HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: Another trivia question
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:06:24 GMT

steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) writes:
>mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas) writes:
>
>>In Kansas, my brother goes flying with a friend in a Bucker Jungman
>>(sp?).  In the flight, he does rolls, loops, inverted, spins, and
>>other aerobatic maneuvers.  Neither pilot wears a parachute.  The
>>airplane and the pilots are realtively young (no grandfathered rules).
>>The flight is legal.  How?
>
>-- Part 91.307 (c) --
>  (c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved
>parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a
>crewmember) may execute any intentional manuever that exceeds..

Steve gives one answer (student/instructor), though that applies only to
"Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations".

He also quotes the other popular loophole without realizing it...
"other than a crewmember".  Check the 1.1 definitions; a crewmember
is somebody assigned a duty in flight.  Said duty need not be required
by the FARs; note that there are plenty of cases where the FARs refer to
a "required crewmember", and they don't here.

"Hey Joe, hold this Sic-Sac..."
"Hey Joe, watch for traffic..."
From: cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU (David Cyganski)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Wanted:King Video Tapes
Date: 30 Sep 1992 10:51:28 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ee.wpi.edu

I was just about to dial the (800) number for the King School to order
a set of video tapes when one of the statements in the letter the letter
that accompanied the advertisement struck me: "Four out of ten pilots
today prepared for their FAA written exams with King School's Video
Exam Course."  AHA! That means by the law or large numbers, about
40% of the readers of this group own a copy they probably don't use anymore.

So, I am looking to buy a used, recent, copy of the Private Pilot Written
exam preparation tape, the Flight Test tape and any of the "Take Off" 
library of tapes.  

Please e-mail directly to me if you are interested in parting with your
copies. Thanks.

David Cyganski
cyganski@ee.wpi.edu
From: exurlsr@exu.ericsson.se (Robert Lightfoot, xt-dL, 0627)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Solo Rites
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:53:31 GMT
Reply-To: exurlsr@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 4876@odin.corp.sgi.com, jeffk@sgi.com (Jeffrey Komori) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.145404.8792@gvl.unisys.com> edd@gvlf4-a.gvl.unisys.com (Ed Dougherty) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.203300.44@front.se> per@front.se writes:
>>
>>Gee, I feel left out, when I soloed, nothing at all happened, my instructor
>>said pretty good, do another one and that was it, no ceremony, nothing!
>
>Hmmm, I didn't want to admit to it but since you did...
>
>No ceremony either for my first solo.  At least I have my t-shirt intact.
>Can't afford to buy a replacement with all my pay going to flying and such.
>
>:-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)
>
>Regards,
>Jeff Komori,  PP-ASEL  (and someday, I'll start on the IA part)
>

I did my first solo in the morning before work.   I had on one of my favorite shirts.
My instructor cut the whole back out.  I had to drive home and get a new shirt.

My friend at the same school, but a different instructor walked away with his
shirt intact.  

I missed my shirt, but he missed more.

Robert
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: M21986@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: use of gps/gnss for precision radar approaches
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:01:46 GMT

Does anyone have any information on the use of GNSS or GPS for precision
approaches?  Specifically, I have heard that the satellite systems do
not have sufficient vertical accuracy for Category II or Category III
approaches.  A bibliography would be most appreciated.
 
 
           Mike Fabrizi
           MITRE Corp    (703) 883-5221
           My views are my own, not MITRE's.
 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy)
Subject: Re: when is a Cat IIIc approach a Cat IIIc approach?
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 09:02:27 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering, Ann Arbor
Originator: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu


In article <16874671E.M21986@mwvm.mitre.org>, M21986@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
> Does anyone know if anybody is currently doing Cat III C approaches?
> I understand that the official visibility minima for Cat III C is
> "0/0".  That is, 0 decision height and 0 RVR.  I've also heard a pilot
> for a major carrier say that no one would really operate in these conditions,
> since, even if you could land, you probably couldn't find the runway
> exit, find your way to the gate, or navigate on the runway surface.  Can
> anyone shed any light on this?
>  

    A Cat IIIc approach imlies guidance through rollout and taxi all the way
to the gate.  To my knowledge, no airport in the world is equipped for this.
I believe the method for such guidance would be wires imbedded in the runway
and ramps that the airplane could follow.  Very expensive to install, with
a limited payback.  Cat IIIb involves guidance through rollout only, which can
use the localizer for guidance.  (Somebody correct me if it does get you off
the runway.)  I don't know of any of those either.

    I know of one instance where a GA pilot flew a normal ILS at Forbes
Field in Topeka, KS, landed, but was then socked in so that he couldn't
find the ramp or the FBO.  Anyone who has been there knows, however, that
it's about 2 miles to the FBO from the main runway. :-(
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: when is a Cat IIIc approach a Cat IIIc approach?
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:31:10 GMT

In article <mT2-B1A@engin.umich.edu> dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy) writes:
>    A Cat IIIc approach imlies guidance through rollout and taxi all the way
>to the gate.

Actually IIIC only requires auto runway clearing.  Once the aircraft is
clear of the active, a tug can be sent out for it.  This is a
considerably more solvable problem than auto-taxi-to-gate.
--
-- Christophe

"He presented it with a length of string, and then passed on to the
Statue of Corrupted Endevour, there to await the arrival of autumn."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: q1hl@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Nameless CS Student)
Subject: Re: Welcome?
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:19:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.164503.1673@erenj.com> bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
>Ok....cleared for the approach...
                   ^^^?
Do you often fly into airports with only one approach? :-)
How about "cleared for AN approach"...
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Welcome?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<WD.92Oct2100416@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:51:24 GMT

In article <WD.92Oct2100416@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de> wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:

   Getting a little more serious now: Wasn't it discussed a while ago
   that "cleared for the approach" (not AN approach) is a standard phrase that
   clears for for an approach of your choice (beacon, ILS, VOR, what-you-like) ?

Yes, at least according to ICAO. If the controller wants you to make a
specific approach, he should say so.

Of course, if you are greeted by approach control with "vectors for
the ILS", and the controller gives the final vector by saying "turn
left/right heading xxx, cleared for approach", I would guess that he
wants you to make a straight-in ILS approach and nothing else, even
though he didn't say "cleared for straight-in ILS approach" so that
you were technically cleared for any kind of approach.

The same would hold if you flew a STAR where the STAR description
ended with something like "for straight-in ILS approach".

--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: dness@edsi.plexus.COM (David Nesseler)
Subject: Re: when is a Cat IIIc approach a Cat IIIc approach?
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 03:07:30 GMT

In the lastest issue of Avionics magazine is an article
about the trials being conducted at ORD. Using GPS systems
its relitivly easy to guide aircraft to the gate from the
runway.

-- 
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
putsomejellyonthatchop  IS ELVIS ALIVE ?  hunkahunkaburninglove
                         David Nesseler
    dness@edsi.plexus.com//////BANG//////spool!cserver!edsi!dness
From: myshatyn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mike Myshatyn)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:30:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Welcome?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr

Bryan D. Boyle writes:

> Am I the first?  (:-))
> 
> Ok....cleared for the approach...

Yes, at least at our (server) site.  Then I must be second - cleared to land
number 2.


--
 Mike Myshatyn    Bonanza N4896J           Hewlett-Packard Company
   ASEL/AMEL COMM, INSTR, CFI-IA           User-Interface Technology Division
 ...!hplabs!fc.hp.com!myshatyn             Ft. Collins, CO  80525
 or ... myshatyn@fc.hp.com                 (303) 229-4067

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Subject: Re: Welcome?
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:05:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.231921.16510@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> q1hl@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Nameless CS Student) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.164503.1673@erenj.com> bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
> >Ok....cleared for the approach...
>                    ^^^?
> Do you often fly into airports with only one approach? :-)
> How about "cleared for AN approach"...

Getting a little more serious now: Wasn't it discussed a while ago
that "cleared for the approach" (not AN approach) is a standard phrase that
clears for for an approach of your choice (beacon, ILS, VOR, what-you-like) ?
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: when is a Cat IIIc approach a Cat IIIc approach?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:05:53 GMT

In article <mT2-B1A@engin.umich.edu> dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy) writes:
   In article <16874671E.M21986@mwvm.mitre.org>, M21986@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
   > Does anyone know if anybody is currently doing Cat III C approaches?
   > I understand that the official visibility minima for Cat III C is
   > "0/0".  That is, 0 decision height and 0 RVR.  I've also heard a pilot
   > for a major carrier say that no one would really operate in these conditions,
   > since, even if you could land, you probably couldn't find the runway
   > exit, find your way to the gate, or navigate on the runway surface.  Can
   > anyone shed any light on this?
   >  

       A Cat IIIc approach imlies guidance through rollout and taxi all the way
   to the gate.  To my knowledge, no airport in the world is equipped for this.
   I believe the method for such guidance would be wires imbedded in the runway
   and ramps that the airplane could follow.  Very expensive to install, with
   a limited payback.  Cat IIIb involves guidance through rollout only, which can
   use the localizer for guidance.  (Somebody correct me if it does get you off
   the runway.)  I don't know of any of those either.

You could use ground radar vectoring to guide the aircraft to the
apron. Docking would be a bit difficult, though.

A friend of mine, who was tower controller at Stockholm/Arlanda
airport (he is now an supervisor in the radar room), says that the
airport ground radar at Arlanda is used operationally for taxi
guidance. The runways have much better lighting than the taxiways, so
even though Arlanda has only cat II runways, it happens occasionally
that the RVR is good enough to permit a landing, but visibility is so
poor that the aircrew can't see how to taxi. It also happens that
pilots unfamiliar with the airport simply get lost.

He said that in these cases the tower usually gives straight
ahead/turn left/right instructions, but that it happens that they give
actual headings to taxi, so that the taxi is completely radar
vectored.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.ifr:35 rec.aviation.piloting:58
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Stay off the rudder!
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:28:18 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1992Oct6.160706.21597@b30.ingr.com> medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com writes:
>
>|> >- Is it generally considered possible to fly IFR with just airspeed,
>|> >  altimeter and a compass?
>|> 
>|> In an open cockpit, yes but very difficult. In a cabin aircraft, generally no.

Isn't that why you take a case of chickens along?  If you get disoriented,
you toss one out the window and see which way it flies (falls)!

OK, OK, sick joke.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: marquis@ll.mit.edu (Doug Marquis)
Subject: use of gps/gnss for precision radar approaches
Reply-To: marquis@ll.mit.edu
Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:50:02 GMT

>   Does anyone have any information on the use of GNSS or GPS for precision
>   approaches?  Specifically, I have heard that the satellite systems do
>   not have sufficient vertical accuracy for Category II or Category III
>   approaches.  A bibliography would be most appreciated.

MIT Lincoln Laboratory has been tasked by FAA to look at GPS/GNSS for
non-precision approaches.  In addition, there are at least two, and
perhaps more, proposals for precision approach work, one from MIT/LL.

Straight GPS or Straight GNSS do not have sufficient horizontal or
vertical accuracy to support precision approaches to CAT I ILS
standards.  Differential GPS, Differential GNSS, or some combination,
holds the promise of allowing CAT I ILS or better standards.  There is
nothing definitive yet, but IMHO, better than CAT I can be realized.

The chief problem is integrity monitoring -- finding a way to inform a
pilot in a timely manner than he/she is flying an approach based on an
unreliable signal.  Separate monitoring with a data link, and receiver
autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) are the two areas of most
active research.
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Welcome?
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:05:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: erenj.1992Oct1.220532.6284
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ

In article <1OCT199216211275@zeus.tamu.edu> sam4628@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.164503.1673@erenj.com>, bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes...
>>Am I the first?  (:-))
>> 
>>Ok....cleared for the approach...
>> 
>
>Boy, what kind of stupid posting is this?! What a nimrod!
>
>-----------
>OK, I got in the first flame! Now someone else can take over
>(and believe me, there are plenty of morons who will...)
>
>(Bryan, I hope you have a sense of humor!  :-)
>

of course I do.  I fly the northeast corridor...

"where the skies are all crowded all day..."


A flame now and then is good for the soul...if no one responded, you
would wonder if anyone was listening...

Bryan D. Boyle    |Opinions mine, not Exxon's...
Senior Engineer   |Civil Air Patrol Air Search and Rescue
ER&E Co.          |bdboyle@erenj.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: M21986@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: when is a Cat IIIc approach a Cat IIIc approach?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:19:58 GMT

Does anyone know if anybody is currently doing Cat III C approaches?
I understand that the official visibility minima for Cat III C is
"0/0".  That is, 0 decision height and 0 RVR.  I've also heard a pilot
for a major carrier say that no one would really operate in these conditions,
since, even if you could land, you probably couldn't find the runway
exit, find your way to the gate, or navigate on the runway surface.  Can
anyone shed any light on this?
 
 
      Mike Fabrizi  (703) 883-5221
      MITRE Corp
      My Views are My Own, Not MITRE's.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: sam4628@zeus.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: Welcome?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:21:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.164503.1673@erenj.com>, bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes...
>Am I the first?  (:-))
> 
>Ok....cleared for the approach...
> 

Boy, what kind of stupid posting is this?! What a nimrod!

-----------
OK, I got in the first flame! Now someone else can take over
(and believe me, there are plenty of morons who will...)

(Bryan, I hope you have a sense of humor!  :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Steven A. McCluney                 |"Strange women lying in ponds    |
| sam4628@zeus.tamu.edu              | distributing swords is no basis |
| I'm a grad student, so my opinions | for a system of government!"    |
|    are worthless anyway            |          Dennis, to King Arthur |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: when is a Cat IIIc approach a Cat IIIc approach?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:01:40 GMT

In article <mT2-B1A@engin.umich.edu> dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy) writes:
   In article <16874671E.M21986@mwvm.mitre.org>, M21986@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
   > Does anyone know if anybody is currently doing Cat III C approaches?
   > I understand that the official visibility minima for Cat III C is
   > "0/0".  That is, 0 decision height and 0 RVR.  I've also heard a pilot
   > for a major carrier say that no one would really operate in these conditions,
   > since, even if you could land, you probably couldn't find the runway
   > exit, find your way to the gate, or navigate on the runway surface.  Can
   > anyone shed any light on this?
   >  

       A Cat IIIc approach imlies guidance through rollout and taxi all the way
   to the gate.  To my knowledge, no airport in the world is equipped for this.
   I believe the method for such guidance would be wires imbedded in the runway
   and ramps that the airplane could follow.  Very expensive to install, with
   a limited payback.  Cat IIIb involves guidance through rollout only, which can
   use the localizer for guidance.  (Somebody correct me if it does get you off
   the runway.)  I don't know of any of those either.

You could use ground radar vectoring to guide the aircraft to the
apron. Docking would be a bit difficult, though.

A friend of mine, who was tower controller at Stockholm/Arlanda
airport (he is now an supervisor in the radar room), says that the
airport ground radar at Arlanda is used operationally for taxi
guidance. The runways have much better lighting than the taxiways, so
even though Arlanda has only cat II runways, it happens occasionally
that the RVR is good enough to permit a landing, but visibility is so
poor that the aircrew can't see how to taxi. It also happens that
pilots unfamiliar with the airport simply get lost.

He said that in these cases the tower usually gives straight
ahead/turn left/right instructions, but that it happens that they give
actual headings to taxi, so that the taxi is completely radar
vectored.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
From: rym20@cd.amdahl.com (Robert A Moragues)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: gear-down check
Keywords: gear-down, FAA
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:34:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <Bv8ovI.22u@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) writes:

>I fail to see why the FAA would not institute this simple check for
>liability reasons.  It makes no sense at all (note from the sig -- I work
>for a corporate law department, I'm not an attorney, and I don't pretend to
>understand some of the decisions lawyers make about liability).
>

I could understand where the FAA would want to limit its liability.  After all,
what would happen if they forgot to ask just one time?
 
I did see this practice end up saving someone this weekend.  While on a tour
at the RHV (Reid-Hillview San Jose) Tower, one of the controllers noticed
that the gear on a bonanza seemed to be jammed somewhere between up and
down.  We were kicked out of the tower.  They had the guy recycle the gear
and make a second low pass by the tower.  The rest was uneventful, except for
the pilot completing the landing on the remaining ~1500 feet of runway after
being at tower elevation mid field.  But, I wasn't in the pilot's seat, so
I won't even comment on this one. :->

Blue Skies
Bob

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Bob Moragues         |  PP-ASEL       +
+ rym20@cd.amdahl.com  |  USPA C-18338  +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: SF Bay airshow in October?
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:26:42 GMT

In article <2810021@hpsad.sad.hp.com>, monson@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Tom Monson) writes:
|> Did I miss the airshow over SF Bay or is it the Oct 10-11 weekend (or other)?
|> Does anybody have the particulars of this show?
|>                                                  Thanks,    TCMonson

You are prob refering to the last Moffett Field air show on Oct 17 and 18.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: schinner@vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Any comments about the El Al crash?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:34:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: vcd.BvpnHE.JKF
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD

I heard a report from one of the broadcast networks that two of the engines
from the same side of the plane were found 9 miles from the crash site.

Either the report is false ...or... the two engines bounced pretty hard
  ...or... they fell off previous to the crash.

---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schinnerer  -  PP-ASEL-IA       |  Hewlett Packard
Mooney - 350X  -  "Buster"          |  Vancouver, WA
email - schinner@vcd.hp.com         |  (206) 944-3324
---------------------------------------------------------
From: pnegus@rugby.EBay.Sun.COM (Paul Negus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: VFR - Palo Alto/Santa Barbara - Preferred Routes
Date: 5 Oct 1992 20:14:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: pnegus@rugby.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: rugby.ebay.sun.com

I am hoping to fly down to Santa Barbara on Saturday returning Sunday.

The flight will be VFR in a C-172. can anyone offer any advice on the
best routes etc.

I noticed that there seems to be a lot of MOA and restricted areas
along the way.

Also anyone know of some good places to stay with a family
orientation.

thanks - Paul