
my big adventure came to a halt with only minor fuel
indications on the gauges. i managed to coax a few gallons from another
chase crew (mine was unable to secure fuel for me, per our agreement),
and i took off mexicali-calexico-home bound. oh well. i missed that kool
party in la paz, and that jump into the gulf of california i promised
myself. mebbe next time. 

so if you are thinking about flying down into mexico, i can tell you
that i had 100 % pleasant interface with the customs,federales,etc. they
were very nice people indeed. have fun.


dennis hurvitz
cutlass n5271u
duchess n6009k
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com (Dave Medin)
Subject: The home field accident...
Reply-To: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville AL
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:40:51 GMT

Just got off the phone with my old instructor, after being clued in
that my beloved grass field, Moontown (3M5), had suffered its first
fatal accident in its over 40 year history when a new 17 year-old PP
(day after checkride) took a 172 loaded with his friends into a
tree to the side of the departure end of the RW. From the people who
saw it, it appears the airplane didn't climb out of ground effect,
or at least not very far, and drifted far to the right of the
centerline. The gear caught the treeline to the right side of the
threshhold. Three were killed and the fourth person seriously injured.
The airplane was not recognizable as such, with only the vertical fin
still intact. Witnesses made it to the crash immediately. There was
no fire. Weather was CAVU with no wind. It was after dark.

I've flown the 172 before--a pre-60's Continental. The plane had a
reputation for being a slow climber, and most pilots took this into
account. The teenager flying was known to be a good pilot. Witnesses
said it sounded like the engine was developing full power at the time.

Although the NTSB findings will probably be available someday, it looks
like a momentary lapse in judgement and alertness, combined with a
risky preflight decision on loading contributed to this--something
that can affect even us multi-100 hour pilots. The trees have no
preference... Nor is enthusiasm for aviation selective in who it
strikes.

I hope that relating this will remind at least some who read it, again,
of the possible consequences of bad decisions surrounding the
activity we all love.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
       Dave Medin			Phone:	(205) 730-3169 (w)
    SSD--Networking				(205) 837-1174 (h)
    Intergraph Corp.
       M/S GD3004 		Internet: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com
  Huntsville, AL 35894		UUCP:  ...uunet!ingr!b30!catbyte!medin

   ******* Everywhere You Look (at least around my office) *******

 * The opinions expressed here are mine (or those of my machine)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.piloting
From: fultz@scs.carleton.ca (Brian Fultz)
Subject: Re: Difficulties with fuel in Greenland
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:41:02 GMT

In article <AAvbg1hSp7@spaero.kharkov.ua> avia@spaero.kharkov.ua writes:
>Anybody who can help, very urgent business.
>
>Are there any difficulties in getting fuel in Greenland.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
In the packet of info in Canada's AIP there is a section on going
to Europe in a single or a twin that can not keep altitude on one engine

-av gas is only aval from drums, you buy all the drum U.S. cash only
at approx 5.00 per gallon for all the 45 gallons
-flight planning is IFR with 3 hours gas left from the alternate ( no tail
wind allowed), no night VFR ever!
-hf radios, VERY long list of extra gear
-visit to Moncton to get the ATC to O.K. you and your A/C, this is approx
as hard as the most complex Comm exam you ever had, do the weight and bal
infront of the inspectors eyes.
-insurance to cover the cost of getting you back by Air Sea Rescue

AOPA, COPA, will help with the doc's, Sporties has a number of good
books on this topic, they can also sell you the gear

Good luck!
From: s8oe001@stan.xx.swin.oz.au (Steve.)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
Subject: FS4 Aircraft
Keywords: FS4, Aircraft, Adventure Factory
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:13:47 GMT
Organization: Comp. Centre, Swinburne University of Tech., Melbourne, Australia


Is there a FTP site that carries any aircraft for FS4 designed with the 
Aircraft and Adventure Factory?
 
I run a smallish BBS catering for pilots (both Compurer and 'real') and
my users (as well as myself) have a huge appetite for any new aircraft
and/or scenery/utes etc etc
 
If there isnt one, but someone wants to start one, I can send some files
I allready have.  Including SR-71, Dash-8, Vought Corsair, AN-225 
 
email replies prefered to save bandwith.
send to s8oe001@stan.swin.oz.au
 
Steve
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: A320- What's it like.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 12:11:35 GMT

In article <mcdonghj.722257837@unix2.tcd.ie> mcdonghj@unix2.tcd.ie (Nascent Virion.....) writes:
>My younger brother loves flying etc...
>Non stop playing of FS4 is a pain to me who wants to play
>Monkey Island. Well any way.. He's looking to but A320...
>The Lufthansa based game.
>I want to know is it any good.???
>Please RSVP.

I don't have A302 myself, but have played it.  It's okay...pretty good sim
overall, though I prefer subLOGIC's ATP for large-aircraft simulation.

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators
From: larry@mits.mdata.fi (Lasse Hero)
Subject: Re: TraconII (Pilot Requests)
Organization: Microdata Oy
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:10:11 GMT

skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:

>I use Tracon for Windows and have learned to expand the comm window not to 
>maximum size, but to a vertical and horizontal size sufficient to see all 
>past messages retained by the program.  I then overlay it on top of the 
>Pending list and depend on the comm calls to catch incomings.  I may miss a 
>couple, but at least I have a listing of the last several calls to catch up 
>on.

And the most realistic way is, of course, to minimize the whole 
communications window. Then you'll just have to carefully listen
to your sound card, or something terrible will happen..:)

--
Lasse Hero  -  larry@mits.mdata.fi
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulators