HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: suffron@informix.com (Nancy Suffron)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: FAQ, acronyms
Date: 16 Aug 92 22:39:02 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug13.045742.16002@xyzoom.info.com> rob@xyzoom.info.com (Rob Lingelbach) writes:
>I am going to start instruction in sailplanes this weekend, and other
>than reading this group for a while, have not had much exposure to
>flying.  In my reading, I am running across an unbelievable number of
>acronyms (especially those with 3 letters) for which I have no
>glossary.  Is there a FAQ anywhere that can illuminate these
>inscrutable acronyms for me? 
>(my immediate questions: what does FBO stand for? TCA?)
>
>Regards--
>--Rob

Yes, Rob, there is a FAQ posting.  I think it appears every two
weeks.  Check it out.

To answer your immediate questions, the following is taken from 
Geoff's FAQ:
	FBO	Fixed Base Operator - a firm on an airport which
		maintains, rents, sells, and/or fuels aircraft, and
		may also provide flight training
	TCA	Terminal Control Area 


Nancy
PP-ASEL

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Suffron                   email: suffron@informix.com
Client Services Engr.       phonemail: 913-599-8475
Informix Software, Inc.     snailmail: 16011 College Blvd.
                                       Lenexa, KS  66219
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bunda@cs.utexas.edu (John Bunda)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Engine swaps, dash-numbers, and the Feds
Date: 19 Aug 1992 15:11:00 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: peaches.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: The saga continues.

I spoke to my friend with the '58 Skylane with the illegal engine
mentioned in my previous posting this morning, and here is the latest.
This clarifies some perhaps unfair characterizations in my previous
posting, but the bottom line is probably worse.

First, the story my my friend was given is that it has been handed
down from some high level that inspectors may no longer issue field
approvals for engine swaps, with one exception.  It is still
possible to get a one-time approval provided an "Engineering Study" is
tendered with the request that shows the swap is "feasible".  This
depends on having a lot of engineering detail, like drawings and
specifications, and having a certified engineer sign off on the idea.
Then, with approval of the FSDO inspector, an IA can sign off a 337.
The, er, bad news is the engineering study (which my friend has already
commissioned at $55/hr) is nearly as tedious as a full-blown STC.  In 
fact, my friend very well may go ahead and STC the installation, hoping
to recoup some of his pain and suffering (which might actually
ultimately be good news for some other owners, since O-470-L crankshafts
are becoming rare as hen's teeth).

But wait, there's more!  While the inspector was first inclined to
allow my friend to continue to fly his plane, that is no longer the
case.  When they parted after the first meeting, it was under a "this
conversation never took place" sort of agreement.  However, since then
they have apparently started the process of going after the guilty
parties who have signed off annuals, 100 hrs, and mostly, the guy who
did the installation originally, so the inspector no longer feels that
he can honor that agreement.  My friend's plane is, alas, grounded.

The way the engine got on the plane in the first place:

Previous owner:  I need an overhaul.
Installer:       Well, that'll take me at least a month.
Previous owner:  A month!  My gosh, I need it next week.
Installer:  Tell you what, I got a 182 just sittin' with a
            400 hour engine on it, we can just swap 'em, have
            you back up in a jiffy.
Previous owner:  Why, that would be swell.

My friend is bearing up well.  But as he says, "The hard part
is, no one has said that my airplane is not perfectly airworthy."
-- 
John Bunda * bunda@cs.utexas.edu * {uunet,harvard}!cs.utexas.edu!bunda
From: prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Long-EZ Gear Ups (was Re: Oshkosh significant happenings)
Date: 10 Aug 92 17:20:23 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <97@newave.mn.org>, john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
> 
> I saw a Rutan variant (long-ez or vari-ez or quickie type plane) come in
> with no nose gear.  I did not see the touchdown, so I don't know if the
> gear collapsed, or if the pilot forgot to lower the gear (of if the gear
> hung up and would not extend).  It must have been pretty scary landing
> with your face looking straight down at the concrete.

My hangar-mate once landed his Long-EZ without benefit of nose gear. 

Repairs cost $3.25... the cost of a new hockey puck, upon which the nose
rests when the plane is parked.  He did have to do a bit of glass work to
accomodate the, errr, "aerodynamic reshaping" of the lower part of the nose.
Took about five hours.

He simply forgot to lower the gear while on a cross-country.  He'd had a
long-standing problem with his warning horn system (intermittent microswitch
or something).  He inspected the damage, then lowered the gear and flew 
the EZ home.  

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@ssc-bee
					  ...rutgers!uw-beaver!ssc-bee!prang
                                          prang@ssc-bee.boeing.com
From: cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Transition Glider to Power
Date: 20 Aug 1992 18:03:29 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Organization: Academic Computing

In article <20AUG199210280289@vxcrna.cern.ch>, cohler@vxcrna.cern.ch (Mike
Cohler) wrote:
> 
> 
> >As for how hard/easy it was, the flying part was no problem. The landings
> >are substantially different. Most gliders are landed by flying them on, and
> >that technique just leads to the "hop, skip, jump" style of power landings.
> > 
> I disagree with the statement above.  Here glider pilots are NEVER taught
> to fly on a landing.  ALL instructors in gliding are required to teach fully
> held off landings.   There are possibly still a few ancient instructors
> around who were trained in the middle ages who might think that flown on
> landings are the right thing, but this is NOT BGA POLICY in the UK.
> Hence taking a spam can and doing the same tecnique of fully held off
> landing usually reults in very little problem.
> 

How often do you land a glider with the wing stalled? I'll bet never. The
point I was making is that power pilots are trained to land with the wheels
touching the runway at the point the wing stalls.

Unless you plan a very poor pattern in a glider, it's virtually impossible
to put a glider on the runway with the wing stalled. Most likely, the
spoilers are out, but the wing is still flying. Close the spoilers sometime
just after you touch down and watch what happens. See? You're flying the
glider on. Even if it's a "fully held off" landing, if spoilers are
involved the effect is the same. Land a power plane at the same relative
speed, with the wing still flying, and the slightest bump sends you back in
the air again.

--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Chuck Shotton                      |    
Ass't Director, Academic Computing |       "This space for rent."
UT Health Science Center Houston   |  
cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu       |         
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz)
Subject: Re: GLIDER: stall landings (Was: Transition Glider to Power)
Organization: Computer Based Education Research Lab - University of Illinois
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:39:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.140756.19493@news.iastate.edu> bible@iastate.edu
(Anthony E Bible) writes:
>	Am I missing something here?  My understanding is that a wing stalls
>when the angle of attack exceeds a critical value.  Deploying spoilers reduces
>the lift produced by the wings resulting in an increased descent rate, but it
>does not cause the wing to stall.

Your understanding is correct. It is the increased descent rate which causes
the wing to stall in that situation (i.e. you keep the pitch attitude with
respect to the horizon/ground the same).

Remember that the reason a wing stalls at a particular airspeed is because
it can't generate enough lift, even at its max lift coefficient angle of
attack. If you reduce the coefficient, that's the same as reducing
the airspeed. You must increase the angle of attack in response, and if
it is already at the critical angle, you'll stall.

However, regarding the discussion about flying a glider on, or stalling
it on, you can't stall a 1-26 onto the ground without hitting the tail
well before you touch down. A 2-33 can do it, but you'll also lose most
aileron control by that point (if you've ever seen a 2-33 hit the tail
on the ground as the towplane starts up too fast, you'll inevitably see
one wing hit the ground as well - the AOA is too high, and aileron control
is reversed). Even a taildragger glider will not be stalled at the point the
wheel and the tail skid are at the same level (proof is that you CAN land
tail-first).

I'm very glad that the US allows people to have different opinions on the
way to teach or execute a maneuver. I'm also glad that the various badges
are not used in any regulatory sense (the only restriction I know of that
involves badges is that you can't fly in any SSA sanctioned contest unless
you have the Silver distance leg, I think it is).
-- 
Steve Peltz
Internet: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu	PLATO/NovaNET: peltz/s/cerl
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Jets and short fields
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 06:47:24 GMT

Bill Buse writes
> About 14 years ago when I flew into St.Thomas on an  
Eastern
> Airlines 727, the runway there was under 5000' (seems
> like 4500' if I remember correctly). To make things
> worse, the ocean was at one end of the runway and a hill  
was at the opposite end.  At that time, the St. Thomas
> airport was rated by the  ALPA as the most dangerous (or
> unsafe) commercial airport.      
> 
That hill was razed after an AA 727 missed its landing and  
slammed into a gas station.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
From: wizard@think.com (Paul Gilberti)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: portable scanners
Date: 20 Aug 1992 14:40:24 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: quicksilver.think.com

If you decided to purchase the Radio Shack model with 200 memory locations,
I'll give you a deal on mine.  I want to sell it and buy a transceiver.
From: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Commercial and Military Simulators
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:08:24 GMT
Organization: CAD-Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City

In some article,  bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>        On a side issue, what happens to the military simulators when
>aircraft are removed from service? 

Well, the CT-6 E&S system we use for the driving simulator I've been
working on for the last couple of years was part of a military flight
simulator.  The military cancelled the project, and all useful parts
were sold/awarded on contracts, which is how it ended up in the design
center.

This is the reason I've been looking for a good pair of flight equations,
with them the driving simulator is transformed into a 
130 degrees field of view flight simulator!!  I have tried some simple
dynamics and it is OK, but not great.
-- 
Yiannis E. Papelis,            - Electrical & Computer Engineering, U of Iowa
Center of Computer Aided Design- Home of the Iowa Driving Simulator & future
e-mail: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu - home of the National Advanced Driving Simulator
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Encore for mpucket
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:02:26 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <MERLYN.92Aug22092612@romulus.reed.edu>
! merlyn@romulus.reed.edu (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
!In article <2051@usna.NAVY.MIL! dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
!   Oh, yeah, I just got back from BUF where I climbed to 9000 feet
!   in the Bonanza WITH THE GEAR DOWN! That's what 25+ hours in
!   a straight legged 182 will do to you. Must be getting old, I'll
!   even be a `senior citizen' in a couple of weeks--junior style
!   but still.
!
!Hmm.  Having the gear down when it shouldn't have been... can I trade you?

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! 

Dave Rogers
From: myshatyn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mike Myshatyn)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:27:27 GMT
Subject: Re: What type of plane is a King Air Super 200?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

Mary Shafer writes:

> NASA has a King Air 200 and it operates on a 15,000 ft runway quite well.  
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesn't everyone???   I would think everyone except 747 and Space Shuttles
would do quite well. ;-)


--
 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
From: verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Ropes and gliders
Organization: AOSG
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:35:25 GMT

[regarding Schweizer releases]
>The only thing I don't like about them is how loud the release is.

I fly commercial glider rides on weekends - mostly in a 2-33 (NEW Blanik L23
coming in 3 weeks).  Most passengers are pretty relaxed but some of them
are recipients of glider ride gift certificates and they're just not quite
sure that they want to be doing this....... you know what I mean.  I ALWAYS
warn them about the loud release in the pre-takeoff briefing and remind them
5 seconds or so before release - they jump anyway.

Tony Verhulst

P.S. By far the most common question - "How long have you been doing this?"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Subject: 5 in a 4 seater (was: Small crash / Chrokee Question)
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:14:00 GMT

In article <66392@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt9989a@prism.gatech.EDU (John Martin Chapman) writes:

> Today in Gwinett County, Georgia, there was a small plane crash involving a
> Cherokee 160.  1 person was killed and 4 were injured.  My question(s) is/are
> this.  I got my first 40 or so hours in a Cherokee 180 I think.  I know the
> more common Cherokee is the 140.  The one I trained in had 4 seats, and the 
> 140 has four seats.  So  if I am remembering correctly, and a 160 is just a
> variant of the 140 (having 4 seats) isn't the fact that 5 people were in the
> plane probable cause for the crash? Or is a 160 the Cherokee 6?

Our "FAR's" (they are not called FAR's, but anyway) alow us to
take 2 children of up to 10 years on one seat, provided that
"public order and safety" is not inflicted; I think this rule
is based on some FAR, though I'm not sure.
Do you have this rule in the FAR's ? If so, what is the general
consensus on what inflicts public order and safety; has anybody
carried two children in one seat and under which cirumstances ?
Too bad that another accident happened ...
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Cellular phones again!  Argh!!
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:28:50 GMT

In article <16pdiiINNoje@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000) writes:
>
>I thought they were "not OK" (in flight, anyway).
>
>So, I pick up today's San Francisco Chronicle, and there
>is a Macy's ad selling pocket cellular phones and telling
>me how great it would be to be able to use it in a plane.
>I called the San Francisco FSDO thinking that they should
>get hold of Macy's and suggest a retraction--and what do
>I hear??  Something like "Oh, they're OK.  It's up to
>the individual carriers.  Try calling them."

Well, from the FAA's point of view, it is OK, as long as it doesn't
interfere with the other radios.  It's the FCC that doesn't like it,
because the system isn't designed for it.  You might want to contact
them ...
--
-- Christophe

"Be calm.  Look cute."
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:50:50 GMT
Subject: Re: High Altitude Leaning Question
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In article <2540044@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com>, schinner@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Jim
Schinnerer) writes:
>Having never had a high altitude checkout (a really good one anyway), I
>would like to know the proper procedure for leaning an engine prior to
>takeoff from a high altitude field.

First, check the POH for any words of wisdom.  Given none for the circumstances
(you won't find any in most cases), here's a few ideas.

If it is a short runway (say, Glenwood Springs, CO), do your runup, pull onto
the runway, full power, lean quickly, and go.  Leaning can be for a slight
increase in RPM or manifold pressure, or a specific fuel flow if you know your
airplane very well at that altitude.  Also, don't get too caught up in trying
to lean it to the n-th degree.  Get it close quickly (err on the rich side)
and release the brakes to minimize prop damage due to rocks, etc.

In the above sequence, the runup will also require that you lean in most
airplanes before checking the mags.  Otherwise, you'll get a poor mag check.
The IO-470s in the Baron seem to be more finicky in this regard than a lot of
others I've seen.  The IO-520s in the C-55 I fly occasionally are also pretty
sensitive for the mag check.

A procedure we used with our 182 years ago was to lean to do the runup and mag
check, then richen with the vernier mixture control about two turns.  That
worked well in the '57 model and works well in CAP's '81 model, too.  Cross
check the setting on the takeoff roll if you can with EGT or fuel flow.

Another possibility, if you have a good EGT, is to run up to full power, then
lean for 100 to 150 degrees cool of normal cruise EGT.  This works pretty well
in our airplane.  Again, approximation is fine.  Don't divert your attention
too much during the takeoff roll to get a precise setting.

Now, if you have a turbocharged engine, follow the POH religiously!  None of
the above applies.  In most cases, it will be full rich or a specific fuel flow
(like some T210s).  You've got to be careful here, though, because selecting
full rich while still at idle power could flood the engine.  You may need to
advance the throttle somewhat, then select full rich, then continue with the
throttle to keep the engine running.

Finally, don't forget to lean for taxi to avoid plug fouling.  You can hear a
definite smoothing as you get to the right point in a lot of engines.  Don't
taxi with full rich mixture *anywhere* (unless, of course, the POH says to).

Bill Standerfer
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Oshkosh VFR arrival closures.
Keywords: Oshkosh
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:20:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Aug14.182026.10249
Organization: AT&T

In article <Aug.14.10.43.15.1992.26886@pilot.njin.net> ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes:
>> When you make an IFR reservation to OSH do they reserve a parking spot
>> for you?
>
>No.  They just park planes until full and then turn people away.  A
>large number of the IFR reservations go unused anyhow, so it's
>probably not a bad thing (we had one, and since it was severe VFR
>we dallied a bit at our lunch spot and missed it entirerly).  It seems
>to be pretty low tech, too.  We were up in the tower when they filled
>up and someone just calls up to the tower and tells them.  I fairly
>sure this was spelled out in the advance information I got.


	Just want to add that if you are a homebuilt or show plane,
	they will accept  you long after spamcans are being turned down

	:-)    :-)    :-)

	At least I hope thats true !
-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
From: Scott.Sinks@f47.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Scott Sinks)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Low-cost GPS receivers ??
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:22:02 GMT

While at Oshkosh, I tried out both the Sony and Garmin GPS (along with numerous
others) and I share the opinion to stay away from the Sony.
 
The display was tiny with small characters, little information, and a high level
of glare from the glass.  It also lacked a build in data base although waypoints
could be entered.
 
The Garmin (55AVD) also had glare but had large dark characters, more
information per screen, and a build in data base as well as the capability to
enter waypoints.  It was a couple of hundred more and weighed more but I found
the Sony to be unusable in any kind of sunlit conditions.
 
I ordered the Garmin 55AVD with the US database after I got home (a little talk
over the phone got me the "special" Oshkosh price.  Hasn't been delivered yet
but I'm eagerly peering out the window waiting for UPS to arrive.

 * Origin: FlightLine BBS Mpls,MN USRdual 612-544-5118 (1:282/47.0)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jeffk@dosXX.med.utah.edu (Jeff Knell)
Subject: HELP: soaring club insurance info needed
Organization: Department of Genetics, University of Utah
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:39:56

HEPL!!  Our gliders are grounded, and it is the
peak of soaring season. You may have information
that can help us.

Our soaring club--Utah Soaring Association--is
having insurance problems. We operate primarily from
a small, private strip.  The owner of this strip 
requires everyone to sign a waiver; this waiver is
very thorough and essentially covers the owner and
all employees against any form of negligence (their
own, of course).

This waiver only recently came to the attention of
our insurance carrier (mistake by the agent for not
doing thorough research).  They claim the signing of
this waiver by the club members violates part of the
insurance contract, and leaves them with no one to 
go after to recover money they may pay out (I assume
this is applies to accidents related in some way to 
the airport or its personel).  Subsequently, they 
claim our insurance is void.

We are waiting for clarification from the insurance 
company, and we are consulting various aviation and
insurance lawyers (fun!).  In the meantime we are
trying to collect information about policies held by
other glider clubs; we are talking to the SSA folks,
but we also need your help ASAP.

- Does your club operate from a private strip?
- Does the owner of your strip require members of your 
  club to sign a waiver? 
  (if so, please FAX a copy to (801) 585-3833 Jeff Knell)
- Assuming your insurer is aware of the waiver, did its
  existence complicate or alter your policy in any way? 
- Who are your agent and underwriter?
- What are the basics of your policy? #members, value of
  ships, liability per passenger, annual cost.

If you do not have this information, and don't have time 
to get it, please send the phone number of the person in
your club who does.


Thanks in advance.


Jeff Knell  jeffk@dosxx.med.utah.edu

            (801) 585-3389 w
                  487-7493 h

Newsgroups: rec.aviation