HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevel@gvlf9-g.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Loomis)
Subject: Learning
Organization: Paramax Systems Corporation, Paoli PA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:18:40 GMT


	I would like to know how much, how long, and generally what is all
	needed to get a pilots license.

	I have always wanted to learn how to fly but never really took a 
	close look at it. With the this news, maybe I can get some good
	advice and some helpful hints.


	stevel@vfl.paramax.com

Keywords: 

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: pitch & power on landings
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:46:28 GMT

In article <1k1001INN2g5@early-bird.think.com> bruce@Think.COM (Bruce Walker) writes:
>I'm very used to the notion of using elevator to control airspeed and power to
>control vertical speed.  However, my instructor says that after turning to final,
>I should use power to control airspeed, and this confuses me.  From all my
>(limited) experiences, power doesn't control airspeed: I really need a pitch
>change.  Maybe what it means is that if I just lower the nose to increase
>airspeed, I'll also need a power increase to maintain the same glidepath, or
>vice-versa, but that is obvious to me and just says that airspeed and glidepath
>are related at a given power setting.  If that's all it is, it's still much
>easier for me to think of holding airspeed with pitch and making slight power
>adjustments to adjust my rate of descent for the correct glidepath.
>
>Or is there something here which warrants a fundamentally different way of
>thinking about how to control the airplane?

I ascribe to the theory that pitch is PRIMARY for airspeed and power is
PRIMARY for altitude.  As a hedge, they ARE interrelated and inseparable
(like time and space).  If you read Langwiesche's "Stick and Rudder",
he describes some secondary effects of adding power, such as additional
airflow over the tail resulting in a pitch change as well as a
descent rate change.

At your stage of training, you don't need to overanalyze the situation.
Just do what it takes to make the stabilized approach work out.  As
you get more experience, you will find you need less power excursions
(hopefully none after the initial power reduction) and trim adjustments.
Get some pointers from your CFI, but also make sure you get enough
time and experience on the approaches to find out what works for you.

Vague enough for you?

Kerry
From: Margolin@oregon.uoregon.edu (Brian Margolin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Amount of time to stay in practice
Followup-To: rec.aviation.student
Date: 28 Jan 1993 02:01:54 GMT
Organization: Institute of Molecular Biology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fp1-molbio-14.uoregon.edu

I am a pre-solo student and was wondering what net.heads think about
something that I heard.  A friend of a friend told me that in order to not
kill myself flying I would need to fly at least once a week after getting
my liscence in order to stay in practice.  I certainly would like to be
able to fly once a week but don't know whether or not that will be a
reality.  Somehow, this person's statement does not seem to ring true with
me.  What do the more experienced aviators feel about this.
From: bruce@Think.COM (Bruce Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: pitch & power on landings
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:12:01 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.think.com

Greetings; I've been a lurker around the rec.aviation groups for a long time. 
I'm finally in flight training, and after about 12 hours of other things, I'm
starting to concentrate on landings.  I'm learning in a C150 at a small field
(1682' with obstructions at both ends).

I'm very used to the notion of using elevator to control airspeed and power to
control vertical speed.  However, my instructor says that after turning to final,
I should use power to control airspeed, and this confuses me.  From all my
(limited) experiences, power doesn't control airspeed: I really need a pitch
change.  Maybe what it means is that if I just lower the nose to increase
airspeed, I'll also need a power increase to maintain the same glidepath, or
vice-versa, but that is obvious to me and just says that airspeed and glidepath
are related at a given power setting.  If that's all it is, it's still much
easier for me to think of holding airspeed with pitch and making slight power
adjustments to adjust my rate of descent for the correct glidepath.

Or is there something here which warrants a fundamentally different way of
thinking about how to control the airplane?

-- 
--Bruce Walker
  Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
  bruce@think.com; +1 617 234 4810; WT1M
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: eandersn@mach1.wlu.ca (Niels Ejvind Andersen)
Subject: Re: pitch & power on landings
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:56:25 GMT

Andy Stadler (stadler@Apple.COM) wrote:
: My "mental model" [of pitch vs. power] is:
:     Power adds ENERGY to the system
:     Energy is represented by altitude AND by airspeed
:     Pitch DISTRIBUTES the energy that's already in the system.

That is an excellent model.  However, you might consider a couple of minor
modifications to the model.  By altitude, you probably also mean rate of
climb or rate of descent (I know, that's a complication).

Secondly, there are times when power or airspeed are predetermined,
i.e. fixed.

During takeoff, power is constant (the throttle is at full power), and pitch
controls only the airspeed.  Rate of climb and angle of climb is a function
of airspeed during the climb.

During a normal approach, airspeed is fixed, and pitch must be used to
control the rate of descent, i.e. to maintain your glidepath.

During a forced landing, power is fixed (there isn't any), and pitch must
be used to control the airspeed.

--
Niels Ejvind Andersen                         Internet: eandersn@mach2.wlu.ca
Information Systems                             Voice:  (519) 884-1970 x 2760 
Wilfrid Laurier University                               Fax:  (519) 886-9351 
Waterloo, ON Canada  N2L 3C5                                  CIS: 70511,2302
                                                                  ... VFR NC4
From: scott@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Turner)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 20:15:39 GMT
Subject: Re: FCC General Radiotelephone license in aviation
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student

In rec.aviation.student, stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens) writes:

>   A Restricted RTO Permit can be obtained from the FCC for $35.  It
>   is good for life.  The application form can be obtained from the
>   FCC, from many FSDOs, and from the AOPA.  I got mine from the
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Denver FSDO claims that the FAA is no longer in the business of
diseminating FCC forms.  I'd expect your best bet would be direct from
the FCC, or from AOPA.  I wouldn't count on the FAA.

>   AOPA.  If you wish to fly to Canada, for example, get the form,
>   fill it out, tear off the stub which becomes a 60-day temporary
>   permit, and mail the rest of the form to the FCC, with a $35
>   check.

I also hope the 60-day temporary is adequate for anyone planning on
being out of the country for an extended period.  The FCC is not exactly
covering themselves in glory in efficiently processing license
applications.  New amateur radio license applicants are currently being
quoted 90-120 day waits following successful completion of their exams.
I hope they're doing better on other licenses, but I remain sceptical.
Four months is a long time for a simple paper pushing operation.

'Scuse me, but I'm grumpily and somewhat impatiently awaiting my ham
ticket and I find bureaucratic inefficiency galling.  There, I feel better :-)


Scott Turner  scott@hpisla.LVLD.HP
HP VXI Systems Division
Turbo Arrow N2134N  "Baby"
From: mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Help landing, please
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:47:25 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View

In article <1993Jan26.155505.26030@Arco.COM> Hal <blacker@arco.com> writes:
>
>As far as my suggestions---listen to your instructor, your CFI
>knows what the airplane is about to do, while you're still
>"behind" the aiplane in your understanding and your

Nope, I have to disagree.  I have flown with several very experienced
instructors and flaring when they say to just does not work.  There are
multiple inputs to this system.  One very important one is the feel of
the stick, it's a little stiffer at higher speeds.  With my hand on the
stick, I can know by the force I'm applying that if I pull harder I'll
balloon.  The instructor has only his sense of altitude to cue him and
a few much less accurate indicators of "total energy remaining" like the
ASI and the sound of the wind and the prop.

Besides, learning to flare when the instructor says flare (which the original
poster implied was what he was trying to do) won't be real helpful
on that first solo.  Gotta learn what a plane feels like when it's
ready to give up the sky for another day.

mike
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: gff%Rational.COM (Geoff Fitch)
Subject: Re: pitch & power on landings
Organization: Rational
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:23:52 GMT

This is an old argument. But I disagree with your instructor. The point is
more what is easiest to learn and I think it is pitch for airspeed/power for 
altitude. Next time you fly, try adjusting the power with your hands off
the yoke. What happens? After the aircraft stabilizes you should be at 
roughly the same airspeed, but will be climbing or decending.

On final your goal is to stabilize your approach, so you fly right to
the numbers without changes in pitch OR power. It is easiest to stabilize
airspeed, because it takes you longer to determine if your glidepath is
correct and wind conditions may change slightly as you near the ground.
So since you are going to be adjusting for alititude, it is easier to
do so with power as that will require the least work. If you adjust
altitude with pitch, you will have to make a subsequent adjustment of 
power to maintain airspeed. It is also safer to adjust altitude with
power, since adjusting pitch leaves open to neglecting to adjust power
and possibly stalling or overshooting the runway.

Geoff Fitch
gff@rational.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: plummer@vax  (William W. Plummer)
Subject: Help landing, please
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Keywords: Landing
Reply-To: plummer@babyoil.ftp.com
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., North Andover, Massachusetts
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:58:22

I seem to be stuck trying to perform a good, repeatible landing.
The only flying I do now is touch and gos, over and over and over.
Somehow I think I am not understanding what my CFI is telling me to
do and hope that somebody on the list can explain things differently
such I it gets through to me.

My typical approach is slightly fast and I flare a bit high.  Then
I fly the plane (Cherokee) essentially parallel to the runway and the
CFI starts saying, "Pull back.  Pull back.  More. More."  I pull back
and the plane balloons.  Then, I suppose speed is lost due to the
attitude.  I try to point the nose down, more to a horizontal
attitude, but due to the lack of lift, it just plops down and bounces
off the shock absorbers.  If I am "lucky", I wind up doing a 3-point
landing -- not the best since I should be landing on the main wheels
first.

An important issue is that, after the balloon starts, I am sort of
befuddled and am not sure what to do.  The CFI just keeps saying to
pull back more, but that seems like it will make the plane either go
up more or cause it to drop on the the runway faster.

If anybody can help, I sure will appreciate it!  Thanks.  --Bill

--
William W. Plummer, N1NGK	plummer@ftp.com		508-659-6281
FTP Software, Inc.		2 High Street		N. Andover MA 01845


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: polvino@ssd.kodak.com (Joe Polvino)
Subject: Re: Help landing, please
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:16:25 GMT

In article <dcamp-270193111813@lh026-645514.ucs.indiana.edu> dcamp@ucs.indiana.edu (Doug Camp) writes:
>In article <930125145822@AltaHopa.ftp.com>, plummer@vax  (William W.
>Plummer) wrote:
>> 
>> I seem to be stuck trying to perform a good, repeatible landing. 
>> My typical approach is slightly fast and I flare a bit high.  Then
>> I fly the plane (Cherokee) essentially parallel to the runway and the
>> CFI starts saying, "Pull back.  Pull back.  More. More."  I pull back
>> and the plane balloons.  Then, I suppose speed is lost due to the
>
>I had this problem for a long time - it was very discouraging. I 
>finally found that (assuming my airspeed was correct and I hadn't flared
>too high) if I concentrated just on trying to not let the plane sink,
>and let that control my desire to "pull back, pull back", my 
>landings got better. Getting the airspeed and flare height correct
>are the keys :>

Me too.  But the thing that helped me the most was applying backpressure
*GRADUALLY*.  At first, I jerked backed the controls instinctively and
the plane (a 152) lurched up and lost speed, thereby making the controls
"mushy" as the plane approached MCA.  The result was a series of balloons
that ended hard landings with the stall buzzer squealing.

A lot of the advice given here is good.  It just takes practice.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Joseph S. Polvino     | polvino@ssd.kodak.com  | "Klingons do not allow them-
 Eastman Kodak Company |------------------------|  selves to be ... PROBED."
 Phone: 716-588-0659   |        POTATOE         |     - Lt. Worf, "Violations"
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.student:582 rec.aviation.misc:1436
From: stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: FCC General Radiotelephone license in aviation
Date: 22 Jan 1993 14:06:42 GMT
Organization: Severn Companies, Inc., Lanham, MD 20706
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

...> Kerry Kurasaki (kerry@Ingres.COM) wrote:
...> : 
...> : Operating aviation radios outside the US requires an operators license,
...> : usually a FCC Restricted Radio Telephone Operator's Permit (FCC Form 753).
... 
...> I take the above applies when the radios are installed on a US registered,
...> plane, si?

Yes, that is correct.

...> 
...> So, if I go to Canada (or any other country, for that matter) and try to
...> get checked out at the local FBO, will I still need the FCC Restricted
...> Radio Telephone Operator's Permit?
...> 

I don't know the answer to this one -- a Canadian pilot would.  I
am expanding the distribution to include Canada (original was
posted "usa" only), to see if we can get an informed response to
the second question above.

   ********************************************************************
  *                             .                                      *
  *   John Stephens     ._______|_______.   Montgomery County Airpark  *
  *    PP-ASEL/IA             \(*)/                  ( GAI )           *
  *   C-172P N51078           o/ \o          Gaithersburg, Maryland    *
  *                                                                    *
   ********************************************************************
  

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Flap on landing on turbulent days
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 28 Jan 93 20:36:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.004302.25564@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> login@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (h.reza.zarafshar) writes:
>
>Last sunday, we had some gusty winds and experienced some low-moderate 
>turbulence below 3000'.  As we were coming for the landing, my instructor
>said don't use any flaps for this landing due to turbulence.  But later on,
>(unfortunately, I don't remember which leg of the pattern it was), he asked
>me to bring flaps down 10 degrees.
>
>In my ground school, my instructor (another one), felt that was not necessarily
>good advice.  So, I am now confused.
>
>I sort of agree with the ground school instructor that flaps are very useful
>for landing regardless of the presence or lack of turbulence, because they
>provide drag without increasing airspeed.
>

Flaps are useful for landing because they reduce the stall speed,
increase the approach angle, and add drag.  All of these help to reduce
the touchdown speed, runway required, and wear and tear on the airplane.

As you progress into larger airplanes, it is preferable to use full
flaps on most normal landings.

It certain situations, such as turbulence and crosswinds, it is desirable
to use less flaps and a higher approach speed.  The greater airspeed
increases control responsiveness (more airflow over the control surfaces)
but requires greater skill and runway length.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Cross country flight.
From: tar@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com (Rimlinger Tim)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 14:08:53 GMT
Organization: GE M&DSO - VF

Recently I took a flight of over 50nm to a destination without actually landing
at an airport at the destination. Once at the destination I headed back for home.
I have my private piolet liscense so I am not trying to satisfy cross-country
requirements. My question is: Does this trip get logged as a cross-country 
flight for log book recording purposes? 

Tim
From: brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher)
Subject: Re: Cross country flight.
Organization: none, in Reno NV USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:02:31 GMT

In <1993Jan20.140853.20483@knight.vf.ge.com>, tar@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com
(Rimlinger Tim) writes:

> Recently I took a flight of over 50nm to a destination without actually
> landing at an airport at the destination. Once at the destination I headed
> back for home. I have my private [pilot license] so I am not trying to
> satisfy cross-country requirements. My question is: Does this trip get
> logged as a cross-country flight for log book recording purposes?

It depends what the purpose of your purposes are.  With respect to the
cross-country requirements of the instrument rating and the commercial
pilot certificate, no, you can't count the flight.  There is no FAA
definition of cross-country per se apart from the requirements for
specific certificates and ratings.  So for purposes other than potential
application for the instrument and/or commercial, it's up to you.  The FAA
requires logging only to support rating/certificate applications and to
record required recent experience (e.g., 3 takeoffs/landings within 90
days of carrying passengers).

--
brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher)
From: neff123@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: re: Help landing, please
Date: 26 Jan 1993 04:39:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu
Reference: <930125145822@AltaHopa.ftp.com>

>The CFI just keeps saying to pull back more, but that 
>seems like it will make the plane either go
>up more or cause it to drop on the the runway faster.

The key is a stabilized approach at the correct speed.  
You should have it trimmed out and the power set so that the plane 
requires little input to stay on the glide slope at the correct 
speed.  As you near the touchdown zone, simultaneously (and 
smoothly) reduce power and begin to pull up.  This will slow you 
down to touchdown speed ( around 1.15 * Vso) while keeping you on 
the glideslope.  If I'm shooting for the 500' markers I start 
slowing just before the threshold (in a Cessna 152).  It should 
mush onto the runway just above the stall speed.

The plane will balloon if you are going too fast.  And it will 
sink like a rock if you get to stall speed too high above the 
runway.

I think landings gave me the most trouble while working on my 
PP ASEL.  But once they click, it's a great feeling!

====================================
Stephen Kearney  Comm. ASMEL / Inst.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: pitch & power on landings
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:24:01 GMT

In article <1k1001INN2g5@early-bird.think.com>,
 bruce@Think.COM (Bruce Walker) writes:

| I'm very used to the notion of using elevator to control airspeed and power to
| control vertical speed.  However, my instructor says that after turning to final,
| I should use power to control airspeed, and this confuses me.

Personally, I think he is wrong, but then I'm not a CFI and I don't even
play one.  I *do* know that some CFI's (I've flown with one) say this,
(and will even *gasp* talk about using pitch to control altitude), but
restrict it to certain phases of flight.

I think that a pilot is asking for serious trouble by not consistently,
constantly, and continuously using power for altitude and pitch for
airspeed.  The trouble will come some day in a higher (than C150) performance
airplane when flying near MCA near the ground (I.E. on short final) when
you don't add power when you should and crunch the airplane.  This has
happened twice recently to airplans rented from the FBO where I fly.

Perhaps the NETCFIs think I'm nuts though.

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: re: Help landing, please
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:47:33 GMT

In article <1k2f9d$gbl@agate.berkeley.edu>,
 neff123@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:

| >The CFI just keeps saying to pull back more, but that 
| >seems like it will make the plane either go
| >up more or cause it to drop on the the runway faster.
| 
| The key is a stabilized approach at the correct speed.  

I agree, correct speed is the most important factor, and if you 
nail the correct approach speed consistently you will be surprised
how much easier landings become.

Second, is the judgement aspect of when to flare, and how rapidly to
flare.  This comes only with practice.

But when the pilot asks:

> An important issue is that, after the balloon starts, I am sort of
> befuddled and am not sure what to do.  The CFI just keeps saying to
> pull back more, but that seems like it will make the plane either go
> up more or cause it to drop on the the runway faster.

I think the correct proceedure (once you have started to balloon) in
a cherokee is:

  1) Stop pulling and hold the stabilator right where it is,
  2) If the balloon is more than minor, add power,
  3) If runway is short, go around, otherwise,
  4) land the airplane (gently reducing power if you added it)
     without ballooning again.

What constitutes minor in 2 depends on aircraft performance.  In a
Sundowner, more than a couple of feet of balloon requires power, else
the nosewheel is in peril, due to the CG characteristics of the airplane.
How much power to add is also a variable, but is similar to the power
adjustments you use to maintain the glideslope.

This is discussed in Kirchner and in the Flight Training Manual (the
latter of which I suggest you use as a 2nd opinion to your CFI).  The key,
though, as stated above, is to nail the correct approach speed and get
it trimmed in.  Once you do that I'll bet your troubles will vanish
and you will be a happy pilot.

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student