HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: trujillo@optima.UUCP (Clorinda Trujillo)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: AFROTC or USAF ?
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:11:02 GMT
Distribution: usa

From article <rfauteux.718654196@orion.oac.uci.edu>, by rfauteux@orion.oac.uci.edu (Robert Fauteux):
>      Visibility is always a problem, as there is usually a group of
> people who are more concerned with "looking like they are doing their
> job well" instead of "doing the job well".  My experience seems to
> indicate that the cadre' is usually pretty good about recognizing
> this, but exceptions do happen :-(
>      This new process of selection is a bit different, but I guess I
> can see the AF's point in all of it.  After all, waiting later does
> give them more time to "evaluate" one's abilities.  The Navy & Marine
> ROTC programs do something very similar as I remember (slots not
> awarded till near the end of the program). 
>      So, what do you want to do in the Air Force?  I take it you're
> aiming higher than "Base Commissary Officer" :-)
> 
> Rob

Yes, the cadre usually can recognize those who "look like they are doing
their job well."

I have a scholarship in Computer Science.  However, that's not what
I would 'prefer' to do.  I would like to go into Space Command - 
preferably space operations.  I went to PDP last summer at Peterson AFB
and shadowed someone in space ops.  I had a great time.  If I can't do
that, intel shouldn't be too bad.  My third choice would be computers.
Unfortunately, since the Air Force is desperate for computer scientists,
my choices seem kind of limited.  On top of all this, I am applying to
the Gold Bar program.  If I get that, I will go active duty almost
immediately and spend the first year doing recruiting.  However, since
that is a highly selective program...

Clo
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cstone@nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au (Charlie Stone 4915162)
Subject: Re: Aurora?
Organization: Network Computer Centre, Telecom, Perth
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:25:28 GMT

In article <BvpxCK.LBI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> easmith@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric A Smith) writes:
>Can someone give me a little bit of information on the Aurora?  I've never
>heard of it.  Reply via e-mail please...save network bandwidth. Thanks in
>advance!
>-- 

Me too please.  Thanks also.

Charlie Stone.   Perth,  Western Australia.
cstone@nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hill@plains.NoDak.edu (Andrew Hill)
Subject: Re: Cargo planes as Bombers
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:51:40 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Oct13.162322.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daemon Hobbs) writes:
>
>     Does anyone know any details about cargo aircraft being used as bombers in
>the post-WWII era?  I've heard all about the MC-130 and the 15000lb.  

A good reference for this, and the best that I know of, would have to be the
Discovery Channel's (U.S. Cable television Network) episode of Wings which
focuses on the C-130.  It includes some really excellent footage of a large
(30K lbs.?  It was aproximately 6ft. in diameter.)  weapon being dropped from
a C-130 (the MC-130 is used for special ops insertion of troops not bombing)
into the jungle of Vietnam.  .


Does any
>one know of any uses of the An-24, 26, 32 's bomb racks?  

Didn't know they had any, anyone else wanna comment?  
Also, if you wanted
>to drop bombs out the ramp of say a C-130 how would you do it?  How would you
>ensure accucracy?  

Accuracy isn't all that crucial.  These large weapons aren't for busting open
bunkers so much as ripping a hole in the forest/jungle so that helos can
land.  All you do is aim for the graound and let gravity do the rest.  In
fact, the weapon is loaded onto a standard cargo pallet, strapped down, 
loaded with parachutes, and shoved out the back. 
 
Also, does anyone know anything about mortar shells being
>used as bombs from Hueys or other aircraft? 

I wouldn't doubt it, there were some crazy people over there doing some crazy
things, I'm sure that _SOMEONE_ pro'ly tried it.

 Yet one more thing, does any know
>any detailed text of the use of Indian cargo planes as bombers during the 1970
>Indo-Pakistani War?

I don't have any info on these topics, nor do I have any sources to which
I could refer you.  However, if you'd like to find out more about C-130's
in the attack mode, I can refer you to several good sources:

1.)  The United States Air Force In South East Asia:  Development and 
     Employment of Fixed-Wing Gunships 1962-1972.
     (Available in govt. doc. depositories everywhere and pro'ly in your
     AFROTC det. library (Look _REALLY_ hard))

2.)  Squadron-Signal Publications C-130 in Action

3.)  Encyclopedia of World Airpower, Crescent Publications.


-Andy Hill (Draken - you figger it out!) )
From: scott@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Turner)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:36:15 GMT
Subject: Re: gear-down check
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, stick@lopez.marquette.MI.US (Stick,CommoSigop) writes:

>   The idea of making it ATC's responsibility for issuing a "gear down"
>check is wrong.  The ultimate responsibility belongs to the pilot.  Always
>has, always will.  If said pilot would follow checklist procedures ALL THE
>TIME, an inadverdent gear-up landing would never occur.

I've seen several responses similar to this one, but this is probably
the most extreme, and I've just gotta (ya right) respond.

First, as others have stated, no one is suggesting a shift in
responsibility.  The responsibility for lowering the gear in my plane is
mine and mine alone.  It's interesting to note, however, that while
flying VFR, see and avoid is my responsibility and mine alone as well.
Yet I don't hear anyone suggesting that VFR flight following (which, used
properly, can effectively put another pair of eyes in the plane) is a bad
idea.  

The idea here is not to provide a crutch, but to add a failsafe
to the system.  We can argue for hours (and have in the past) that many
will use a failsafe as a crutch, but I'll come down strongly on the side
of adding this one.  Knowing that a tower is going to remind me about
my gear will in no way affect my vigilance or modify my checklists.  It
may, however, save me that one time that the workload piles up and due to
unforseen circumstances I forget to push the handle down.

One more thing, and here I'm going to be a bit more blunt than I usually
would be in a posting.  If you or anyone else here really believes that
scrupulous adherence to checklists will *guarantee* you'll never have a
gear-up landing then IMHO you're a gear-up landing waiting to happen.
Checklists help and should of course be rigorously adhered to, but there
are simply too many variables in the flying environment to make a
checklist a panacea.

Beware of absolutes.  Flying only fixed gear aircraft is as close as you'll
ever come to *guaranteeing* you'll *never* forget to flip the switch.
Even if you adhere to your checklists.


Scott Turner  scott@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Systems Division
Turbo Arrow N2134N  "Baby"
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Crew coordination
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:06:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO

In article <9210081227.AA00360@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil>,
davehyde@TECNET1.JCTE.JCS.MIL writes:
>My wife is starting to talk about flying with me much more frequently.  Anyone
>out there got any thoughts on crew coordination?  I.e, what type of things do
>y'all get your passengers (experienced or otherwise) to do for you to reduce
>your workload?

Crew coordination it is actually very simple in our airplane:  if I touch
"her" radios, I get hit.

On the serious side, though, all it took was patience, training, and a little
trial and error.  My wife has now flown with me as copilot for, well, enough
time to be very comfortable with the routine.  Start simple and work up to
where you want to be, whether your copilot is an experienced pilot or someone
new to flying.  And never forget that there has to be exactly *one* pilot in
command at all times, regardless of who you fly with.  Some things that worked
for us are:

1.  Use a standard checklist.  When renting, I had a checklist for each type we
flew.  All the checklists had the same format, so we did things in the same way
all the time.  If you own an airplane, this is even simpler.

2.  Start by having your copilot trainee read the checklist when you call for
it.  Explain why you are calling for it when you do.  Eventually, your copilot
will know enough to be able to anticipate what you need.

3.  After you've got the checklist procedures started, you can move on to the
radios.  If you're renting, this is a little more difficult, since you probably
move between airplanes with slightly (or greatly) differing installations.  But
a little training and things will go well after a while.

4.  Navigating can be both fun and helpful if you can get your copilot to do
it.  I usually fly with the Jepp charts and my wife uses sectionals.  She keeps
track of where we are and points out the interesting things sectionals have
that the Jepps don't (geography, etc.).  She also has free run of the
navigational radios that I'm not using to follow the route.  If there's a
specific way I need the radios configured, say, for an approach, I'll tell her.

5.  Show your copilot how to scan for traffic and how to report it to you.  The
more eyes looking for other traffic, the better.

This stuff is not rocket science, but if someone is not interested, it probably
won't work.  A copilot does not have to aspire to getting a license to be
*very* helpful and knowledgeable.  Just be patient and explain fully what you
are doing and what you expect.  You'll probably find a few things that you need
brushing up on, too, as you go over some of the procedures like navigating or
map reading.

A copilot is a very valuable resource and time should be devoted to adequate
training to make it a positive experience.  And if your spouse is the least bit
interested in some part of flying, it will make it easier to justify the
expense and increase the enjoyment of both crewmembers.

Bill Standerfer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: CHEAP INTERCOMS
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 00:47:52 GMT

BUT GOOD ONES..

anyone?

please mail me...or call....
--
 Marshal Perlman <> Florida Institute of Technology <> (407) 768-8000 x 8435
                 Private Pilot - Airplane Single-Engine Land
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
Subject: Re: What is the dif. between the FLIGHTMATE and 55 AVD?
Date: 11 Oct 1992 17:11:36 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

I flew out to Oshkosh with the editor of IFR magazine.  Being in his
position he had a number of toys in the back of his aircraft I got
to play with which included the handheld Trimble and Garmin GPS units
and a couple of flight planner toys: Flightmaster and Pocket Navigator.

I fell in love with the Garmin.  This was the database model, and 'twas
really neat.  We also had one of the "portable/panel mount" ones which
we were using to fly by (I got to play with that on the way back, when
I was flying).  My major complaint about the Trimble is that it wasn't
as easy to use.  This thing looks like a phaser from Star Trek the next
generation or something.  It's got only a few arrow buttons and I suppose
if I had *actually* read the manual (it wasn't in the plane) it might have
been a little more obvious.  The Garmin looks like an oversized pocket 
calculator, and uses the "punch the number keys multiple times" for letters
mode of operation.  I was cranking with the Garmin after about two minutes
of screwing around with it.  Looking for nearest airports, navigating direct
to things...I believe that it does not have a CDI like display (just bearing
and track like the larger model does.  I'm not sure if the Trimble has one.
Actually, even when flying by the larger one, I found it was more interesting
to fly by the bearing/track displays than by the CDI.

The Garmin antenna is easily removable (it's just a BNC) and can be extended
with a cable dohicky that lets you suction cup it to the window.

This wasn't all that fair of a comparison not having the docs on the Trimble
(but I didn't have the docs on the Garmin either).

-Ron

For those interested, the Flightmaster was clearly better, but it uses a
Psion Organizer for the compute power and his hence TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE
for a dedicated instrument.  The Pocket Navigator is a custom box and goes
for less than half the price of the FM.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Best flight computer
Keywords: flight computer E6B
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:57:48 GMT

there is also a new one from Jepp.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: pflinn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Paul W Flinn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
Subject: Best flight computer
Summary: looking for best flight computer
Keywords: flight computer E6B
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:13:02 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

I am going to be buying a flight computer in the next month and wanted
to get some opinions from this group. The ones I have seen advertised
 are: Sporty's E6B, Navtronic explorer, and the New Avstar (sp?). 
Please post replies to this group or by directly to me, I will 
summarize if I get enough replies.  Thanks in advance.

Paul Flinn
Dept. of Entomology
Kansas State University
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: rani@barsoom.nhh.no (Ragnar Nielsen)
Subject: Re: Looking for wrist-watch with altitude meter
Organization: Norwegian School of Economics
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:45:45 GMT

chalekcl@crd.ge.com (Carl Chalek) writes:

>Casio makes a couple of models with altimeter/barometer functions.

I bought one of those a year ago. Don't know about accuracy, but the main
problem is the sample frequency, whis is way too low for aviation purposes.
This, I believe, is done in order to conserve battery power.

As I recall, it samples once every 6 seconds for the first 30 seconds, and
once every 30 seconds thereafter.

I bought mine to use it as a backup for my altimeter (I'm a skydiver, not
an aviator), but it is clearly useless for this purpose.
(I leave it for the reader to find out how far one has dropped in 6
seconds at terminal velocity.)

The owner's manual also states this quite clearly, even more so in the
US versions, I suppose, bearing your civil liability laws in mind... ;-)

Blue skies,

ragnar
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: What is the dif. between the FLIGHTMATE and 55 AVD?
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:57:02 GMT

In article <JOE.92Oct14010817@oilean.islandsw.com>, joe@oilean.islandsw.com (Joe McGuckin) writes:
|> Well, the Garmin factory rep said that the dataport of the 55 strips the least significant digit
|> from the data stream going out. He said that if you want to use it with a moving map, they want
|> you to buy the  model 100.  Smart marketing move- right?
|> 

The least sig digit out of how many? Something like this makes a big difference
to my willingness to buy. I had not heard this before. I noticed that GARMIN
has a 1-800 number, and I guess now I have a reason to call for info.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: joe@oilean.islandsw.com (Joe McGuckin)
Subject: Re: What is the dif. between the FLIGHTMATE and 55 AVD?
Organization: Island Software
	<1992Oct12.055924.17720@selway.umt.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:08:17 GMT

Well, the Garmin factory rep said that the dataport of the 55 strips the least significant digit
from the data stream going out. He said that if you want to use it with a moving map, they want
you to buy the  model 100.  Smart marketing move- right?

-joe

-- 

Joe McGuckin             joe@islandsw.com
Island Software    	 oilean!joe@sgi.com
(415) 969-5453
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: cap@selway.umt.edu (Charles A. Smith)
Subject: Re: What is the dif. between the FLIGHTMATE and 55 AVD?
Summary: other differences
Organization: University of Montana
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:59:24 GMT


I agree that the Garmin 55 AVD is the hot setup.  I played with them both,
and a number of others as well, at a GPS demo.  

The 55 AVD has a replaceable database.  You can't do it yourself, but the
cost is reasonable.  The Trimble database cannot be replaced.  

The 55 AVD has a serial output for use with a moving map.  The Trimble
doesn't have an output.

I want to reiterate a big difference mentioned earlier: the 55 AVD has
a random access keypad, rather than the Trimble's directional arrows.
Have you ever spent a whole evening entering lat/long into your
non-database LORAN?   Slewing the numbers without a keypad takes 
forever, and will drive you nuts.  The random access keypad on the
Garmin is a tremendous advantage.

Also, the Garmin comes with everything you need, whereas the comparable
setup with Trimble will cost an extra $200 or so for the accessory kit.

I should mention that the Trimble has *one* nice feature, IMHO -- it
comes with a nifty machined yoke mount.  I wish they'd sell it separately.
Just think, you could mount your "Star Trek Phazor" on the yoke, and
pretend that you're blasting Romulans out of the pattern. :-)

Kirk out,
-- 
Cap Smith                 Assistant Prof. of MIS           
cap@selway.umt.edu        University of Montana            
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products,rec.aviation
From: David Ruggiero <osiris@halcyon.com>
Subject: Anyone interested in a "Sanderson Flight Computer"?
Originator: osiris@halcyon.com
Reply-To: osiris@halcyon.halcyon.com (David Ruggiero)
Organization: [none - why fight entropy?]
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:16:55 GMT

Along with a huge collection of calculators I'm selling for a late 
friend of the family (see the recent post in misc.forsale), I've
come across in his things a "Sanderson Flight Computer, Model SC-3A".
This is sort of a metal retangle with bearings imprinted thereon and
with two slide-rule-like metal wheels attached. The instruction manual
is included and it's all enclosed in a "flight organizer case". The
copyright on the manual is 1970, so I assume it's of that vintage.

Now, I know nothing about aviation, but I'm sure things like this have
long been superceded by chips and electronic GPS systems...still, does
anyone out there collect semi-vintage aviation memorobilia that would
like to make an offer? This thing has never been used, as far as I can
tell; it's still basically sealed in plastic.

Any offers/information/speculation are appreciated. Thanks.

David
-- 
David Ruggiero  (osiris@halcyon.com)      Seattle, WA
From: smythe@cats.ucsc.edu (Brian Matthew Aljian)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
Subject: Re: Looking for wrist-watch with altitude meter
Date: 11 Oct 1992 20:41:48 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu



I asked my friend about his Casio watch, and here's what he said:

-----------------------[ Begin forwarded message ]------------------------

From bdtaylor@cats.UCSC.EDU Tue Oct  6 03:30:58 1992
To: smythe@cats.UCSC.EDU
Subject: Hi Brian!  ...You asked about my altimeter so here's the scoop:

	I have worn my CaSiO Altimeter/Depth meter/Barameter/analog watch with
second hand/stopwatch/countdown timer  wrist computer for almost a year and
still enjoy it!  It's great for riding around hilly terrain near Santa Cruz! :)
But enough babble...  here are some specs:
   Altimeter:	Measuring range: -4,000m to 4,000m (-13,120ft to 13,120ft)
		Measuring unit: 5m (20ft)
		Reference altitude set by user
		Maximum altitude memory
		Altitude alarm
   Barometer:	Measuring range: 610mb to 1,050mb 
		Measuring unit: 1millibar
		Reference atmospheric pressure set by user
   Depth meter:	Measuring range: 0m to 30m (0ft to 98ft)
		Measuring unit: 0.1m (1ft)
		Maximum water depth memory, depth alarm
   Clock:	Analog:Hour, minute, and second hands
		Digital 12(am/pm)/24 hour formats, minute, second, month,
			date, day of week, auto calendar up to 2029
		Accuracy: +-15 seconds per month
   Alarm:	Daily alarm, Hourly time signal
   Stopwatch:	Capacity: 23h 59m 59.99s
		1/100 seconds
		Normal time, net time, split time, 1st-2nd place times
   Countdown:	Alarm when reach zero.
		Capacity: 1 second to 24 hours
		Measureing unit: 1 second
		Repeat function
   Battery:	2 years on two batteries (SR927W) under following conditions:
			Alarm 20 seconds/day, altimeter 50 times a year for
			2 hours a time, barometer 1 minute measurement/day, 
			depth meter 50 times a year for 1 hour a time.

I found mine for under eighty dollars and although the list is more near 
around $90-$95 you should be able to find one at a similar savings.  I found
a sale at Long's in Santa Cruz.  Have a good one :)  Ben

------------------------[ End forwarded message ]-----------------------

You could probably E-Mail him if you have more questions.  I'm sure he would
be happy to help you out.

Regards,

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Aljian                                                 // Only Amiga
smythe@cats.ucsc.edu                                           // makes it
"Procrastinators do it tomorrow." -- fortune -os            \\// possible...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: wendt@CS.ColoState.EDU (alan l wendt)
Subject: MAC 1700 Experience?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:44:14 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

I'm considering upgrading one of my KX170A radios.  The only way so far
that I've found to do it without replacing the VOR head is to send it
off to get a MAC1700 grafted over the radio.  Does anyone have any experience
with this company and their product?  thanks

Alan Wendt
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: What is the dif. between the FLIGHTMATE and 55 AVD?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 00:49:35 GMT

Topic says it all.
--
 Marshal Perlman <> Florida Institute of Technology <> (407) 768-8000 x 8435
                 Private Pilot - Airplane Single-Engine Land

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: pawlak@sierra.com (Peter Pawlak -contractor)
Subject: Re: A-2 Jacket from San Diego Leather Factory
Organization: Sierra Geophysics,  Kirkland WA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:09:02 GMT

Hi,

Yes, I bought a Navy G-1 jacket from them.  They were very good about
returns, as the first one I got was the wrong size.

My only complaint is that the pocket buttons fell off very quickly.
Otherwise,  the quality is very good.

Peter Pawlak


jeffk@dosXX.med.utah.edu (Jeff Knell) writes:
: Has anyone out there bought a leather
: flight jacket from these folks?
: 
: If so, are you satisfied with it?
: 
: While I'm asking: have you bought
: one of their leather flight bags?
: 
: Thanks in advance.
: 
: 
: jeff
: 
: feitctaj

--
	Peter Pawlak
	Marketing Specialist
	Sierra Geophysics	
	11255 Kirkland Way
	Kirkland, WA  98033	(206) 822-5200  Ext. 150
                                 ...!uunet!sgihbtn!pawlak-OR-
				    pawlak@sierra.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products