HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: TAS while landing (was: Stupid Pilot Trick Awards)
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:17:05 GMT

In article <2510472@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM>, Bill Standerfer wrote about
landing at high density altitudes:
> And to throw out another example, say you're going into Leadville on a warm
> 70 degree day.  Your 80 knot CAS (that's as low as my whiz-wheel goes) gives
> you about 100 knots ground speed. ...

In article <1992Aug21.173103.18615@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>
mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com writes:
> Now that some hard numbers have been thrown out, I would like to
> reiterate a point that I made earlier.  These numbers (10 to 20
> knots higher groundspeed) are not that much different between
> landing into a moderate headwind and landing on a calm day.

Yes, they are.  There's a tremendous difference between comparing
    -  landing with a headwind vs. landing in a calm wind     with
    -  landing in a calm wind vs. landing with a tailwind

It is the latter which "simulates" a high density altitude situation.

> Certainly you would notice the difference; but, there doesn't
> appear to be a plethora of pilots experiencing  difficulty in
> coping with changes in groundspeed due to the presence or lack of
> headwind.  So why is does there appear to be such difficulty in
> coping with changes in groundspeed due to the altitude.  As far as
> groundspeed goes, the two circumstances seem very similar.

The difference is very simple.   A pilot is probably most accustomed to
landing with no wind or a slight headwind.  A strong headwind makes
everything work out better for the pilot -- shorter ground roll, etc.  A
strong _tailwind_ (or a high density altitude) makes most things work out
_worse_ for the pilot -- this can result in landing overshoots, excessive
braking (and resulting loss of directional control or equipment damage), and
other problems.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ron@turing.toronto.edu (Ron Wessels)
Subject: Re: across the border and back
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:14:35 GMT

cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best) asks:
>What if you have to do a precautionary or emergency landing while 
>over the border, and haven't notified customs or anyone else?

I actually remember reading the regulations on this once, but a search
through my AIP Canada has failed to find it back.

My recollection is that there's no real problem as long as you notify
customs as soon as practical after you land, and keep yourself and your
airplane as isolated as reasonable until they arrive and/or clear you.

My aircraft partner actually had to make a precautionary landing when
crossing the border several months ago.  As he tells it, he was stopped
by weather and to land short of his intended destination (where customs
was waiting).  A quick telephone call, and he was cleared (over the
telephone!).

Of course, this is Canadian customs ... I'm not sure I'd want to test
this theory out with US "confiscate the plane" customs.

Oh, and of course you should call flight service (if you haven't
contacted them by radio) to cancel your flight plan.

-- 
Ron Wessels		University of Toronto		ron@turing.toronto.edu
From: rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Propping big engines
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:15:20 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsco.ucsc.edu


On a recent very log xc to Ak. I had big problems with the starter
drive.  It had to be jumped twice, and once it took 15 min. to
get it started with a power cart attached!

Getting home, I asked the founder of the club about it, and he
opined that he would have propped it.
Hmm, now I weigh 165 and he weighs about 180--not much difference.
The engine is a Conti IO520 on a 210 (with a 3 bladed prop, no less).
I thought this idea was nuts--he offered to demonstrate, but I
declined as I didn't want to see him with broken hands (or his head
cut off).

Who of you out there has propped an engine this big?
Tell me about it please, if you have.

(I HAVE propped planes several times, but they were 152s and 172s--
 the force required is child's play compared to the resistance of
 a low time 520--I know the force is considerable from repositioning
 the prop for parking).
-- 

-Rob Strand

   From Bitnet: rob@ucscvm  From Internet: rob@ucscvm.ucsc.edu    
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ingham@vesta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham)
Subject: Carlsbad Caverns Fly-In
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 19:56:33 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep1.170402.27705@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu
(William LeFebvre) writes:
>So, when is the next fly-in?

I don't know if any are scheduled before the CACAFI, but here's an
update on one fly-in:

We're scheduled for the weekend of the 10th of October.

On the 10th, we have a guided tour of Carlsbad Cavern arranged.  If all
goes well, the guide will not only be a park-person, but also a
(inactive) pilot.  Who will guide is not firm, but the date has been
reserved.

The evening of the 10th, we will watch the bat flight (assuming the
weather and the bats cooperate).  At this time of year, the flight could
be anything from heavy (due to migrants flying with the ones who live in
the cave) to nonexistent (all bats have left or are hibernating).  The
flight will be in front of an almost-full moon.

The afternoon of the 11th, for those who are still around, I have 15
slots reserved in the New Cave tour (never name anything you discover
``New'', as New Cave has been known since sometime in the 1800s).  This
tour is is a wilder cave, no paved trail, no lights except what you and
your fellow travelers provide.  You get to experience the cave more as
the explorers do.  I tried to get earlier, but it was already booked 
(completely).

I am about to call to see about hotel space and a rental mini-van to
share.  From talking with the Cave Specialist at the park, hotel space
should be no problem, as it will be off-season, and the hotels will
compete fiercely for people.

Still in the planning stage is eating.  Carlsbad is not known for its
fine restaurants.  This is not to say that they are all bad, but I know
of better in other cities in NM.

For the ham operators out there, anybody have a recommended 2m frequency?

The following people have sent me email about possibly coming:
Martin Fisher		mrf@gain.com
Steve Cornelius		scornelius@ips.iacd.honeywell.com
Robert Herndon		rh@craycos.com
Eric Duff		eduff@scubed.scubed.com
Dave Allen		davea@col.hp.com
Mike Parker		mparker@adobe.com
Brian Lewis		Brian_Lewis@stortek.com
Les Niles		niles@parc.xerox.com
Stephen Schneider	schneide@scubed.com
Tim Barrios		barriost@gtephx.att.com
Jordan Brown		jbrown@qdeck.com
Cynthia Grant		sascsg@unx.sas.com
Derrell Lipman		derrell-lipman@retix.com
Gerald Creager		gcreager@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Phil Mueller		mueller@magnum.convex.com
Len Fishler		Fishler_Len@Tandem.COM
Jim ?			jrt@mbunix.mitre.org

For those of you coming, please send me your departure point and number
of passengers you can carry for possibly doing ride-matching.  I'll
post this info in the next posting.

For the people coming from a distance, let me know if you will need a
hotel Friday night, Saturday night, both, or some other combination.

Also, please let me know if you want to be put on the New Cave list.
The first 15 will get on the list, then I'll start a waiting list.

-- 
Kenneth Ingham WD5BBT
ingham@i-pi.com or ingham@ariel.unm.edu (NeXTMail OK)
Hummin' little Grumman N9646L
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Those darn fickle winds
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:55:50 GMT

This happened several months ago. I know about winds changing directions, 
but I hate it when this happens:

Early afternoon on a Sat.

Morristown (MMU) ATIS:    ..... wind 250 at 14 ... visual runway 23 in use...
			  rwys 12/30 closed.

Me: <initial call-up>

MMU: ... Report right downwind for 23.... wind 250 at 15 ...

Me: .... reporting downwind, 23.

MMU: .... wind 270 at 15 ...

.. a minute or so...

MMU: .... report position....

Me:  .... abeam the numbers...

MMU: .... cleared to land ... wind 290 at 16 ....

<Turn right base.  Huh! what am I doing on left base going the wrong direction?
 That was the fastest right base in my life! Unless they build a rwy 23 L 
 in the next couple of seconds, I am not landing. Slowly head back to 23>

Me: .... going around ....

MMU:  .... go around ... wind 320 at 16 .... make left traffic ...

.. another minute or so...

Me: ... reporting midfield left downwind 23 ....

MMU: ... cleared to land ..... wind 350 at 16 ....
     .... Cessna XXX amend instructions ... make left base for 05 ....
     .... wind 360 at 15 .....

<I do a fairly good imitation of landing on an aircraft carrier. There is
 a Cessna on final landing towards me>

MMU: .... Turn right on fox... contact ground ..

Me: MMU ground .... would like to taxi back for departure ...

MMU ground: ... Turn LEFT on alpha to rwy 05 ...

Me: MMU tower ... ready for departure ....

MMU: ... cleared for take-off ... wind 010 at 14 ...

venky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jkr@cray.com (John Renwick)
Subject: Re: umwaufi report
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:26:10 CDT

In article <1992Sep2.144625.23@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>In article <m=kn=9=.rkaplan@netcom.com>, rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
>|> For some real excitement, how about MSP (the TCA primary field
>|> in Minneapolis) at Northwest rush hour?  Then we could 
>|> spend the afternoon/evening at the new Mall of the Americas.
>|> 
>|> Disclaimer: I'm not sure if I'm serious about this or not. -:)
>
>What's the landing and ramp fees like there?  Are they GA unfriendly?
>This might be kind of fun, as long as we don't get tower and approach
>angry at us.  Does MSP require reserved-in-advance landing and takeoff
>slots like ORD does?

I talked to a manager at Page Avjet, the FBO at MSP.  They'd be happy
to host a fly-in.  MSP's landing fee is *still* only $5.00 for a 
single and small twins.  100LL is now $2.31/gallon (big-time airport
prices!).  Page has two vans, one 9- and one 13-passenger, free for 
short trips.  Short trips might include:

	Minnesota Air National Guard Museum (they have an A-12, which
	looks just like an SR71)
	
	Mall of America (not an airplane museum :-) )

	Lots of restaurants

Northwest Airlines has a maintenance base at MSP.  I've toured it 
a couple of times.  There are no organized public tours, but 
employees are allowed to shepherd small groups.  This would make
a fly-in all by itself.

Some of us locals might be able to drive for longer trips (I volunteer
my 7-passenger van):

	Planes of Fame museum (lots of warbirds)

	CAF hangar in South St. Paul (if we had an invitation)

What do you all think?

-- 
- John Renwick
J-3 Cub N62088
jkr@cray.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Building your own (dirt) runway?
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:10:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.215756.9281@usho93.hou281.chevron.com> hdnea@usho0e.hou281.chevron.com (David Neal) writes:
>Of course since the FAA's baby MLS would be threatened by
>such a system, we all know how far it will go.

Actually, you may be surprised.  The FAA has finally started to conceed
that MLS was just a Bad Idea (something air carriers as well as GA
interests have been telling them for years), and is working on
certifying GPS approaches.  Don't expect anything before 2000, but
considering the rate with which LORAN was certified, that's positively
blinding speed.
--
-- Christophe

"Black is the color of non-conformity.  Everyone has to have it."
	T-shirt company executive
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jeg@netcom.com (Julian E. Gomez)
Subject: looking for Baxter story
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 07:44:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa


A few years ago I read a story by Baxter where he describes taking his
mother for a ride and she wouldn't let him reduce power for the descent
back to the airport.  I've just searched Flying magazine 88, 89, and 90
and can't find it. Does anyone remember where this story is?
-- 
"We must grasp the bull by the tail, and look the matter squarely in the face!"

	Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez
	jeg@netcom.com
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Principle of ILS/LOC (was Re: Principle of VOR)
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:52:30 GMT
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA

In article <9224113.15545@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, ggr@koonda (Greg Rose) writes:
> ...ILS
> frequencies are 200kHz apart, and always on odd numbers as above.
> VORs ... can be just 100kHz apart, > and use all of the decimals. ...
> ILS's are in the range 108.1 .. 111.9 (19 possible),
> while VORS are in the range 112.1 ..  117.9 (59 of them).

In article <1992Aug28.080902.17340@sics.se> lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
writes:
> The ILS localiser frequencies are 108.10, 108.15, 108.30, 108.35 etc.,
> while the VOR frequencies are 108.00, 108.05, 108.20, 108.25 etc. up
> to the highest ILS localiser frequency stop, which I believe is
> 111.95. Then VORs are on 112.00, 112.05, 112.10, 112.15 etc. In all
> there are 40 ILS frequencies and 360 VOR frequencies.
>
> I guess that the U.S. (and perhaps also Australia) don't use the
> intermediate .x5 frequencies, just as the U.S. don't use all 760 COM
> channels, but they are still there, and they are used in Europe -
> though not extensively.

I looked in my J-AID (which is essentially a Jeppesen version of
the AIM), and it says (Radio Aids, p. 13):

    108.10 - 111.95 MHz		ILS localizer (on odd-tenths decimal
				frequencies, 108.1, 108.3, etc.)
    108.0  - 111.8  MHz		VOR (even tenths of MHz)
    112.0  - 117.95 MHz		VOR (even and odd tenths of MHz)

So apparently the U.S. frequency allocation plan utilizes only odd-tenths
decimals for ILS localizer frequencies, for a total of 40 available slots.

> There is of cause also the ILS glidepath. The ILS GP is on a
> completely different set of frequencies in the UHF range. Each
> localiser frequency is paired with a GP frequency (just as VOR
> frequencies are paired with DME frequencies), so selecting a ILS
> localiser frequency will automatically select the correct GP
> frequency.

Strangely enough, a few pages later (Radio Aids, p. 26) , there's a table
which shows the pairing of glideslope and localizer frequencies:

    Localizer		Glide Slope
    MHz			MHz
    108.10		334.70
    108.15		334.55
    108.3		334.10
    108.35		333.95
    108.5		329.90
    108.55		329.75

and so on.  This means that someone is thinking about the 10x.y5 localizer
frequencies, but only when y is odd!

Weird...

						Geoff
From: mark@hpcvxmsr.cv.hp.com (Mark Rowe)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Postscript Checklists for 150/152/172 ?
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:04:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvusn.1992Aug26.010449.29370
Reply-To: mark@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com
Organization: UDT-CV (ITO)

In article <1992Aug25.185412.18203@watson.ibm.com>, c1durko@watson.ibm.com () writes:
>                                             ...  Does anyone out there have
> 150/152/172 checklists in electronic format?  If not and I do get them done
> in Frame I will make them available through the net as long as it doesn't
> pose any liability problems.  Hmmm maybe this is why nobody else has done
> this ??

I have a full set of checklists, flight data, etc. done on Framemaker for
my Comanche (including a pretty nice flight plan form).  Most of this is
not applicable to a Cessna; however, it is a good place to start as editting
these sheets is probably much easier than starting from scratch.  The page
format is designed for 7-hole 5x8 Jeppesen size binders (except for the
flight plan form which is 8.5x11) but can be easily adapted.  I'm willing
to make either the postscript (pretty much unedittable) or the Framemaker
files (in Frame's MIF format) available on request.

Mark Rowe        PP-SEL G I         Comanche 5943P
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: Overloaded Cherokee Crash comments
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:43:09 GMT

In article <5909.2a9b5d03@hayes.com>, bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

|> This kind of abject stupidity gives general aviation a bad name. Maynard had 
|> hoped to get his commercial license - here's one vote against giving him any 
|> license ever again.

One question I ask myself is:  "how well educated was he by
his instructor?"  Did his instructor go over the rules governing student
pilots during the first lesson?  Yes, the pilot has an obligation to
follow FARs, but his instructor also has an obligation to educate him
in the FARs.  Either the instructor didn't tell him that it was illegal
and stupid to fly without and instructor and with passengers, OR this
guy is a complete mush-head who doesn't listen to what he is taught.

|> Second, why is it that pilots who perform such acts of stupidity are first to 
|> blame the plane's engine? The general public will probably never see the report 
|> that indicates the engine was just fine. The general public doesn't know 
|> enough about aviation to identify the abjectly stupid actions and place the
|> blame where it belongs. So they go away with the impression that these small
|> aircraft are unreliable - dangerous even. The engine just burps a little bit,
|> and you're dead. Very dangerous.

Part of it in this case was likely the media.  I noticed in the second
story that the article said "the engine stalled".  Perhaps the pilot
said "the plane stalled" and the uneducated media turned that in to
"the engine stalled" which then later got turned in to "the engine died."
After all, when a car engine dies mysteriously, we say "the car stalled"
or "the engine stalled".  But in a plane, the word "stall" has a VERY
different and very specific meaning.

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
From: robg@Apple.COM (Rob Griffiths)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Instrument Training
Keywords: IFR Instrument Training
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:28:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <71685@apple.Apple.COM> rcm@Apple.COM (Robert Charles Monsen) writes:
>
>Use Jepps. They are much better/more convenient than NOS + Notams. Its
 ^^^^^^^^^^

Uh-oh, here we go again! :-)  Actually, when stating something like
this, you should probably add "in my opinion."  As historical debates
have shown, the Jepps vs. NOS/Notam issue is not easily silenced.
My advice:  Try both, stick with the one that you prefer.  That's 
what I tried, and found the Jepps preferable.  I used a buddy's
Jepps until I had decided which route to take.

>You should budget about $4,000 for the training. You might get by for less,
>but if you run out of money in the middle, you are going to have to redo

You might also need to budget MORE than $4,000.  Here's a fairly typical
scenario in a major metro area:

The plane is either a 172 or a Warrior, fairly standard IFR platforms.

   Flying:      50 hours @ $60 per hour == $3,000
   CFII:        50 hours @  25 per hour ==  1,250
   Books, Etc:                          ==    200
   Checkride:   (Assuming a D/E)        ==    200
                                           ------
                                  TOTAL    $4,650

(NOTE:  Yes, I assume a CFII for the whole time.  I realize you could
save tremendously with a check pilot.  I would imagine, however, that
total time flying would increase proportionately.)

Note that even if I'm off by $10/hr on the plane, you'd still be at
$4,150 for the total investment.  I budgeted for $5,000, and then
viewed it as a bonus when the total cost came out under that :-).

In the end, though, I found the experience alone worth the cost of
the training.  I learned more about flying and other subjects than
I would have ever thought possible.

-rob.
-- 
Rob Griffiths    "Listen to me ... would thieves file a flight plan??"
robg@apple.com   PP-ASEL-IA, looking for clouds .... B52s/REM/Erasure!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Certificate Change of Address
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 11:36:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.211142.19578@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> gle@l42bb.jsc.nasa.gov (glenn ellis) writes:
>I recently moved and dutifully sent a change of address to the FAA for my 
>SEL license.  Are they going to send my a new one with my new address on 
>it?  Easy question - hopefully there's an easy answer.
>
Not unless you sent them $2 for issuing the new one.  Otherwise, they
simply change your mailing address in their files (so you will receive
FAA circulars, etc.) but you keep the old certificate with the wrong
address.  Go figure.

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste; netiquette
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:06:58 GMT

ulick@chopin.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:

>It depend on your motive and the altidude at which you do it.  If you fly
>below 500' above their house to get a look, you are contravening their
>right to privacy, silence, etc.

If you come within 500 feet of the house, you're breaking FAR 91.119,
which prohibits flight within 500 feet of any person, vehicle, vessel,
or structure, except as necessary for takeoff and landing (unless
you're a helicopter).


-Brent
--
Brent Chapman                                   Great Circle Associates
Brent@GreatCircle.COM                           1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841                                 Mountain View, CA  94041
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: seymour@milton.u.washington.edu (Richard Seymour)
Subject: Illuminations on visual air-route beacons
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:25:36 GMT

Well, i attend an FAA Safety Seminar last night, and the speaker
 (Jim Winkleman, current a Flight Ops instructor for Alaska Airlines)
 had the letter sequence for the visual flight beacons in his bag...
and says there's still an active chain across Montana... (go to Missoula)

And you may have wondered -why- those particular letters...
  Based on a suggestion of his, i looked up the Morse for it...
   and it is/was designed to provide a fairly memorable rolling sequence of
     dots and dashes...

Here's the mnemonic, followed by the code:

When Undertaking Very Hard Routes Keep Direction By Good Methods

.--   ..-   ...-   ....    .-.-   -.-   -..   -...    --.   --


(they should have put "C" (-.-.) between the "K" and "D" for better symmetry)
--dick  (now where's that blinkin' beacon?)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation